The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Misogynist? Homophobic? We’ve got the church for you!
by Jamie L Manson on Oct. 22, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionOn Friday, Oct. 16 the most e-mailed article on The New York Times Web site was the story of Pat Bond’s fight to receive financial support for the terminally ill son that she conceived with a Franciscan priest over 20 years ago.
Four days later, the eighth most e-mailed Times article told of the Pope’s new initiative to welcome larger numbers of Anglican priests and seminarians, regardless of marital status, into the Roman Catholic clergy.
The Pontiff is putting this plan into practice in an attempt to offer a spiritual home to those who have either left or are considering leaving the Anglican Communion because of their opposition to the ordination of women and openly-gay priests as well as the blessing of same-sex unions.
Ms. Bond, who was impregnated and abandoned by a Catholic priest, cannot get funding for her son’s brain cancer treatments. The priest receives little disciplining from his superiors. She is told by the Franciscan order, who never encouraged the priest to leave the ministry, that they have already gone “far beyond what the law would require,” in their financial support. They also reminded her that, by speaking publicly, she is in jeopardy of paying a penalty because she is in violation of a confidentiality agreement that she signed years ago.
Married Anglican priests and seminarians are provided with their own sacred structure, called "personal ordinariates," to enhance their spiritual care and guidance. They earned this special privilege by being vociferously misogynist and homophobic.
A woman is punished by Catholic superiors for her relationship with a priest, while married Anglican priests who are anti-woman and anti-gay are welcomed more fully into the Catholic clerical fold.
This week the Catholic church seems to have reached another low point in its perennial war on sex. However, in this latest twist of events, one form of sexual activity has been legitimized: married sex between male Anglican priests and their spouses who have reached qualifying levels of misogyny and homophobia.
Ironically, it was Gene Robinson -- whose courageous assent to the bishop’s seat in the Episcopal church first elicited the Anglican firestorm and threat of schism over the ordination of out gays and lesbians -- who first showed me that the relationship between misogyny and homophobia runs deep. Several years ago I heard him offer a lecture at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. At one point in his talk, he addressed his sorrow at the lack of support that some gay men have for women in their own fight for fair and equal treatment in the church. He asked the audience, “When will we gay men realize that the reason the church hates us is because they hated women first? The hatred of gay men is rooted in the original hatred of women and the feminine.”
These new developments at the Vatican might be slightly more digestible if studies proved that the Catholic church is being led by a primarily heterosexual, celibate clergy. Unfortunately, they prove the contrary.
According to the Times article on Ms. Bond, “A landmark study in 1990 by the scholar A. W. Richard Sipe, a former Benedictine, found that 20 percent of Catholic priests were involved in continuing sexual relationships with women, and an additional 8 percent to 10 percent had occasional heterosexual relationships.”
Fr. Donald Cozzens, an author, psychologist, and former Catholic seminary president, estimates in his book, The Changing Face of the Priesthood, that 50 percent of Roman Catholic priests have a homosexual orientation. He adds, “Beyond these estimates, of course, are priests who remain confused about their orientation and men who have so successfully denied their orientation, that in spite of predominately same-sex erotic fantasies, they insist that they are heterosexual.”
Given these statistics, one must wonder if these latest conflicts over sexuality are just further evidence of church authorities’ conflicts over their own sexual desires and activities. Is this latest move yet another desperate attempt to maintain a closed, closeted, clerical “old boys network,” where no man is threatened with the possibility of having to speak openly and honestly about sexuality, desire, and relationships of integrity?
Some church leaders might have us believe that the lesbian and gay issue is the only real sexuality “crisis” facing the church. But it is important to remember that this is but one petition in an increasingly long prayer list: contraception, abortion, pedophilia, sexual abuse, and perhaps the most egregiously overlooked sexual issue, the mistreatment and exclusion of women.
The intensity of alarm over same-sex relations and their polarizing, if not schismatic, power may be evidence that the root cause of all of this concern is deeper than homosexuality. The cause of this controversy may very well be rooted in the church’s struggle with sexuality itself -- a struggle that, allegorically at least, was born in the Genesis narrative of Adam and Eve.
While many have interpreted the Adam and Eve story as a chronicle of birth, life and death, a closer reading also reveals that it is an account of the beginning of our shame towards our sexuality. Before taking the fruit, the man and the woman are said to be naked and unashamed. After realizing their nakedness, they hide from God, mistakenly convinced that God, too, will be embarrassed by their exposed genitals. When God realizes that they are hiding because they are ashamed of their nakedness, God is angry and, with a heavy heart, makes Adam and Eve clothes and expels them from the garden. Shame was not the response that God wanted us to have to our nakedness and our sexuality.
In its treatment of Pat Bond and its overtures to conservative Anglican priests, the church has exacerbated the culture of shame that has long compelled Catholics to hide from their sexualities. Unfortunately for misogynist and homophobic church authorities, most Western Catholic and mainline Protestants have come to understand another great biblical truth: by their fruits you shall know them.
In its latest moves, the church has only further alienated itself from those who are seeking healthy, life-giving, and honest expressions of their sexuality rather than the harmful, secretive affairs that estrange us from ourselves, from one another, and from God. The new generations of Catholics will not have inherited the church’s reign of sexual guilt that marked those who grew up Catholic 40 or more years ago. Until the church authorities begin to deal with our human, God-given sexuality in ways that propel us towards growth and greater wholeness, the relevance of the Vatican’s teaching authority will only continue to dwindle within the generations to come.
Jamie Manson received her master of divinity degree from Yale Divinity School. She currently serves as director of Social Justice Ministries at Jan Hus Presbyterian Church, working primarily with New York City’s homeless and poor populations. She is a member of the national board of the Women’s Ordination Conference.
As long as the "church" is
As long as the "church" is not allowed to engage in discussion and to spend time in attempting to look truthfully at our humanity which includes our sexuality, we will continue to dither about and continue to impose rules and regulations on people with no basis whatsoever on what the Jesus of the Gospels calls us to - we fight the wrong fight. How do we become life-givers instead of life-takers?
Charles Bolser
Mr. Bolser, Kindly tell us
Mr. Bolser,
Kindly tell us how upholding the clear teaching of the apostles, through Scripture and Tradition, takes away life?
Dear Anonymous == Please show
Dear Anonymous == Please show me where the Gospels dictate the rules about all this nonsense????
Mr. Anonymous (why not name
Mr. Anonymous (why not name your real name??). There is everything right about upholding the teaching of Jesus. The apostles, however, were fully human. They got it wrong -- over and over, a lot! -- many times when Jesus was right there with them. Of course they got other things wrong too, after He was gone. The heirarchy itself is a construction of humans. No, not humans. A construction of men. Only men. That is exactly the problem. Of course, people who think women and gays should not have a place at the Table just simply don't realize the gravity of their error. We are trying to love them even as we plead with them to change.
So now we observe the spectacle of our church leaders enthusiastically welcoming other Christians who believe that women and gays are lesser in God's eyes than they, the men. It is not "name slingling" to say that this is misogenist and homophobic. It is just simply the truth, to look sin in the eye and say it is wrong to treat other people this way. Jesus did not do it.
An excellent and
An excellent and thought-provoking article, Jamie. Patriarchal politics and dominion theology are steeped in the rhetoric of idolatry and self-electionism. What a pair the church of Rome and the church of England make. How about same-sex marriage, if they consummate their engagement?
Self-consciousness and self-reflection are powerful virtues enabling self-advancement, but they also enable self-deception and the advance of really bad judgments calculated to advantage self over others.
Words matter. The rhetoric of idolatry and self-electionism threatens to do humankind in; it blights sensitivity and social insight, and it wrecks nature. The implication of idolatry and self-electionism in human behavior extends into deep-past evolution, and particularly, in religious culture. They are about control, the theology of dominion and the politics of patriarchy. http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?grpId=3659174697239231&articleI...
The proclivity to deceive oneself and others is an inherited tendency well ingrained in evolutionary history. Self-electionism is a bullying instinct that infects individual and group consciousness. It wages wars and regularly uses ideology, rules and violence to accomplish arrogant and misinformed purposes.
Self-justification (institutional) based on ignorance and arrogance is wasting humankind and Earth-life. Because humankind assumes self-superiority over other life it justifies the exploitation of other life, even to extinction. Self-absorbed religions conveniently ignore cultural exploitation and the wasting of web-life, and they advance a myopic and unhealthy “pro-life” ethic that concentrates on human life only, not as part of the total Earth-life ecology, but as a value sufficient in and of itself. What does “pro-life” mean? Surely it doesn’t mean the proliferation of human life to the extent that it suffocates essential ecologies.
The Garden of Eden Story has God imposing two mandates on humankind. The first is authorization to “increase and multiply;” and the second is a requirement to abstain from eating fruit from the “Tree in the middle of the Garden.” Knowledge of good and evil is what the discernment of consciousness-conscience is about. The fruit of the “middletree” is vitality itself — that which is shared commonly by all life, and which conscience discerns as necessary and right. Conscience tells that human ecology totally depends on the vitality of Earth-ecology. Wasting common vitality, the “original” means of all life, is "original sin", as true in the past as in the present.
The institutional arrogance of self-electionism (patriarchy) is idolatry for it presumes to itself dominion that belongs to God alone. The cultural dominion of males over females, over Earth resources, justified in institutional religions, is a fraudulent presumption at the heart of societal disordering, including the rape of land and nature.
Walter Brueggemann rightly assesses the human predicament when he observes that the exploitation of women and nature roots in the same religious/ cultural mindset, and that a corrective from wasting one or the other cannot happen except the common cause of both is understood and removed.
http://ncronline.org/news/justice/biblical-narrative-economic-policy
I don't see the two imperial churches individually or jointly doing much to respond to the real global crisis that wastes women and nature, they are too self-absorbed with shoring up their common ideological fixations that attract them to each other in the first place. Only the women of the world, the authentic carriers of faith-consciousness can bring to bear the necessary correctives that might rescue humankind and churches from their idolatry and self-electionism.
Jesus was a man too.
Jesus was a man too.
"Jesuse was a man too". Yes,
"Jesuse was a man too". Yes, we are told that he was fully human in all ways, except sin (which is a pretty big exception). I have always found this a bit confusing. My question would be; So, as a man, as one fully human, did he not experience desire? It is hard to image someone who is fully human who did not experiene this very human drive.
Jesus was a man because he
Jesus was a man because he had to have a body. A woman was not free to travel by herself (note BVM visiting Elizabeth--does anyone think she went alone?) God is a spirit but Jesus needed flesh and blood. Perhaps in the Second Coming, Jesus will be a woman.
Note Anglicans approved contraception in, I think 1937. God also gave us
reason. No one should have five children under seven by their eighth anniversary after starting marriage in two furnished rooms w/ a shared bath downstairs. Years of poverty and deprivation ensued. Our oldest two did
not receive enough mothering. Note pews: 2--and 3--child families are the norm.
Learn something from Anglicans but not homophobia. St.Paul believed this orientation was chosen. No way! Ellen
I don't agree with this idea,
I don't agree with this idea, that God's 'choice' of becoming a man in Jesus (as opposed to a woman) was based upon the social conditions of the time. For one thing, Jesus made it clear when He said "Before Abraham was, I Am", implying to me that He existed long before social conditions were an issue.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and offer an opinion that I'm sure will get me labled as a woman hater. I can assure you however that I do not hate women, nor do I wish to see them in some kind of subservient role in relation to men. That said, I think it is worth it to ponder what it means that Jesus came as a man and not a woman (and I have heard of the idea that Jesus will return as a woman, and this I don't think holds weight just on the basis that He rose in a physical body, not in spirit alone, so I don't see any reason why He would do away with that body now...). There are real and important differences in men and women, not just the anatomically obvious ones, that can perhaps offer insight into this question. Is there a mystical reality that intercourse and reproduction give a hint of? For one thing, there must be male and female in order to reproduce (therefore Adam and Eve represent together a full image and likeness of God, since both are required in a united state to reproduce and thus mirror creation). The male contains the seed which impregnates the waiting egg within the female (thus while both male and female are equal in importance, their roles in reproduction are undeniably different. I don't believe the idea of calling God "Father" was something that stemmed from a male dominated society, although it certainly was used in that way by men clinging to a domineering role throughout our history. Instead I think that calling God "Father" stems from the acknowledgement of the male energy of impregnation with which the universe was created - the term Big Bang having a perhaps unexpected meaning here! On the same vein, I think there is great wisdom in calling the earth a "Mother" since its natural history mirrors the process of gestation and birth.) So what is my point? Actually in writing this I realiaze I haven't got a fully formed one. I don't know all that this points to in trying to reason out why Jesus is a man and not a woman. What I'm trying to offer with this is that we should look to wisdom outside of ideology for insight. While the feminist revolution made great advances for women's rights in times when they were sorely needed (and still are, all over the world), it is not right that all male/female roles should be cast away with in pursuit of some kind of unrealistic level of equality. As I said above, drawing from the wisdom of nature, our roles are equal in importance but undeniably different. The true pursuit should be in trying to find these roles again with openness to God's will and the understanding that only in unity do we fully mirror the image and likeness of God.
Kathleen (I am not the anon
Kathleen (I am not the anon that you were addressing)
How long has the Church been trying to reconnect with the Anglican Church? This is not the first such gesture that has occurred. I believe that there is a whole lot more at work than misogyny (if that is really at work in this case at all)
I would also like for you to check your history about the role of women throughout the history of the Church. Women have played an amazing role in virtually every single faucet of the development of the Church, including many mystics that were in regular contact with both bishops and popes. I think that by emphasizing this aspect of Church history and tradition, women in today's world would have a much better argument to use rather then resorting to what amounts to name calling.
Just because you have
Just because you have fidelity to the Magisterium regarding no women priests and seek to bring active homosexuals into the flock, fully, so they can realize the universal call to holiness, does not mean that the Church or a lay faithful is "anti-woman" or "anti-gay".
Sorry, but the Magisterium is
Sorry, but the Magisterium is itself inherently misogynistic and anti-gay - as well as internally contradictory. The Magisterium also teaches that we must speak up against injustice. In my mind that includes injustice inside Church structures.
Injustice isn't defined by
Injustice isn't defined by our subjective perception of reality, but the realization of the objective reality instituted by God in Creation. Jesus chose to institute the Magisterium as authoritative discoverer of this reality. So while injustice within Church structures should be recognized, it must be recognized within the framework created by God which has been elucidated through Tradition and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit operating upon the authoritative interpreters of Tradition.
Dear SB, you write "Jesus
Dear SB, you write "Jesus chose to institute the Magisterium as authoritative discoverer of this reality." Really? What version of the Gospel are you reading? Your posting shows almost no understanding of Jesus and what he stood for.
"Jesus chose to institute the
"Jesus chose to institute the Magisterium..."
Rubbish!
Jesus never instituted "the Magisterium." In fact, he never established "the Church."
Please read Matthew 16:18 and
Please read Matthew 16:18 and remember also that the original was not written in 21st century english. Also, St. Paul (in the bible) refers to the Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth.
Pax Christi.
Terence, your remarks border
Terence, your remarks border on blasphemy. Please be careful. It is one thing to find great difficulty accepting what the Magisterium says. We all have temptations. But to openely contradict the Magisterium is heretical and places you outside the Church where your salvation is in jeapordy. Not my opinion, but the teaching of the Magisterium.
Surprisingly, being outside
Surprisingly, being outside the Church no longer means not being saved, according to the Magisterium.
Boy oh Boy are you wrong on
Boy oh Boy are you wrong on that ... please do your homework on that one!
You might do better to
You might do better to explain where it is taught that non-Catholics are not saved.
I am happy to oblige, Marie.
I am happy to oblige, Marie. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 846-848:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
So, as you can see, the Church still believes that non-Catholics cannot be saved by any sure and certain means that we are aware of. If they are saved, which the Church holds out as a possibility, it is only by God's infinite mercy and His divine action.
For further reading, you might try "Dominus Jesus", the 2000 declaration from the CDF regarding the universality of Christ's salvific act. You might also read the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of John, in which Christ says "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me," (John 14: 6).
So the magisterium says a
So the magisterium says a person is a heretic if they disagree with the magisterium even if said magisterium is wrong. Something is seriously wrong with that argument.
To openly contradict what the
To openly contradict what the Magisterium says is not heresy and you have no authority to say it is.
To disagree with the
To disagree with the hierarchy endangers one's salvation? Tell that to Jesus, a Jew who constantly blasted the Jewish religious authorities. You need to put on the mind of Christ rather then imagining you'll be saved because you agreed with every word uttered by such as Pope Benedict.
The magisterium needs to be
The magisterium needs to be publically challenged and if need be, contradicted for the sake of Christ and His people. The truth well out.
The Magisterium (as I
The Magisterium (as I understand it and I'm no scholar) is the teaching authority of the Church. From whom does that authority proceede? From Jesus Christ.
"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself." - St. Augustine
The Gospel is not contained solely on scripture. It is also contained through Sacred Tradition.
Now I can understand people here not agreeing with certain doctrine, ie. teachings on homosexuality and women's ordination. However meditate on this. There is but ONE God, before anything there was the WORD and the WORD became flesh. There is but ONE church, ONE Gospel and ONE truth. Now these are not all independently one... so when you ad them up you have 4 different things that I've mentioned. It means that GOD IS the WORD IS the CHURCH is the TRUTH is the GOSPEL. Just as GOD's MERCY is his JUSTICE is his LOVE is his GRACE is his LIGHT is his... ok, ok, I think you get my point.
The doctrine of ordination and doctrine on homosexuality, they do not exist in a vaccum. All doctrine is interrelated. Consider this meditation... if GOD is ONE then it must be that the doctrine on ordination is the doctrine of the Immaculate conception is the doctrine of the resurrection is the doctrine on sexuality is the doctrine of the virgin birth is the doctrine of the saints is the doctrine of papal authority is the doctrine of the eucharist.
This is an abstract matter. I can see how some might say that doctrine as taught by humans may not be the doctrine God had intended. OK, fair enough. God promised that he would protect the church from the gates of hell. This means that there IS truth here on earth.
Back to the Magisterium. I encourage all to go through the doctrines (as taught by the magisterium) that you do ascent to (agree with) and put them back to back. (as you would tracing paper) Discover how one doctrine is another, is another, is another... this will give depth to your faith... keep doing it with all the doctrines you feel in your heart and know with your mind are the honest to goodness true. Keep in mind that all truth is ONE. Continue to do this and you will come to see the truth on all the controversial doctrines.
Queen of Mercy pray for us.
Here's the problem with your
Here's the problem with your line of reasoning: In the history of the church, only Jesus and Mary reflected and lived God's will perfectly. Their roles in the history of salvation were distinctly different. Our church is comprised of many good and moral men, but ONLY men. And they are only human. As ordinary humans, they are not capable of reflecting and living God's will perfectly at all times. The Magisterium is probably doing the best it can, but it lacks participation of 1/2 of the human race. What a waste of spiritual resources!
The church may not "hate" homosexuals and women, but it sure doesn't trust them. As a woman, it's hard not to be insulted by that lack of trust.
If God trusted a woman to bring Jesus to the world, why can't the church?
Ana the process you have
Ana the process you have described is quite good, but you've started with a fallacy. "The Gospel is not contained solely on scripture. It is also contained through Sacred Tradition." This is not true. Please cite you source in the Catechism.
The Catechism is yet another
The Catechism is yet another step of human interpretation even further removed from God's will. It's WORSE than the Magisterium.
Perhaps it should read,
Perhaps it should read, "Revelation is not contained solely on Scripture. It is also contained through Sacred Tradition". So, just because a specific teaching is not found written in the Bible, that does not mean that it is not a valid teaching. The statement made was correct in its substance, though the use of the word "Gospel" may have proven confusing.
As to soures from the Catechism, paragraphs 81-82 state:
"81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
You might also read all of Chapter 2, Article 2, beginning at paragraph 74 and following. If you do so, you will clearly see that the Church derives its beliefs and its understanding of Divine Revelation from Scripture AND Tradition both.
The Magisterium does not
The Magisterium does not exist for the sake of God, but for man's. If it contains teachings that are counter to human well being than it must be changed. We liberals actually care deeply about what the Magisterium says, which is why we wish it to be purified of sexism and homophobia. We trust that in time it will be (God's, not ours).
Wonderfully said, Michael!
Wonderfully said, Michael! Our more orthodox brethern should remember that the Church is a work in progress, it does change, always has, and should continue to do so, all because we have not reached the perfection of Jesus or his Mother. What is a major problem is that the Magisterium has - through the centuries - made such a complicated mess of defining and teaching the truths of the Gospels, it is constantly assaulted on all sides. Citing "tradition" as a solid basis for doctrine is hardly defendable, as as various populations grow in their own knowledge and reason (i.e., Europe, the United States) they (we) are able to see the huge contradictions, misunderstandings, and outright bigotry that are included in these man-made rules. How can others cite the "guidance of the Holy Spirit" when the church's history is full of examples of underhanded, immoral (witness the current and on-going sex abuse scandal)and completely un-Christian activities? So, Michael is speaking truth, it seems clear to me, when he states that we wish to purge our Church of sexism and homophobia. At this point, the Vatican and the many bishops have shown themselves not to be up to those tasks.
That is the most not
That is the most not believable thing I've ever read.
Ana on Oct. 22, 2009. You
Ana on Oct. 22, 2009.
You stated:
"The Magisterium (as I understand it and I'm no scholar) is the teaching authority of the Church. From whom does that authority proceede? From Jesus Christ.
"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself." - St. Augustine...."
----------------------------------------------------------
It is the Church which makes the law, teaches the law, and then punishes if one does not follow the law. It comes down to---"It's the law, because we said so." Jesus never established the governmental set-up of the Church--
called the magisterium.
We are in serious discussion with the Anglicans about re-joining the Catholic Church. Some will---many won't. Of those who disagree with the Catholic Church's refusal to ordain women---many Anglican biblical scholars can counter the Catholic Church point for point upon the fact that Jesus and the Early Church did not have women Apostles, deacons, presiders, etc.
The magisterium is composed of humans who can make mistakes like anyone else. The Holy Spirit is sent to guide the ENTIRE Church--and that includes the laity as well. And since Vatican Council II---The CHURCH includes Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants and Orthodox as well.
There is more misandry in
There is more misandry in this discussion than there is misogyny in the universal church.
Yes, and having separate
Yes, and having separate water fountains for blacks didn't mean southerners were racist. What planet are you living on, Rabitha?
Dear Anglicans who want to
Dear Anglicans who want to become Catholics.
Welcome, we are so glad to have you.
We should warn you though, if you are trying to avoid gay bishops… might wanna look elsewhere. And if you are going to figure out how to bring your whole ‘church’ with you (as it said in the news articles) you might want to retain those church deeds. Our bishops are still looking for funding for our little sex scandals.
We are happy to have you join the flock. but be aware, we are trying our darndest to open our doors in the same way your buddies opened yours…
You could end up a lot like the Israelites, going from place to place…(although I don't think they were looking for a home that sanctions homophobia and the lot.)
But come on In, the welcome mat is out, and maybe we can change your hearts too!
Deb
Memphis.
ps, Jamie, I still remember fondly the presentation you gave to NACDLGM in Brooklyn. YOU my dear are a treasure.
WOW. Only a dissedent who
WOW. Only a dissedent who hates the Church, would treat the news of Christains coming home as BAD NEWS. What is with you liberals? UNITY is wonderful news. It is afterall what Vatican II called for. Dialogue to find common ground and bring all home. Oh, but I forgot, you liberals do not believe the Catholic Church is the ONE HOLY AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH founded by Christ Himself. You liberals think it is just one of many "denominations." Well, I have news for you. It is not.
Come on Tom, you are above
Come on Tom, you are above cheap shots at fellow Catholics. On the one hand you are praising “unity” (uh, uniformity?), and then go off on the “you liberals and church haters” stuff. Some of us have spent enough decades in the Church to be past the glazed-over honeymoon stage of our Catholic faith. It’s like marriage: reality sets in, warts and all — it’s about commitment, not romantic infatuation with a mythical ideal. The Church isn’t perfect because it is full of imperfect humans… including the hierarchy. Jesus promised to remain with the Church (God’s people) — He did not promise a perfect institution of church.
.
Disgruntled Anglicans will probably be no happier in the Catholic communion once the initial glow wears off and a new set of problems surface for them. If they have jumped ship from their perception of scandal among Anglican communion clergy, just wait until they get an up close and personal view of the Roman Catholic scandal and hypocrisy among clergy. There is NO perfect communion of believers, and that includes the Roman Catholic Church. Our unity is in baptism; our faith is in Jesus Christ, not a temporal institution. Those who hinge their faithfulness and commitment only to the merits of an institution will ultimately fall away.
Thank you for your post. The
Thank you for your post. The difference between unity and uniformity is quite large and, I believe, there is a great need to appreciate this difference. Yet, uniformity is often the goal of those who are either unaware of or unwilling to do the difficult work of understanding that differences will exist within the mystical body of Christ. Uniformity is about building a political organization, Unity is about building a spiritual one.
And, as you mentioned, The Church is made up of imperfect human beings and yes, this does include the hierarchy. An organization that does not recognize this is an organization that lacks the humality that can make it holy.
Again thank you for your post. Peace and prayers for unity.
Hilarious! Thanks. :)
Hilarious! Thanks. :)
You forgot to mention that
You forgot to mention that they should bring a cast-iron stomach... for what seems like a never-ending steady drip... drip... drip of sexual scandal, cover-ups and payoffs. Who knows how many more Willenborg-styled affairs will bubble-up in the wake of the latest tawdry revelations.
The Good Tidings organization and another separate Catholic study, estimate that more than 20% of of Catholic clergy are regularly engaged in heterosexual philandering under the radar, another 8% at intervals with different partners, with some producing abandoned children in the process (and probably a few abortions). That's in addition to our "other" sexual scandal among clergy.
Anglicans may like what they see on the Roman Catholic menu, but what is actually being served up will often be difficult to swallow... never mind digest. To continue the metaphor... Anglicans may find themselves leaping from their perceived frying pan into the Roman roaring fire. There is no "perfect" church — for sure not ours. Anglican concerns over a gay bishop or ordination of women, pale in comparison to our mess.
If the Church can distract us
If the Church can distract us with sex long enough, they don't have to stick out their heads and pontificate on the full range of moral issues currently facing us...e.g., hunger, wasting the land, urban sprawl, lack of health care, people existing for the economy instead of the other way 'round, lack of educational opportunity, economic globalization and the discarding of labor, hoarding great amounts of money derived from the labor of workers, lack of Eucharist by insisting on celibacy (although there are all those married Anglican priests!), witch hunts of religious women,migration and refugees all over the world, coups d'etat & dictatorships, defining and boxing God in so there is little possibility of discovering who God really is...
Actually, Rachel, the Church
Actually, Rachel, the Church speaks out often and forcefully about social justice issues, such as hunger, health care, environmental concerns, education and development, globalisation and economic justice (eg. see the Pope's latest encyclical), refugees and so on. This comes from the Pope, other bishops, Vatican Congregations, Church organisations, clergy and religious. And in addition to speaking out, the Catholic Church is one of the largest and most effective sources of aid in the world.
The other issues you mention are those of internal Church discipline, scholarship and structure, and should be discussed within an appropriate theological framework.
Actually, they "write" a
Actually, they "write" a lot...but this does not get preached on (my husband, a deacon, when he preached on social justice was told by a parishioner that all that "political and Democrat" stuff has no place in the church...well!
We do not see what comes out of the pen or mouth or the hierarchy as social justice extended to church employees...always the "out" to never let anyone know why their contract is not being renewed.
Where does the universal Church, the national Church, the diocesan Church actually go out in the streets and in state legislatures and in Congress and publicly in daily newspapers make social justice a priority? If it doesn't wreak of anti-abortion, it doesn't get talked about.
We're done waiting for "leadership" from the hierarchy...it is obvious most know nothing about the Gospel or Catholic social teaching...look at the two bishops who spoke against health care reform...
Where are all the editorials and news conference by the bishops about ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Latin American dictatorships and the African civil wars??? Where is the leadership???
Answer: There isn't any.
Rachel, You mean there is
Rachel,
You mean there is another deacon trying to inform consciences on issues other than the "Only Issue"? I hope your husband hasn't been silenced.
The problem is that even when
The problem is that even when "The Church" says reasonable things in the sphere of social and political questions, noboby is enclined to listen, because everybody identifies "The Church" only with strange obsessions in the field of sexuality.
Oh, but Veritas, not nearly
Oh, but Veritas, not nearly as much as it speaks about sex. Sex is the prime subject of the church, which includes abortion. It knows nothing else of which to speak. What else it says about the topics that you mention gets drowned out by the Church itself because of its focus on sex and the sexual sins of the faithful. The male hierarchy focuses on sex because, let's see, maybe because that is what they think about so much? Yes, that would be my guess. And please, do not confuse a right to teach with the truth about what is taught. These are not the same. The Church clearly has a mandate to teach. Now if we could only be sure that what it teaches is the truth. Oh yes, we know it teaches the truth because it says that it does. Now, how did it learn the truth? That we will never know. The Vatican won't say. But based on how it has handled the sex abuse scandal, it does not seem to know the truth. Bishop Gregory is so proud of how the Catholic Church has handled the sex abuse scandal, even holding the Church up as a model for the world to behold. And he often compares the incidence of sex abuse in the church with all of society and claims that it is no worse in the Catholic Church than it is in other churches. What he fails to say is that other churches have not fought tooth and nail to cover up their sex abuse the way that Catholic bishops have.
Bravo!
Bravo!
Amen!
Amen!
Good for you, Jamie Manson.
Good for you, Jamie Manson. How much guilt/suffering has been endured to "avoid scandal"?
A friend who worked in social services in my county told (matter-of-factly) of the sisters who applied for medicaid in order to get abortions...this was in the 60's & 70's. My heart goes out to them (then and now).
Lena, I think this is
Lena, I think this is bull----. I do not believe one word of your scandal talk.
Excellent Essay Does anyone
Excellent Essay
Does anyone else out there feel like the sibling of the Prodigal Son?
B16 and his cronies invite back schismatic bishops, reach out to traditional Anglicans and largely ignore what concerns the rest of us who have been here for a lifetime.
The approach is best exemplified in the draft message on Marriage whose pastoral concern starts and ends with who can do what, when sexually, with whom.
You, like them will have to
You, like them will have to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church.
No I won't. Jesus never said
No I won't. Jesus never said I had to be a Catholic, obeying every decree that comes from Rome no matter how well or stupidly reasoned. And, in 2009, I represent the majority of God's children. You can kowtow to Rome if you want. But no guarantee (see the gospels) that will get you into heaven. No points are given for believing the correct things, i.e., beliefs approved by those in authority.
Jesus did pray "so that all
Jesus did pray "so that all may be one", while you seem to chose to reject this and be divisive with silly claims that you are a representative of "the majority of God's children". However we were talking about the Pope inviting schismatics and heretics to the fullness of the Catholic Church. There has been no compromise on the part of the Church on dogma. And there won't be if you and those you represent decide to become Catholic.
Blah blah blah. How's that
Blah blah blah. How's that for dialogue?
Blah, blah blah right back at
Blah, blah blah right back at ya Mr Ruse. How are things going in Malta? So nice to see you again here.
May the true love and peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ come upon you as swiftly as the Holy Spirit touched our beloved St. Paul.
While I support the ecclesial
While I support the ecclesial recognition of committed homosexual relationships and deeply regret the Roman Catholic's Church's refusal to recognize the authenticity of many women's call to ordained ministry, it is not my experience that all who oppose these developments in the life of the Church are burdened by the sins of homophobia and misogyny. Slinging these epithets around at all who do not accept the theology underlyng these developments reminds me of the kind of name calling opponents of more governmental involvement in this country's healthcare systems have been resorting to.
It's not "slinging epithets"
It's not "slinging epithets" ... it's just the truth. Maybe painful, but the truth. Also, most likely, not global -- that is, a person with mysogynist attitudes is quite likely a wonderful human being in many ways, a gift to the world. But none of us is without sin, and while one would hope that bowing to the church "teaching" is born of early training, not evil intent. But I think the time has come for those of us who observe the truth, that we are all one in God's regard, we are required to speak up, confront the wrong when we see it. You must admit that you are mysogynist if you believe that women cannot be priests. I wish you a joyful reconciliation.
..."qualifying levels of
..."qualifying levels of misogyny and homophobia"...
Imagine the ruler that the Roman Church uses to measure people by...
Now, stretch it... as far as it will go,...both to the left and to the right.
Come on. Stretch it. Show some mercy and charity!
Now---
I imagine the "ruler" that Jesus' measures us---all of us---by.
Jamie, Since the baseball
Jamie,
Since the baseball championships fill our airwaves this week, I dare to say, "You've hit another home run." I am continually inspired by your thoughtfulness, scholarship, clarity and passion. Know that a lot of old guys, lifetime Roman Catholics, like me, heterosexual and homosexuals alike, support your work and principles vocally and in Spirit.
Aldus
I count about five errors of
I count about five errors of fact and five more of interpretation, as in calling Sipe's study "landmark," since the methodology was so questionable. What goes on at Yale these days?
The Catholics and Anglicans
The Catholics and Anglicans are as relevant as two bald men arguing over the ownership of a comb.
LOL!
LOL!
It is not too hard to believe
It is not too hard to believe that the NCR would give space for the type of anti-Catholic drivel. So now, like God, she has determined that all these Episcopal priests and seminarians are homophobic and misogynists. What tree with fermented fruit did she eat from? Adam and Eve were embarrassed by their guilt that was exposed, not their nakedness. This had nothing to do with sex. How foolish and ignorant is this woman who wrote this article? Her silliness is laid bare for all the read and we are not amused! Can't the NCR do better?
What a distasteful article...
What a distasteful article... :-(
Agreed. NCR refused to
Agreed. NCR refused to approve my response.
What a great, poingant
What a great, poingant reflection Jamie! It is deeply disturbing to me as a 20 yr old gay man and as one who is rather progressive thinking when it comes to social issues (particularly sexual ones) to see the Vatican continue to drag their feet, even take steps backwards, when it comes to recognizing the equality of women and homosexuals.
You're right. All of this is based on the shameful attitude of human sexuality that stemmed from the Genesis account. When can we realize that this story is just an allegory attempting to explain the beginnings of the phenonemon we today call "sin" in our world and not a literal account of history? Until we can understand this and see that the implications of that realization can only lead one to conclude that homosexuality is not "disordered" or "inherantly evil" but is simply a design of God's diversity that He has employed throughout His creation.
I continue to hope and pray daily for a true, genuine and comprehensive reform and renewal within the Church on all of its levels! Come Holy Spirit and renew the face of the earth (and our Church)!
The notion that the Catholic
The notion that the Catholic Church doesn't accept women or sinners in nonsense. If you have a homosexual inclination it is not to be acted upon, just as heterosexual inclinations outside of marriage are not to be acted upon outside of marriage. Sounds equal to me.
Post new comment