He Who Pays the Piper

January 27, 2012 — Bart

… Calls the Tune

Perhaps it’s best to put up a GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING: “Too much speculation is bad for your spiritual health!” before going any further. Well, I’ve just done so. Let the speculation begin…

The suspicion is growing on me that the supposedly theological battle – loosely framed in conservative/traditional vs. liberal/modern – for the very heart and soul of the Church is just a red herring. In my view it’s something akin to a conjuring trick, where the conjuror gets you to look in one direction, diverting your attention away from the trick he intends to pull on you. The real issue, in my opinion, is a political one, and is largely determined by what’s happening behind the scenes. Who is taking hold of the reins of power within the Catholic Church? Who is calling the shots? Who is paying the piper, thus deciding the tune?

Illustration from The Pied Piper of Hamelin

There are those of you who are reading this and saying to themselves: Okay, here goes another fancy conspiracy theory. Well, not really. Instead, I would like to point to certain inconsistencies that are, at the very least, a bad PR exercise, but when put together undermine the Catholic Church’s authority and standing. Let’s have a look at the upcoming creation of 22 new cardinals, and the implications of this move. You may follow the link to the article in the Tablet for the statistics. (more…)

Share|
Posted in Uncategorized. 1 Comment »

“There is no spoon!”

January 26, 2012 — Mario

In the movie, “The Matrix”, the lead character, Neo, discovered that his world was the product of his perspective and belief.  If he wanted to change the world, he did so by changing himself.

This is not a new concept but one that has been retold for millennia throughout various cultures. Generally speaking, it is not a concept completely accepted by Christians; their history of changing the world has relied on eliminating other cultures and religions through indoctrination, abuse, torture, murder and war (i.e., LOVE).   Christianity’s historical tradition is not to change themselves, but to change everyone else.

So, it is odd that a non-violent, Christain movement called Soul Force is perceived as a threat by Christian Leadership.  Who are Soul Force?

The gay advocacy group Soulforce presents itself as a faith-based, civil rights organization, promoting justice for homosexuals by confronting churches and Christian leaders who promote the traditional biblical view of homosexuality. Soulforce has adopted teachings from both Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and views itself as a modern civil rights movement following the traditions of nonviolent protest. Founded by Mel White, a former ghost writer for Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell, Soulforce believes the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is wrong, damaging to homosexuals, and must be confronted as its promoters must also be confronted, converted, or ultimately silenced. To this end, it has sponsored demonstrations at denominational conventions, churches, and conferences across the country, and has visited numerous Christian and secular universities. If pastors or Christian leaders choose to dialogue with this group, they should be aware of its erroneous theological positions and should clearly assert their disagreements with Soulforce’s beliefs and goals.

[From the Christian Research Journal, volume 32, number 2 (2009)]

For example, one tactic Soul Force undertakes  is to ask if they can speak to church leadership about LGBTQI.  Basically, the Soul Force team is using simple Evangelistic techniques that those same churches themselves use with others,  such as sharing a meal and talking about scripture!  Now, what church would not want to do that?  In fact, in the article in the Christain Research Journal in 2009, they tell Christian leaders of many denominations that:

“DIALOGUE IS OPTIONAL, NOT MANDATORY~  We are not biblically required to respond to every charge leveled against us, nor to every request for a conversation.”

Why would leaders of Christian church not want to talk?  Easy, you cannot convert/change people who are already healed and believe they are equal. The problem is actually more complex, however.  Christian tradition of repent or die, my way or the highway, is alive and well. Right Wing, “Traditional” Christians have been bred to be predators.

 

Yeah, and…

I could go into a diatribe and come up with all kinds of references to point out that the  habits of traditional Christians (abusive predators) are valid.  For instance, there has been a rise seen in the UK over religious exorcisms of children that really have become ritualistic abuse.  You can also read about the recent suicide of a gay young man whose history including exorcisms.

 

But I have to ask myself, “why?”  Most people instinctively know abuse when it rears its ugly head.  Most folks really do know how to identify predators.  Queer distrust of the church can be directly attributed to these facts.   We all know that many Right Wing Traditional Christians prey on people’s vulnerabilities and target those who will be easily led through guilt, shame, and fear.  People who become brainwashed, taken advantage of and who turned their own reason over to a group of people do so because they WANT IT (this is not a reference to children). Listing the facts and evidence and expounding upon the original intent of scripture to prove my point and to convince them they are wrong won’t change a thing.  Making this point to people who already know this is just plain masturbation.

You Might Want to Watch Out of Curiosity Once, but….

For people who believe they are right, there is no argument that will convince them otherwise.  Read this article from mainstream Christianity about Soul Force.  It is a long missive meant to prove how wrong Soul Force is based on logic, history, tradition and scripture.  I don’t believe a word of it.  I think they’re full of crap.  In all my recollection, I have never been won over by this type of “dialogue”.  So, I wonder why Soul Force participates in exemplifying the same traditional practices of force and confrontation that Right Wing Christians use?

Please do not misunderstand me, I have no argument with what Soul Force stands for, I have issue with some of their chosen ways to change world.  When a Church or University they have chosen to target won’t talk with them, they perform a physical protest.  They are often arrested for trespassing after being asked to leave.  This is supposed to win people over how?

Traditional Christians Are Not All Bad

I believe one of the greatest gifts traditional, right Christians shared was the idea of a personal relationship with Christ.  This belief was the engine of change behind the Reformation.  In this LGBTQ reformation, I believe it is useless and sometimes wrong  to attempt to “convert” people using the same tactics as the Traditional Right Christians.


I believe that energy should be spent empowering people, not with swords of any symbolism, but with opportunities for personal change.  Strengthening the already established growing network of Churches, Agencies, and Groups who offer alternative choices is a better investment in permanent change.  We need our people strong and able to stand in the middle of the discrimination and violence as living and loving examples of change and then move aside to allow Christ to change hearts of men through their personal relationship with God, rather than us trying to force them.

Please Sir, may I have some more?


Soul Force does have a powerful practice that I do not hear a lot about.  As a mix of gay and allies, couple and singles, they attend church services in these right wing, traditional Churches. What a powerful message this sends about our Queer Christian Community.  It is very easy to build an idea of an enemy in one’s mind.  Typically, that enemy is some fantastical conglomerate about all the hateful things attributed, rightly or wrongly, to that enemy.  When confronted with the real person, however, that fantastical creature loses a lot of its magic. Sharing in worship gives them a chance to take some of the “magic” out the fantastical homosexual enemies they made us into and us for them.

This is one of the first ideas I have heard coming out of either side of the pulpit (left or right) that attempts to break down the wall of separation.  There are so many of us concerned with being right and proving it with our wit, logic, history…  All the while this wall of hate is maintained.


The wall  is hate and intolerance for what each other stands for and it blocks the vision of the valuable human beings behind it.  Breaking down this wall and coming together on things we can agree on, even when the climate is tense and perhaps even unwelcoming, goes a long way into changing the hearts of men, though some of them will never admit it.  And if we would only step aside afterward, and allow Christ to move as he will, it would be far more effective than imitating our Right Wing brothers and sisters by taking the ball out of Christ’s hands before he even had the chance to run with it.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share|
Posted in Gay Catholics/ Christians, LGBT inclusion in church, Mario. Tags: , , , , , , , . 6 Comments »

The Conversion of St Paul

January 25, 2012 — Terence Weldon

Today, the Church celebrates the feast of the conversion of St Paul. Just in that title, there is encouragement for LGBT Christians: just as Saul of Tarsus, scourge of the early Christians found God and became instead a great champion of their cause, it is possible that the institutional churches, which are so widely seen by the queer community as their persecutors, could likewise meet God and undergo a similar change of heart, to become our champions – turning to what Jenni described a few days ago as a “preferential option for the queer”. This is not as far-fetched as it may seem: there has already been a most extraordinary transformation of religious responses to homoerotic relationships over the last half century, and an increasing number of influential churchmen and women are becoming enthusiastic straight allies, champions of our cause.

I am working towards an extended post on this theme (which will be the basis of an address I will be giving to the Quest annual conference in September), so will not go over the evidence here. Meanwhile, in honour of Paul, I reproduce below a post I wrote in 2010.

*********

There is much that is paradoxical in the figure of Paul. In his dual persona as Saul / Paul, he is renowned as both a one-time feared persecutor of Christians, and as the greatest of all the early missionaries, who spread the word far beyond it s original geographic compounds, and author of by far the most influential Christian texts outside the Gospels themselves. In the same way, as the author of the most infamous New Testament clobber texts, he is widely regarded as strongly condemning homoerotic relationships – and yet  Paul Halsall lists him in his Calendar of LGBT Saints:

There is considerable debate over those anti-gay “proof -texts”, but whatever the conclusions, there is much, as Anglican Bishop of Newark John Spong has pointed out, which leads one to suspect Paul might have been “queer” in some way. The fact he was never married, unusual for a Jew of his time, his companionship with a series of younger men, especially St. Timothy, his mention of an unnamed “thorn in the flesh”. and, possibly, his disdain for some types of exploitative homosexual relationship in his period, all raise questions, questions which cannot be answered it must be admitted, about his sexuality.

What are we to make of this?

Conversion of St Paul (Andrea Meldolla, more often known in English as Andrea Schiavone or Lo Schiavone c. 1510/1515)

First, let us dismiss the idea that Paul’s writing is anti-gay: it isn’t, and further, much of his message is precisely the opposite, arguing for full inclusion of all. For a counter to the standard view of Paul as anti-gay, anti-sex, see Reidulf Molvaer, Sex & St. Paul the Realist

St. Paul was, in many ways, an ascetic and happy to be so, but he refused to make asceticism a general model or ideal for Christians – most people cannot live by such principles, especially in the area of sex. In the seventh chapter of his first letter to Corinth, he rejects any appeal for his support of sexual abstinence as ethically superior to active sexual relations. He sets limits, but does not limit legitimate sexual relations to marriage. In his day, it was commonly believed that homosexual practice, more easily than heterosexual relations, could bring people into harmony with the unchangeable nature of God. This Paul strongly rejects in the first chapter of his letter to Rome. Otherwise he does not write about “natural” homosexuality. In fact, it is a logical inference from the principles he sets forth in his letter to Corinth that loving, lasting homosexual relations are ethically as valid as heterosexual relations. Dr. Molvaer maintains that insight into contemporary ideologies can be a help to understanding what the New Testament says about these matters. Today, as in the early Church, extraneous influences in these areas can easily distort genuine Christian moral concerns as they are stated by Christ and St. Paul.

Then, consider his person. Astonishingly little is known for certain of Paul the man, but Bishop Spong is not the only one to have suggested that Paul may have had same close same -sex relationships  of his own. Gay Catholic blogger Jeremiah Bartram, who recently spent time on a pilgrimage “in the footsteps of St Paul” has reflected deeply on the life and writign of Paul, and concluded that on balance, the suggestion is sound.

In the absence of hard evidence, personally I am happy to leave this discussion to others with greater scholarship and expertise behind them. My interest in the queer saints is in the lessons they hold for us today, and here I think there is one clear message, which lies in the best known story of al about Paul, his conversion on the road to Damascus. This has entered language as a “Damascene Conversion”, and therein lies hope. For if Saul, the renowned persecutor of Christians, could undergo such a complete change of heart and become instead active as the most famous proselytizer,  so too is there hope for the religion -based persecutors of sexual minorities today. Not only is there hope, but there is already abundant evidence from the very many Christians in the modern world who have experienced just such Damascene conversions, going from direct, outright condemnation of same sex relationships, to actively advocating full inclusion in church.   These changes of heart, usually coming after intensive study of Scripture and extensive discussions with gay and lesbian church members, have already been responsible for changes of policy in several denominations, and a more welcoming atmosphere in many local congregations. This process will continue.

For those Catholics who like to pray to the saints, you can freely include St Paul in you prayers. This is not because he was queer (although he may have been), but because his own conversion experience provides a useful model for all those modern day conversions that we need among the bigots who use religion as a cloak for prejudice and discrimination.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share|
Posted in Queer Saints and Martyrs. Tags: , , , , , . No Comments »

The Bible and Textual Abuse: The Case of “malakoi” and “arsenokoites”.

January 24, 2012 — Terence Weldon

Sane and rational discussion of the Bible and same-sex relationships are bedevilled by difficulties with language, arising from problems with translations on the one  hand, and vastly different cultural conditions which make it difficult sometimes to make sense of the applicability of the words, even where the literal meaning is clear. This is especially important in the case of two obscure Greek words which, in poor translation, appear to say clearly that the Biblical teaching is opposed to homosexual activity.

Several notable scholars (Boswell, Countryman, and those that followed) have shown that these translations are faulty, casting doubt on a large chunk of the case for biblically based homophobia. Michael Carden, an Australian biblical scholar, has a post up which first notes that Christianity is unique in depending on translations for its scriptures, and then goes on to a lengthy, detailed discussion of the problems presented by translations of these two troublesome words.

From the opening of a much longer discussion at Michael Carden’s Jottings:

Christianity is rather unusual in the family of Abrahamic/Middle Eastern religions in the role of scripture and language. For Judaism and Islam, and I suspect traditionally for Zoroastrianism too, the language of scripture, i.e. the language in which it was written, is also the language in which it must always be read. So countless Jews and Muslims have grown up learning something of Hebrew and Arabic and not just any Hebrew and Arabic but the Hebrew of the Torah and Tanakh and the Arabic of the Qur’an, even if it means just memorising slabs of text (as a pre-Vatican 2 Catholic child I have a resonance with this because I remember being taught the responses of the old Latin Mass, which I regard nowadays as a valuable bit of rudimentary childhood second language teaching). For Jews and Muslims too any translation of scripture is counted as an interpretation, it does not share in the authority of the ‘original’ text. Christians, on the other hand, have always read their scriptures in translation.  Christian bibles are comprised of two parts: an Old Testament comprising texts originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; and a New Testament comprising texts originally written in Greek. Early Christians used as their Old Testament the Greek translation/version of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts known as the Septuagint, together with those texts Protestants term apocryphal that were written in Greek. Just about all of the ancient Christian translations of the Old Testament were from this Greek text. Only the Syriac and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate included translations from (some of) the Hebrew version shared with Rabbinic Judaism. So from the very beginning Christians have been involved in the project of translation. For many cultures too, ancient and contemporary, their first body of written literature  has been a translation of one canonical version or another of the Christian Bible.

So for Christians, unlike Jews and Muslims, linguistic questions of meaning, equivalence and translation, can become highly fraught theological and political questions.

- Jottings: Homophobia and the Politics of Biblical Translation.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share|
Posted in Scripture. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

“Disobedient priests plan global movement”: Austrian Independent Online News

January 23, 2012 — Terence Weldon

A parish priest who encouraged clergymen to be “disobedient” towards the Vatican plans to go international.

Helmut Schüller of the Preachers’ Initiative said yesterday (Sun) that “2012 will be the year of internationalisation”. Schüller – who previously headed Caritas Austria – said the Austrian Roman Catholic Church should “finally take members seriously”.

Schüller criticised the Vatican due to its conservative approach towards key topics of the 21st century and said the institution resembled an “absolutist monarchy”. The head of the parish of Probstdorf in the province of Lower Austria stressed that his initiative “receives a lot of approval from Catholic reform movements all over the world.”

Schüller claimed some weeks ago that the Preachers’ Initiative currently consisted of 370 members. He said yesterday there were no plans for further talks with the highest representative of the Roman Catholic Church of Austria, Viennese Archbishop Christoph Cardinal Schönborn. The archbishop condemned the word disobedience as a “term of fight” last month. Schönborn said it was “burdened with a negative connotation”.

Schönborn said it was not true that he opposed all kinds of reforms of the Church. He admitted that there was the need to rethink certain decisions and opinions but also made clear that he was against the crucial points of Schüller’s agenda.

The Preachers’ Initiative, which was established more than half a year ago, calls on the Vatican to allow priests to give Holy Communion to people who married a second time at registry offices after getting divorced following church weddings. The group also says women should be allowed to become Catholic priests.

 - Austrian Independent Online News 

I simply don’t have time to write any detailed commentary on this, but after the German theologians’ revolt last year, the association of rebel priests in Ireland, the priests’ initiatives in Austria and Belgium, and coupled with the overwhelming evidence that the majority of Catholics just do not accept orthodox Church doctrine on human sexuality, or on the detailed concerns carried in the Austrian declaration, it is obvious that there is substantial potential for widespread support in the rest of Europe, and North America. Whether there will be support in Latin America, Africa or Asia, is another matter.

Follow the link for the full report, and consider the implications.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share|
Posted in Catholic Church. Tags: , , , . 2 Comments »

Liberate Me, Liberate You: The Preferential Option for the Queer

January 21, 2012 — Jenni

Academic Phillip Berryman has called liberation theology, “an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor’s suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor.”1

Gay liberation was and continues to be for many, a movement urging gay people to be open about their sexual identity, in order to take away the myths and desegregate gay lives from those of straight people.

They share a common word; liberation. The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that the word is a noun meaning, “the act of setting someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression; release:”2 Imprisonment, slavery and oppression, all three of these words describe the status of many gay people today even in our own country, the UK. The eponymous closet is simply too safe to disregard completely for some.

As Gutiérrez says in the ‘Theology of Liberation’3 “In the past, concern for social praxis in theological thought did not sufficiently take into account the political dimension.” As Gutiérrez points out here, scholarly interest in how theology informs how we respond to others hasn’t considered the political factors that shape our everyday lives. This is even more so when we consider gay liberation.

In light of this, it might be easy to dismiss theological comment upon gay, and LGBT, identity and lives as unresponsive and indeed openly hostile. The rhetoric used by some clergy and certainly by the majority of hierarchical clergy, i.e. bishops and higher, has done nothing to endear gay people to their cause and has caused some deep divisions in outlook, significantly perhaps in the US, where the disconnect between lay Catholic and higher clergy is very apparent.4

But it is theology that may well turn the tide in the wider church, and it is only theology that will inform a change of heart in those who hold it dear, such as the Holy Father himself.

Despite Benedict’s apparent disregard for liberation theology’s sound scriptural grounding, it has still worked itself into the fabric of the church over the years and is now loosely the standard descriptor for how the church responds to the issue of poverty.5

A phrase that Gutierrez used to great affect is ‘we drink from our own well’. What on earth does this mean? And how does it liberate LGBT people from the bonds of heteronormative ascendency? When we look at our own actions within the social fabric of our country, or countries, do we see our liberation being played out by ourselves, or by others? Are we defined by the actions of others?

A favourite statement of mine, and one I often ignore, is ‘Don’t let others define your own happiness.’ Is that what we do?

The political fight for LGBT rights is not over by a long shot, and yet within our own population dynamic, we are letting go of the political. Take Pride parades. Once upon a time they used to be a vocal statement about who we were, what we wanted and how we wanted our lives to be recognised. As Peter Tatchell has pointed out, this is no longer the case in the majority, as they have now become commercialised exponents of what Tom Robinson termed ‘Glad to be gay’.

Antithetical to this, although still filling the entertainment need in our sub-culture, are Pride parades around the world. In Israel, where the ultra-orthodox gather to throw stones at us; in Eastern Europe, where neo-NAZIs gather to try and beat us up, aided and abetted by the police; in South and Latin America, where our very existence is dependent on avoiding the gangs with murder on their mind, again, all too often aided and abetted by the police, who significantly take a leading role in LGBT murders in some instances. Where do we, in the so-called developed and Western world stand in relation to these, our oppressed kin overseas? Do we offer our own lives in testimony to their sufferings, to their wounds, or do we do our best to ignore the problems and celebrate the colourful diversity in Pride around the world?

If liberation is to mean anything, it has to mean we stand with others, less fortunate than ourselves, with our political and economic leverage and our happy and carefree Pride parades, we have to feel what they suffer. That is where the preferential option for the queer comes in. Where we can drink from our own wells, take our own lives, identities and pride, and use it to focus on those who suffer unlike anything we can possibly experience.

We all suffer, to some extent. My grievances, my wounds are not the same as yours, but we both suffer in equal measure to our experiences. We may not be killed for who we are, maybe, we may not fear the knock or tap on the shoulder from a hooded gunman/police officer, but we suffer. Bullying and harassment kills as much as gunshot as does. It kills us physically, and it kills us emotionally, turning our souls into bleak harbours of terror.

We must use this, drink of it, to inform our fight for the liberation of all LGBT people everywhere. Until we can look inwards and recognise the suffering in each of us for what it is, we cannot begin to feel, empathise, with those who suffer everywhere.

We have a long and glorious history of ignoring problems in our own cultures, until they get so big, they smother us. Take apart the defensive walls and try to manage the oppressions we feel, turn them to a good use. Liberation. Liberation from our own self-imposed bonds, liberation from cultural bonds, liberation from self-interest and towards an active empathy for those who suffer in ways we can only imagine. Take our own suffering and link it, through positive action and a definite will with the suffering of those in less accepting/tolerant countries.

Peter Tatchell took to the streets in Moscow6. He stood side by side with LGBT people in a banned parade, with the missiles of the extremists raining down, and the batons of the police uncovered. He knows what a preferential option for the queer means.

We all don’t need to go to such lengths, indeed many of us simply cannot afford to, but we can make a stand for our kin here and now. Take back Pride and put it to use for what it was initially meant for; a change of political will. As LGBT Christians it is our duty to stand up for others who are suffering. Christ tells us as much, as do the Prophets of the Hebrew bible.

Look at the parable of the good Samaritan. Is that you? Seeing a foreigner being hurt and going to their aid, or do you do as the Pharisee did and walk on by, blissfully ignoring the pain of others, so that your life may remain trouble free. A preferential option for anyone other than ourselves means we must, I repeat must, put ourselves out, remove our cloak of comfort and give it to another more in need than we. Don’t ignore your own suffering, or of those around you in your immediate culture, but to be so narrowly defined by compassion that you only care for your immediate neighbour is not the Christian way. Cast your cloak wide and stand with those whose own dominant culture is not only alien to you, but is killing them.

References

  1. Berryman, Phillip, Liberation Theology: essential facts about the revolutionary movement in Latin America and beyond (1987)
  2. “liberation“. Oxford Dictionaries. April 2010. Oxford University Press. 10 January 2012 .
  3. Gutiérrez, Gustavo, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation (2001)
  4. New Poll Shows Strong Catholic Support for Gay Rights (Religion Dispatches)
  5. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, paragraphs 182-184.
  6. ‘Moscow police collude with neo-Nazis’
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share|
Posted in Gay & Lesbian Theology, Jennifer Hynes. Tags: , , , , . 3 Comments »

Gay Bishop Charles Otis, on Homosexuality and Faith

January 20, 2012 — Terence Weldon

Bishop Gene Robinson is  the best known openly gay bishop, but there are many others. Bishop Otis Charles, who came out in 1993 after his retirement from full time ministry, is one of them.  He is also legally married: he and his husband held a ceremony in San Francisco in 1993, then wed legally in California in 2008.

While still serving as Bishop of Utah, he did not disclose in own sexuality, but did advocate openly for a relaxation of the barriers to ministry in the Episcopal Church. As a result, Utah came to be seen as a relatively liberal place of refuge for gay men and lesbians in the Episcopal Church.

Otis Charles and Husband, 1993

This year’s Sundance Film Festival, features a documentary film about that other, better known gay bishop, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.  ” Love Free or Die“, which also includes reference to Bishop Charles, will  be screened on Monday January 23rd, and preceded by a worship service on Sunday 22nd.   QSalt Lake has a piece on Bishop Charles, illustrating the dramatic contrast between the conditions for gay clergy when he was first ordained in 1951, and those prevailing today:

After 60 years in the clergy, including 40 years as an Episcopalian bishop, Otis Charles, 85, was one of three openly gay bishops within the faith, he said. Although, when he first entered seminary in the 1950s homosexuality was not talked about, let alone embraced, by many in the church.

“I never would have imagined how far we’ve come – in the church and in general. It’s a different world. I never would have imagined, when I was first entering seminary, that I would be able to be married to my husband and enjoy all the benefits that come with that,” Charles said. “In my lifetime I’ve seen the onward movement from being outside of the movement into the ongoing life of the community in ways that I never would have imagined.”

-  QSaltLake

We must remember though, that we have not arrived at this place of moderate tolerance without a great deal of preparatory work, by a great number of people. Bishop Charles was one of the pioneers:

The path to arrive as a happily married, accepted bishop was more than three decades in the making; the issue of openly gay clergy members was first raised in 1976 during a general assembly where Charles testified about the need to accept gay clergy members, although he was not open about his own sexuality. In 1979 he was a member of a coalition of leaders who signed a letter in opposition to the newly enacted policy prohibiting gays and lesbians from being ordained into the ministry.

Charles, along with eight members from the Utah delegation, opposed the church’s new position, which led to Utah having a liberal reputation.

“We were kind of a place of refuge for gay or lesbian individuals who wanted to be ordained and their home bishop wouldn’t accept them or recognize them,” Charles said. “The authorities in the diocese of Utah supported more than one such person. And so the dioceses in Utah have a spirit of openness for a long time.”

-  QSaltLake

There also, quite obviously, many barriers to overcome, especially in the Catholic Church – but I will leave those out of this post. For now, let us simply celebrate Bishop Charles, Bishop Robinson, and the other pioneers on the road to LGBT inclusion in church. I look forward to this documentary film becoming more widely disseminated.

Bishop Gene Robinson (right), Mark Andrew at their civil union, 2008

[Correction:

An earlier version of this post stated that the documentary film "Love Free or Die" is about Bishop Otis Charles, but in fact it is primarily about Bishop Gene Robinson].

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share|
Posted in Gay Catholics/ Christians. Tags: , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Going Slow!

January 19, 2012 — Terence Weldon

Since Monday of this week, continuing through next week, I have extremely limited time for this site as I am engaged in examination work at the local university. So far, I have been able to do a certain amount, with the help of contributions by my new team, but the next few days will be exceptionally tight. I’ll do my best, but there’s unlikely to be too much new material appearing.

I should be back to normal speed from Saturday next week.

Share|
Posted in Blogging / Technical. 3 Comments »

How the Bishops Are Insulting (Opposite – Sex) Married Couples

January 18, 2012 — Terence Weldon

 Isn’t it quite insulting to heterosexual married couples to reduce their affirming commitment through marriage of their relationship to a simple biological act? If marriage is merely for reproductive purposes, why do they insist on trying to defend it as sacred? Is reproduction more sacred than love? Not in the New Testament it’s not! Now I look at it like that, aren’t they a load of silly billies?

-Jennifer Hynes, QTC comment thread.

One of the more offensive aspects of the Vatican teaching on homoerotic relationships is the way in which everything is reduced to “genital acts” (which are dismissed as mere gratuitous self-gratification). As anyone who has lived in a committed, long-term relationship can testify, it’s about far more than mere sex. It’s also about mutual caring and support, for each other and for family members, aging parents and growing children (even for animals).

It’s shared pleasures, at the movies, in music or art, or dining with friends. It’s about shared domestic duties, and joint participation in neighbourhood, community (and parish) concerns. Sex itself is far more than  mere genital acts: it’s also about caresses, hugs, and kisses. Especially as we age, “genital acts” are of diminishing interest.

It hadn’t occurred to me, but Jennifer is right. By focussing their opposition to marriage equality so obsessively on the capacity to create (not nurture) children, some Catholic bishops and organisations are similarly reducing heterosexual marriage to a series of mere genital acts. This is not only insulting to the LGBT community, it is also insulting to all loving couples.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share|
Posted in marriage & family, Ministry, Church structure. 11 Comments »

Satan Redux: On (Not) Playing the “Devil” Card

January 18, 2012 — Mario

It is one of the defining habits of man: “my group is good, your group is evil”.  And, every group throughout this history of time has also played both roles: the righteous and the unrighteous. So, this announcement about the new and improved Satan should come as no surprise: Christians are the new Satan!

Sheep’s Clothing -Sold

When I returned to the faith and told my family I wanted to go back to church, my son said, “You are going back to troll, right?  You are not going back for real…?”

“Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group’s common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group.

Their success at the former depends on how well they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll’s enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.” Donath, Judith S. (1999). “Identity and deception in the virtual community”. In Smith, Marc A.; Kollock, Peter. Communities in Cyberspace

When my husband realizedI was going back to the church, he said, “Oh my god, why would you do such a thing and go over to the dark side?  Why would you turn to the devil?  They’re Satanic!”

Don’t judge my family!  My family expresses nothing different than what I commonly hear in my queer community.

Playing Fair

I must admit, in searching for articles and statements that exemplify what I am hearing from many LGBTQ about Christians, I was pleasantly surprised to find that our community does not play the “Satan card”.

In fact, much of the journalism with some exceptions, has in the face of a very “religious war”,  stuck to addressing human/American rights, freedom and equality, while being told:

(If this YouTube video does not appear, here’s the link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY )

Life and Death

The struggle for LGBTQ with Christianity has gone beyond our struggle for value, worth and acceptance.  The Christian Right has taken their issue off of God’s shoulders , and has proclaimed their version of God’s judgment now in this life:  Change, or suffer at our hands! Right Wing Christians no longer wield a moral or religious sword; they are waving a real one. The Right Wing Christians have proclaimed war… literally, and all of Christianity is paying for it.

It is this war that creates immense hurt and distrust that haunts our community members to death.

How Shall It End?

This is not a question about the apocalypse. It is not even a question about when the “war” will be over.  It was the question that I was asking myself just after including the link on a recent suicide.  I wondered, how I would conclude my article.

At 1453, word came in via Facebook that a well known,beautiful member of our queer community  (30’s) who worked in Midtown Sacramento,  died.  He committed suicide. Suicide is epidemic among LGBTQ.  Do you wonder why? Life can be difficult naturally, add  to that chemical imbalances and then include a hateful climate. Could you see where someone might not see what hope there is?

“To make progress, we need to be able to imagine alternative realities—better ones—and we need to believe that we can achieve them. Such faith helps motivate us to pursue our goals.”

Be Visable

The bible asks us to be a witness.  Now, it very well could be that this word is incorrectly translated from the original, but I like it.  Witness is a passive and active verb.  Witness says  “take notice” but also implies being visible. Be a tangible and visible sign of LOVE. You do not have to hold banners about equality, or go to a pride parade.  It could be as simple as wearing a cross and rainbow together, just to let people know who you are.  As a Christian, I challenge you to come out of the closet about your  support of your queer brothers and sisters and be identified.  As a queer, I challenge other Christian queers to come out of the Christian closet and be seen for who you are to your queer family.

I cannot tell you how humbled I was seeing over a block of church booths at Pride celebration in Sacramento, CA last year. I also noticed, how vacant of pride goers these church booths were compared to most of the others.  I thought this  was interesting. Then again, I was one of the people who did not stop at any of those church booths. I was afraid.  I was afraid it was a lie.

My absence might have seemed like disinterest, but it wasn’t. What I saw made a huge impact on me. It was an incredible symbol of hope and love I never expected to see.  I still hold on to that vision to this day as a sign of change and hope.

Here is what one Christian is doing in support of LGBTQI for the last three years: OBAMA

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Share|
Posted in Gay Catholics/ Christians. No Comments »
« Older posts «
»

Switch to our mobile site