UK Marriage Bill – More Equal Than Expected?

May 22, 2013 — Terence Weldon

The Marriage (Same – Sex Couples) Bill has easily passed through its third and final reading in the House of Commons. It goes to the Lords today, where the real battles over detail, and final approval (or rejection), will take place early next month. With 60 Anglican bishops among them, and an age profile somewhat older than that of the Commons, the bill is likely to have a rougher time there than it did this week. Some opponents are confidently predicting that it will be thrown out, but I’m not so sure: the amendment to permit civil partnerships on religious premises was expected to meet stiff opposition in the Lords, but in fact passed fairly easily.

Instead of anticipating what will happen, let’s consider what has happened, with the clear victories this week, beginning with the unexpected amendment to begin a process to extend civil partnerships to other – sex couples.

Equal Marriage, Equal Civil Partnerships

When the original consultation on equal marriage was announced, this was specifically excluded from the terms of reference. Even so, the consultation report noted that there had been numerous submissions asking for such a provision.  Still, the matter was not included in the Bill. When it was introduced as an amendment to the main bill, this was together with a series of amendments to water it down, by an arch – opponent of equal marriage, so was widely seen as a deliberate attempt to delay implementation (possibly until after the next general election), and became known as the “wrecking amendment”. The strategy not only failed, it backfired, badly. To neutralise the wrecking element, the government first proposed an alternative amendment to review the possibility of extending civil partnerships, possibly after five years experience with equal marriage, then accepted instead a Labour amendment to begin such a review immediately. Instead of delaying the main equal marriage bill, the wrecking amendment has had the effect of accelerating a move to equal civil partnerships, which was not even on the horizon a year ago. British “equal marriage” will be even more equal than originally expected.

Recent polling by Yougov shows that the British public supports this expansion of civil partnerships, even more strongly than equal marriage:

This support however, seems to be based on a principle of equality, rather than personal desire for their own relationships.

Still, marriage remains the more popular institution. Nearly three-quarters of the public (74%) would prefer to be married to someone “in an ideal world”, compared to one in twenty (5%) who would prefer to be in a civil partnership.

-Yougov.

Yougov does not report the reasons for preferring civil partnerships – even if the question was asked, 5% of respondents would be far too small a sample to support any further analysis – so we can only speculate. The reasons I have come across fall into three broad groups. For some progressive couples, it’s a principled decision to avoid the patriarchal, unequal relationship structures that have been part of the historical baggage and symbols of traditional marriage. For others, it’s a corresponding desire to avoid the religious connotations and associations of traditional marriage. But for others, it’s a desire for some legal protections for their relationships, with a somewhat reduced burden of expectation, responsibility and commitment.

There’s irony here, for the religious leaders who so strenuously opposed extending marriage. Had there not been such vigorous attempts to restrict marriage, it’s likely that there would not have been the same pressure to expand civil partnerships – which is likely to reduce marriage rates for opposite – sex couples. In France, where the PACS system of civil unions was introduced for all couples, the Catholic bishops are concerned that it has been widely adopted  by heterosexual couples as an alternative to full marriage. The Anglican  Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was quick to speak out against any amendment to extend civil partnerships, no doubt aware of this danger.

Catholic Support

At the second reading, there were many Catholic MPs, from all parties, who voted in favour, and even spoke out publicly, some stressing that they were supporting equality not in spite of their faith, but because of it.  I’ve not yet seen or compiled a comprehensive list of Catholic votes in favour, but we can confidently expect that the pattern was repeated for the final reading. During the debate, some commentators echoed this tweet by Ben Bradshaw:

Really superb & very moving speech in debate by my Roman Catholic colleague @CatMcKinnellMP

Newcastle North MP Catherine McKinnell decribed how her support was influenced by traditionally Catholic strong family values – and a gay brother.

“They say that the family that prays together stays together and that is very much the case with us. We are a close-knit unit, sometimes to the point of that being overbearing, but whenever there is a crisis or something to celebrate, we are all there in droves.”

Drawing on more family ties, she said: “A big part of my childhood was spent with my brother, who is two years older than me and he shared with us the fact that he was gay in his early 20s.

“He was my best friend growing up, my playmate, my partner in crime and my defender when in trouble, and I found it challenging when the announcement came because of my Catholic faith.

“It has been a journey in which I have had to question my faith and understanding of the world, but I believe that the experience has not only kept my faith intact but renewed and enriched it.”

Read more: Journal Live 

ChaoticTories Remain the Nasty Party, In Denial.

Before the last general election, David Cameron tried to convince gay and lesbian voters that his party was the best hope for LGBT equality. It is true that the election saw more openly gay Conservative MP’s than in any other party, and that Cameron’s personal support was crucial in getting the marriage equality bill off the ground, but subsequent events have shown conclusively that the party as a whole remains the nasty party. Opponents of equal marriage have consistently maintained (correctly) that opposition to gay marriage is not in itself a sign of homophobia  - but some of the statements the same people made in the debates definitely are. Moreover, those most strongly opposed are convinced that they represent the views of ordinary Britons, demonstrating how totally out of touch they really are. It doesn’t apply to all Conservatives, but with such vocal hostility, they remain on balance the Nasty Party, on gay rights as much as on their complete insensitivity to the real problems of families in need.

The extraordinary thing is that the reactionaries are convinced that they represent the views of ordinary British people. Lord Dear, who is expected to lead the opposition in the Lords, has said that the British people are “massively opposed”, a view which is completely contradicted both by the government’s own consultation, and by a succession of scientific public opinion polls. Sound and sensible Conservative commentary by James Forsyth at The Spectator

After all the parliamentary back and forth yesterday, gay marriage passed third reading by the comfortable margin of 366 to 161. Tory sources are briefing that fewer of their MPs voted against at third reading than second reading, though we’ll have to wait for the division lists to confirm that.

We probably now have only a couple more Commons votes left on this; there’ll be on any amendments made to the bill by the House of Lords.

The atmosphere in the House as the result was read out did not seem particularly historic. There was some clapping from the Labour front bench, but the Treasury bench didn’t join in and it rather petered out. But, I suspect, that in years to come this will be remembered as one of the more significant things that David Cameron did in office. If it is followed by a series of other measures to strengthen marriage, it might end up being seen as a moment when the fundamental importance of marriage to our society was re-stated.

- but the vitriolic response by his own readers is ample evidence, if any more were needed, that the Tories have a long, long way to go if they can ever be credibly seen as remotely gay – friendly: For evidence, read the comments thread – if you can stomach it.

Related articles

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in marriage and family equality. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

“Theological Endorsements of Masturbation”

May 21, 2013 — Terence Weldon

As an adolescent boy in a Catholic High School staffed by priests, where daily Mass was on offer and regular confession a clear expectation, a continuing source of anguish was having to deal with confessing the “sins of impurity” which (we believed) were the particular bane of teenaged boys. The difficulties included the challenge of finding suitable words that could make my meaning plain, without actually spitting out precise wording, and also that of getting over my embarrassment (shame?) at patently having failed in my earnest promises at the last confession, to do my best to avoid that particular sin in future. In my innocence, I fondly believed that the curtain separating me from one of my teacher – priests protected my anonymity. In fact, in a particularly small school, and with a distinctive accent, it’s likely that any one of the priests would have instantly recognized and identified me. – but thoughtfully avoided addressing me by name. Invariably, these encounters ended with variations on a familiar penance – and an exhortation to pray to the Virgin Mary for the “gift of purity”. This coupling of Mary with sexual repression, I suspect, is partly responsible for my continuing ambivalence to Marian devotion. Later in life, growing wary of the continuing need to deal endlessly with the difficulties of the confessional led me first to abandon its trials altogether, and then (necessarily, in Catholic logic), to stop taking communion, and eventually to cease Mass attendance or any other practice of the faith.

Masturbation, along with any other genital activity not open to procreation, remains firmly prohibited in the Church documents (in the Catechism, for example). But as I have grown older, I have gained an impression that at the level of pastoral practice, at least, priests are far more sensible (and sensitive) on the subject that when I was at school or than the Catechism would suggest. I have also learned that far from being a vice especially affecting adolescent boys, it is widely practiced by people of all ages, men and women,  alone or with others, and is an entirely natural impulse. Even in the animal kingdom, non – primate species lacking hands for manual stimulation can get remarkably inventive in finding alternative means of self – stimulation. But still, the documents are explicit: this is a practice that is not just frowned on, but is described as a “grave evil”. Really?

I’ve been reading two college text books on theology and sexuality, by Susannah Cornwall and by Elizabeth Stuart and Adrian Thatcher. Reading in parallel their chapters on masturbation, it’s refreshing to find that both books present verdicts of respected Catholic theologians that differ sharply from the orthodox presentation of the CDF. Cornwall, always scrupulously even – handed and neutral in her presentation, first presents the orthodox Catholic view, and then goes on to present the contrasting view of other theologians:

…some people argue that masturbation, even if it is not the fullest expression of sexuality possible, is still preferable either to extramarital sex (if the masturbator is unmarried) or to adultery (if the masturbator does not have his sexual desires met within their marriage). Masturbation has been figured either as a harmless, pleasurable form of self-exploration, or as “the lesser of two evils”. Masturbation may provide a safe way for people to satiate their sexual urges without engaging in a sexual relationship for which they are not emotionally ready and which exposed them to the risks of sexually transmitted infection and unwanted pregnancies. Masturbation may promote the integration of self-esteem and body – esteem, re-inforcing confidence in one’s personal identity, “which in the long run can enhance the quality of one’s attachments and commitments. (Louw 2011). Masturbation may also be a healthy way for young people to learn what feels pleasurable to them so that they are later able to  communicate this better to a sexual partner – and may be an important way for girls, in particular, to explore their bodies and their sexual anatomies as sites of joy, not shame (Jung 2000).

Patricia Beattie Jung, a Roman Catholic ethicist, suggests that masturbation should not be figured as inherently selfish or self-indulgent. Rather, she says, “Arousal draws us toward others, and ignites their attraction to us; sexual desire sustains relationships. Even the delights of solitary sex can enliven in us our sense of connection to life. Sexual pleasure inclines those who enjoy it not toward a sense of selfish isolation but toward the world”. Along similar lines, Margaret Farley notes that although masturbation might seem contrary to a central tenet of just sexual activity, namely that it promote relationality, in actual fact many women, in particular, may through masturbation learn things about their own bodies’ capacity for pleasure which then enrich their sexual relationships with their partners (Farley 2006 ),  In other words, masturbation does not inherently or inevitably make people selfish or inward – focused. Rather, sexual pleasure in itself, even outside a relational context, disposes people to relationality.

Stuart and Thatcher do not attempt to retain the same degree of neutrality. They too first present the orthodox view, quoting some choice extracts, but respond with undisguised incredulity:

“Does one assume that clerical embarrassment precludes any acknowledgement of it?”

These conclusions must be considered amazing, whether considered theologically or pastorally. Does anyone believe them? Other approaches to ethics do not arrive at this extreme position. Biblical ethics, for instance, is noncommittal on the subject, since masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible. The Church of England makes no mention of the subject in their influential “Issues in Human Sexuality”. The strong influence of natural law, the strong imposition of authority, a strong fear of the body and sexual pleasure, a strong feeling of guilt all combine here with bad biology to produce pastoral chaos.

They then continue by describing alternative Catholic approaches which are more useful and pastorally sensitive.

 Another Roman Catholic approach to masturbation, unofficial yet deeply devout, acknowledges the goodness and value of what is called “self – pleasuring”, whether for women discovering the mysteries of their own bodies and the pleasure available to them; for adolescents anticipating full sexual experience; for married couples whose “mutual caresses” sometimes “lead to orgasm without intercourse”; for married people whose partners are temporarily unavailable; for lonely people acknowledging their sexual needs; even women who have been abused, and who “re-learn the loveliness of their bodies, the goodness of sexual pleasure” with a loving female partner. Only when a positive account of self-pleasuring has been given is there then a very proper warning given about “the possibility of disorder in the solitary exercise of sexual arousal”.  The contrast between these two evaluations in striking, and the pastoral sensitivity of the second is only one of the grounds for preferring it.

It’s important to recognise here, the importance of that warning about “the possibility of disorder”. The rigidity and complete lack of understanding of human sexuality displayed by the orthodox Catholic teaching makes it gravely flawed, as widely recognized by a substantial proportion of Catholic ethicists – especially by those who are themselves married and so with some real – world experience of loving sexual relationships. But to dismiss the gravely disordered and destructive orthodox view should not lead to an embrace of “anything goes” sexual licence. The challenge for all Catholics is to steer a sound and healthy middle course between the twin dangers of a rigid sexual repression, and complete lack of self  discipline. The really important question should be not, “Is self – pleasuring good or bad?”, but “When, under what circumstances, is it healthy and good – and when is it harmful and bad?”

The sources quoted above are all those of eminent, respected academic theologians, mostly from the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, in senior academic posts at top universities. Sister Margaret Farley is a Mercy Sister, and (now retired) professor of Christian Ethics at Yale University. Professor Adrian Thatcher is a Professorial Research Fellow in Applied Theology at Exeter University. Professor Elizabeth Stuart is Deputy Vice-Chancellor and  Professor of Christian Theology at the University of Winchester. Dr Susannah Cornwall is a post-doctoral research associate at the Lincoln Theological Institute, University of Manchester.

But it can be helpful to listen not only to the voices of learned academics, but also to reflections on simple human experience. Here’s the openly Catholic, openly gay journalist, and educated layman, Andrew Sullivan:

It’s worth recalling that the formal, theological case against masturbation is identical to that against contraception and gay marriage. It is sodomy, as defined in the early modern period, i.e. ejaculation outside the vagina of a married female. So, as I argued at length a decade ago, we are all sodomites now. Men, anyway. Has any priest now living not masturbated?

For the record, I could never grasp why this was so wrong. My instinctual reaction to my first teenage orgasm was total wonderment. Of course, I had been taught nothing about this strange liquid coming out of my dick. It happened while I was reading – of all things – one of the Don Camillo short stories by Giovannino Guareschi. Not the most predictable erotic trigger – but when you’re fourteen, it could be the ceiling and you’d hit yourself in the eye if you weren’t careful.

To me, having this amazing thing suddenly come alive in my body was so obviously marvelous, so instantly ecstatic, it never occurred to me that God forbade me to forsake it. Why give me this 24-hour, unlosable instrument of blind, transcendent pleasure – and then bid me not to touch it? I had never experienced anything so simply pleasurable in my whole life until then. If we’re talking natural law, all I can say is that masturbation was the single most natural thing I had ever done at the moment in my life. More natural than watching television or riding a bus. If I felt guilt, it required some excruciating effort – until I realized that the most effective thing to trigger the constantly loaded rifle was thinking of another man. Usually naked. I had no porn or access to it. So I drew the men I wanted (and they all looked scarily like my husband). It was only then that the culture began to bear down on my nature.

But as I’ve grown older, and mercifully less driven by my dick, I can see the point of self-denial. In your teens, you have a constant unstoppable production of more sperm than could ever merely reproduce (another natural refutation of natural law). By your forties (unless I’ve just had my testosterone shot), not so much. So a little self-restraint definitely increases the pleasure and intensity of the orgasm you eventually get. And no, I feel no guilt about it whatever. It’s so psychically natural, so obviously intuitive, it was the first step for me toward dismantling the strange doctrines of natural law on human sexuality, devised in the early middle ages by men who knew a lot at the time – but tiny shards of truth compared to what we know now.

Wank on, my brothers and sisters. Wank on.

Andrew Sullivan, the Dish

Cornwall, Susannah SCM Core Text: Theology and Sexuality

Stuart, Elizabeth and Adrian Thatcher, People of Passion: What the Churches Teach About Sex

Church of England House of Bishops, “Issues in Human Sexuality: A Statement by the House of Bishops“

Farley, Margaret, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics

Jung, Patricia Beattie, “Sexual Pleasure: A Roman Catholic Women’s Perspective on Women’s Delight“, in Theology and Sexuality 12, pp 26 – 27.

Louw, Daniel J, The Beauty of Human Sexuality Within the HIV and AIDS Discourse: The Quest for Human Dignity Within the Realm of Promiscuity”

Whitehead, Evelyn Eaton and James D. Whitehead, A Sense Of Sexuality: Christian Love & Intimacy
.

Related articles

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in body theology. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

Opponents’ Attempts to Weaken UK Equal Marriage Going Down – Heavily (Updated)

May 20, 2013 — Terence Weldon

British opponents of the Marriage (Same – Sex Couples) Bill have seen the writing on the wall. Knowing that is going to become law, they tried to weaken it, by introducing a number of amendments, supposedly in the name of protecting religious freedom (but in fact, attempting to allow people to practice religious discrimination by one set of people imposing their religious ideas on others). So far, these spurious religious “protections” are going down, and by large margins.

By 150 votes to 340, David Burrowes has lost his amendment for registrars to be allowed to “conscientiously object” to having to carry out a gay wedding by 150 votes to 340 – a majority of 190 for the pro gay marriage camp. Superficially, this looks like an attempt to protect religious freedom, but it is not, as the courts have consistently found when registrars have tried to take a similar stand against conducting civil partnerships. Registry office weddings are civil ceremonies to conclude and witness legal contracts, not religious rituals. (If they were, the registrars insisting on their religious freedom would also object to marrying two atheists, or wiccans). If a registrar were to claim a religious defence in a refusal to conduct weddings between people of a religious or ethnic group s/he disapproved of, there would be a major outcry. In the same way, disapproval of same – sex couples, based on religious faith or simply prejudice, does not constitute a justifiable reason to refuse to fulfill an employment obligation as a civil servant.

A second amendment tabled by David Burrowes, saying that believing that marriage is between a man and a woman should be a “protected characteristic of religion” under the Equality Act 2010, has also gone down, by 148 votes to 339.

Another amendment tabled by David Burrowes, to strengthen the section in the bill saying that people cannot be penalised for not conducting a gay marriage, was defeated 163 to 321. This protection already exists in the bill – there’s no need to strengthen it..

These defeats for spurious “religious protections” were not based on hostility to religion: an amendment which clearly was based on freedom of religion, to protect chaplains in hospitals and schools from fear of penalties over same – sex marriage, was accepted by government and will be included in the final bill.

Meanwhile, things are not going well either, for the so-called “wrecking amendment” (which aims to immediately extend civil partnerships to opposite- sex couples. The leadership of all parties have agreed that this is desirable, but that it should not be incorporated into the present bill: there are too many details to be worked out, which would delay the implementation of equal marriage. There is now general agreement that there should be an introduction of civil partnerships for all, but not until a careful review of all the implications; the review should begin as speedily as possible; and it should concentrate on the detail, not the principle.

UPDATE: The vote on the wrecking amendment was also beaten, and by an even wider margin: 375 votes to 70 – a majority of 305. Earlier, the government’s own amendment to extend civil partnerships to all but only after an urgent review (which was in effect forced on the Minister by Labour and Liberals to forestall the wrecking amendment),  passed by 391 votes to 57 – a majority of 334.

The main substance of the bill, to approve equal marriage, must still be voted on tomorrow, and then get through the Lords. Technically, it’s still possible for it be beaten back in the Upper House, but with this strong a head of steam behind it, that possibility is pretty remote.

Equal marriage is on the way for England and Wales, possibly for implementation by the summer, 2014.

(This legislation does not apply to Northern Ireland, and Scotland has its own bill under way).

 

 

 

 

.

Related articles

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in Gay Politics, marriage & family. Tags: , , , , , , , , . No Comments »

Church of Scotland General Assembly votes to allow gay ministers

May 20, 2013 — Terence Weldon

It’s happened. The Church of Scotland while not approving of gay clergy, has approved a compromise motion that will permit local congregations to take their own decisions, thus removing the fixed prohibition on openly gay and partnered gay or lesbian pastors.

The Church of Scotland’s ruling General Assembly has voted to allow actively gay men and women to become ministers.

Assembly commissioners in Edinburgh voted in favour of a proposal that allows liberal parishes to opt out of the church’s policy on homosexuality.

The decision will have to be endorsed by the church’s regional presbyteries and officially approved next year.

Divisions were caused when the first openly homosexual minister was appointed by the Kirk four years ago.

Two congregations and six ministers broke away.

Commission report

The vote to allow gay ministers in civil partnerships follows a report by the church’s theological commission, which set out arguments on both sides.

General Assembly rules dictate it must be approved at a presbytery level and then rubber-stamped at next year’s gathering.

Gay minister Scott Rennie was appointed at Aberdeen’s Queen’s Cross Church in 2009

The dilemma facing the Church of Scotland goes back to 2009, when the openly gay minister Scott Rennie was appointed to the Queen’s Cross parish in Aberdeen.

He was backed by most of his congregation and by the General Assembly, but the decision resulted in protest and the break-away of a small number of congregations and ministers.

Speaking to BBC Radio Scotland, Reverend Rennie said the General Assembly vote was a “good decision” and a “fair compromise”.

At the Kirk’s gathering in 2011, commissioners voted to accept gay and lesbian clergy – on the condition they had declared their sexuality and were

ordained before 2009.

At that General Assembly, the theological commission was set up to report this year, before a final decision was taken.

Last June, a Glasgow Kirk became the first to split from the Church of Scotland over the issue of gay clergy. St George’s Tron Church said its 500-strong congregation believed the General Assembly’s decision in 2011 had “marginalised the Bible”.

- full report at  BBC News

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in Gay Catholics/ Christians, Ministry, Church structure. Tags: , , , , , . No Comments »

Poll shows most Britons want gay marriages and straight civil partnership

May 20, 2013 — Terence Weldon

New YouGov poll shows majority of Britons support same-sex marriages and civil partnerships for straight couples

Newspaper headlines on the state of the Marriage (Same- Sex Couples) bill now in its third reading in parliament, suggest that the bill is in trouble, under threat from strong opposition inside his own party. The evidence is rather different. A new opinion poll by Yougov, and an analysis by Yougov President Peter Kellner, puts the record straight.

Gay marriage poll, Yougov May 2013

The Conservative Party is indeed divided on the matter – but certainly not strongly against – and the public as a whole are in favour, with a clear but not overwhelming majority in support. Older  voters, Conservative activists among them, are opposed, by a substantial two to one margin – but even so, Conservative voters as a whole are evenly split. Younger voters are even  more strongly in favour, by a three to one margin.

Reports today that the entire bill could be scuppered by a superficially attractive amendment, to extend civil partnerships to opposite sex couples, were premature. The amendment is in fact a transparent attempt by opponents to derail the entire bill.The British public supports the principle of this extension by an even larger margin than the support for equal marriage. Both the Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties agree – but have not been fooled, and will not support the amendment.

It will be a while before the dust settles , and some amendments to make further compromises for religious objections may still be approved, but the Bill remains on track to pass successfully through the the Commons. Next month, it will be taken up by the Lords, where the outcome is less clear.

20 MAY 2013 | BY RAKSHITA PATEL

Most Britons back same-sex marriage legislation with only a third against.

That’s the result of a new poll by YouGov.

It indicated ongoing support for the legislation going through the UK Parliament for the change in England and Wales. Separate legislation is being developed in Scotland.

The survey found 54% of Britons support same sex marriage legislation, with 36% opposed. Among Conservatives, more people oppose the measures than support them but the margin is narrow (48% to 45%).

And 64% of Britons support opening up civil partnerships to straight couples. Heterosexuals in a relationship were the most likely to back the change (73% supportive).

Civil partnerships give couples similar legal rights as civil marriage and have been available to same sex couples since 2005. At present, straight couples cannot have a civil partnership.

The poll also looked at whether people preferred marriage or a civil partnership. Nearly three-quarters of Britons (74%) would prefer to be married to someone ‘in an ideal world’. Only one in 20 (5%) would prefer a civil partnership.

This shows why it is important to allow same sex couples to marry – most Britons still see marriage as the ideal, preferring marriage to a civil partnership.

-continue reading at Gay Star News.

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in marriage & family. Tags: , , , , , , . No Comments »

Bishops Warn of “The Consequences of Gay Marriage”. Why?

May 20, 2013 — Terence Weldon

Today and tomorrow, the British parliament is debating the third reading of the Marriage (Same – Sex Couples) Bill. Once again, Catholic bishops are intervening, warning about the supposed “grave dangers” and risks to the long – term consequences of marriage. Equal marriage however, has been around now since 2002 as full marriage equality in the Netherlands, and since 1989 (almost a quarter century) as near – marriage, in Denmark. What have been the adverse consequences?

Deval Patrick, an Governor of Massachusetts, has been in a position to observe the consequences for not quite as long as the people of Denmark, or of the Netherlands, but still for a reasonable time – nine years:

Nine years ago Friday, same-sex marriages started happening in Massachusetts, and the time since then has proved wonderfully unremarkable. The sky has not fallen. The earth has not opened to swallow us up. Thousands of good people, contributing members of our society, have made free decisions about whom to marry. Most have been joyful and lasting. Some have failed. Ho-hum. And even as this principle of government treating people equally spreads to 11 more states and the District of Columbia, even as mean-spirited politicians stoke discord over marriage equality in election years, people just keep on being people, choosing their life partners by the same old mysteries, regardless of sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians, like blacks and whites a generation ago, want nothing more than to be ordinary.

via  - The Washington Post.

The most important consequence of extending marriage is (surprise!) people getting married.

It is certainly true that marriage as an institution is in a great deal of trouble: a quick check of the statistics confirms that in many areas, people are choosing cohabitation rather than formal marriage. Where they do marry, very often this decision comes after conception, not before the decision to start a family. Of those that do marry, many end in divorce. But generally speaking, the areas where marriage is in the greatest trouble is NOT where equality has been introduced. Internationally, overwhelmingly Catholic Colombia has one of the highest rates of unmarried mothers and cohabitation – but no gay marriage. Straight couples there are destroying marriage entirely unaided, with no help from the gay or lesbian community.  In the US, the comparable indicators, and those for divorce, show that marriage is in the deepest trouble in those red states where there are rigid prohibitions on gay marriage – not in Massachusetts. On the contrary, there is evidence that marriage equality has strengthened families (queer families), and been good for the health of both parents and their children.

Part of the bishops’ concern is that gay marriage will undermine the link between marriage and “openness to children”. But another heavily Catholic country, Italy, has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world. No evidence of an automatic link between marriage and children there, then, even without gay marriage.

In the USA, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chair of the U.S. bishops’ conference Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, was more specific in lamenting the passage of Minnesota’s equal marriage legislation, for its supposed harm to children, saying

….. the new law “renders senseless” the National Fatherhood Initiative of the Obama administration, since it claims “that a mother and a father together are superfluous and can be replaced by two men or two women.” He added that sexual relationships outside of marriage are harmful to individuals as well as society.

“Instead of strengthening, the Minnesota legislature’s decision to redefine marriage weakens motherhood and fatherhood, and so strikes a blow to all children who deserve both a mother and father,” he said.

I completely fail to understand the logic of this. An alternative Catholic argument against gay marriage is that a same – sex couple is incapable of procreation, so if two men or two women marry, and then fail to produce any children – which children, precisely, are deprived of both a mother and a father? He’s presumably thinking of the children that these couples may conceivably adopt – but they may equally choose not to. Gay adoption and gay marriage are independent issues. (And for the children that they do adopt, the choice may well be not between two opposite sex parents and same – sex parents, but between two same – sex parents and a single parent, or life in an institution with no real parents at all).

The core problem with Catholic bishops’ pronouncements on gay marriage, and on human sexuality more generally, is that they are usually based entirely on speculation and supposition, made with little or no recourse to evidence – and none at all to the real – life experience of loving, committed sexual relationships, of which they have none themselves.

That is why it is so important that those of us who do have such experience, and some understanding of these relationships illuminated by more than dusty theological manuals from the medieval theologians and the Council of Trent, should speak up and speak truth to power, whenever and however we can.

A second complaint of Catholic bishops is that equal marriage legislation, in the UK and in the USA, represents a restriction on religious freedom. This claim is even more  bizarre – the law in both Britain and Minnesota (and Delaware, Rhode Island and elsewhere) has been very carefully drafted to include extensive protection for freedom of religion, What it does not do, and the bishops appear to want, is to allow people of faith to discriminate in their secular lives, against people who do not share their views, or to prevent those denominations that believe with the Gospels in the importance of full equality and inclusion for all, from exercising their own freedom of religion.

At Huffington Post, the Conservative Member of Parliament Damian Collins, writing as a Conservative and as a Catholic, fully committed to the value of marriage and family, and to freedom of religion, writes that “Freedom of Religion Cuts Both Ways”. He is right.

I believe that everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, and that the lifelong commitment people make to each other when they make their marriage vows means something profound to them, and benefits society as a whole. I believe that these vows have great significance to the couples taking them regardless of their sex or sexuality. I say that as a father, a husband, a Roman Catholic and a Conservative Party Member of Parliament.

The question I would put to people who are generally opposed to same sex marriage, is that given the freedom of the churches to decide who they marry is protected, why are you against equalising civil marriage ceremonies, conducted in registry offices, so that they are also available to couples of the same sex. Which when you boil down the Bill is what it amounts to. What is the moral or religious argument for not allowing this in our civil law?

Some may say that allowing same sex marriage is a further step down the path of our society becoming more secular and marginalising the position of The Church and its teaching. In response to this, the proverb, “Physician, heal thyself” comes to mind. If the social and moral authority of The Church has been undermined, it has not been by parliament, but more by the actions of men like Cardinal Keith O’Brien.

- read more at Huffington Post

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in marriage and family equality. Tags: , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Openly Gay Priest Speaks Out

May 20, 2013 — Terence Weldon

In response to the recent spate of higly visible dismissals of gay and lesbian Catholics from ministry in their parishes or schools where they worked, a Catholic priest who has previously published anonymously a book of reflections on his life as a gay priest, has come out publicly, and re-issued the book under his own name.  We should thank him, and applaud his courage and honesty. 

Father_Gary_Meier

Meier, a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, is apparently tired of the treatment of Catholics who experience same-sex attraction by their own church. In the past couple of years, we’ve seen headlines about LGBT Catholics being denied communion, fired from teaching gym class, fired from leading music ministry, and removed from volunteer parish ministry, to name just a few examples. We have even seen a straight woman fired after 11 years of teaching because she privately supported the idea of same-sex civil marriage. Apparently, Meier had seen enough.

In a statement released this week, Meier decided that as he marks 15 years of priesthood he would publicly reveal that he authored the 2011 book and that he is in fact a celibate gay man. Meier writes:

“It has been difficult to remain part of a hierarchy that has been so hostile towards homosexuals in recent years… Our church once stood for and represented the radical nature of God’s love for all people. That is not the true today – especially towards the LGBT community – and therefore I feel compelled to stand in solidarity with those Catholics who have lost their jobs, have been denied the sacraments, have been excommunicated or who have been made to feel ‘less than’ by their church leaders because of who they love.”

- US Catholic

In any substantial group of people, a proportion will have a natural orientation to the same sex – just as they do in every human society, and have done in every period of history. It is not surprising then that the same pattern is found among ministers of religion, of every denomination. Religious professionals in fact may be more likely than other groups to have a same – sex affectional orientation: in many non- Christian societies, people from sexual or gender minorities are regarded as having special spiritual gifts, and are more likely to become the shamans and spirit – guides of their communities.

Ever since the Unitarian Universalist Rev David Stoll came out publicly in the year of Stonewall, 1969, several mainline Protestant denominations, and some liberal branches of Jewry, have been gradually adapting to this reality.  In the US, major groups of Lutherans and Presbyterians voted to remove absolute prohibitions on openly gay and partnered clergy in 2009 and 2010 respectively. In Great Britain, the Church of England already accepts gay and lesbian priests in civil partnerships (provided these are, or claim to be, “celibate”), while later today an assembly of the Church of Scotland will be voting on a proposal to accept ministers in civil partnerships – while leaving room for congregations who disapprove on theological grounds, to reject such ministers.

In the Catholic Church, there is likewise a high proportion of gay priests: higher than on other denominations, primarily because the rule on compulsory celibacy acts as a disincentive to men who are not gay, but not for those who are. The Church however is in denial, seldom acknowledging the existence of these gay priests, who are for the most part extremely cautious about coming out, fearful of the supposed hostile reaction that such a step would provoke, from their bishops and from their congregations. Even so, a slowly increasing trickle of priests are coming out, acknowledging their orientation, and publicly identifying as gay – but also insisting on their celibacy (a useful reminder that “gay” is not a synonym for sexual hedonism, as some of our most strenuous opponents allege). Fr Meier’s statement also highlights another important feature: before coming out fully, with a public statement, he was already out within a closed circle of friends and colleagues, and had been so even as a student in seminary. Very many gay clergy fit this pattern. Coming out is a process, beginning with an admission to oneself (and then, ideally, to God). Then follows coming out to friends and colleagues – and only later, fully publicly. The number of Catholic priests who have come out publicly is still minute – but very many more have at least begun  the process. Many of them will continue, taking it further. In years to come, openly gay priests will not be anywhere near as rare as they are today.

In the secular world, the reason gay men and lesbians are encouraged to come out as far as they are able, is their value as role models to young people who are still struggling to come to terms with their sexuality, and deal with the confusions and anxieties that this often engenders. For exactly the same reason, it is important that gay and lesbian people of faith should also come out, as far as they are able, in their worshiping communities, in visible sign that it is perfectly feasible to be both gay and Christian. By extension, it is even more valuable for clergy to come out. In the Catholic Church, the orthodox teaching is crystal clear that to be homosexual is entirely natural and not in any way sinful – but this message is often obscured, so that young people do not receive it, experiencing instead only the perception of outright rejection. What better way can there be, to demonstrate emphatically that gay people truly are welcome in the Church than to have one of us at the altar, as celebrant? Even his own archdiocese agrees that this visibility will send a positive message to other Catholics who “struggle with the same feeling”.

 The initial reaction of his own archdiocese has been mostly positive, as a statement released emphasizes that all people are children of God and no one is to be condemned for their sexuality. The statement also says that “Fr. Meier has before him an opportunity to be an example and mentor to Catholics in the archdiocese who struggle with the same feelings,” which while true in the sense that he will be a mentor to others may not be the best choice of words, as “struggle” still implies that there is still something wrong with people who are attracted to members of the same sex. Regardless of what the archdiocese says, the floodgates are likely to open and Meier will undoubtedly receive some harsh criticism from many in the church. Some will probably call for him to be dismissed from the priesthood or banned from public ministry. He’s undoubtedly aware of this, and hopefully he will maintain his resolve to speak up for others who must deal with the same type of criticism from their brothers and sisters in Christ. 

For many who have already reconciled their same-sex attraction with their identity as children of God, the real “struggle” is being accepted in their own church. Having an advocate like Meier in the ranks of the priesthood can only help their cause.

- US Catholic.

In  fact. the full statement from the archdiocese is rather less supportive and sympathetic than the extract quoted by US Catholic suggests. It begins by noting that for the past year, Fr Meier has been on leave “for the purposes of vocational discernment”.  After the observation that he now has the opportunity to be an “example and mentor”, the statement continues with a not very subtle hint as to what it expects that “vocational discernment” should lead to, and what kind of mentor he should be:

Whether he will seize this opportunity to proclaim the Gospel of Life which offers the truth about the beauty and sanctity of human sexuality, is entirely within is his control.

“The Church does not condemn individuals for having same-sex attraction. It teaches that all people are called to responsibility regarding sexuality — whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, priest or lay person.

“Our Catholic faith teaches that we are defined by something far deeper than sexual orientation; rather we are defined by our identity as children of God. We agree with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI when he said, ‘Every human being is loved by God the Father. No one need feel forgotten, for every name is written in the Lord’s loving heart.’ We encourage Catholics and all people of faith to pray for our culture.”

It is ironic that when Catholic oligarchs write about gay Catholics, they insist that we are “defined” by something deeper than sexual orientation – by which they really mean we should suppress it entirely. Gay Catholics themselves do not “define” themselves by their orientation, they simply acknowledges that this is one part of our make-up (just as we are not “defined” by any one of our language, nationality, age or religious characteristics. It is all of these together that defines us, not any one in particular). But in teaching on sexuality, it is the Church itself that insists on rigid definitions of male and female, and on a heterosexual “identity” that alone is worthy of recognition and acceptance. Nowhere does the Church expect straight Catholics to suppress and hide their sexual identity.  Rather, the Catechism encourages us to embrace our sexuality and to integrate it fully into our personality, as an important part of the human condition. But only, it seems, if that sexuality is of an approved model.

The more that priests like Fr Meier, and other gay and lesbian Catholics, can come out and demonstrate the value for ourselves in obeying the Catechism, and integrating our sexuality into our personalities, the easier it will be for younger people who grappling with these issues to deal with them.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in Gay Catholics/ Christians. Tags: , , . No Comments »

Presbyterians Celebrate Equal Marriage: “For the World Is About to Turn”

May 17, 2013 — Terence Weldon

The struggle for legal protection and recognition of same – sex partnerships is no longer a tussle between equality promoted by secular forces, and the value of marriage, defended by people of faith. (If it ever was: Mark D Jordan reminds us, in “Blessing Same – Sex Unions”, that gay and lesbian couples were having their relationships blessed in church, sometimes calling their ceremonies weddings, long before legal recognition was seriously considered).

Rather, the forces promoting equal marriage have included many faith groups. As a Catholic, I’ve paid particular attention to the contribution by other Catholics and Catholic groups, but others have also been prominent, especially in the mainline Protestant groups. In Minnesota, where in successive years General Assemblies of both the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ECLA) and the Presbyterian Church of the USA (PCUSA) voted to end their prohibitions on partnered lesbian and gay clergy, people from both denominations worked actively first to oppose the constitutional ban last year, and then to promote passage of the legislation to provide for equal marriage. It is widely expected that in their next General Assemblies, both will vote to accept same – sex marriage, in church. For the Lutherans and Presbyterians of Minnesota, there’s a double reason to celebrate: not only with their same – sex couples be able to enter legal marriage, but they could soon be able to do so, in church, with the full witness and support of their faith communities.

At More Light Presbyterians, which worked hard to secure the approval for gay clergy at GA 2010 and the subsequent ratification in 2011, and only narrowly failed to secure approval for equal marriage in church last year, there’s a post in celebration, aptly taking as its title ”For the World Is About to Turn“

My soul cries out with a joyful shout that the God of my heart is great,

And my spirit sings of the wondrous things that you bring to the ones who wait…

My heart shall sing of the day you bring, let the fires of your justice burn.

Wipe away all tears, for the dawn draws near, and the world is about to turn.

-Rory Cooney “The Canticle of the Turning” (Magnificat setting)

This lively Irish tune, which is included in the new Presbyterian Hymnal Glory to God, rolled around in my heart these last two weeks as those who have waited for many, many years saw the world turning toward justice for LGBTQ people in a stunning trifecta of state victories– RI, DE, and MN. A particularly strong showing of Presbyterians in Delaware (most of whom have signed our Stand for Love witness) helped turn the tide toward marriage equality only two years after a decade-long battle finally brought them a civil unions bill. Our good folks in Minnesota who organized, prayed, and advocated so passionately to fight back an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment only six months ago would not rest until the world turned in their state.

We give thanks to God for all you Presbyterians (and partners) who have been working for justice, some for decades, some since the last General Assembly. This weekend, MLP Board Member Ralph Carter will be honored by the Empire State Pride Agenda in Rochester, NY, for his many years of work, activism, and ministry in the LGBTQ community. We celebrate Ralph and so many of our other heroes who have been faithfully sharing the love of God for all people. If you would like to send a note of congratulations, please send it to ralph@mlp.org.

via MLP News: For the World Is About to Turn.

Rainbow Bridge , Minneapolis

Books

(links to Amazon.co.uk, UK)

Boswell, John: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Harper-Collins, 1994)412 pages

Comstock, Gary David: Gay Theology Without Apology

Glaser, Chris: As My Own Soul: The Blessing of Same-Gender Marriage  (Seabury Books)

Heyward, Carter:   Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God

Hunt, Mary: Fierce Tenderness: Feminist Theology of Friendship (Crossroad, 1991)

Jennings, Theodore W. The Man Jesus Loved (Pilgrim Press)

Jordan, Mark:  Blessing Same-sex Unions: The Perils of Queer Romance and the Confusions of Christian Marriage(Univ of Chicago Press)

Moore, Gareth OP: A Question of Truth : Christianity & Homosexuality(Continuum Books, 2003) 

Stuart, Elisabeth: Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian and Gay Theology of Relationships (Mowbray, 1995)

Sullivan, Andrew: Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality(Picador, 1995)

Sullivan, Andrew: Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival(Chatto & Windus, 1998)

Sullivan, Andrew: Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con 

Vasey, M: Strangers and Friends: New Exploration of Homosexuality and the Bible

 

Books

(links to Amazon.com, USA)

Boswell, John: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Harper-Collins, 1994) 412 pages

Glaser, Chris: As My Own Soul: The Blessing of Same-Gender Marriage (Seabury Books)

Hunt, Mary: Fierce Tenderness: A Feminist Theology of Friendship (Crossroad, 1991)

Jennings, Theodore W. The man jesus loved (Pilgrim Press)

Jordan, Mark:  Blessing Same-Sex Unions: The Perils of Queer Romance and the Confusions of Christian Marriage (Univ of Chicago Press)

Stuart, Elisabeth: Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian and Gay Theology of Relationships (Mowbray, 1995)

Sullivan, Andrew: Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (Picador, 1995)

Sullivan, Andrew: Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival (Chatto & Windus, 1998)

Vasey, M: Strangers and friends: A new exploration of homosexuality and the Bible

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in Gay Catholics/ Christians. Tags: , , , . No Comments »

Purple States Supporting Marriage Equality – Include Virginia!

May 15, 2013 — Terence Weldon

Earlier today, I described the results from a recent rash of polls showing that gay marriage now has clear and rapidly increasing majority support in the US not only nationally, and not only in the “deep blue” states, but also in some purple states: Michigan, Ohio, and Arizona (more red, really, than purple).

I’ve just seen a similar poll, with similar results, for Virginia.

gay-virginia

A clear majority of Virginia voters now support legal same-sex marriage, a sharp reversal from a 2006 vote to amend the state constitution to define marriage as for a man and woman only. Attitudes on guns and immigration depart from positions of conservative leaders in the commonwealth.

via   The Washington Post.

As in the other polls I described, the increase in support has been rapid, going from 46% to 56% in just two years. As in the Michigan poll, the most rapid increase in support has come from – Republican respondents.

The Post does not quote comparable results from previous opinion polls, but it does give as a point of comparison, results of the 2006 Amendment 1 ballot to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Using the “no” vote then as a proxy indicator of support for equal marriage, state wide support has gone from 43% to 56%, an increase of 13%. Among Republican voters, support has leaped up from just 15% to 40%.

This is not yet a plurality, but assuming that support continues to grow at anything like the same rate as in the recent past, it will not be long before even GOP voters will agree that the time has come for equality.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in Gay Politics, marriage & family. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

For Mary’s Month, a Queer Rosary

May 15, 2013 — Terence Weldon

“May is Mary’s month”, wrote the homosexual Jesuit priest and poet, Gerard Manley Hopkins, and also a time of (theoretical) spring, an appropriate  time for gay men’s thoughts to turn to – not love, but the rosary.

Taking his lead from Pope John Paul II, who added to the traditional rosary the “Mysteries of Light”, Stephen Lovatt has developed a set of five meditations for a rosary specifically for gay men:

  1. The healing of the Centurion’s Boy.
  2. The answering of the Rich Young Ruler.
  3. The raising from the dead of Lazarus.
  4. The Last Supper.
  5. The Kiss of Judas.

michael

Bookended by two entirely traditional Catholic prayers, to St Michael the Archangel and the “Hail Holy Queen”, each part of this rosary meditation is accompanied by a suitable picture, as well as words form meditation.

As a taster, here are his notes for the opening meditation, the healing of the centurion’s “boy”:

The Healing of the Centurion’s boy [Mat 8: 5-13; Lk 7:1-10; Jn 4:46-54]

    1. How much the officer loved his young batman. Now, the youth was near death and he was desperate. Perhaps the wonder working Rabbi would help?
    2. But why should a Pharisee condescend to help a gentile and an officer of the Roman Occupation at that? Why should he heal a pagan catamite?
    3. Still, the centurion would do anything for his boy, even if it risked humiliation at the hands of a Jew. Moreover, the Rabbi had a reputation for compassion as well as for miracles.
    4. The God of Israel was just and kind and could not refuse a request made for the sake of love. The Centurion plucked up his courage and decided that he would ask in confidence! “Lord, my boy is paralysed, in terrible distress.”
    5. Touched by the officer’s appeal, Jesus said: “Don’t be upset any more, everything will be all right. I will come and cure him.”
    6. The Centurion, knowing his ritual impurity protested: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof: but say only the word and my boy will be healed.”
    7. And the Master said: “Truly, I have never met faith like this in the whole of respectable Israel. Go, your boy is healed.”
    8. Now, the prayer of the Centurion is at the heart of the Roman Mass: the prayer of a gay man, whom Jesus commended as having more faith than any other He had met!
    9. Jesus reaches out to the despised and unlovely, the hated and feared: because God loves all that He has made. His arms are open to heal all kinds of his creatures and gather them to His Sacred Heart.

Centurion, with pais

Let us have faith that there is no unlovely part of our lives that His grace cannot touch and sanitize. . Let us only ask in confidence, knowing that He inspires, hears and answers all our prayers.

Lovatt’s interpretation is particularly appropriate for gay men rather than lesbians, but he is not the only one to have developed a rosary for our community. Another version, developed by the Metropolitan Community Church Berkeley, is suitable for both women and men. Eugene McMullan, a Catholic who was teaching a course with the MCC Berkeley, developed a set of “Relational Mysteries” which caused an uproar among conservative Catholic groups when they were described as “Queering the Rosary”. Since then, he has added Prophetic and Incarnational Mysteries, to form what he calls a Peace and Justice rosary. In a comment to my original post on the relational mysteries, McMullen described how he came to develop these, and included a useful link which I included in an update to my original post – but that link is now broken. However, Dignity San Francisco has combined all  three of these Justice and Peace mysteries of the rosary with the traditional three (Joyful, Sorrowful and Glorious) and the Luminous Mysteries, making a full complement of seven, for the seven days of the week:

SUNDAY: The Glorious Mysteries (1-5 traditional)

1. The Resurrection
2. The Ascension
3. The Descent of the Holy Spirit
4. The Assumption
5. The Coronation of Mary
6. The Wolf Lies Down with the Lamb (Isaiah 11:6)
7. Love Reigns

MONDAY: The Relational Mysteries

1. Ruth’s Pledge to Naomi (Ruth 1:16-18)
2. The Parting of David and Jonathan (I Samuel 20:35-42)
3. Esther Intercedes for Her People (Esther 4:9-5:2)
4. The Raising of Lazarus (John 11:38-44)
5. The Two Encounter Christ on the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35)
6. The Beloved Community Shares All Things in Common (Acts 2:44-45)
7. Love Reigns

TUESDAY: The Prophetic Mysteries

1. The Spirit Moves on the Face of the Deep (Genesis 1:2)
2. The Angel Appears to Hagar (Genesis 16:7-12)
3. The Parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21-22)
4. Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55)
5. Jesus’ Action in the Temple (Mark 11:15-17)
6. A New Heaven and a New Earth (Revelation 21:1)
7. Love Reigns

WEDNESDAY: The Joyful Mysteries (1-5 traditional)

1. The Annunciation
2. The Visitation
3. The Nativity
4. The Presentation
5. The Finding of Jesus in the Temple
6. Jesus Becomes a Man (Luke 2:52)
7. Love Reigns

THURSDAY: The Luminous Mysteries (1-5 traditional)

1. The Baptism of Christ in the Jordan
2. The Wedding Feast at Cana
3. The Proclamation of the Kingdom
4. The Transfiguration
5. The Institution of the Eucharist
6. The Conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40)
7. Love Reigns

FRIDAY: The Sorrowful Mysteries (1-5 traditional)

1. The Agony in the Garden
2. Jesus Is Scourged
3. Jesus Is Crowned with Thorns
4. Jesus Carries His Cross
5. Jesus Is Crucified
6. Mary Magdalene Weeps in the Garden (John 20:11-18)
7. Love Reigns

SATURDAY: The Incarnation Mysteries

1. God Breathes Life into Adam (Genesis 2:7)
2. Moses’ Mother Gives Nurse (Exodus 2:7-9)
3. The Bride Opens to Her Beloved (Song of Songs 5:6)
4. The Word Becomes Flesh (John 1:14)
5. Jesus Feeds the Multitude (Mark 6:30-44)
6. Thomas Touches Jesus’ Side (John 20:24-29)
7. Love Reigns

 

The Relational Mysteries:

Fidelity—Ruth’s pledge to Naomi (Ruth 1:16-18);

Grief—The parting of David and Jonathan (I Sam 20:35-42);

Intercession—Esther intercedes for her people (Est 4:9-5:2);

Restoration—the raising of Lazarus (John 11:38-44); and

Discipleship—the two encounter Christ on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35)

- Dignity San Fransisco, Rosary

 

Related Posts:

The Rosary for October: Subversive, Queer.

Therese of Lisieux: An Ally in Our Gay Great War.

Queer Stations of the Cross

Gay Passion of Christ Series (Jesus in Love blog)

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Posted in queer spirituality, Spirituality. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts «
»

Switch to our desktop site