For those who think all priests are horrible, for those who do not want to know the pressures....

They might be interested in reading: http://www.frjonblog.org/Site/Homilies/Entries/2009/11/26_THAT_METRO_ARTICLE!.html

What I'm reading..........why be Catholic.

I've just finished Since My Last Confession: A Gay Catholic Memoir by Scott Pomfret. Pomfret describes himself as "impious, irreverent and a shade profane." He is a government lawyer, married to another man named Scott, with whom he writes pornography in his spare time. He also lectored and was active in several other ministries at a Catholic shrine church in Boston. This book lampoons the church, while at the same time expressing an exasperated love for it. While the book is uneven at points with some humor that seems forced, it is ultimately redemptive.

Toward the end of the book, in sections marked "why be Catholic," Pomfret quotes one of his fellow parishioners:

"Why are you still Catholic?" I asked a gay father of three.

"Entirely aside from my spiritual life and my promise to the good priests and nuns that were here when my children were christened, I also feel a political responsibility not to leave but instead to sit my gay ass in the pew and not be budged by people who don't want me there," he said. "It's a Rosa Parks thing. I'm just not moving. It's my Church too, as much as theirs. If I want to leave, I will, but I won't leave because somebody else wants me to leave or because it makes somebody else uncomfortable. I just won't do it. I won't do it for myself, and I won't do it for people who are not yet born, who will have the same struggle. That's ...my very quiet way of saying, 'We're here, we're queer, and I'm proud of it.' I'm there, and [my husband] is there, and I'm proud we are there. If it were appropriate to raise my middle finger, that's what I am doing - in a polite, kiss-of-peace kind of way."

That, my friends, is brilliant, in a Rosa Parks kind of way...........................

Interesting. From Andrew Sullivan's blog.

A recent follower of this blog, and commentator on it, who disagrees with me on at least some things (maybe on everything?) has some poignant posts. You can read him at: reluctantrebel.blogspot.com/ (For some reason the hyperlink isn't working. Just type in the URL the old fashioned way.)

On the attempt to "out" gay priests in Washington in churchouting.org

This is a complicated issue because of the nature of the Catholic Church and its relationship to its priests. First, priesthood is more than a "job" in many ways. The typical diocesan priest has no pension that cannot be abrogated by the diocese, has no unemployment compensation, has no apartment or dwelling that he owns or rents but instead lives in a dwelling owned by the diocese, and earns far below market value for his services - typically about $25,000 a year. So if a priest is outed, and he loses his job, he will also lose his residence, pension, health care, and any chance to get a job in his profession. Second, priests are generally not in a position to set policy. That is up to the bishops. Most priests I know are dejected and angry about their inability to influence - on any number of issues - the institution they serve. Third, many, perhaps most, priests manage to object to diocesan policies in small and perhaps ineffective ways. They just don't comply. The required "defense of marriage" pamphlet is not put in the bulletin on Sundays, but is instead put in a book rack at the back of the church where no one looks at it, particular topics are simply not mentioned in homilies, counseling in confession does not quite enforce the party line, etc. Fourth, outing such priests - who have not taken active stands against gay rights - simply reinforces the prejudice of those who do take stands against gay rights. The typical priest is between a rock and a hard place. He has little if any power over policy, is expected to defend every policy and political initiative of the bishop, has no independent economic existence or wherewithall, and is dependent on an institution that increasingly makes it difficult to maintain any sense of integrity. Rather than seeing him as the "enemy," one might more easily see him as victims of the institution. Many entered seminary when it was possible to be 'out' and ther was not much of an issue made of it. Many were upfront and honest in making their orientation known to vocation directors and seminary personnel. Now long after they did so, those in authority have decided that they should not exist. Now, they are in the fulcrum of a pincer movement. Gay rights advocates are rightly increasingly upset with the Catholic Church. On the other side, the bishops are increasingly upset with the existence of gay priests - who may comprise more than half the priests in the US. Attacking gay priests makes as much sense as attacking gay members of the military. Both the Catholic Church and the military have a 'don't ask don't tell' policy! and its first victims are those who dare not tell. religious order priest, by the way, have a slightly different situation. They are removed from the most direct control of the bishop. But they also have no economic personhood at all: no bank account, no credit history, not checking account, no income in their own names. To out such a person is to reduce him to penury.

A note to those who have started to read this blog recently.

"Suffer the arrows" is a reference to St. Sebastian, who is an iconic figure of one who suffers unjustly without becoming unduly perturbed by it, even though he eventually dies from his wounds. Artists have, for centuries, portrayed St. Sebastian's tribulations in varying stages of undress and musculature. It is not surprising, therefore, that he has become somewhat of a gay icon too. I post here under the name "Sebastian," which is a nom-de-internet. It affords me some degree of privacy, and therefore permits a greater degree of honesty than I might otherwise be comfortable with. I am trying to find my voice in the Church, a voice that is honest and true, respectful and faithful, but not self-denying or obsequious. That is a tall order.

On the question of what gay Catholics are supposed to do.

I posted the following comments, in slightly amended form, in response to the question of what is the proper role of gay Catholics in the Church. The column in which the comments are posted can be found at: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=81913739-3048-741E-5405178212524077

America Magazine is a mainstream Catholic publication, under the ownership and management of the Jesuits. One of its very well regarded Jesuit authors has stirred up a hornets nest by posting the question of what are gay Catholics to do. He basically says that there is less and less place for us in the Church - something he obviously deplores.

This question is so vexing, in part because every Catholic has firm opinions, but not everyone has much experience in dealing with the issue on a personal basis either as a gay Catholic or as a straight Catholic who has had actual, honest and reflective conversations with gay Catholics. The question is not what "those" gays do or don't do. The question is what we together as members of the Church do. Every baptized person is called to life in the Holy Spirit in abundance. Every baptized person is called to live a moral life. And every baptized person has a place in the Church.

However, for Catholics who are gay, at the present moment, the institutional Church offers only a situation of profound cognitive dissonance. If we are to remain Catholic, we are told that we must: 1. in general, live a life of "don't ask, don't tell;" 2. must deny the fruits of our experience about the origin of our gayness, the characteristics of the gays we know, and the current consensus of psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, biology and other sciences; 3. cannot be admitted to vowed religious congregations or to Holy Orders; and 4. we must, as do all Catholics, live chastely. But in contrast to all other Catholics, must live lifelong involuntary celibacy. In addition, we must endure (and many say endure without question or comment) public pronouncements of bishops and Vatican officials which attack us, caricature us, and oppose legislation that would ensure our right to work and to housing. Learning to love ourselves and all others is a difficult enough challenge for anyone. Learning to love ourselves and all others is made more difficult by what is being required of us by the Church.

Increasingly, there is the perception among gay and lesbian Catholics that we are being "painted into a corner," by an institution that does not value us and our contributions, does not appear to want us, and insists sometimes on going out of its way to offend us. Just what does the institution expect us to do in such a situation?

Being gay and Catholic.......

Being gay and Catholic, particularly being gay and a Catholic priest, is like being a Jew in Germany in 1934. You don't know how far they will go. You don't know how it will end. But you are sure of one thing: they do not like you, and they wish you would be gone. I came across a line today in a blog: "the theological assault on gays by the bishops." I would only add: "the theological and political assault on gays."

The Archdiocese of Washington has announced that if the DC city council enacts the proposed civil marriage law that would permit marriage between same sex couples, that the archdiocese will terminate all contracts with the city because it would be obliged then under the law to offer spousal insurance and other benefits to same sex spouses for those who work in Catholic Charities and other Church entities that receive city money.

This is completely disingenuous, for four reasons.

First, if the Church believes that it ought not provide spousal insurance and other benefits to those employees who are married outside the Church, then why does it currently offer such benefits to those who are in non-sacramental marriages. For example, a Catholic Charities employee who is divorced and has remarried civilly is entitled to full spousal benefits for his or her spouse who are legally married, but whose marriage is not recognized by the Church. Why a different standard for gays than for straight couples?

Second, if the Church believes that it is somehow immoral to offer spousal benefits to gay couples, then it is immoral for all employers, not just for those employed by the Church. But the Church has never argued, and is not now arguing, that ordinary employers are morally required to refuse to offer spousal benefits to such persons. In effect, the Church is saying that it is immoral if the Church does it, but does not claim that it is immoral if others do it. This is inconsistent nonsense.

Third, if the Church somehow believes that it should be exempted from civil law's requirements relating to equal justice, let it argue that it should also be exempt from laws that require equal justice for women, racial minorities, and ethnic minorities. It could then choose to be non-discriminatory, or not, but would have made the point that religious organizations are somehow exempt from civil law.

Fourth, if this position by the Church were rooted in anything other than homophobia, let them apply their reasoning across the board. Let them argue that they will apply only canonical standards to hiring, firing, personnel decisions of all sorts. Let's see how far they get with that. And after they do that, let them fight for an end to gay bashing, and work for equal housing for gays, and the right of gays to a job. If they do that, I will believe that they are not motivated by homophobia. But there is not a snowball's chance in hell that they will do that.

It is clear that the Church has once again drawn the line in the sand, choosing a group it considers weak, and ignoring any logic or consistency. This is bullying behavior. It is beneath contempt.

The bishops have again revealed their prejudice, duplicity and mendacity. It is getting increasingly difficult to be gay and Catholic, and to be a gay Catholic priest. Do the bishops really have no idea that when they spout such nonsense that they make it more and more difficult for gay priests to remain in the Church, and to live their celibacy. Do they not have any idea that spreading such absurdities repels people away from Christ and makes them bad shepherds?

Relating to civil marriage, a response to those who say marriage has never changed and has but one purpose. (Thanks to Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish, where I first found it. It is also on bluetruck/redstate.blogspot.com