Queer Spirituality

"The Last Judgement", and the Homoerotic Spirituality of Michaelangelo.

2010-11-14T08:54:00.000-08:00

One of the great paradox's of queer church history is that a period of extreme persecution of "sodomites" by the Inquisition, directly at their own hands or indirectly by secular authorities at their instigation, largely coincided with a remarkable series of popes who had sex with men, who protected family and friends who did so, or spent vast sums commissioning major works of homoerotic art. Of these, the most obvious and best known of these is Michelangelo's magnificent frescoes for then Sistine Chapel, which remains one of the must see attractions for any tourist visiting Rome. (Pope Paul III who commissioned these works for the chapel, also commissioned an obviously homoerotic theme, the Rape of Ganymede, for his bedroom.)

For the thousands of daily visitors, this is a powerful depiction of the second coming of Christ, and so a source of religious inspiration - but may have been based, in part, on scenes of male and female prostitution the artist saw in the Rome of his day.

A new study claims that the huge painting is also based on the seedy scenes the 16th-century artist witnessed at Roman public baths which doubled as brothels for male and female prostitutes.
"The figures descending to hell and ascending to heaven are inspired by the virile, muscular manual workers and porters Michelangelo would have seen during his visits to the baths, which are well documented," said Elena Lazzarini, a researcher at the University of Pisa and the author of the study. "It was here he defined the build of the working man as the ideal physique."
The public baths which proliferated in Rome at the time offered steam rooms, massages and basic medical treatments with leeches, "but also rooms offering scenes of promiscuity and prostitution, both male and female", she said.

Lazzarini pointed out that in the painting, which spans an entire wall of the chapel where papal conclaves are held, one of the damned is being dragged down to hell by his testicles while men heading for heaven hug and kiss "in an ambiguous fashion".
-Guardian

In what sense is this image of men kissing "ambiguous"?

So, there appear to be two paradoxes here. One is the historical anomaly of open male prostitution and papal tolerance or encouragement of homoeroticism while simultaneously executing thousands of Sodomites, often by burning at the stake. The other is the apparent anomaly of placing erotic art, homoerotic and otherwise, in a papal chapel.

On the historical anomaly, I do not want to go further here. On the spiritual / erotic element, there is no contradiction at all. Eroticism, and especially homoeroticism, frequently goes together with spirituality. As Chris Glaser notes in his introduction to "Coming out to God", sexuality and spirituality can support and reinforce each other. They are not in conflict. Outside the Christian tradition, many religions have explicitly embraced sexuality in religious worship, from Hindu erotic temple art, to male and female temple prostitutes in the Middle Eastern ancient world. Many societies even recognize a specific association between spiritual gifts and homoerotic attraction or cross-dressing, as seen in the American berdache, African sangomas, and Asian hijras - or even the "skirts" worn by many Christian male clergy, and the high proportion of gay Catholic and Anglican clergy. The history of Christian spirituality is filled with examples which use male erotic imagery, such as John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila, or images of male friendship such as Aelred of Rievaulx's "Spiritual Friendship".

The homoerotic content of Michelangelo, in the Sistine Chapel and elsewhere, is self-evident: all one has to do is to look at it. But this is not only erotic - it is also powerfully, deeply spiritual. Indeed, when the painter Veronese defended himself before the Holy Tribunal on charges of "inappropriate" imagery in his Last Supper, he cited The Last Judgement as precedent - and the Tribunal responded that Michelangelo's work was excused because of its great spirituality.

For most casual visitors today, the spiritual content of the "Last Judgement" is obvious: an inspiring image of the resurrection, and the prospect of everlasting life. For observers of his own day, the message would have been more terrifying - a reminder of the danger of eternal damnation, and hence of the necessity of redemption through the Church. The frequent commissions by the church of scenes of the Last Judgement, Michelangelo's among many others, would thus have been a means for the church to remind the faithful of its own importance, and so consolidate its power over their minds. Robert Baldwin elaborates on this idea, and also observes that Michelangelo himself, by showing his own self-portrait in a flayed skin held by st Bartholomew, sees himself as a victim of the Church's obsession with control.

So, where is Michelangelo's spirituality to be found? I suspect that the clue comes in looking not just at his art, but at the man as a whole. His contemporary biographer Ascanio Condivi wrote that

Michelangelo 'loved not only human beauty but universally every beautiful thing: a beautiful horse, a beautiful dog, a beautiful landscape, a beautiful plant, a beautiful mountain, a beautiful wood and every place and thing beautiful and rare after its own kind.. .'
-George Bull, at Catholic Ireland

This love of beauty was expressed not only in painting, but also in poetry, in sonnets (some of which are also clearly homoerotic in content).

A sonnet written when he was in his early seventies began with the declaration that every beautiful thing passed through his eyes instantly to his heart along a path open to thousands 'of all ages and sexes'.
-George Bull, at Catholic Ireland

In his Mass to celebrate the restoration of the Sistine frescoes, Pope John Paul II had this to say of them:

'The frescoes that we contemplate here introduce us to the world of Revelation. The truths of our faith speak to us here from all sides... The Sistine Chapel is precisely – if one may say so – the sanctuary of the theology of the human body. In witnessing to the beauty of man created by God as male and female, it also expresses in a certain way the hope of a world transfigured, the world inaugurated by the risen Christ, and even before by Christ on Mount Tabor…in the context of the light that comes from God, the human body also keeps its splendour and its dignity. .. If it is removed from this dimension, it becomes in some way an object, which depreciates very easily, since only before the eyes of God can the human body remain naked and unclothed, and keep its splendour and its beauty intact...'
-quoted by George Bull

In his praise for the paintings as presenting the "theology of the body", John Paul is careful to select the representations of male and female, but the work itself also celebrates another element of beauty in the human body: that of male and male.

Michelangelo's Last Judgment 'inspired by seedy brothel scenes' (Guardian)
Michaelangelo's Last Judgment figures 'based on male prostitutes' (Telegraph)
GLBT History Month (in Church): Cardinal Borghese (1576 - 1633), Homoerotic Art Lover (Queering the Church)
Nov 1st: All (Gay) Saints (Queering the Church)
Homoerotic Spirituality (Queer Spirituality)
St John of the Cross (Queer Spirituality)
The Spiritual Gifts of Gay Sexuality (Queer Spirituality)
The Medieval Flowering of Homoerotic Christiantity (Queer Saints and Martyrs)
The Intimate Dance of Sexuality and Spirituality (Queer Spirituality)
"Finding God in the Erotic": Fr Donal Godfrey (queering-the-church.com)
Finding God in Gay Lovemaking (Queer Spirituality)

James Alison on Growing Up Gay

2010-11-01T22:40:00.000-07:00

James Alison is another important theologian for gay men, although he described himself not as a "gay theologian", but as a theologian who writes from a gay (male) perspective. He was formerly a Dominican priest, who like Fr John McNeill,, was forced out of the priesthood for daring to speak honestly, in his case about gay priests. He has since created a new career as an independent theologian, writing, speaking and leading workshops. His work is characterised by a continuous ability to celebrate the joy of being gay and Catholic,and for a particular attention to the difficulties of young people on first coming out.

This is the focus of this piece, published at his website:

Navigating uncharted waters: the gift of faith and growing up LGBT

The first point which I’d like to make, in a sense, is a big sigh of relief. And the sigh of relief is as follows: if faith were an ideology, and gay were a pathology, how easy this conference would be! Because if faith were an ideology, it would merely say “nyet” to us, and if being gay were a pathology, then we would merely go “oh poor little me”; and the matter would be over. Unfortunately for people who try to present things in the way that makes faith into an ideology, and being LGBT into a pathology, this world has collapsed. The world in which faith is an ideology, and ‘LGBT’ is a pathology, has collapsed. Our ability to have survived into what might pass as adulthood in some of our cases, seems to have borne witness to this. We’re no longer run by the world in which faith is an ideology, and being LGBT is a pathology. But getting out of some of the tracks of thinking, to which many of us have got used, which did rather regard it as though we were perpetually stuck between those two, has taken time.

So what I want us to do today is to start in the morning by looking forward, and looking back, a little bit. This is, remember, with a view to being able to think more creatively this afternoon. So I’m not asking you to look back for reasons of nostalgia – though that can be important – but it’s because a healthy looking back is what empowers a looking forward. This is one of the things which is very important for us. We are all autobiographical animals – we tell stories. And our stories are not based on fixed memories from the past, read towards us; all our stories are told from where we are now, looking backwards. And what I think inspires us to be able to think about these stories, is the gift of hope. And I want to make – this is my second point: the difference between hope and optimism. Often the two are confused. Optimism is, if you like, a strategic matter: I try and examine what the forces in play are, in the society in which I live, or in the church, or whatever, and I ask myself, ‘am I optimistic or am I pessimistic?’. But this proposes that, or this imagines that, one is in a battle with something, on one’s own level, and one is optimistic or pessimistic depending on who gets elected pope, what the bishop is like, etc etc – things like this. Hope is something entirely different. Hope is a gift, given us by Someone Else, who s pulling us out of where we are, into something bigger. Hope is actually compatible with a great deal of non-optimism, with quite a sanguine assessment of the reality of our situation. But hope is a theological virtue, a gift – we’re going to be looking at how faith is a gift in just a second – it presupposes Someone Else, to wit, God, pulling us out of a situation, and opening us up into something bigger. It’s that that I want to focus on, because it’s in the degree to which we are able to imagine someone else doing that for us, that we are able to retell our stories, in more open, more critical, more relaxed ways, in such a way that they will open our trajectories out to open and more creative futures. Does that make sense? [pause] Good.

(Read the full article)

Books by James Alison
Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay
On Being Liked
Undergoing God: Dispatches from the Scene of a Break-in
Broken Hearts New Creations: Intimations of a Great Reversal
(Forthcoming)

Come Out, Stand Proud. (The Catechism Commands It!)

2010-10-11T10:52:00.000-07:00

Yes, really - in a manner of speaking. Browsing through the Catechism section on sexuality, which you will find under the sixth commandment, I was struck by two passages in particular:

"Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity." (2333)

and

"Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another" (2337)

Of course, that it is not at all what the Vatican means - the rest of the passage assumes that this can only be done by violating your identity in a heterosexual relationship, which we know from the experts in social science, from the testimony of others, and and from personal experience, is a violation of our identites, not an acceptance. But then, the Vatican has never been noted for freedom from contradiction.

There are more compelling reasons though, than the Vatican's mixed messages for coming out, and indeed for coming out in church. For "coming Out Day", I want to look instead at some of these.

Rereeading Elisabeth Stuart's "Gay & Lesbian Theologies", I was struck by the realisation that she puts the start of the formal development of gay & lesbian theology to the early 1970's. the first notable text she discusses is Loving Women/Loving Men (eds Sally Gearhard and William Johnson), published as long ago as 1974 -fully 35 years ago this year, and "Towards a Theology of Gay Liberation", edited by Malcolm Marcourt.

An essential aspect of this early thinking takes its cue from Paul Tillich, and his notion of "the courage to be". In these terms, it is important to recognise our own experience.

Johnson accuses the church of being over concerned with "intellectual theology", and under concerned with the grounding of theology in experience. It is therefore vital that gay people come out, articulate their experience and reflect theologically upon it, for "we who are gay know the validity of our experience, particularly the experience of our love. That love calls us out of ourselves and enables us to respond to the other. Through our experience we experience the presence of God...........
For Johnson, gay liberation is vital for the liberation of the Church to enable it to better incarnate the Gospel. The essay ends with a call to all gay men in the Church to come out, to ensure that liberation takes place." (Emphasis added.)

Previously, I have looked at Richard Cleaver's view that coming out is "Wrestling with the Divine" (Know My Name), and Daniel Helminiak's that is a "Spiritual Experience" (Sex and the Sacred). John McNeill, former Jesuit theologian and psychotherapist, makes similar points in "Sex as God Intended". Today, I want to look at the ideas of Chris Glaser, who in a full length book presents his view of "Coming Out as Sacrament". Glaser is one of those treasured writers on gay religion of whom it can said, as with James Alison, Daniel Helminiak and JohnMcNeill, that everything they write is worth reading, and accessible even to non specialists. Glaser writes from a backgroound in the Baptist and Presbyterian faiths, but as a Catholic I find this helpful, in broadening my perspective, rather than getting ini the way of his argument. The starting point for this book was some reflection on the importance of the idea of sacrament to lGBT people, who are so often denied access to the sacraments by mainstream churches. Talking to a close friend (sympathetic, but not LGBT), this is how his thinking went:

"Having visited our Wednesday night Bible study, she told me that what impressed her most deeply, what she thougth was our sacrament as gay people, was our "ability to be vulnerable with one another" - in other words, to xperience true communion by offering our true selves. As Christ offers himself in vulnerability, so we offer ourselves, despite the risks. Being open and vulnerable may be preceivesd as weakness, but in reality it demonstrates our strength. By sharing our "brokenness" - how we are sacrificially cut off from the rest of Christ's Body - we offer a renewed opportunity of Communion, among ourselves and within the Church as the Body of Christ."

Later, he added a conclusion that had not occurred to him earlier-

" that coming out is our unique sacrament, a rite of vulnerability that reveals the sacred in our lives - our worth, our love, our love-making, our context of meaning, and our God. "

Later in the opening chapter, he carefully notes the ways in which coming out has deep affinity with not just one, but each, of the traditional seven sacraments of the broader Christian community. Above all, however, he says there is one where there is an extra special affinity: the sacrament of communion is intrinsic to coming out - it is hardly possible to come out entirely in private.

Coming out in public is important for one's own mental health, and also for one's spiritual being. Doing so in the Church cam help the Church to recognise and proclaim the true Gospel message. If you possibly can, do it: quite literally, for the love of God.

Was Jesus a Second Class Citizen?

2010-08-11T12:00:00.000-07:00

At Religion Dispatches Magazine, Louis A. Ruprecht makes an important point:

One of the more striking things about all of the ink that has been spilled over California’s now- infamous Proposition 8, and its long legal aftermath, is the almost reflexive assumption on all sides that marriage, somehow, is a norm, a desirable norm. And so the argument swiftly becomes an argument about normalcy: about who is normal; and abut who may be privileged to participate in normalizing social institutions like marriage.

There is today a pervasive assumption about the normalcy and automatically privileged status for marriage, especially in the Church. But as Stephen Schloesser has clearly shown, in the article I summarised here this morning, this privileged status was given by the church only in the twelfth century - and was then more about property rights than about the importance of the family, which is the usual reason given today. It has nothing to do with the early church, which discouraged children and saw marriage only as a necessary evil to provide a licit for men's undesirable sexual urges, or with the Gospels. Ruprecht reminds us that Jesus was single. (We also know that he encouraged his disciples to leave families behind, to follow him.)

[ad#In- post ]

In falling over ourselves to ensure legal equality for same sex and opposite sex couples, are we not ignoring the inequality that remains for those who are single - discrimination that particularly affects the gay lesbian and trans community?

On the constitutional side of the ledger, the question hinges on a legal conception of discrimination, regarding what forms of discriminating judgments a secular state and secular laws are permitted to make. To use the jargon of the courts, any state that wishes to make “discriminating judgments”--that is, to distinguish one group of citizens from others according to some social taxonomy, and thus to set them apart as a group--will be subject to legal “scrutiny,” scrutiny that permits different levels of “strictness.”
For example, if the modern state ever wishes to use racial categories in making policy, then, because of our checkered and very bloody racial history, these discriminating laws and policies will be subject to the very strictest scrutiny. (That is what has bedeviled affirmative action policies of late; even using such categories for the noblest of purposes is constitutionally suspect, at least at the outset.)
Our current tax laws also rely on discriminating judgments according to categories of social class, and they are subject to even less severe scrutiny; the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor, and that is a discriminating judgment that does not seem too discriminatory... to most.

This is an important and neglected topic. I firmly endorse the importance of granting marriage equality to those who want it, but I do not accept that it should be obligatory for all. There is an obvious need for childbearing to maintain the human race, but that does not mean we must all do so. (There is an even more immediate need to maintain a constant food supply - but that does not mean we must all be farmers.)

For those who do not want children, it may well be that many will be able to find emotional support, companionship, and practical help with daily obligations in a committed partnership with one other. Other people, however, will find it suits them better to follow more directly the example of Jesus Christ - committed not to a single person, but in a network of loving relationships.

Here's Ruprecht again:

As I have listened to this debate unfold, I have been puzzling over a different discriminating judgment, one that has not received the attention it deserves, and one that brings me back to the singleness of the Christian Savior.
How can a secular state justify its desire to discriminate between married persons and single persons? ..........
And so the end result of this long debate—and it will be a long one—may have the unintended consequence of lending a newly aggrieved social group a more public voice: those single or quietly co-habitating persons who are tired of hearing arguments about the legitimacy or the sanctity of marriage (marriage was always the most secular of sacraments, after all, even in the Middle Ages).
The end results of the legal challenges currently being pursued by all sides on this question may be as unexpected as they will be intriguing: the realization that a secular state cannot justify its continued involvement in the social institution of marriage.
But this outcome may well prove to be a form of secularism that even the most strident of secularists may have a hard time accepting. That is how deep the cultural commitment to such a social convention runs in the United States today. Jesus may not have been married, but he went to weddings and even blessed one with wine.
But he did not marry himself, and the modern state would not have recognized his relationship with the mysterious Mary at all. No tax breaks for Jesus and the Magdalene. So what to make of the legal sanction of a discriminating judgment that would make the Savior a second class secular citizen?

-(Read the full reflection)

An Ignorant Mexican Cardinal, v an Authentic History of Marriage

2010-08-10T12:04:00.000-07:00

In Mexico, Cardinal Norberto Rivera has attacked the Supreme Court ruling that upheld same sex marriage in Mexico City, calling it "evil". It is not surprising that a Catholic bishop should oppose marriage equality, and while I sharply disagree with him, I must respect his right to express an opinion. He also says it is wrong to go against Christian doctrine that recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman. Again, barring a quibble or two about the effect of disagreement in conscience, even as we disagree with this, it is clear that this is orthodox Catholic teaching.

However, in invoking Christ himself, he goes way too far.

He called same-sex unions "inherently immoral," saying they "distort the nature of marriage raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament."

This is sheer garbage.

: Not-a-"traditional"-marriage. Giulio Rosati (1858-1917)

I am not aware of any Gospel passage that endorses marriage as been between one man and one woman. Can any reader point to me one? Christ most certainly did not raise marriage to the dignity of a sacrament - not even the institutional church did that, until the twelfth century, after half its history had passed. Exploring this history has proven fascinating.

Compare the first two accounts I found. This is Wikipedia:

.....first-century Christians placed less value on the family but rather saw celibacy and freedom from family ties as a preferable state. Paul had suggested that marriage be used only as a last resort by those Christians that found it too difficult to remain chaste.^[2] Augustine believed that marriage was a sacrament, because it was a symbol used by Paul to express Christ's love of the Church. Despite this, for the Fathers of the Church with their profound hostility to sex, marriage could not be a true and valuable Christian vocation. Jerome wrote: "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil" (Letter 22). Tertullian argued that marriage "consists essentially in fornication" (An Exhortation to Chastity") Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage said that the first commandment given to men was to increase and multiply, but now that the earth was full there was no need to continue this process of multiplication. Augustine was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end. This negative view of marriage was reflected in the lack of interest shown by the Church authorities. Although the Church quickly produced liturgies to celebrate Baptismand the Eucharist, no special ceremonial was devised to celebrate Christian marriage, nor was it considered important for couples to have their nuptials blessed by a priest. People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation. At first the old Roman pagan rite was used by Christians, although modified superficially. The first detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century and was identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome.^[3]

There are obvious difficulties with relying on Wikipedia as a source - but it does at least provide us with references to substantiate its claims. Now look at the Catholic Encyclopedia:

That Christian marriage (i.e. marriage between baptized persons) is really a sacrament of the New Law in the strict sense of the word is for all Catholics an indubitable truth. According to the Council of Trent this dogma has always been taught by the Church, and is thus defined in canon i, Sess. XXIV: "If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema."

This can do no more than quote the council of Trent, which claims that the sacramental view of marriage has "always" been taught - totally disregarding the verdicts of church fathers such as Tertullian, quoted above. On marriage as on so much else, the Vatican likes to refer to a "constant and unchanging tradition", or to claim that it has "always taught". These claims are seldom supported by real evidence, and must be received with scepticism.

Then I found an impressive on-line history of marriage , in a lengthy outline by Stephen Schloesser, a Jesuit priest and professor of history, which he submitted to Massachusetts Senator Marian Walsh in 2004, during the turmoil in that state over gay marriage. Here are some extracts - the introduction, and (mostly) just a summary of the main paragraph headings:

Maybe the most frustrating thing I have heard in the recent debate is this claim that has become a mantra: that we are in the process of changing some allegedly unchanging 3,000-year-old institution called "marriage." Of course, the decision to grant marriage licenses would be a "change" in marriage practice - but"marriage," whatever that is, is always in the process of being changed. To pretend that its alteration is somehow a rupture in what is otherwise a three-thousand year continuity is just silly.

It seems helpful to me to recall what traditional marriage is: it is a community's legal arrangement in order to pass on property. In it, a male acquires (in the sense of owning and having sovereignty over) a female for the sake of reproducing other males who will then inherit property. In Roman law, the authority of the paterfamilias over his wife and children was absolute, even to the point of death. (Even during the enlightenment), Catholic reactionaries opposed the idea of women and children having independent rights and insisted that puissance paternelle (the absolute power of the father) was rooted in nature.

In Judaism, polygyny is found throughout the Old Testament until the inter-testamental period.In general, a survey of traditional Old Testament marriage makes the reader very grateful that we are not bound to follow its precedents or precepts. Early Christianity was really not into marriage. St Paul counseled his followers: "It is better not to marry." Augustine (following St. Paul) counsel ed marriage as a remedy for concupiscence - i.e., satisfying male sexual desire in a non-sinful way.

In general, during the early medieval Church, all sex is a problem, and all sex is equally a problem. Marriage, both in the Roman and the early medieval periods, was the moment that marked the passing of the rights over a woman from her father to her husband. She wasn't a person under the law. Serial polygyny was regularly practiced by early medieval kings famous for their Christian piety. Their marital practices did not trouble the Church. Concubinage was also widely practiced among the European elite, and this practice was unproblematic, even in the eleventh century. Divorce was also completely unproblematic until the twelfth century.

In the twelfth century, the idea of marriage as a "sacrament" - i.e., as something fundamentally regulated by the Church - was established along with priestly celibacy and primogeniture. The simultaneous appearance of these practices shows the way in which the preservation of property suddenly became an issue of great anxiety: celibacy prevented church property from passing on to priests' wives and children; primogeniture insured that property remain intact as it passed on to only the eldest son; and Church surveillance of marriages made sure that an authority larger than, say, the most powerful warrior / aristocratic families on the block, was overseeing the passing on of dowries - e.g., Eleanor's region of the Aquitaine. Women became the means of medieval corporate mergers: families consolidated power and property, both by means of dowries as well as by being the producers of male heirs.

Marriage as an "emotional unit" as opposed to an "economic unit" was largely an invention of the early nineteenth century. Bourgeois marriage was a classbound arrangement. Conversely, for the males, prostitution is seen as an integral part of the new arrangement of marriage. Divorce, finally legalized again in France in the 1880s, emancipated men but perhaps not women unless they had reserved some independent means. It too was part of the new emotional understanding of marriage, i.e., as something not arranged by parents but rather entered into partly because of emotional desires.

It is hardly coincidental: this is also the period during which the idea of "homosexuality" - and then, later, "heterosexuality" - was invented. Catholic ideas about marriage and sexuality are in constant conversation with the wider society/culture's evolving values and needs. As late as the Code of Canon Law of 1917, the official position continued to be depressingly materialist: the purpose of marriage was considered to be "procreation," while a secondary end was a "remedy for concupiscence."

This genuinely two-millennia-old view changed on New Year's Eve, 1930.(following the Lambeth Conference decision to approve contraception). The papal encyclical Casti Connubii introduced a fairly shocking innovation: one of marriage's "second ends" was the "unity" between the spouses.The 19th-c. invention of marriage as an "emotional unit" in which two persons came together not merely to procreate but in order to form a sphere of emotional support - a thoroughly modern meaning of marriage - was accepted by the papacy.

On October 29, 1951 came a second important innovation in Catholic views. In one of the most insignificant settings possible - i.e., not an encyclical or synod but rather an address to Italian midwives -Pius XII suggested that couples, as long as they did not use "artificial" contraception, could arrive at a moral decision to be sexually active in a way that did not lead to procreation. Between the years of approximately 1948 to 1963, the Catholic bishops of New England lobbied furiously against the legalization of contraception.

John Ford, a Jesuit moral theologian who was the most aggressive proponent of the anticontraception stance (and taught in Weston, Mass.) admitted letter that the "natural law" argument had failed; if the point of "natural law" arguments was to convince any "rational person" (unlike, e.g., Scripture, which would convince only a religious believer), and if all these rational persons were rejecting the Catholic position, then what did that say about the law's "natural" aspect? Eventually, the bishops abandoned this fight and made a distinction between public policy and personal religious practice.

To summarize: when one compares the 1917 Catholic view of marriage - "procreation" as a primary end, "a remedy for concupiscence" as a secondary end - with the 1969 view expressed in both the Vatican Council and encoded in canon law - "the community of the whole life" that includes both the "unbreakable compact between persons" as well as the "welfare of the children," one can see that the change in Catholic doctrine and law has been nothing short of astonishing.

The full piece is the most useful outline of marriage history and the church I have come across. I have selected here only the bits that refer specifically to the history of Christian marriage. There is much more on marriage in other cultures, and on the church and homosexuality. I strongly urge that you read it in full - or download or bookmark it for future reference, as I have done.

Water into Wine: Jesus's Gay Wedding at Cana.

2010-08-08T05:44:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I dipped into two books, and found ideas that amplified each other with powerful effect, especially in the current context of advances for marriage equality and the bishops' opposition. "Take Back the Word" (ed Robert Goss) is a compilation of writings on Scripture designed to take us as queer Christians beyond battles with the "texts of terror", to an approach more in keeping with what it should be, a source of inspiration and value in our lives. "Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body " (ed Gerard Loughlin) is a broader and more ambitious compilation, of writing on a range of dimensions of faith from a queer perspective.

Who was getting married?

In the introduction to his book, Loughlin reflects on the story of the Wedding Feast at Cana, (John 2: 1 - 11) which we usually think of in terms of the transformation of water into wine. Immediately I thought of this as a wonderful alternative image for Goss's "Take Back the Word". It is one thing for us to move beyond a fear of Scripture to a point where it is the "water" of life: but how can we go beyond even that, to the "wine" of celebration? This, I thought, is what Elizabeth Stuart does in a short piece "Camping Around the Canon", which (as it happens) she ends with some thoughts on weddings. Stuart's point is that we need to be able to approach Scripture with laughter, which is too often absent from religious practice. After a concise exposition of the historical and theological justification for the approach, she offers just one illustration of what she means, discussing Ephesians, 5:21-33 ("Wives, submit to your husbands"), which is so often used at weddings, and which for women can so easily become a text of terror. Hearing it read at weddings, she says, left her "churning with anger". But an analysis by Gerard Loughlin changed her reaction from tragic to comic, as the "heteropatriarchal" readings are

undermined and washed away in the deeper waters of the Christian symbolic, for insofar as as women are members of the body, they too are called to be Christ to others; so that they too must also act as "groom" and "husband"; to the "bride" and "wife" of the other, whether it is to a man or woman. For it cannot be said that within the community only men are called to love as Christ does."

-Gerard Loughlin, "Baptismal Fluid", unpublished paper quoted by Stuar

Stuart comments:

Loughlin's reading of the text had transformed it into a queer text. The very incongruity of this reading with the "original" reading is enough to stimulate laughter. I find it funny that this passage should be read so often and do solemnly at weddings, the great ceremony of heteropatriarchy.

-Stuart, Camping Around the Canon, in Goss "Take Back the Word"

I remember a comparable insight and laughter from my own experience. Once on retreat, I found myself reflecting on the familiar image of the Church as the bride of Christ, and realized that as a gay man, I was spared the oddity (for straight men) of imagining myself as "bride", and instead was able to picture myself in my meditation as "groom" of Christ - a meditation that became extremely powerful. Looking back on it later, I found satisfaction and humour in the realisation that my orientation had given me a unique advantage in my prayer.

This left me with a predisposed receptivity to Loughlin's main ideas concerning the wedding at Cana. Instead of considering the miracle of transformation, he asks instead, "Who is it that was married?". He answers the question in stages.

First, he points out that the story should be read as a parable, with distinct anticipation of the Last Supper, Passion and Resurrection. The wedding takes place on "the third day" (anticipating the resurrection) after He has talked with Nathanel (John 1:43 -51), and the transformation of water into wine anticipates the transformation of wine into His blood. In a liturgical setting, the Mass recalls these three days. So, it is a standard idea that symbolically, in the church's recollection of the story, we are all guests at the wedding, where Christ is marrying his Church. At one level closer to the literal, it is Christ marrying his disciples. Loughlin then goes on to discuss a fascinating more literal idea from the early and medieval church - that it was indeed Christ who was married - to John, the beloved disciple. This idea was articulated in the apocryphal Acts of John, in which it is said that John broke off his betrothals to a woman to "bind himself" to Jesus. This was apparently a common strand in some German medieval thinking, right up until the Reformation, and is visually illustrated in some surviving art. In a "Libellus for John the Evangelist", a painting of the wedding feast is said to feature a bearded Christ seated next to a beardless, androgynous John - whom, says Loughlin, he appears about to kiss. In the "Admont Codex" illustrated manuscript of St Anselm's "Prayers and Meditations", an illustration in two parts shows John's story. In one, John is seen leaving his female betrothed. In the companion piece, he is lying on the ground with this head on Jesus's breast, while Jesus himself is tenderly caressing his chin.

Is this tradition "true"? We cannot know. Like so much much else in Scripture, it is impossible to get through the mists produced by unfamiliar language, a different literary tradition, and remote historical /cultural context to get close to the literal "truth" behind the text. No matter. Even without accepting this idea literally, it is enough for me to know that it was once widely accepted in the mystical tradition, and to incorporate it into my reader response.

It is when Loughlin moves beyond the "meaning" of the text to its multiple ironies that the fun starts. This where, in sympathy with Elizabeth Stuart, I found myself quite literally laughing with Scripture. For if it is true that the consecration of Eucharistic wine into Christ's bloods is prefigured in the Cana transformation of water into wine, then we can see that in every Mass we are commemorating Christ's own wedding with His (male) disciples. Every Mass can be seen as a mystical gay wedding. That Mass is celebrated by a priest who has committed himself to celibacy, and so forswears procreation himself, but is expected to preach against gay marriage or others - because homosexual intercourse, being unable to procreate, is "intrinsically disordered". The priesthood in turn, is run by a a similarly celibate coterie in the Vatican which reproduces itself by recruitment not biological reproduction - and castigates the homosexual community for its own social, not biological reproduction.

The threat posed by gays and lesbians to family and society is often proclaimed by men - named "fathers"- who have vowed never to to beget children. The pope lives in a household of such men - a veritable palace of "eunuchs"for Christ - that reproduces itself by persuading others not to procreate. Why us the refusal of fecundity - the celibate lifestyle - not also a threat to family and society?

-Loughlin, introduction to "Queer Theology"

Goss, Robert (ed): Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible

Loughlin, Gerard (ed): Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body (BBPG)

Gay Marriage: The Fallacy of the Church’s Argument Against.

2010-08-06T06:59:00.001-07:00

Writing in El Paso Times, Texan priest Fr Michael Rodriguez has launched an impassioned diatribe against all forms of legal recognition for same sex union. His ranting could easily be dismissed as the lunatic fringe, but as so many Catholic catechismophiles share his ridiculous claims and assumptions, I think it is worth responding in full. This is his key assertion:

“Remember: Every single Catholic, out of fidelity to charity and truth, has the absolute duty to oppose (1) the murder of unborn babies, and (2) any and all government attempts to legalize homosexual unions.”

Not content to invent a supposed moral obligation to oppose all forms of union, he goes even further:

“Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church.”
Furthermore, a Catholic would be guilty of a most grievous sin of omission if he/she neglected to actively oppose the homosexual agenda, which thrives on deception and conceals its wicked horns under the guises of "equal rights," "tolerance," "who am I to judge?," etc.

What has he been smoking? He claims to base his words on a pastoral letter of the US bishops, which says, in part:

"It is not unjust to oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions, because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."

Now I disagree with the bishops’ stance, but it as least an understandable, coherent position. It’s a big leap, though, to go from “it is not unjust to oppose…”, to saying that there exists an “absolute duty to oppose …“

He attempts to soften his position by stating

I urge all of the Catholic faithful to treat homosexuals with love, understanding, and respect.

In doing so, I fear that by his own standards, he damns himself. He has already insisted that a Catholic “would be guilty of a most grievous sin of omission if he/she neglected to actively oppose the homosexual agenda”. I have never been clear precisely what this notorious “agenda” comprises, but as one who actively promotes it, I am certain that a central part of it is precisely a demand to be treated with dignity, compassion and respect. By urging this part of it, Fr Rodriguez is himself promoting a key component of our “agenda”, and by his own standards is thus committing a “grievous mortal sin”.

By his standards, he also condemns not just himself, but the majority of US and European lay Catholics, and also a significant proportion of the clergy and some bishops. How so? He claims that Catholics have an obligation to actively oppose the homosexual agenda. But numerous (US) research surveys have shown that a narrow majority of Catholics approve of same sex marriage and gay adoption, while more substantial majorities approve some form of legal recognition, and do not see same sex relationships as being morally wrong. Among the clergy, some individual priests and groups of priests have publicly supported gay marriage, and many more privately support either marriage or civil unions. In Portugal, when the legal process that led to marriage equality first began, the country’s bishops attempted to prevent its introduction by asking for the provision of civil unions instead. As civil unions are one form of legal recognition which the bishops were actively promoting, where they too guilty of the “grievous sin” Rodriguez describes?

In April this year, the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schonborn, suggested that it is time for the church to reconsider its emphasis on “homosexual acts”, and instead consider the quality of the relationships. Since then three other bishops have said much the same thing. Are they too, condemned, for their “grievous sin”?

So, it would seem that Fr Rodriguez has taken it upon his own authority to condemn a huge proportion of the Catholic church for the grievous sin” of not actively opposing the homosexual agenda. Just what is he condemning us to? Read carefully, once again:

Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church.”

He cannot be serious. This sounds like the same automatic excommunication recently invoked by the Bishop of Phoenix, and by the Vatican, in the cases of abortion and the “attempts” to ordain women. Is he really taking it on himself to proclaim the automatic excommunication of half the church, and more?

Let’s be clear on this: It is certainly the collective desire of the the Catholic bishops that we should oppose same sex unions, but it is by no means a moral obligation to do so. Nowhere in orthodox Catholic teaching is there anything that says there is any moral obligation to do everything the bishops urge, and there most certainly is not anything in the Catechism, in the creed, or in our baptismal vows that imposes such a supposed obligation.

On the contrary, one obligation that is stated very clearly in the teaching of the Church, is the obligation to follow one’s conscience. This was stated very clearly by one Fr Joseph Ratzinger, who insisted that conscience must take priority even over the demands of the pope.

When approaching gay marriage from the prism of sexual ethics, many people may well find that the dictates of conscience may lead them to oppose it. But sexual ethics are not the only, or even the most important, dimension of Church teaching. Many Catholics believe that teaching on social justice, and reaching out to the poor and the marginalized, is more important. Approaching marriage equality from the prism of social justice, many Catholics have been led by conscience to conclude that they must support it. This was certainly the case with some of the Argentinean senators who supported their family equality bill, and with “Catholics for Marriage equality in the US”.

So, in focussing exclusively on the approach from sexual ethics, Rodriguez is ignoring a huge chunk of orthodox catholic teaching – on the primacy of conscience, and on social justice. He is also ignoring the evidence of history.

By insisting on the spurious claim of an obligation to oppose all forms of legal recognition, he is including civil unions – but civil unions are just that, legal contracts to provide some protections to the partners in a relationship. They are not about sexual relationships – partners wanting a sexual relationship can (and do) have one without requiring a contract to authorize it. And liturgical recognition of same sex unions has a long tradition in the church, as amply demonstrated by both John Boswell and Alan Bray . To this day, there are echoes of these same –sex unions in the modern Mass, with the paired names of Felicity and Perpetua, Phillip and Bartholomew incorporated into the Eucharistic prayer – just as they were listed in the liturgies for same sex unions. (No, these were not “comparable” to modern marriage – but nor are modern civil unions, and nor were the the early heterosexual marriages comparable to modern marriage.) To the cynics who insist that in practice, civil unions are about sex, I reply that they need not be. In the early church, many saintly married couples committed themselves to voluntary virginity, even within marriage. In the nineteenth century, Cardinal John Newman, who will be beatified next month, was famed for the intensity of his (celibate) love for his dear friend Ambrose St John, even to the extent of insisting on being buried with him in a shared grave “for all eternity”. For any Catholic of homosexual orientation wishing to live strictly within orthodox teaching, which clearly states that the homosexual “condition” is not sinful, this celibate emotional bond might well make a fitting model of emotional friendship. If two such people chose to share their lives together, in chastity, is it in any way conceivable that there is a “moral obligation” to oppose legal protection for their relationship?

Finally, Rodriguez even ignores the evidence of the Gospels.

By His own words and actions, Jesus Christ clearly showed that He did not reject people in homosexual relationships. He demonstrated this by agreeing to heal the Roman centurion’s “servant” (“paidion”), in a context that would have strongly suggested a sexual relationship. This too, has an echo in the modern Mass – the prayer shortly before communion, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you….” is a close variant of the centurion’s reply when Jesus started off for his house “Lord.I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…”.

There is additional echo of gay unions in the Mass. Taken as a whole, theologian Gerard Loughlin has shown how it is an echo of the wedding at Cana, a wedding which in Catholic theology, is taken symbolically to represent Christ’s own wedding to his (male) disciples, and to the Church as a whole – including the men. There is even a tradition that the couple getting married were Jesus and His beloved disciple, John.

With three distinct echoes of gay relationships or unions, the Mass itself, the centrepiece of Catholic practice can be seen as promoting the “gay agenda” – or that part of it which seeks inclusion in Church.

Will Fr Rodriguez now cease celebrating the Mass?

To simplify: One would have to be ghastly morally decrepit to think that if 51 percent of Americans opine that rape is OK, then rape becomes, in effect, all right. Sure, the majority is politically capable of such a vote, but this could never make rape morally right.

This is typical of the garbage from the institutional Catholic Church, who blithely ignore their own history, which is full of recognized saints. ordained bishops and even popes who have had sex with men. For centuries (over half its history), the church recognized formal liturgical rites for church blessings of same sex unions, and also buried some same sex couples together in shared tombs, exactly as married couples.
The Mass itself contains three echoes of gay unions - the healing of the Roman soldier's "paidion" - i.e., his sexual servant is recalled in the words, "Lord, I am not worthy"; same sex couples named in the Eucharistic Prayer; and the Mass itself is commemorates Christ's wedding to his Church (male and female). Theologian Gerald Loughlin has noted that one tradition was that the famous wedding was that of Christ to his "beloved disciple" John.

http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2010/07/message-for-nom.html
Same Sex Unions
The Very Modern “Traditional” Marriage
Modern Inclusive Churches
The Queer Mass:
Gay Wedding at Cana
Same sex couples recognised
Gay Centurion.

Cardinal Shonborn & Church Reform: 3 month update.

2010-08-03T13:38:00.000-07:00

I'm a little slow in noting this, but last week marked three months since then Cardinal Schonborn, cardinal archbishop of Vienna, suggested that it might be time for the Church to rethink its stance on homosexual relationships, considering the quality of the relationships, rather than simply the "acts", which is the sole focus of the Vatican document. "Homosexualitatis Problema" ("HP"). This seemingly obvious, eminently rational suggestion is nevertheless so out of kilter with the official stance embodied in HP that I have been waiting and watching carefully for any sign of refutation or repudiation, but there has still not been anything of the sort.

Cardinal Schonborn has had a meeting with Pope Benedict, specifically to discuss his criticisms of the curia and Cardinal Sodano, which had been made on the same day as the observations on homosexuality and divorce - but there his been no indication that the issues around sexual morality were even discussed.

Where I was expecting to find voices from within the Vatican, or from diocesan bishops, raised against Schonborn's statements, I have still not seen reports of even a single bishop openly disagreeing - and I have been looking. Instead, in the months since his original remarks in Vienna, I have read reports of three bishops who have said much the same thing: Bishop Francis Quinn, (California), Bishop Januario Torgal Ferreira (Portugal), and Bishop Willie Walsh (Ireland).

There are other signs of a bubbling movement towards reform. Just this morning, my email inbox brought me news of two developments. The Irish Times last week reported on a new movement for reform launched by a group of Irish priests, while my own local bishop, Kiearan Conroy of Arundel & Brighton, is reported in the Catholic Herald to have "criticized" Pope Benedict's new council to re-evangelize the West. (I will have more on both of these later. Meanwhile, there are also increasing signs of open defiance of authority, from parishes like St Mary's Brisbane, or St Stephen's Minneapolis, or the "faith community" of Mary Magdalene in San Diego, simply going their own way; to the Womenpriests Movement simply ignoring the official ban on ordaining women, and the accompanying threats/ promises of excommunication; or the longer established groups of Catholics not acknowledging the authority of Rome, which are now attracting increasing attention.

At the same time. to judge by the direct actions and statements of the Vatican, you would see a clampdown on dissent and a tightening of central authority, most clearly exemplified in the recent document which on the one hand promises automatic excommunication for those even "assisting" in women's ordination, and on the other encouraging local bishops to apply their own strict disciplinary measures to control dissenters.

What on earth is going on?

Once again, I recall my time in South Africa, and specifically the final 10 years before Mandela was released and apartheid brushed aside. There are remarkable parallels, which leave me more convinced than ever that fundamental reform of the Catholic Church is surely on the way: only one question remains to be answered.

The story of apartheid was on of ever-increasing enforcement of racial segregation in every area of South African life, and an accompanying expansion of "security' legislation to counteract the growing resistance, and the perceived dangers of attempts at violent overthrow of the regime. However, there came a point, somewhere around the seventies, that simple economic forces began to force a relaxation of the regulations in some areas, notable on employment restrictions initially, and then on some of the minor social restrictions. Then, some concessions were made which allowed for a modest degree of integration of school education. In other areas of life, people were finding creative ways to simply circumvent the law, particularly on residential segregation. For example, I helped my secretary to buy a house in the wrong "group area" by the simple expedient of setting up a business entity to buy the property in the company name, and installing her and her family as "tenants". I was nominally the indirect owner through the company, but in practice I paid nothing into the property, and got nothing out of it. All correspondence for the property was addressed to me as "company" proprietor - but at her address, so de facto, she and her husband were full owners. The whole operation was totally illegal, but was being done on such a wide scale, that the authorities simply lacked the political will to prosecute, when there were far more pressing issues to deal with. So the number of people openly flouting this law, like so many others, simply increased, until it was obvious that the law would have to change.

The great paradox during those final 10 years was that while there was a gradual easing of restrictions in the social and economic realms, there was a tightening of security legislation. Politically, open resistance had been growing steadily since the 1976 township youth riots, and violent opposition was ever more evident. There were bomb attacks in the city centres, there large scale boycotts and strikes to commemorate major dates in "struggle" history, and violent enforcement in the townships of the tactics decreed by unofficial local "street committees", or penalties and reprisals on those who were believed to be in support of "the enemy" - the police forces. In an attempt to keep a lid on the violence and dissent, the reach and powers of the police and military "security" establishment were being constantly extended.

And so it seemed. right up until the very end, as if things were getting inexorably worse, and we were headed for unavoidable revolutionary conflict. Then suddenly, President Botha handed over his premiership to FW de Klerk, a fresh (White) election was called, and within months the exiled nationalist movements were unbanned, Nelson Mandela and other leaders were released, and apartheid was consigned to the garbage bin of history.

Where are the parallels I see for the church?

First, in the extent to which ordinary Catholics are simply ignoring so many rules and regulations that they would once have followed without question. This is most conspicuous on contraception, but also applies to many others. Catholics no longer feel compelled to attend Mass every Sunday, and no longer feel that they must follow every dictate of the bishops' guidance on political matters. (Catholics disagree with the bishops on the hot button political issues of social policy. Most Catholics support gay marriage, and abortion in at least some cases.)

Next, you have some (unofficial) relaxation and backpedalling of the official positions on some issues. In the church's case, this does not mean that official teachings have changed - just that in some cases, tactical silence from the top, and tacit acceptance from clergy at the coal-face, have contributed to Humanae Vitae being so generally ignored. There has also been a widespread acceptance of increased informality in the church, from styles of dress to Mass to relationships with the clergy.

So, on the small issues that correspond loosely to South Africa's "petty apartheid", there has been a gradual easing of restrictions, from both sides of the clergy /laity divide. It is on the higher profile issues that things become more interesting.

The Vatican has been uncompromising in its refusal to even discuss the key questions of women's ordination and compulsory clerical celibacy - and those affected are simply ignoring directives. This is most spectacular on women's ordination, but also applies to celibacy. It is likely that there were always priests who did not keep their vows, and there are still many who do - but I suspect that there are today fewer who try to keep their sexual lives secret, and an increased number who conduct their relationships with a degree of openness. There are also an increasing number of people and clergy within the church who are willing to disagree or dissent, and to do so publicly.

It is this open dissent that the Vatican is now attempting to squash, in a manner comparable to the increased use of force in South Africa to stamp out resistance, just as there was a loosening of restrictions on the minor matters. However, the SA government found then that they had simply lost the ability to control those who refused to co-operate in their own oppression, and the Vatican will surely find the same thing.

The only real control they have over us is in our minds. Unlike a police state, they do not have tanks, guns or prisons to control us. The power of the church has always been in their capacity to get into our heads and rule our consciences. That power they are losing. The more they attempt to dictate compliance by simple decree, or by silencing awkward critics on their payroll, the more they will lose control of those minds - especially since their own moral stature has been so badly compromised the abuse crises.

I have become convinced that deep-seated reform of the Church is on the way, and that, as in South Africa, it could easily arrive sooner and more suddenly than anyone now expects.

The one open question I mentioned above? While the change be introduced and managed smoothly, from above (but in consultation with the rest of us - or will it be seized, piece-meal, in a protracted splintering of a second Reformation?

Queering the Song of Songs

2010-08-01T03:06:00.001-07:00

Gay men and women could be excused for feeling more than a little ambivalent about the Song of Songs as recommended reading. On the one hand, it is very emphatically and clearly a frankly erotic love song between two unmarried lovers. It is a celebration of physical love, and an important counter to the common religious view that sexual expression must be confined to procreation. The Song is the strongest possible proof that Scripture does not support that view (there are others, too.)

On the other, it is equally clearly an expression of heterosexual love -at least as known and commonly published today.( There is an out of print book which argues that the earliest texts described two men, and that one set of pronouns was altered by later editors. For an account of this, see the Wild Reed on "The Bible's Gay Love Poem". However, I have not seen authoritative support for this view elsewhere, and for today I shall stick with the better known version. )

So how is a lesbian or gay male reader to respond to this text?
One simple remedy is simply to use it as a starting point, and ignore the details of gender, as I have done myself in the past – but this is not entirely satisfactory.

Christopher King, writing in “Take Back the Word”, has another approach, which strikes me as instructive and useful. (“A Love as Fierce as Death: Reclaiming the Song of Songs for Queer Lovers”). The starting point for his reading, which sets it apart from others and makes it come alive for me, is that he recognises in the Song much more than just the expression of love, but its fuller story.

He reminds us that the text stresses that the woman, whom he calls the Shulamite, is both Black and an outsider. As such, this is not just about love, but about forbidden love – love survives and conquers resistance.

“I am black and beautiful,
O daughters of Jerusalem” (1:5)

The Shulamite recognizes that because of her relationship to the Beloved, she has become the subject of a discourse that intensifies her experience of marginality. Having become merely an outsider, she has become a taboo person.

King also describes how the “official” church interpretation of the Song has changed dramatically over the centuries: in the Classical period, for instance, her blackness was taken to represent sin. That view has changed.

Not only is the Shulamite an “outsider”, she has suffered for it. She is hounded by the law, as represented by “the sentinels”, an beaten up for it.

“Making their rounds in the city,
the sentinels found me;
they beat me, they wounded me,
they took away my mantle
those sentinels of the walls” (5:7)

The very men who ought to protect the Shulamite have savagely attacked her. Not only have they thrashed , bruised and perhaps raped her, they have also stolen her outer garment, exposing her body to the physical elements, and more seriously, unveiling her shame to the elemental forces of public scorn.

It really doesn’t take a great deal of imagination here to make the obvious parallel with the violence and persecution that sexual outsiders have suffered, just like the Shulamite foreigner, and often similarly at the hands of those who should be protecting the weak – the church and the police.

But – she’s a survivor, and love conquers.

A further important point, worth carefully stressing, is not just the joy of their love, but also it’s absolute equality and reciprocity.

My beloved is mine and I am his
he pastures his flock among he lilies (2:16)
I am my beloved’s and he is mine
he pastures his flock among he lilies. (6.3)

This mutuality and equality within a relationship is commonplace in queer relationships, but less so (probably rare, to this degree), in conventional marriage.

And so, although the relationship that is celebrated in the Song of Songs is not a same-sex one, it is indeed a queer one. The biological sexes are different, but at this level of equality, gender and gender roles fade into insignificance. “Queer” is more than a descriptor of same-sex attraction, but also includes all manner of sexual outsiders. An outsider the Shulamite most certainly is, and like us, has suffered for it.

But still, she can celebrate her love for her beloved, as he celebrates his for her. Most important of all for me, is that this has been quite literally celebrated in the most public way possible – written down in a book of Scripture, read by those who followed over the following thousands of years.

No secret closet for their love, then.

Source:

King, Christopher: "A Love as Fierce as Death", in Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible, edited Robert Goss.

.

Those Evangelical Allies, Again

2010-07-26T10:53:00.000-07:00

The word "evangelical" is a troublesome one in religious discourse, as it can mean so many different things, and is used indifferent ways. Polling firms reporting on social policy issues routinely use it as a contrast to Protestants, as in Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals - by which they really men Mainline Protestants and Other Protestants. Press releases though have never been given to verbal precision, and we have become accustomed to the usage. To complicate matters further, some of the "Mainline" churches, especially the UK Church of England, are described in news reports in terms of their "evangelical" or "liberal wing. In more theological, less politicized terms, there are many in the Mainline churches who would insist that they too are inherently "evangelical", in its true sense.

Further complicating the issue is the repeated research finding that it is the "evangelical" wing of Christianity, in the sense of non-mainline Protestant, that is the most implacably opposed to LGBT equality or inclusion in church, which leads to the assumption that one leads necessarily from the other. There is growing evidence though that even in this sense, some evangelical leaders, like many Catholic theologians, are now recognising the fallacies and mistaken assumptions in the Christian opposition of the past few centuries. I have reported on some of these in the past - there are many more.

However, it is the more theological meaning of "evangelical" that Janet Edwards is using when she argues at "Religion Dispatches " that gay rights are an "evangelical thing".

“We need to out-evangelize the evangelists!”
Contrary to popular imagination, which usually places evangelicals strictly within the conservative Christian right-wing, this rousing call to action came from Rev. Jean Southard at a dinner for LGBT advocates during the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s General Assembly.
In the midst of debates within both the Presbyterian Church and the nation, Rev. Southard’s point was that LGBT-rights advocates in the church should shout from the rafters that their actions are evangelical—in the deepest historical sense of the word—and in so doing, remind evangelicals of Christianity’s fundamental tenet of inclusion.
Though it has taken on a narrow meaning in American politics today, “evangelical” is actually an ancient Christian term whose roots extend to the earliest days after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. “Evangelical,” or “evangelion” in the original Greek, literally translates as “Good News.” From the women running to tell the others of the empty tomb (Luke 24:1-12), to Paul’s mission to the Gentiles (Acts 15), to John writing his Gospel to make sure the Good News would be there for future generations like us, “evangelical” has always meant sharing Jesus’ Good News with all those who wish to be part of the Church.
As Jesus said, “When I am lifted up, I shall draw all people to myself” (John 12:32). There is no “but” in Jesus’ “all.” And so it is incumbent upon us, as a Church, to extend our full welcome and blessing to all the faithful, including those who are LGBT.
Yet LGBT people are the ones whom many in the Church today judge as beyond the reach of Jesus’ embrace—just as the Galatians and Corinthians were considered beyond God’s love in Paul’s time.
For those who claim the mantle of the evangelical tradition, it is important to remember what it means that God’s love is available to all of us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It means that LGBT Christians have the same place at Christ’s table as anyone else.
The chorus of the praise song, “We Are One in the Spirit,” echoes Paul (Galatians 5:22) when it repeats the refrain, “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love, Yes, they’ll know we are Christians by our love.” It is in this Spirit that we can “out-evangelize the evangelicals.”
And so, when LGBT people freely embrace and live a Christian life, the Church must recognize such deep faithfulness and open our arms to them as well. At the heart of Jesus’ Good News is this: there is no “but” in “all.”

(Watch Rev Jean Southard speak on Marriage Equality on Youtube: Part 1, and Part 2)

[ad#In post banner]

"Pro-Life" Californian Catholics?

2010-07-24T10:46:00.001-07:00

The South African satirist Pieter-Dirk Uys built a highly successful stage career by making fun of South African politicians, other public figures, and a range of South African character stereotypes. Especially clever were his takes on then President PW Botha, Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Johannesburg kugel (the local counterpart to a New York Jewish Princess) - and his wonderful glamorous, glamorous alter-ego, Evita Bezuidenhout, Ambassadress to the "homeland" of Baphetikosweti, whose "independence " was as fictitious as its own existence.

"The Honourable Evita Bezuidenhout, (aka Pieter-Dirk Uys)"

With skilled mimicry, quick change wizardry, and sharply pointed scripts, Uys kept us laughing at ourselves as well as our "leaders" through the darkest days of apartheid, and beyond. When asked about his success, he always declined credit for his clever scripts. He did not need to write them, he said- just to listen to the news. His characters wrote their lines themselves.

In that spirit, I fondly recall one specific politician from the bad old days who fed me a particularly good line, which I heard live in a radio interview. This man, a deputy minister in the government, was being asked about the death penalty, which of course he fully supported. The interviewer wanted more, and asked about the alternatives - wouldn't rehabilitation of offenders be more humane? "No, " came the firm and clear reply. "We must have the death penalty. Rehabilitation can come later."

The problem with the death penalty of course, is that it is so final - thereafter, rehabilitation is no longer possible, and neither is the possibility of correcting a faulty verdict. The big argument in South Africa was always that the penalty was necessary as a suitable "deterrent" against serous crime, but there never was any evidence that it deterred anyone. The sentence cannot be imposed unless the culprit is first caught and convicted - and no murderer or rapist ever commits his crime with the expectation of being caught in the first place. In practice, furthermore, we known that the burden falls disproportionately on the poor, disadvantaged and marginalized, who are least able to pay evoke the sympathy of jurors or pay for teams of expensive lawyers. The wealthy are seldom convicted, let alone executed. So, there are fundamental practical arguments against the death penalty, but even more moral and philosophical ones. The blood lust that drives it is in total conflict with the Christian Gospels, and entirely out of place in the modern civilized world. It is also in conflict with the explicit teaching of the Catholic Church.

"Ending the death penalty would be one important step away from a culture of death and toward building a culture of life.”

A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2005

In California this week, the Field polling organization has been issuing a series of news releases giving results of a poll on the views about some hot-button social policy issues: gay marriage, abortion, and the death penalty. "California Catholic Daily" reacted with outrage, pacing the headline

Who cares what the Church teaches?

Poll shows 62% of Catholics want to keep California’s liberal abortion laws -- or make getting abortions even easier.

This in itself was misleading. The actual result was that almost half of Catholics want to no change - and those that do, are more likely to want to make it more difficult. The headline could more accurately be written as

Poll shows 82% of Catholics want to keep California’s liberal abortion laws -- or make getting abortions even harder.

The comments thread was even more hysterical. For instance:

This is the result of: 1. Liberalization of the Church due to Vatican II (or liberal interpretations and implementations of the same), 2. The Hierarchy's inaction (excommunications, censures, etc.) against prominent "Catholic" politicos that claim fidelity to the Church but support infanticide, sodomy, and sexual "liberation", and 3. The pastors and Bishops not teaching the moral absolutes of the Church. These Catholics in the study were probably taught this fuzzy thinking in their respective parishes (if they go to Mass at all).

Those of us who are pro life should be demanding that our Bishops and priests get off the immigration hype and back onto the human life is precious, don't kill us, message.

California has a big split in the ground (San Andreas fault), and if it breaks open and wipes out half the State, don't ask why us Lord?

I pray, and let us all pray, that our Bishops will instruct the priests to give the authentic Catholic teaching on contraception, abortion and all of today's non-negotiable issues from the pulpit each and every Sunday.

Don't get me wrong: I emphatically do not want to argue for abortion, or even to discuss here the question of "choice". But I do want to ask, where is the corresponding "pro-life" Catholic anger over the death penalty? Yesterday, Field released its findings on the death penalty. For a report on the findings for Catholics, CCD could have followed up yesterday's story with the headline:

Who cares what the Church teaches?

Poll shows 75% of Catholics want to keep California’s savage death penalty -- or have no opinion.

What did they report?

Nothing. Not a word.

Are we to conclude that the the Catholic pro-life, "always support the bishops", Catechismophile lobby are cafeteria Catholics - just like the rest of us?

[ad#In post banner]

HIV, Bishop Kevin Dowling - and Me.

2010-07-23T11:06:00.000-07:00

One of the oddities of my personal journey as an out gay man is that, entirely by chance and without any credit on my own part, I found myself twenty five years ago organizing what I believe may have been the first ever public meeting on HIV /AIDS awareness in South Africa - two of them! I have had a deep and personal interest in the "progress" (and anger at the lack of progress) of Aids prevention in the country ever since. This gives me a particular interest in the story of Bishop Kevin Dowland, and his courage in speaking the truth on the topic.

Soon after I first came out nearly thirty years ago, I found myself meeting socially with a group that called itself "Gasa Rand" - (Gay Association of South Africa, Witwatersrand Region), which at the time was one of the only two organised groups of gay men and lesbians in Johannesburg's then deeply closeted society. (The other was a sports group) . I quickly found myself co-opted onto the committee, and also used to help out in the office on Saturday afternoons, manning a telephone information line. At this time, news of the "Gay plague" / Grid / or Aids was only just starting to hit the news, and was mainly identified with foreign gay men - and people like male air crew, who were assumed to be in close contact with Americans.

I was in the office one day, when I fielded a call from San Francisco, from Dr Glen Margo, a South African doctor who was then working there, and had become heavily involved in public health, education and Aids prevention in the 'Frisco community right from the beginning of the epidemic. He was then preparing for a family holiday back home, and wanted to use the opportunity to help us to prepare the Johannesburg gay community for what would surely hit us in time, and to offer some guidance from the US experience. Because I was the one on the spot, and because it meshed well with my responsibilities on the committee, I ended up in short order organizing two public meetings for the gay community. The first was in our community centre to hear Glen tell of the disaster that had fallen on San Francisco and was headed our way,and what he urged us to do as a community response. The second was in a downtown bar to hear a local doctor talking more of the purely medical issues, and personal precautions to safeguard our own health.

The lessons I took away from those meetings were two- fold. One was the urgency of serious public education and public health services, which would contribute to reducing STD's more generally, and not only HIV/AIDS. The other was the importance of changes in behaviour to avoid personal infection, including the practice of safe sex and avoidance of all "risky" behaviour. I also learnt that at that time, although the reported figures for HIV new infections in San Francisco were continuing to rise, the rates for other STD's were already declining, proving that the community was responding to the need for behavioural change. It appeared that the increasing figures for HIV were just a time lag, and so it proved. Later, the rates of infection for HIV followed other STD's downward.

Soon after that, I became professionally involved in some basic monitoring of African economies and development issues for South African market research clients, and watched closely what was happening with HIV Aids across the continent. Uganda was a major problem area, with one of the highest rates of infection anywhere - but reports were that government efforts to contain it were following pretty well the recommendations and practice I had heard from San Francisco. I predicted that Ugandan infections would similarly begin to decline - and they did.

In my own country, government response was initially almost non-existent, beyond some paltry funding to AIDS research division at the Medical Research Council. Initially, the disease was seen as simply a problem for white gay men, who were numerically insignificant and in any case simply reaping the wages of sin. As it became clear that it was also a heterosexual problem, especially for Black South Africans, well - Black public health was never a major priority for the minority White government. So nothing was done.

With the start of the path to democracy in 1990 and the new government in 1994, there were high hopes for a major intervention it what had already become a major crisis, but the new government had many other crises to deal with as well, and a health minister whose own concerns were, to put it politely, elsewhere. Still nothing was done, and the problem got simply worse. Meanwhile Uganda, which had made a serious attempt to deal with its own problems, was achieving some good results.

When Thabo Mbeki replaced Mandela, there was hope that finally a younger, well-educated man more experienced in ordinary life, would finally give the problem the treatment it deserved. He however, was a renowned and paranoid Aids sceptic, who did not believe the problem was severe, and attributed the "scare-mongering" to Western racists attempting to demonise Africans for their supposed sexual promiscuity. Instead, his appointed Minister of Health was the notorious "Doctor Beetroot", who appeared to believe that the disease could be beaten by traditional African medicine and a healthy diet. Still, the epidemic worsened. Public education was inadequate, and funds for appropriate treatment almost non-existent, until activists forced the governments had with succesful applications to the courts. In the rest of the world, management of Aids, if not yet a cure, was bringing down death rates - but not in south Africa.

AIDS and the Church

In the church, Catholic priests could see with their own eyes the extent of the devastation. The measured rates of adult infection reached as high as 30% in some provinces, and even more in some local areas - including many parishes. Priests saying Mass on Sunday morning knew that possibly a third of the people in the pews, adults and even children who had been born with the virus, were HIV positive. Every week, they were burying people who had died young. I saw this myself in a Soweto parish I used to visit for a monthly Mass: on every visit, I was told of the latest deaths - and those were only the people known to me, including a young university student who was friendly with my own daughter.

What were these priests to do? What advice could they possibly give their own parishioners, on how to avoid infection - infection which at that time would have been a certain death sentence? do you suppose they reminded the women that it would be wrong to deny their husbands conjugal love, but that the Vatican doctrine prohibited the use of condoms?

It is well known that in the modern church, many priests in private will advise Catholics who have good reason to avoid pregnancy, to ignore the decrees on contraception "in good conscience". You can assume that faced not with an inconvenient pregancy, but a real risk of fatal infection, many priests were doing the same thing, doing the obvious and only thing that might help to save lives, likewise urging their parishioners to avoid sex if unmarried, to remain faithful and monogamous within - and to be safe wherever they did indeed have intercourse. But, like priests elsewhere, this advice could be given only in private.

A "Visionary Changing the World"

That is where Bishop Kevin Dowling became a folk hero to me, and to many more South African Catholics. In a simple act of common sense, he cut through the nonsense of Vatican theorizing, and stated publicly what everybody knew: in the interests of saving lives, it was necessary for the Church to reconsider its implacable opposition to condoms.

He is best known for his position that condoms should be used to prevent HIV transmission, a position he first announced in 2001 in response to a question by a Catholic news agency reporter during a meeting in New York City. After stating that the Bishops' Conference had not taken a position on condom use, Dowling was asked for his personal opinion, and said that he believed condoms should be used to prevent the spread of HIV. This was widely interpreted as contradicting the official stance of the Catholic Church, which opposes the promotion of condom use, while not having a definite, recognized policy on individuals using condoms for the precise purpose of protecting themselves against AIDS.In private conversations the papal nuncio to South Africa told Dowling that he had strayed from the official line.The Southern African Bishops Conference also described condoms as "an immoral and misguided weapon" in the fight against HIV, arguing that condom use could even encourage the spread of HIV by promoting extramarital sex. For his stance on this matter, Utne Reader, a United States magazine that provides "alternative coverage of politics, culture, and new ideas", named Dowling one of its "50 Visionaries Who Are Changing the World".
-(Wikipedia)

Cardinal Schönborn: Two months. No Repudiation, A Portuguese Ally.

2010-06-30T13:14:00.000-07:00

On April 28th this year, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna dropped some remarks in a news conference that hit made headlines around the world. He called for deep reform of the curia, he criticized a colleague (Cardinal Sodano), and suggested that it might be time for the Church to moderate its thinking on same sex relationships and on divorce. Most attention fell on the remarks about reform, and the criticism of Sodano, but in the implications for Church teaching, the observations on same sex relationships and divorce were potentially groundbreaking. As my regular readers know, I have been keeping a watching brief on news about Cardinal Schönborn in the expectation of a clear refutation or repudiation by the Vatican or by colleagues, but this still has not happened - at least, not on the sexuality remarks.

On Monday this week, two months to the day after the original news conference, it looked as though things might have changed. The Cardinal had been summonsed to Rome. where he had a lengthy conference with Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bertone, hardly the most gay-friendly of his colleagues. He emerged with a clear papal reprimand - for his criticism of Sodano.

Then there was today's meeting between between the pope and his erstwhile protege, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, who has among other things denounced Angelo Sodano, head of the College of Cardinals, called for a reform of the Curia, and suggested that the church take another look at clerical celibacy, divorce, and committed same-sex relationships. Sodano trooped into the meeting at the end with Bertone--on hand to mediate?--and a wacky press release ensued that claimed that 1) Schönborn might have in unspecified ways spoken out of turn; 2) Sodano didn't really mean it when he denounced press chattering about priestly sexual abuse on Easter Sunday; and 3) only the pope gets to criticize a cardinal.

(From BeliefNet)

About "homosexual" relationships, not a word. (I have not seen anything on this in any of the reports of the meeting, mainstream or fringe).

Are we to assume then, that respect for homosexual relationships of good "quality" has become acceptable doctrine?

In the meantime, while I have been apprehensively looking out for repudiation from Schönborn's colleagues, I have isntead found independent support, from a bishop in Portugal.

The Catholic religious right are aflame with indignation at the reported comments of Portuguese Bishop Januario Torgal Ferreira, who heads the ordinariate for the armed forces, over some sane remarks on homosexuality and on "family planning". The only English language reports I have found are the heavily edited and filtered reports on sites like Catholic Culture and Lifesite News, so I attempted to find the full, original report in Portuguese, and to read it via Google Translate. The result in a (clumsy) English translation is here.

I can't say the exercise has left me with any of the subtleties of his thinking, but I'm pleased I did so - the full report includes much that was omitted from the edited English reports, and has left me with some idea of the person behind the remarks - a person that strikes me as a breath of fresh air in the Church. Taking all the reports together, I have a sense that this is a man who is simply asking for more flexibility and realism in the church. On gay marriage, he is personally opposed, but also acknowledges that gay relationships are a reality the church should deal with. He asks his colleagues, he says, if they have ever spoken to homosexuals? The Church would surely show a great deal more sensitivity on these matters if only they did so. Although he opposed the legislation which introduced same sex marriage, he thinks the President was right not to veto - because that was the realistic thing to do, avoiding unpleasant public displays of anger and protest, with an inevitable legislative override of any veto.

He also argues for more decentralization in Church governance, and is commendably frank in pointing out that bishops are human, like everyone else - and nobody needs to be scandalized by the thought of him, or any other bishop, going to a beach in swimming trunks, and possible lying next to a woman sunbathing topless.

Overall, the man is clearly that rare creature in the echelons of the Catholic oligarchy - a bishop who is capable of blending into his theology a healthy dose of reality, and I commend him for that.

Finding God in Gay Lovemaking

2010-04-17T01:21:00.000-07:00

“An Erotic Encounter With the Devine” is the title of a post by Eric L. Hays-Strom at Jesus in Love. (Eric has a Masters Degree in Catholic Life and Worship from St. Meinrad School of Theology). In his post, he has a moving account of how deliberate prayer immediately before making love with his husband has led to intensely spiritual experiences – especially on one notable occasion in particular.

It would be unfair to copy too much of this personal story here, but some things are worth noting. Eric’s journey in combining the sexual and the spiritual came after listening to some tapes prepared by Michael B Kelly, who is a noted spiritual director and writer, specialising in the contribution that gay men’s erotic experiences can give to the the church’s fuller understanding of spirituality:

..we discovered a tape series about spirituality and sexuality, “The Erotic Contemplative” by Michael Bernard Kelly. I was immediately intrigued. On our two-ay drive home from Los Angeles to Omaha, we started listening to the tapes and discussing the questions that came in a guide with the tapes. It was probably amongst the most intimate conversations of sex, sexuality and spirituality I have ever had.

…..

Through the years our lovemaking has risen to an entirely new level when we intentionally invite God to be present to and with us. That is, when we prayerfully invite God’s Divine Presence to bless our lovemaking and to join with us in our lovemaking.
In my blog (http://scottneric.com/ontheroad) I have written about several experiences in my life in which I have known God’s presence, either as God or in the person of Jesus or of the Holy Spirit. So, in my own heart, and in my own soul, I know what the ecstatic experience of the Divine is like.

…..

(Here Eric recounts a particularly intense experience. To read it in the original, go to An Erotic Encounter With the Devine at Jesus in Love).

This is an important experience, and not uncommon. It gives the lie to official teaching, as do all other such experiences. If we are able to find God in our lovemaking, how can it possibly be wrong?

With their pathological aversion to any form of sexual expression, the Catholic hierarchs insist that any from of lovemaking outside of marriage, and not open to the possibility of procreation is sinful, and gay lovemaking in particular is "fundamentally disordered." Anybody who has experienced the sheer joy of giving oneself to another, of whatever the gender, in an intimate loving relationship will know how disordered is the teaching - and not the action.

"The joy of God is humans fully alive", said St Ireneaus. Many people would confirm that the experience of this kind of intimacy is about as fully alive as two people can become. It is not surprising that many priests and ex-priests, writing about their experience of celibacy, have described it as dehumanising. Thus, the celibate theologian's teaching on sexuality, by trying to impose their own restrictive standards on the rest of us, is leading us not towards God but away. Fortunately, many Catholic theologians outside of Vatican control our now joining their Protestant counterparts in correcting these misunderstandings - for example John McNeill, Daniel Helminiak and Michael B Kelly among the Catholics, joining Chris Glaser and many others among the Protestants.

It is basic to theology that consciously inviting the Lord into any activity will make it into a prayerful and hence spiritual one. It is natural that this should also apply to lovemaking, which is one of the most basic of all human activities. Writing about our experiences of finding the divine in love, sharing the truth, sharing the truth about them, helps to dispel the destructive poison of official teaching. (Michael B. Kelly is collecting personal stories of these kind of stories as part of his research for his doctoral degree in spirituality and gay men's erotic experiences. I again urge anyone who has such stories to tell, to share them with Michael. I know he will them most useful.)

Further reading:

Homoerotic Spirituality

The Intimate Dance of Sexuality and Spirituality

Come Out, stand Proud. ( The Catechism Commands It)

Chris Glaser: Coming out to God

Chris Glaser: Coming Out as Sacrament

Daniel Helminiak: Sex and the Sacred

Michael B. Kelley: Seduced by Grace

John McNeill: Sex as God Intended

P. Sweasey: From Queer to Eternity

What IS a Gay Catholic to do? A Question Comes Out of the Closet.

2010-04-15T01:16:00.000-07:00

At America blog last week, the Jesuit priest, Fr James Martin opened up a conversation that is well overdue, but which has up to now been conducted only among those most directly affected, or in obscure specialist theological circles: “What”, he asked, “Is a gay Catholic to do?”

Introducing his question, Fr Martin began by observing five actions that most people would regard as standard life experiences or choices, but which are prohibited to gay Catholics if they wish to conform to standard Church teaching. Briefly, these actions are:

To experience romantic, sexual love
To get married
To adopt children
To seek ordination
To take employment with the church or its agencies.

What, then, is a gay Catholic to do? Fr Martin raised the question, which I suspect will also be relevant in many other faiths, but did not attempt to answer it. Having had the question put before them, his readers responded with vigour – but they too had few answers, beyond the obvious one of simply “accept church teaching without questioning”, and so to accept this misfortune as one would any other disability or ill-fate bestowed by God.

This is not a response that I would consider constructive – and nor would most of the other gay men and lesbians who joined the discussion. (Christ himself said nothing at all against homoerotic relationships). Only marginally more helpful is the variation on the above, to pray to the Lord for help, accept His guidance – and then follow church teaching, quite overlooking even the possibility that the response to sincere, deep prayer might be to ignore church teaching (which, incidentally, was my own experience – but of that more later).

There can be very few heterosexual people who would voluntarily give up all five of these actions. The supposed grounds for setting the expectation, in Scripture and in the Magisterium of the church, are disputed by some significant modern scholars. Is it surprising that some gay Catholics are refusing to just roll over and play dead? This is a conversation that has been conducted quietly for decades by gay Catholics themselves, and more formally by an expanding band of reputable academics in “gay & lesbian theology”, in “queer theology”, or even in “indecent theology”. If Fr Martin did not suggest an answer to his question, he did at least bring into public view the simple fact there such a conversation exists, and needs to be conducted more openly.

In the absence of any clear agreement on what a gay Catholic is to do, I would like to summarise what, based on my own observations, gay Catholics who have seriously considered the question, have in fact done.

Conform

This is obviously the approved response, actively promoted by the church as the “Courage” ministry, which aims to guide its members to live in complete chastity. I have no information on the numbers following this path, but suspect that they are low. Many gay Catholics view this with scepticism, or even downright hostility, for its links to the discredited ideas of reparative therapy. (See "All You Wanted to Know About Courage ", at the Wild Reed.)

Conscientious (silent) dissent

In setting its rules, the church claims that the basis lies in the clear voice of Scripture and the unchanging tradition of the church. However, as important decisions over the past summer of the ECLA, the Episcopalians and the Swedish Lutherans have shown, there is no longer a universal consensus among scholars that Scripture is as hostile as was once assumed. It is now obvious that there is at least room for sincere disagreement on the relevance of the so-called “clobber texts”.

Similarly, the church’s own Magisterium is not, as claimed, unchanging. As gay Catholic historians like John Boswell and Mark Jordan have shown, the Magisterium on homoerotic relationships is anything but unchanging, and indeed may have followed rather than led popular intolerance which grew steadily in the centuries of urban decline in Western Europe after the fall of Rome.

Church teaching itself recognises the possibility of disagreeing, in conscience, with official teaching, provided that conscience has been properly formed. For years, this was in effect my own position. The challenge of course, is just what does “properly formed” mean? In my case, it included many different elements, including personal prayer, formal spiritual direction with highly qualified priests, several 6 or 8 day silent, directed retreats, and extensive reading, of Scripture, bible commentary, church history and sexual theology, and informal discussion with friends, gay and others. For me, the outcome was clear: the official teaching, for whatever reason, is misguided, and I must live with integrity, in accordance with the way the Lord made me.

I would have thought that I had done about as much to form my conscience as most people could reasonably expect, but it seems not. To judge by the comments following Fr Martin’s question, many orthodox Catholics simply argue that conscience cannot be properly formed unless it ends up agreeing with church teaching. And even where there is agreement that I may after all have the right to dissent in private, this may not be in public, nor does it give me access to the five things named by Fr Martin – at least not with the co-operation of the church.

Conscientious (visible) dissent

The problem with silent dissent is that is silent –and therefore lonely. One yearns for the opportunity to talk openly, with other dissenting gay Christians, or with other Catholics (when we do, we usually find that they have their own profound disagreements with church teaching, but somehow their disagreements in conscience, over contraception for example, are deemed acceptable, while ours are not). As it can be difficult to find safe spaces in most parishes to give expression to these issues, some Catholics seek to worship, where possible, in dedicated LGBT congregations. As a “solution” to the problem, this is not satisfactory. (The church should not be forming a series of ghettos.) Still, as a strategy and interim measure pending more welcoming responses by mainstream congregations, they are valuable. But these too attract strong opposition in some quarters. (Here in London, the regular Soho “gay masses” attract a steady band of protestors, praying outside the church for an end to the “heresy” that we too should be able to attend Mass. How they argue that their Catholic duty is to prevent or discourage people from attending Mass, I fail to understand.)

External dissent: Prophetic Witness, or Sniping From the Margins?

One of the most penetrating discussions of the problem I have come across is by Michael B Kelly, an Australian writer and spiritual director, now working towards a PhD in Spirituality. In a powerful reflection on the story of the road to Emmaus, he observes that this came immediately after the resurrection – which the religious authorities, holed up in Jerusalem, had not as yet accepted or recognised, in spite of the personal witness of the women who had met the risen Christ. Two of the disciples, despondent, left Jerusalem, and made their way to the town of Emmaus. The next part of the story is well known – on the road they met a stranger, walked with him, and offered the hospitality of their home, whereupon they recognised the risen Lord. This is where Kelly’s version becomes profound, because he makes the next part, usually omitted, the key to the story. Having met and conversed with the Lord at a personal level, they then leave Emmaus, and return to Jerusalem, to deliver the news of the Risen Lord to the religious authorities who had so dismally failed earlier to recognise him.

This, says Kelly, is what a gay Catholic has to do. First, to turn away (possibly literally, possibly figuratively) from the religious authority of the institutional church, and to meet Christ on a personal level. Having done that, having formed a personal relationship, the task is to take the road away from Emmaus, back to Jerusalem, and then to speak up to the establishment in prophetic witness: that Christ is not met among the religious “pure”, in ritual and religious law, but among the marginalised and rejected, in love and compassion.

There are an increasing number of gay Catholic dissenters who have followed this path in one from or another, who have distanced themselves from the institution and who speak up in prophetic witness (as they see it) against the sins of the church, and in support of the truth as they see it. They still see themselves (and describe themselves) as “catholic” (just not necessarily “Roman”), but do not necessarily participate in regular liturgical services. Whether they are indeed perceptive prophets who will in time be seen to have been right, or whether they are simply misguided fools sniping from the margins, time will tell.

Walk right away.

Right at the opposite end of the spectrum are those who have simply walked right away from the Catholic church, disgusted and repelled by the harsh words and treatment it has for them. Some of these make their way to more supportive Christian denominations, some abandon religion entirely. The ones that disturb me the most are those I often come across in the blogosphere, who describe themselves as “recovering” Catholics.

Still no answer.

I have still not given a clear answer: “What is a gay Catholic to do?”. I have outlined a range of strategies that some gay Catholics have followed. I now ask you: if you are indeed a lesbian or gay Christian, in any of the hostile denominations, what strategy do you adopt (or have adopted) yourself? If you are not gay, but willing sincerely to consider the question from their point of view, putting yourself in their shoes, and without simply parroting out slogans, what would you do?

What, finally, would Jesus do?

Read More:

What is a Gay Catholic to do? Fr James Martin at America blog. (read the comments, too)

"All You Wanted to Know About Courage ", at the Wild Reed

Countering the Clobber Texts , here at QTC

The Church's Changing Tradition , here at QTC

The Road from Emmaus: A Reflection by Michael B Keely on the gay & lesbian Prophetic Role in the Church.

Books:

Alison, James: Faith Beyond Resentment - fragments catholic and gay

Alison, James: On Being Liked

Alison, James: Undergoing God

Comstock, Gary: Queer(y)ing Religion

Glaser, Chris: Coming Out as Sacrament

Goss, Robert: Jesus Acted Up

Helminiak, Daniel: Sex and the Sacred

Kelly, Michael B: Seduced by Grace

McNeill, John: Sex as God Intended

Schinnick: This Remarkable Gift being gay and catholic

Stuart, Elisabeth: Religion is a Queer Thing

Stuart, Elisabeth: Gay & Lesbian Theologies

St John of the Cross

2010-04-14T01:07:00.000-07:00

John of the Cross is important for queer Catholics for two reasons. First, because he is a great teacher of spirituality, and the cultivation of spiritual practice, by enabling a more direct experience of the divine, is an excellent way to immunise ourselves from toxic and misguided teaching on human sexuality. Second, and more interestingly, because his language at times uses imagery which is plainly homoerotic, and so easily usable by gay men in their own prayer.

"St John of the Cross"

From the Calendar of LGBT Saints:

John of the Cross, 1542-1591

St. John of the Cross was one of the great Spanish mystics, whose outstanding Dark Night of the Soul is still read by all interested in Catholic mysticism. He also wrote a series of intense religious canticles. St. John, like other mystics such as St. Theresa of Avila, used the language of courtly love to describe his relationship with Christ. He also discussed, with rare candor, the sexual stimulation of prayer, the fact that mystics experience sexual arousal during prayer. With the male Christ of course, this amounts to a homoeroticism of prayer. It must be said that St. John was not entirely happy with this aspect of prayer. He was beatified by Clement X in 1675, canonized by Benedict XIII in 1726, and declared a Doctor of Church Universal by Pius XI in 1926

Quoted at The Wild Reed:

(from ) On a Dark Night

……..

……..
“Oh, night that guided me,
Oh, night more lovely than the dawn,
Oh, night that joined
Beloved with lover,
Lover transformed in the Beloved!

Upon my flowery breast,
Kept wholly for himself alone,
There he stayed sleeping,
and I caressed him,
And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze.

The breeze blew from the turret
As I parted his locks;
With his gentle hand
He caressed my neck
And caused all my senses to be suspended.

I remained, lost in oblivion;
My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself,
Leaving my cares
forgotten among the lilies.”

UPDATE ( 15th Dec)

By way of a comment to my original post above, I have some wonderful additional insights to St John that are worth sharing. The theologian Bill Lindsy, who blogs are Bilgrimage, had this to add:

I’d like to recommend the work of an openly gay Catholic theologian who is an expert in the life and theology of John.
Richard Hardy, who taught theology for many years at St. Paul’s in Ottawa and now lives in San Francisco, did a biography of John now long out of print, which recovers some fascinating aspects of John’s life that have implications, I believe, for LGBT Christians.
Richard notes that one of John’s formative experiences before he was a religious was working as a nurse in hospitals in Spain that treated, for the most part, people suffering from venereal diseases. Here, he had to learn lovingly to acknowledge and cherish the wounded flesh of sinful human beings.
And he learned from these years as a nurse of the value of cauterizing some wounds–a metaphor that became powerful in his spiritual theology, where the divine fire of God’s love cauterizes our spiritual wounds.

See also:

Homoerotic Spirituality

The Intimate Dance of Sexuality and Spirituality

The Spiritual Gifts of Gay Sexuality

2010-04-13T00:59:00.000-07:00

Spiritual direction is one of the best -kept secrets of the Catholic Church. This is unfortunate- the process needs to better known and used. This is how Jesuit theologian James L'Empereur describes it:

the process in which a Christian accompanies others for an extended period of time for the process of clarifying the psychological and religious issues in the directee so that they may move toward deeper union with God and contribute to ministry within the Christian community.

I have unexpectedly been able to borrow L'Empereur's "Spiritual Direction and the Gay Person", which I would now like to prescribe to all my readers as required reading, with a 3 hour examination at the end of the course. I began reading last evening, and have been devouring it with enthusiasm. I am now about half way through, and not yet ready to offer a full and balanced assessment. (That will come later). Still, every page has important insights that I want to share or explore further. As an appetizer before the main course to follow, I offer some snippets today:

Here are the opening sentences:

Homosexuality is on of God's most significant gifts to humanity. To be gay or lesbian is to have received a special blessing from God. to be gay or lesbian is to have received a special blessing from God. All humans receive their own special graces from their creator, but god has chosen some to be gay and lesbian as a way of revealing something about Godself that heterosexuals do not.

This is a startling, unexpected beginning, but of course he goes on to explain and fully substantiate it, in a chapter that had me engrossed, and anxious to explore also all his references and sources (a task, I fear, which may be well beyond me.) Elsewhere, he makes another startling claim: he calls the gay state a "charism", exactly comparable to the charism of celibacy embraced by Catholic clergy. Both are charisms granted to just a few, from which the wider church can learn. Here I was reminded of an observation in one of our Soho Mass homilies, that if "homosexuality" is an environmental threat because it cannot lead to procreation, so is celibacy.) The key manner in which we who are gay or lesbian can teach the wider Church is in the manner of our sexuality, which is not exclusively about genital contact (in complete contradiction to the popular stereotypes), nor is it based in patriarchal patterns of domination and submission.

I should stress here that L'Empereur very carefully does not either endorse or condemn any specific form of sexual expression, whether in committed, faithful relationships, in recreational sex, or in voluntary celibacy: those decisions are to be reached by the person being directed, through the process, and not decided a priori. However, he does argue strongly that for all people, gay or otherwise, the historic dichotomy between sex and spirituality has been destructive. Instead of thinking of spirituality OR sexuality, we should be looking for spirituality THROUGH sexuality , possibly (but not necessarily) including genital sexuality. Gay people, he says, may find this easier than heterosexuals, who are often startled during counselling before , when he asks whether they expect to use their sexual union as a form of prayer.

In this book L'Empereur presents with great clarity and authority a number of the themes I have been grasping at on these pages. Another is the view that authentic Catholic teaching fully supports, not condemns, the homosexual and his/her struggle. Surprised? You shouldn't be. We know from painful experience of course, that approached from the perspective of sexual ethics, standard Catholic teaching is deeply hostile. L'Empereur reminds us that Catholic teaching is far broader than just sexual ethics. Approached from social justice, which is at least as important to the totality of teaching, a completely different picture emerges, one which demands compassion and support for the marginalised and oppressed, and requires that we work towards justice. This latter perspective has been profoundly influential in my own faith as it was formed under South African apartheid, and why I found Cardinal O'Connors instruction to the Soho Masses to present Catholic teaching on sexuality "in full, and without ambiguity". This is impossible: "in full" implies from a range of approaches, which are self-contradictory. When we think of the structure of Catholic teaching on homosexuality, far too often we see only the dominating monolith of the official Vatican teaching on sexual ethics, and especially the scaled down, reduced travesty that we find in the catechism. Reading this book, I am reminded that the teaching "in full" more closely resembles a crowded, diverse city, with many strands coming from the Vatican centre - and also important subsidiary nodes, such as those presented by theologians like L'Empereur. Historically, cities grew around single, strong centres. During the twentieth century, the development of private transport led to dramatic changes in city morphology, with the major growth occurring on the suburban or exurban fringes and in suburban business nodes. In some cities, it has been suggested, the traditional centre has virtually disappeared.

We may be seeing the same thing in theology. Comparable to private transport, the emergence of lay theologians and secular schools of theology have privatised the construction of new ideas. Instead of the ancient central monolith dominating the skyline, steadfastly preserving and protecting its traditional inheritance, suburban nodes are bubbling away, creating new forms and structures: liberation theology, feminist theology, gay and lesbian theology, queer theology; theology by discerned experience, theology of spirituality through sexuality - and so many more I have not yet encountered. With so much vitality at the suburban fringes, the "margins" lose conceptual significance. Will Vatican City in time become irrelevant, as some physical central cities have done?

Jayden Cameron thinks so, at the Gay Mystic. Read "Life Finds a Way".

(I will have more on this important book later - probably repeatedly.)

Queering Easter: The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

2010-04-12T00:52:00.000-07:00

For many in the Church, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are an embarrassment, if not a scandal and disgrace. I have no knowledge of them except some very contradictory second hand reports, and so make no judgements myself. However, I found this report from Religion Dispatches refreshing, for presenting the positive side of their activities:

Queering Easter: The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence Redefine Sainthood

An order of queer nuns, founded in San Francisco thirty-one years ago, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is now a full-fledged pastoral and charitable organization, having given away more than a million dollars. They've also raised pioneers in LGBT and AIDS/HIV rights to sainthood, creating their own holy calendar.
One of my favorite memories of gay and lesbian life was the one time I went to a Gay Pride march in San Francisco, now multiple decades ago. Among the memorable wonders was a small group who called themselves the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. On and off over the decades, I have thought of those drag nuns, roller skating along the Castro, throwing flowers into the crowd (and kisses) and hooting and hollering with the best of them.

Years later, when I co-edited Que(e)rying Religion with Gary David Comstock, I really wanted to have a picture of those nuns on the cover. To me, they were a vision of the complications of religion and sexuality. Turns out they are still out there, pushing us all to rethink what religion, nuns, charity, sexuality and fun might be — in fact, they are now an international phenomenon. They have, for some, redefined sainthood—and in the process redefined Easter.
Months after Pope Benedict raised the Blessed Damien to sainthood, another figure linked to AIDS and HIV was "canonized" in San Francisco. As the Bay Area Reporter put it: “Where else but San Francisco could Irene Smith, a true pioneer in care for the ill and dying, be sainted by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?” Who is Smith? Here’s what the Bay Area Reporter said:
Smith, who conducts Everflowing educational programs that teach touch skills as an integral component of end of life care, is revered as one of the first people to regularly massage those living with AIDS. She began her outreach in 1983, when she started going room to room offering her touch to patients on San Francisco General Hospital’s Ward 5A (then the major AIDS ward in the city). Even before that, in April 1982, she approached the Hospice of San Francisco to propose what was then a novel service, massage for terminally ill hospice clients.
For those who recall the early years of the AIDS/HIV pandemic, and the fear of touching accompanying the devastation, Smith’s focus on massage (and thus touch) was—and is—truly beneficent. In this season of Easter, even those of us who are secular (and I count myself among them) we might still ask: what is sainthood anyway? Who exactly raised Irene Smith to sainthood? Who are the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? We might ask, as well, is a secular Easter really all that oxymoronic?
Not only do the Sisters redefine sainthood, but they redefine Easter as well. This Easter, April 4, 2010, they will celebrate their 31st anniversary in Dolores Park in San Francisco—with the traditional Hunky Jesus and Easter bonnet competitions.
Founded in 1979, the order’s official history (aka “sistory”—see this site) begins with their resistance to conformity within gay culture:

On Easter Weekend, during the time of the “Castro Clone,” three men went out into the streets to challenge the world. They went in full, traditional habits through the streets of our city and down to the nude beach. One even carried a machine gun and smoked a cigar. They were met with shock and amazement, but captured everyone’s interest. Their next appearance was at a softball game where their pompon routine all but stole the show and by the time the Castro Street Fair had rolled around, they were ready to recruit more. In the fall of 1979, Sister Hysterectoria and Reverend Mother went to the first International Faerie gathering and encountered even more men with the calling.

.......

the post concludes:

And, of course, they do name saints. In addition to their December 2009 celebration of Irene Smith, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence have canonized such figures as Harry Hay, Armistead Maupin, Harvey Milk, and New Palz Mayor Jason West. (For a longer list, see here.) For many, their claims to do so are simply unacceptable—making fun of “The Church.” For others, they are wonderful in their rejection of the "The Church.” Perhaps more accurately, their wonder lies in their refusal of this either/or in favor of a new queer sensibility, a new queer spirituality, a new canon of hope and transformation, and a renewed notion of sainthood. Not to mention, a resurrection of fun across the decades of AIDs and HIV, across communities of color and poverty, of trans and gay, of men and (though a tiny minority) women, an Easter bonnet contest redefining us all. For those in San Francisco, or all the other places around the globe where this movement has sprung up, Happy Easter.

It is sometimes difficult (especially now, in the Catholic Church), to remember that "Gospel" is a corruption of "God spell", or "Good news". The Gospel message should be joyous, a celebration. The glory of God, says St Irenaeus, is humans fully alive. Joy, I was regularly told by a spiritual director, is the "infallible sign of the Holy Spirit."

Where is the joy in the modern Catholic Church? In what way does the isntitutional church help us to be fully alive? Far too often, the effect is quite the opposite: the church imbues us with guilt, not joy, and closes off opportunities to experience the fullness and richness of life, especially sexual life. Jesus Christ was fiercely critical of legalistic compliance with religious formulae and authority, where this got in the way of genuine loving service. It seems to me that by using irreverence, parody and humour, these "sisters" may have more in common with the real Gospel message than the canon lawyers and bureaucrats of the Vatican.

Towards a Sound Sexual Ethic

2010-04-11T00:55:00.000-07:00

In several recent contributions to the Open Tabernacle comments threads, reader David Ludescher has made the very sound observation that if we reject the Church's teaching on sexual ethics, what are we to put in its place? I agreed with him that an alternative, positive view of sexuality is desperately overdue (several senior priests and theologians I know have told me precisely the same thing). My own history has led me to discard the standard teaching piece by piece, forcing me (in the absence of useful guidance from the Church) to attempt to piece together an ethical framework for myself, based on my own reading, prayerful reflection and spiritual direction. I still have a long way to go, but I do have some sound principles that I work with.

For a long time I have been wanting to share with my readers some of the contributions that I have found useful elsewhere, but like many of the projects that I would like to tackle, this is one I have not yet begun. Now, goaded by David's important observation on the importance of the task, I would like to make at least a start. This is in no way intended to be a formally reasoned exposition, but just a mere listing of some starting principles, together with some preliminary links to outside thoughts. A more coherent presentation will come later.

Given that it is just a set of initial thoughts, I would welcome similar contributions from others. If you disagree with my ideas, please say so - and add your own guiding principles. I do ask, though, that given the purpose of this exercise, you steer away from simply regurgitating the catechism. For the purposes of this discussion, let us leave aside church teaching entirely, for better or for worse, and concentrate on identifying the moral guidelines for sexual life that you would accept and apply in your own life - not because the Church says so, but because reason or experience have convinced you.

Sexuality - what is it?

I want to begin by making it clear that by "sexuality" I do not mean merely a set of genital acts, with or without another person. It is a far broader concept, including other forms of touching, non-tactile aspects of our relationships, and awareness of ourselves as bodily beings. Most of the ethical issues meant by "sexuality" area bout physical elements, but we should not forget that there are also other dimensions.

Sexuality is good.

Sexuality is given by God, and is inherently good. In Genesis 2 (the earlier creation story), we read that God said it is not good for man to be alone, and so he created for him a companion. Science has shown that a sound sexual life contributes greatly to both physical and mental health. I take it as fundamental that sound, intimate relationships are given to us for our benefit, and should be seen as positive. They should emphatically not be seen as somehow second best to a state of celibacy.

Sex is clearly about procreation.

Children and families are of great importance to us as a species, and to many of us individually. It should not be necessary to say so, but as some people seem to think that progressive Catholics are somehow against the family, I set it down here purely for the record.

Sex is about relationships.

As we develop in relationship with another, there is a natural desire to express that. Initially this could be simple touching, caresses and kissing, but often, it will naturally move to fuller genital expression as well. As it does so, the shared experience has clear emotional and even physical effects, with a lasting impact on the people and their relationship. In this way, sex is unitive, deepening and strengthening the bonds that already exist between lovers. For me, it is significant that Jesus has virtually nothing to say about sexual matters in the Gospels - except in the context of relationships (as where they are damaged by adultery or divorce).

Sex can also be about play.

The most extensive Biblical treatment of sex comes in the Song of Songs, which is a lyrical, frankly erotic hymn to the delight of two people in each other, and in their physical bodies. The two people who express their sexual joy in this book give no indication that they are married, or are aiming to produce children. This book can and should be read as an extended metaphor for God's delight in us, and we in Him - but it can also be read quite simply as it stands: a celebration of sheer, unadulterated joy in physical sex. (Note though, that "sex" here is clearly physical, but not necessarily genital. Unless I've missed something in my own reading, this is not specifically about penetration).

Sexuality and spirituality are complementary.

Christianity is unique among major religions in having placed the two in opposition.. Fortunately, many writers are now recognising that sexuality need not impede spirituality, but can lead to it - and vice versa. Chris Glaser is just one writer who has presented this very clearly, in the introduction to his book, "Coming out to God". (See "The intimate Dance of Sexuality and Spirituality")

Sex is about mutuality and equality.

One of the failures of "Western" traditional sexuality is that it created and enforced a rigid separation of sexual roles, and then extended those into the wider society. By focusing on sex only in terms of genital penetration, it has downgraded other forms of sexual expression (including foreplay and afterplay), and also became inextricably linked with ideas of automatic male dominance and female submission in the wider relationship. One of the ways in which same- sex relationships can teach the wider population about healthy sexuality, is in the way that they move beyond this concentration on penetration alone, to alternative ways of giving each other sexual pleasure.

In physical actions, in emotional interactions, and in devising sensible household routines, sexual relationships should be devised equally for the benefit of both parties, and developed by mutual agreement.

Good Sex is about giving.

The delight in sex is not simply about a self-indulgent pursuit of orgasm, but is about bringing pleasure, both physical and emotional, to another.

What about the dangers?

Sex is an emotional minefield.

In exactly the same way that it can deepen the bonds of love in an existing relationship, the physical, neural effects of orgasm are still present even if an emotional bond does not exist beforehand: there is a danger of creating an illusion of some deep emotional attachment, when all that ever existed beforehand was physical lust. This is one of the reasons why intimate sexual expression for the young should be discouraged.

Another is the sheer power of the emotions unleashed. Even where there is some degree of love present, for young people who are scarcely able to deal with the emotional and hormonal turmoil of adolescence to start with, adding the complications of sexual emotional turmoil justs adds to the confusion and dangers.

Sexual obsession is destructive.

Sex resembles other appetites in that avoidance is or can be bad for health, balanced use is healthy and satisfying, but overindulgence is unhealthy and often destructive. In the case of sex, this can take the form of obsession with sex to the exclusion of other parts of life, to sexual addictions in which there is an ever present search for "good" sex, which is never actually achieved.

Sex can become self-indulgent.

Whereas sex should be about giving, its ubiquity in modern popular culture all too easily leads us to see it as something to be pursued for ist own sake, for our own personal pleasure. Where we allow this to happen, we can destroy rather than enhance the relationships that should underpin it.

Obvious physical dangers

Of unplanned pregnancy, or of sexually transmitted disease , are so well known, I need say no more.

Conclusions:

Out of these general principles, what are my own specific "rules"?

Sex is about mutuality, and is best expressed in loving, committed relationships.

Within a relationship, there must be mutuality and agreement as to how that relationship is played out and expressed.

Sex is about much more than just genital contact (still less, just about penetration).

Life is about more than just sex, which must be controlled and disciplined.

Outside of committed, long-term relationships, I am not against sex as sheer play, or as part of dating leading up to something stronger, but am wary of the dangers. Those who do engage in recreational sex need to have a very clear idea of what they are doing, and not confuse it with anything more meaningful - nor let it become addictive.

For the young, sexual activity needs to be delayed until some degree of emotional maturity has been achieved. This does not have to be until after marriage: the traditional opposition to pre-marital sex was appropriate when girls married young and matured late, when reliable contraception was not available and pregnancy outside marriage was a social and economic disaster. In the modern world, where young people are delaying marriage until much later but reaching physical maturity much earlier, the old rule is unnecessary and inappropriate. But there is still a critical need for the young, to approach sexual expression with the greatest of care, until they have the emotional capacity to deal with it. This is prety much the advice I gave to my own daughter, and she came to me as a young student, asking for advice.)

Those are my initial thoughts. What are yours?

The specific value of sex

Quite obviously, a major benefit to humans of sexual expression is simple procreation.

"Hate Has No Place In The House of God": Desmond Tutu

2010-03-24T15:03:00.001-07:00

From the Washington Post, Desmond Tutu on Hate in Africa:

No one should be excluded from our love, our compassion or our concern because of race or gender, faith or ethnicity -- or because of their sexual orientation. Nor should anyone be excluded from health care on any of these grounds. In my country of South Africa, we struggled for years against the evil system of apartheid that divided human beings, children of the same God, by racial classification and then denied many of them fundamental human rights. We knew this was wrong. Thankfully, the world supported us in our struggle for freedom and dignity.

It is time to stand up against another wrong.Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are part of so many families. They are part of the human family. They are part of God's family. And of course they are part of the African family. But a wave of hate is spreading across my beloved continent. People are again being denied their fundamental rights and freedoms. Men have been falsely charged and imprisoned in Senegal, and health services for these men and their community have suffered. In Malawi, men have been jailed and humiliated for expressing their partnerships with other men. Just this month, mobs in Mtwapa Township, Kenya, attacked men they suspected of being gay. Kenyan religious leaders, I am ashamed to say, threatened an HIV clinic there for providing counseling services to all members of that community, because the clerics wanted gay men excluded. Uganda's parliament is debating legislation that would make homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment, and more discriminatory legislation has been debated in Rwanda and Burundi. These are terrible backward steps for human rights in Africa. Our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters across Africa are living in fear. And they are living in hiding -- away from care, away from the protection the state should offer to every citizen and away from health care in the AIDS era, when all of us, especially Africans, need access to essential HIV services. That this pandering to intolerance is being done by politicians looking for scapegoats for their failures is not surprising. But it is a great wrong. An even larger offense is that it is being done in the name of God. Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God. "But they are sinners," I can hear the preachers and politicians say. "They are choosing a life of sin for which they must be punished." My scientist and medical friends have shared with me a reality that so many gay people have confirmed, I now know it in my heart to be true. No one chooses to be gay. Sexual orientation, like skin color, is another feature of our diversity as a human family. Isn't it amazing that we are all made in God's image, and yet there is so much diversity among his people? Does God love his dark- or his light-skinned children less? The brave more than the timid? And does any of us know the mind of God so well that we can decide for him who is included, and who is excluded, from the circle of his love? The wave of hate must stop. Politicians who profit from exploiting this hate, from fanning it, must not be tempted by this easy way to profit from fear and misunderstanding. And my fellow clerics, of all faiths, must stand up for the principles of universal dignity and fellowship. Exclusion is never the way forward on our shared paths to freedom and justice.

The writer is archbishop emeritus of Cape Town, South Africa. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984.

Yet Another Evangelical Conversion

2010-03-24T15:01:00.001-07:00

On the Washington Post Faith page, yet another evangelical pastor describes how he came to change his mind on what he calls the "sex question". What do you suppose was the critical factor in this conversion? Right. Listening to the testimony of real people.

[caption id="attachment_5222" align="aligncenter" width="239" caption="A New Kind of Christianity"][/caption]

Brian MacLaren, described as a leader in the evangelical "Emerging Church" movement, tells how he no longer sides with the views of his friends and associates of a similar church background:

Most of my good friends sincerely and passionately hold the strict conservative view on homosexuality with which we all were raised. They can't understand why I don't stand side by side with them on this issue any more. To some, I've become a traitor, to others, a casualty in the culture wars, to others, frankly, a problem and an embarrassment.

These people will not easily change their minds, he says, until somebody close to them comes out to them. (This will usually be friends or family, and we know from the electoral battles that those who know gay people are substantially more supportive than those who do not.) The same process can also apply in church, whether with pastors or the friends we make among the congregations.

The real game changer, I've found, occurs when someone close to them - someone they already know, love, and respect - comes out to them. The issues then goes from being theoretical to personal, and it engages their emotional and social intelligence, which then gives their rational or analytic intelligence additional data to work with.

As a pastor, I walked this path. Through the years, a steady stream of church members, their children, and their guests made appointments with me, each of which began with almost the same words: "I've never told anyone this before, but ...." All my life I had been told that homosexuality was simply a sinful choice, a yielding to an especially evil temptation. (Back in the 1980s, this was the standard explanation in my circles.) But not one of the people I met fit that explanation.

As contrary evidence mounted, I began to wonder which was the anomaly and which was the norm - what I had been taught by authority figures I loved and respected, or what I was seeing in people I also loved and respected?

Just like Dr Mark Achtemeier, MacLaren initially began to feel that his deep, long-standing faith was being threatened, that he was somehow having to choose between being faithful to the parishioners he was talking to, and faithfulness to the Bible. He was able to come to a resolution (not described in the column), but his friends and colleagues who have not been talking as he has to lesbians and gay men, cannot understand this. But what keeps him firm in his own new understanding is his mental picture of the "tens of thousands" of personal stories:

That's why, behind the clamor of public debates about homosexuality, I always imagine tens of thousands of stories, each overflowing with personal pain, fear, and hope. For starters, there's the alienation felt by many gay people, but there's also another very real kind of alienation felt by pastors, rabbis, imams, parents, and friends of gay people who are struggling between two loves: their love for the religious authority structures in their lives, and their love for someone close to them who happens to be gay.

Loud public debates will continue to rage about gays in the military, gays in the church, and gays in the courthouse, and "the issue" will continue to be used to win elections and create voting blocs and headlines. Meanwhile, I will continue to be remember that behind the clamor, private dramas are playing out in agonized prayers and secret tears behind more closed doors than most people imagine. Whatever your position on the issue, I think these personal struggles are worth keeping in mind.

(Brian MacLaren's column for the post was based on part of his new book, "A New Lind of Christianity". Read the full article here.)

In the abstract, it sounds so obvious, but the reality is so hard. We know, or imagine, how often we will be simply rebuffed if we try to speak frankly, and how we will be answered with a lecture on our sinfulness and the need to repent. But some of those we speak to will listen with open minds, and the more of us they hear, the more they will come round. The three stories I have posted the last few days, and also that of Eugene Rogers (not yet posted, but coming later) are not from bleeding heart liberals, but from leading evangelicals in the Presbyterian and Anglican churches. I have not yet seen any comparable reports for Catholic priests: the nature of Church structure makes it far more difficult for them to go public with these kinds of views. You can be sure though, that their hearts are no different to these others. If they hear enough stories, they too will begin to change their minds - many have already done so.

If it is too much to speak to clergy directly, remember that they are not the only ones that count. Exactly the same process can also play out on a smaller, but more intimate, scale by getting to know ordinary members of a local congregation. This is a process I am currently engaged in, in my own local parish - a process I should be describing later this week.

John McNeill: Homophobic Abuse and Distortion of Scripture

2010-03-24T12:27:00.003-07:00

Guestpost: Gay theologian, psychotherapist and former Jesuit, Dr Fr John McNeill has sent me this commentary on Renato Ling's interpretation of Leviticus 18:22:

[caption id="attachment_5234" align="alignleft" width="299" caption="John McNeill"][/caption] The recent effort of evangelical pastor Martin Ssempa under the tutelage of American Evangelicals to pass a "kill the gays" bill in the Uganda parliament and the extensive persecution of GLBT people throughout eastern Africa is based primarily on a questionable interpretation of a passage in Leviticus 18: 22.

The words of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Vatican Council II deal with the interpretation of Sacred Scripture:

"Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in a human fashion, the interpreter of sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words"

This cautious investigation of the intention of the human author is especially called for in dealing with the biblical passages which traditionally been accepted as dealing with homosexual activity. We are keenly aware that back in the days of slavery, slave owners regularly quoted passages from scripture to justify keeping slaves as God's will. There is a real possibility that the homophobia of the translators and their culture has led to a distortion of the meaning of scripture.

The best way to arrive at an understanding of what the author means by this verse is to read it within the overall context of Leviticus. "Just as the overall aim of Leviticus is to ban incestuous heterosexual practices. Lev. 18.22 may well be there to ensure that homosexual incest is added to the list of proscriptions

This understanding of Leviticus frees us from making the assertion that God wills the death or imprisonment of all those humans that God created gay.

John McNeill's Books:

John McNeill's Books: The Church and the Homosexual Freedom, Glorious Freedom Both Feet Firmly Planted in mid-Air Taking a Chance on God Sex as God Intended John McNeill's Websites: johnmcneill.com mauriceblondel.com

Bishop James Jones: Another Evangelical Ally?

2010-03-24T12:27:00.001-07:00

When the Anglican Church appeared set to ordain an openly gay bishop back in 2003, one of those vocally and aggressively opposed was Bishop James Jones, of Liverpool. However, he later apologised for this aggression, and undertook to listen more to other views on sexuality. As I have noted before, when people can be persuaded to listen with an open mind, views begin to change. Earlier this week I wrote about the conversion journey of the US Presbyterian theologian Dr Mark Achtemeier, who describes himself as both conservative and evangelical ("And Grace Will Lead Me Home"). In his case, the conversion was complete, and now argues actively in favour of full inclusion in church, including same sex marriage and ordination.

[caption id="attachment_5217" align="aligncenter" width="393" caption="Bishop James Jones"][/caption]

Bishop James, who is associated with the evangelical wing of the UK Anglican Church, does not seem to have gone quite that far (not yet), but he does now argue for recognition that differing views and interpretations of Scripture are possible. He recently voted in favour of a decision to grant pensions to civil partners of gay clergy. With the formal confirmation of the USA's first openly lesbian bishop expected within weeks, he is encouraging his fellow evangelicals not to overreact to this. He has also said that he is "in sympathy" with the House of Lords amendment this week which will allow religious premises to be used for Civil Partnerships.

The evidence is clear. Difficult as it is, we need to find ways to speak to those who are so opposed to us. Many will not listen, and will remain rigidly wedded to their preconceptions. But where we can engage a few, we must. In listening, they will modify their own views. Thereafter, they will help to modify the views of others. The Holy Spirit is clearly working in this matter to "renew the face of he earth". She deserves our help.

Some extracts from "Ekklesia":

The Bishop has not explicitly abandoned his longstanding view that same-gender sexual relationships are unethical. However, he appeared concerned not to condemn same-sex couples when, in his words, “in a world of such little love, two people sought to express a love that no other relationship could offer them”. Jones’ stance on religious same-sex partnerships is markedly different from certain other conservative Anglican bishops. The amendment recently approved by the House of Lords will give churches the freedom to host same-sex partnership ceremonies if they choose, but will not require them to do so. However, Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, has been widely criticised for suggesting that the law will allow clergy to be sued for refusing to carry them out, a claim inaccurately reported as fact in parts of the media. In contrast, James Jones’ comments are in tune with those evangelicals who have shifted their position on homosexuality in recent years. There are now several evangelical organisations which accept the validity of same-sex relationships. In a particularly controversial section of his remarks, Jones challenges the notion that sexuality is a matter of choice, saying instead that it is a “given”. The Bishop compared the Church’s divisions over sexuality with its ability to accommodate a variety of attitudes to war. “On a number of major moral issues, the Church allows a large space for a variety of nuances, interpretations, applications and disagreements,” he said. “The day is coming when Christians who equally profoundly disagree about the consonancy of same-gender love within the discipleship of Christ will in spite of their disagreement drink openly from the same cup of salvation,” he added. Colin Coward of the pro-inclusion group Changing Attitude gave a warm welcome to Jones’ comments. "This is both a strong affirmation of gay relationships and a confirmation of Anglican tradition,” said Coward. He added that Anglican tradition meant that “differences in attitude to homosexuality are not church-dividing and that Christians can live together in one church community respecting each other’s convictions”.

(Full report here)

How to Right the Bishops

2010-03-24T12:26:00.001-07:00

I have carried a few posts earlier this week about Joseph Gentolini, and his ministry of writing to the bishops. This is a strategy I would like to see far more people adopting. These are some guidelines Joseph one wrote for Dignity on how to go about it. I find these suggestions constructive and helpful. I commend them for your own serious consideration:

14-Point Summary When Writing Our Bishops

Building the Relationship 1. The goal is to develop a relationship with the Bishop, not to send a quick letter and then be done with it. Realize that this will be a long-term communication process. If you can, try and arrange a meeting with your Bishop. If not, then write him. 2. Know your purpose in writing: to influence? To vent? To Blame? 3. Use "I" statements, not "you" statements. "You" statements usually come across as blaming. This is not what you want to do. 4. Do not use words that convey intense anger. This goes along with #2. You may be angry, but try to take out the "blaming" or "accusatory" language. This only puts the other on the defensive and makes it more difficult to hear your words and message. 5. Be vulnerable – you have to share yourself – your thoughts, feelings, and spirituality. Be humble and not arrogant. 6. Speak for yourself. Do not judge or assign motives or intent. Talk about how Church teachings have hurt you. 7. Whenever you have the opportunity to see the Bishop, make sure you introduce yourself again. My partner's nieces have been confirmed and I made sure I went up to meet the Bishop again, telling him that I was working on another letter to him. Several years ago, he told me that he "enjoyed our communication through the mail." 8. Be respectful, if only for the office the Bishop holds in the Church or, if you can't respect the Office, respect his person. Other Important Thoughts on Content and Prayer 9. Tell your story about being a gay or lesbian Catholic – the pain and the joys. If you are in a relationship, make sure he knows this and what it means in your life. 10. Use the Bishop's own language and symbolism if you can. For example, in one of my letters, I used the language of the Catechism on racism to make a point on gays and justice. After Always Our Children came out, I thanked him and told him that I hoped all parishes received a copy. I also told him that it was orthodox just the way it was and urged him not to allow any changes. 11. Don't hit all of the issues in one letter. Take them each as they come up. 12. Don't forget to look at the Diocesan paper, even if you find it offensive. If there is an article on homosexuality or related issues, see if there is a letter you can write to give your point of view. This is another way to communicate. 13. Allow God to act – I am not responsible for the results of what I do or say – God is! Let the Spirit use you – this takes an act of faith. 14. Finally and maybe most important, pray for the Bishop and the Church and let him know that you keep him in prayer. COPYRIGHT 2007: Joseph Gentilini, Ph.D.

Oscar Romero: Bishop of the Poor

2010-03-24T00:56:00.000-07:00

As Bishop of the Poor, Oscar Romero is an appropriate model for all of us. By standing up firmly as a witness for truth, and against injustice and oppression of all kinds, he has additional significance for us as gay men, lesbians and transgendered in the Church.

If you want peace, work for justice.

Oscar Romero worked for justice, in the face of open opposition from his fellow Salvadorean bishops. He was on the side of history, they were not. He understood that the obligation we have is to follow the Gospel, before we follow the rules of the Curial cabal. Where faithfulnesss to God and loyalty to a state are in conflict, the Church has always taught that loyalty to God must come first. Where faithfulness to the Gospels and loyalty to the bishops conflict, Romero showed that the truth of the Gospels is primary.

Romero also knew that in the struggle for justice, it was not enough to wait for handouts from the state. The poor needed to take control of their own lives. As we in turn, struggle for justice in the church, it is not enough for us to wait patiently for a new pope, or for a change of heart within the curia. we too must elarn the lesson from El Salvador: we must do it for ourselves.

This reflection on the martyrdom of Archbishop Romero is taken from US Catholic:

In 1980, in the midst of a U.S. funded war the UN Truth Commission called genocidal, the soon-to-be-assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero promised history that life, not death, would have the last word. "I do not believe in death without resurrection," he said. "If they kill me, I will be resurrected in the Salvadoran people."
On each anniversary of his death, the people will march through the streets carrying that promise printed on thousands of banners. Mothers will make pupusas (thick tortillas with beans) at 5 a.m., pack them, and prepare the children for a two-to-four hour ride or walk to the city to remember the gentle man they called Monseñor.
Oscar Romero gave his last homily on March 24. Moments before a sharpshooter felled him, reflecting on scripture, he said, "One must not love oneself so much, as to avoid getting involved in the risks of life that history demands of us, and those that fend off danger will lose their lives." The homily, however, that sealed his fate took place the day before when he took the terrifying step of publicly confronting the military.

Romero begged for international intervention. He was alone. The people were alone. In 1980 the war claimed the lives of 3,000 per month, with cadavers clogging the streams, and tortured bodies thrown in garbage dumps and the streets of the capitol weekly. With one exception, all the Salvadoran bishops turned their backs on him, going so far as to send a secret document to Rome reporting him, accusing him of being "politicized" and of seeking popularity.

Unlike them, Romero had refused to ever attend a government function until the repression of the people was stopped. He kept that promise winning him the enmity of the government and military, and an astonishing love of the poor majority.

Romero was a surprise in history. The poor never expected him to take their side and the elites of church and state felt betrayed. He was a compromise candidate elected to head the bishop's episcopacy by conservative fellow bishops. He was predictable, an orthodox, pious bookworm who was known to criticize the progressive liberation theology clergy so aligned with the impoverished farmers seeking land reform. But an event would take place within three weeks of his election that would transform the ascetic and timid Romero.

The new archbishop's first priest, Rutilio Grande, was ambushed and killed along with two parishioners. Grande was a target because he defended the peasant's rights to organize farm cooperatives. He said that the dogs of the big landowners ate better food than the campesino children whose fathers worked their fields.

The night Romero drove out of the capitol to Paisnal to view Grande's body and the old man and seven year old who were killed with him, marked his change. In a packed country church Romero encountered the silent endurance of peasants who were facing rising terror. Their eyes asked the question only he could answer: Will you stand with us as Rutilio did? Romero's "yes" was in deeds. The peasants had asked for a good shepherd and that night they received one.

Romero already understood the church is more than the hierarchy, Rome, theologians or clerics—more than an institution—but that night he experienced the people as church. "God needs the people themselves," he said, "to save the world . . . The world of the poor teaches us that liberation will arrive only when the poor are not simply on the receiving end of hand-outs from governments or from the churches, but when they themselves are the masters and protagonists of their own struggle for liberation."

This reflection is taken from Ekklesia ,

On 24 March 1980, Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated by the government of El Salvador. At the time, the country was ruled by a brutally repressive regime which cared little for the poor and human rights.

At first a conservative, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador became aware of the suffering around him, and was drawn into attempts to improve the situation of the frightened and dispossessed.

Sometimes, in faith circles, it is assumed that spirituality and political involvement are in tension and that paying too much attention to earthly matters, except on explicitly religious issues, distracts the church from its main business.

Certainly, embracing the agenda of a particular party or movement or taking up a ‘good cause’ with such enthusiasm that personal matters are neglected is unhelpful. But this was not Romero’s experience.

To quote from some of his sermons in the month that he died:

There can be no true liberation

until people are freed from sin.

All the liberationist groups that spring up in our land

should bear this in mind.

The first liberation to be proposed by a political group

that truly wants the people’s liberation

must be to free oneself from sin.

While one is a slave of sin –

of selfishness, violence, cruelty, and hatred –

one is not fitted for the people’s liberation.

(2 March 1980)

The God we put our hope in for our liberations is the God of Israel, the God who today receives the celebration of the first Passover....

Adam leaves Paradise as a man without land. It is the effect of sin. Now, with God’s forgiveness, Israel returned to the land. They ate ears of grain from their own land, the fruits of their land. God gave his blessing in the sign of the land.

The land contains much that is of God. That is why it groans when the unjust monopolise it and leave no land for others. Land reform is a theological necessity. A country’s land cannot stay in a few hands. It must be given to all, and all must share in God’s blessings on the land.

(16 March 1980)

God in Christ dwells near at hand to us.

Christ has given us a guideline:

“I was hungry and you gave me to eat.”

Where someone is hungry, there is Christ near at hand.

“I was thirsty and you gave me to drink.”

When someone comes to your house to ask for water,

it is Christ, if you look with faith.

In the sick person longing for a visit Christ tells you,

“I was sick and you came to visit me.”

Or in prison.

How many today are ashamed to testify for the innocent!

What terror has been sown among our people

that friends betray friends whom they see in trouble!

If we could see that Christ is the needy one,

the torture victim,

the prisoner,

the murder victim,

and in each human figure

so shamefully thrown by our roadsides

could see Christ himself cast aside,

we would pick him up like a medal of gold

to be kissed lovingly.

(16 March, 1980)

To some, his violent death at the age of 62 might have seemed just a tragedy, but he was acutely aware not only of the pain and sorrow around him, but also of joy and hope in Christ.

Easter is itself now the cry of victory.

No one can quench the life that Christ has resurrected.

Neither death nor all the banners of death and hatred

raised against him and against his church can prevail.

He is the victorious one!

Just as he will thrive in an unending Easter,

so we must accompany him in a Lent and a Holy Week

of cross, sacrifice, and martyrdom.

As he said, blessed are they who are not scandalised

by his cross.

(23 March 1980)

(Quotations from The Violence of Love, compiled and translated by James R. Brockman, SJ. Copyright 2007 by Plough Publishing House. Used with permission.)

------------

Also See NCR: Sainthood For Romero? Not Yet

[ad#In post banner]

Changing the Church.

2010-03-15T13:11:00.001-07:00

I have commented several times on John McNeill's thesis that we my be in a 'Kairos Moment' in which the Holy Spirit intervenes to change the direction of the Church. Against the background of extraordinarily strong reaction to recent statements and actions from the Vatican, and previously unprecedented signs of Vatican sensitivity and response to such criticism, J.S. O Leary on his web page has agreed that the Kairos Moment is with us. It is appropriate then to revisit just what McNeill meant with his suggestion.

The argument was first put forward in an address to the Dignity conference back in October 2005, reprinted in his book "Sex as God Intended" (My review of the book will appear here on Monday 8th). I am delighted that with McNeill's help, I am able to post the full text of the Dignity address here , on my book pages. Have a read, then consider: are we experiencing the fundamental shifts in church power that both McNeill and O'leary are discerning?

A 2nd Cent. Queer Hymn of Praise: "The Father Who Was Milked"

2010-01-11T10:45:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, I come across an idea or image that is so remarkable, so fresh and new (to me) that it just has to be shared. This one is hardly new (itdates back to the late second century), but it is startlingly fresh, remarkable and new - to me.

I have been trying to research a number of themes from the history of the early church. While reading Ivor Davidson's "The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine AD 30 -312", I came across a passage which had nothing to do with the subject(s) I was investigating, but which I want to promote.

Wall painting from a Syrian house church, showing the healing of the paralysed man.

The context is a Chapter on Christian worship. After some discussion of the regular practice of community Eucharist on Sunday morning and Agape ("love feast") on Sunday evening, he goes on to discuss the practice of regular fasting, prayer and praise. Services of "praise" incorporated psalms and hymns of praise into other Bible readings, as in the Divine Office. Davidson then goes on to refer to a less familiar from of praise for worship, lost for centuries and rediscovered at the beginning of the 20th Century. Originating in the church of Eastern Syria, these are Gnostic in flavour, but probably orthodox in origin. The hymn quoted, Ode 19 of the "Odes of Solomon", introduces an exaltation on the original conception. Davidson says the odes contain some "striking" language. The imagery of the Trinity as presented here, in its description of the conception of the Son, is not just "striking": it slams one across the face with a force sufficient to shake up one's brain, and with it all preconceived ideas of Trinity, and also of God and gender.

I present it here without comment: see what you think.

A cup of milk was offered to me,
and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord's kindness.
The Son is the cup,
and the father is he who was milked;
and the Holy Spirit is she who milked him;
Because his breasts were full,
and it was undesirable that his milk should be released without purpose.
The Holy Spirit opened her bosom,
and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father, ......
The womb of the Virgin took [it],
and she received conception and gave birth.

How's that for a new idea?

Read the full, text, and other Odes translated by James Chattlesworth, here.

Homoerotic Spirituality

2009-10-23T14:28:00.000-07:00

Jesus Christ, in His recorded words, said nothing at all about sex. Indeed, He spoke against adultery - which in Jewish eyes was a sin against a man's 'property' (as women were viewed), not against sex. He spoke against lust - at least, against lusting after another man's wife; and He spoke against divorce. But as far as we know, He never spoke a word against sex itself: not inside marriage, not before marriage, not between unmarried partners, not between men, not between women. Nothing. Zilch.

How is it then, that the Christian Church, and Catholicism, in particular, have become so firmly linked in the public mind with the idea of sex as sin? For Catholics, all sex outside marriage is officially taboo. Even inside marriage, sex is viewed with suspicion unless it is open to the possibility of procreation. It is only recently that grudging recognition was given to the unitive value of sex - even inside marriage. Yet it is clear to all that few Catholics pay any more than lip service to the official catechism on sin. Whether as jerking - off schoolboys (or girls, or adults), as horny teenagers, engaged couples, cheating spouses, as faithful loving couples choosing to limit their families, as lonely divorcees, as gay men and lesbians, or as priests and other religious ignoring their vows of celibacy, the overwhelming majority of us are, in one form or another sexual transgressors in the eyes of the Church.

Is it any wonder that in the public mind, the equation "sex=sin" goes hand in hand with another: "Catholicism = Guilt"?

But I do not want to dig deeper into the unpleasantness today. (There is time for that later. I will return to it soon, as part of my continuing series on clerical abuse.)

Other faiths do not make the same connection between sex and sin. Judaism, for all that it has extensive purity laws and complex moral and legal codes, unequivocally supports and praises the unitive value of sex, at least within marriage. Part of the obligation of the spouses is said to include offering each other sexual satisfaction. Muslims take a similar view: part of the supposed motivation for suicide bombers in our day is the prospect of a martyr's reward in heaven: 1000 virgins to satisfy their male needs. Hindus celebrate sex as part of spiritual practice, with the promotion of tantric sex, the Kama Sutra, and famed erotic images on temple walls. Many pagan religions employed temple prostitutes (of either gender) to heighten the spiritual experience of worshippers.

It is useful, then to recognise the increasing signs that more and more people are recognising that sexual expression is not only not necessarily sinful, but can be a positive expression of the sacred, and has a close association with spirituality. With great synchronicity, this message was brought home to me from four different sources over the past week.

At the Wild Reed, Michael Bayley has a great piece on this theme.

Shocked? Well, get over it.

Anyway, it’s really not such an outlandish idea - even for Catholics (actually, especially for Catholics!). I mean, if you’re going to dismiss what I’m suggesting, then you’d better be willing to also dismiss any number of saints and their highly erotic experiences of the sacred.

Erotic experiences of God?! (Okay, if you’re still shocked maybe this blog isn’t for you.) But seriously, I appreciate the perspective of Jean Houston, who points out that: “Eros has a mission with the soul. Without Eros, the soul cannot grow; the psyche remains infantile. Eros gives psyche its yearning, its impetus, its desire for the fullness of life.”

Much of the great tradition of mystical writing in the Catholic Church is expressed in clearly sensuous, even erotic language (see, for instance, St Theresa of Avila). Michael quotes in particular St John of the Cross, whose wonderful mystical poetry is also frankly and explicitly homoerotic:

"Of course as a gay man, (Michael writes) the thing that appeals to me most about John’s poem is that it depicts his lover as another man:

(from ) On a Dark Night

........

........

"Oh, night that guided me,
Oh, night more lovely than the dawn,
Oh, night that joined
Beloved with lover,
Lover transformed in the Beloved!

Upon my flowery breast,
Kept wholly for himself alone,
There he stayed sleeping,
and I caressed him,
And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze.

The breeze blew from the turret
As I parted his locks;
With his gentle hand
He caressed my neck
And caused all my senses to be suspended.

I remained, lost in oblivion;
My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself,
Leaving my cares
forgotten among the lilies."

Go ahead, cross to The Wild Reed and read the full poem, with Michael's commentary.

[caption id="attachment_1936" align="alignleft" width="115" caption="Gay Spirituality"][/caption]

At Nihil Obstat, Censor Librorum has posted without comment two versions of the ad campaign for "Catholics Support Condoms". Leaving aside (for now) the issue of the condoms, what caught my attention was the first two lines in the copy:

"We believe in God.
We believe that sex is sacred."

Indeed. So it is, so it is.

While doing some bibliographical research yesterday for my expanding book pages, I was struck by the number of worthwhile books I came across on the topic, from Catholic perspectives and other traditions, from gay, lesbian, transgfendered and other perspectives . Thes will soon be added to the Book Club (a small selection are highlighted alongside this post).

Last Sunday afternoon, I was privileged to join a dozen other people from our Soho Masses group to hear Michael B. Kelly, writer of "Seduced by Grace", discussing his paper "Unlikely Prophets of an Erotic God." Michael has forged a career as a spiritual director and academic specialising in the erotic, and specifically gay men's erotic experience, as a valuable pathway to the spiritual. He is currently in the United states for an extended visit. If any of my US readers have a chance to meet or hear him - grab the opportunity.)

[caption id="attachment_1938" align="alignleft" width="150" caption="Seduced by Grace: Michael B Kelly"][/caption]

He too pointed to the rich vein of the erotic in traditional mystical writing, referring also to St Theresa and St John of the Cross in particular , using as illustration the same poem as that posted on the Wild Reed. He also discussed the obvious fact that far too much of the Church's writing and teaching on sex has been done by "celibate men in frocks", who self-evidently either had no practical experience, or were unable to disclose any that they had. To counter this, it is important that we as laity need to speak much more frankly about sex. There was much more, but I will not go into the rest in this post: he deserves a full analysis later, which I am working on. I do, though, want to point out his central point: while it is clear to many that erotic experience (including gay men's experience) is valuable in spirituality, this has received limited recognition or scholarly attention. He is currently engaged in doctoral research, using personal stories as raw material. He urges us all to speak out openly and frankly of our own experiences, to bring the truth to wider attention. This is a sentiment I heartily endorse. I have promised to send to Michael my own stories, and urge my readers to do the same. (If you want to take me up on this offer, just post a brief comment, and I will send you an email address, if you do not have an alternate access)

In the same spirit of openness, I have posted on my personal page on this site, a deeply personal story of my own homoerotic retreat experience. (Health warning: if you are squeamish or sceptical of claims about 'mystical' experiences, by all means stay away. I would once have reacted in the same way. But if you are more open - minded, take a look and make up your own mind. I simply tell it as it happened.) Read the story at "6 days that changed my life" .

More books on lesbian & gay spirituality:

Boisvert: Out on Holy Ground

Glaser: Coming Out to God

Glaser: Coming Out as Sacrament

Harvey, Andrew: Essential Gay Mystics

Helminiak: Sex and the Sacred

Johnson, Toby: Gay Spirituality

Kelly: Seduced by Grace

Mattman, Urs: Coming in

McNeill: Sex as God Intended

O'Brien, Glen: Praying form the Margins

The Intimate Dance of Sexuality and Spirituality

2009-09-02T14:29:00.000-07:00

I would expect that most of my lesbian & gay readers have known the liberating growth experience of coming out: at least to themselves and to close friends, or (where realistically appropriate), to family and colleagues. But how many, I wonder, have found the even greater joy of coming out to God? I mean here not just superficially, but fully and frankly, taking your sexuality deep into your prayer life, giving thanks for the joys and satisfactions, even the exhilaration of orgasm; sharing the pain of the frustrations and disappointments; even building the Lord into your sexual fantasies, or turning your fantasies into prayer?

This appears to be heretical, sacrilegious, but is not. It is an old idea, going back at least to the Song of Songs, and to the great mystics: St John of the Cross, St Theresa of Avila and Julian of Norwich. Modern writers who have discussed this idea from a gay perspective include Daniel Helminiak, Michael B Kelly and John McNeill. (Jim Cotter and Jack Dominian are just two I know of who have done so from a more traditional heterosexual perspective).

Now I have come across another who has done so directly – Chris Glaser, who has put together a prayer collection under the title “Coming Out to God.”

I first heard of this book when it was recommended to the congregation by the celebrant during Sunday Mass - so it has the warm approval of at least one Catholic priest in good standing. Looking into it, I was particularly impressed by the powerful and moving writing of the introduction.

Glaser shares with us his own early struggle, torn between his innate sexuality and spirituality, which he believed, like most Christians, to be in some kind of conflict. Using a striking metaphor, picturing each of these two as strangers wary of each other at a dance, he tells how they first put out tentative feelers, then began cautiously to dance, each struggling for dominance and attempting to lead – before finding true partnership, and allowing the dance to lead them:

"When my sexuality began to emerge, my spirituality froze in fear, then nearly ran out of the room. But then it noticed other souls dancing gracefully, and realised it was missing their grace. My spirituality wondered if the lack of grace had something to do with rejection of the stranger on the other side of the room, my sexuality.

Timidly, one invited the other to dance. At first, they scarcely looked at each other… they were lousy dancers. Then they cast furtive glances at each other, sometimes angry or resentful, sometimes flirtatious and seductive….Finally they found times when the dance led them, and for brief moments they became perfect dancers, full of grace, true to each other. They danced together as my soul."

He also draws an important parallel between sexuality and spirituality, stating that they are both routes to intimacy in relationships: sexuality builds intimacy in human relationships, spirituality does in our relationship with the Lord. This equivalence thus makes them natural partners.

"Sexuality and spirituality are not opposing forces, as is frequently supposed today. Instead, both draw people into relationship. Sexuality draws us into physical relationships: touching, hugging…… kissing and intercourse. Spirituality draws us into relationships that both incl ude and transcend bodies because it includes and transcends that which is visible……Both our sexual and spiritual powers are holy, and therefore both my be profaned. At their holiest, these powers lead to love in all its many expressions. At their most profane, they may lead to apathy or hate. The integrity of both sexual and spiritual powers is called the soul."

The final observation that struck an enormous personal chord with me, was his statement that when we come out to God, we allow God to come out to us: to enter more fully into our own lives, which is the best defence we can develop against the homophobic bigotry that masquerades freely under the name of religion:

"In prayer, coming out to God as sexual-spiritual beings opens us up, I believe, to God coming out to us in the dance of Substance and Sensuality, spirituality and sexuality. Prayer becomes a place wherein the choreography of the dance of spirituality and sexuality gets worked out. When we allow the Lord of the Dance to lead, sexuality becomes responsible and spirituality becomes responsive."

For more details, and extracts from the introduction, see "Coming out to God".

My Homoerotic Retreat: Six days that changed my life.

2009-07-13T07:10:00.000-07:00

(In offering the story below, I do so with some trepidation. I know that many readers will be sceptical or cautious, may even find it ridiculous. I myself, given my particular background in faith and religious temperament, would have been made distinctly uncomfortable if any of my friends had asked me to take such a story seriously. Still, I think it is time to share it. I leave you to decide for yourself: was this a genuine mystical experience, as my eminently well qualified spiritual directors believed? Or was I just suffering from some kind of spiritual delusions of grandeur? Make up your own mind.)

During Advent of 2002, I underwent a 6 day directed retreat which turned out to be the most extraordinary spiritual, even mystical, experience of my life, which in certain key respects fundamentally changed my outlook on faith.

Background & Context

As the experience really was remarkable, sounding like an account that I myself would previously have dismissed as ramblings from the sentimental / superstitious wing of Catholicism, I want to begin by setting out my prior religious / spiritual background, as well as the context in which I began my retreat. This will provide both context and contrast for what followed.

After drifting away from the church during my twenties as a married man, I later came out as a gay man. Ironically, it was only after setting up in a committed long gay relationship that I was moved to return to the church. The parish I then joined was led by Jesuit priests, and in time I began to explore the Ignatian approach to spirituality, by way of increasingly heavy involvement in the CLC – “Christian Life Community”. In spite of this involvement, I did not see myself as particularly “religious” (a word I detest), nor “spiritual”, with all its connotations of “piety” and mysticism. I simply knew that I enjoyed profound satisfaction in setting aside time for quiet reflection on my life. My take on all matters of faith was primarily cerebral. (I was distinctly uncomfortable with the more ostentatious displays of images and relics, of novenas and special prayers “guaranteed” to bring results, or of mystical voices and apparitions.) I did, however, find value in the Jesuit emphasis on balancing the promptings of head and heart, and on the value of paying attention to experience. I became of convinced of the truth that Prayer is not just about speaking to God asking for favours, but also of attempting to listen. I knew that by proper attention to the discernment of spirits within, one could, with care and imperfectly, hear the voice of the Lord speaking directly to us.

The context for this retreat was that after a long period of careful discernment, my partner and I had taken the important decision to leave South Africa, the only country I had ever known, to take up teaching posts in the UK – a country which I had never even visited. This was to be my final Christmas in South Africa, and the decision lay heavy on my mind. I was also reoccupied with the nature of my gay relationship. I had repeatedly considered the issue of homosexuality in prayer and under spiritual direction, and was comfortable that there was nothing immoral or reprehensible in our relationship. Still, I was just a little bothered by the possibility that perhaps after all, I was fooling myself, making excuses and rationalising away some inner doubt. So I was looking for final reassurance on two key questions in my life: the decision to emigrate, and my status as a sexually active gay man in the church.

The Retreat Experience

The setting for the retreat, which had been set up by our CLC team, was a Franciscan house and retreat centre on the banks of South Africa’s Vaal River. On arrival the first evening, we had a very simple liturgy, and were allocated to one of the two directors, with first appointments set for the morning. During the first meeting with my director, I shared some of my preoccupations, and was advised to reflect among other readings, on the Song of Songs, and on the passage of Moses and the burning bush.

I knew of course that the Song of Songs was written as a love poem, wit the lover serving as a metaphor for god, but had never really looked at it closely before. Approaching it afresh, I was struck by the clear eroticism, and also by how easily it could be read as two male lovers. (I later found that it may well have been written with that plain intent, but did not then know that). This reading, as homoerotic love poetry, was in case the way I read it, and found myself intensely moved and frankly aroused.

Later, I went out of doors under the shade of the riverbank trees, enjoying their cool and protection from the December African sun. I turned now to the story of the burning bush, which I had encountered before as a graphic illustration of how the Lord, in certain circumstances, speaks to us directly. After reading and reflecting on the text a few times, I set aside my bible, and looked up at a bright blue sky through the dappled shade of the foliage. Quite specifically and consciously I put a direct request to the Lord: “Speak to me, Lord”, I said. I am convinced that for the next 5 days, he did, in the most direct and unsettling terms.

I did not immediately realise what was happening, but later realised that I was gradually being drawn into an increasingly intense relationship with the human person of Jesus Christ, something that had previously always seemed remote and inaccessible from my faith experience. During the Eucharistic adoration that ended the first day’s formal programme, I became totally absorbed in every second of the experience, fully involved and rapt from start to finish, with never a moment’s loss of concentration, nor any discomfort from my position sitting cross-legged on the floor for the full hour. I was also completely self-aware of the intensity of the experience, so conscious of the intensity, far exceeding anything I had previously known, that I would not have been surprised to find myself levitating. At the end of the exposition, I found myself in agony that my precious time of intimacy had ended. I followed the group who removed the Sacrament to its place in the chapel, and then stayed behind for a couple more hours totally lost in the presence in front of the tabernacle.

So it continued for the rest of the retreat: every morning I was up early, and into the chapel for an hour before the 8:00 Mass which began the formal programme, at intervals during the day, and for a long period before going to bed. During these times, was quite literally not just in conversation with Jesus Christ as a friend, but with Him as a lover, and with Mary during frequent rosaries as the mother of my boyfriend.

The intensity continued to increase. On the following day, I remembered the well-known image of the “Bride of Christ”, an image that was clearly inappropriate to me as a man. But thinking in terms of gay marriage, I imagined myself as the “groom of Christ”, which took my moments of intimacy with my “lover” to an entirely new level: ever more intense, and frankly erotic. By extraordinary synchronicity, the following morning I was in a disused room of the retreat house, where I came across some old magazines that had once been art of the library. Among these were some copies of a journal of spirituality. Picking one up at random and glancing at the contents, the first title I saw was something like “The Groom of Christ: a Reflection for Men.” This turned out to be a variation on the old metaphor, but from a male perspective. Recognising that most men would have difficulty imagining themselves as brides, the writer proposed instead turning the image on its head, imagining Christ as the bride. This seemed to me equally implausible, and I was grateful that as a gay man, I had not needed to make this distortion of gender to benefit from what is a perfectly good and powerful meditation just as it is.

I deliberately pass over the impact of direct reflection on the Passion, which came later, and move immediately to the sequel.

I remember one morning leaving my room with the clear intention of going to visit “my pal, my lover” Jesus in the chapel. But while my definite intention was to turn left, my body was pulled right. I knew I was being deliberately pulled aside, and tried to argue. “I’m going to meet you in the chapel”, I said. The answer was clear: “But I want you this way.” There was clearly no point in arguing, so indeed I turned right, not knowing where I was headed. This turned out to be the monastery’s private graveyard, leading to further deep reflection, in that Advent season, on life and death. But then I was pulled on further, to a large open field. Around the perimeter were erected a series of almost life sized wooden crosses (about 8 feet high), each with a caption for a station of the cross.

Stations of the Cross

As I approached the first station, I was suddenly filled with powerful, uncontrollable emotion and fell to my knees, sobbing out loud. (This was out in the open, and in full public view not just of the retreat centre, but also of anybody passing in the street alongside. I paid no attention) It took quite some time before I could regain enough composure just to get back on my feet and move on – to the next station, where once again, entirely outside my control, the full emotional spectacle was played out once again. And again, and again, over the full 14 stations.

After an experience so intense, so outside the experience of one previously so reserved in religious matters, as sceptical and cautious about the demonstrative, almost superstitious Latin / Mediterranean brand of Catholicism, where cold I go next? In fact, the only way was to ease out of it. I had of course been reporting on my increasingly intense experiences daily to my retreat director, who now advised me to ease off. A day earlier than normal, she started to lead me through some gentler meditations to ease me gradually back to a point where I could re-enter the real world outside. So the last two days were largely filled with riverside nature walks, and meditations through art, including a simple painting of a monstrance, as I remembered it so vividly from the Eucharistic adoration. .

In my final debriefing with my retreat director, she warned that would I had experienced had been unusually intense, even mystical, and would need to rounded off with my regular spiritual director, a senior Jesuit priest.

The Aftermath

When I did meet up with Fr Mike, I was fully expecting him to agree that the experience should be taken seriously. I was not prepared though, for quite how seriously he took it. He too described it as “mystical”, and said that encounters of such intensity were “blessings, rarely bestowed on just a few.” He thought long and hard, and continued by saying that in his experience, where such encounters were given, it was usually in preparation for exceptionally difficult times ahead, a way of storing up spiritual strength as sustenance for the dry periods to come. Thinking of my pending emigration, I laughed, and said that I well knew the years ahead would be tough. “No”, came the response, I mean really tough.

So it proved. Within weeks of arriving in the UK, my partner of nearly 20 years concluded he had made mistake in coming, and soon returned to South Africa. I in turn was even more convinced that I needed to be here – that indeed, in Ignatian terms, I had been “sent” on mission, and so I stayed. So began several years of serious difficulty, including emotional trauma, financial and professional difficulties, uncertainty over my immigration status, and recurrent bouts of depression, some of which remain problems to this day, 6 years later. Throughout all of this, at all the darkest times, I do exactly as Fr Mike anticipated: I look back on that retreat on the riverbank, once again drawing on spiritual reserves to carry me through.

It would be good to say that I have remained in some kind of exalted, mystical or advanced spiritual plane – but it would also be completely untrue. Indeed, removed from the firm structure of my closely bonded CLC group, my conscious practice of deliberate prayer and spiritual practice has moved somewhat behind where it used to be back in Johannesburg, and needs to be deliberately revived.

Two things, though, I have taken away from away from the retreat with unshakeable conviction. First, given the context of the start to the retreat, with a specific question about sexuality and some clearly homoerotic reflections, I have never since entertained even a moment’s doubt about the validity of a gay sexual life in faith. Second, after I was given such a strong preparation for the difficulties around my emigration, I am more convinced than ever that the move was chosen for me as mission. Indeed, I am firmly convinced that the specific reason why I was called here was to live openly as gay and as Catholic, and to help others to do the same.

Why He should have called me in particular, is completely beyond my understanding. I claim absolutely no special training in these matters, no great wisdom and certainly no holiness. But He moves as we know in mysterious ways, and sometimes chooses the most unlikely people to do His work.

Homoerotic Spirituality (my-queer-spirituality.blogspot.com)
What IS a Gay Catholic to do? A Question Comes Out of the Closet. (my-queer-spirituality.blogspot.com)

Coming Out as Spiritual Experience

2009-07-02T13:56:00.000-07:00

Over 40 years since Stonewall, it has become commonplace to recognise the value of coming out as a growth experience, bringing benefits to mental health, self-esteem and personal integrity. Less widely recognised is the value of coming out as spiritual growth. This idea, which well deserves to be better known, gets extensive treatment in Daniel Helminiak's book, "Sex and the Sacred".

(Helminiak is an openly gay Catholic priest with doctorates in both spirituality and psychology, who teaches spirituality in a faculty of psychology - so he is eminently well qualified to write on the subject. For more on Daniel Helminiak, see his own website, "Visions of Daniel"))

In his preface, Helminiak notes that the argumetns in the early days of the gay liberation movement were purely reactive & defensive, making the case that homosexuality is NOT a sin, NOT a sickness, and NOT a mental disorder.

Now, he says, we need to move on, and that is what he does. Throughout the book, he affirms that the state of homosexuality in itself inherently puts us on a quest for self-transcendence, which is what he defines as "spirituality", whether or not that includes a specifically religious or God-oriented element. If we move beyond the simple state of homosexuality to self-acceptance, coming out and authentically living in accordance with that identity, then, he says, we open ourselves to both emotional/human and spiritual development, to a degree that is greataer than that of people who have not had to face such a journey. Although he begins his book by looking at "spirituality" from a nontheistic postition independently of any religious consideration, he then moves on to elaborate the theme from within the Christian, and then specifically Catholic, traditions.

He does not pussyfoot around the matter of of the physical expression of sex. In Chapter 5 of the book, "Sexual Pathways to Spiritual Growth", he describes the beneficial aspects of physical, sexual arousal and release on first the individual, then on the couple, on society as a whole, on the potential for "grasping the infinite", and for the hope of union with God:

On the individual:

"The experience of sexual arousal and orgasm has a physical healing effect. It reduces stress and relaxes and calms the body. During sexual arousal, there occurs in the psyche the concomitant release of emotions, images and experiences.....a flood of powerful psychic material may flow out of psyche's secret caverns...... It invites the healthy acceptance of your bodiliness."

And (writing of Oriental practice):

"A natural human activity, sex, frees and opens the mind to experiences similar to those induced through other spiritual practices..... or induced chemically. Sexual arousal becomes a doorway to profound psychic and spiritual experiences"

On the Couple:

"Such sharing, continued authentically with openness, honesty and love, is a smuch a spiritual discipline as any fasting, prayer, retreat, spiritual counselling, or vigil. "
"All the while thick bonds of sexual desire, physical and emotional, hold them entwined and force them to resolve their differences.....Thus organic and psychic sexual processes serve spiritual ends. Sexual togetherness serves interpersonal sharing and growth"

On society as a whole:

"Beyond the individual and the couple, sexual sharing involves the family and, indeed, the cosmos. Inherent in the experience of sexual love is a movement beyond yourself..... Love opens our eys to a world of beauty beyond ourselves. Loving another person opens you to identify with all people....Since authentic human love is an integrating experience, it leads you to identify with the whole human race."

Of God:

"For the theist believer, sex is a gift of God......horniness, romance and caring... are inherent aspects of human life designed so by the creator. Therefore, they must be good and wholesome. Their authentic experience inserts us ever further into the ultimate Mystery of the unfolding universe. God is the source and the sustenance - as well as the goal - of human sexual love."

It may be wise to insert here a caution. Helminiak clearly values and celebrates the authentic expression of human sexuality, including physical expression. He does repeatedly warn though, of the parallel dangers of inauthentic and inappropriate expression. With the official teaching of the church on all matters so profoundly misguided, it is valuable to have the helpful guidance of a thoughtful and realistic commentary. If I have ignored that part of the book here, it is only because it is quite a separatae theme, which will require quite a different post on another occasion.

Overall, this is a most useful book, worth returning to again and again. I particularly recommended it to those of you who, like myself, have grown weary of endless defences against our critics. Especially at this season of Pride, it is important to proclaim and affirm the positive value of who we are.

"Coming Out" as Wrestling with the Divine

2009-06-30T13:53:00.000-07:00

At this time of Pride, marking the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, I wanted to post something on the important legacy of visibilty and coming out.

After mulling over some thoughts on what to say, I picked up Richard Cleaver's "Know My Name" for re-reading, and was delighted by the synchronicity of finding that his Chapter 2, "Knowing and Naming", deals with exactly this subject. So instead of rehashing or expanding the ideas I presented in my opening post 6 months ago ("Welcome: Come in, and Come out"), I thought I would share with you some of Cleaver's insights.

First, Cleaver points out that in addition to the modern association of "coming out" with escaping the closet, there are two other important contexts. It can also call to mind the Exodus story of coming out of the land of Egypt, of escaping slavery and oppression; and it was used before Stonewall to mimic the English debutante ritual of "coming out" into society, of achieving the first recognition as an adult in polite society . For us then, coming out is both a liberation from oppression and an acceptance and a welcome into a new society. He then continues by arguing that coming out in the modern sense is an essential first step in hearing the Gospel message of liberation .

To do so, he points to the well-known costs of nto coming out: psychological self-oppression, increased suicide risk (especially in the young), and the arrests for sexual activity in restrooms / cottages of men who are usually married or otherwise closeted. Against that, he contrats the perosnal rewards of coming out. After speaking the truth to ourselves, the next stage, of meeting with others like ourselves,

"is generally even more of a transforming moment than the private recognition and acceptance of our gayness....Coming out publicly (a continuous process, not a single event) brings a sense of freedom that must be experienced to be believed. Coming out is one of our many seasons of joy."

This is a sentiment which, from my own experience, I heartily endorse, and to which I would add the observation that "Joy is an infallible sign of the Holy Spirit."

He then turns to some possible costs of coming out: active discrimination, including in employment; difficulties in securing adequate access to children; a misguided steering into inappropriate marriage, in the expectation of a 'cure'; and finally the hostility or even misguided interference of the churches. This leads to a stinging repudiation of the Church's involvement:

"It is no surprise that whether we leave or stay, we react to the church with suspicion. Something about what the church is teaching, something about how the church conceives itself, is not right. In the case of the church's relation to gay men and lesbians, we can dissect out two particular explanations for this suspicion.

First, the church has allowed itself to subordinate the commandment of love to the demands of heterosexist culture, defying Paul's injunction, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds." (Rom 12:2) ......It is.. the result of the church's long-standing obsession with sexual activity, which leads to a reduction of the lives of lesbians and gay men to the realm of sexual experience."

"This brings me to my second suspicion about the church, which is why it is willing to accmomodate itself to the mind of the age, to compromise with bourgeois culture: it hopes to maintain its authority and thus its institutional power in society by preventing lesbians and gay men from speaking about their own experiences. The institution benefits.. from a theology that permits it to hand down decisions without any data even being collected, let alone examined". (Emphasis added).

To which I add once again that this is why I am convinced we need to be out and visible in the church. As long as we remain closeted and out of sight, as long as we refrain from speaking of our own experiences, we are complicit in our own oppression.

Cleaver then goes on to discuss several well-known Gospel stories, drawing from them important lessons for us in the LGBT community.

Reflecting on the story of the Samaritan woman at the well, he avoids some of the better known observations, and makes two other points. He notes that while recognising her sexual noncomformity, Jesus notably does not admonish or condemn her, nor does she express repentance.

"Jesus is no welfare caseworker... his goal is to transform society, not to 'fix' those who suffer injustice so that the existing social order may run more smoothly."

The second point is that after the initial exchange, the woman proceeds to put to Him some "theological" questions on worship. The story, notes Cleaver, is not about promiscuity at all, but about "who is capable of doing theology" .

This point on doing theology is made again when he looks at the story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10). While Martha works, Mary sits and listens to Jesus speak. Mary complains, but the reply is that Mary "has chosen the better part". In Jewish society, women were expected to do the domestic work, only the men participated in religious study or debates, and the sexes sat apart when guests were present for meals. It would have been unheard of for women to participate in religious discussions, yet Christ not only condones this, he commends her for it. Jewish women and other social outcasts were expected to be invisible: but for the Lord, no-one is invisible, all are welcome to join in making theology.

In telling of the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19 -31), Cleaver compares Lazarus with the LGBT community "outside the door" of the church, while the rich man is compared with the institutional church, which even by its indifference contributes to our oppression.

His final biblical reflection is an extended discussion of Jacob's wrestling with the angel at Peniel (Gen 32: 22-32). For Cleaver, there arae two important themes in this story: the wrestling itself, and the act of naming. From this he reflects on the importance to us of naming honestly our oppression. Noting that

"We learn to name our oppression by struggling with it",

he insists that we should present ourselves in full frankness and honesty, implying that we should resist the temptation to mimic conventional patterns of morality out of a mere desire to avoid offence:

"The strategy of putting forward only "acceptable" images of ourselves is doomed to failure... We should be forthright about who we are."

For me, the 3 key lessons from Cleaver, all of which I endorse whole-heartedly, are:

In spite of the obvious dangers and costs, coming out publicly is invigorating, liberating and life-giving;

We need to extend the "coming out" process into our lives in the Church, where we should expect to be fully visible, and to speak out frankly and honestly of our views and experiencces;

and that by doing so, we will be exercising our right to share in making theology, in spite of the efforts of the institutional church to exercise a monopoly.

"We must speak with our own voices, in all their imperfections, when responding to God's overtures. Moses stuttered; Israel limped. What matters is not image but inegrity. If God calls, we must know who answers. We answer to our true names, because these are the names God calls us by. The cost of learning them is wrestling with the divine."

Amen to that.

Seduced by Grace: Michael B Kelly

2009-06-30T13:30:00.000-07:00

Last night's Mass in Soho was eventful for three different reasons - over and above the Mass itself. Before Mass, I was interviewed for the first time by a reader, a visiting journalism student from Phoenix, Arizona. After Mass, we arranged a screening of the powerful documentary movie, "For the Bible Tells Me So". I have written of this before (and hope to do so again), but a second viewing was welcome. This was an entirely new venture, undertaken with some uncertainty whether people would stay for a further 90 minutes after Mass and refreshments, but we need not have worried. Close on 30 gay men stayed behind - and our token straight woman. (Where were our lesbian sisters, I wonder?). The response was overwhelmingly positive, and we will undoubtedly repeat the exercise on other ocassions.

But we were still not done. After the screening, were introduced to another visitor, Michael B. Kelly from Australia, founder of Rainbow Sash Australia, a noted retreat director and a writer on spirituality from an explicitly gay male perspective. He is in London to present a paper at an academic conference on spiritualityin which he is to argue (if I understand him correctly) that gay men, by reflecting and sharing on their erotic experiences and using them in their own practice of spirituality, can make a valuable contribution to spirituality in the wider church. This is a paper that I dearly long to read when I have the chance - and hope to persuade Michael to allow me to post it here. After a brief meeting at the church, I was determined to continue the discussion, so accompanied Michael and others to supper in Soho, where we enjoyed further lengthy conversation on matters religious and sexual. I will meet up with him again, and will certainly write more about his work and insights on other ocassions.

What I want to share with you now is some reviews I have come up against of his book, "Seduced by Grace".

I have not as yet had the good fortune to read it for myself, but on the strength of my meeting with him, and the reviews I have read, I would heartily urge you to hunt down a copy and read it for yourself.

From a perspective which is gay, but not Catholic:

"While the dyspeptic (iconoclastic?) Christopher Hitchens is content to go on bashing his straw-man ‘God’ (see God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, 2007), a more interesting set of insights into that tired, overworked tradition has come from what might seem to be an unlikely source — a self-professed Gay man and, moreover, one who knows from first-hand experience the shortcomings of his Church (specifically, its Roman Catholic incarnation). For Michael Bernard Kelly, as David Marr puts it, has ‘has come out but stayed in’—rather than quitting a homophobic Church in disgust, he is pushing for it to renovate itself from within. A potent collection of thoughtful writings by Kelly, the noted Australian Catholic dissident, Seduced by Grace gathers essays, articles, letters and talks he has produced over almost a decade, from late 1998 to May 2004, that are at once an acutely accurate critique of the shortcomings of the Church and a poignant testimonial to the heroic spirit that has, at times, invigorated it.

Kelly the activist is (in)famous in Australia. He was one of the founders of the Rainbow Sash movement that has been a thorn in Cardinal George Pell’s side, with its public challenge to the Catholic Church's treatment of Gay and Lesbian people (the movement has been taken up in the United States, also) and in this role, he has become a prominent media spokesperson for Gay Catholics. But as is clear from the opening piece in this collection, “On the Peninsula, alone with God,” Kelly’s activism is grounded in contemplative practice. He has produced a stimulating video lecture series, “The Erotic Contemplative: the spiritual journey of the Gay Christian” (through Joseph Kramer’s Erospirit Institute) and leads Gay spirit retreats at Easton Mountain, in New York State, as well as in Australia and the U.K. His voice reaches loudly and clearly across the once impassable divide between eros and spiritus. Kelly is now working on a doctorate in the field of Christian mysticism and Gay experience at an Australian university.

Raised in an Irish Catholic family in Melbourne and educated in Church schools, Kelly was smitten early with the religious life and served as an altar boy, assisting priests in the celebration of Mass, as all good Catholic sons would do. As a teenager, he was inspired by the life and example of Francis of Assisi —“Who could resist a dancing saint?” he asks in his short piece on the inspiring 12th Century figure. He actually joined the Franciscans at 17, but eventually left the Order, and while remaining celibate, continued to work as a religious education specialist and campus minister in Catholic schools and universities for a further seventeen years, before taking the fateful decision to come out, and to come to terms with his sexuality — a decision which, of course, cost him his job. But he continued his studies in theology (including a master’s in spirituality in San Francisco) and today inspires many men with his revisioning of a spiritual life not predicated on a denial of the body. Kelly says his dick keeps him honest.

More power to him. This is the kind of “real world” starting point that earths his spirituality and renders his positions convincing to those of us who have found more breathing room outside the stifling environs of Christian idealism."

Read the full review at the White Crane.

Or, for a perspective which is Catholic, but not gay, go to Catholica Australia:

"By the time I'd finished reading I was convinced that every family with a gay* member should read this book — but I soon corrected that to everyone — full stop! Michael has something very important to say and we do ourselves and society a disservice if we don't give him a hearing. As Catholics, we pay lip-service to any ideas of 'compassion, sensitivity and respect' if we don't at the very least enter into a dialogue with gay people — which includes truly listening to them — and Michael B Kelly is certainly a worthy spokesperson.

"As a woman I don't pretend to understand what it must be fully like to inhabit the body and psyche of a man, yet I love men, and particularly my husband and my own son. As a heterosexual I likewise find it extremely difficult to personally understand what it must be like to inhabit the psyche of someone who is sexually attracted to others of their own sex. It's almost like me trying to imagine what it must be like to have been born black. In the music industry I have worked with many people who are gay, and some of them have become close friends.

Michael's voice is a prophetic one. It enables us to better understand what it must be like to feel imprisoned as one of the sectors of society who are discriminated against and maligned because of the life circumstances they were borne into and have very little control over. Michael Bernard Kelly is a man who carries himself with great dignity and, in a very real sense, provides leadership not only to gays but to other sectors in society who are discriminated against and maligned unjustly."

I was intrigued by the reference to Kelly as 'out' (as gay), but still 'in' (the Catholic Church). Some of my readers may recall that that was virtually the title of my opening statement when I set up this blog - "Welcome: Come In, and Come Out". We clearly share a lot in common.

I repeat: find this book, and read it.

Marriage Equality & the Church.

2009-05-29T13:23:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the disappointing, but expected, Californian ruling on Prop 8, it is worth stepping back and reflecting on the gains elsewhere, and especially on the impact on the churches.

It is well known how rapidly legal recognition of same sex marriage has progressed: first in Iowa, by court order, then in rapid succession Vermont and Maine by legislative action. New Hampshire is not quite there yet, but it is likely just a matter of time - as it is in New York and New Jersey. DC has voted to recognise marriages legally conducted elsewhere, Washington has approved expansion of their civil union regime to 'everything but marriage', and in many other states and city jurisdictions, there have been less dramatic, incremental gains. These have been widely reported and celebrated.

One big advance, and the one that I suspect may be more important for its long term impact on the churches of the world, has drawn remarkably little attention. The day before the Iowa announcement, and drowned out of the news by the drama of developments in Iowa and New England, The Swedish parliament, with the minumum of fuss or fanfare, and the support of all the major parties, voted to make Sweden the fith country in Europe to recognise same sex marriage. For those of us in Europe, especially if we are committed to the ideal of ever closer union, this is obviously more significant than the stop-start progress in some minor American states and cities. But I believe that the siginificance for all of us is substantial, particularly if we are professed Christians. Why?

In the US, and also here in the UK, the legal provisions for same sex marriage or civil unions/partnerships, where they exist, are quite specifically for 'civil' marriage or partnerships. Indeed, the British legislation specifically prohibits the use of religious language or premises for the ceremony; increasinlgy, US legislators are cradting thier gains by spelling out the the legislation proposed places no obligations on religious minsters, or even staff.

The Swedish situation is quite different. The legislation quite specifically provides for legal recognition of either civil or church marriage. This has huge implications for the Swedish Lutheran Church, which until recently was the official state church of the country, with special status, even funding, in the legal system. This has changed, but the informal ties and status remain strong. So what was the response of the church? Did they start weeping and wailing and gnashing there teeth? Did they lament the moral decadence of the country? Did they offer grudging toleration, with ifs and buts to demand a right of opt-out? None of the above. a final decision awaits a full synod later in the summer, but the provisional, formal response was that the church would understand and 'excuse' any pastor who, as a matter of conscience, felt s/he could NOT preside over same sex weddings. That's right - the specail consideration and understanding goes to those who are opposed: the default position, buy Sweden's major church, is to take in their stride same sex marriage conducted in church. Unless I have wildly misread the situation, this is likely to be the standard position after the synod later this year.

This will have important ripple effects, notably elsewhere in the EU. Pressure for marriage equality will undoubtedly continue to spread across the EU, particularly in Western Europe. When (not if), equality reaches Germany and Austria, the German Lutheran church, and also the German and Austrian Catholic churches, will have to consider carefully their position. All of them have special state recognition and funding. Even in advance of legislation, just the propect of pressure for marriage, is forcing the churches into hard tactical consideration - faced with an emergin gay marriage lobby, the Portuguese Bishops proposed civil partnerships as a compromise solution - thus embracing the very proposal that there English counterparts strongly opposed a few years back.

In the English speaking world, the troubles caused to the Anglican Communion (which includes the Episcopalians) by disputes over homosexuality are well known. But while skirmishing continues, it is clear that over the longer term view, the tide is clearly turning in the direction of greater acceptance. The continuning expansion of legal recognition of civil marriage across the USA is already forcing more and more individual pastors, and local jursdictions, into fresh consideration of their own stance - and an increasing minority are coming down on the side of at least blessing, and possibly solemnising, these unions in church. Every synod season sees new debates on these. Where there is not yet victory, the margins of defeat are generally narrowing.

For me, the most heartening aspect of this, is the increasing number of reports I am seeing of sincere religious clergy of goodwill, who have found themselves prayerfully re-examining scriptures, theology and church history in search of guidance - and concluding that established church strictures against homosexuallity are without scriptural foundation, and misguided. (The recently released survey of 'mainline protestant clergy' attitudes to SSM has some fascinating figures on this).

There is no longer any doubt: marriage equality is spreading steadily across the world, and across the US. As it does so, the churches will increasingly be forced to grapple with, and re-examine, their own beliefs. In doing so, many will reverse long-standing opposition to same sex relationships, and see the value of recognising commitment, whatever the orientation or gender of the partners.

The Catholic church will be behind the trend - but will not resist indefinitely. Here, too, truth will triumph in the end.

Same Sex Marriage: coming (soon) to a church near you - but not yet to a Catholic parish.

Catholic 'Dissent'

2009-03-11T13:20:00.000-07:00

As a child in Catholic primary schools, I vividly remember memorising, page by page, the catechism of the church: first a slim little red version, later a slightly fatter grey-green version for older students.

"Who made you? God made me."

"Why did God make you? To know Him, to love Him, to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next."

But by the time I reached secondary school, Vatican II was in progress, enthusiastically embraced by the preist who taught me RE for the next 5 years. I never again saw that little catechism.

There is a quaint view in some quarters that to be a Catholic requires that one suspend all powers of the intellect, and meekly agree to believe, and to live, exactly as one is told. This view I emphatically reject. One of the key parables in the Gospels is that of the 10 talents. We are taught that the Lord requires us to use all the talents we are given, for his greater glory and to further His reign on earth. Surely the intellect is one of the greatest talents He has bestowed on us? (Another is our sexuality, which should also be used - but that is another story.)

Michael Bayley, at The Wild Reed, writes an impressive blog from what he calls a 'progressive, gay, Catholic perspective.' I am a regular reader, admiring in particular the way he has of presenting not only stimulating personal views, but also the best of writing from a range of others. He also has excellent cross-references and links, so that I find that his archives alone are worth spending hours on, to explore specific themes. But in yesterday's post, he shares a letter he has received from a reader who states that

"this blog is just an exercise in false advertisement. For while you may in fact be progressive and gay, you are most definitely not Catholic."

In making this assertion, the writer cites as evidence Michael's regular criticisms of the hierachy, his occasional writings on other faith traditions, and on some of his other activities, such as the work of the Spirit of St Stephen's. The comment boxes at the Wild Reed have been filling rapidly, with readers rushing to Michael's defence. I made my own response there, so I do not intend to elaboratae further on Michael, and my support for him. (Go to the Wild Reed yourself. Read the interchange, the recent posts which led to it, mull over the comments. But also explore his valuable archives on dissent, and on what it means to be a Catholic).

What I do want to do here is to explore some of my own reflections on this interchange, as it affects me and this blog.

Ever since the approach of Lent, I have been struggling to get my thoughts down on the keyboard, and this is part of the reason. I have never been one to see Lent as primarily a time of sacrifice: rather, it is for me a time of refelction, in preparation for the great feast of the Easter resurrection. My reflections this year have left me wanting to resolve some personal issues in developing a closer relationship with my local parish and diocese. These do not lend themselves to public writing.

Furthermore, in setting up this blog in the first place, it was neve my intention to devote it to reflexive, incessant attacks on the established church. This is what I wrote in my founding statement:

"....to all you who are gay Catholics or lapsed Catholics, a plea and invitation: come in and come out. If you have lapsed, come back in to the Church, and help to make a difference. If you remain a regular churchgoer, come in deeper - take on more active ministry. Let there be no doubt of your credentials as Catholic. Then, cautiously and gradually, come out as gay

........ Coming out in the church will be more difficult, so you will need even more support. I hope that this site will help you to find a suitable support network for face to face contact and discussion. But the virtual society of the blogosphere can also represent support of a kind - and that, we definitely aim to provide."

My track record since then has been less balanced. (Unfortunatley, simple responding to current news has left me with little choice. ) Still, I am mindful that my intention from the start was to focus on the 'Good News' that is inherent in the Gospels, in the gift of our sexuality, and in the great tradition of the Catholic Church.

So, the debate at the Wild Reed has brougth into focus how I can (belatedly) reflect in this blog, part of my own Lenten resolution. For the next few weeks, I will be attempting to present a more positive view of the Church which, for all its failings, remains my spiritual home.

Reaffirming Vatican II: We are the Shepherds

2009-02-19T12:42:00.000-08:00

After writing earlier this week about Bishop Robinson's book on power and abuse in the church, with its reflections on the attempts at Vatican II to re-balance the power structures, I was interested to find in quick succession two items which between them shed some light on the problem. And the answer, I suspect, lies not with 'them', but with 'us'.

First,the more seemingly frivolous item: a report in New Catholic Times (sensus fidelium) on a novel, "Waiting for Mozart", by Chuck Pilon, set in a Catholic parish 25 years after the conclusion of Vatican II. "Less than and somewhat more than" a review, it is John Quinn's reflections that I found particularly insightful. Let me quote from Quinn's review /reflection:

***

"In Chapter 2 of Waiting for Mozart, Fr. Joe Burns is described thus
"A fine priest...Ordained before Vatican II but known for aggressive application of its directives.

In those couple of sentences we have the story of Waiting for Mozart captured.

"Ordained before Vatican II", so socialized by a Catholic world-view radically different from that articulated by the council.
Joe was "known for aggressive application of its directives." His was the responsibility of ‘applying" the directives of the council. This he would do "aggressively."

And it was "directives", that is something given him to implement, to put into operation.

***

Quinn goes on to describe an incident from his own parish experience, in which parish priests would not 'allow' development & peace groups (a diocesan initiative). This led to a follow up where his own PP prevented him setting up a children's liturgy for the parish - so he did so elsewhere, in a parish 25 minutes away. (This summary sounds confused. Read the original)

The point is, that even where clergy have embraced the ideas of V2 (and many have not), they still cling by habit to the old style - and too often, too easily, we let them. In my own experience on the Parish Council of a reasonably progressive Jesuit parish, I recall several instances where council members would privately say to each other "Fr..... will never allow that", and so would never raise the issue! But it is not the business of the priest to allow, or to disallow, but to serve. In acquiescing without a fight, we are collaborating in our own oppression, to use the language familiar from my time in South Africa during the 'struggle.'

Later, Quinn notes

"Blaise Pascal, the French mathematician and philosopher said that an idea, once implanted in the mind, takes at least fifty years to see the light of day."

If that is so, than the time is now.

The same theme is put more formally in an address by Dr Diana Hayes given back in 2006 to the Call to Action conference, but posted this week on New Catholic Times (sensus fidelium): "Our Leaders are Like Sheep! so Rise up Shepherds! We are the Prophets. " I loved the title! Even before reading the article,the key message strikes home. If the point of the re-balancing at V2 was to empower the laity, we are on weak ground blaming the hierarchy for the problems. If those at the top of the power pyramid are behaving like sheep (and it has often seemed so in recent weeks), then it is time for the rest of us to take charge, to become the shepherds.

I quote just a small part of this address:

***

"Where are the prophets of our time? Prophecy is a dangerous, thankless job. Too often it leads to martyrdom. It certainly leads to pain and suffering. But prophets we are called to be. For the rebuilding of the Church and the revamping of its structure is not the work of the weak or timid, but of those willing to rise up in God's name and proclaim the truth!

The bishops are naked! They hide themselves behind vestments and liturgical rites and gobbledygook; they shield themselves behind cadres of yes-men - and a few yes-women. They destroy parish life, ignore the Holy Spirit's voice and deny the fear and emptiness at the heart of their efforts to control rather than shepherd.

WE are the prophets
We are the prophets; all of us in this room and scattered throughout the nation in groups large and small are the voices that refuse to be silenced. How do we learn to prophesy? The late Monika Hellwig set forth two aspects of prophecy. The first is the willingness to turn towards God in receptivity of God's grace and blessing. The second is to turn to the world around us as it stumbles forward, seeking the way to a better future."

***

It is of course true that notwithstanding the council, formal power remains in the hands of the top echelons of the hierarchy. Even the bishops, as noted by Bishop Robinson, often seem helpless in the face of Rome. But in reflecting on papal history, I have been struck how, until modern times, the growth of papal power and control mirrored that of secular power and control in the emergence of the state. In recent times, though, we have seen seemingly powerful autocratic states crumble in the face of populations who refused to be cowed indefinitely. Certainly, in South Africa change did not come because the government decided to change the laws, but because the people gradually refused to cooperate in injustice.

So, take up your crooks - let us become the shepherds.

Holy Spirit at Work? - James Alison

2009-02-18T13:03:00.000-08:00

In a penetrating article on his website, noted theologian James Alison examines the recent furores in the Church over matters gay, and reaches what he calls a 'suprising' conclusion. There is a huge amount of meat in here, which requires long and deliberate chewing (as always with Alison), so I cannot attempt to cover it all, certainly not after just one read. It is though, an important and hopeful post, so I do want to share what seem to me to be some of the most important issues.

Being the thoughtful theologian that he is, Alison has deliberately avoided the temptation some of us fell into of responding in the heat of the moment to the flurry of apparent slights to the LGBT community in the closing weeks of last year and early this year. Instead, he has given the issues time to settle, and responded only after careful (and no doubt, prayerful) reflection. His conclusions are all the more important for this. Note, by the way, that he has entirely ignored the latest kerfuffle over SPXX - the dust is still settling on that one, and it is in any case only incidentally an issue of the church and homosexuality, which is Alison's sole focus.

In examining the widely publicised curial address before Christmas, Alison notes (as others have done), that homosexuality is not directly mentioned at all - although he concedes that there is some reference to social constructions of gender, he finds that " in the end, I don’t know what he was referring to. Not for the first time, his style tends to leave hostages to fortune." For him, the importance of the address does not lie in any "donnish sideswipes" at homosexuality or gender issues, but at the deeper core of the message and four points on the workings of the Holy Spirit (of which the fuss was about just half of one of these points). In drawing attention to the holy Spirit, Alison finds grounds for encouragement:

"If the Roman Curia, which he was addressing, regularly understood its task as responding to the Spirit rather than applying laws, we would certainly be a better Church."

This is just the point I made (with far less insight and clarity) in my own response to the full text, but which I have not yet seen elsewhere. The importance of this for LGBT persons, he elaborates in further reflection on how Benedict sees his role in the Church as the representative of Peter. To make sense of this, I must first refer to two other recent incidents - one widely, but inaccurately, reported, the other not reported at all in the popular press.

Referring to the outcry over the document on seminary training, and the popular outcry at the time over its claims about 'homosexual' activities in seminaries, Alison notes that this document in fact barely mentions the subject. The main focus lay elsewhere entirely, and much of the popular commentary focused on quotations that simply did not appear in this recent document . I will not go into how this misreporting arose: what is important is to contrast the tone of this recent document with an earlier one, of 2005. In this, Alison finds evidence of retreat from the earlier hostility:

"My take on it is that it is transitional, as though a new team at the Dicastery for Catholic Education were trying to move on from the hole into which Cardinal Grocholewski and the 2005 document forbidding gay people to enter the priesthood had got them."

The other important event was completely bypassed in the popular press, but is probably the most significant of all. This is an article from the January 7th 2009 edition of Avvenire by Vittorino Andreoli:

"The article, one in a long series about priesthood, is about priests and homosexuality, and its author is a respected mainstream doctor and psychiatrist. While making the usual appropriate acts of reverence to the teaching authority of the Church in moral matters, and the right of the Church to choose whomsoever it wants for its presbyterate, what is striking about the article is that its author is perfectly clear and straightforward that he does not consider it to be scientifically acceptable to regard homosexuality as a form of sickness." (This please note, not in a newspaper like the Guardian, but in the official organ of the italian Bishops' Conference. )

"The first two documents in Church history to try to say something professional about homosexuality ... both sought to define homosexuality in such a way that it could not be regarded as something neutral. ....And yet now, quietly, and without much fanfare, it rather looks as though it is perfectly possible publicly to maintain the opposite position in a properly Catholic context without fear of immediate retribution. Proper discussion has broken out."

From this, together with his lengthy and tightly reasoned reflections on the earlier events, Alison appears to conclude that the Holy Spirit is presently at work in the Church, guiding Benedict as the representative of Peter on earth, together with some other infulential figures, to prepare the Church for a gradual recognition of the past errors on matters of homosexuality, and to bring it into the modern world.

I have drawn attention previously to other notable theologians who are discerning signs of just this current action of the Holy Spirit transforming the Vatican. Alison is the latest of several, but he is the first I have come across to reason the case so tightly, with such clear presentation of the evidence.

There is much else in this article that is worth taking on board: a poignant reflection at the beginning, on the pain inflicted by the church on its LGBT people; a fascinating observation that in their divergent approaches to the emerging issue of same sex marriages or civil unions in so many countries across the world, many national bishops' conferences are taking positions directly in conflict with the Vatican's own directive; the interplay of awareness by the Vatican press corps of the closeted gay lives of certain prelates, and those prelates' own awareness of that knowledge . All these have a fascination of their own.

The overriding message of this article though, appears to be a simple one: Benedict has recognised, or is coming to recognise, that past hostility to 'homosexuals' has been misplaced, and is leading the hierarchy through a process of downplaying past condemnations, which will lead in turn to an increasing recognition of the need for a new theology of homosexuality. This is a development, says Alison, that he has long anticipated, but it is occurring sooner, and more subtly, than he had expected.

It is this perception that explains the second part of his title : "The pain and the Endgame: Reflections on a Whimper."

I have not remotely covered all that is important in this article: I hope I have shown you that is worth going to for yourself. To quote Josephus on Salus Animarum, who drew my attention to it:

Tolle, lege! (Take up and read!)

Thank you, James Alison.

Church, Power &; Abuse

2009-02-18T12:45:00.000-08:00

Depressing church news over the past two months has led me to pick up and start reading a book which has been on my shelves some time, but which I have previously only dipped into. The removal of excommunication of SPXX members has received wide and ongoing publicity; clerical sexual abuse is again in the news with the FBI reopening old investigations in LA Diocese, and fresh revelations over Fr Marcial Maarciel Delgado of the Legionnaires of Christ. Meanwhile, on the progressive wing of the church, there has been less coverage in the MSM of the silencing or excommunication of the priests Fr Roger Haight, Geoffrey Farrow and Roy Bourgeois, or of bizarre goings-on in the parishes of St Mary's, Brisbane and St Stephen's, Minneapolis, where attempts to muzzle complete parishes have led to resistance (St Mary's) or exodus (St Stephen's).

What all these have in common is that they are concerned with power in the church - its extension, its abuse, or attempts to defy or resist it. so I picked up again "Confronting Power & Sex in the Catholic Church", by Bishop Geoffrey Robinson. I am pleased that I did. Published in 2007, this book has much to say that is directly relevant to current events. Although I have not yet finished reading, and this is far from a formal review, I have already found much of value that I thought would be worth sharing.

Bishop Robinson was Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney from 1984, and in 1994 was appointed by the Australian Bishops to a position of leadership in the Australian church's response to revelations of sexual abuse. Following his retirement in 2004, he felt freer in speaking his mind, leading to the publication of this valuable book.

Even in his introduction, he wastes no time in setting out immediately his key thesis, that there are three interlinked causal factors which can lead to sexually abusive behaviour: an unhealthy psychological state, unhealthy ideas about power and sexuality, and an unhealthy environment or community. In its institutional structures, argues Robinson, too easily and too often reinforces or even creates conditions that reinforce these unhealthy conditions. It is easy enough to see the broad argument as it applies to sexual abuse, about which many others have written, and which I do not intend to elaborate. But it is the central section of the book where he spells out the nature and expansion of church institutional power, that fascinated me.

In a very brief summary of the history of the papacy, he shows how an institution which began as just one Bishop of a single diocese, albeit a most important one, moved from a position of 'first among equals' to one of dominance. Even then, for most of two millenia, the role of the Pope was one of guidance and co-ordination, not one of control. Not until Pius X and the First Vatican Council, with its promulgation of the doctrine of infallibility, did 'the doctrine of universal jurisdiction of of the Pope over every aspect of the Church' become established. It is against this longer term view of Church history that we need to evaluate Vatican II, which is now attracting so much welcome attention. Quite contrary to the view of the Lefevbrists and other conservatives in the church, Vatican II was significant not for overturning tradition, but for seeking to re-establish it. (This same point was made last week on Bilgrimage, where William D Lindsay wrote his own helpful piece on the meaning of Church and tradition in the context of the two Vatican Councils. It is unfortunate that most of us are so conscious of Vatican II and its upheavals, that we lose sight of Vatican I and the many councils before it.) Helpfully for Pius X and his successors, his attempts to establish universal control were greatly enhanced by the advances in communication technology, enabing him to be quickly informed of events in far flung parts of the world - and to communicate his response, desires and commands as quickly.

What Robinson recommends is not the abolition or destruction of Papal power - he notes that the Protestant faiths which have eliminated central authority ahve seen endless continuing fission within themselves - but a restoration of balance. A partnership between Pope, the college of Bishops, and laity not only reflects the (unfilled) promise of Vatican II, it also restores the earliest traditions of the Church, reflects established constitutional principles in secular democracies of a balance of power. The challenge in achieving this restoration in balance is that teh excessive power structures that have been built up are not simply the work of mischievous individual Popes and scheming officials. Rather, tehy have become institutionalised, built right into the 'systme' of Church governance, so that it is unremarkable that the autocratic structures began to re-establish themselves after the immediate enthusiasm following Vatican II. I have yet to read Bishop's Robinson's views on how this re-establishment of balance is to achieved, but have one thought of my own.

I find it striking that Luther's first great challenge to the abuse of power in the Church, and the unfolding Reformation that followed, were greatly aided and fuelled by the expansion of literacy and publishing, with the demand of the laity for access to the scriptures. In the preceding centuries, with limited access to literacy, manuscripts and a common literary language, it was inevitable that the Church would retain a virtual monopoly on knowledge in all its forms. With the widening of access to the tools of learning, it was natural that a widening circle of laity would demand access to at least some of that. The church's intransigence led to rebellion, and the the Protestant churches immediately were characterised by an emphasis on reading of scripture by all.

The Catholic Church eventually backed down on this, but still restricted higher studies in theology to priests. That too has now gone, and today there are more lay people studying formal theology than seminarians. The information age, and its rapid expansion of the tools of learning, has now taken access to theology outside the formal classroom. Knowledge is power. The expanding blogosphere empowers us all to extend our own knowledge. The more obvious it becomes that the officials of the curia do not have a monopoly on truth, the more we use the media available to us to voice our response to abuses (as we have witnessed over the last two months), the more obvious it will becomes to those at the top of the power structures that their 'power' is not after all as absolute as they might imagine. Then, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, they may at last begin listening as well as pronouncing, and they may again acquire Authority to accompany their power.

The Church's Changing Tradition.

2009-02-10T13:05:00.000-08:00

The CDF famous (or infamous) letter "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" makes the claim "Thus, the Church's teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition" , and later states "Scripture bids us speak the truth in love". This is the image that the established church so likes to proote - of an authoritative, unchanging tradition "speaking the truth" for all time. The image favoured by the church, howeer, is a false one.

In the context of current arguments about the papacy and its authority, it is worth recalling just how false is this proposition: for the tradition has not been "unchanging", nor has it always spoken "truth". Indeed, the only constant over 2000 years of church history has been that of constant change.

Josephus at "Salus Animarum" has been posting on reflections prompted by reading of Alan Bray's "The Friend", and sharing thoughts on church history. This is a useful point then to remind readers of just how much church practice concerning same sex relationships has changed over two millenia. The present intransigent attitude of the church against "gay marriage", or even against civil partnerships, obscures the fact that in other times and places the church has sanctioned some form of same sex relationships, and even provided them with liturgical recognition.

John Boswell was the first scholar to establish in his research that the early church included a liturgical rite of "adelphopoeisis", or "making of brothers". This he identified as having some of the characteristics pertaining to the marriage forms of his day. In his two books, he also drew attention to the number of prominent churchmen and women in earlier times who are known to have had intimate same sex relationships in their own lives. Bernadette Brooten has extended this research into same sex relationships in early Christianity with a particular focus on women, while Alan Bray approached the topic from a different angle: in "The Friend", he examined a number of instances of English and other churches where tombstones and church records tell of same sex couples buried in single graves, in exactly the same way that married couples sometimes were. Like Boswell, he too finds evidence in the early church of a rite of "adelphopoeisis". Like Bray, in tun, Valerie Abrahamsen has examined evidence of same sex burials - from Macedonia in the 6th Century.

Scholars, of course, differ amongst themselves about the precise significance of these findings - in particular, whether these relationships can be thought of as resembling marriage rites, or even if there is likely to have been any erotic implications to them at all. I do not wish to go into these nuances - it is enough for my purpose simply to show that liturgical practice concerning same sex relationships has changed. Today they are vigourously opposed in any form, but in earlier times, from the early church in Rome and Byzantium, to much more recent periods in Western Europe, the Church has provided liturgical recognition for some form of same sex relationships at their formation, and at their dissolution at death.

Many other examples of changes in church teaching and practice could easily be produced - priestly celibacy was not required for the first millenium of history, marriage was not recognised as a sacrament, the church before modern times endorsed slavery and the inferior position of women (in its practice, it still does - but I am not going to venture down that path at present).

But most important, is to recognise that the papacy and the institution of papal power have themselves been subject to constant change. It is worth remembering that the origins of the current fuss lie exactly in the repudiation by the SSPX of the Second Vatican Council - a council notable, among other things, for its attempt to recast the balance of power within the Church, with a much enhanced role for the laity. Even the doctrine of papal infallibility, so widely known but so widely misunderstood, is of relatively recent origin.

Even the institution itself does not extend back to the earliest days of the church. Before there was a pope, the Bishop of Rome was just one among many, then one of 5 patriarchs of equal stature. After the rise of Islam placed the patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandra under Muslim domination, just two patriarchs, of Rome and Constantinople, remained. In time, the Bishop of Rome acquired special status and power in the Western church, while that of Constantinople did so in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I have come across a fascinating series of articles by Tom Lee in the Australian internet forum "Catolica", which has been tracing in weekly instalments, the story of the first 500 years of the Christian church and "the invention" of the papacy. I have found the early chapters riveting reading, for the insightful picture they paint of the historical setting for the Gospels, and the beginnings of the spread of the Christianity. I look forward to reading the rest.

As we continue to watch, fascinated, the extraordinary machinations in Vatican City over SSPX, or despair at ongoing stupidities on sexuality, we can perhaps take comfort from the changing past. The one thing we know for sure is that the papacy and its teachings, as we now know them will certainly change. What we don't yet know, is how - or when.

"Sex As God Intended" (Book Review)

2009-02-09T13:12:00.000-08:00

John McNeill, Lethe Press 2008.

I have just two small niggles about this book, so let me get them out of the way now. First, I was initally disappointed to find that this is not all new wrting by McNeill. Only half the book is by McNeill, and the rest is a collection of celebratory articles, a "Festchrift", by others. This Festschrift is welcome, but even his own writing is not all new. I have not read all the previous works, but even so I recognised large chunks of the material as not just a restatement, but verbatim reprints, of sections of "Taking a Chance of God." So big chunks of this are not new material.

Also irritating was the poor editing. McNeill appears to have gone to a new publisher, who have clearly made good use of a spell-checker - but paid insufficient attention to grammar. There were many instances where the flow of the text was interrupted by obvious missing words, with important parts of speech simply not present, leading to incomplete sentences or clauses that just did not hang together.

Celebrating John McNeill

But these were irritations only. It does not matter that this is not all new writing by McNeill, and should not be treated as such. The Festchrift is the clue: this is not a continuation, but a celebration, of the earlier work. Just running down the contributors, all of whom have made major contributions of their own to the continuing struggle of LGBT Catholics, is testimony to the importances of McNeill's work as theologian, as writer, and as therapist. (One of the contributions is titled "You saved My Life" this is intended to be taken quite literally). Amongst the contributors, I was already familiar with the work of Toby Johnson, Mark Jordan, Robert Goss, Sister Jeannine Gramick and Daniel Helminiak. The contributions of others has left me wanting to explore their work too.

So what is this life work of McNeill, and why should we celebrate it?

"The Church and The Homosexual", published back in 1976, was groundbreaking. Many writers since have testified to the liberating impact it has had on their own lives, and it has become a staple in the exploding bibliographies on the subject ever since. It was originally published with the blessing and 'imprimi potest' of his Jesuit order, but soon attracted the displeasure of the Vatican. Ordered to refrain from publication and teaching on the subject, McNeill initially complied, and fell silent for some years. In conscience though, he felt compelled to continue to write and to speak out. Like so many others, he left the priesthood and embarked on a precarious career as writer and psychotherapist. Subsequent books included "Freedom, Glorious Freedom", "Taking a Chance on God", and "Both Feet Planted Firmly in Midair."

"Sex as God Intended"

In the current book, McNeill examines systematically the treatment of sexuality, particularly in same sex relationships, and finds conclusions rather different to those usually used against us. As he and others have done before, he dismisses the old interpretation of the story of Sodom as a gross misinterpretation The sin of Sodom was not that of sexual relationships between men, but the failure to offer hospitality to guests - an important traditional obligation in a desert society. Where McNeill differs from so many other writers who have made the same point, is that he is not content to simply argue against the old 'clobber texts'. Rather, he goes further, arguing for the positive place of sexuality in the Old Testament. Highlighting Genesis 2 (the older version) rather than the more usual creation story in Genesis 1, he shows how Eve was created because Adam needed a companion, not just a mother for his children. This balances the procreative nature of marriage, so beloved by our opponents, with that of love and companionship.

An important piece of new writing in the book is a celebration of the Song of Songs, as a scriptural basis for sex as play. He also presents evidence that this may have been written to celebrate love been men. The gender of the protagonists, though is ultimately not important. The passion and ardour expressed is sufficiently powerful that the Song can be read with any interpretation you choose - but impossible to come away with the idea that sex is only about procreation.

Similarly, in examining the New Testament, McNeill's focus is on the positive messages for LGBT Christians, rather than a repetition of arguments against the clobber texts. He shows for instance, that in his family of choice, Jesus is associating with same sex groups rather than with 'traditional' family groups. His analysis of the healing of the (male) 'servant' of the Roman centurion shows how this servant was almost certainly a sexual partner, even lover, of the centruiion. He also draws attention to the special attentions paid to John the Evangelist as "the apostle whom Jesus loved." It has often been noted how Jesus in the Gospels has absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality. John McNeill has shown clearly that in His actions, the Lord goes much further than words in acknowledging and accepting such relationships.

Joy and the Holy Spirit.

The joy of McNeill's writing is always his emphasis on the positive. His recurring refrains are a quotation from St Irenaus "The glory of God is humans fully alive", an insistence that healthy psychology and healthy theology go hand in hand (and healthy psychology requires in turn healthy sexuality), and a strong underpinning of Ignatian Spirituality, in which we find God in all things - even in persecution and exclusion by the church. You can take McNeill out of the Jesuits, but you cannot take the Jesuits out of McNeill, and I thank the Lord for that.

Central to this thinking is that the Holy Spirit is constantly at work in our lives and in the world. In a context where official teaching on sexuality out of Rome is so obviously misplaced and psychologically unhealthy, it is too easy too lose one's spiritual bearings. McNeill reminds us that where Rome fails, the Holy Spirit is permanently at hand for guidance - we need only ask.

He goes further. In an important address to Dignity, reprinted in this book, he speculates on the active participation of the Holy Spirit in the church of today, directly intervening in a 'Kairos Moment ' to restore a proper balance between what has been the unbridled power of the papacy and the rest of the Church. (I am delighted that I have secured permission from McNeill to post this address in full on this blog, here.) At the time of writing, it was prescient. Given the turmoil in the church in recent weeks, and the resistance of so many to the series of Vatican fiascoes, I suspect we may now be seeing signs of just this intervention. As evidence, just see how Benedict has been forced to react to outrage over the most recent disaster concerning the SSPX by completing a nearly complete turnaround. What at one time appeared to be a slap in the face for the spirit of Vatican II has now become a firm endorsement of it!

This book may not contain significant new writing by John McNeill, but no matter. If you have not yet had the benefit of enjoying his exuberance, this will be an excellent introduction. If you have read the earlier books, then you should still buy it, read it, and circulate it, to join the celebration.

John McNeill, thank you.

The Value of Experience as Spiritual Self-Defence

2009-02-04T13:09:00.000-08:00

I referred yesterday to a post on Nihil Obstat in which Ned O'Gorman paints quite a depressing picture of the difficult position in which the established church puts us LGBT Catholics. He refers specifically to how some people enter heterosxual marriage to maintian some form of acceptance. As this goes directly to my own experience, I responded immediately with a lengthy comment. Later, I realised that much of this is also fully relevant to the ongoing theme I am trying to develop, and that you might like to know a little more about me, so I repeat my comment here:

"It is undeniable that the established Church puts us in a difficult position, and that too many people simply evade or avoid the issues. I was one of those who married (very unwisely) ‘to maintain a place in church and society’. The irony is that it was during those years, when I was trying to live faithfully within the bounds of Catholic teaching on sexuality with all its restrictions, that my faith life was sterile, leading to a gradual disconnection from the church, and to a 10 year flirtation with agnosticism.

My return to the church came only after setting up a committed reltionship with another man. I then developed an active faith life, and an exploration of prayer and spirituality, far richer than anything I had ever experienced while operating within the bounds of of official teaching. Later, since developing an active participation in an explicitly LGBT Mass, and especially since I started blogging on the subject, I have been led still further, to readings in theology, church history and ministry that I would never previously have gone into.

St Ignatius teaches us to trust the ‘movement of spirits’ as we discern them deep in our hearts, by prayerful reflection on the experiences of our own lives. My reflections on experience confirm that god ahsa acted in my life through the honesty of living the life a have, as a gay man, not the pretence of straight marriage.

O’Gorman is too pessimistic. There is no need at all to feel ‘abandoned’ by the Church - just by the Vatican. There are increasingly many supportive priests, even including some who will indeed bless same sex unions, and many other ways of finding support in faith - not least through a an expanding network of welcoming parishes, a publishing explosion on LGBT theoplogy and spirituality, and on websites and blogs such as this one, my own, and many others.

"Christianity is a Queer Thing" - Elizabeth Stuart

2009-01-10T12:03:00.000-08:00

I have been re-reading Elisabeth Stuart's wonderful "Gay & Lesbian Theologies", which presents a 'genealogy' of the changing approaches by self-identified lesbian & gay theologians, culminating in the last two chapters with a discussion of "Queer theology". It was these latter two chapters that I was particularly interested in.

As I went through Stuart's rundown of the leading figures in the development of Queer Theology, I found myself excited by the description of almost all, and planning on adding them to my 'Wish List', which I have now done. I thought I would share with you why. The notes below are super - brief descriptions of the key ideas that caught my interest, and the books, as reported by Stuart, that hold them.

Strangers & Friends (M. Vasey)

Vasey argues from an historical presentation of the sexuality and the family. He points out that far from being the 'tradtional' model, the family as idealised by modern Christians, especially the evangelicals, is a relatively modern invention. The gradual devlopment of this model as normative, has largely been responsible for the parallel development of a distinct gay identity, largely in reaction. (The campaign against the 'homosexual' is attacking what it has itself created.) Conversely, the early church idealised male friendship and community life, rather than the familyas now understood.

Sex and the Church (Rudy, Kathy)

Rudy also looks at the historical development of the family, from a feminist perspective. Her conclusion is that LGBT people are mistaken in looking to mimic heterosexual families, suggesting that urban gay male culture offers a model of human relationships modelled on community. She denies the argument that Christian sexuality needs to be procreative - Christianity reproduces itself not by procreation, but by conversion. What matters is not whether two people can produce children, but whether they can embrace outsiders - the key characteristic of Christianity.

Omnigender: A Trans-Religious Approach (Virginai RameyMollenknott)

Mollenknott shows that many features of God's incarnation and manifesation to humans, and many practices of the church, fall outside socially approved, binary ideas of gender. She also discusses numerous examples of canonised saints who have defied gender roles.

Indecent Theology: (Marcella Althaus-Reid)

Althaus-Reid's starting point is within the framework of liberation theology, but she points out that this has often proceeded from within a traditional approaches to gender and sexual identity. She "foregrounds a Christ outside the gates who is the eternal Bi/Christ who always gives us something to think about."

Also see:

Queer Spirituality

"The Last Judgement", and the Homoerotic Spirituality of Michaelangelo.

Related articles

James Alison on Growing Up Gay

Navigating uncharted waters: the gift of faith and growing up LGBT

Related articles

Come Out, Stand Proud. (The Catechism Commands It!)

Was Jesus a Second Class Citizen?

An Ignorant Mexican Cardinal, v an Authentic History of Marriage

Water into Wine: Jesus's Gay Wedding at Cana.

Gay Marriage: The Fallacy of the Church’s Argument Against.

Cardinal Shonborn & Church Reform: 3 month update.

Queering the Song of Songs

Those Evangelical Allies, Again

“We need to out-evangelize the evangelists!”

"Pro-Life" Californian Catholics?

"Ending the death penalty would be one important step away from a culture of death and toward building a culture of life.”

Who cares what the Church teaches?

Who cares what the Church teaches?

HIV, Bishop Kevin Dowling - and Me.

Cardinal Schönborn: Two months. No Repudiation, A Portuguese Ally.

Finding God in Gay Lovemaking

What IS a Gay Catholic to do? A Question Comes Out of the Closet.

St John of the Cross

The Spiritual Gifts of Gay Sexuality

Queering Easter: The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

Queering Easter: The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence Redefine Sainthood

Towards a Sound Sexual Ethic

"Hate Has No Place In The House of God": Desmond Tutu

Yet Another Evangelical Conversion

John McNeill: Homophobic Abuse and Distortion of Scripture

Bishop James Jones: Another Evangelical Ally?

How to Right the Bishops

14-Point Summary When Writing Our Bishops

Oscar Romero: Bishop of the Poor

Changing the Church.

A 2nd Cent. Queer Hymn of Praise: "The Father Who Was Milked"

Homoerotic Spirituality

The Intimate Dance of Sexuality and Spirituality

My Homoerotic Retreat: Six days that changed my life.

Related articles by Zemanta

Coming Out as Spiritual Experience

"Coming Out" as Wrestling with the Divine

Seduced by Grace: Michael B Kelly

Marriage Equality & the Church.

Catholic 'Dissent'

Reaffirming Vatican II: We are the Shepherds

Holy Spirit at Work? - James Alison

Church, Power &; Abuse

The Church's Changing Tradition.

"Sex As God Intended" (Book Review)

The Value of Experience as Spiritual Self-Defence

"Christianity is a Queer Thing" - Elizabeth Stuart