From an article on the America Media site on the tragic and shocking shooting in Colorado Springs at an LGTBQ nightclub: Catholic leaders respond to shooting at Colorado LGBTQ nightclub | America Magazine
"Catholic leaders have condemned the Nov. 19 attack on an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado, that killed at least five people and injured at least 25.... church leaders -- the archbishop of Denver, leaders of religious orders and congregations, and a Catholic outreach group to members of the LGBTQ community -- also prayed for those impacted by the attack and urged for an end to hate crimes and use of language that condemns those in the LGBTQ community."
"Denver Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila said he was “saddened by this tragic and senseless act.” ...In a Nov. 20 statement, he said that “while the motives remain unclear, what is clear is that evil incidents like this have become far too common in our society. The random acts of killing innocent human beings must be condemned by a civil society.”
"Outreach, a new initiative of Jesuit-run America Media that provides resources for LGBTQ Catholics, similarly issued a statement on its website Nov. 20 praying for those who died, those who were wounded and for the LGBTQ community in Colorado Springs."
"The Outreach statement stressed that while a motive remained unclear, what is clear, it said, is “the effect that stigmatizing language has on the safety and well-being of LGBTQ people." “Language that seeks to reject, condemn, isolate, blame or target LGBTQ people should be rejected, especially by religious leaders,” it said, adding that such language “leads only to further harassment, beatings and violence.”
“Churches and other religious institutions are called to stand on the side of all who are in any way persecuted, including LGBTQ people,” the Nov. 20 statement said."
"...the Redemptorists of the Denver province grieved the loss of life and injuries inflicted and said they extended their prayers “for the well-being of the LGBTQ community in Colorado Springs as it faces the trauma of this attack and the pain it incurred.”
"The order’s members, based in Chicago, said in a Nov. 21 statement that they recognized that “LGBTQ people are especially vulnerable to an inordinate and unwarranted amount of violence in the world,” and pledged to work against such violence and discrimination and help those who suffer from it."
I am glad to read that church leadership in Colorado has condemned the attack in strong terms, and that Jesuit-sponsored Outreach and other efforts by various religious orders are trying to provide help and support. However... it is long past time for an examination of conscience particularly on the part of church leadership about the effect of anti- LGTBQ rhetoric, that it may have encouraged at least intolerance, and at worst encouraged incidents such as this.
Katherine, when you call for an examination of conscience on the part of church leaders, do you mean the Catholic church? I am sure I don't follow church leaders' rhetoric on LGBTQ topics as closely as many other folks do, but offhand, I'm not aware of any hateful or corrosive rhetoric from Catholic leaders, at least not in the developed world. (I've seen some things from leaders in Africa over the years which I've publicly criticized.) I don't doubt that some priest somewhere in the US has said ignorant and hateful things from the pulpit at some time or other, although I've never experienced it (and hope I never do).
ReplyDeleteChurch documents used to use the term "intrinsically disordered" to describe same-sex attraction. Perhaps that term still is in use somewhere. I understand that term has upset many gay people. Out of a decent respect for people's feelings, I hope it's not used anymore.
The coining of that term "intrinsically disordered" may have been based on an idiosyncratic philosophy which gained some currency in church circles at one time; I recall Lisa Fullam writing about the term back in the dotCommonweal days. But even with questionable philosophical roots, I don't think it's usage in teaching documents was intended to hurt, nor intended to be an expression of hatred; in fact, if I'm not mistaken, where it's used in the Catechism, the same section calls for compassion. And at any rate, I wouldn't classify the use of that term in teaching documents as rhetorical. I guess, if I had to pick a category, it would be expository.
I would guess, if you polled the bishops at last week's conference meeting, all of them would have asserted that they aren't about peddling hatred or intolerance.
Jim, I'm not saying that anyone said, go out and shoot gay people, or harass them or beat them up . But David did my homework for me, below.
DeleteFather Jim Martin, SJ, does outreach ministry to the LGBTQ community and has written a book on it, also has written several articles in America, not to mention a Facebook page. He is a priest in good standing and has spoken with Pope Francis on a couple of occasions. But it is unbelievable the amount of pushback and outright hate that gets directed at him from people who call themselves Catholic.
One must note that James Martin has been disinvited from scheduled talks at Catholic colleges p, including Catholic University. What message does that send? Far more powerful actions than the hypocritical words.
Delete"One must note that James Martin has been disinvited from scheduled talks at Catholic colleges p, including Catholic University. What message does that send?"
DeletePresumably the same message that is sent when conservative scholars are disinvited from speaking at Ivy League schools: administrators lack the courage of their convictions when faced with an angry mob.
"Jim, I'm not saying that anyone said, go out and shoot gay people, or harass them or beat them up."
DeleteRight - I agree that, whatever church leaders have said, they haven't said that, and in fact I'm not aware that any of them have ever said anything that any fair-minded person could construe as even remotely condoning it. You provided a lot of good quotes illustrating that church leaders today do the opposite of condoning it.
You did suggest that, "at worst", there could be some sort of connection between their "rhetoric" and these violent incidents. I'm skeptical.
Jim, I think I’m going to rename you the Dodger. This response appears to be meant to deflect from the true issue - what messages about LBGTQ are sent to Catholics indirectly? Of course no bishop is going Tom advocate violencE. But their say- nothing- meaningful responses do send a message to Catholics in the pews. Twisting the example of Jim Martin being disinvited by Catholic University (because of his efforts to raise awareness of how official Catholic teachings turn members of the LBGTQ into being sinners to be scorned) is an example of Whataboutism. You are a smart guy and it’s a bit disappointing when your deacon-reflexive non- responses kick in. IMHO.
Delete"Whataboutism"
DeleteNot at all. I'm putting it in a different context than you did. I'll add: you might be right that it was pressure from Catholic leaders that caused Martin to be disinvited; I don't know that story.
If church leaders want to silence James Martin, they certainly know how to go about it. I've written here before about Sr. Jeannine Gramick's experience:
https://newgathering.blogspot.com/2022/01/validation-vindication-for-sr-jeannine.html
Sr. Jeanne was disciplined by Rome during the JPII/Ratzinger years, among the dozens and dozens silenced during their combined papacies. Francis doesn’t silence theologians, priests and religious sisters. Francis has bent over backwards to make up for his predecessors it seems, and he has openly welcomed James Martin in personal visits with him in the Vatican.
DeleteWhen Martin was disinvited from the long- scheduled speech at CU, it was actually a planned talk at the Seminary, not the whole university, which gave in to pressure from right- wing Catholics. Since most younger than 50 priests and seminarians are part of the right- wing in Catholicism it’s likely that the seminarians themselves protested, although I don’t know that for sure. The University president issued a statement distancing CU’s administration from the decision because of the firestorm in the secular press (such as the WaPo which covered the story) - a bit like Pontius Pilate - “not OUR policy decision “ - and included a brief whataboutism disclaimer much like yours.
far-right church websites such as Church Militant, LifeSiteNews and the blog run by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,…. have questioned the appropriateness of Martin speaking at seminary and other church events — referring to him repeatedly as a “homosexualist” and “sodomy-promoting” — and in some cases, urged their audiences to express their concerns directly to organizers. In a Sept. 13 post on Martin’s scheduled Theological College appearance, Zuhlsdorf asked, “Does it seem right to you that a seminary should spotlight an open promoter of a homosexualist agenda?”
The Theological College decision was the latest in a series of recent disinvites for Martin…
…Martin said none of the talks were set to focus on LGBT Catholics but on the topic of “Encountering Jesus: Meeting the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith.” In the case of Theological College, he was told that the campaign against his speaking brought “a storm of phone calls, emails and messages to Theological College,” and also had people screaming at receptionists handling the phones…
However - there was a sliver of hope in a meeting ov Catholic college presidents a couple of years later when they invited Martin to speak. The American bishops thumb their noses at Francis, but if they were to instead embrace his vision for the church - preach the gospel! Love, not hate! - they might slow the hemorrhaging. But they are culture warriors, and have mostly abandoned the Gospels to support the GOP agenda, not that of Francis.
The key group for Catholic college and university presidents on Sunday hosted the Rev. James Martin, a globally famous advocate for the LGBT community, who urged the hundreds of school leaders to take new steps to promote inclusion, such as allowing students to pick their pronouns and holding up openly gay staff as role models.
Some longtime attendees of the annual meeting of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) said the invitation to Martin was striking and reflects a new generation of Catholic college presidents as well as the influence of Pope Francis, who emphasizes making all feel welcome.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/catholic-university-presidents-host-leading-lgbt-advocate-rev-james-martin/2020/02/02/89bd832c-45fa-11ea-bc78-8a18f7afcee7_story.html
ReplyDeleteCOLORADO Published November 9, 2022
Colorado archdiocese advises Catholic schools against enrolling transgender students: 'Incompatible goals'
The Denver archdiocese warned 'the spread of gender ideology presents a danger to the faith of Christians'
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver has issued guidance to Catholic schools advising them against enrolling students who desire to be affirmed in the opposite sex, warning that permitting such pupils could hurt the child and sow confusion among classmates.
The archdiocese also urged caution regarding the enrollment of children with same-sex parents, warning that such a situation could lead to "intractable" conflicts.
The archdiocese laid out its reasoning in a 17-page document titled "Guidance for Issues Concerning the Human Person and Sexual Identity," which was reportedly first circulated in 2019 but not reported on until earlier this week after The Denver Post obtained a copy.
Offering advice to school administrators regarding how best to engage with the increasing number of young people struggling with sexuality and gender identity, the document claimed "the spread of gender ideology presents a danger to the faith of Christians," and that the ideology stands in opposition to "Christian anthropology" and Catholic teaching.
Among its guidance, the archdiocese said Catholic schools must not allow students to use pronouns "at odds with the student's biological sex," and also advised educators against promoting acceptance of LGBTQ identities.
Teachers at Catholic schools who want to transition are "not suited to teach in a Catholic school or to carry out the school’s mission in any capacity," the document further states.
While emphasizing the necessity of compassion toward students suffering with gender dysphoria and sexual confusion, the archdiocese asserted that families who rely on secular and medical advice urging parental affirmation of LGBTQ identities present a situation for Catholic schools that is practically "unworkable." . . . .
The link you provided didn't work for me. However, it appears the document is here: I was able to access it, and I assume others here can, too: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23218852-guidance-for-issues-concerning-the-human-person-and-sexual-identity
DeleteIt's not the set of guidelines I would write. I don't think it constitutes hate speech or anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. I don't think it has anything, at all, to do with the shooting in Colorado Springs.
Jim: You say, "I would guess, if you polled the bishops at last week's conference meeting, all of them would have asserted that they aren't about peddling hatred or intolerance."
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, Archbishop Samuel Aquila (or in any case, his archdiocese of Denver) doesn't want transgender students (or teachers) in Catholic schools and doesn't want children of same-sex couples in Catholic schools. "[T]he archdiocese asserted that families who rely on secular and medical advice urging parental affirmation of LGBTQ identities present a situation for Catholic schools that is practically 'unworkable.'" So the parents of children "suffering with gender dysphoria and sexual confusion" are warned to ignore the medical consensus, which calls for gender-affirming care.
There really is no place in the Catholic Church for members of the LGBTQ community who openly identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (especially transgender, at this point in time) or queer. The Church may not approve of shooting them at their nightclubs, but in no way do I see the Church affirming the right to LGBTQ identity.
From the Catechism:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Acts of GRAVE DEPRAVITY under NO circumstances can be approved. This is still the teaching of the Catholic Church, which explains why children of same-sex couples are not wanted in Catholic schools and why most in the LGBTQ community do not feel welcomed by the Catholic Church.
Interesting piece here on the Commonweal website by Lisa Fullam.
ReplyDeleteI liked this: "Francis DeBernardo at the New Ways Ministry blog agrees that it's time for LGBT people to be truly welcomed by the Church, not as 'a special category of sinners, but, because they are, like most people, average, garden-variety sinners.'"
Underneath it all, when lip service is given to welcoming members of the LGBTQ community to the Catholic Church, it is a welcome given to them as a "special category of sinners." As long as they continue to identify as LGBTQ, they are welcomed in the understanding that they must stop acting and being LGBTQ.
Several people have just been gun murdered in a Walmart in Virginia. I am not aware of the bishops denigrating Walmart shoppers. Let's face it. We live in a stressed out nutcase country with a lot of assault rifles and easy access if you need one. You don't have to be LGBTQ to take a bullet in this nuthouse, but it probably helps some. If anything, it shows how we all share in this victimization as brothers and sisters, LGBTQ together with non-LGBTQ.
ReplyDeleteRe the Virginia shooting at WalMart: The Boy works at a big fancy food/ gourmet complex that is overcrowded, understaffed, and where the Christmas season heightens the entitled rage of patrons and stress for employees. It's all worse now as people are dragging around the horrors of Trumpism and covid. The biz owners apparently told employees not to "set off" customers by being anything but super helpful and obsequious. Never mind how that's going to affect employees.
DeleteI see that the German bishops have said that a person's private lifestyle will, in most cases, no longer be a cause for dismissal from employment by church agencies: https://www.ncronline.org/news/private-lifestyle-no-longer-reason-job-dismissal-german-church
ReplyDeleteGun violence is the end result of frustration, rage, family dysfunction, untreated mental health problems, bullying, racial tensions, religious and political leaders ginning up hatred toward "others," and criminal enterprise.
ReplyDeleteGun control is a dead issue.
Teachers in my area are being urged to start packing heat so that when the kid with idiot parents whom they've seen bullied since the third grade shows up waving a gun around they can shoot him down like a dog.
Like Stanley says, it's a nuthouse.
Jim, it is disingenuous to ignore what the priests and bishops do by simply parroting words that are as empty as “ thoughts and prayers” after shootings. The RCC not only teaches that engaging in a sexual relationship is a sin for gays - because it condemns all extra- marital sex after all - they deny marriage to gay Catholics. Rather a Catch 22. Their actions tell the true story - they claim a religious freedom right to discriminate against gays in employment, and in school enrollment, among other things. They are even defend the “ right” of private, profit making businesses to discriminate- to violate civil rights laws - by distorting the concept of “ religious freedom” beyond recognition.
ReplyDeleteBah humbug,
The gun culture in America is beyond the point of no return. One of the reasons our son and his family plan to move to Europe. I notice the hypocrites no longer even mouth the empty “ thoughts and prayers “
Too many Americans think that we won’t be a truly “ free” people if reasonable gun controls were adopted. But the prevalence of gun shootings in the US demonstrates that the gun culture itself hurts our freedom. No longer can Americans feel safe anywhere- Walmarts, schools, churches, offices, field trips to the theater, restaurants and clubs - and many other venues - are all magnets for deranged gun nuts.
To be fair, not all bishops take the hard line that Abp. Aquila seems to have. I have not heard of Chicago's Archbishop Cupich taking the particular tone of rhetoric that some of the culture warriors have.
ReplyDeleteBishops like mine who agree with culture warriors in substance if not in vehemence--or even the bishops who just ignore the culture wars entirely--are enough to keep the ugliness churned up.
ReplyDeleteThe Church was not at the forefront of racial civil rights back in the 1960s (a few priests and nuns were), despite the fact that being non-white was never considered a sin. So I doubt that the Church is suddenly going to make LGBT rights their cause celebre when it has specifically condemned acting on homosexual or transgendered "urges" as grave sins.
Katherine, of course not every bishop or every priest or very ordinary Catholic preaches hate, even indirectly. But some do, often by saying one thing and doing another. Trump essentially gave Americans permission to fear and hate the other - immigrants and refugees and other POC. The hierarchy does something similar when firing gay mployees who marry, by banning children of gay couples from the schools, by pouring money into efforts to ban gay marriage and to promote a concept of religious freedom that allows anyone to discriminate by crying religious freedom.
ReplyDeleteSee the link in my comment @ 8:51 am about the German bishops. I hope that is the start of some re-thinking.
DeleteTwo things struck me immediately about Archbishop Samuel A. Aquila's official statement in the Colorado Springs shootings.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the statement—I am quite sure deliberately—does not use "LGBTQ" or any other explicit reference to the identity of the victims. The statement is presented on the website of the archdiocese in a press release that contains the line "Five dead and over a dozen injured in mass shooting at LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs." But the Archbishop himself makes no identification of the shooter's target. He merely says, "While the motives remain unclear, what is clear is that evil incidents like this have become far too common in our society. The random acts of killing innocent human beings must be condemned by a civil society."
Second, the archbishop says, "I am reminded of Paul’s letter to the Romans, urging them not to be overcome by evil, but to overcome evil with good." Romans? Anyone who has argued the case for or against biblical condemnations of homosexuality will be aware that, after Leviticus, Romans contains the most frequently cited passage (1:26-27) used to condemn gay people. Was the reference to Romans totally thoughtless, or was it a "dog whistle"?
My guess is that part is thoughtless, since the reference to overcoming evil with good is Romans 12:19-21, quite a ways removed from 1:26-27.
DeleteThe attack on the LGBTQ+ night club was a potential hate crime not a random act of violence. Our response must be different.
ReplyDeleteFirst, we must denounce the particular hatred that might have been involved. Second, we must treat the victims as victims of a hate crime even if there is a remote possibility the attacker might not have been motivated by hatred of them. Third, we must not focus on potential mitigating factors, e.g. the attacker may have been mentally ill, or that possessing guns is a problem in our society
.
The archbishop’s first, but not primary concern was praying for the victims of a random act of violence. No real concern for the concrete victims and their situations.
The archbishop’s primary concern was a general one for evil, especially as manifested by random acts of violence against ”innocent” victims. He calls upon civil society to reject all such acts. I am surprised that he didn’t add “especially against the unborn.” But maybe he regards those as non-random.
I think America Media and Catholic New Service did a great job of not focusing upon the Archbishop’s statement but gathering together all the other people near and far who did do a good job of responding to a potential hate crime.
The archbishop’s handling of this pastoral situation is an example of the great dissatisfaction with many American bishops and the conference in general evident in the summaries from the synodality listening sessions.
People want more focus upon welcoming and supporting people of all types, recognition that we are all sinners, and less focus upon moralizing about particular sins, and stigmatizing particular people.
In other words, we want pastors rather than teachers of theology. It is interesting that is exactly what Francis made the main criteria for future bishops. I think he is aware of the great number of failures there are among present bishops in this regard.
Your post makes me wonder to what extent American Catholic identity depends on stigmatizing certain people. When I was a kid, used to be Catholics stigmatized Protestants (non believers in the One True Church, not married in the eyes of God). Now it's prochoicers and gay people.
DeleteMaybe all religious identity works that way. Jews were always banging on against the perfidious gentiles.
How can we know we're right unless we have folks to look down on? Folks who need our 8 months of RCIA instruction so they can knuckle under? Certainly the joy with which converts are welcomed into the Church is mixed with the "see, these people figured out we were right" triumphalism.
I don't see clergy wanting to be pastors--or people wanting them to he pastors--just gatekeepers to keep the club pure.
Definitely there's a strain of that, not necessarily confined to Catholics. Not everyone is like that though. I guess it's easier to figure out who you aren't than who you are.
DeleteJack - In other words, we want pastors rather than teachers of theology. It is interesting that is exactly what Francis made the main criteria for future bishops. I think he is aware of the great number of failures there are among present bishops in this regard
DeleteGiven that the US bishops elected three anti-Francis men to the top leadership posts in the USCCB, bypassing moderates who would normally have gained those jobs according to what I have read, it’s pretty clear that they have no interest in following the Francis path. They will continue to push the culture wars and support the political culture warriors as well. They prefer to be powerful rather than pastoral.
Katherine, no, not at all confined to Catholics.
DeleteCertainly Unitarians, in my experience, typically come to that denomination after rejecting whatever they found hypocritical or unbelievable in traditional Christianity or Judaism. As a teenager, I remember being very frustrated about what we, as Unitarians, were supposed to believe.
I embraced the positive, vs negative, sense of belief in mainline Christianity. But, as you say, it's easier for some people to define themselves by who they are not and to make rules out of that for everyone else.
Happy Advent everyone. One of my favorite seasons.
Jack - regarding Archbishop Aquila's statement, he said this:
Delete""Denver Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila said he was “saddened by this tragic and senseless act.” ...In a Nov. 20 statement, he said that “while the motives remain unclear, what is clear is that evil incidents like this have become far too common in our society. The random acts of killing innocent human beings must be condemned by a civil society.”"
He noted that "the motives remain unclear" (presumably, that was the case when the statement was issued). You replied that, "We must treat this as a hate crime." Perhaps Aquila will be willing to do so - once the hate-crime angle has been established. His reluctance to leap to a hate-crime conclusion, ahead of the known facts, may be rooted in the history of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. Virtually everyone leaped to the conclusion (quite reasonably) that the shooting was a hate crime targeting LGBTQ folks. However, I understand some evidence has subsequently emerged that the shooter did not know that Pulse was a gay bar, and may really have selected the venue at random.
"First, we must denounce the particular hatred that might have been involved. Second, we must treat the victims as victims of a hate crime even if there is a remote possibility the attacker might not have been motivated by hatred of them. Third, we must not focus on potential mitigating factors, e.g. the attacker may have been mentally ill, or that possessing guns is a problem in our society"
DeleteJack, I am not following you here. Why shouldn't we seek to understand whether it was a hate crime, and whether mental illness played a role in the crime, and that possessing guns is an aspect of the crime?
From what I've read about the suspected shooter, his motive hasn't been established yet. I understand Colorado authorities will charge him (or perhaps already have charged him) with a hate crime or something similar, but I haven't seen reporting that shows that, for example, he has a long and documented history of anti-gay diatribes or acts. His own public defenders are claiming he has a non-binary identity; not sure to what extent that further muddies the waters. All of us here have been around the block a few times, and it's certainly reasonable to assume it was a hate crime, but as I say, I don't believe there is much evidence made public so far to support the charge.
"Your post makes me wonder to what extent American Catholic identity depends on stigmatizing certain people. When I was a kid, used to be Catholics stigmatized Protestants (non believers in the One True Church, not married in the eyes of God). Now it's prochoicers and gay people.
Delete"Maybe all religious identity works that way."
...and maybe it's not only religious identity that works that way.
A concern for identity is especially pronounced among minorities, and especially especially mistreated and marginalized minorities, a status which applied to Catholics until, well, our generations came along (and even today there is some residual anti-Catholicism, although it's not especially toxic anymore.)
Vatican II tried to usher in an age of ecumenical encounter and cooperation, which has succeeded to some extent.
That's an interesting point about Vat II. I don't have the same religious identity as a Cradle Catholic, so I don't know how ecumenical lifelong Catholics feel. Some seem ecumenically akin to conservative evangelicals, which is, imo, a very strange development. Disheartening to me personally because stigmatizing evangelicals and fundamentalists is part of my own Christian identity ...
Delete"I don't have the same religious identity as a Cradle Catholic, so I don't know how ecumenical lifelong Catholics feel."
DeleteI think, by and large, Catholics are charging ahead with ecumenism on their own terms, especially the old-fashioned way: marrying non-Catholics.
FWIW: I participated in some inter-parish discussions recently (which, frankly, weren't interesting enough to merit a post here, but it seems we're in a bit of a posting drought, so I may try to gussy it up and post something) in which I learned that our parish averages eight weddings a year. Our parish is pretty large: something like 2,800 registered families. I think, 30 or 40 years ago, eight weddings would have been an average-to-busy June.
Maybe I'm reading too much into that number, but I think a big reason that number is so small is that Catholic kids these days are marrying someones other than other Catholics.
Interesting, about the number of weddings. Our parish averages probably 8-10 in a year. We have around 800 registered families. I do know that the numbers of weddings are less now than they used to be. I think you are right that people are marrying non Catholics a lot. But there's another factor. One of my friends was disappointed because her son didn't get married in church. But it was because his wife to be had been married before. She wasn't Catholic and also didn't want to go through the annulment process. That takes a lot of time to process, on top of the archdiocese lead time of 8 months. There's just a lot of hoops to jump through now. When my parents got married I think all that had to be done was post the banns for three Sundays in a row.
DeleteJim - I think a big reason that number is so small is that Catholic kids these days are marrying someones other than other Catholics.
DeleteAnd why do you think that is? Why choose to marry the outside of the RCC?
Hard to say. Fifty years ago I married someone who isn’t Catholic. We had a full nuptial mass and the pastor invited my husband to receive communion. He felt welcome. He continued to receive communion, attended mass regularly, and volunteered as a CYO coach. He went along with baptizing the kids Catholic and paid for Catholic schools. But he had no desire to formally convert. I felt that he was welcome. If he hadn’t been welcomed then I doubt I would have married in the RCC - if he (we) had been made to feel like pariahs. About ten years before we married, a friend of my sister’s married a man who wasn’t Catholic. Their wedding in the church was under rules that clearly showed that the marriage was not seen as desirable by the RCC - immediate family only, no mass, held in the church offices. In recent years I have heard several stories of the second class treatment that two-religions couples are again experiencing in the RCC. It’s not as bad as in the pre-VII era, but definitely not welcoming - in the church but with no nuptial mass. In addition, many couples are told that if they or their parents haven’t been contributing to the parish for at least two years then they either have to write a big check or delay the wedding for two years. Since many young adults move away from their parents and wish to marry in their own town, and haven’t formally joined a parish or regularly put checks in the Sunday collection, they are not welcome to marry there until they write a hefty check. Some were so horrified by this that they did not marry in the RCC but in a more welcoming church, usually one that the not Catholic partner was linked to. And that’s where they often stay when they have kids.
But I suspect that the lack of welcome for two- religion couples, added to all of the hoops they are now expected to go through before they are allowed to marry in the church, is not the major reason for the drop in marriages in the RCC. I suspect that the majority of the no- shows have joined the “nones” and that having a religious ceremony is really not very important to them.
Jim, you say, "All of us here have been around the block a few times, and it's certainly reasonable to assume it was a hate crime, but as I say, I don't believe there is much evidence made public so far to support the charge."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me you are a bit on the defensive here. If someone shoots up, say, a synagogue, I don't see that it's necessary to withhold sympathy from the Jewish community for the atrocity or refrain from pointing out that Jews are known to be disproportionately at risk of hate crimes until the attacker's motive is definitively proven to be anti-Semitism. It is certainly possible to go overboard in trying to assign blame for a crime such as this on those who are hostile or unsympathetic to the particular subgroup that was targeted, but it's impossible to maintain that Jews, blacks, members of the LGBTQ community, Asians, and so on are all too often targeted. I see no need when any such group is targeted to sympathize with and condemn the victimization only after the attacker's motives are fully understood.
What irked me was what seemed to me a deliberate avoidance of the use of "gay" or "LGBTQ" or any other identification of the target in the Colorado shootings. (Perhaps Archbishop Aquila subscribes to the DeSantis "don't say gay" proscription.) From scanning some of his statements, it seems he never uses the word "gay."
The more conservative forces in the Catholic Church (of which there are many) in a very real sense do not recognize the right to exist of lesbian. gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people. This does not mean they think LGBTQ individuals should be exterminated by violence. But to self-identify as a member of the LGBTQ community is to approve of, and engage in, "behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right." It means that, as the Catechism puts it, "2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." This can only mean it is necessary to stop identifying as LGBTQ and refrain from any activities that make one a member of the community—no homosexual behavior, no same-sex marriage, no gay couples raising children, no "gender affirming treatment" in cases of gender dysphoria, no transitioning, no Pride Parades, no LGBTQ clubs, no sympathetic portrayals of LGBTQ characters on TV shows, no rollerblading. (That last one is a joke. In NYC, at least, in-line skating was very popular among the gay community. Hence the joke:
"Q. What's the hardest thing about rollerblading?"
"A. Telling your parents you're gay.")
In my humble and personal opinion, the Catholic Church is wrong and must change its doctrine regarding LGBTQ issues, but I don't see that happening in anything like the near future. So conservative Catholics will continue to send the message that gays et al. commit acts of "grave depravity" and engage in behavior to which no one has any conceivable right. (You attempt to argue that this language—along with "intrinsically disordered"—is somehow outmoded, but its still in the Catechism and CDF documents, and its chief architect was Cardinal Ratzinger, who was chosen as pope after he doubled down on such language.)
I don't find it helpful to my faith to think much about the machinations of the Vatican. But wasn't some of the doubling down a result of the notion that it was gay clergy who were responsible for child abuse? If I remember correctly, a lot of the ill will toward gay people among Catholics, especially rad trads during the Benedict years, came from connecting gay people to pedophilia.
DeleteGayness or straightness is just another dimension. John Wayne Gacy was a gay serial killer. Ted Bundy was a heterosexual serial killer. I'm sure pedophiles follow that pattern to some degree. I am assuming there are pedophile subsets of both groups. But if you hate a certain group, you can use this to tar them all. Such incomplete thinking causes a lot of damage.
DeleteFrom David's comment:
Delete"...as the Catechism puts it, "2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." This can only mean it is necessary to stop identifying as LGBTQ and refrain from any activities that make one a member of the community—no homosexual behavior, no same-sex marriage, no gay couples raising children..."
This is the bit which puts LGTBQ people in a special category of sinner, not just a garden variety of sinner like everyone else. I imagine it feels the same as it would to a heterosexual person if the only way they could be not "beyond the pale" would be to commit to a monastic celibacy without the possibility of a committed relationship.
Katherine, while I wouldn't go too far in making the comparison, same-sex-attracted Catholics are in a somewhat similar position to sacramentally married, civilly divorced Catholics. Theoretically, the latter are expected to embrace "monastic celibacy without the possibility of a committed relationship." However, starting at least with Pope John Paul II, there has existed a great deal of sympathy within the Church for the sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried individuals, with ways being pondered for them to be in such good standing in the eyes of the Church that they may receive communion. Of course it is easier to relate to the plight of sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried Catholics, since the are only (technically) committing adultery, which is not so terribly stigmatized nowadays.
DeleteDavid, I don't think I'm being defensive (and I'm not very interested in defending Aquila). If you think his statement could have been better - fine. As I said, it seems likely that you're not begging the question when you claim that the victims were "targeted".
DeleteThere is quite a difference between these two statements, even though both of them describe the death of a human being:
"A gay person was killed in a nightclub"
"A person was killed in a nightclub for being gay"
The second statement surely is a hate crime. The first one? Not enough information to say for sure.
I know nothing about Aquila, but I can believe that he doesn't use the term "gay". Perhaps he uses terms like "homosexual" and "same sex attraction" and other church-ese terms out of the morality manuals. You may have noticed that the entire first section of his school district's document on transgender policies was a discussion of terms to be avoided. Evidently he sees it as part of his mission to put forth a version of a Catholic anthropology over and against whatever competing anthropologies are being promoted in the larger society.
I think the thing about not saying gay is because in some people's minds it's code for being sexually active. But it seems like nowadays it's more or less just a generic term for orientation
DeleteSome elements in the Church (and elsewhere) believe gays, lesbians, homosexuals don't exist, only sinful same-sex behavior that must be overcome.
DeleteIt's a very sad mindset, imo. Basically says, "You're not gay, you're just giving into depraved sexual behavior and making up an identity to justify it."
It's an attitude that embraces trying to treat or cure homosexuality, that posits some chemical or genetic malfunction that could be discovered and fixed with drugs, or ascribes trauma or an unbalanced home life as a cause.
It generally perpetuates the notion that homosexuality is a sickness.
Respect for Marriage Act passed the Senate. Something like a dozen Republicans voted for it. Perhaps in light of recent events, party moderates are trying to model tolerance? Maybe it shows a shift away from the Christian Right? Maybe a recognition of Log Cabin Republicans?
ReplyDeleteSusan Collins, R-Maine, said a "yes" vote wasn't easy for many senators. Is that true?
Not sure how to read the larger implications, if any, of the vote on the GOP.
Odd little quirk in the law says that states cannot be forced to issue licenses for same sex marriages but must recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. I wonder if that same quirk applies to interracial marriages. Republicans justifying a "yes" vote cited protecting interracial marriages as well as same sex unions.
Most of the "no" votes came from the former Confederate states + a few very red conservative states in the West and Midwest.
I think the vote says that the old Moral Majority coalition is continuing to wane in political influence. Presumably these Republicans voted this way because (a) there is political upside for them and/or (b) they think it's the right thing to do.
DeleteGay marriage passed the Senate largely because many people on both sides of the aisle have gay family members or friends. That meant it could become a non-partisan issue. Shumer whose son is gay refused to politicize the issue by turning down Democrats who wanted a vote before the election. The bipartisan coalition of Senators did their homework with those likely to be opposed by putting in religious liberty guarantees.
DeleteI think definitely the religious liberty guarantees were a big factor in getting the act to pass.
Delete"Gay marriage passed the Senate largely because many people on both sides of the aisle have gay family members or friends. That meant it could become a non-partisan issue."
DeleteYes - at least, trending toward being a non-partisan issue; it seems there are quite a few conservatives in Congress who aren't on board yet.
But even the trend strikes me as something to celebrate. That vote was historic.
"I think definitely the religious liberty guarantees were a big factor in getting the act to pass."
DeleteYes, at least in the Senate. The House, whose version of the bill contains the the deplorable provisions which the Senate's version had to correct, now has to confirm the Senate version. Presumably the pressure on House Democratic members to do so will be immense. But we're not out of line in asking why their version had to be corrected in the first place. Shame on them.
Now I'm going to have to look up what the deplorable provisions were!
DeleteWhile the language of the Church hierarchy regarding LGBTQ people adds to the risk of being those people, the biggest problem for me is that it chains the empathy of many Catholics. A Catholic must run their feelings of sympathy and any actions based on those feelings through a "yes, but" filter of the institutional Church.
ReplyDeleteI find incidents such as a bishop dropping a hammer on the display of rainbow and BLM flags at a Catholic high school extremely depressing. Those students got the message and it's a nasty one.
Not only did the bishop drop the hammer on the display of flags, but he said that the school displaying them could no longer call itself Catholic, and Mass would no longer be allowed to be celebrated on its premises. Talk about a nasty message.
DeleteContrast that with St. Cecilia's parish in Boston: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/11/15/welcoming-parish-244110
BTW, Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston is not known for being a renegade prelate. Definitely two contrasting ways of Catholic identity.
"Yes-but filter." I feel that!
DeleteUnrelated, please say a prayer for my husband, he tested positive for Covid. So far he doesn't feel too bad, just similar to a cold. Said things taste weird. We have a call in to the doctor's office to see if he needs to take the anti-viral. I am in limbo; no symptoms and negative test, but maybe should not expose others.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to hear about your husband. Prayers of course! Hoping you have groc delivery or curbside in your area. I am happy that those services here have continued!
DeleteKatherine, I’m sorry to hear about the Covid infecting your husband. Prayers for a fast recovery. When my husband got Covid after flying last Christmas ( the beginning of the Omicron wave), I never got it. However our son tested positive three days after my husband. It’s tricky to navigate.
DeleteThanks! What I'm hearing is that the anti viral med isn't appropriate for everyone. He'll have a teleconference with the doctor later in the day to determine that. So far he doesn't seem too sick.
DeletePrayers for his recovery. Sorry to hear he's infected. Keep us posted.
DeleteJim, I’m back from California. I responded to your comment about CU. James Martin, and Whataboutism on Nov 20.
ReplyDelete