The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionCrazy Cons Attack Card. O'Malley
by Michael Sean Winters on Jun. 24, 2011
“Some say that the Catholic Church hates people with same-sex attractions. This is not true. In fact, if there are any members of the Church who hate people because of their sexual orientation, they need to go to confession. But it is true that the Church exists to announce the Gospel and invite people to conversion, to greater discipline in their lives as they seek to follow Christ’s teachings, which apply to everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.
As Catholics, we must oppose the hatred and rejection of homosexual persons that exists in our society. We do not want them to be the object of discrimination or violence. We believe, however, that God’s law is written in our hearts and that to lead a fully human life we need to embrace His commandments. This is not always easy, we all struggle and sometimes we fail; but a loving and forgiving God is always there to lift us up and help us start over again.”
Earlier this week, I called attention to a posting by Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley, OFM Cap, at his blog, in which he spoke about the Church’s stance towards contemporary issues regarding gays and lesbians, defended the Church’s beliefs about traditional marriage, and placed the Church’s stance on gay marriage properly alongside the Church’s stance against divorce and other threats to traditional marriage.
Most importantly, Cardinal O’Malley placed the entire issue of defending traditional marriage within the Church’s most fundamental anthropological and ethical belief, the inviolability of human dignity. The key graphs in O’Malley’s statement read:
The occasion for this statement was controversy surrounding a Mass at St. Cecilia’s parish intended to coincide with Boston’s Gay Pride Week. I recall attending St. Cecilia’s as a boy when we would go up for a baseball game at nearby Fenway Park, and stay overnight at the adjacent Prudential Center. Evidently, the parish has become a spiritual home for many gay and lesbian Catholics. Every city has such a church. Cardinal O’Malley was, however, understandably concerned that the Church not be seen as endorsing “Gay Pride.” Pride, you may recall, is one of the seven deadly sins and gay pride festivals do tend to invite some pretty outrageous behavior. A dear gay friend in Washington used to call that city’s gay pride festival “Gay Shame Day” on account of the over-the-top, often exhibitionist behavior. So, it is understandable that Cardinal O’Malley asked the pastor at St. Cecilia’s to postpone the “Mass of Welcoming” for gays, lesbians and their friends and families to another suitable date. This sensible solution perfectly addressed the situation, guaranteeing that the Church was not seen as “endorsing” a social or political agenda alien to it, but nonetheless affirming the outreach efforts at St. Cecilia’s and the human and Christian dignity of those baptized Catholics who happen to be gay and lesbian.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Alas, what seems sane, thoughtful and sensible to you and me wears a different character to a group of angry bloggers in the Boston area. To them, O’Malley has long been a secret liberal, as evidenced for them by his presiding at the funeral Mass for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. These bloggers accuse O’Malley of dishonestly sneaking heretics into positions of Church authority, and have an entire website dedicated to “exposing” Father Bryan Hehir, a priest who knows more about Catholic Social Thought than any five other people combined, and whom O’Malley brought into the curia of the archdiocese. These conservative – and usually anonymous- bloggers have attacked almost any and every decision O’Malley has made during his tenure.
Now, they have turned their sights on O’Malley for his decision to postpone, rather than cancel, the welcoming Mass for gay and lesbian Catholics. Joe Sacredo, a pseudonym, begins his attack: “It’s pretty bad in Boston. The Archdiocese of Boston, where ‘relativism’ remains a household word, has flip-flopped yet again becoming the ‘John Kerry’ of firm decision-making by now firmly backing a Catholic Mass to celebrate Gay Pride.” Where to begin? The archdiocese clearly indicated that the Mass was postponed so that it would not “celebrate” gay pride. It is unclear how “relativism” entered the conversation. And, what on earth does any of this have to do with John Kerry, or is the invocation of his name the equivalent, in some circles, of a cuss word, thrown down without precision but to indicate anger, like a bull pawing the ground.
Mr. Sacredo’s criticism would have passed into the ether unnoticed outside his band of crazy culture warriors had it not been posted by retired Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas, Rene H. Gracida on his website. Then, Lifesitenews.com picked up the piece, at first mis-attributing it to Gracida, then issuing a correction, but unfortunately, all the while repeating the unsubstantiated and frankly ludicrous charges against Cardinal O’Malley.
It should not surprise that Bp. Gracida joined this particular pile-on. You may recall he produced a dark, threatening video opposing the election of Barack Obama shortly before the 2008 election. You may, if you have a longer memory, recall that Gracida so mishandled his leadership of a charitable foundation in the 1990s that the other bishops of Texas brought their concerns to the attention of the Attorney General of Texas for his intervention. After filing suit against Gracida, the attorney general brought the matter to closure along with a Vatican commission headed by Cardinal John O’Connor of New York and Gracida was retired. In short, it is hard to get angry with Gracida because his judgment has proved so questionable, that pity seems a more appropriate response to his rantings. Why on earth Lifesitenews.com would consider citing him is a question, and a searching one, for their editorial board.
Regular readers will know of my admiration for Cardinal O’Malley. And, I hope that he and other bishops realize that so long as some bishops are stoking the fires of the culture wars, so long as some bishops warn of civilizational catastrophe every time a vote goes against them, and every time a bishop fails to call out the hatefest that dominates so much of the conservative blogosphere, these kinds of attacks will continue. They are mis-guided obviously, but they are worse than that. It is hard not to discern an evil intent here, a desire to undermine the authority of the bishop, and therefore of the Church itself, because a bishop may take a broader view than they do, because he may believe in the medicine of mercy and compassion rather than the guilt-by-association, cowardly, anonymous, hate-filled attacks preferred by these conservative bloggers. There is a whiff of sulfur in the air in Boston, and it is not coming from the chancery, nor from St. Cecilia’s.
Sean, In Mass. political
Sean,
In Mass. political circles, Kerry's serial flip-flooping is known to be legendary; even worse than Romney.
As for the temple police that are attacking Cardinal Sean, had they flunked Latin, they would be Episcopalians today.
I used to consider these folks a semi-serious threat to progress in the Church. Then, a conservative member of the parish moved to an even more conservative parish because he didn't like the way the altar servers lit the candles!
I am sure Cardinal Sean is not losing sleep over this. Perhaps, when he as a child, his mother taught him to, "Take it from whence it comes."
I'm reminded of a commentator
I'm reminded of a commentator on a Southern Baptist website who wrote, "I can't reconcile how someone could feel he or she was born with strong homosexual feelings, love Christ and yet take on the limitations of what seem to me to be straightforward biblical teachings. That's agonizing, and I don't really understand it."
And this is the weird thing: "Straighforward biblical teachings" should at least be understandable to the average person. So often I hear it said, "OUR ways are not GOD's ways," as if God was some sort of inscrutable alien being.
Consider The Golden Rule: We do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Put all the religious dogma and ritual aside, and this is what our laws boil down to. We don't lie or bear false witness because we won't want people to lie to us. We don't steal from other people because we do not want people stealing from us. We don't betray the trust of our spouses because we wouldn't want them doing the same to us. Same goes for killing and a variety of other "bad" behaviors.
And yet somehow there seems to be this sheepish adherence to a double standard for Gay and Straight people. If you're Straight, it's all so wonderful to be able to find a compatible person of the opposite sex, court and get engaged and marry and live happily ever after. But if you're Gay, all of that is completely out of the question. Don't even bother trying to find a compatible person. Lesbians and Gay men are precluded from any hope for romance or commitment. Gay people are simply told: "Gosh, sorry about that. You make us uncomfortable; acknowledging your existence means we might have to revise what we’ve been teaching all these years - meaning, Whoops! No infallible Magisterium or "literal" Bible ... so you’ll just have to sacrifice your life and any hope of finding somebody to love. Tough luck, kid. God said it, I don't necessarily understand it, but there it is."
I wish more social conservatives and evangelical Christians would at least TRY to wrap their minds around why this makes so little sense to Gay people, and why constant exposure to this sort of disdain is exactly WHY so many Gay young people end up taking their own lives.
Thank you, Chuck, for your
Thank you, Chuck, for your thoughtful, compassionate response.
Cardinal O'Malley is moving
Cardinal O'Malley is moving in the right direction, but is not there yet. The crazy cons, however, shoudl follow his advice and go to confession for their hate. If a position in natural law needs a strong PR strategy, it may not be as natural as you think. I still think it comes down to marriage as the social tool that creates families (calling them civil unions is a PC copout). To not allow gays to create their own families is to infantalize them into their families of origin - and there is nothing natural about that.
I am a Catholic living in the
I am a Catholic living in the Greater Boston Area, and I have been in dialogue with the blogger and many of his supporters on his webpage for about a week now. I've tried to be as charitable and humble about our disagreements as possible because there has to be dialogue in our Catholic family. We can't just not speak, or speak past each other, over issues that are as divisive as those being discussed in Boston right now. In my experience, I have found that there are certain issues that simply cannot be bridged, but the discussion need not become disrespectful or angry. Internet postings lend themselves to rancor, hyperbole, and rudeness; I have been guilty of this myself, and I am striving to be more Christ-like in my writing.
Pray for the Archdiocese of Boston, my friends. We have had our share of sorrows, and the wounds in our Catholic family still bleed from time to time.
Thank you for calling
Thank you for calling attention to the horrible blogging that has gone on in Boston. The very notion of a blog devoted to the downfall of one priest--J. Bryan Hehir--is inimical to any concept of what it means to be Catholic. As you rightly point out, that the bloggers use McCarthy-like tactics while remaining anonymous themselves is shameful.
So can we assume the homilies
So can we assume the homilies at this Mass will be warning the audience that homosexual activity is a mortal sin? Will they be told that they are putting their immortal souls at risk? Are all of the attendees at this there to sign up for the Courage program to help resist their same sex attractions. I didn't think so.
Can we look forward in the future to a Mass of Welcoming for adulterers, practictioners of incest, pedophiles, or polygamists? Don't we want to welcome those people too? Anyone who thinks this Mass is about anything other than an endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle and sinful homosexual activity is lying.
As one of the gay catholics
As one of the gay catholics refered to in the above posting, I can tell you I certainly have agonized and am agonizing over how to reconcile the Church's teachings with my life.
I have come to the conclusion that Our Lord knows best and not me. I have also allowed Our Lord to lead me, and if that means a celibate romanceless life, that is what is best for me.
The problem here isn't one of lonliness or lack of a partner, it is a lack of faith in allowing Our Lord to guide and change you.
Gays like all people need to allow Our Lord to act in their lives, and they need to have the humility to accept their cross.
Our Lord himself had no romance and no sexual life, millions of people have neither of these things and yet they live full lives, often for the benefit of others.
Why can't gays accept this cross? Probably because when it is all distilled, the reality is not one of two lovers for life, but of a sexual addiction.
From my experience, I know what the reality of gay life is like -- and I thank Our Lord for trying to get me out of it.
Being a faithful Catholic is the real liberation.
Michael, Perhaps there's some
Michael,
Perhaps there's some confusion over this matter that I, as the object of your criticism, can help clarify, and maybe we agree more than you might realize.
Problem here is that the original Mass wasn't a "Mass of welcoming" for gays and lesbians--it was a Mass to celebrate and commemorate Boston (Gay) Pride. It was promoted as follows:
"Liturgy to commemorate Boston Pride 2011
The Rainbow Ministry of Saint Cecilia Parish invites all friends and supporters of the LGBT community to a Mass in celebration of Boston’s Pride Month."
(As a minor point for this specific discussion, it should be noted that in the wording of the original notice, the Mass was NOT actually welcoming all parishioners--it specifically invited and welcomed friends and supporters of the LGBT community to celebrate Boston's Pride Month. If you were not a friend or supporter of the LGBT community who wanted to celebrate Boston's Pride Month, then according to the bulletin notice, you were not among the people invited to the Catholic Mass whose theme was supposedly "All are Welcome.")
You acknowledge that a gay pride festival is characterized by over-the-top, often exhibitionist behavior and that the Church should not be seen as “endorsing” a social or political agenda alien to it. Since we are in complete agreement there, then you can be an honorary member of our "band of crazy culture warriors" because we share the same perspective! Cardinal O'Malley finally acknowledged the same in a statement issued in yesterday's diocesan newspaper and on his blog: "The philosophical and political agenda of Gay Pride in relation to marriage and sexual morality is incompatible with the Church’s teachings."
So, do we all agree that a Mass to commemorate and celebrate Gay Pride, regardless of when it might be held, is inappropriate? A Mass to commemorate and celebrate Gay Pride is what we have been objecting to.
The statement last Sunday night from the archdiocese made a point to say that the previous Mass (which was promoted to "commemorate Boston Pride 2011" and which invited all friends and supporters of the LGBT community to a Mass in "celebration of Boston’s Pride Month") was not cancelled, but merely rescheduled. If it was wrong to hold a Mass to commemorate and celebrate Gay Pride in June, then why isn't it still wrong for a Mass to commemorate and celebrate Gay Pride in July?
If the Mass "commemorates" anything, it's Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Welcome every one to the Mass and call all to conversion and to a life of holiness and virtue consistent with the Word of God. That's all we've been asking for. Assuming you're in agreement, then welcome to the band!
Ps. Would you care to comment on what theological basis you believe St. Cecilia's would be sponsoring speakers talking on the topic of "gay marriage" whose full-time jobs are to work FOR gay marriage and AGAINST the Church on marriage? Would you also care to comment on the appropriateness of leaders of their Rainbow Ministry enouraging youths confused about their sexual identity to "come out" in order to get new energy and life?
"Consider The Golden Rule: We
"Consider The Golden Rule: We do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Put all the religious dogma and ritual aside"
So is the gay community trying to pass legislation to prohibit catholics from marrying?
How can you say you're protecting religious freedom when you are lobbying for your dogma to be law? I have my freedom too.
What has the catholic church done to demonstrate how compassionate and respectful they are toward gays?
The Catholic Church wishes
The Catholic Church wishes for you to enter into the kingdom of God when your time comes. To participate in unnatural acts is contrary to what the Church teaches. I said acts, not inclinations. As humans, we are all subject to trials throughout our lives. We need to ask God for forebearance all through our time here, to give us the grace to overcome obstacles which shut us off from His salvation for us.
I fail to see the logic of
I fail to see the logic of this line in your piece:
"placed the Church’s stance on gay marriage properly alongside the Church’s stance against divorce and other threats to traditional marriage."
Properly?
How is same-sex marriage a threat to traditional marriage? And what is the connection between divorce and letting gay and lesbians to marry?
Respect for human dignity requires a more careful and persuasive argument from the bishops on the topic of same-sex marriage. And from you, MIchael, in this sloppy lumping.
If there ever was a good
If there ever was a good reason to keep religious organizations out of the marriage business and restrict them to matrimony or however they choose to designate their religious understanding of coupledom, the issue of same-sex marriage is it. The idea that SECULAR benefits, rights, and responsibilities are subject to religious doctrinal interference is way beyond the bounds of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Post new comment