Pope Benedict & Priorities for the English Church.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, head of the Catholic Church in England & Wales, has made some important statements on the priorities for the English Church, and they are not (as the rule-book Catholics would claim), about sexual ethics, the Soho Masses, and unthinking compliance with the Catechism. However, many observers have noted what they describe as a certain historical “independence” of the English bishops, and before the start of the papal visit, the rule-book commentators expressed fervent desires that the Pope would use this opportunity to “correct” the English bishops supposed departure from orthodoxy. So the question then arises,

“Just how far adrift is Archbishop Nichols’ thinking from that of Benedict XVI?”

Answer: Not at all. There is complete agreement between them on the important issues facing the English church – and sexuality, and Soho Masses, are not among them.

In my attempt to answer this question, I  examined all the public statements made by the Pope during his visit.  Archbishop Nichols has correctly noted that relying on press reports to assess church priorities can give very misleading impressions, so I used instead the transcripts of his public addresses at the Vatican website for the UK visit.  These illuminate his concerns both in the nature of the audiences and occasions, and in some specific statements to the UK bishops at the visit’s conclusion.

Pope Benedict and the Nation's Most Powerful: Westminster Hall Address, 2010

(more…)

Mormon Prop 8 Apology: A Lesson for Minnesota’s Catholic Bishops

As the Minnesota bishops prepare for their determined campaign to prevent marriage equality in their state, they would do well to reflect on the experience of the Mormons in California over Prop 8. As is well known, the Mormons, like the institutional Catholic Church, were among the mainstay of the opposition to equality, donating substantial sums in cash and in kind to funding support for the ballot initiative.

Since the vote, there have been numerous indications that the Mormon leaders have begun to recognize the hurt their actions have caused to their own members. (I would be surprised if the Mormons were to make the same mistake again). In the clearest demonstration yet of this change of heart, a senior member of the Church  has apologised to lesbian and gay Mormons of California. In a move that Joanna Brooks at Religion Dispatches correctly describes as historic, the leader of the church in California invited Elder Marlin K Jensen to a meeting to hear the stories of pain and suffering the Church had caused to gay and lesbian Mormons, not just by the support for Prop 8, but by its entire approach to homosexuals and their place in the Church. At the conclusion of this testimony  - Elder Jensen apologized.

(more…)

Archbishop Nichols, on Catholic Priorities & The English Church

At Bilgrimage,  Bill Lindsay has a depressing (but accurate) assessment of the ten “essential articles of creed”, as espoused by card-carrying Catholics. (“Who Knew? What Reading Newman Did Not Prepare Me for When I Became Catholic“)

In summary, these are concerned with a staunch defence of the Church, the Pope and the Vatican against all criticism; an obsession with sexual teaching, and in particular its stress on heterosexual intercourse which is open to conception; attempts by political engagement to force this view of sexuality into law; the inherent superiority of the male over the female in all Church decision taking and eucharistic celebration; and a complete disregard for the  rest of Church teaching, especially that on the importance of social justice and inclusion of all.

(more…)

On Faith, Reason and the “Sensus Fidelium”.

One of the paradoxes of the teaching on the Sensus Fidelium is a general acceptance of its importance in determining the validity of any particular doctrine – but a complete absence of guidelines on how to determine if it exists.
One of the characteristics of the blogosphere is that sometimes, great contributions lie buried in the comments threads, which readers do not always open. I liked this response (at the Open Tabernacle) to my post on “What British Catholics Believe”, which included a reference to the SF:

The question of sensus fidelium has come up.

I suggest a re-reading of Teilhard de Chardin for those who wish some insights here.


We are well on our way to a ‘noosphere’. This is de Chardin’s concept as to a possible the outcome of the evolution of the sensus fidelium.

I see it the same way… we are right now, right here collaboratively constructing something recognizable as Tielhard’s noosphere here in the ‘interweb’.

I don’t know about you… but that gets me pretty jazzed up :-)

You want to know the future of the sensus fidelium? Well congratulations… you are reading it right here in these blogs and blogs like them all over the world.

Oh… one other observation… the sensus fidelium I sense emerging is very much a post-christian phenomena.

The place of Christ in the sensus fidelium is really now in all our hands.

Slainte,
Conrad J. Noll
.

(more…)

Gay Adoption: The Best Interests of Children, and the Question of Evidence (Again)

Last week’s appeals court decision that threw out the Florida ban on gay adoption has once again highlighted the idiocy of attempting to promote the interests of children by arbitrarily declaring one entire class of people necessarily superior as parents to another entire class – without considering specific parents and and specific children.  The ban was rooted in simple prejudice:

Here is the basic problem with the law. The state of Florida does not want homosexuals to adopt kids because, well, just because they’re homosexuals. They can be foster parents, just not adoptive parents.

If I could sum up the court’s lengthy ruling in one word, it would be, “Huh?”

That’s not surprising given the origin of the ban. It did not come from need or compelling evidence. It came from singer Anita Bryant, who in 1977 convinced lawmakers with this argument: “Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, they must recruit and freshen their ranks.”

-Orlando Sentinel

Anita Bryant, immediately after being pied at ...

A Fresh Pie in the Face For Anita Bryant's Prejudice


(more…)

English Progressives Strengthened by Papal Visit

Writing at Bilgrimage,  Bill Lindsay writes about the one-sided nature  of Catholic reporting of the Papal visit to England and Scotland, noting that
the mainstream Catholic media spectacularly missed the point during the papal visit to Britain when they sought to lump all protesters together with secularists and atheists
and
our mainstream Catholic journals have not done the church a service by reporting on the papal visit solely in an adulatory vein, and by publishing one article after another disguising the role of Catholics who validly disagree with the pope on some issues in the protests that took place during the papal visit.  A truly Catholic perspective requires catholic reporting.

Catholicism implies diversity. One of the reasons I was wary of personally committing to either adulation or indignation ahead of the visit was precisely that I recognized a variety of responses within myself, to Benedict the man, to the papacy itself as an institution, and as a symbol of the church.  These are conflicts are not just within me – they are fundamental to the complexity of the issues.  During the visit itself, I wrote very little (except where it directly concerned me and the Soho Masses), as there were so many different issues being raised, with such a barrage of commentary, that I felt I was suffering serious information overload. Now that the crowds have dispersed and the commentariat moved on to fresh topics, I am beginning to digest the implications and consequences of the last few weeks. As I do so, I will share some of these thoughts, not in any simplistic was it good or was it bad sense, but considering just one or two aspects at a time. As a preview, I share now just some of the thoughts that I have been chewing over.
One of the consequences of the visit that I  was not expecting, has been strengthened public recognition of this diversity, and of the real priorities of Catholic belief. One of the best broadcast items ahead of the visit was a radio documentary for the BBC comparing today’s Britain with that of Pope John Paul’s visit, which presenter Mark Dowd summed by saying that the modern Church is more truly “Catholic” in the true sense – that is, diverse.
This recognition of Catholic diversity benefits thoughtful and progressive Catholics, and correspondingly weakens the position of rule-book Catholics who expect simple blind obedience to the Catechism. I believe that UK progressive Catholics generally, and gay Catholics in particular, have good reason to feel their position has been strengthened by the visit, and especially by some statements of Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who is the head of the church in England and Wales. In a series of interviews before and after the visit, he has said that the primary characteristic of a Catholic is not blind obedience to Church authority, but a conscientious search for the truth. With specific reference to the Soho LGBT Masses, he insisted that it is not for the priest to judge the conscience of anyone presenting for communion. In a clear reference to our regular protesters outside, he suggested that they “hold their tongues” – in effect, they should shut the f*** up. (This emphasis on conscience supports one interpretation of the Newman legacy which after all was the purpose of the papal visit in the first place.)
There is also clearer recognition of authentic Catholic priorities. In his latest observations, in a panel discussion as part of a broadcast “tour highlights”, Nichols emphasised that Catholic teaching and practice on justice and combating poverty are far more important than conformity with one view of sexual ethics – priorities which progressives everywhere would recognize. He also said that the English bishops do not necessarily disapprove of gay civil partnerships, and that they did not oppose the legislation. This does not fit my memory of events at the time, but no matter – I am delighted to have the assurance of the current head of our national church that they have no objection to the legal recognition of same- sex unions.
Quite apart from the impact on the English church, I have found myself re-thinking my take on Newman and on Benedict himself, given his obvious deep respect for the newly Blessed John Henry. The Newman legacy is a complex and contested one, but I suspect the key to the paradox lies in seeing his concern not as one of either “freedom” of conscience, or as obedience to church authority, but as the importance of conscience as obedience to the truth – which may lie in the Church magisterium, but may not. If so, there will be far closer affinities between Archbishop Nichols and Pope Benedict than the rule-book Catholics can possibly recognize.
There is one further reason for local progressive Catholics to be pleased with the state of the English Church after the papal visit: the rule book Catholics, to judge from their army of bloggers, clearly are not.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Yet Again: Court Rules Discrimination is Unconstitutional

This is the second court ruling this month that the discrimination inherent in DADT is unconstitutional. It is also counter -productive and irrational, completely devoid of evidence. In many periods of history and in many societies, gay soldiers have been either central to military forces, or led them. Gays in the military have never weakened them, and in some cases were bewlieved to strengthen them.

DADT is doomed. The sooner the US politicians realize this, the better for all.

US air force told to reinstate lesbian in death knell for ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

Margaret Witt, a lesbian expelled from the US air force under ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, wins her job back after judge’s ruling

(more…)

Posted in Gay Politics. No Comments »

Fr Bernard Lynch, at “Protest the Pope” Rally.

Fr Bernard Lynch is an openly gay Catholic priest, whose honesty and conscience have frequently brought him into conflict with the powers that be in the Catholic Church. He has been in the news recently for having joined the “Protest the Pope” rally during last week’s papal visit. (For the record, I  did not attend the rally, nor the church-sponsored events. My personal considered decision was neither to celebrate, nor to protest, the visit, but simply to observe – from a distance.)

Fr Lynch’s participation has drawn some comment, not always well-informed, from all the usual suspects of rule-book Catholic bloggers. His actual words, reported at the Protest the Pope website, are thoughtful, respectful, and deserve serious reflection.

Dear Holy Father,

Welcome to the United Kingdom. I am one of your fellow priests who have served in the Catholic Church for the past thirty nine years. I welcome you as an openly gay Roman Catholic priest.

I became openly gay after you, as Cardinal Ratzinger in 1986 issued the document ‘On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual People.’ At that time, I was overwhelmed by the pastoral care of my gay brothers in New York City as they faced death from HIV and AIDS. As a member of the Mayor of New York’s Task Force on AIDS – (The Honorable Edward Koch) — I founded an AIDS Ministry in the city in 1981 to care for the sick and dying. Six hundred of the men who got sick and died were young and fellow Catholics. I was their priest. In 1992 I came to this country to continue the same work through CARA and London Light House with an Anglican priest the late Father David Randall.

At the height of the Plague years your Holiness’s ‘Pastoral Care’ document told us as LGBT people that we are ‘disordered in our nature’ and ‘evil in our love’ and the typical violence committed against us as ‘understandable if not acceptable.’ I was shocked and scandalised. I did not understand then and now how such teachings are consonant with the unconditional love of God given to us in Jesus Christ.

Many of the people in my care died in despair as a direct result of this document written by you. Its effect not only reverberated around the Catholic world but far beyond. Your teachings I know were and are used — both within the Catholic Church and outside of it — as a baton to attack every human and civil right sought after by LGBT people. (One of the most painful consequences for me as priest was that many of my fellow priests dying of HIV/AIDS, on hearing the teaching lost all faith in a loving God. This happened after a life time of devoted and dedicated service to our Church.) Surely we who are LGBT people deserve better. It is a sad irony that as Catholic Christians we depend on the secular authorities of the State to mirror God’s justice for us. The Church authorities under your leadership stymie every attempt made by us as LGBT people to claim under the law our most basic human dignity.

This cannot be right. The Gospel message we share with people of good will is that all people are created equal: Women and men; Black and White; Gay and Straight; Believer and non Believer alike. If an all loving God exists – and I believe He /She does – then I think it is us believers who may be most shocked that those secular non believing humanists, who spared no price and counted no cost in the pursuit of justice for all, will be the ones first in His Love. I pray that your visit to the United Kingdom will enable and empower you to make the co-equality of people the litmus test of your own faith.

Justice demands that I speak out. ‘Silence equals death’ as my friend and fellow activist Larry Kramer said at the height of the AIDS pandemic. I speak not only for the living but most especially for those thousands of gay men who died in despair as a direct result of your Holiness’s words. This gross injustice towards my gay brothers dying of HIV/AIDS must not be forgotten. Those of us spared death at the height of the pandemic have the memory of our dying brothers indelibly marked on every bone in the soul of our bodies. We cannot forget. We shall never forget. We cannot be silent. The devastation is and will always be in us. We shall never heal from all that we have come through. We have in fact become what we are – and we are here today — to help keep the fallen alive.

As my Pope, I welcome you. I welcome you with hope that you ask forgiveness of those whom your words drove to despair. Most importantly I ask — I beg you in fact — to change immediately this totally dehumanising teaching. Thank you.

The paradox of the formal institutional teaching, and of the 1986 letter, is that while it speaks of the homosexual condition as fundamentally disordered, and of homosexual acts as grave sin, it simultaneously proclaims the importance of dealing with the homosexual person with dignity, compassion and respect – which the document itself, and the broader institutional church, singularly fails to do. The document also reminds us to “speak the truth in love” – but too often punishes those gay or lesbian Catholics (and their sympathisers) who do indeed attempt to speak the truth in Church.

Fr Bernard has once again simply spoken the truth from his experience – and been excoriated by the self-proclaimed defenders of orthodoxy for doing so. Instead, he should be thanked and congratulated for his honesty and courage.


Also see Fr Bernard’s book, “A Priest on Trial” (pictured above).

Enhanced by Zemanta

Church Idiocy in Minnesota.

Dunces and Scholars: Which Cap Fits Archbishop Nienstedt?

I’ve been wanting to write about the misdirected Catholic expenditure, by the Knights of Columbus and now by the diocese of Minneapolis St Paul, to fight gay marriage. Michael J. Bayly (who is right there in the Twin Cities) at The Wild Reed has correctly called the Minnesota campaign a scandal: (more…)

The Real Mamma Grizzlies: Lesbian Moms!

Sarah Palin’s understanding of wildlife appears to be no better than her tenuous grasp of social history.  Mrs Palin has been very much in the news over her enthusiastic promotion of a band of crazies  thoughtful, conservative candidates who agree with her own views on education and “traditional family values”.   The women in this band she likes to describe as “mamma grizzlies”, most recntly Christina O’Donnell in Delaware.

Sarah Palin, With Bear

The problem with the conservative view of the “traditional” family and its values is that has little relation to history, and is in fact a relatively modern invention. The problem with her adoption of mamma grizzlies as her model is that they too scarcely embody the “family values” she claims to support.  Real life mamma grizzlies do not live or mate in the nuclear families she so admires. Rather, they mate in promiscuous, polygamous groups, then raise their young as single mothers – or in collaboration with other females, as family units headed by two women.  The closest human counterparts to real-life “mamma grizzlies” are lesbian couples, with kids – not exactly Christian O’Donnell. (more…)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Switch to our mobile site