Mind the gap: Teaching doesn’t meet gay Catholics in the pews
Which path do we choose when the twain of experience and church teaching don’t meet?
Over three decades of Mass-going, I've explored pretty much every avenue of distraction to make the time pass: pestering my brothers, making faces at buddies who were serving, and, in my adult years, reading the bulletin. I've found all but the last to earn me trouble, but I think I've found a new and completely respectable remedy to my wandering attention: A beautiful brown-eyed girl named Isa.
With no kids of my own, I admit to being an occasional baby-thief-did I mention Isa is 11 months old?-and Isa's parents are happy to let me have her for as long as I can handle her. There's only one sticking point: To borrow the title of a controversial children's book, Isa has two mommies.I realize some might be surprised to hear of a family like Isa's at a Catholic church, or even troubled by their presence. After all, both the Vatican and the U.S. bishops have been unequivocal in their rejection of same-sex relationships and parenting. The U.S. bishops put it plainly in their November 2009 pastoral letter on marriage: "The legal recognition of same-sex unions poses a multifaceted threat to the very fabric of society." Vatican documents have argued that placing children for adoption with same-sex couples is to commit a kind of violence against those children.
Such language is, I'm sure, hard on Isa's Catholic parents, trying as they are to raise a child as a committed couple. I know it is hard on the parents of gay and lesbian Catholics: I'll never forget the father who, at a conference on the church and homosexuality, expressed to the two retired bishops in attendance both grief and outrage that his partnered lesbian daughter was not welcome in the church he had faithfully raised her in.
On the one hand, there is the Catholic Church's clear and consistent teaching that a homosexual orientation is an "objective disorder" and that sex between people of the same gender is "intrinsically evil," that is, can never be morally justified. That stance logically progresses to opposition to gay marriage and parenting, which is no doubt shared by many Catholics who are alarmed at attempts to change the legal definition of marriage.
On the other hand, others, myself included, hear a different story from gay and lesbian Catholics, especially when they speak of their aspirations to commitment and family life. To think of Isa's family as "a multifaceted threat" is profoundly jarring to say the least. I'm sure I'm not the only Catholic who feels stuck between the teaching of the church and my own experience, though Catholics are certainly not free to dismiss the former just because it contradicts the latter.
At the same time the profound disconnect between the experience of conscientious baptized people and church teaching should concern all of us. The wider the chasm, the greater the danger that people will simply reject church teaching as out of touch, not only undermining its authority on matters of sexuality but also on other pressing moral issues. One need only consider the nearly complete divergence between the church's teaching on birth control and the decisions of Catholic married couples to find a case in point.
In its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, the Second Vatican Council proclaimed that "the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the people of this age...are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ." That aspiration must extend to the gay and lesbian members of Christ's body, even and perhaps especially when the distance between church teaching and their lives is great.
How we share those joys and hopes, griefs and anxieties, is an open question, but I see no danger in bishops sitting down with gay and lesbian Catholics to speak about these issues. A meeting of the minds may be unlikely, but a meeting of hearts isn't out of the question. The first law of the gospel, after all, is charity, and it is charity that has often been a casualty in the church's debate about homosexuality.
As for me, I can only say that my experience of the "catholic," or universal, dimension of the church would be profoundly diminished if Isa's family wasn't a part of my Sunday assembly. Though life in Christ's body is not always neat or easy, sticking together makes us, or so I hope, a fuller sign to the world of the love God extends to all people.
Bryan Cones is managing editor of U.S. Catholic. This article appeared in the January 2010 issue (Vol. 75, No. 01, pg. 8) of U.S. Catholic magazine.
Homosexuality (Part 1)
By The Truth (not verified) on Tuesday, March 23, 2010That was a well written piece Bryan and I admire your open-mindedness. Kudos to you.
I thought I'd do a post regarding the issue of homosexuality, which if it enlightens just one person even a tiny bit, then it will be worth the time spent.
Before I continue, I'll state upfront that I am not LGBT (not that it should even matter).
I find it mind-numbing how many devout Catholics are so uneducated concerning the gay issue.
They come out with hilarious lines such as "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." That's about as original as "What's your sign baby?" lol
So then I ask them: "Does God make mistakes?"
99.9%+ of them answer a resounding "No."
In that case, we have established that God does not make mistakes. Thus, the fact that it is scientifically proven that many different types of animals are gay, then logic dictates God MUST therefore be in favor of the gay ideal (since he doesn't make mistakes).
In the Bible, one of the most commonly referenced passages involves Jesus being known as the Shepherd as us as his Sheep.
So now let's look at the specific example set forth by Jesus himself. Jesus = Shepherd & We = Sheep. Male sheep have been proven to have sex in natural circumstances with other male sheep. So did God just "screw up?" Of course not... because we have already established that he doesn't make mistakes.
Homosexuality (Part 2)
By The Truth (not verified) on Tuesday, March 23, 2010In fact, it was so common in Australia that shepherds actually came up with a name for the gay sheep calling them "shy breeders." A study done by the Oregon Health & Science University's School of Medicine found that around 8% of sheep won't father offspring specifically due to the fact that they choose to mate with sheep of their same gender.
So now, why did Jesus use that analogy? Sheep didn't just "turn" gay in the last 100 years and I hope no one tries to justify it by arguing that sheep have a "choice." There would have been gay sheep back in Jesus' day as well. Surely, shepherds would have noticed and surely as the Son of God, Jesus would have already been well aware of this fact. So did Jesus just not know what he was talking about? Of course not as we have already established otherwise. Thus, Jesus is factoring in the gay members of our human society into his flock. He doesn't say to specifically shun the gay sheep. He didn't pick a different reference that wouldn't have included gay members such as he is the "Mountain" & we are the "Pebbles." Instead, he intentionally chose that reference.
There are only a tiny handful of animals that have been scientifically proven to have sex for pleasure purposes (not solely for reproduction). These tend to be animals with the largest brains (cetaceans, primates, etc). And in all of these cases, those animals have proven and documented homosexual members in their groups. Thus, God was OK with that as well.
Homosexuality (Part 3)
By The Truth (not verified) on Tuesday, March 23, 2010How about some other random examples?
In seahorses, it is the male that becomes pregnant and has a pouch to care for its young.
Or perhaps polychaete worms, echinoderms, crustaceans, molluscs and many different types of fish all can change sex from male to female or female to male.
Or what about say the plants known as "lilies-of-the-valley" who have both female and male reproducive sex organs simultaneously?
And so on and so on and so on...
Geez, God must "mess up" a lot then... but as we have already established, he doesn't make mistakes.
As for claims that the "Bible" tells us that God is against homosexuality, I ask them if it was SO extremely important to God that homosexuality did not happen, then why wasn't it mentioned "specifically" time and time and time and time again in the Bible like other recurring themes are? After all, the ancient Greeks were having homosexual sex with children at least 500 years before Jesus ever walked on the earth. And surely God would have been aware of that little tidbit of information before sending Jesus to earth.
And none of that is even taking into account that the ancient Romans did the same thing... and Jesus knew a thing or two about the Romans.
So maybe it wasn't so important after all.
None of that even accounts for other facts such as God obviously felt that it worse to bear false witness against your neighbor than it was to have homosexual sex as evidenced by the 10 Commandments.
Homosexuality (Part 4)
By The Truth (not verified) on Tuesday, March 23, 2010Never to mind from a non-religious perspective, homosexuality actually helps to keep the planet's population from exceeding its niche (as it does in the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom). Of course, today there are avenues around that for gay and lesbian couples via scientific means. Furthermore, many gay and lesbian couples adopt which means that children who would otherwise go unwanted are now given loving homes.
If anyone takes the time to actually research the topic from non-biased sources, it is clearly obvious that homosexuality is indeed genetic. The real question is how big of a percentage is it? That has not been definitively answered yet. The mere fact that it is genetic in the first place therefore means that God is responsible for it. Moreover, God created us in his own image, so that should account for something as well.
Looking at it from a common sense physical perspective, if God didn't want people to have homosexual sex and if you choose to deny the genetic aspect of it despite overwhelming evidence, then still all God needed to do was to make sure that the "parts" didn't fit. Human beings have sex in three main orifices because that is where the parts fit. If God didn't want it to happen like that, then he could have just changed the shapes/sizes. For instance, we don't have nostril sex because the parts don't fit.
Homosexuality (Part 5)
By The Truth (not verified) on Tuesday, March 23, 2010The concept of the Golden Rule is mentioned numerous times in both Testaments of the Bible. Jesus makes it clear that this is of the utmost importance. So I'm not sure how discriminating against homosexuals quite fits the blatantly overt message contained in the Golden Rule.
People that are homophobic (whether consciously or subconsciously) due to their upbringing and/or surroundings, go out of their way to find vague passages and interpretations to support their discrimination against God's children. These citations are few and far between and they are ambiguous at best. The number of "Shepherd" and "Golden Rule" references along with basic common sense and logic trump all of those desperate attempts many times over. Yet the discrimination sadly continues. Jesus was a man of love and peace who helped the most loathed of his society. So I find it ironic that people who call themselves followers of him feel they license to do the opposite.
So as you can see, even if you choose to believe that that science is incorrect and it is indeed a "choice," then basic common sense dictates otherwise.
In any event, hopefully you will read this with an open mind and perhaps it might resonate at some point in time. To those of you that don't discriminate against people that are simply different from you in the spirit of Christ, then I applaud you and encourage you to speak out more in an effort to educate the uneducated.
Peace!
Bible
By John Chuchman (not verified) on Thursday, February 4, 2010You all should check out Daniel Helminiak's "What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality."
Lost faith
By Anonymous (not verified) on Monday, January 25, 2010"The sarcastic "bacon-wrapped" commenters have either completely lost the Faith, or at best misunderstand what infallible means."
Posted by David Phillips, the above quote really got me thinking...
I've been a lay minister more than half my life. Having served in parishes and a campus ministry and earned a certificate in ministry, I can say that yes, I'm losing faith.
When we argue over sexual orientation, we neglect the very thing Jesus asked of us: Love our neighbors as ourselves. We forget that the last commandment of Christ was to "love one another as I have loved you." The accusations of left & right, against people's orientation being Biblically-founded, and "clear-cut" Scripture references make me question why anyone would stay.
The church Christ formed is INCLUSIVE. The second reading this week reminds me that we need every person and the gifts they bring. We need those who doubt, question, and challenge, just as much as those who pray, pay, and obey.
I don't know if Paul was a zealot, gay, or on fire...I never meet him in person. All we have are the letters ascribed to him. What I do know is that history has shown us that more writers than in the Canon wrote about Jesus, and that a lot of those show even more sides of him. We don't know exactly what would be said by Jesus on the matter--that's the beauty of mystery.
Reply to lost faith
By David Phillips (not verified) on Tuesday, January 26, 2010Jesus' love and mercy are infinite and endless for all of us. We are all included in His Sacred Heart. So, Our Lord is all-inclusive in this sense.
But Jesus also said "I am the Truth." The Church cannot be so inclusive to approve of both truth and error, truth and falsehood, truth and lies. The Church has to teach the Truth, but must also do so with charity. We as Catholics have to do the same.
We should love everyone and not judge anyone. But we can't sit by and say, "OK, some members of the Church believe in transubstantiation, some don't...and that's OK." The Church cannot simply say, every believer believe anything for himself/herself. (e.g. "Don't believe in the Assumption? We'll include you. Don't believe that Christ is God? No problem. Think there are millions of gods? It's ok." You can hopefully see the madness this kind of "inclusiveness" leads to.)
When it comes to principles and ideas, I think we should dialogue and even argue with charity. We should not try to gloss over clear-cut Scripture passages that don't appeal to our modern tastes. But you're right, we must also never forget to love our neighbor.
Part 2?
By Jim (not verified) on Saturday, January 23, 2010Bryan-
I hope you do a follow-up essay. I share your struggles, and I am looking forward to how-or if-you find a resolution. I'm interested to know how you go about it-what you read, who you talk with...please don't leave us hanging...


