There is extensive evidence that the US is moving to embrace full equality for lesbian and gay couples, and that Catholics are more supportive than the population at large. American Evangelicals though, remain (mostly) hostile. There has not been nearly as much polling for the UK, but a new survey shows even more support than in the US – including from 61% of all Christians.
A word of caution here, is that the survey was sponsored by the explicitly secularist Richard Dawkins Foundation, which is using the results to demonstrate that the UK is a secular society, and not a “Christian country”. It does not appear to have released the full questionnaire or tables. The only results currently available are those selected for inclusion in the press release by the Foundation. In particular, the description “Christian” appears to be used for those who describe themselves as such – many of whom do not actively practice their religion.
There is no reason to disregard the main thrust of the finding though, which is in agreement with what previous research is available. British opinion is firmly on the side of LGBT inclusion – and that includes those who think of themselves Christian.
For St Valentine’s day,we should remember the same sex lovers (a surprising number of them) who feature in Scripture and in the history of the Catholic Church. In the list below, I do not not claim that the relationships were necessarily sexual (although some of them most definitely were, but all are deserve attention by modern queer Christians. (For fuller assessments, follow the links).
The Roman soldiers, lovers and martyrs Sergius and Bacchus are well known examples of early queer saints. Polyeuct and Nearchos are not as familiar- but should be. John Boswell (“Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe“) names the two as one of the three primary pairs of same sex lovers in the early church, their martyrdom coming about half a century after Felicity and Perpetua, and about another half century before Sergius & Bacchus .
Like the later pair, Polyeuct and Nearchos were friends in the Roman army in Armenia. Nearchos was a Christian, Polyeuct was not. Polyeuct was married, to a woman whose father was a Roman official. When the father-in-law undertook as part of his duties to enforce a general persecution of the local Christians, he realized that this would endanger Polyeuct, whose close friendship with Nearchos could tempt him to side with the Christians. The concern was fully justified: although Polyeuct was not himself a Christian, he refused to prove his loyalty to Rome by sacrificing to pagan gods. In terms of the regulations being enforced, this meant that he would sacrifice his chances of promotion, but (as a non-Christian) not his life. Christians who refused to sacrifice faced beheading. When Nearchos learned of this, he was distraught, not at the prospect of death in itself, but because in dying, he would enter Paradise without the company of his beloved Polyeuct. When Polyeuct learned the reasons for his friends anguish, he decided to become a Christian himself, so that he too could be killed, and enter eternity together with Nearchos.
With a number of US states in the news over reports of moves to provide for same – sex marriage (legislative initiatives in Washington, New Jersey, Maryland and Illinois, a voters’ referendum in Maine, and last week’s court victory in California), and high profile push-backs in Minnesota and North Carolina, it is easy to overlook what is happening (or not) in New Hampshire.
When the Republicans made major electoral gains in November 2010, regaining control of the State legilature, they were quick to announce their plans to repeal the legislation for marriage equality. Since then, there have been a series of delays. First, there came the announcement that although repeal was important, it would not take place in 2o11, but would wait until 2o12. Late last year, it was said that repeal would take place early in 2012 – then that was pushed back until “after the GOP primary”. The primary came and went – and the candidates most visibly opposed to equality were bottom of the poll. Then, it was said that repeal would take place some time in February. It has still not been sheduled.
A report on fresh opinion polling illustrates precisely why the political leadership is getting cold feet – repeal is a clear vote loser.
The University of New Hampshire Survey Center on Feb. 7 polled Granite Staters on same-sex marriage, as it has several times since 2009. This time, citizens were asked if they support or oppose repeal of the law. Results indicate 59 percent oppose and 32 percent favor repeal.
“It’s been the same each time we ask — about 2-1 in favor of same-sex marriage,” said survey center director Andy Smith. “It’s not an issue most people care about one way or the other. Proponents are very much in favor, opponents are very much opposed. But for most people, it’s a shrug.”
Smith said the polling numbers are so strong that, Republican majority or not, he predicts the repeal bill will not ultimately pass the N.H. House and Senate.
“I don’t see there’s going to be a real strong push to pull this through,” he said. Legislators “can push against public opinion somewhat, but if you have your eye on November, you don’t want to jeopardize your own seat and you don’t want to jeopardize party control.”
For Catholics, the religious dimension is of particular interest.
“It’s a time of change and the momentum is with gay marriage,” said Michele Dillon, chair of the sociology department at UNH, who specializes in sociology and religion.
Poll after poll shows what Cox calls the “millennials” — those age 18 to 29 — overwhelmingly favoring same-sex marriage. “The younger generation is perplexed that it’s even an issue,” Dillon said. “They’re just totally ahead on that.”
The UNH poll indicates 71 percent of those age 18 to 34 “strongly oppose” repeal of New Hampshire’s gay marriage law with another 14 percent somewhat opposing repeal.
In a PRRI poll taken last June, 62 percent of millennials favor gay marriage, including 49 percent who identified themselves as Republicans.
Dillon, who studies issues like gay marriage through the lens of both sociology and religion, said gay marriage is the new contraception issue for many Catholics, in particular. “Years ago, committed Catholics said ‘We can be good Catholics without adhering to the Catholic teachings on contraception,’” she said. “Now it’s happening with gay marriage. Most Catholics disagree with some aspect of church teaching.”
Today, Feb. 12, is World Marriage Day. Expect the bishops and other conservative sources to interpret this in terms exclusively related to what they erroneously think of as “traditional” marriage. Marriage, however, has undergone many transformations in Western history, and as I showed in discussing Pope Benedict’s praise of marriage to Italian politicians, the social benefits of marriage apply to all marriages – not only those approved by Catholic bishops.
Marinos was one of a group of saints we might describe as transmen, biologically female but who lived as male monks in men’s monasteries. Some of these are known only by name, some of the stories may be variations of the same person’s story under different names, but that of Mary / Marinos, also known as Pelagia, is one of the most completely known.
The story as we have it, is that Mary was an only child from the north of Lebanon, raised after her father’s death by her widowed father, Eugene. Once Mary had grown up, Eugene told her that he would pass over to her all his possessions, as he wished to enter a monastery, for the sake of his soul. Mary was not happy with this, as she too was concerned for her own soul. So they agreed that Mary would cut her hair and adopt male clothing, so that she could pass as male, and enter the monastery together with her father. This they did, joining a monastery in Alexandria, Egypt, from which she takes her name. Inside the monastery, where the two shared a cell, the other monks noticed the higher pitched voice and smooth skin of their new brother (now known as Marinos), but assumed that either he was a eunuch, or that this was a special mark of the holiness they all saw in him.
Marina (in red) being brought to a monastery by her father Eugenius. (14th century French manuscript).
In time, Marinos’ father died, and he responded by increasing still further his ascetic manner of life. The abbot called him one day, and referring to his great holiness, sent him out in the company of a few others on monastic business, where they needed to spend one night in a public inn. The innkeeper had a daughter who set her sights on seducing the attractive Marinos, without success. She had however already been made pregnant by another (either one of the monks, or by a passing soldier – the sources diverge). When she realized she was with child, to protect herself she accused the innocent Marinos. (more…)
February is LGBT History month in the UK. 2012 is also the diamond jubilee year of Queen Elizabeth, who this week marked the 60th anniversary of her accession to the British throne. The jubilee will be the theme of this year’s Quest annual conference, ”SIXTY GLORIOUS YEARS,” for which the two speakers will consider changing attitudes to homosexuality over this period in British society – and in the churches. The second of these, I will present, under the title “Blessed are the Queer in Faith – for they shall inherit the Church“. To coincide with LGBT History month, I want to begin preparing for my conference address by exploring the material for it, in a series of posts here at QTC.
Before looking too closely at the last sixty years though, it is necessary to consider briefly the preceding two thousand. There have always been prominent lgbt people in the church – at any rate, people that today we might characterise with the terms gay, lesbian, and trans, although the words and even the concepts would have been totally unfamiliar in their own day. More appropriately, we should simply describe them as “queer”. However, the response of the Church to these people, and their place within it, have seen major changes over this long period. To understand these, with gross oversimplification, I break down these past years into four major eras. The past sixty years may be seen as the start of a fifth, a new era that we are only just entering. (more…)
The Sunday after London Pride last year, our Soho Mass was briefly disturbed by an uninvited visitor, making an entirely unauthorized video recording of the proceedings. His recording of the bidding prayers has now surfaced on some conservative Catholic blogs.
In a Catholic Herald report, some of the bloggers and others opposed to the Masses have used these as supposed evidence that they exist primarily to challenge Church teaching. Fr Ray Blake, for instance, claims that
“What I find scandalous is that Mass is offered for a group of people who, as this video shows, obviously dissent from the teaching of the Church and gather primarily to challenge that teaching, rather than to worship.”
This conclusion is patently ridiculous, and not supported by the texts of the bidding prayers themselves. These in particular, appear to be what they most object to:
…..that the various communities we represent, ethnicity, language, gender and sexual orientations, find means to celebrate this diversity, and strive for greater social justice for all people.
Are the opponents seriously suggesting that we should not be praying for social justice? Another prayer they objected to, was for
…lesbian and gay, bisexual and transgender organisations here and throughout the world, and especially those which gather to support people of faith, that they may reflect the rainbow covenant of justice and integrity which God establishes amongst us.
What is forbidden by Church teaching, is same-sex genital activity. There is nothing in the prayers that even remotely encourages this.
Watch, and decide for yourselves:
What these prayers do promote, is an obvious corollary to the other part of Catechism teaching – the importance of respect, compassion and sensitivity, which must lead to the acceptance of full inclusion of LGBT persons in the Church. So these bidding prayers are promoting, not contradicting, Church teaching – one of the parts that the objectors conveniently ignore. (The other part they ignore, is that none of us has the right to pass judgement on the state of another’s soul).
Fr Blake is also totally wrong that the “purpose” of the Mass is not worship. Five years ago, when I and a group of others were discussing with diocesan representatives the parameters for our move into a Catholic parish church, it was clearly understood, and agreed by us, that the Masses were to be pastoral in nature, and not campaigning. As part of the organising team ever since, I can confirm that we have stood by that agreement scrupulously. The sole purpose of the Mass is to provide an opportunity for LGBT Catholics, their families and friends, to meet together for a corporate act of worship, in a setting where they know they will receive a particular welcome – together with other Catholics, and in a parish setting. It is true that I and some of the other organisers do disagree, strongly and publicly, with Vatican doctrine on sexual ethics, but that is kept strictly separate from the conduct of the Masses. (In the same way, it is likely that in any student chaplaincy, there will be a strong proportion of young people who disagree strongly with church teaching on sex before marriage, or on masturbation, but that does not imply that Masses for students are organised to promote dissent. A similar argument applies to family Masses and contraception.)
In his response to the objections, the CH quotes our chairman, Joe Stanley, who said that he did not think Fr Finigan’s view of the Soho Masses was representative.
“Our experience of ordinary Catholics in the pew is very different from the comments in the blogosphere. The Masses keep getting represented as “gay Masses”,” he said, emphasising that they are public Masses that extend a particular welcome to gay people and their parents, families and friends.
But the most important response is that of Archbishop Vincent Nichols of the diocese of Westminster, in which the parish falls. In a supportive statement, he reminds us that
As with every Catholic Mass, the bidding prayers celebrated at the parish of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory ask for the intercession of God in the lives of people who may be in need.
Bidding prayers for every Mass must reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church and this applies to the Mass held every fortnight where a particular welcome is extended to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered Catholics and their families.
There is no sacrilege in bringing together a group of Catholics for worship. The only sacrilege here is in making an unauthorized recording of that worship for the sole purpose of sowing dissension. There is no dissent expressed in praying that all may be included and treated with respect in the Catholic Church. The only dissent, is in opposing a considered, deliberate pastoral plan by the Archdiocese to put Catholic teaching on respect, compassion and sensitivity into practice.
A headline at the National Catholic Reporter, to an article on thecurrent contraception controversy, states unambiguously, ”Catholics unite in opposition to contraception mandate“. This is patently untrue. The bishops may have united, and may have the backing of several Catholic agencies and health providers – but the evidence once again, is that ordinary Catholics disagree. The findings of two separate surveys this week show clearly that Catholics back Obama’s proposals, and are more likely (not less) to vote for him as a result.
I have no intention of getting into the details of US health care, but the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience are important to us all, so I do want to share two pertinent observations by others, both Americans. The first is a short snippet, placed as a comment to a later NCR editorial on the subject:
Here in the San Antonio Archdiocese, insurance to cover contraceptives is available for an additional fee. This allows those who are not Catholic or for whatever reason need to obtain those services, to pay the additional coverage on their own. It is not denied, but neither is it supplied.
To me, the matter is simple: if in conscience you are opposed to contraception – don’t use it. But that does not give you the right to impose your will on others whose conscience differs from yours. This archdiocese clearly recognizes that, making provision for such persons to obtain contraception coverage – for a fee. How does that differ, in moral terms, from providing coverage directly, for those who are not bound by the bishops’ sense of conscience? What provision do bishops and Catholic health authorities make for the “religious freedom” of those in their employ? What, in particular, of those who believe that they are duty – bound to practice contraception for the sake of the planet? On what grounds can the bishops deny them the right to practice their own freedom of conscience?
More extensive is am analysis, also posted in response to the editorial at NCR, which points to the repeated hypocrisy of Catholic bishops in their arguments from “religious freedom”.
Now, the main analysis, posted by Richard C. Placone, which he has already sent to Archbishop Timothy Dolan, as head of the USCCB, and to his own bishop. It deserves to be widely disseminated: (more…)
Watch this powerful testimony in favour of marriage equality, Washington, by Republican State Rep Mary Walsh, who was led to her decision by reflecting on the value of her own marriage, and a desire that her out, lesbian daughter may also benefit from marriage:
To be added as a subscriber, and always know when there is a new post, just write to me.
Send a short email to terence@queerchurch.com, or use the contact form above. Just add the key word "subscribe", and your preferred username.
