• RSS Queering the Church

    • What a Difference a Year Makes! October 22, 2014
      Wikipedia gay marriage map USA, October 22 2013: By my count, that’s 14 states (plus DC) that had marriage equality one year ago. Wikipedia gay marriage map USA, October 22 2014: Note that the bright scarlet has changed it’s meaning.…Read more →
      Terence Weldon
    • For Gay Catholics, Nothing Has Changed – Everything Is Changing. October 21, 2014
      The familiar phrase, “La plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” is usually interpreted as “the more things change, the more they stay the same”. For lesbian and gay Catholics in the wake of the synod, this formulation could…Read more →
      Terence Weldon
  • RSS Spirit of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS There Will be Bread

    • Where Are You? October 26, 2011
      Greetings to all others who grace these pages! Thank you for stopping by. If you still have a reader pointed here, this blog no longer publishes in this location, but can be found at this new link. Please subscribe to the new feed, get the new blog via email or read us by liking us on Facebook or by following me on Twitter.If you want more, please feel free […]
      noreply@blogger.com (Fran)
  • RSS The Wild Reed

    • Photo of the Day October 22, 2014
      Image: Michael J. Bayly.
      noreply@blogger.com (Michael J. Bayly)
    • Quote of the Day October 21, 2014
      The idea that some random people are debating my life and my love now seems strange and insulting. . . . I am done with the debate on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It has reached the tipping point.The same week as the Catholic Church walked back even a modest welcome for gays and lesbians, a poll from Pew came out saying that over 85 percent of young […]
      noreply@blogger.com (Michael J. Bayly)
  • RSS Bilgrimage

  • RSS Enlightened Catholicism

  • RSS Far From Rome

    • the way ahead March 23, 2013
      My current blog is called the way ahead.
      noreply@blogger.com (PrickliestPear)
  • RSS The Gay Mystic

    • Faith, Doubt and Sexual Abuse in Film and Fiction = Amended Reviews October 19, 2014
      This is an amendation and extension of my previous posting.In this posting, I deal with three cinematic and fictional treatments of practicing Catholic priests whose faith is profoundly challenged by the revelations of the sex abuse scandal in the Church. I haven't forgotten the Synod on the Family, just finished in Rome. I continue to believe the vacil […]
      noreply@blogger.com (Jayden Cameron )
    • Synecdotal Ruminations and Reviews October 16, 2014
      The Road Through the WildernessIt's been a month since my last posting at this blog, and I've been busy immersing myself in Czech culture on a deeper level, especially its past religiosity and its present seemingly atheistic present. I've been plowing through some classic films of the Czech New Wave and some more recent ones that deal with our […]
      noreply@blogger.com (Jayden Cameron )
  • RSS The Jesus Manifesto

    • プロミスの返済は残高スライド元利定額返済方式 September 11, 2014
      返済に影響するものは金利だけ、そう考えているのであれば今一度利用している消費者金融のホームページを確認してみましょう。実は返済方式も返済に大きく影響するものなのです。例えばプロミスで見てみましょう。返済方式として残高スライド元利定額返済方式が採用されています。これがどういったものなのか、金融専門書を確認しても出てくるものではありません。そもそも、本来であれば管理均等返済方式や元金均等返済方式というのが返済方式の中でも一般的なものですが、残高スライド元利定額返済方式とは新たにできた造語だからです。今では多くの消費者金融がこの返済方式を採用しています。プロミスではこれによって月々の返済の最低金額が決められています。例えば借り入れが2万7000円までであれば1000円の最低返済額、5万5000円までであれば2000円 […]
  • RSS John McNeill: Spiritual Transformations

  • RSS Perspective

    • Video talk October 22, 2014
      Steve Chalke caused quite a furor last year when he made public his opinion that same-sex relationships were ok from a Christian standpoint ... see his article: A MATTER OF INTEGRITY:The Church, sexuality, inclusion and an open conversation. Depressing that a Christian Evangelical can see the goodness in gay relationships but in my church, Catholic leaders a […]
      noreply@blogger.com (crystal)

Pope Francis and the Gay Elephant in the Room

Pope Francis and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina

Pope Francis and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina

Pope Francis made sensational news aboard his return flight to Rome following a rousing celebration of World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – his first foreign voyage as Bishop of Rome. In a press conference held during the trip, Francis spoke candidly on a variety of hot-button issues facing the worldwide Catholic Church. However, one question posed, and the response offered by the pope, would remain cemented in the minds and hearts of numerous intrigued observers across the globe.

A reporter questioned the pontiff about the veracity of a rumored “gay lobby” of prelates that supposedly wields considerable influence within the walls of the Vatican. Much noise has been about this assertion throughout the news media and a variety of other credible, informed sources.

Pope Francis responded candidly by stating, “There’s a lot of talk about the gay lobby. But I’ve never seen it on the Vatican ID card. When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency to homosexuality is not the problem. They are our brothers.”

The profound implications of this statement must be analyzed realistically. No pope, at least while serving as Bishop of Rome, has ever issued a statement that even acknowledges the existence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered persons — apart from their role as being opaquely depicted as the malevolent enemies of “marriage” and “the family”. Whenever members of the institutional hierarchy refer to LGBT persons they address them not as fellow human beings, but as being “disordered” or afflicted with “same-sex attraction”, hopelessly lost and mired in their conscious sinful behaviors.

In a mere statement, Pope Francis essentially cast aside decades of negatively configured paradigms of fear regarding LGBT persons that have masqueraded as having a legitimate theological basis. By utilizing a word that most gay and lesbian persons in the twenty-first century have embraced as one that satisfactorily defines their sexual identity, the pope has chosen to wade into the debate over homosexuality from a positive, diplomatic point of reference rather than one of presumed judgment or condemnation.

In the midst of the rapturous reception to Francis’ historic declaration, many commentators rightly observed that nothing the pope had said, in any meaningful way, changed existing theological interpretations by the institutional church regarding gay and lesbian persons. In her latest NCR column, Jamie Manson underlines this fact, highlighting that Francis was responding to the reporter’s question about gay clergy in the Vatican. She further emphasizes that this is the only context in which the pope’s surprisingly tolerant remarks towards gay persons can be understood – when applied to celibate, gay clergy, following the Catechism’s directives concerning their orientation. She concludes her reflections by pondering whether Catholics anxious for reform and renewal can ever expect concrete actions to arise on the part of Pope Francis, and whether his overtly positive language has merely been pastoral window-dressing, devoid of any concerted efforts taken in the direction of meaningful reform.

Such an extremely cautious approach to Francis’ new papacy is understandable. In fact, it is a view firmly rooted in reality, not only of the circumstances occurring within the institutional church today, but of what has consistently transpired for the past three decades. However, the span of time during which Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio lead the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires offers a perplexing ingredient that has never before been present in the life of one who has ascended to such a high position in the institutional church.

The proposition of expanding the legally sanctioned designation of marriage to include same-sex couples was deliberated in the pope’s native Argentina in 2010. President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner fervently supported the legislative initiative. Cardinal Bergoglio, as the preeminent prelate in the nation and leader of the Argentine bishops’ conference, vociferously denounced the civic effort as “destructive pretension against the plan of God.” 

Despite his fiery rhetoric surrounding the issue in public, the cardinal’s behaviors conducted privately painted a very different picture of how his own character prompted him to approach this volatile topic in personal terms – as a human being relating to fellow human beings. In a meeting with the entire gathered assembly of the Argentine bishops conference, as it became increasingly clear that passage of the bill legalizing marriage equality was a matter of inevitability rather than probability, Cardinal Bergoglio suggested that the bishops endorse civil unions for committed gay and lesbian couples.

This legal notion has been categorically dismissed in the political realm as being a “cop-out” measure. However, a prelate who advocated for this solution, as a member of an ancient institution that is universally derided as one of the world’s remaining bastions of unbridled homophobia, could transmit a poignant message to wider society.

The Vatican’s theological stance on who merits “the institution of marriage” and its interpretations of human sexuality have been cemented in an archaic, “natural law” approach for centuries. The perception that romantic relationships, and all sexual relations, are ultimately oriented toward procreation has been the driving catalyst in the Catholic hierarchy’s intransigent position on this matter. In 2003, as an increasing number of countries were creating legal accommodations for same-sex unions, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the leadership of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) released a document that opposed even the proposal of civil unions as a compromise tactic to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage, stating,

“Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil. In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”

Thus, Cardinal Bergoglio’s modulated stance on the subject of gay rights represents a significant departure from the Vatican’s absolute denunciation of any efforts to extend legal protection to same-sex couples in committed relationships. Even if he was required to publicly oppose legislative initiatives to enact marriage equality in Argentina as the leading member of the Catholic Church in the nation, the Jesuit cardinal’s pastoral sensitivity enabled him to comprehend that this strife not only dealt with abstract legal guarantees, but also the fate of, and the personal dynamics that colored the realities of intensely dedicated relationships between human beings.

Throughout this tense period, Cardinal Bergoglio maintained a behind-the-scenes atmosphere of dialogue and tolerance. Marcelo Márquez, a gay rights activist and theologian, detailed how he wrote Argentina’s senior cleric a heartfelt letter about his own personal views on the legalization of same-sex marriage and how the pending legislation impacted his life directly. Shortly thereafter, Márquez remembers receiving a phone call and was shocked to hear the cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires on the other end of the line. Márquez described a cordial conversation that he enjoyed with the cardinal, in which Bergoglio affirmed the need for gay and lesbian couples to be able to have defined, legal rights in the civic sphere, but refused supporting marriage in a court of law.

While this reasoning may appear pathetically flawed and condescending to many, it is a tangibly dramatic shift in the Catholic hierarchy’s treatment of LGBT persons. During all of these secluded communications carried out by Cardinal Bergoglio, the emphasis was not placed on denigrating an individual’s sexual orientation as being “disordered”, or classifying their relationships as “living in sin.” This pragmatic, empirical approach reflects a desire, on the part of Bergoglio, to bridge the gap between official theological precepts and the lives of real people, who feel, who love, and seek happiness together. Even if theological demands constrained the cardinal, precluding him from supporting marriage equality for LGBT couples, Jorge Bergoglio’s actions reveal his deep sense of pastoral compassion, and his wish to ensure that gay and lesbian persons were treated humanely. Essentially, a prelate who advocates for civil unions implies that LGBT relationships are not worthless occasions of sin, but rather, meaningful covenants of love filled with devotion; deserving of legal protection and respect. Interacting with gay and lesbian persons in this manner ensures that human dignity, and not one’s orientation, becomes the lens through which all ensuing conversations are conducted.

Ultimately, Bergoglio’s pitch of moderation was rejected by his fellow clerics. An overwhelming majority of the Argentine bishops conference voted against the proposal regarding the church’s theoretical support of civil unions. Still, the nation would move forward to legalize marriage equality, the first in Latin America to do so. Currently, as Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis possesses the unique status of being the first pope ever elected from a country that has legalized same-sex marriage.

Such a distinction has most certainly not been forgotten within the recesses of Pope Francis’ heart. If he has sincerely brought a renewed sense of pastoral awareness to Rome regarding gay rights, it would bode well for the pope to continue to employ a characteristic he has displayed since the world first learned of his election — namely, that actions speak louder than words.

It would be very heartening to witness the pope meet publicly with a group of LGBT Catholics, or an internationally renowned LGBT advocacy organization. Such a gathering, held in a human rights context, would not necessarily need to signal an immediate overhaul in doctrinal interpretation. Yet, the visible, symbolic image of the Bishop of Rome, physically meeting with LGBT persons, not condemning them, but relating to them as fellow creations of God, would convey a powerful message of hope to the world. Affirming the equal, human dignity of those who comprise the LGBT community would not require Pope Francis to endorse marriage equality. Given his spontaneously charismatic personality, it isn’t hard to imagine the pope visiting a Pride event, not to preach, but to listen, to commune, and to enter into solidarity with those who have been so marginalized and wounded by the hierarchy’s vertically judgmental pronouncements on homosexuality.

A further, more convincing gesture, would be for Francis to use his global pulpit as pope to condemn nations that have harshly criminalized homosexuality as a penal offense. In some cases, these draconian measures have stipulated capital punishment as the most severe sentence used in combating the perceived “abnormality” of one’s sexual orientation. Uganda has infamously set in motion its unique version of an Anti-Homosexuality Bill, more commonly referenced as the “Kill the Gays Bill.” Initiated in 2009, with the fervent support of American Evangelical Christian allies, the bill would have made being gay or lesbian an offense punishable by death. After international pressure, this heinous provision has since been removed, but the pending legislation still contains a section that contains a category for “aggravated homosexuality” – this distinction is defined as engaging in homosexual sex more than three times, or doing so while HIV-positive. These acts, if discovered, could garner lifetime imprisonment. Moreover, one could potentially be incarcerated for up to three years if they had knowledge that a person was gay or lesbian but refused to submit this information to law enforcement authorities. The nations of Malawi, Cameroon, Liberia, and Nigeria have all crafted or passed similar pieces of legislation. In comparison to so many regions throughout the world where the tide in the gay rights movement seems to be turning significantly for the better, on the African continent, attitudes have become defensively entrenched and obstinate. Russia’s parliament has also passed an onerously anti-gay piece of legislation, which makes it a crime to spread any information deemed as “propaganda” that promotes homosexuality. In this latter instance, the bill’s passage was ensured in large part due to the pervasive cultural influence of the Russian Orthodox Church.

If Pope Francis took the opportunity to address any of these deplorable human rights situations, and highlighted the fact that all of these cases violate a whole host of Articles contained in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world would take note of the pope’s words. In this instance, the pope would be reiterating church teaching, the Catechism itself states LGBT persons, “…must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Francis would not have to wade into the controversial topic of the morality of same-sex unions, but simply denounce the atrocity of unjust laws that punish individuals simply for who they are. Perhaps then, with the admonition of the pope, countries that have ignored global pressure to reconsider such blatantly oppressive statutes might be influenced to re-evaluate or, eventually, repeal them. The knowledge that certain nations are nonchalant, recidivistic perpetrators of human rights abuses carries with it a powerful effect.

A final area – perhaps the most meaningful venue – in which Pope Francis could address homosexuality would be within the Catholic Church. A highly lamentable phenomenon in the United States has been the unwarranted termination of employees of Catholic institutions once their sexual orientation is discovered. Regrettably, this trend has only escalated in frequency since Francis’ election. Ken Bencomo, an English teacher at St. Lucy’s Priory High School in Los Angeles, California, was abruptly terminated from his position at the school after an article was found in a local newspaper detailing his recent marriage to his husband. Bencomo had been a member of the faculty at St. Lucy’s for seventeen years. He was extremely beloved by the student body. Protests by students, parents, and other faculty members have erupted in the wake of the unpopular decision. Bencomo was certainly not the first casualty of this cycle, but is only its most recent victim. As an increasing number of states have legalized marriage equality, the institutional church has reacted with bitterness and spite, seizing any method it can to deny acknowledging gays and lesbians as equal members of society. Citing the fact that openly gay teachers (in civil marriages, partnerships, or relationships) are intentionally disobeying church teaching is a convenient ploy utilized to justify these discriminatory actions. The cases of heterosexual teachers who have been fired because they are divorced and remarried, or living in long-term unmarried relationships have rarely, if ever, been documented. Obviously, a palpable ecclesial double standard is at work. If Pope Francis actively directed his bishops to ensure that such homophobic practices ceased in dioceses throughout the world, much of the Catholic Church’s credibility that has been damaged in recent years could be gradually restored.

During World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro, an empowered coalition of six pilgrims joined the throngs of other fervent, young, Catholics. Megan Graves, Lauren Carpenter, Delfin Bautista, Sara Kelley, Ellen Euclide, and Jennifer Guterman journeyed to Brazil as representatives of a spectrum of progressive Catholic organizations known as Equally Blessed. These resolute emissaries courageously made their way to World Youth Day to serve as living witnesses of justice, compassion, and dignity within the church. The radical cosmic powers of focused intention, conscious presence, and prayerful solidarity should not be underestimated. Who knows, if these six heralds of the Gospel had not been in attendance at this World Youth Day celebration whether Pope Francis would have felt compelled to confront the subject of gay persons during his press conference aboard the papal plane? Their prophetic convictions should inspire all of us. Each one of us, wherever we are, can be catalysts advocating for a renewed vision of Catholicism. As evidenced by the Equally Blessed World Youth Day coalition, enlightenment and dialogue is most effective and cathartic when carried out on a grassroots level.

Substantive doctrinal change within the Catholic Church will not occur over night. Nor can such reforms be expected to be championed by members of its institutional hierarchy. However, if Pope Francis sincerely changed the tone of the church, through public declarations and concerted actions, perhaps more Catholics would feel motivated to be agents of change and renewal. The apostle Paul described the universal Church as a Body containing many parts. Each part is different, and each organ has been blessed with a unique role and calling. If Pope Francis stays consistently resolved to changing existing attitudes within the institutional church regarding LGBT persons he could come to be known as the first-ever pope who embraced the truth that gay rights are human rights. But the required energy and advocacy to ensure that this truth is reflected in Catholic doctrinal expressions can only come to fruition through our own, unique, individual efforts. If Francis has initiated the pastoral blueprint, we must complete and erect the lasting spiritual edifice.

A Renewed Opportunity of Hope and Reconciliation

File photo of Pope Benedict XVI leaving at the end of his weekly audience in Saint Peter's Square at the VaticanIn times of disappointment or frustration, my mother has always supplied a poignant saying that has helped me to make sense of challenging situations, “If you continue using the same method, expect the same outcome. If you want to see a different result, try something new.” Keeping this in mind, I can begin taking the necessary steps to move forward from whatever the given quandary may be.

The news of Pope Benedict XVI’s (now referred to as the “Pope Emeritus”) resignation has left the church, as well as unaffiliated observers around the world, reeling in shock and confusion. For the first time in 600 years, a pope has renounced the Petrine ministry. The prospects of an uncertain ecclesiastical future have now given cause for many to hold their breath, in anticipation of what could be expected from the next Bishop of Rome.

Undeniably, anyone, regardless of their beliefs, or lack thereof, can acknowledge that today the Catholic Church is enduring a systemic crisis of epic proportions. In the West, particularly throughout Europe, the volume of individuals who identify themselves as practicing Catholics decreases year after year. Any sense of credibility or spiritual integrity that the prelates of the church possessed in the past has been eroded in the wake of the worldwide sexual-abuse scandal. The lack of a definitive response to this moral pandemic has convinced many that the members of the hierarchy are not serious about solving this pervasive affliction. The fact that numerous men in positions of ecclesial prestige have merely offered empty apologies, and the window-dressing of vague guidelines aimed at preventing abuse, cements this sentiment among the general public. How can a dilemma of this magnitude ever truly be repaired if justice and accountability have not been the guiding catalysts in confronting this crisis?

Conventional wisdom has sought to designate the southern hemisphere as being the future of global Catholicism. There, an intense, vibrant expression of the faith is said to be a guaranteed key in winning further adherents to the church. Yet, a mistake is made when rigidly applying this analysis. It is commonly assumed that the scourge of pedophilic abuse is not an issue in countries of the global south. A prominent cardinal of the Roman Curia, hailing from Ghana, recently declared as much to the media, stating that this phenomenon is so rampant in the Western world because of cultural variations between the northern and southern hemispheres. He further implied that this sociological barrier existed as a result of the tolerance of homosexuality throughout most of the northern hemisphere, compared to its condemnation in countries of the southern hemisphere. Although it is not as pronounced or notable, cases of minors being sexually abused by clerics have, indeed, been documented in this region of the world.

In fact, in many countries, there is a sexual crisis of another sort. In this occasion the problem is not necessarily one of abuse. Throughout the African continent, where the numbers of entrees to seminaries constantly abounds, the vow of celibacy taken by those entering the priesthood is not always observed to the letter of the law. The custom of consciously disregarding this oath has been established by countless priests. It is not unusual for mistresses, and in numerous cases, even entire families (including multiple female partners and children) to clandestinely live with the pastor of a parish. Failing to give open acknowledgement to such arrangements does not erase their existence from the minds of most parishioners, many of whom privately condone the practice.  In the context of the African church, the notion of priestly celibacy is regarded as an irritating European aberration. In the prevailing culture, a man is expected to fall in love with a woman, to marry, and to have children — not doing so is viewed as abnormal. These conditions have become the norm throughout large portions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Thus, on all geographical frontiers, questions of sexuality threaten to deteriorate the binding tapestry of faith and tradition that has composed the Catholic Church for centuries.

It seems that the former pontiff may have realized the implications all of these realities held for the church in the twenty-first century. Noticing subliminal hints of this line of reasoning in Benedict’s statement of resignation could prove helpful in establishing the criteria by which the future pope will be elected. Upon renouncing the papacy, the pope stated, “My strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry…in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.”

This was seen as an expression on the part of the Pope Emeritus that not only were the effects of his age physically impacting his daily routine, but also, that his escalating frailty prevented him from responding comprehensively, and genuinely, to the pressing questions of the times we now live in. Longtime observers of Joseph Ratzinger’s theological temperament could very well have predicted this outcome from the first day of his election as pope. Although in his youth he did attend the Second Vatican Council, and was fairly progressive-minded in its wake, Ratzinger would eventually succumb to a crippling attitude of fear. As innovations following the historic assembly were implemented on a fairly rapid scale, Ratzinger began to view these changes as being rash and excessive. Criticizing new trends of liturgical practice and theological nuance, he began to complain that the Council’s message had been interpreted far too liberally. Soon, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger would become the institutional church’s chief proponent for nostalgically looking to a bygone era of the past. In this world, the notions of hierarchy, doctrine, and obedience formed the basis of the Catholic faith, instead of the values of episcopal collegiality, primacy of the individual conscience, and theological objectivity that Vatican II would espouse.

Still, a question begs to be asked: How can the problems of the 21st Century be solved with 18th Century solutions?

In a candid conversation with my parish priest, I once asked him his thoughts on what he felt Jesus of Nazareth would have to say if He were living and breathing in the flesh, in today’s world. His reply was to quote one of Jesus’ most comforting and repeated exhortations in the Gospels, “Be not afraid!” (Matthew 14:27) This summons to courage was utilized so often by the late, Blessed John Paul II that it is often described as the unofficial motto of his pontificate.

This same hopeful premise was also the underlying theme in most of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. When it was finally completed, the entire trajectory and driving purpose of this monumental gathering was intended to impel the Catholic Church to have a greater, more intense dialogue with the modern world. Rather than seeing the church as diametrically opposed to all of the implications that modernity had to offer, Vatican II painted the church as an entity that was in the world, and not removed from it. In the words of Blessed John XXIII, who convened the Council, but would not live to see its completion, “We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand. In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfillment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.”

Undoubtedly, the failure on the part of the hierarchy to confront the global, human questions that the “signs of the times” have engendered is the biggest mistake the institutional church has made in the fifty years that have passed since the conclusion of Vatican II.

Earlier today, the College of Cardinals entered, and were subsequently locked within, the Sistine Chapel to elect Benedict XVI’s successor. This year, the events leading up to, and taking place during the Conclave have all occurred under the auspices of the liturgical season of Lent — traditionally observed as a time of conversion and repentance. Conventionally, repentance is usually understood as being contrite and remorseful for one’s sins. However, the biblical calls , to “repent” or “convert”, as Jesus of Nazareth and John the Baptist urged their followers to do, mean not to simply be sorry for one’s failings, but also, to turn towards God, and to adopt a new mode of being. This should make it all the more clear to the cardinals gathered in Rome that the Conclave of 2013 should not be business as usual.

My mother’s always-appropriate expression happens to paraphrase a similar message that can be found echoing from the mouth of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel, “Neither is new wine, put into old wineskins, otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.” (Matthew 9:17) In today’s paradigm, the wine described can symbolically be identified with the Catholic faith. The enlightening truth of the Gospel, (namely, God’s self-communication of love to us in the person of Christ) and the enduring traditions of the church must always be maintained. But new approaches (new “wineskins”) and insights must be used in transmitting the faith, allowing it to stay fresh and relevant for coming generations.

May we all pray that the College of Cardinals elects a pope who does not simply preserve the theological and bureaucratic status quo, that has been the norm in the Vatican for centuries, but instead realizes that whoever the next pope will be, he will have as his mission the task of emulating and personifying the Christ of the Gospels — engaging all members of the human family in a spirit of love, justice, and peace.

Now, more than ever, the Spirit of God must prevail, instead of the finite whims of fallible men. The credibility of the Roman Catholic Church has been universally placed under scrutiny. The church’s future hangs in the balance. Will it continue to remain a viable spiritual path, or is it destined to gradually be reduced to a reactionary cult?

Veni Creator Spiritus!

Embarking on a New Journey of Consciousness

Mayan CalendarAs the year 2012 concluded, much noise and media attention was paid to a curiosity found within the Mayan calendar.

The ancient Maya were a Mesoamerican civilization in which all aspects of conventional society revolved around the study of astrology. Their calendar was based entirely on predictions and insights that could be gained by studying the stars and planetary movements that take place in our galaxy. This system was so meticulously accurate that modern-day scientists have been able to chart and identify astronomical events that have occurred in coordination with projections detailed in the calendar.

A sudden panic took hold of many, across the globe, when a discovery was made. The calendar, which chronicled time from hundreds of thousands of years ago to our own present day in age, seemed to inexplicably end on December 21, 2012. Given the calendar’s weighty reputation for being precise in its astronomical forecasts, many around the world began to fear that this date would bring about the end of our planet.

Although such a response may have seemed rational, something else must be taken into consideration.

In the Mayan paradigm, time was viewed not as being simply a linear progression, but rather, cyclical in nature. Their calendar was arranged by various “ages” or periods, in which the gods had attempted to enact harmony and order within the human race and throughout the world.

The most recent age on the calendar which we had been living out was initiated in 3114 BCE. The beginning of this age marked a movement of humanity out of the Neolithic period (where a sparse existence of hunter-gathering had been the norm for our homo sapien ancestors) towards the advent of civilization — when an era was inaugurated in which our species pursued advanced techniques of agricultural development, the establishment of cities and metropolitan complexes, and where a greater sense of collaboration and discovery was sought amongst the entire human race.

The end of this temporal cycle on December 21, 2012 was to commemorate a dual reality. First, it would mark a rare celestial event that only occurs once every 26,000 years. Driven by the gravitational pull of the earth’s axis, the sun crossed a point in the Milky Way galaxy which is known as the galactic equator (For a much more thorough and accurate explanation of this phenomenon than I could ever hope to give here please consider consulting a respected astronomical/scientific source for pertinent information). Secondly, to the Maya, this cosmic rarity marked the end of the current mode of consciousness. In short, the end of the calendar on this date proclaims not an end of our world, but a new beginning, a renewed opportunity of transformation, joy, and light for all humanity.

When all of the successes and triumphs of the past centuries are analyzed in this spirit, it could be legitimately argued that the human race is progressing towards a point of definitive enlightenment on its evolutionary journey.

Although they have not been eradicated by any means, racial disparities that once divided societies are gradually crumbling in the face of a heightened sense of exposure and empirical awareness.

Even though gender inequality is still a very real problem worldwide (the infamous case of a woman’s recent gang-rape in India underscores this), women have burst through the glass ceilings of nearly all of societies highest echelons — a woman leads the most prosperous economic power in Europe, one of America’s most beloved television personalities and entrepreneurs has attained a position as one of the world’s most successful and recognizable faces, and there are rampant rumors that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton will take one more chance at breaking the ultimate glass ceiling of being the first female occupant of the White House.

My own state, along with others throughout the nation, as well as an increasing number of countries throughout the world, continues to affirm that legally, nothing distinguishes the love and commitment that two persons of the same-sex share with one another from couples who are of the opposite gender. In recent years, the United Nations has passed resolutions declaring LGBT persons as a discernible minority within society who are deserving of certain rights that guarantee their protection in light of this reality; in addition to guarding these individuals from extrajudicial executions seeking to target them outside of the scope of the law because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

A final heartening observation is that human beings throughout the world are now more connected than ever before. In a matter of seconds, information can be disseminated or exchanges conducted through a plethora of technological and social media tools — the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, email, and smart phones are all instruments that facilitate today’s highly charged atmosphere of interaction.

Despite these monumental breakthroughs in human achievement, a moral deficit remains in terms of how far we as a species must progress in order to eradicate numerous conditions and circumstances that unfortunately exist in all areas of the world.

For example, our church is a spiritual entity that offers a tremendous amount of good to global society. Countless emissaries of the Catholic Church — whether they be members of religious orders, clergy, social workers, or lay faithful — work to live out the promises of the Gospel in the lives of the least among us. Charities, immigration centers, and hospitals are just a few of the indispensable humanitarian services that people of within the church have courageously provided for centuries.  Yet, as an institution centered around the all-male hierarchy of bishops, headed by the pope, Catholicism has failed to read the signs of the times that so desperately need to be addressed in the twenty-first century. The inherent equal dignity of women is denied when the Vatican refuses to entertain the possibility of ordaining women, hiding behind archaic arguments that attempt to present the gender of Jesus of Nazareth as a defense for theological chauvinism. The humanity of LGBT persons is scorned when the Roman Magisterium classifies their orientation as a “disorder” and financially supports efforts to keep in place measures that condone legally sanctioned discrimination in the areas of marriage and adoption by same-sex couples. As recently as last month, Pope Benedict XVI responded to the latest initiatives to recognize civil marriages between gay couples by stating that, “…policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.” If various agents within the Catholic Church consciously endorse sentiments that marginalize and subjugate women and LGBT persons within their own spiritual frame of reference, doesn’t this mean that they are in league — albeit indirectly — with forces throughout the world that are constantly acting to suppress these groups?

Poverty, income inequality, widespread famine and disease continue to plague our world. In a gross display of irony, these afflictions often are more pronounced in countries that are wealthy and economically developed. Nations such as our own, China, and especially India would be found in this category. While they possess the resources and the means to reduce this phenomenon, lip-service is all that is ever paid to this problem. An emphasis on the goodwill of charities and churches to reduce the effects of poverty is usually highlighted, while no meaningful solutions are compiled to confront the systemic and social causes that perpetuate its grip on humanity.

The benefits of technological innovations to human society were mentioned above. However, these advances have become so hi-tech and personalized that they ultimately might be having a more detrimental effect on us than we could ever realize. iPhones and the social networking tools that go along with them are wonderfully convenient. Yet, one can become so tethered to the comfort and ease of speaking to a person behind a screen that this type of interaction with another becomes normal. Focusing all visual and mental stimulations solely on a virtual plane, as opposed to a physical one, could desensitize many of us to the wonder and vibrancy of making a human connection. In a sense, it seems that our culture has moved in this direction. To say hello to a stranger on the street is viewed as abnormal. Stepping out of our own comfort zones in hope of empathizing with another’s life experience is a lost art form. This radical form of individualism on steroids is having a highly corrosive effect on our society as a whole. The truth may be that today’s world is the most interconnected network of persons that has ever existed on our planet, but it could also be a fact that on a personal basis, human being-to-human being, our species has reached the most isolated point in its evolutionary journey of self-discovery.

Recent days have shown us that a pervasive disregard for human life is now the status quo of everyday life. What else motivated the heinous shootings in Aurora, Colorado, Newtown, Connecticut, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, or Tuscon, Arizona? The list of locations, dates, and names of the individuals who lost their lives in such horrific tragedies extends back years into America’s psyche. The ‘powers-that-be’ in Washington who have allowed inertia to prevail in the wake of these senseless acts are just as responsible for them as those who initiated them. These same powers are also complicit in multiple conflicts throughout the world in which no just resolution is in sight. President Barack Obama has made vast improvement upon many of the issues with which the United States was confronted when he took office. However, he continues to exercise enormous harm in one alarming area. Barack Obama has continued the Bush administration’s practice of drone strikes to eliminate individuals the United States government views as “threats to national security.” Such suspects are targeted without the parameters of due process and international law. How can the leader of the free world hope to achieve success on the avenues of peace in the Middle East, or elsewhere, when he can simply sign off on the termination of an unquestioned subject’s life with the stroke of a pen?

Such instances are a collective failure of humanity to live up to the fullest extent of its, divinely intended, potential. However, there is no need for these statistics to continue. Each one of us has the capacity to put a stop to these stains on the universal human conscience. We can foster a new mode of being, simply by using our thoughts, words, or actions on behalf of the virtues of positivity, inclusion, and temperance.

The ancient Mayans felt that the attitude with which humanity confronted each new cosmic era would determine its fate for the near future. If we choose to enter this new era of positive consciousness, accepting the profound reality it embodies, we may expect peace and tranquility to be ours to enjoy in the future. Yet, if we ignore the inner shift in consciousness that the end of the calendar signals, cataclysmic events of negativity and discord will continue to be the new normal that the world awakens to each day.

Will we remain static, in the very depths of our human capabilities, lodged in the state of the “old self,” as the apostle Paul would characterize it. Or will we realize our divine calling, and rise to the fullness of our inherent potential? Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians would later depict as the “New Adam” through the eyes of faith, saw as His mission the task of bringing glad tidings to the poor, proclaiming release to those in bondage, recovering sight for the blind, and liberating those who are oppressed in any way (Luke 4:18). Each, and every member of the human race has been anointed for this same path of reconciliation and transformation. The choice is ours for the taking.

What weight will America’s exceptionalism carry for future generations?

Today, the Catholic Church throughout the world is engaged in a fierce struggle to define what its long-term identity will be for outside observers. Here in the United States, this ecclesial tension has reached a tumultuous boiling point. Women religious, who were the main players in erecting the American church’s primary contributions to society at large (education, healthcare, charities), now face a predicament that embodies this ideological strife in very real and personal terms.

In the decades following the Second Vatican Council, few took the Council’s exhortation to read the “signs of the times” and to be the People of God more seriously than religious sisters did. Emerging from the cloisters of convents, casting off the obscuring garb of a bygone era, American women religious embarked on their mission to live the Gospel sincerely and radically – as the charisms of their respective orders intended. When accepting and confronting “the signs of the times” meant questioning long-established theological norms and doctrines these courageous women did not waver in their commitment to following Christ. Even as they critiqued and pondered the relevance of various pronouncements and regulations, they did so in the same spirit of justice, mercy, and peace that animated the whole duration of Jesus of Nazareth’s public ministry.

As U.S. women religious throughout the nation face the prospect of being “reformed,” (or rather, put in line with Vatican-thinking) many American Catholics consider the values that have impelled these sisters for centuries to be much more central to their faith than those espoused by members of the episcopacy and the bureaucratic apparatus of the Vatican. Nevertheless, the institutional church of Rome continues to do all in its power to create a Catholic Church that stresses unquestioning adherence to doctrine, a static uniformity of theological opinion, and, in our uniquely American context, a firm alliance with the political and cultural right – for the sake of pursuing its own agenda.

 
With the country approaching yet another presidential election, it becomes apparent that not only are domestic issues at stake, but rather, our fundamental identity as the Land of the Free is the equation voters will be given to evaluate as they cast their ballots in November.

The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. As the annals of history are examined, numerous circumstances can be found to attest to how our country would not exist without the phenomenon of immigration. Think of how our very founding was made possible, at the hands of British colonists who sought to live unencumbered lives characterized by liberty and freedom of expression. Or, on a more somber note, consider how many countless souls, mired in cloaks of uncertainty and robbed of their inherent, human dignity, were brought to these shores against their will. In a general sense, call to mind all those who have fled their native countries, seeking in America a beacon of hope, promise, and opportunity. These individuals comprise the foundation of what we know as the possibility of the American dream. In June of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a verdict in a case involving the state of Arizona’s law (S.B. 1070) that had been created to deal with the issue of undocumented immigrants crossing over its shared border with Mexico in great numbers. The Court ultimately invalidated most of the components of S.B. 1070 (which would have made it a criminal offense to hire, house, shelter, or transport undocumented persons). However, the most alarming provision in this legislation was curiously preserved by the Court. The “papers please” clause allows law enforcement officers to stop anybody who they reasonably suspect to be in the country illegally, demanding that they show documentation proving their citizenship. In almost all circumstances, such an action would be warranted solely based on the external, physical characteristics of the individual in question.

 
The right to vote is one of America’s most precious treasures. Yet, in many states nationwide, extremely onerous steps have been taken to curtail the ability of, or make it highly difficult, for certain segments of the population to exercise their most fundamental civic duty – undoubtedly, for purely political reasons. Since 2011, forty-four separate state legislatures have introduced some form of restrictive law that could potentially disenfranchise major swaths of the electorate as next month’s presidential contest approaches. In eight of these states (Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New Hampshire), possessing a current form of photo-identification has been written into law as a mandatory condition for exercising one’s right to vote. Such a provision may seem to be legitimately aimed at preventing abuses or fraud from taking place at the polls. However, a realistic portrait of those who would be negatively impacted by such infringements must be taken into account when analyzing the long-term durability of these collective pieces of legislation. By and large, those who are hit directly by these repercussions are usually persons living in situations of poverty, people of color, or the elderly and disabled. For these individuals, actually getting to a local department of motor vehicles service office may be no small feat. Some may not have their own means of transportation. Especially when these offices are situated in rural or remote locations it would be nearly impossible to travel there to obtain a valid ID. The troubling aspect to this scenario is that most of these mentioned individuals would traditionally be expected to cast their ballots for Democratic candidates. All of the states that have chosen to pass these types of laws contain legislatures that are controlled by the Republican Party.

With such a plethora of threats to the very core of who we are as a democracy, it’s hard to comprehend that there could be anything else that could spell further trouble for the ideals that distinguish us, uniquely, from other countries. Yet, another recent Supreme Court decision could potentially, irreparably, alter the very ethical and civic playing field that has been faithfully maintained in our country for nearly three-centuries. In a closely-watched 2010 ruling, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held that any monetary donation by an individual to a political campaign ought to be considered an exercise of “free speech” guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the Court reasoned that under this interpretation, it was unconstitutional to ban organizations or corporate entities from giving unlimited amounts of funds to various campaigns of their choosing. The consequence is that it has now become legally sanctioned for corporations, and a slew of newly crafted autonomous political entities, (“Super PACs” – Political Action Committees) to unleash as much money as they humanely can towards the candidates of their choice. In this circumstance, one’s vote theoretically no longer carries any value. No matter how many people might vote according to their heartfelt convictions, the outcome of an election could ultimately be determined by who was able to spend the most money on behalf of their candidate. Even former Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, characterized this as the high Court’s “worst decision ever.”

As frustrated Catholics, whose voices have been noticeably ignored, and utterly silenced, by the powers at be amongst the institutional hierarchy of the church, perhaps a very clear path lies before us in these uncertain and disheartening times? All of these above-mentioned initiatives that hang in the balance as America contemplates another election offer a pressing array of questions to all of us as Catholics and citizens of this nation. Who are we as a nation? What sort of values and sense of ethics do we cherish? For what purpose do we exist as the global superpower we are today?

Affirmatively answering these questions is the task that has been entrusted to each one of us as Catholics who are concerned for the fate of our church, along with that of our country. Now, we may be called upon to exercise an unforeseen role in the immediate future. Partnering with Americans of all political allegiances, who are anxious about the civic direction in which our nation will move, it will be up to us to stimulate dialogue, and work through any means possible to instill social and conscious enlightenment. Let us not shirk from this new responsibility! Only if we truly believe, and work ardently for it, will we be able to keep alive the definition of America that has withstood the test of time for nearly three centuries, and offered hope to so many beleaguered souls, the world over.

How We Must Respond to the Inquisition of the Twenty-First Century

Although many have anticipated it, I could not fathom such a setback taking place. My Piscean hope and optimism impelled me to believe that the Vatican would never take such a bold, pointed step, displaying that it was intent on stifling any sort of objective or progressive way of thinking that was taking place within the church. Yet, last week, the institutional church of Rome announced that the Leadership Conference of Women Religious – the nation’s largest coalition of professed nuns –  would be undergoing a “reform”to ensure that its statutes and mission were in greater conformity with official Catholic teaching. Many sisters openly support a more nuanced, thoughtful approach when it comes to an array of issues dealing with the realm of human sexuality. This greatly troubled the pope and the bureaucratic apparatus of the Holy See.

Because of their consistent and zealous dedication to contemplate issues such as the morality of abortion, homosexuality, contraception, and women’s ordination the sisters have had the integrity of their faith, as well as their religious apostolate, placed under scrutiny. Archbishop Peter Sartain, the leader of the Archdiocese of Seattle, and a vocal foe of civic efforts to legalize marriage equality, has been tasked with overseeing the implementation of this “reform.”

In light of these revelations, it must be stated that such efforts in no way constitute the conditions that the word “reform” demands. This is nothing less than a modern-day Inquisition. It isn’t coincidence that the Vatican committee from which this indictment stemmed (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose former head, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Bishop of Rome in 2005) has previously been known as the “Holy Office of the Inquisition.” During the European Renaissance of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and in the days of the Enlightenment that would follow it, this entity bore the sole responsibility for the suppression, and attempted eradication, of any instance of provocative questioning that challenged the conventional wisdom that had been established by the institutional hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Joan of Arc, Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Frs. Hans Küng and Charles Curran are just a few notable subjects who have borne the brunt of this assembly’s assault on the cognitive process throughout history.

As I digested these realizations, I asked myself, out of despair and pragmatic concern, “Can I remain a credible member of an institution that stands for such blatant manifestations of homophobia and misogyny?” For some time, I seriously pondered the notion that so many have suggested before to myself, and other progressively-inclined Catholics – to join the Episcopal Church. For me personally, such a move would be coming full circle in spiritual terms. I am a former member of the Anglican Communion. In my later teenage years I felt compelled to enter into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and in 2007, was confirmed and received during the Easter Vigil. However, since that time, my thoughts and attitudes about a variety of theological and political topics have changed completely.

The foremost of these ideological evolutions was my own spiritual and emotional journey of discovery regarding my own sexuality. After coming to terms with, and accepting the fact that I was a gay man, created in the image of God, just as any other human being is, no longer could I view any segment of Scripture through a rigidly literal lens. Although I now accept my orientation as holy, and God-given, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church does not. In stark contrast, at least in the United States, the Episcopal Church openly affirms and welcomes LGBT persons completely for who they are. They are not required to live celibately, in order to satisfy the dictates of interpretations and theological regulations that have been concocted by fallible men. Instead, they are allowed to fully express themselves as the persons they were created to be – regardless of who they are attracted to, or who they happen to fall in love with.

If the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is punishing religious sisters for exploring and celebrating such a mindset, will there come a time in the future when the doors of all Catholic parishes will be slammed shut, as far as LGBT persons are concerned? Statistically, the climate within the church only seems as if it will trend in an increasingly more conservative direction. The men that Pope Benedict has been appointing as bishops have proven to be consistently conservative and reactionary on all matters theological and political. In an even more discouraging assessment, most younger men who are currently in seminary, or who have been ordained to the priesthood within the past two decades, are overwhelmingly more rigid in their approach to most doctrinal and pastoral questions compared to their counterparts who may have been ordained immediately before or shortly after the Second Vatican Council, which took place in the 1960′s. This was made evident recently when a very orthodox priest denied Holy Communion to a woman who happened to be a lesbian, living openly in a relationship with another woman, at her own mother’s funeral. Although this priest was later reprimanded, and subsequently suspended from the Archdiocese of Washington, such an incident, drenched in vertical judgment and lack of compassion, serves as a frightening portal into what the future of Catholicism could be.

I’m very blessed to have been directed by the Holy Spirit to an extremely welcoming, vibrant, and diverse parish here in Baltimore. The pastor is a wonderfully accepting and courageous man, formed in the innovative consciousness of the Second Vatican Council that was inspiring to so many. But what happens in the future whenever a new, younger priest might be assigned? I could very clearly envision what my fate would be then, especially if I happened to openly be in a committed relationship with another man.

These questions and potential scenarios were what drove my heart to deep despair, dismay, and dejection as I mulled over what  the implications of last week’s news meant for my life intimately, and the Catholic Church in the United States as a whole. With the purposeful direction that the pope and the hierarchy are taking, it seems that Catholicism, despite the efforts of many, will become nothing more than a cult as time passes. Gone will be the sacramental vision that reveres and celebrates the Sacred present in every man, woman, child, life experience; extending to all aspects of creation. The only recognized mediators of holiness will now be the pope, the bishops, and the all-male priesthood, who are the exclusive vehicles through which Divine revelation is interpreted.

If this is indeed the future of the Catholic Church, why remain? Such a vision is the exact opposite of the dynamic, inclusive Reign of God which Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed as the cause of His being, and would ultimately forfeit His life for. Perhaps, being a Catholic is no longer in keeping with my conscience?

As I wrestled internally with these questions, my mind was suddenly swept back to Call to Action’s national Conference of 2010. It was there that I had the life-altering opportunity to be in the presence of Joan Chittister, a Benedictine sister and global advocate on a variety of issues, most notably, those of justice, peace, and women’s rights. She had long been a spiritual hero for me. It was her prolific writing that helped me begin to approach my faith in a new manner, not merely accepting “divinely revealed truths”, but insisting on asking questions. In this way, I would come to realize, our faith was actually deepened and confirmed. At the Conference, Sister Joan was conducting a book signing. I eagerly brought a book of hers I had been reading on the trip to Milwaukee with me to the event. As the time came for me to approach her I was overcome with joy, and I have to admit, was somewhat starstruck. To ease the high intensity of that moment, I remarked that several months before I had written her a letter thanking her for the profound inspiration that her own works had meant for my spiritual life. I had also recounted my own struggle of coming to terms with my sexual orientation, as well as some daunting financial straits myself and my mother were undergoing. It was a very difficult period of my life in which I had trouble envisioning with certainty what the future would look like. I never expected Sister Joan to remember these facets of my personal life, but she surprised me by saying, “I remember your letter.” She continued, “Know that just you’re being here means something. Even in the valleys and the deserts of your life know that you are not alone. We are with you, all of us are with you!” These powerful words of encouragement will remain cemented upon my heart forever.

As I was leaving the Conference I had another chance encounter that would leave my life indelibly changed. On the return flight to Baltimore, by coincidence, I happened to be seated next to Sister Jeannine Grammick. Sister Jeannine has been a champion for years of the moral legitimacy and equal dignity bestowed by God to persons who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. For three decades, she has operated New Ways Ministry, a Catholic organization dedicated to affirming and welcoming LGBT individuals in the life of the church. As we chatted, I conveyed to her my gratitude for the wonderful and profoundly meaningful work she has done on behalf of gay Catholics. As our plane continued along its course, Sister Jeannine inquired about what parish I attended in Baltimore. At the time, I was attending the cathedral parish where I had been received into the Catholic Church. I mentioned that the solemn, choral liturgy was my main reason for worshiping there, rather than any sense of real belonging that made me feel as if I was an indispensable part of the community. Sister Jeannine proposed to me that I investigate other parishes that actively welcomed and supported individuals regardless of their background or sexual orientation. The parish I attend today was one of those she recommended to me.

Even as I went through the process of formally entering the Catholic Church a very dedicated School Sister of Notre Dame had helped facilitate and make the whole endeavor one of warmth, joy, and ease.

I must admit that my contact with religious sisters has been infrequent, compared to most Catholics who may have been raised in their presence, constantly being enriched by their guidance as teachers, catechists, or parish coordinators. But the aforementioned experiences I’ve been blessed to enjoy have greatly impacted my own personal growth, both spiritually and psychologically.

For numerous American Catholics, the sisters have remained the legitimate moral leaders of the church. In contrast, the institutional hierarchy has become ever more concerned with the legal precision of the expression of various doctrines, and the maintenance of the medieval vestiges of ecclesiastical power – all to the detriment of those who occupy the furthest margins of society. When an epidemic wave of bullying drove numerous LGBT individuals to see taking their lives as the only way they could be delivered from such relentless torture, what words of encouragement did our nation’s bishops offer to ease the pain of this tragic phenomenon?

Absolutely nothing.

It was the National Coalition of American Nuns that condemned the outbreak of suicides amongst many of America’s LGBT youths. This was done primarily out of a heartfelt obligation to do something, given that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had been notably silent on this pressing and deeply disturbing occurrence.

As I ponder these facts, and many other ways in which America’s religious sisters have helped sustain and edify the faith of the Catholic Church in the United States, I am greatly saddened, as a discouraging paradigm seems to be taking hold of the church so many of us love and regard as our spiritual mainstay.

Although many may legitimately no longer be able to find their spiritual nourishment within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church I do not see it as my task to leave at this point. First of all, this is not the attitude and the character that formed the mission and the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus never backed down from anything. His very life was animated with unbridled passion for pursuing justice, mercy, and peace. Impelled by the Spirit, these virtues sustained His cause even through the onslaught of suffering, and finally, as He emitted His last breath, in His final act of love upon the wood and shame of the cross. Even though the religious and political authorities of His day sought to extinguish Jesus’ impact on society because they saw Him as a subversive threat to all that they held dear, this never deterred Him from living out His mission of communicating the Divine to an unsuspecting world.

In the same spirit, I see myself called to remain in solidarity with the sisters who have offered to the world another, more maternal, image of God than those exemplified by their counterparts in the echelons of power. I am called to stand with Joan Chittister, Jeannine Grammick, Catherine of Sienna, Hildegard of Bingen, Teresa of Avila, Mary MacKillop and all religious women of conscience throughout the centuries who have remained within the walls of the Catholic Church and stood firm for their convictions, instead of letting the status quo of unchecked patriarchy hold sway.

As Sister Joan emphasized to me that all those who were dedicated to the cause that Call to Action stands for I could rely on for spiritual and emotional solidarity, so I must remain in unity, and unwavering support of these courageous women who are responsible for building and vivifying the Catholic Church in the United States as we know it today.

Two Scriptural passages seem to grant hope to all who may be experiencing feelings of uncertainty and despair with these most recent developments.

In the Acts of the Apostles, the early Christian community is presented as experiencing persecution from both the secular authorities of Rome as well as the religious leaders of Judaism. As Peter and other apostles are being interrogated in front of a panel of Jewish religious authorities, a respected Pharisee interrupts the proceedings, and says, “In the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them – in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” -Acts 5:38-39

If the cause of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is truly Spirit-driven there is nothing that the powers of men will be able to do to extinguish it, even if it is necessary for it to be transformed into an entirely new manifestation.

In the Gospel reading for the Fourth Sunday of Easter, the author of John depicts Jesus as stating, “I am the Good Shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away – and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. The hired hand runs away because a hired hand does not care for the sheep. I am the Good Shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father. And I lay down My life for the sheep…For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.” -John 10:11-15,17-18

Just as God has blessed us with genuine, attentive, pastoral shepherds in the ministries and examples of so many religious women here in the United States, so we must remind these valiant sisters that even in these dark days of despair and uncertainty hope is not lost. The Good Shepherd has gone before us, and continues to lead us in love, generously caring for all those entrusted to His fold. Even as the ‘hired hands’ of an institution have continued to flee from the implications that the signs of this age may be offering, Christ the Good Shepherd continues to lead His Church through unpredictable pastures. We shall fear no evil, for He remains always with us.

Why Madonna’s Super Bowl Performance Could Initiate a Much-Needed Conversation

Feelings are pointless, don’t ever let anyone see you cry, and make sure to master the art of sports to the best of your ability. This sums up the standard American definition of what constitutes a man. For my whole life, I’ve been aware that nearly all of the facets of my personality ran counter to such a manifesto. These noticeable differences have always made me conspicuously unique, compared to the other men whose company I’ve shared at different junctures of my life thus far. Until a few years ago, this reality was not seen as positive but rather something negative and derogatory that was viewed with scorn, sincere confusion, and outright contempt from some. Currently, my life is worlds away from such a precarious and cloudy atmosphere. But this does not erase the living nightmare that so many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender teenagers – and even some adults – endure on a daily basis just for being themselves, not being conscious of the possibility that things can and will get better.

A significant degree of the problem is most likely cultural. The question must be asked: why is there only one mold that is exalted in America as the legitimate way of being a man?

When Madonna was announced as the scheduled performer for the halftime show at this year’s Super Bowl the response from most male football fans was one of annoyance and, in some cases, sheer outrage at the selection. What would warrant a reaction like this? In recent years Janet Jackson, Shania Twain, and Britney Spears have all debuted at the year’s most awaited sports arena. None of these other female artists were met with such hostility or indifference when it was made public that they would be the entertainment for the Super Bowl of each respective year.

From personal experience, it is obvious that most men appeared to think that Madonna was too old or not sexually appealing enough to garner a sufficient volume of excitement to make the performance one to remember. To some, this may be a legitimate grievance about this year’s halftime show. But another dynamic is at play. The fact is, even though former artists may indeed fall into this category, it’s harder to find any other artist that screams gay icon more than Madonna – except maybe Lady Gaga… Where Mother Monster probably would have had more relevance because of her youth, comprehensive popularity, and global appeal, Madonna may be viewed by the average, male, football fan as simply being a gay, old, pastime that has no pertinence to his life whatsoever. Why should any straight man be forced to subsist in such an overwhelmingly uncomfortable environment?

If being gay and being a real man weren’t considered mutually exclusive would this even be a problem?

The organizers of this year’s Super Bowl have made it apparent that the theme of homosexuality will subliminally pervade the course of the game. A commercial will be broadcast to specifically combat the bullying of LGBT persons in an athletic context. Heterosexual men may not consider this topic one that would impact their lives directly. But this is precisely part of the dilemma that exists within our culture as Americans. Walls have been erected where they need not exist. The seismic gap between the heterosexual and the homosexual realms of experience can and must be bridged.

From my own vantage point, I have to admit that during high school, I vividly remember zoning out completely whenever the time arrived to participate in my daily gym classes. Unless it was to ogle a guy who I found attractive, I really never paid attention or cared much about the logistical strategies of the games that were being played. I even feel a bit guilty about it in hindsight. Nearly every day, I nonchalantly flaunted the fact that these activities held no importance for me. Daily, I could predictably be found strolling along the field as my classmates actively took part in whatever game was being played, or, if forced to participate, I would do the bare minimum that was required for me to be considered a player. The apathy I had was undoubtedly formed by the fact that I did not grow up in an athletic household. Because of this, I never had the desire to pursue any meaningful directions in the realm of sports. Thus, any potential athletic ability I could have possessed had never been developed, and when forced to participate in sports activities, I simply viewed the endeavor as a chore that had to be carried out laboriously.

Because my personality never really contained the brawn that is required to be successful in sports, I simply saw the whole enterprise of athletics as something that I could never relate to. Viewing the world through different eyes, it has become clear that such an approach is profoundly simplistic. Being raised in a certain environment does not give one cause to belittle or dismiss the experiences that others may find meaningful and endearing in life. If anything, stepping outside of one’s comfort zones and learning to view the world as others do will only serve to enrich one’s own personal psyche and sense of being. All humans profit immensely by expanding our horizons beyond the limits of our own backyards.

Adopting such a perspective means that someday I should really sit down, and take the time to learn, analyze, and take part in the athletic pursuits that most men around the world find genuinely entertaining and gain true fulfillment from. Perhaps all gay men who’ve never been naturally athletic could derive something from understanding the mental calculations and determination that goes into strategically organizing the course of a given game?

It should be a given that as the legislative and social push for gay equality necessitates that those who are prejudiced or bigoted leave their immediate spheres of influence to become acquainted with new perspectives, so should LGBT persons not simply demand to be civilly accommodated, but truly explore and investigate how they can take part in and learn from the world in which they have been born.

By the same token, many heterosexual men, particularly those involved in the athletic arena, could do a lot more to better understand the emotions and activities that give meaning to the lives of gay men. Cultural barriers must be eradicated so that certain activities, settings, or even people aren’t just viewed as “gay”, but rather as unique, offering something special to society that is not encountered routinely. A wonderful way for such an enlightenment to take hold across all of American society would be if athletes who happened to be gay were given the freedom by the media and their fans to be open and unashamed about their fundamental identities. How is it that professional athletes are allowed to physically jostle, tackle, and even grab certain parts of each other’s bodies to express their enthusiasm for the game, but if it was discovered that they were attracted to persons of the same-sex and in a committed relationship with such a partner, this would completely obliterate the sense of irreproachable masculinity that is accorded to them by their fans?

Dialogue always ensues by way of a two-way street. Even though it may be awkward for many, choosing none other than the Queen of Pop to perform at this year’s Super Bowl could be the perfect way to begin the process of having such a meaningful discussion throughout the nation.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers