The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Pride: A sin or celebration
by Kate Childs Graham on Jun. 18, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionJune is lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Pride month around the country. After a great weekend of Pride celebrations in our nation’s capitol, I began to reflect on the word pride; after all, its connotations can be both good and bad, especially for those of us who are practicing Catholics.
Pride, or hubris, is one of the seven deadly sins. In fact, it is considered by scholars to be the original and most serious of the sins. It separates one from their community and from God. With pride, one cannot recognize God’ grace. Thomas Aquinas said that pride is "inordinate self-love…the cause of every sin ... the root of pride is found to consist in [hu]man not being, in some way, subject to God and [God’s] rule."
This is certainly not the pride I saw this weekend. The pride I saw this weekend was an expression of love and survival. It was a pride that brings people together, gay or straight. It was a joyful, and at times rowdy, pride. And though not a spiritual celebration, the grace of God was certainly present in these celebrations.
Every year, there are a few moments in the Pride parade that move me. As the parents of LGBT folks march with their signs reading “I love my gay son” or “Relationships are precious,” my heart swells with, well, pride. As those who have served in the military solemnly march in uniform with US flags, my eyes fill with tears. As people from religious congregations of every stripe, including Catholic, march and declare their stance that God is love, my spirit sings.
Now, there are obvious reasons why, for me, these are the moments that move me. I am lucky to have a family that accepts me. I am lucky not to work in a profession in which I must hide myself. And I am lucky to have found a church community that does not demonize me for my sexuality, although the church hierarchy continues to do just that.
I am proud that our country and church have come so far so that I can feel so lucky. There is no doubt, however, that our country and church still have a long way to come. And, in certain instances, one may even argue that pride interferes with some people’s ability to overcome their prejudice in order to grant equal rights to all people.
Take, for example, the U S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops'' position on same-gender relationships is widely known -- so I won’t go into that. However, what is perhaps less well known is how this position shadows the other good work they do.
Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif. introduced the Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 2709) on June 5. This bill is a big step towards comprehensive immigration reform. This legislation would free immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the bureaucratic nightmare that currently plagues families separated by borders and provide these family members with an easier and faster way to be with their families.
One would think that the bishops, with their historic and astounding support for the rights of immigrants, would be among the first to support this bill. Unfortunately, this is not the case. While the bishops have endorsed and pledged to work for the enactment of the Senate version of the Reuniting Families Act (S. 1085), which Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. introduced last month, the bishops wrote Honda to tell him that they couldn't support the House version. You see, the bishops have decided not to lend their support to this bill because it includes provisions for same-gender couples.
To me, it seems that the bishops are letting pride get in the way of supporting important legislation on immigrant rights. Their pride is so vast that they refuse to revise their teaching on same-gender relationships in light of today’s world and modern knowledge. Their pride is so great that they believe that their views on same-gender relationships must be imposed on all people. As a result of this pride -- while I hope this bill will pass with or without the support of the bishops -- families may indeed suffer. I hope that one day the U.S. bishops are able to push their pride aside for the good and equality of all.
So, is pride good or bad? I suppose it can be both. The pride I saw this weekend was certainly good. It was loving and inclusive. The pride of those who maintain prejudice and discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, age and so on is not good. This pride is exclusive and destructive.
Let us all work to end prejudice and discrimination for all people, including those of us who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Let us all free ourselves of our pride that makes us unable to recognize the grace of God in same-gender relationships. When we do so, we can truly be proud of our church and society.
Read what Rep. Honda has to say about the Reuniting Families Act (honda.house.gov/rfa/#summary) and read the bishops letter to the congressman (www.usccb.org/mrs/mrp.shtml).
------------------
Kate Childs Graham writes for ReligionDispatches.org and YoungAdultCatholics-Blog.com. She also serves on the Women’s Ordination Conference board of directors and the Call to Action Next Generation Leadership Team.
"Their pride is so vast that
"Their pride is so vast that they refuse to revise their teaching on same-gender relationships in light of today’s world and modern knowledge. Their pride is so great that they believe that their views on same-gender relationships must be imposed on all people."
Kate Childs speaks the truth. Thanks Kate for telling it like it truly is.
Kate informs us that at the
Kate informs us that at the Washington DC 2009 parade she just attended that the pride she saw "was an expression of love ... a pride that brings people together, ... it was a joyful, and at times rowdy, pride... the grace of God was certainly present in these celebrations.
What the parade needed was the attendence of our Bishops of the U.S Catholic Conference perhaps on the float shown in the linked picture. Attached are photos taken from the celebration of love and pride Kate participated in:
http://www.edgewashington.com/index.php?ch=pride&sc=&sc2=photoalbum&id=9...
Hey there Jerry buddy - In
Hey there Jerry buddy - In every group there are the seedy elements, you would have to admit.
I'd appreciate it if you did not post porn to make the point that there are seedy elements in all groups. It does not typify all gays and how they conduct themselves.
Of course it is ok if gay bashing heterosexuals get breast implants to further their career and parade around half naked like the former Miss California did and make her a spokesperson for evangelical gay bashers against same-sex marriage. You would agree she does not represent all the gay bashers or women who have respect enough for themselves to not parade around or get their picture taken half naked for lusty heterosexual men. Wouldn't you?
Butterfly, Despite your
Butterfly,
Despite your intelligence, I believe you're thinking is not clear.
There are more than a few bad seeds at these celebrations. Keep looking at the pictures and you'll find a lot more being performed right out in public. It is standard at these events all over the country. These pictures were not taken by people who disagree with the event, but the very organizers It is important to point out how inaccurate Kate's portrayal of these events are as she constrasts them as full of God's grace while being judgmental and condemning of the Bishops.
You make a false analogy in your efforts to debate and not seek the truth. Kate freely associated with these people who organized the event featuring the pictures shown. She obviously papered over the public porn with her comment that it was "a bit roudy at times."
You condemn Miss California as a Gay Basher for making the same comment as Pres. Obama made in his campaign, so you seem very hateful and condemning of those that disagree with you. She only made the comment because someone from the left politicized the event and forced her to answer.
No one asked her to be the spokesperson for marriage. Should people of a religious background turn their backs on her when your friends on the left attempt to destroy her saying she personally favored traditional marriage because she once posed in racy underwear ads? The issue isn't that her modeling is not in line with Christian standards of modesty, it is that the left will destroy anyone who makes a comment consistent with Church teaching on same sex marriage, and we should come to the defense of freedom of speech.
I am almost certain of your hypocrisy that you would actively defend Miss California if her "controversial" comment was calling George Bush a war criminal. You would be condemning anyone who then criticized her for being in racy underwear ads.
I'll pray for you.
Jerry, one day I hope that
Jerry, one day I hope that you will get past this left vs right politics. You totally missed my point, but everywhere you do nothing but condemn me. According to you I am the worst person on the planet. My comment did not condemn you or anyone really. I was trying to interject the idea that heterosexuals parade around half naked too. Just go to the beach. Take a look at heterosexuals and the seedy elements in public and not just at events but just about everywhere in advertising, the movies, etc.
I can't speak for Kate, but I can speak for myself. I don't speak as a spokesperson on the left or the right.
I don't want to look at porn or any people parading around half naked. It doesn't matter if they are gay or straight.
I agree that Miss California
I agree that Miss California has a right to her opinion in the debate about Gay marriage. She was asked what she believes and she answered it. I don't share her view, but I respect her right to have it and thought the reaction to her remark was inappropriate - certainly not well nuanced. Yet you go on to say to Butterfly that you are "almost certain of your hypocrisy that you would actively defend Miss California if her controversial comment was calling George Bush a war criminal." Please tell me from where in Butterfly's writings upon which you based this. I just can't see anything that he/she wrote that supports your accusation. Do you have any knowledge of Butterfly that you haven't shared?
As a former supervisor of
As a former supervisor of mine (who happens to be heterosexual) was fond of saying, "Goodness, can you imagine what would be at the tail end of OUR parade?" Then she'd cover her face and shake her head.
Using just the extremes of
Using just the extremes of any group as an example of what the group is as a whole is bearing false witness against that group. I believe that this was an attempt to do just that.
Joe, Those "extremes"
Joe,
Those "extremes" participate every year in the event Kate said was full of God's grace. It is not a fringe element but a massive percentage of the parade which is blessed by the event sponsors.
Not all gays participate in that behavior but you can literally see over 100,000 doing this stuff in San Francisco alone. Kate has to be held responsible since she promoted the event.
I in no way say all gays do the things at these parades, so don't accuse me of bearing false witness. There are gays who will not participate in these events because of all the focus on drag queens, etc. Can't Kate and her friends organize a clean event?
We can all look at any event
We can all look at any event and see only what we want to see. I am glad that you acknowledge that there are other gays who are not represenative from the photos you selected to present. You don't say that many of these other gays also participate in Gay Pride celebrations and parades. And you certainly did not show any photos of them in your collection of the gay pride event. I have always appreciated that sin is both what we do and what we fail to do. I believe it is the same with bearing false witness. We can disagree on this, but I believe that when you only point out the extremes and acknowledge that there are others only after you are called on it does not invaladate the original claim that your original statement did bear false witness.
Have you ever been to New
Have you ever been to New Orleans or St. Louis for Mardi-Gras?
There are between 400,000-1,000,000 crazy, naked, drunk, obnoxious mostly heterosexuals having fun. Are you a recovering ex-Mother Superior?
Jerry, there is no balance in
Jerry, there is no balance in these photos of the many faces of those who partook in the parade. I know from your writings that these imagines support your position, but it just is not an honest representation of the parade. Humanity is bigger than what we tend to think, the gay pride parade has many more faces than what you have shown and certainly, the gay movement is bigger and more complex than what anyone who wishes to reduce it to a clique wants it to be. And, gratefully, God's love and creation is bigger than what we can imagine. One aspect of The Gay pride parade is fun self-mockery and playing with the sterotypes that the stright community places on them. I'm sorry you can't seem to see or appreciate that. The meaning of these pictures is much, much less than what you seem to imagine and want to convey.
Peace be with you, my fellow traveler
John David, How far do you
John David,
How far do you have to stretch your mind to create an alternate reality? Your rationalization that the leather floats are largely there to play on the stereotypes made by the straight community is very creative. All those leather stores in West Hollywood are just there so gays can mock the stereotypes dreamed up by straights!
Yes, not all gays behave as hundreds of thousands do at gay street fairs across the country. However, the event organizers who represent the most powerful people in the gay community continually include smut in these events and need to clean up their act.
The point of my post is the Kate misrepresented this event when she said it was full of God's grace. She needs to find a gay pride event that is free from smut. No, I don't think Kate dressed up with Dykes on Bikes.
Jerry, I don't think my
Jerry, I don't think my reality is as alternative as you are saying. Your choose to reduce my statement to claiming that I said that some gays play to the sterotype made of them by the straight community, which I did say. Yet, I also said that some will have fun with self-mockery, which you didn't acknowledge that I said. This does support your statement about the leather stores in West Hollywood.
In a post above you said "Not all gays participate in that behavior, but you can literally see 100,000 doing so in San Francisco alone". Where did you get this figure. Is there a source that said that 100,000 participate in this kind of behavior in San Francisco alone?
If the point of your post is that Kate misrepresented the event, I guess the point of my post is that you are doing the same thing. It was not until you were called on it did you make any attempt to acknowledge that gays and gay pride events are not just limited to the kind of activity that is expressed in the photos you were presenting. And even with that relutant acknowledgement, there are these seemingly inflated numbers you give about those who your photos do represent.
I have not been to one of these events for some time now, so I can only say what I do remember about them. Yes, I did see what you describe, clearly that element was present, but I saw much, much more. And I do remember these events flowing with God's grace. I think that is what is so extrodinary about God's grace is how it is present, even in abundance, despite those whose behavior is contary to his life, love and purpose. Even those who would try cannot keep God's grace from being alive. For that I am very, very grateful
God's peace on your travels, my friend
Where did I get the 100,000
Where did I get the 100,000 figure? I estimated it based upon articles I read on the Folsom Street Fair. Anyway, organizers Folsom Street Fair claim 400,000 annual attendees. Not all of them are gay, but my estimate appears reasonable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_Street_Fair#cite_note-9
Please be clear those photos were not what I was presenting. I just did an internet search and found photos presented by the organizers of the event and linked them. Kate said one of the graces of the event was how "inclusive" it was, so perhaps she disagrees with you that having bondage drag queens parade in the street is a bad thing.
My acknowledgement that there are lots of nice gay folks is not reluctant. I believe that because I link some photos of the very event referenced that it should not be assumed that everyone is like the people in the photos. I could share a meal and conversation with Kate and even the folks in the bondage photos (although admittedly when they are in normal attire) and have a pleasant time, but that has nothing to do with my belief in Church teaching that engaging in homosexual activity is sinful.
Anyway, I guess none of the "progressives" here will acknowlege some weakness in Kate's using these gay pride parades as examples of healthy pride while judging and condemning the Bishops as having unseemly sinful pride.
There is more weakness in the
There is more weakness in the Bishop's condemning gays than for Kate to express her opinions. They should know better as they are in positions of "authority" in the Church. You are avoiding the real central issue here and it is the false teaching that the Bishops are spreading about gays in their saying they are intrinsically evil that is at the heart of this issue. They obstinately refuse to be educated about gays and they continue to spread false teachings and you are gullible and naive to follow the bishops in this false teaching.
You've decided to condemn homosexual activity as sinful as a result of a false teaching. What real basis do you have to say that their sexual activity is sinful other than 'the bishops told me so'? You really have no basis at all other than the false teaching from the Church hierarchy who because of their pride and prejudice have decided to say it is sinful for gays to have sex even if they are in a monogamous and committed loving relationship. Really. Why did God make people gay or straight? Do you really think the bishops have thought this through & have all the answers and can answer for God as to why gays have been around forever?
The world is flat, unless the bishops and pope say so is at the heart of your feeding into their false teachings and scientific and psychological untruths. Blindly following blind guides is cheating yourself from spiritually growing and that is full of pride as well; a blind pride in Church authority figures.
Wonderful, Kate! Two
Wonderful, Kate! Two thoughts:
First, I too am terribly confused by the Bishops' loud and negative response to this, especially because I just can't see how this act of a civil government, which in no way extends equal marriage rights to same sex couples or infringes on the religious practice of Catholics, warrants the reaction it's getting. In the grand scheme of immigration reform, allowing citizens to petition for their same sex partners will probably not make a huge dent on the number of immigrants coming into the US, but would make a huge difference to the couples and families it impacts.
Second, on the topic of pride - I've had conversations with some of my feminist Christian friends on the topic of women and pride, coming from a similar place. A conclusion we've come to: groups that have been down so long first need to be raised up, to claim their dignity, and be proud of who they are before we can think about calling "pride" a sin. Only once we have claimed our worth can we be in the position to freely offer our pride or power up to God.
I miss DC Pride! I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it! :)
Kate, The church hierarchy do
Kate,
The church hierarchy do not demonize you for your sexuality.
I agree with laws to give proper legal rights to those living together in relations outside of marriage. I don't think doing that violates the special status which ought to be accorded to marriage in respect of the importance of marriage to the Common Good.
God Bless
What an awesome article...
What an awesome article... As the father of a gay son, I have seen the spiritual devastation and isolation (I'm not exagerating) the church's position on homosexuality is unknowingly causing in many Catholic families. It breaks my heart.
It is so sad to read the
It is so sad to read the opinion articles on this site. It is sad how our secular culture has turned so many people against Christ's Holy Church and the wonderous truths she professes. Kate, I will continue to pray for your conversion, and for comfort and conversion for the parent of the gay son in the post above.
And I'll continue to pray for
And I'll continue to pray for your conversion to a deeper truth than you now experience, that of God's love for all people.
There seems to be much sinful
There seems to be much sinful pride in this article, flaunting your deviant sexual behavior and choosing to follow these desires instead of what God has willed is something that needs correction, not something to be celebrated. Calling yourself a practicing Catholic while saying you're demonized by Catholic Bishops lacks charity and you really ought to hear out the Bishops and not blatantly misrepresent what it is they say. You really seem to be saying that you'll be doing the talking not the listening, and that you have all the answers. Ever think about those faithful Catholics who you are scandalizing? Have you ever thought about anyone other then yourself?
You ask Kate "Have you ever
You ask Kate "Have you ever thought about anyone other then yourself?" Actually, I have always have thought that Kate is thinking of people other then herself. She is thinking of all those gay christians who suffer terrible because they are told that their love is somehow outside of God's love and acceptence. Of those who have been, or would be, put thru distructive "conversion therapies". Of those whose self-esteme has been mangled by other by their attempts to twist gays into a pretzel that suit, what I believe, is their own limited view of God's love. I think she is thinking of those straight people who have only received negative views of gay people and their lives, their desires and their loves. I read in Kate's writings someone who is always thinking of others and willing to take risks to to reach them. I read in Kate's writing a loving and loyal Catholic Christian, one who is willing to reach out and spread God's love, even if it means being marginalized by the leadership of her church and those, like you who see her writings as "scandal".
Needless-to-say, we see Kate differently.
Esther do you really think
Esther do you really think it's right and just to turn your back on millions of Catholic immigrants because a handful of gays could use this bill to bring in their partners? Are Hispanic families worth less than the fear of a few gays? Is this really a Christian position, or is it an exercise in willful pride?
It seems to me the point of this article is that in their gay obsession the bishops are tossing the welfare of hispanic families under the bus and running them over.
It is interesting, but what
It is interesting, but what you see as scandalizing the faithful, I see as witnessing to the faithful. Clearly, you would agree that in Jesus´s time, his teaching were consider a scandal to the faithful, when in fact he was witnessing. I appreciate that you would disagree, but I see a similar kind of witness with Kate and many of her writings.
The challenge to Christians who disagree is large, difficult and demanding. But let´s not lose sight that we both are Christians, who believe in the redemtive death and resurection of Jesus. And we both are following in the footsteps of Jesus as we see the Holy Spirit leading us.
God´s grace and peace be with you.
The Bishop's position will
The Bishop's position will not change, it is based on Natural Law. God's natural law is not "prideful". This month is also the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Let's parade that through the streets. See if there is tolerance for his Sacred Heart. Probably not.
Time for ALL gay clergy,
Time for ALL gay clergy, religious, bishops, archbishops and cardinals to come out of the closet and stand up to the "institutional response" to homosexuality.
You know, from reading these
You know, from reading these articles each week, one would be led to believe that the only thing the authors want is license to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with whomever they want, without the Church daring to tell them anything differently. It seems that their interest in the Church extends only as far as their libidos. I feel very sorry for people who are so bound up in sex, who seek to define themselves by who they get to have sex with.
I feel very sorry for them, as well, because they refuse to answer the great call that Christ is giving them and so they are missing out on the adventure of fidelity. They want the Church to change her eternal teaching to suit their own lifestyles and desires. In so doing, they are asking God to do the same, since the Church's doctrine and teaching is God's. They are seeking to create God in their own image and by doing so, they miss out on coming to know Who God really is. Our Lord is revealed in and through His Church. Not the Church that they would try to make, not the mold that they would force the Church in, but rather the True Church whose teaching on homosexuality has remained unchanged since the time of Christ Himself.
Pride is a deadly sin, alright. But it is not the Church that is proud, but rather it is these folks who, in their own pride and stubbornness, refuse to humble themselves and accept that the Church knows more than they do, that it is the Magisterium, Church's teaching office, that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that that teaching is not subject to the whims, wishes, or prideful desires of a small minority of its people who call themselves "Catholic" and yet reject that which makes them Catholic in the first place.
"In so doing, they are asking
"In so doing, they are asking God to do the same, since the Church's doctrine and teaching is God's." Is the totality of our understanding about the truth of God to be that of moslty white mostly Eurocentric straight males?
Kate, it is not "pride" that
Kate, it is not "pride" that causes the bishops to oppose all measures that ensure equal rights for LGBT people. It is prejudice & bigotry, plain & simple. And, SADLY, it is the SAME prejudice & bigotry that you see in some of the above comments.
All the garish "pride"
All the garish "pride" parades cannot and will not drown St.Paul's words on the kind of relashionships the writer talks about.If she thinks that the grace of God was present in such situations she is sadly mistaken. Pride is what's preventing the writer from seeing the truth; she wants to bend Catholic teachings to suit her needs and lashes out at the Bishops for upholding such teachings. How convenient to camouflage sin with discrimination and throw smoke in people's eyes.
I pray that God may shed His light on her and show her the truth.
And are you also in favor of
And are you also in favor of maintaining slavery because St. paul wrote that slaves should obey their masters?
At first blush, you comment
At first blush, you comment would suggest that you have no historical context in you Bible reading. However, it has more to do with the Saul Alinsky method of using the tools of your opponents as you see fit to support your agenda.
If people who use the Bible do not agree with your agenda, then discredit their agenda by attempting to discredit the Bible as you did in your post.
However, I have no doubt you would without hesitation quote St. Paul whenever it would suit your agenda
What does your post mean?
What does your post mean? Yes, when quoting the bible, one tends to only use quotes that support their prejudices and positions. Left, right or center, all are selective with what passages they will pay attention to. It makes it all very complicated. In this case you use "hostorical context" to discredit the writer. Yet, when progressives use "historical context" they are often clobbered or sneered at from the right. Then the assumption at the end, one that can be made to anyone no matter where they are on the political spectrum. You seem to want to discredit the post without giving any solid reasons for doing so.
Dear John David, clarity
Dear John David, clarity appears to be a problem. You focus on the tangential sentence beginning with “at first blush one might think” and make tangential points about how fundamentalists read the Bible. Let’s lay it out more clearly:
Castellina writes: “All the garish "pride" parades cannot and will not drown St.Paul's words.”
Alexandra responds: “And are you also in favor of maintaining slavery because St. paul wrote that slaves should obey their masters?”
I write: “If people who use the Bible do not agree with your agenda, then discredit their agenda by attempting to discredit the Bible as you did in your post.”
You respond, “when quoting the bible, one tends to only use quotes that support their prejudices and positions. Left, right or center, all are selective with what passages they will pay attention to…. you use ‘historical context” to discredit the writer.”
Huh?
Alexandra did not offer an alternative Bible passage to support homosexuality because there is none. I discredited Alexandra because she attempted to discredit the writings of Paul to make Castellina’s citation of Paul moot.
I’m open to the possiblity that Alexandra is just claiming Castellina is misreading Paul on homosexuality in the same way someone in the past misread Paul’s writings on slavery. If that is the case, there is a problem in comparing Biblical teaching on homosexual acts and slavery because Paul placed restrictions on masters in the same section Alexandra references. No such caveat exisits about homosexual activity even though both homosexual activity and slavery were almost universally accepted in the days of Paul.
Scandalizing God and Jesus by
Scandalizing God and Jesus by not following God's commands as told us again by Jesus:
Love God with all your mind, heart and soul.
Love your neighbour as yourself.
Not hate, judge or condemn your neighbour. Jesus reached out to, ate with, respected , helped , praised, loved the other, the marginalized, the sexual paraihs of his time, the adultress, the woman of the city, the Ethiopian eunoch, the leper, the lame, blind, the SyrioPhoenician woman and her child, the Samaritans. He did not shun or condemn or exclude or not be in community with these others.
Scandalizing God and Jesus is to condemn and exclude the homosexual because Jesus did not exclude or condemn anyone but the cruel and hypocritical Pharisees who lacked justice, mercy, compassion and love.
To the poster under the tag
To the poster under the tag name TM: Spare us your self-righteous hypocrisy! Secular culture has not turned people against Christ's Holy Church. We ARE the Church. It is the corrupt and out of touch hierarchy people have turned against. You hardly need to pray for Kate's conversion. Kate is just fine. The so-called "wondrous truths" the imperial hierarchy often professes have been challenged by the facts of their lack of backbone, honesty and example after example of the hierarchy's hypocrisy. Perhaps you need to pray for your own conversion of heart and mind and not worry so much about others like Kate and the parents of the gay son you so disapprove of. In case you haven't heard, it is ONLY God who has the right to judge, never you and the hypocritical hierarchy you love so much.
Chris, Failing to live up to
Chris,
Failing to live up to standards you agree with is not hypocrisy, but sin. Under your reasoning anyone who publicly speaks of the need to avoid sin is a hypocrite because everyone is a sinner.
Post such as yours that are judgmental and condemning of the hierarachy so often comically end with the comment that only God can judge.
Kate, I'm sorry that Esther
Kate, I'm sorry that Esther and TM's comments are not supportive of your life. Some of my friends are practicing Catholics and also gay. Two were "married" by a priest years ago in a private ceremony. It wasn't legal, but it was a holy commitment ceremony. The partners wear rings and consider themselves in a sacramental relationship. They can't be converted into being straight. What an insult to pray for that. It's the way they are, and it's time we simply open our eyes to the fact that some people have never been and never will be attracted to the opposite sex, and they want to live happy and fulfilled lives, too, so let's level the playing field for them.
There will come a time when this won't be an issue. That's what we can pray for.
It amazes me that you think
It amazes me that you think the Church should bow and bend to your desires and wants. It simply doesn't work that way...nor should it!
On a side note...are there any "Young Voices" of NCR that actually support anything that the Church teaches??? The writers of this column surely do not represent the majority of "young voices" in the Church today and I think if NCR is to be truly "inclusive"...that they should invite other young people with differeing viewpoints than the same old, same old crowd from Call To Action and the Women's Ordination Conference.
I have often thought about
I have often thought about your comment concerning the left leaning of the NCR and, especially the Young voice section. Yet, within the Catholic press there are fewer places where a left of center perspective can be heard. Would you be willing to write to your diocean paper or the National Catholic Register or EWTN and ask them to have articles and reports from the Call to Action and The Women's Ordination Conference?
CTA and the Women's
CTA and the Women's Ordination Conference hold views that are contrary to the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church, there can be conversions on their parts and explanations of why the Church teaches as she does, but any debate on these issues is irrelevant. Left leaning is one thing, holding views that can't be reconciled with the church are another.
Post new comment