sufferthearrows

On clerical culture and the sex abuse crisis

2011-06-24T05:34:00.000-07:00

Philadelphia Magazine has a very insightful and appalling article on the priest sex abuse situation in that city. It profiles the current archbishop and his predecessor and tries to explain why the church-as-institution seems incapable of dealing with this problem. See http://www.phillymag.com/articles/catholics_in_crisis_sex_and_deception_in_the_archdiocese_of_philadelphia/

A key observation:

"The Church’s protection of priests who sexually abuse children is a testament to its completely insular control and power apart from civil society. The Church takes care of its own, in other words, and that fact leads to a cruel bottom line: Maintaining the institution’s standing in the world is more important than taking care of victims of sexual abuse."

Further:
"And the crisis has spread beyond parishioners, because many priests in the archdiocese are just as enraged at how Church leadership has mishandled the scandal, and the awkward position it has put all of them in. It’s a very sad day when walking down the street wearing your collar has become a questionable decision."

And speaking of bishops and clerical culture:

“The only virtue is obedience,” says Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and an ex-priest who has spent the past few decades trying to understand the collision of sex and power in his church. “As long as you’re obedient to the Church, as long as you protect and embrace it, you are justified.” Obedience is drilled into young seminarians from day one. “You are not beholden to charity or truth or anything else. Everything can be sacrificed to obedience.”

Read the full article, it is well worth your time.

Interesting press coverage...

2011-06-23T04:50:00.000-07:00

An article in Slate reports a study that roughly half of college educated gays and lesbians pretend to be heterosexual in their workplace. See http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/22/gay_worker_study_center_for_work_life_policy_finds_48_percent_of.html

The lead investigator on the John Jay study on child sex abuse in the Catholic Church tries to correct the record about what the report actually says. It seems that many media sources reported on something they had not really read and rushed to judgment. See http://www.salon.com/news/catholicism/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/06/23/catholic_sex_abuse_report

Notes from a homily on the 6th Sunday of Easter, belatedly posted

2011-06-19T19:23:00.000-07:00

I know a really good man. He is smart, and he tries always to be kind. He works hard. He has had many important jobs, and has borne many responsibilities. He has helped people with material assistance, and with spiritual comfort. He has labored long and well in the vineyard of the Lord. There is just one problem, one little problem. He is sure that he knows just what others should do. He knows what the eucharistic ministers should do. The lectors. The musicians. Other pastors. The lady in the fourth pew. The local baker and dry cleaner. And let's not even mention how he knows just what bishops and politicians should do. And he is not shy about telling everyone what they should do. It isn't surprising that his friends sometimes call this man "Father Should."

I'm sure you know the type. Maybe you know someone just like him. Maybe you are just like him? ( no, certainly not!). I suspect there is a bit of "Father Should" in all of us.

How different is the position assumed in today's second reading from the first letter of St. Peter! After telling us to "Sanctify Christ" in our hearts - that is, make our hearts centered on Christ and bless Christ - after we do that and only after we become Christ centered - will we be ready to "give an explanation to anyone for the reason for our hope."

Now that requires that we do have hope - and faith - and know what we believe and why. Learning about the faith is necessary, because we can't share what we don't know, we can't give something we don't have. We have a responsibility to learn and to grow in our faith and in our willingness to share it.

But notice, I left out a a couple of words when I said "give an explanation to anyone for the reason for our hope." The line really is: give an explanation to anyone who asks you for the reason for our hope."

Now, I don't think that this forbids us to initiate the conversation. Far from it. But it does throw a caution flag down, doesn't it? It seems to assume that if Christ is in our hearts, people will notice. And if they notice it, the time will be right sometimes to share, and that sharing our faith will often be a matter of answering a question or two.

For example, if this week at work, someone asks about your weekend, you might mention that you went to Church. That person may then say they don't go, or don't believe, or they might ask why you do go. And the conversation will go on naturally from there, as long as you know what you believe and why.

But if Christ is not fully in your heart, or if you are ashamed or embarrassed by going to church, well, you just are not going to include it when you answer about how your weekend went.

But there is more advice from this letter: give an answer, it says, "with gentleness and reverence" (pause, repeat). the letter says that if we do so, and are attacked anyway, well, that is the attackers sin, not ours. If we fail to give reasons for out faith and hope, or do it in an insulting or harsh manner, that is our sin, not someone ele's.

When I was in seminary, a fellow seminarian and I went to the Right to Life march in Washington, DC on January 22. At the end of the march, there were some counter protesters, people who favored abortion. Walking away at the end of the march, we wound up talking to two of them them, a mother an daughter. It started out well enough, but my friend lost his cool. ...... PRAY! He shouted. Now how wrong was that? He had let his emotions get the better of him. He was badgering, insulting. Worse, he was using sacred language to do it. Condemnation was in his heart. And he was telling these poor, sincere, tired women exactly what they should do. I'm sure they remember the encounter years later. But not fondly. And having been yelled at to PRAY!!!! makes it less likely that they would do so.

There is in the US right now an ardent lay Catholic who claims to be the head of an organization, but many people think the organization may consist of only himself, a secretary, a computer and a fax machine. He is famous for telling other people - Catholics and non-Catholics alike - what to do. Most of his pronouncements basically start with the idea that they are wrong and have to be stopped, and all this is shouted. Does this really help? This man - and his name is not important to the story - is convinced he's right and others are wrong, and he may in fact be right.

But he is far from gentle in his words and attitude, and he does not reverence the people he shouts at. Those people, even the really awful and wrong and sinful people, are made in the image and likeness of God, and need to be treated as such. Our faith teaches us that Jesus came to redeem us all, each one of us. The nasty scoundrel who sins publicly is just as much loved by God as we are. Jesus came for him as much as he came for us.

Bringing this home, if we find ourselves arguing with family members because we go to church and they don't, or because we believe one thing and they believe another, well, we may be on the wrong track. Better to give a good example and wait for them to notice than to tell them what's wrong with them.

If we find ourselves praying more for the conversion of others than we pray for our own conversion, well, maybe we need to work on ourselves more. After all, we can only change ourselves. We can't force anyone else to change; we can only influence them to change. And we influence people not by telling others what they should do, but by living as we should, and by loving them.

Start with love. Obvious, caring, reverential love. If people know that you love them, then they will pay attention to your actions, and might even listen to your words. But if they don't know that you love them and respect them - or worse, if you do not love and respect them - then no amount of words will convince them to reflect on what they believe and do. All the logical arguments in the world will be ignored. People listen to people who are interested in them, who listen to them, who love them.

And if you find that you are mistreated, called names, or dealt with unfairly in all this, do not fall into the trap of treating others poorly or using your antagonists words or style. Rejoice and be glad, because you have been treated badly in the service of Christ. And commit yourself anew to reverencing the person who you think is disrespecting you.

Do as Jesus did. When someone gave a wrong answer, the gospel says "and Jesus looked on him with love." That look, that glance, changed lives. That look invited people to risk asking a question. Criticism, especially public criticism, just hardens people in their positions.

The Father has sent the Son to love us and to teach us how to love one another, to love even those who are wrong-headed, opinionated, pig-headed and ignorant. Especially them. That is the Easter message, and it is how we are called to share the Easter message. Go and do as Jesus did.

On the marriage debates.

2011-06-19T16:06:00.000-07:00

While faithful lay Catholics sit in shock at the abuse and misuse of sexual words and sexual actions by the bishops and some priests, the hierarchy makes in increasingly clear that they have only empty bromides to hurl at the LGBT community. There is no real theological engagement on the issues of sexual diversity, nor even on the subject of developing a coherent political theology. The hierarch's side of the debate consists of statements that are assumed but not argued, couched in inflated hyperbole that is designed to inflame. Can anyone name one straight marriage in the six states that permit gay marriage that has been harmed by allowing gays and lesbians to marry? I sincerely doubt it. Can anyone name any gay and lesbian couples who have been harmed by being unable to marry legally in their home states? Yes, there are many. Couples are denied tax and inheritance and joint property and social security and health insurance benefits under the law. Children's lives are less secure socially and economically because the two loving adults who are raising them cannot legally marry. These are real people, who are really hurting.

For legislators, they must answer a question that is not, fundamentally, a theological issue. It is a political issue. The legislatures are not deciding on Church marriage rules, which have always varied from civil marriage law. The legislatures are faced with one question, really. Are there two sets of laws that apply, one to couples of two genders, and another to the disadvantage of couples of the same gender, or are all consenting adult couples equal under the law?

For the hierarchy, they need to understand that if they act like politicians they will be treated with all the respect and deference the American people give to their politicians, which is to say, almost no respect and deference. Their task, which they have failed to accept, is to encourage theological discourse that will help develop an understanding about how the Holy Spirit is working in the lives of the faithful, in our times, and how the tradition of the Church can be informed by the signs of these our times. This must reflect the best of modern science, philosophy, and anthropology, as well as current scripture scholarship. Facile language about the resemblance of the NY State legislature to totalitarian regimes is inappropriate, and beneath the dignity of the episcopal office.

Homily notes - 5th. Sunday of Easter

2011-05-21T22:33:00.000-07:00

Homily - 5th Sunday of Easter

In the first weeks after Easter, we heard the Easter stories - the discovery of the empty tomb, and the reactions of the disciples to that discovery. We then heard about how Jesus appeared to the apostles and to others. Now, as the Easter season continues, we hear from Jesus' talk at the last supper as recorded in John's gospel. That may seem at first impression to be going backwards, but it isn't. Because it was at the Last Supper that Jesus prepared us for his leaving us, and for the coming of the Holy Spirit, and for our life together as his disciples in his Church.

There are many things that can be said of these readings today, but I'd like to focus on only one of them: who are we?

If I asked you who you are, how would you answer? You might tell me your name - I'm Tom. You might tell me whose family you belong to - I'm Jimmy's daughter. You might tell me what you do for a living - I'm a nurse, I’m a student, I’m a fireman. Or you might tell me some characteristic about yourself - I'm the one who is always cleaning up around here.

Now, if I asked you, who are you as a Christian, as a Catholic, what would you say? The gospel and the reading from St. Peter give us a large part of the answer.

As a Catholic, I am a person who has a strong, intimate, relationship with Jesus Christ. For each of us, that began in baptism, and once that relationship began, it never ends. It lasts our whole life long. Even if we sin - even if we reject it – and there are costs, penalties for rejecting it - the relationship continues. This relationship is so strong that it is stronger than death itself. Our relationship with Jesus Christ lasts beyond our death: it is a relationship for eternity, a relationship that begins once, in time, and once begun, it continues for all time.

Jesus says that he goes to prepare a place for us, and that in his Father’s house there are many mansions. When I was young, I thought he was speaking of real estate. I thought that he meant that you got a little house if you were just OK, but you got a really nice one on a good plot of land if you were better. But Jesus means something deeper. He is using language that every first century Jew would have understood immediately. He is saying that his relationship with his followers - and his followers assembled together in the church – his relationship with you and with me is as close as the relationship of a man and his wife. REPEAT.

In those days, a man became engaged to a woman, and then he went off to prepare a place for her. He went to build, or perhaps to buy, or to restore, a house. He would not marry his betrothed until he had prepared the place, and when he did, he came back to get her, and the wedding began.

Do you remember those parables about the bridegroom coming at an hour they did not expect, or about the young women waiting for the bridegroom and running out of oil -- well they were built on the same idea. The groom will come! The Lord will come! [Though in contrast to some, we believe Jesus when he says no one knows the time or the hour. And the idea of ‘rapture’ is not part of Catholic belief, and dates back only to the 1890s among some – and only some – Protestants.]

"I am going to prepare a place for you" and "I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am, you also may be."

Who is the Catholic Christian? The Catholic is a man, woman, young person or child who has been called into this deep, intimate, unending bond with Jesus Christ. How wonderful is that?

This gospel goes on to say that when we are united to Christ, we are united also to God the Father, for Jesus says "I am in the Father and the Father is in me."

Jesus is the Way. Jesus is our way. Our way to what?

Our way to the Father, our way to eternal life,
he is our way of life,
he is our way to becoming who we really are, in the core of our being, following Jesus is the way we become who we were created to be.

Following Jesus is how we thrive and flourish in our inmost selves. The Gospel is indeed, good news.

St. Peter's letter also testifies to this. He focuses on us corporately, i.e. on us together as Church. Christ is the living stone of the psalms, he says - the stone rejected by the builders, but that has become the cornerstone on which the church is built.

And we are called to be living stones, built up together, joined together as stones in a building are joined together, with Crist, into the Church. As members of the Church, I.e. Of Christ's body, we are " a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people set apart." together we are - a new creation, tied to each other in Christ by new bonds, bonds not of earthly family or people, but as followers of the way of Jesus. [expand]

I began by asking "who are you?" and I gave some ways people answer that question. The best answer is: I am a person chosen by Jesus to be intimately close to him, and who follows His way of life. And by the way, my name is __________.

Fifth Sunday of Lent - homily notes

2011-04-10T11:56:00.000-07:00

The Gospel reading we just heard is the third in a series - a series that is used in “year A” of the 3-year cycle of Sunday readings. This series is also used for the “scrutinies,” when those who are going to be baptized at Easter are brought to the community of faith so that they may announce to us and to the world that they are on the same walk of faith as we are.

Lent is a time for all of us to look at this curious thing called “faith.” We can try to define it, but the definition always seems to lack something, for “faith” is a living reality, and not something that can be locked up in a box of pure reason. We are on a walk of faith, a journey of faith, a pilgrimage of faith.

For most of us, our faith waxes and wanes over the course of our lives. For most of us, there are times when we are absolutely certain of what we believe, and are convinced that it makes sense and is the right way to go. At these times, we cannot conceive any other way.

At other times, we are left scratching our heads or shrugging our shoulders and wondering, wondering if it is all an illusion. Sometimes these questions arise when life is particularly difficult, when we have to face the evil in the world, or the evil in ourselves, or the most scandalous evil that is done by those who act in the name of the Church. At those times, we may be brought to the point of despair, but we must not despair. At those times we must remember the times the Lord acted in our lives, and rely on the community of faith to sustain us. “Lord I believe. Help my unbelief.” Those words were said by the father of a sick child in the Gospel of Mark (chapter 9). Let that be our prayer.

Just as in a marriage where there are times when it is easy to love and there are times when love is more of a challenge, there are times and seasons when faith is a challenge and times when it is not. Sometimes, we are called to admit our unbelief, and ask God to heal our souls so that we can believe, or believe more completely.

We are called to persist in our faith, and to put our faith into action, even when we do not “feel” it, when we do not “feel” close to God. Mother Theresa walked most of her life in a dark night, without the consolations of feeling God’s presence. In those years, she walked by faith, but not by sight. And she and the world are better because of he persistence.

[For the record, the Catechism defines faith as: “[Faith is\ a personal adherence of the whole man to God who reveals himself. It involves an assent of the intellect and will to the self-revelation God has made through his deeds and words.” [CCC] Faith is a theological or divine virtue, i.e. a gift of God who plants in our hearts the desire to believe and the means to do so.

But enough of definitions. They are too intellectual, too dry. Faith is not lived in definitions. Faith is lived in relationship.]

Two weeks ago, we heard of the wayward Samaritan woman at the well. She told her neighbors: “Come and see a man who told me everything I have done. Could he possibly be the Christ?” Seven husbands she had, and the one she was with now was not her husband! She came to believe, and through her, her neighbors came to believe. They said: “we have heard for ourselves and we know that this is truly the savior of the world.”

Last week, the blind born beggar, after having been cured and interrogated by the religious officials, comes to faith: “I do believe, Lord,” he says, and he then worshiped Jesus.

And now today, we hear of Mary and Martha. They already know Jesus, and they have a degree of faith already. Before Jesus calls Lazarus forth, they object that he has been in the tomb for four days. Their faith appears incomplete. But after Jesus calls Lazarus from the tomb we are told: “Now many of the Jews who had come to Mary and seen what he had done began to believe in him.”

What are we to make of all this? Notice that in each of these Gospels, there are certain similarities.

First, faith begins and is strengthened gradually. Each of these long Gospels tells a story of the unfolding of a relationship with Jesus, a coming to faith in time. St. Paul was illuminated by faith suddenly while on the road to Damascus, but the more usual pattern is that there is some development, some unfolding, and this is seen in each of these Gospel stories, in a sort of miniature form. Lord knows, we see it also in our own lives. We need to let our faith grow, to do the things which nourish it. We need to come to fuller faith. Lent is especially the time to do this.

Second, notice that in each of these stories there are people who are helpful and supportive to the development of faith, and people who are not. Faith is, it is sometimes said, caught, not taught. The neighbors of the Samaritan woman, some people in the crowd around the blind born man, and Martha and Mary are supportive of faith. But others - the Pharisees, the Temple officials, and often the crowd - these folks question and dispute and are querelous and contentious and seem to want to undermine the development of faith. When you get a chance, read Psalm 1: it contrasts the just one, who follows not the counsel of the wicked or sits in the company of scoffers; and the evil, who hang with the wrong crowd. This Lent, think about who supports your faith and who undermines it. Do we let the underminers undermine us?

Third, notice that when it is professed, faith in is the person of Jesus, and not in a formula. The way we describe the content of our belief is important, but the belief is Christ, not in the formulas. We are called into relationship with Jesus. The Gospels call us to faith through stories - through accounts of who Jesus is and how he acted - the theological reflection comes later.

Finally, faith breaks rules of restraint. In each of these Gospels, the main figures who come to faith are outcasts, at least to some degree. They are people on the margins, living irregular lives: a woman Samaritan with too many husbands; a beggar who cannot see but who in the end sees everything clearly (even the deep things of God) while those who claim to see are blind; today, we heard about two Jewish sisters living in a household without mention of husbands or children, a household Jesus chose to visit, which was surely an unusual household at the time.

In each of these Gospels, there is ritual defilement: taking water from a Samaritan, healing on the Sabbath, having contact with a corpse. The call to Faith crosses boundaries, boundaries of all sorts. We are Catholic - a word which means universal, which includes everyone. The Gospels make abundantly clear that the Lord of Lords and King of Kings freely mixes with the folks on the margins - on the margins of the economy, on the margins because of ill health, on the margins because of their sexual history, on the margins because of their domestic situation - and the Lord purposely calls them, us, and gets a better response from these marginal folks than he does from those who are comfortably in the center of things.

If anyone here feels unworthy, good. For no one is worthy. If anyone here is marginal, on the fringe, believes he is invisible to society or church, or feels that she is on the outside looking in, good. Know that it is just such persons that Jesus calls in the Gospels. “Come to me” Jesus says, “come to me.” This Lent, may we hear the call, for the call is addressed to us.

If......what if...........

2011-01-05T10:54:00.000-08:00

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am not for others, what am I?
And if not now, when?
Rabbi Hillel
Jewish scholar & theologian (30 BC - 9 AD)

Kudos to Andrew Sullivan on DADT

2010-12-16T11:01:00.000-08:00

The following extended quotation is from today's Andrew Sullivan's blog: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/He hits the nail on the head about why the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is morally necessary.

"We ask young men and women to go into the line of chaos, hatred and murder in order to keep us safe. Many have gone places and seen things and done things this past decade few of us will ever understand, or be able to appreciate. They have lived with the stress of war and constant deployments that their predecessors never had to cope with. They have encountered enemies prepared to violate every rule of war, to hide among civilians, to exploit the accidental deaths of children and women, and to implement barbaric rule wherever they get a chance to hang their medieval hats.

These men and women deserve our support. Period. All of them. It's inconceivable that in wartime, we should be making any discriminatory exceptions among those who fight for us, that we should honor any of them less than the rest, allow any criterion or characteristic to distract from the simple fact that they are American servicemembers - not gay or straight ones or black or Hispanic or white ones, not male and female ones, but Americans, in the US uniform, whose identity as soldiers begins and ends there.

Some see the end of DADT as some kind of special gesture to a minority. I think they are beyond wrong. This is about moving past the notion of a minority, to a more perfect union, in which nothing irrelevant prevents a man or woman from serving his or her country. It is about attacking the endurance of the gay-straight division and replacing it with the unifying fibre of honor and patriotism. It's about gay Americans being able, finally, in some deep way known only to those who have previously been excluded from military service, to become merely Americans.

Let us lose that qualifying adjective in the service of something greater than ourselves. E pluribus unum."

Folks, you gotta read this........gay and homeless

2010-12-11T09:26:00.000-08:00

The following cite to an LA Times article is heartbreaking. Homophobia and fractured families are having a desperate effect.......

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-homeless-20101212,0,4425366.story?page=1

When I don't pay attention, things get boring .......

2010-11-06T14:22:00.000-07:00

I am still in the land of sun. The locals complain now of occasional rains (what my Irish relatives would simply call "a bit of a mist") and cold (temperatures that would pass for summer in some parts of the country). I find it all fantastic. We all do complain, don't we? Some more than others. Me, more than most. I am trying to change that.

In the schedule of presentations and classes that I am attending, I am embarrassed to say that my initial reaction on seeing the topic or the speaker is almost always to groan, complain inwardly that it is not going to be good, think that I could give as good a presentation off-the-cuff, and wonder if I should play hooky. Fortunately, for this one sabbatical season I've had the good sense to keep my mouth shut. Every single presentation and class has been good, even stellar. There has not been a dud yet. All are worth the time. So my initial evaluation - based on nearly no information - was far off, judgmental, hyper critical, and very, very, wrong. I'm trying to learn from this.

Was I always this negative? Perhaps. And sometimes I've had good reason. I have endured countless hours of tedium, struggling to stay awake during boring homilies, tedious classes, and simplistic programs. Somewhere along the line, I fell into the habit of assuming that all such events were going to be boring, tedious, and simplistic. But of course they are not. However, my pre-conceived ideas made even the best of them seem less than they were. When I expect boring stuff, I don't listen well. When I don't listen well, I miss the subtleties and maybe more, and when I miss half the content, of course I will be bored, find the presentation insipid, and be disappointed.

If this pattern held true only for formal presentations, it would be bad enough. But I must confess that I am coming to conclude that it is a general pattern. In so much of my life I assume the negative, or at least the mediocre. I decide that I know what it is about before it happens. I form conclusions about people I haven't yet met. I prevent myself from being surprised. I set myself up for judgment and disappointment. I expect disappointment, I want perfection, see only reality, and then complain that the real, is, well, really what exists.

I am trying to do some serious shifting of my mental map while on sabbatical. It is hard going. And it is difficult to describe. I find that there is a deep well that needs to be re-dug. I'm digging like crazy. I'm trying to throw out lots of stuff: unhelpful voices in my head from childhood, bullies whose names I remember, patterns that are not useful, thoughts that suck out any possibility of joy, and other muck. I'm trying to make sure I keep the good stuff, and use it to build into the future, wherever that is and whatever I will be doing. And that is the really interesting issue, isn't it? It is a blessed time, a time full of anxiety and possibility. It is not an easy time.

The sabbath time is short, the day is far spent, and in the words of the never satisfied St. Francis: "Let us begin again, for up to now we have done nothing."

"You have to go the way your blood beats........"

2010-09-23T22:21:00.000-07:00

"You have to go the way your blood beats. If you don't live the only life you have, you won't live some other life, you won't live any life at all." James Baldwin

That quotation ends the movie Dirty Laundry, that I just saw this evening. It is a fine film that deals with the questions in a gay man's life when he finds that he has a son, and returns to his family of origin. Quite a good film.

A priest, a hurting community and a hurtful pope.

2010-09-23T10:39:00.000-07:00

The always interesting and erudite blog Queering the Church -http://queering-the-church.com/blog/ - today quotes Fr. Bernard Lynch on why he protested during the pope's recent visit to Britain. I recommend you read it.

It's about people, damnit.

2010-09-22T10:33:00.000-07:00

The procedural vote yesterday in the US Senate split along party lines, with three Democrats and all Republicans voting on the wrong side (one Democrat doing so as a parliamentary tactic). It is clear to me that the the two sides on this and related debates think in different paradigms about this and other issues.

The proponents of DADT think it is about acts, and theirs is a behavior based paradigm. The opponents of DADT think it is about people, and ours is a personal based paradigm. The former are worried about actions being done, and see the root of morality and propriety as being based on good or bad actions, which are to some degree arbitrarily assigned to categories as "good" and "bad." The latter see persons as good, and see actions that they believe will bring about the flourishing of persons as intrinsically good.

Senators, voters, and curial officials are often obsessed with acts, and speak of them as if they were somehow disembodied from the persons who "commit" the acts. Others, more enlightened and focussing on the dignity of the human person, see the goodness of enfleshed real people, and then the moral and political question is what will bring the people to flourish and thrive.

This division of thought has lots of implications for both politics, church polity, and theology. In politics, gay rights is either an effort to legalize behaviors, or a recognition of people's rights. In church polity, it is either about a category of behaviors called sinful or it is about people who need to be met pastorally as they are. In theology, our effort to understand in faith what God is doing is either mired in drawing lines of good and bad behavior, or it starts from the human person in his/her fullness as a priori and works from there. (And this is manifestly different from saying that all actions are moral or should be licit.)

How you frame the question will determine in large measure the answers you get. We must resist talking about actions, as if that is the locus of the question. It is about people, real people, who are trying to live their lives as best they can. In the context of DADT, it is about real service men and women. In the context of the marriage debates, it is about real couples who are trying to form life-giving unions and to stand in the midst of society and church as adults who love other adults. In the adoption controversies it is about real children who desperately need loving and stable homes.

Landing on my feet, or on my knees, or......

2010-09-20T20:38:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm now in the land of blue skies and sun, having begun a 12 week sabbatical program for priests. There are about a dozen and a half of us, both diocesan and religious. We are a congenial bunch, though the newness of things has not yet worn off. At some point, we will run out of introductory conversations (where are you from, what have you done, why are you on sabbatical), and who knows what we will talk about after that. This is a "light" program that includes about 10 hours of classroom time a week, and plenty of time to pray, reflect, think, and explore the local area. Perhaps by the end of the 12 weeks I'll be tired of the slow pace of things, but right now I'm enjoying myself. After a few weeks of constant motion to get here, it is nice not to have to pack and unpack every day or so. My time driving here was unstructured, and it seemed by the end of it, that I was longing for more structure. So this right now seems to be the perfect place for me to be.

The hermitage retreats that broke up the trip were wonderful, and truly grace-filled. I slowed down and calmed down. My anger at how I've been treated has lifted, but I have come to the conclusion that I am the victim in an abusive relationship with my order. What to do about that realization I haven't a clue. I am thinking of this in just the same terms I would think about an abusive marital relationship of someone who came to me for counsel. What are the costs of staying? What are the costs of leaving? What is the likelihood of the situation changing if I stay? Can I deal with it if I stay? Should I deal with it? Can I deal with leaving?

These serious questions of my life are always present, but are not immediate. I am letting them rest for now. I do realize that if I had it to do over again, I would not become a friar and priest. That would be my choice, and given the changes in the Church and my order, and the 2005 ban on gay seminarians, it would also be the choice of the Church, or at least any part of the Church that is willing to enforce the ban. But neither I, nor the Church nor my religious order have it to do over again. So where do I go from here? I honestly don't know.

Short of winning the lottery (and you have to play to win and I seldom play), I don't know that I have any real alternative. I have not a penny to my name, and would leave without any savings or wherewithal, and be just a couple of years shy of normal retirement age. And I don't really want to leave. Not now. But I'm not sure I want to stay either.

When I daydream, the life that I conjure up for myself usually involves being in a low impact ministry of counseling, spiritual direction and perhaps writing. It involves a lot of solitude, reading and prayerful reflection, but enough activity to avoid becoming self-centered. It does not involve administration, dealing with scores of people on committees, or living in houses with other people. I met a "retired" priest recently, who lives alone, does as much help-out ministry as he wants, and generally keeps pretty busy at it. That is a life I could lead. But could I make it happen? How?

Blogging hiatus over.

2010-09-08T09:37:00.000-07:00

My friends, I apologize for the long hiatus in posting. I tried several times to write about what was going on in my life, but never found the right tone and words. If I had posted prematurely, it would have been too passionate, too unreflective. It may have given facts, but would not have illuminated.

The short summary is this: I was fired from my job, to which I had given my all, and at which I thought I was doing well. And I was fired summarily, without even any explanation, at first. Now, to be fair, I must say that the powers-that-be protest that I wasn’t fired, because they did offer me another job which came with lots of responsibility and no little prestige and challenge. But that was the sugar coating on a bitter pill. I had no choice but to swallow the pill and leave the job that I thought was the best in the world despite its frustrations. But I rejected the sugar coating, which I thought - and still think - would have only led to disaster for me and for the parish they asked me to pastor. So I begged instead for a sabbatical, and my begging was successful. I am terribly grateful that I have this opportunity. The irony is that I am grateful to the same powers-that-be who fired me. Such are the ironies of life.

As time has passed from the mid-July firing, to the mid-August leaving of the job, I was informed bit by bit of the reasoning for the decision. Parts of that I accept, parts I do not. I was depressed and angry, I fully admit. And now it seems that my moods were having an effect on the house that I did not recognize, and that no one talked to me about. However, I think that these were exaggerated. When I think of some of the nincompoops who over the years have been allowed to do incredible harm, I can't believe that I was fired for this, without warning. I believe that I was treated shabbily, in a way that no secular organization would likely do, if only for the fear of a lawsuit. I found that there had been a good deal of backbiting and lack of candor, perhaps outright dishonesty, directed at me. I discovered that one person who I thought had been a good friend basically sold me away, and I am still trying to cope with that. My reactions were strong and intense, perhaps too much so. Another good friend has spent hours and hours with me, in person and by phone, helping me to pick my way through the morass of facts and emotions. To him, I am eternally grateful.

It is not all anybody’s fault. Not the powers-that-be, not the game players, and not mine. However, I am growing in my awareness of just how myopic I had become, just how tense I was without even realizing it, and how this was affecting others negatively. I truly regret the latter. I had no idea. I do wish I had been given a chance to address the real issues and to correct my attitude and behavior before it came to this. But I was not given that chance.

Well, all that is past. I bear the wounds, but they are healing.

As I write, I am sitting in a Rocky mountain hermitage, where I have been for six days. The sun has just set, and the shadows are deepening. The wildflowers - black eyed Susans mostly, are bouncing in the rustle of a gentle breeze. Pale greens grow darker, dark greens become nearly purple, white white clouds become gray in the darkening sky. The western horizon is now a peachy color, and in the east, the crest of the fourteen thousand foot mountains heads toward inky blue-black. Soon, the mountains will disappear. Soon, all that will exist are the occasional calls of the coyotes. Evening comes, morning will follow, the seventh day of my time here. There is something wonderfully heartening and restful about living this close to nature, when the sunrise and the sunset provide the drama of the day, when the sun and the stars mark the progress of time. How different this is from my ordinary life, where nature is an afterthought, and the drama and crises of the day are manufactured by others and by my own overheated mind. Here, breathing in and out means something, rhythmic and life giving, there, it was just the panting of a harried soul that missed the forest for the trees, and missed the trees for the tiny office, and who had little appreciation of the effect all this had on him, or that he had on others. So after the constriction, expansiveness. After the pain, life is good. Praise God.

For the next several months, I will be traveling, and trying to sort out my thoughts and emotions. What will the future bring? I don't know. I just don't know.

Why not be mad?

2010-08-11T21:40:00.000-07:00

Why Should Not Old Men Be Mad?

by William Butler Yeats
(1865-1939)

Why should not old men be mad?
Some have known a likely lad
That had a sound fly-fisher's wrist
Turn to a drunken journalist;
A girl that knew all Dante once
Live to bear children to a dunce;
A Helen of social welfare dream,
Climb on a wagonette to scream.
Some think it a matter of course that chance
Should starve good men and bad advance,
That if their neighbours figured plain,
As though upon a lighted screen,
No single story would they find
Of an unbroken happy mind,
A finish worthy of the start.
Young men know nothing of this sort,
Observant old men know it well;
And when they know what old books tell
And that no better can be had,
Know why an old man should be mad.

Legal reasoning part II

2010-08-08T19:54:00.001-07:00

I love legal reasoning, no smoke and mirrors here.

2010-08-08T19:53:00.000-07:00

Oh happy day!

2010-08-04T21:32:00.000-07:00

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional," – Judge Vaughn Walker.

For more quotes from various figures on this ruling, see the ever entertaining and provocative blog of Andrew Sullivan.

I am not sure how I'd articulate a Catholic theological case favoring gay marriage, though in my gut I think it can and should be done. But it is very clear to me that there is no US Constitutional case to be made for opposing gay civil marriage. In Catholic theology, procreation is one of the "goods" (i.e. good ends) of marriage. For that reason, in Catholic canon law, a person who is completely incapable of sexual intercourse is forbidden to marry, for example. Now, that flies in the face of Catholic willingness to marry the very old, or persons who are otherwise unlikely or even cannot have children. But the capability for the act of heterosexual intercourse is required for marriage in the Church. But all this is beside the point civilly. There is no requirement in civil law of fertility, of potency, or of desire to have children. In civil law, the only thing necessary is that the couple not be currently married to anyone else, be of sound mind and capable of contracting marriage (age restrictions exist to prevent persons who are not yet mature of mind to make such a commitment). Given all this, there seems to be no reason why two adult persons of any gender combination should be prevented from legally marrying.

Of course, tomorrow's news will bring stories of outraged bishops. Church officials will pronounce doom, and will argue on theological grounds why same sex marriage is wrong. They will invoke natural law theory, which frankly, exists only in a theological context, or exists by a hairs breath outside of theology. But the fact is that they are wrong. The wagging mitres are just dead wrong. And worse, they hurt and oppress people in their obstinacy. They read only themselves, consider only the opinions that they already agree with, and then try to play political hardball. Fortunately for those who seek to legalize long term unions, the bishops are rather bad lately in playing hardball.

A non-Christian who believes in Christ?

2010-07-31T04:31:00.000-07:00

I'm doing OK, and will tell more of what's been happening to me later today or tomorrow. Right now, I just want to post a link to this: http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/30/anne-rice-leaves-christianity/?hpt=Sbin In the name of Christ, Anne Rice has left Christianity. This is interesting on several levels. She appeals to conscience, which the Catholic Church regards as supreme (although with the stipulations that one is obliged to seek the truth sincerely, and to seek to form one's conscience correctly, with the mind of the Church). Rice, perhaps unknowingly, says something similar to one of the points made by the Vatican Council II document Gaudium et spes (Joy and Hope) which says in section 19:

"For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion."

Rice is, of course, no atheist. She is a believer, and a serious one at that. She simply is rejecting the institutions. This is a non-western sensibility, not a western one, which tends to regard beliefs as part of the institutional apparatus and the institutions as essential to preservation of beliefs, at least correct beliefs.

It will be interesting to see how her thought develops. There is a communitarian dimension to Christianity in all its forms. The lone believer, isolated from a community of faith, often slips toward unbelief. But must the community of faith be an organization? In the digital world, cyber communities abound. These are fluid, often temporary, and without clear borders or criteria for membership. Do these, in our age, comprise a community of faith?

Will the center hold?

2010-07-28T19:02:00.001-07:00

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/breaking-news-the-vatican-is-supergay.html

The one thing I thought I had......

2010-07-20T05:16:00.000-07:00

The one thing that I thought I had, and would always have to the end, was that I was the guy who could take it. I could deal with it, whatever it was. I could do the job and do it well. If I didn't have the love of others, well, at least I had their respect. I was the competent guy.

No more. The powers that be, who fired me from this job, are falling all over themselves to tell me how competent and valuable I am, how skilled I am. Cold comfort and empty words right now.

So what's left? I don't know. I honestly don't know.

I've been fired!

2010-07-19T19:58:00.000-07:00

I've been fired. Details later. But the dream job that I have will no longer be mine. And I am hurt and pissed. I do see some rationale to the decision, but I am hurting bad right now.

I've given everything I had, and it has been found wanting.

The decision had nothing to do with being gay, with criticizing the bishops or anything like that, I'm told.

Somehow, there is grace in this, I suppose. There has to be. But right now it seems to be very well hidden. To those of you who pray, please pray for me. Right now, my life sucks. Big time.

More tomorrow.

Choices.......

2010-07-10T22:33:00.000-07:00

A new set of leaders has come to my community, or at least, a set of leaders that have been reshuffled, with the old provincial moved out by term limits, and an unexpected man elected to be his successor. The council contains both old and new blood. I find it interesting that many religious communities in the Church have been electing their leadership at least since the middle ages, when societies were still governed by kings who inherited their positions, and by others who won the job on the battlefield. Of course, some monasteries were hard pressed to not elect one or another noble, but that has never been the case for the rest of us, thanks be to God. Once a leader goes out of office, for us, he returns to the hoi polloi and is as assignable as anyone else. I think that fact tempers our leaders, who know that they may try to be high and mighty during their terms, but that there is a day when they will not be so. And even the "high and mighty" language is foreign to our tradition, where our leaders are to serve, and cannot be called "prior" or "abbot" or any title other than "minister" or "guardian." St. Francis was a wise man.

And so we chose a new man, and a new group of advisors. I, for one, am not sure what is on their minds. I can "profile" their spiritual and psychological character, but I cannot predict their program or concrete ideas of where they will take us, or what they think of any of us and our fitness for this or that job or place of residency.

To their credit, they are not assuming that they know everything. Instead of making new appointments quickly, they are taking their time. Instead of relying of whatever has been gleaned from the past, they are visiting every house, asking to talk to every friar, and asking him questions. There are four questions. Among them are: how is your house functioning, what should we know about the house and its ministries, what do you think we should know about you personally, and when your present ministry is done, what do you envision yourself doing. In the abstract, I find this whole process to be laudable. It needs doing. Men need to be heard. We need to be listened to with sincerity and honesty. And we need to be led.

But I am also stumped by the last two questions. Taking the last first, I confess that I have no idea what I want to do, where I want to be assigned, after my present assignment. And I don't even know if my unknowingness is a virtuous docility, or a vicious lack of vision. I just don't know.

And what should I tell them about myself? In Catholic tradition there is a wonderfully practical distinction between "inner forum" and "outer forum." In the latter, information may be used and shared and acted upon. In the former - as in confession but also in spiritual direction and spiritual conversations - the information may not be shared, ever. It is secret, private, and what is spoken of cannot ever be acted upon by the listener for any reason, even in the most extreme circumstances.

The invitation to tell the powers that now be what I wish them to know about me raises interesting issues. I could keep the conversation banal. I could share only what will impress, only what will be to my advantage. Or I can be honest, really honest, about my struggles and fears and hopes and failings. But if I do, such information can be used and acted upon.

So I do not know, right now, what I will do. And I probably will not know until I do it, when my time slot opens, and I sit down and talk. What a choice! On the other hand, praise God for listening ears, for the ability to speak, for leadership that appears to care, and for a mission for Christ to the Order and the world.

OH WHAT A MESS!

2010-07-02T06:48:00.000-07:00

The NY Times has another article on the Vatican and the abuse crisis in the Church. Surprisingly, the English speaking bishops come off rather well. But the Vatican is revealed to be a swamp of incompetence. The article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/world/europe/02pope.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all

Where is my voice?

2010-06-20T06:32:00.000-07:00

I've not posted in a month. So much has happened in that time in my life and in the life of the country. It has seemed overwhelming, and I have not been able to articulate my thoughts well enough to blog. However, I have been able to comment in other blogs from time to time. This is easier than developing a post here, for a comment left on a blog is simply a reaction to someone else's thoughts rather than the exercise in real creativity that an actual post requires. Two of the comments I have left recently are quoted below.

From http://farmboyz.blogspot.com/2010/06/feathering-of-empty-nest.html#comments. "Dreadful, like the scent of carnations, is the possibility that you'll take a path into lifelong rambles." That is an exquisite sentence. So many of us, driven by the hormones of youth, began to see our meaning in the meetings in the Rambles, and the bars, and the piers and trucks, and other places of dalliance. We didn't know or care to know that it could stunt our growth. Stunt us spiritually and psychically if we survive, kill us if in those days we picked up the wrong guy, or the wrong virus.

With age wisdom may come. Life is to be lived by making an investment in something worth the investment. Investing in things is rarely worthwhile. Investing in a noble cause is sometimes worthwhile. Investing in people is always worthwhile, even if the particular persons prove themselves unworthy. And children are one way - maybe the main way - we invest in people, in the future.

Curving inward by investing in our own self, rarely pays off. Chasing our own pleasure directly is most often a recipe for unhappiness. Giving ourselves to someone, or maybe to something, is what pays the dividends, and when the curtain of death shrouds us, is the measure of our lives.

From https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2850096231666604&postID=7440379026963250763 The financial situation of a priest - whether diocesan or religious - is a means of control. Priests are generally well provided for. We don't have to worry about being fired if we toe the line. We have a place to live, food, and an income that is not large but which is sufficient. But we are dependent. If, like Fr. Geoff, we create a fuss or act in conscience against the wishes of the bishop or religious superior in a significant matter, all the security we have will be stripped away from us.

How many priests would leave if they could? I don't know, but there must be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, in the US. Becoming a priest is, of course, a decision of faith that has perpetual consequences spiritually and ontologically. Priesthood is forever.

However, must active ministry be forever? And if there is a departure from active ministry, whether initiated by the priest or by his bishop or religious superior, the priest (or religious lay brother or sister, ought to be financially secure. This doesn't require much, really, when compared to corporate standards. Just give the priest, brother or sister, lifetime health insurance coverage, a pension if he is of retirement age, assistance with transitions, job training if he needs it, and for heaven's sake do not take actions that keep him from getting a job - even a job with the Church if it comes to that.

But in the Church, these are radical suggestions because they strike at the heart of the institutional control upon which bishops depend. Priests are pawns, moved at the will of the bishop, kept tethered by the bishop's purse strings, and cowed into submission. Do you want to know what a priest really thinks? You are unlikely to find out. Priests have been trained to be circumspect, and to hide their own opinions in order to be voices for the Church.

Another thoughtful article on the Church's predicament.

2010-05-11T20:42:00.001-07:00

See the America Magazine's hopeful piece: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2871

A nice shot of Viennese courage

2010-05-10T13:47:00.000-07:00

I am generally not among those who are optimistic about the possibility of reform in the Church. The institution moves as a glacially slow pace, even as the general pace of social change in the world becomes more and more rapid. However, even glaciers melt, and large chunks sometimes break off. The cardinal-archbishop of Vienna has said publicly what would have been unthinkable even a year ago. And in doing so, he has aimed his gun at a retired, but still very powerful, cardinal and the entire Roman curia. This is, if not unheard of, at least not the sort of thing that happens often.

See: http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/14678

Another fascinating article on the Schonborn is contained in the always interesting and erudite Queering the Church blog: http://queering-the-church.com/blog/?p=7822#more-7822

Understanding is a Biblical value.

2010-04-25T19:19:00.000-07:00

I came across this wonderful clip tonight on the blog of Carol Boltz, http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/ Boltz is the former wife of Christian musician Ray Boltz, who came out after many years of marriage. Her blog is a plea for honesty and understanding, and is well worth reading in its own right.

Tony Campolo is a Baptist minister who has been very active in evangelical circles for many years. Some may remember that he was one of the handpicked counselors of President Clinton after his wayward behavior became public knowledge. I remember him from decades ago, when he was a lecturer in sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, where he was very popular with students at that then very secular and anti-religious school.

If you wanted to ask the pope a question.....

2010-04-19T05:08:00.000-07:00

The following is from Rocco Palmo's www.whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com, where he reports on a question and answer session arranged during the pope's visit to Malta. The young man who asked the question certainly has balls, stated in a most genteel way, of course. Palmo indicates that the answer may be more, but where his link takes you, is generally a big non sequitur.

"The exchange began with one young man whose powerfully-worded question spoke for no shortage of folks not just in Malta, but well beyond in these days:

I wish to speak on behalf of those young people who, like me feel they are on the outskirts of the Church. We are the ones who do not fit comfortably into stereo-typed roles. This is due to various factors among them: either because we have experienced substance abuse; or because we are experiencing the misfortune of broken or dysfunctional families; or because we are of a different sexual orientation; among us are also our immigrant brothers and sisters, all of us in some way or another have encountered experiences that have estranged us from the Church. Other Catholics put us all in one basket. For them we are those “who claim to believe yet do not live up to the commitment of faith.” To us, faith is a confusing reality and this causes us great suffering. We feel that not even the Church herself recognizes our worth. One of our deepest wounds stems from the fact that although the political forces are prepared to realize our desire for integration, the Church community still considers us to be a problem. It seems almost as if we are less readily accepted and treated with dignity by the Christian community than we are by all other members of society. We understand that our way of life puts the Church in an ambiguous position, yet we feel that we should be treated with more compassion – without being judged and with more love.

We are made to feel that we are living in error. This lack of comprehension on the part of other Christians causes us to entertain grave doubts, not only with regards to community life, but also regarding our personal relationship with God. How can we believe that God accepts us unconditionally when his own people reject us?

Your Holiness, we wish to tell you that on a personal level – and some of us, even in our respective communities – are persevering to find ways in which we may remain united in Jesus, who we consider to be our salvation.

However, it is not that easy for us to proclaim God as our Father, a God who responds to all those who love him without prejudice. It is a contradiction in terms when we bless God’s Holy Name, whilst those around us make us feel that we are worth nothing to him.

We feel emarginated, almost as if we had not been invited to the banquet. God has called to him all those who are in the squares and in the towns, those who are on the wayside and in the country side, however we feel he has bypassed our streets. Your Holiness, please tell us what exactly is Jesus’ call for us. We wish you to show to us and the rest of the Church just how valid is our faith, and whether our prayers are also heard. We too wish to give our contribution to the Catholic community.

Your Holiness, what must we do?

Again, here's the answer... questions fulltext to come."

Priests and bishops slap cardinal.

2010-04-15T19:01:00.000-07:00

Fr. Edward Beck, a member of the Passionist religious community, takes aim at Cardinal Bertone's absurd, ignorant and insulting public comments that attempted to link homosexuality and pedophilia. See http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Spirituality/gay-priests-problem/story?id=10381964&page=1 I have to say, that perhaps people like Bertone are actually working for the good side, because they are keeping the pot boiling. The bishops' conference of England and Wales has repudiated his remarks http://catinfor.com/en/2010/04/14/british-bishops-deplore-bertone-view/. This sort of open opposition to what a curial cardinal says is nearly unprecedented in recent centuries. It reveals that the local bishops, who are closer to the people and more in tune with the cultures, are more likely to "get it." Curial officials, in the rarified rooms of the Vatican, don't have a clue.

And the responsible party is...............

2010-04-14T06:49:00.000-07:00

Vatican officials seem intent on finding other people to blame. Blame the gays! Blame the Jews! Blame the press! Blame the bigots! One Spanish bishop even seemed to blame the youth. What I don't see is any evidence of a very old and very important Catholic practice: examination of one's own conscience, and examination of social sin. And then admit and confess one's own sins, not the alleged sins of others, and do not detract, calumnize or gossip about the real, imagined, or presumed faults of others. http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/14/vatican.homosexuality.pedophilia/index.html?hpt=T2

Who gets scarlet? On how to stop the nonsense in the Catholic Church.

2010-04-13T09:11:00.000-07:00

"Few die and none resign," Thomas Jefferson is said to have complained about John Adams' appointees to the federal judiciary. The Church has a similar problem. But there is a solution, if the pope really wants a solution.
There are rumors that there will almost certainly be a consistory later this year. If the pope wishes, he can make his points very emphatically. First, immediately elevate to Cardinals only those bishops who have been rare and exemplary in word and deed in leading the charge for reform, and who have escaped the usual insular church talk. Begin with Diarmuid Martin in Dublin and Thomas Collins in Toronto. And if he can't find courageous and outspoken bishops in the usual places, then make cardinals of bishops from small, obscure dioceses. This will wake up the power structure.
And the second action is like it: make ten women cardinals. A cardinal is not necessarily an office that requires Holy Orders. There would need to be a simple dispensation from the rule that Cardinals are ordained bishops, but this may easily be done. So find ten women in a Church of over one billion members, ten women who are honest and true, educated and articulate and faithful, from all parts of the globe.
Benedict has the chance now to do it. Does he have the courage? Or is all this talk of seriously addressing these issues just talk?

A program of action on the sex abuse scandals - what ordinary Catholics can do.

2010-04-08T08:29:00.000-07:00

Those who are outraged need to write, write, write! Write to the bishops. Write to Vatican bureaucrats. Write to the nuncio. Write to the pope. If you have observed abuses of any sort, and the effects of abuses and most of all the effects of ineffectual leadership, write all this down in detail. Bury Rome and your local chancery with paper. Make them understand that Catholics in the pew are outraged.

And then, keep your wallet closed. Especially keep it closed for national collections and Peter's Pence. Much of this money goes to charities, but for a time, this is the only way you will be heard. Write out checks instead to specific charities that you support. Collections need to plummet.

Finally, note that in most dioceses there is an "October count" of people who actually go to Sunday Masses. If your conscience allows it, consider not showing up on those Sundays. Let the diocesan tabulations show plummeted attendance. If there is a parish in your area where the priests are outspoken and honest on this issue, go there instead in October.
We need to raise the roof. And especially if you are clergy, remember this: at the cost of our souls, we must fear God and his judgment. Secondarily, we are to respect and obey the diocesan bishop, but we cannot allow ourselves to fear him.

Truth hurts

2010-04-05T15:53:00.000-07:00

Roland Martin has a hard hitting column at the following link. The press is pushing back, rightly, to challenge the nonsense that reporting on, and even attacking, those who aid and abet child abuse is somehow prejudice or "mere gossip." Does Cardinal Sodano realize that his paen of praise for the pope is at least partly responsible for eliciting reactions such as these? http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/05/martin.church.sex.abuse/index.html?hpt=C2

So true............

2010-04-05T15:49:00.001-07:00

Notes for a Holy Thursday homily

2010-04-02T15:58:00.001-07:00

1. The rubrical instruction to the preacher for this Mass is that he should “explain” the principle mysteries that we celebrate tonight: Eucharist, priesthood, and the command that we serve one another. I want to know who writes these things, and what preacher they had in mind. For these truths are mysteries and can only haltingly and inadequately be approached.

And so tonight, having set the task high and expectations low, allow me to comment on these mysteries.

2. Eucharist – is a gift to the church whose very name means ‘thanksgiving.’ Jesus’ last meal becomes our first meal, the meal at which he gives us his body and his blood, to feed on. For his body is real food, and his blood is real drink. And he who does not eat of this food and drink of this blood has no life. But we, who receive this gift – who “receive” and never “take” the gift – have life within us.

This life sustains us. Natural food, such as our dinner this evening, is transformed into us. This spiritual food is different. For when we receive it, we are transformed into it – we are transformed into lights of Christ in the world. We are transformed and configured more closely to Christ, if we allow the grace of this sacrament to penetrate the darkness of our hearts. If we do not allow it to do so, it remains ineffective, for the poor and humble Christ who comes to us in the form of bread and wine is so gentle, so meek, so unwilling to force us, that he yields to us even as he comes to us in this sacrament.

Our meal together calls us to bow down and worship. Our meal together calls us to see with the eyes of faith, the inner truth of Christ’s body and blood. We eat here, so that we may be sustained by this sacramental presence, that we may be divinized, that we may be prepared to join him in bodily presence at the eternal banquet.

3. “Do this in memory of me.” These words were first spoken as Jesus created the first priests - priests who are - or should be - servants of the sacraments, servants of this sacrament particularly, and servants of all God’s people. Priests have received this gift from God through orders to be Christ-bearers, to bring Christ to the members of the Body of Christ, to bring Christ in Holy Communion, in the Word proclaimed, and most astoundingly, in their own person. Conformed to Christ, priests are to be icons of Christ, within their own person windows who reveal something of the heavenly banquet.

For two millennia priests have come to altars much like this one to perpetuate the one sacrifice of Christ. The priest is a man hung between earth and heaven. The priest gathers the prayers of the community, leads the community in its address to heaven, raises the offerings of the community, praises and addresses God on behalf of the whole community, in a way that no one else can.

On the heavenly side, the priest acts in the person of Christ. He pronounces the words that make the difference, that change the substance, that transubstantiate the bread and the wine. The priest acts in the name of Jesus the High Priest, so that Jesus the High Priest consecrates simple wheat and wine into his body and his blood.

4. All Christians are servants, but the priesthood is uniquely an order of servants. The priest does this, not from any personal quality of his own, but because of the grace of ordination. Individually and personally, always, he is an unworthy servant. There is no question about it: no one is worthy of this call. That having been said, priests should in their weakness aspire to live a life worthy of our calling. And people expect this. They expect the priest will act in an exemplary manner, and never betray the trust which people place in him.

We do not live in a vacuum. We cannot think or preach about priesthood and servant priesthood this Triduum without mentioning the renewed attention being given to scandalous conduct, sometimes very old stories reprinted, and sometimes new messes for the Church to deal with.

The challenge in our era of priesthood is being played out in the media, in water cooler conversations, at Catholic dinner tables, in court rooms, and in the halls of chanceries and the Vatican. In our moment of history, the major failings seem to involve sexuality and forthrightness. In other historical periods it was greed – the accumulation of vast wealth, the buying and selling church possessions and access to the sacraments. In some other times the major failings were matters of acquiring temporal power: when clergy tried to obtain political power, to hobnob with the power elite and to become temporally powerful themselves. We are not immune to those other issues, of course, to politicking and favor currying, to careerism and soft living. But improper use of sexuality is the prevailing sin, it seems, in our generation.

In our time, it is often the poorest and the weakest who are the victims of sinning priests - priests who are supposed to serve, not to be served.

[ And I don’t know what to make of it. Frankly. And I am shamed and appalled by the priest who abuses the young and vulnerable -- and by those who deny or hide the crimes, or who attack those who attack us. Better to turn the other cheek, I think, than to do anything else. I am inclined to agree with one bishop, who said at his Chrism Mass earlier in the week:

“We should be grateful for the attention which the media devotes to the sins of Catholic clergy, even if constant repetition may give the false impression that Catholic clergy are particularly sinful. That attention is a profound tribute to the priesthood .... People instinctively expect holiness in a Catholic priest, and are especially appalled when he does evil.”]

We always have had and always will have, sinful priests. There have always been debates about what to do with them. For this reason, St. Francis told his followers to honor and respect every priest, even the worst of them, because he brings to us the most sacred and holy body and blood of the Lord. We will always have some bishops who do or say ill advised things, things that seem to reflect badly on the Church, which they strive to manage, rather than to inspire and lead. But the sins of these men will not change the truth of the Church, the body of Christ, the institution built on the preaching of the apostles, about the life, death and resurrection of the Lord.

Despite the human weakness of its clergy, in every generation the gospel is preached, babies are baptized, men and women are married, the poor are cared for, and the church adores God who is one and three,

As it has always done, and as it always will until the end of time. Through times of persecution from without, and through times of stupidity and cupidity from within, the good work of the Lord will be done. Things have been difficult, even desperate before.

When Peter’s little barque was sinking on the sea of Galilee, with Jesus and the apostles in it, Jesus saved.

When the Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, Jesus saved.

When clergy turned over the holy books to be burned by persecutors, and then when those same clerics wanted to return to the Church when the persecution was over, Jesus saved.

When avarice and political alliances distracted its ministers from the practice of the Gospel, Jesus saved.

It is always Jesus, Jesus, Jesus – not the bishops, not the priests, not the friars nor the nuns, not the lay faithful, not ever, it is never those groups who save, though all should have a role in the saving work of Jesus.

Jesus it is, he who gives us the priesthood, who gives us the Eucharist, who gives us the call to service. It is he who saves. He gives us these three great gifts -- given to us so that we might give them to others.

It is he in whom we live and move and have our being.

The NY Times coverage of the Murphy case from Milwaukee

2010-03-30T08:11:00.000-07:00

Rocco, at the ever interesting Whispers in the Loggia, http://www.whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/ has just published today a letter from a canon lawyer, Fr. Brundage, who presided at the trial of Fr. Murphy in Milwaukee. The canon lawyer finds that the New York Times' coverage of this case is wrong in a number of key facts. This post is well worth reading. It will be interesting if the Times issues a correction.

Rome, Milwaukee and abuse of the deaf.

2010-03-25T06:12:00.000-07:00

The plot thickens. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html

Ground down........

2010-03-19T08:40:00.000-07:00

We are in the midst of a string of beautiful days. Spring air on the skin has a different quality than air at any other time of the year. Spring air stirs the body to movement, to awareness of the moment, to the beauty that surrounds us. Students are tempted to cut classes, young men want to fall in love, older men talk softly or read poetry or play chess while sipping coffee in the sunlight. Ever hopeful gardeners begin to turn the soil and dream of weedless abundance, sweet tomatoes and tender greens unmolested, despite already gathering armies of bugs and blights. Spring air caresses pale winter limbs and promises something more, more than can ever come to be.

So why am I feeling ground down? This often happens, as the air warms and the days lengthen. The torpor of winter gives way to a feeling that I am unworthy of spring. I will waste its gifts. The lavish blue of the sky, the longer evenings, the very first hints of buds on bushes: these are all wasted on me. Nature gives me something each spring that I will not use, or at least that I will not use sufficiently and well. Though I dislike winter, it is my season, tailor made for me. Bleak and depressed, grey and forbidding, short and dark, these fit me. Any other time, and I see more clearly that I am out of sync. But most of all, I am out of sync with spring.

"Enjoy these days, nature beckons." And I reply falsely that I will. If spring promises too much, why should I not promise too much in response? Both spring and I know well: we will not last.

To support gay relationships is a result of my Catholicism...........

2010-03-13T17:44:00.000-08:00

Andrew Sullivan makes a poignant case for connecting the spirit of Catholicism and support for gay relationships. He did this in answer to a question at a recent appearance at Princeton University. Thanks to Russ at Blue Truck/Red State - http://bluetruckredstate.blogspot.com/ from whom I stole this.

Get those kids outta here......they might raise tough issues!

2010-03-12T08:14:00.000-08:00

The following is taken from http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/ That blog is associated with Commonwealth Magazine, a privately published magazine of generally liberal Catholic opinion.

I had been struggling with how to address the issue in Boulder, CO, and the DC gay marriages that are occurring this week. I'm still not ready to talk about the latter, but the Boulder situation is well presented here.

Archbishop Chaput: no Catholic education for the children of gay couples [UPDATED]

March 10, 2010, 2:12 pm

Posted by Grant Gallicho

As blogged by Paul Moses here, a Catholic school in Boulder, Colorado, has told a lesbian couple that their children cannot re-enroll next year. Yesterday, in a column posted to the Web site of the Archdiocese of Denver, Archbishop Charles Chaput tried to explain that decision.

First, Archbishop Chaput says that the children–one in preschool and the other in kindergarten–are not being sent packing immediately. They’ve been invited not to return next year. So there’s that. And: “the policy applies to all Archdiocese of Denver schools.” Now we know: the children of same-sex couples are not welcome in schools run by the Archdiocese of Denver.

[Update: The archbishop's spokeswoman Jeanette DeMelo has informed me that "The policy doesn’t apply exclusively to homosexual couples. He does say that parents are meant to be partners in faith. 'If parents don’t respect the belief of the Church or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult if not impossible.' That is what the school decision was nothing more, nothing less." I've put some follow-up questions to Ms. DeMelo, and will post her reply.]

Then, after a brief detour into the history of Catholic education and a reminder of the fact that Catholic parents “pay twice” to educate their children in Catholic schools (presumably the archbishop recognizes that all parents who send their kids to private school “pay twice”), Chaput acknowledges that Catholic schools admit the children of divorced parents (even non-Catholics). “These students are always welcome so long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions.” The archbishop does not explain how he or his Catholic-school administrators are supposed to verify that their students’ parents are tilting the right end of the scale. He continues: “The idea that Catholic schools should require support for Catholic teaching for admission and a serious effort from school families to live their Catholic identity faithfully, is reasonable and just.” Again, he does not define “serious effort.”

The Church never looks for reasons to turn anyone away from a Catholic education. But the Church can’t change her moral beliefs without undermining her mission and failing to serve the many families who believe in that mission. If Catholics take their faith seriously, they naturally follow the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals; otherwise they take themselves outside the believing community.

No one is confused about church teaching on marriage. (Some Catholics may, however, be lost as to why the seriousness with which they take their faith doesn’t always naturally lead to morally pure behavior.) What many Catholics find perplexing is the way some bishops translate that teaching into policy positions–both internal andexternal to the church.

Chaput acknowledges that the church does not teach that gays and lesbians are “bad,” or that “their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite.” (More loved by God?) But the church does teach against divorce and against sex outside of marriage. “The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ.” A curious observation, given that no one has reported that the parents of these kids had been lobbying the church to change its teachings.

Finally, Archbishop Chaput argues that this policy is really for everyone’s own good–parents and students alike. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the church, or live in open rejection of them, he writes, they don’t have a place in the Catholic school system. After all, how can Catholic schools fully teach the faith ”if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents”?

This is about more than hurt feelings of course. This is about the nature of the church’s educational mission. If the Archbishop of Denver truly believes that the children of parents who fail to adequately support church teaching cannot be educated at Catholic schools, then he has more explaining to do. To the children of parents who are divorced and remarried (without going through the annulment process–at which point the church needs to explain that process to the children of annulled marriages). To the children of parents who practice and even recommend birth control. To the children of non-Catholic parents–especially those who do not support the central dogmas of Catholicism, such as, say, the Incarnation. Is there no place in Catholic education for the children of those kinds of parents? Or is there no place for the children of gay couples? And if so, why doesn’t the archbishop want such children to encounter the truths of Catholic teaching? If it’s merely to avoid upsetting the children of straight, non-divorced, non-contracepting, non-racist, anti-torture, pro-life parents, then I’m afraid he’ll have to do better.

Addendum: This article is also cited - with an interesting series of comments - at the following website for a blog for the magazine America. America Magazine is a Jesuit run, very well read, Catholic publication. See http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=35042775-3048-741E-9635760699531062

So why pick on gays?

2010-02-25T12:25:00.000-08:00

I really do think that the hierarchy - and some politicians - cannot fathom the fact that gays are getting uppity. Everything in their background leads them to think that all people should be deferential. Everything in their background leads them to think that gay sex is sinful and that one hides one's sins. So they are shocked when even the mildest criticism - or truth telling - occurs. On another level, I think that they believe that gays are "good victims." In other words, they think think that they should be able to say anything they want or take any action they want against gays because gays cannot, and will not, protest. After all, isn't that the experience of so many of them? The school yard bullies were not challenged, the gays in seminaries were silent to the point of social invisibility, and gay parishioners sat dumbly in the pews and never asked for ministries for them. So why now are gays uppity, critical, and organized? It must seem very unfair to them that the rules are changing.

Besides, scapegoats are inherently useful. They deflect attention from other matters like why attendance is falling and bills are unpaid. They "explain" why less and less attention is being paid to increasingly shrill political positions of hierarchs. Scapegoats are useful to explain failures and to rally the troops. The absurd statements (e.g. "gays are a powerful political force;" "gays keep us from speaking;" "gays are quasi facist") are absurd on the face of them. But I really think they are believed by those who say them.

The only good gay is a ...............?

2010-02-23T19:09:00.000-08:00

About two weeks ago, Cardinal George of Chicago, the current leader of the United States Bishops Conference, publicly criticized and derided the work of New Ways Ministry http://www.newwaysministry.org/. New Ways describes itself as an organization seeking to work for justice for gays and lesbians in the Catholic Church. New Ways is headquartered in suburban Washington, DC. This was seen by some observers as part of George's efforts to make it clear to everyone that the bishops, and the bishops alone, speak officially on behalf of the Catholic Church. Personally, I also suspect that it was prompted by two other developments in the Washington, DC area. First, a group of gay and lesbian Catholics met in Washington in January to begin forming a group called "Catholics for Equality" that intends to work for equal treatment of gays and lesbians in the Church. http://www.bilerico.com/2010/01/catholics_for_equality.php Also, the Washington, DC gay marriage law will likely become effective in early March. The Archdiocese of Washington has already withdrawn from its 80 year commitment to the local foster care program, and has transferred its cases and personnel to a non-church entity. The archdiocese has threatened to cut all contractual relationships between Catholic Charities and the District of Columbia government, rather than to have to provide spousal benefits to same sex married couples who work for government funded, but church administered, charities in the district. It seems that the Church's reactions to the push for gay and lesbian civil rights is heating up in the DC area.

New Ways ministry is a private association of Catholics. Now, Catholic Canon Law permits the faithful to form groups and associations. New Ways Ministry, to my knowledge, has never claimed to speak officially on behalf of the Catholic Church or the bishops. Surely, there is no one in America who is so benighted or so confused on this issue as to think that the Catholic Church believes that homogenital actions are morally acceptable. No one is that uninformed. So why was the clarification necessary? I suspect that it is simply part of a campaign to silence all discussion in the Church about what the proper stance is toward gay and lesbian Catholics, and to push back against the tide of gay rights statutes and court cases. I suspect that, like the king of old who ordered that the tide stop, such efforts will fail laughably in the long run.

Increasingly, one has the impression that the bishops, speaking authoritatively, would wish that the issue would just go away, and that gay Catholics would just go away, or at least not be visible and vocal. It is the existence of others who disagree that the church increasingly finds disagreeable.

All this is made more interesting by Cardinal George's words today, when he addressed a gathering of Mormons at Brigham Young University. The text is supposed to be online, but I cannot get it to run on the BYU website. There is no mention of it on the Archdiocese of Chicago website. A Utah television station (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=9788813) excerpts George saying:

"The Cardinal spoke of unity in the fight against poverty and pornography, and standing for the right to life. He talked of the two faiths defending of religious freedom, which he says is not just freedom of worship.

"At stake is whether the religious word will be heard in the public square," he said.

The two faiths are also united against same-sex marriage. What he most regrets, he said, is the overt opposition.

"This happened in Proposition 8 in California ... [to] respond by thuggery, by quasi-fascist tactics [rather] than the common good, our whole society stands in great jeopardy," Cardinal George said. "Mormons and Catholics take pride on our citizenship as Americans and our legacy of service to the nation."

The students gave Cardinal George a standing ovation."

Now, let me be clear. I do not speak for the Catholic Church and he does. But "thuggery" and "quasi-facist" are not words of healing, nor are they fit descriptions of what went on during the Proposition 8 campaign and in its aftermath. Unless, of course, the more than occasional gay bashing by Catholics can also be called evidence of the Church's "thuggery" and "neo-facism." Of course, gay bashing Catholics don't speak for the church officially, only bishops do that.

It appears that one may be in bed with Mormons, whose baptism Catholics do not even recognize, and that's laudable, meet and proper. But being in bed with someone one loves and is committed to, and wanting a modicum of civil, not religious, legal protections as a couple, is a denial of "freedom of religion." The gay marriage issue is, after all, not a dispute about Catholic sacramental theology. It is a dispute about a civil contract.

It is a hard day to be gay and Catholic. Again.

Valentine's Day

2010-02-14T17:02:00.000-08:00

I haven't written much lately. Most of my thoughts have been reactive or inchoate. I have tried not to react too much to the provocations that life puts in my way, whether they be remote or near. It is just so exhausting to have one's emotions tugged by stupid cardinals (George) and fine editorials (The Tablet), or by the ebb and flow of ordinary life. So on Valentines Day, let me just say a few personal words.

When I was a school child, I already knew that this was the most awkward of days. I was not artistic as a child, and am still not artistic. (But I thought all gays were artistic! Another stereotype dashed!) So all the attempts in the world to cut doilies and to write cards neatly only resulted in a mess of glue and paper and smudges of crayon or ink. And even in the first, second and third grade, I knew that something was 'off.' I just had no interest in giving valentines. And getting them seemed too much to hope for. I couldn't have articulated who I wanted to give them to, or receive them from. I only knew that it was all beyond me. So I only gave Valentines when it was a required class project, and only received them when it was required by the teacher that everyone make a valentine for everyone in the class, so no one would be left out. Those teachers were well intended, but we all knew the truth. Hapless me, and my hapless friends, just wanted to get past this day and on to Washington's Birthday, with its stories of cherry trees felled, and honesty, and strength enough to throw a coin across the Rappahonnock River, and fights with Frenchmen and Indians and English. Now that was a holiday I could relate to.

In my college years and young adulthood, it just didn't seem part of the program to celebrate Valentine's Day. We were mostly waiters and bartenders and other service personnel in those years, and we were pressed into service to cover for others who had dates, real dates, or real spouses. The day was beside the point for us, and we were beside the point to even our friends. After all, if you've spent your year in hiding and subterfuge and denial, you can't exactly protest on Valentine's eve that you do have a real reason with a real person not to work that night.

Valentine's day in a house of celibates is interesting. Everyone is touched to some degree by a feeling of wistfulness, a feeling of being left out. At least in the houses where men are young enough to remember. I have lived in religious houses with the old and crusty. They weren't even aware that it was Valentine's Day (and equally outside of much else in popular culture). I remember once going from restaurant to restaurant with an aged group of priests, and only at the third place where the wait was hours long did someone ask in all innocence: "why are so many people out tonight?" How can you lead pastorally when you are so out of touch? How can you shepherd if you don't know where your sheep are? In my defense, I at least, knew that we'd be lucky to find a table at a greasy spoon on the 14th of February. But I was not consulted, being then still a mere youth in my 40s. Clerical years, like dog years, are different from ordinary counting. Only in a group of Catholic priests is the 50 year old called "the young one" (but that's another post entirely).

So this Valentine's Day is bittersweet. Human love and I have passed each other by. Usually that is OK. But tonight I wish the worlds's lovers well, and wonder what it would be like if I were to be among them.

DADT - in the military

2010-02-03T13:31:00.000-08:00

The Catholic Church has its own Don't Ask Don't Tell culture, which is not going away soon. But the US military's DADT is seeming to go the way of the dodo, which it should, quickly. This article from the New York Times is interesting, and the comments are even more interesting: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/opinion/03dowd.html

It's St. Sebastian Day

2010-01-20T09:20:00.000-08:00

Today in the Roman calendar it is the "optional memorial" of St. Sebastian. "Optional memorial" means that a Mass may or may not be said honoring him, depending on the whim of the priest. As I wrote in my first blog entry:

"St. Sebastian was converted while a member of the Praetorian Guard, and had apparently lived as a closeted Christian member of the guard for some time. He suffered arrows at the emperor's command only to survive long enough so that he could be dispatched by beating. His body was thrown into a latrine, and was later fished out by Christian friends who buried it.

St. Sebastian was much beloved in the ancient world, was the subject of veneration by St. Ambrose and the Milanese - Sebastian was born near Nimes in present-day France from Milanese parents. Sebastian was a favorite subject of painters in the medieval, renaissance and baroque eras. A causal search of internet images reveals both works of extraordinary artistic merit, and a clear homoerotic aspect to many of the artworks. Arguably, the artists worked out, and still are working out, their own religious and homosexual feelings and gay sensibilities in how they treated their subject. Sebastian is the patron of soldiers and athletes."

A Clarification of My Previous Post

2010-01-20T05:27:00.000-08:00

I responded to a comment submitted to the previous post as follows. I am putting this in a separate post so that it would be noticed by those who don't read the comments.

You are right to point out that the people in the pews - who are the Church too - really do not care whether their priests and religious order members are gay or straight. You are also right to point out that there have been gay popes, bishops, priests, brothers and sisters. There is no question about that. You are also right to point out that Pope Benedict, and all others including ourselves, are products of our times. However, the institution has issued official documents barring men with persistent homosexual tendencies from seminaries, and has officially taught that gay people should not be in religious life. I think that the institution must 'own' its dysfunctional prejudices. I think that the institution must be held to accountability for them. And I think that the present day climate is so oppressive, so unwilling to engage in even the most timid dialog, that it is wrong for me to encourage gay man or woman in a priestly or religious order vocation. I am terribly sad as I write this. I look at my own experience and see the men in my order who are devoted and talented pastors, chaplains, administrators, and missionaries. My order would not have survived this long in North America without its gay members. But the psychic and spiritual cost of being a gay religious or priest is now so great that I can't recommend it to anyone.

A response to the question: what role can a person in the Church have who has "same sex attraction? A priest? A religious order member?"

2010-01-18T21:58:00.000-08:00

I left the following on another website to the question above.

May God give you peace!

Psychology has made it abundantly clear that homosexual orientation is not changeable.

The Church has made it abundantly clear that it does not want homosexual priests and religious, despite the contributions of homosexual priests and religious now and in the past.

We can slice and dice the psychological research and church documents till doomsday, but it seems clear to me that they say what they say and mean what they say.

So what is a gay Catholic to do? Pray. Examine one's conscience. Be true to yourself and live a life worthy of the call you have received, and be ruthlessly honest with yourself and with others. Then do what you conscience tells you to do.

Send me a private message if you want to talk more about this. God bless.

Trials in California and in my soul

2010-01-15T19:33:00.000-08:00

I have read every word of the testimony summarized at http://prop8trialtracker.com/ from Perry v. Schwartzenegger. I am transfixed by it. The stories are powerful. This afternoon's witness, who talks about her own marriage in California is most impressive. The experts called by the plaintiffs are so very competent, and summarize research that didn't even exist as a field when I was in college. It is truly eye opening.

I find myself angry at the injustice of it all, and at those who have eyes but do not see and ears but do not hear. I find myself thinking that I was born too early, that the world is now so different from when I grew up as a baby boomer. Some of the testimony described that world, and the transitions of society, and the amount of prejudice that still exists. Reading the testimony has made me reflect on how my whole life has been shaped by being gay - and by the push and pull of social judgments related to that. It's not really a pretty picture in many ways. But I can't undo my experiences.

In reading today's testimony from Helen Zia, I realize that the absence of the social support and approval of marriage has marked my life. A long ago relationship dissolved largely because I simply was not strong enough to weather the ambiguities and opposition. I couldn't balance myself back then. I had the chance - the chance of a lifetime, I now realize. I had the chance but just couldn't deal with it. When my partner and I were in our own little world, with carefully selected friends, it was ok. It was even ok in the neighborhood, more or less, although nothing was spoken. At work things were more ambiguous, though they all new I had a "good friend." But my family....my family I could never approach. They had already once told me to go away, to go to hell, and I limped back into a world of emotionally stingy silence. The irony is that I could not bring myself to tell them to go away, to go to hell. There was no way to bring the parts of my life together. There was no way I could allow myself to be so socially disapproved. The center would not hold, did not hold. I was the center, and I collapsed.

I admit that I caved in a most artful and intellectual way. I thought myself out of love. And I thought myself into the priesthood, I see now. Please don't misunderstand. Priesthood is now my life, and it is a good life. It has let me do things that I never would otherwise have done, and it has been good to me. And the things it has let me do have been good for other people. But now, right now and maybe not even in the morning, I think the process of discernment started for all the wrong reasons. It is a great irony, of course, that in seeking social approval desperately in the most socially approved profession, I have not found that approval. Not from society, which now mostly pejoratively condemns priests, not from my fellow priests and friars and the church at large, which pejoratively condemn gays, and not from my gay brothers and sisters, who so often view church people with derision. Once upon a time, there was a detente of sorts between gays and the Church. But that began to degenerate in the 80s, and then by the 90s started to heat up to full scale conflict. Now, there is no common ground, and little respect between the sides.

When I decided to move toward profession of vows and ordination, I thought that I would never be tempted to play the "what if" game, since I was older, experienced, and resolved. Now I find I am asking "what if" a lot. I am in a heck of a pickle.

Why Marriage Matters.

2010-01-13T12:17:00.000-08:00

For anyone who wants a primer on why marriage matters, and why it matters to gay men, see: http://bluetruckredstate.blogspot.com/2010/01/marriage-what-exactly-is-it-were.html Russ has hit a home run in this analysis. It is clear, passionate, logical and personal.

Haiti? What's that?

2010-01-13T09:35:00.000-08:00

I wanted to send a donation to the relief of people in Haiti, which was devastated by an earthquake yesterday. So I spent a few minutes today trying to find a link or any sort of mention of the earthquake in Haiti on the United States Catholic Bishops' website. Nothing. Let me repeat that: NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH. I can, however, find lots of stuff on the minutia of legislation. They are politicians, and not very adept politicians.

Catholic Relief Services, on the other hand, directs you immediately to their donation site: go to www.crs.org

Addendum: www.usccb.org added mention of Haiti on Thursday, Jan. 14, complete with the text of a letter from Cardinal George, but no links to how to give money, no news update, no pictures, no suggestions about how to find information about missing priests, seminarians, religious or lay missionaries. www.crs.org represents Catholic Relief Services, and is an arm of the Catholic Church in the US functioning under the bishops. www.catholicnews.com is the Catholic News Service, and is also an arm of the bishops. But really, expecting cyber surfers - and potential cyber donors - to wade through agencies that could easily be hyperlinked is asking a lot. And if I can link, in this blog, surely the high hats could arrange for that to be done on their site.

The Legal Battle in California: will it be Dred Scott or Brown?

2010-01-12T07:13:00.000-08:00

The legal case Perry v. Schwartzenegger is currently being argued in the US District Court in California. In this case, four gay plaintiffs - two couples - are trying to overturn California’s Proposition 8 by arguing that the ban on gay marriages violates the 14^th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Whether they succeed or fail at the trial court level, this case is likely to be appealed to the US Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a fascinating case, and a dangerous one. If one side wins, it will likely mean that anti-gay discrimination has no constitutional remedy. If the other side wins, it will likely mean that legal discrimination against gays has no constitutional foundation. In other words, for gay rights, this may be the Dred Scott decision, which in the 1850s said that a black man had no legal rights that a white man was bound to respect. Or it could be the gay rights version of Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the 1950s decision that held that in public education “separate but equal” was inherently unequal, and therefore unconstitutional. The daily proceedings of this trial are summarized from the plaintiffs point of view here: http://prop8trialtracker.com/

Happy New Year from the pope!

2010-01-11T19:12:00.000-08:00

What follows is a lengthy excerpt from today’s speech by Pope Benedict to the diplomatic corps credentialed to the Holy See. The full speech can be read at www.whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com

“Ladies and Gentlemen, to this point I have alluded only to a few aspects of the problem of the environment. Yet the causes of the situation which is now evident to everyone are of the moral order, and the question must be faced within the framework of a great programme of education aimed at promoting an effective change of thinking and at creating new lifestyles. The community of believers can and wants to take part in this, but, for it to do so, its public role must be recognized. Sadly, in certain countries, mainly in the West, one increasingly encounters in political and cultural circles, as well in the media, scarce respect and at times hostility, if not scorn, directed towards religion and towards Christianity in particular. It is clear that if relativism is considered an essential element of democracy, one risks viewing secularity solely in the sense of excluding or, more precisely, denying the social importance of religion. But such an approach creates confrontation and division, disturbs peace, harms human ecology and, by rejecting in principle approaches other than its own, finishes in a dead end. There is thus an urgent need to delineate a positive and open secularity which, grounded in the just autonomy of the temporal order and the spiritual order, can foster healthy cooperation and a spirit of shared responsibility. ......

To carry our reflection further, we must remember that the problem of the environment is complex; one might compare it to a multifaceted prism. Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America. Saint Columban stated that: "If you take away freedom, you take away dignity" (Ep. 4 ad Attela, in S. Columbani Opera, Dublin, 1957, p. 34). Yet freedom cannot be absolute, since man is not himself God, but the image of God, God’s creation. For man, the path to be taken cannot be determined by caprice or willfulness, but must rather correspond to the structure willed by the Creator. ...

Ladies and Gentlemen, at the end of this rapid overview which, due to its brevity, cannot mention every situation worthy of note, I am reminded of the words of the Apostle Paul, for whom "all creation groans and is in agony" and "we ourselves groan inwardly" (Rom 8:20-23). There is so much suffering in our world, and human selfishness continues in many ways to harm creation. For this reason, the yearning for salvation which affects all creation is that much more intense and present in the hearts of all men and women, believers and non-believers alike. The Church points out that the response to this aspiration is Christ "the firstborn of all creation, for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created" (Col 1:15-16). Looking to him, I exhort every person of good will to work confidently and generously for the sake of human dignity and freedom. May the light and strength of Jesus help us to respect human ecology, in the knowledge that natural ecology will likewise benefit, since the book of nature is one and indivisible. In this way we will be able to build peace, today and for the sake of generations to come. To all I wish a Happy New Year!

And now a few words of commentary. I find it both troubling and impressive that the pope felt it was necessary to decry the efforts to change laws by gay men and women and other people of good will. This condemnation is couched in diplomatic language, as befits the occasion, but it is nonetheless a serious condemnation. Of course, in recent weeks, the first gay marriage occurred in Argentina, and Mexico City has approved gay marriage, as has Washington, DC. It seems likely that Portugal will implement its gay marriage legislation soon. It is impressive that these efforts have drawn fire, because it shows how serious and widespread is the movement for gay equality. It is troubling that these efforts have drawn fire, because the pope stated that only the worst abuses of environmental degradation, war, violence and human exploitation could be mentioned.

I find it troubling that the address does not include any self-reflection or any evidence of self-awareness that the Church has contributed to some of the things that the pope now decries. Indeed, the opposition to the Church’s participation in public dialog, and the scorn of secularists, is seen, not as part of a dialectic brought about by the Church’s own positions, but simply as an entirely negative relativism in reaction to what for the pope are the Church’s self-evident just positions. The pope claims that the Church’s opponents are “rejecting in principle approaches other than its [their] own, finishes in a dead end.” However, that is precisely what the pope himself seems to be doing.

The oppression and misery that the pope rightly opposes, have, in some cases, been the result of Church positions. Certainly the Church’s unwillingness to “live and let live” in the area of secular laws relating to gay couples has brought oppression and misery. Freedom, indeed, cannot be absolute, as the pope notes. But that is the reddest of red herrings. Everyone must agree to that. The hard question is where to draw the line. The Church certainly has the right to participate in the public square. But the time is long past when it could dictate the agenda of what may be discussed in the square, and the terms under which the issues - and the Church itself - must be understood.

Holy Family Sunday

2009-12-27T07:19:00.000-08:00

It is Holy Family Sunday. I had been offered a ‘help out’ for this morning (that is, to preside at a Mass in a parish where I am not assigned to ‘help out’ the parish priest), but I did not take it. At the time the offer came in, I was trying to keep my schedule as free as possible. But now, I realize that I did have something to say that would have been interesting, perhaps even helpful, to some folks. Instead of the help out at a parish, I said a few words at a small Mass for six people. It was not exactly a stirring liturgy for any of us. So what would I have said to a larger congregation (and said only part of in the Mass that I did say)?

It is fitting, of course, that we honor the Holy Family on the Sunday after Christmas. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are models for our lives. But we must be careful here. They are models because of how they dealt with the problems of being human. They are not models because they had no problems. Indeed, if they had no problems, it would not make sense for them to be models for us. The other night we heard about the search for housing, which yielded only a stable. We heard about smelly shepherds walking in unannounced at a family moment. We will hear in tomorrow’s Mass of the violence of a despot and their flight as refugees. If we have listened closely to today’s Mass texts, we have already prayed four times or so for “peace.” Well, you pray for peace only when there is no peace. And the Mass today makes reference many times to the need for peace. Indeed, the final blessing prayer rather annoyingly prays: “Lord, you care for your people even when they stray. Grant us a complete change of heart, so that we may follow you with greater fidelity.” One wonders about the family background of whoever inserted that in the American Sacramentary. There is no comparable text in the Missale Romanum, so it was added just for us Americans, who apparently need a complete change of heart!

If our image of the Holy Family is fixed in the sweetness of a Christmas card picture, we are not listening. In today’s Gospel about the ‘finding’ or Jesus in the Temple, Mary says: “Son, why have you done this to us?” I don’t think that there is a parent on earth who has not asked the same question of their son or daughter. “Why are you doing this to us?” Drinking, hanging with the wrong crowd, not cleaning your room, taking drugs, dating the wrong person, talking back, embarrassing us, not communicating ...... The list of failures of children is endless, and the list continues to grow as we grow.

The Holy Family is an example for us because they endured what we endure, they were tempted as we are tempted, and they survived. They managed, somehow, to keep it together, to bivouac in a stable, to escape Herod, to flee to Egypt, to return, to grow. And we can survive the difficulties of our lives.

Today, the ‘family is under attack’ we are told. And it is. It always has been. Even in American history, there have been times when the whole idea of family was attacked in one way or another. In slave times, families were divided and sold like so much cotton. In slave times and for long after, families were not legal families if they were divided by race. “The black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect,” said one 19th century Supreme Court decision - a decision written by the first Catholic justice of the court, by the way.

The Mormon controversies - before God changed his mind and told the Mormon prophet to get over those ideas of polygamy - brought a furious public response to the attack on the family that Mormons represented. Their towns were burned, and they escaped to Utah, only to find that that territory would not be admitted to the Union as a state unless polygamy was repudiated. So God conveniently acceded, and Utah became a state. There are ironies here that do not need to be stated.

Today’s second reading from Ephesians speaks of husbands loving their wives and wives being submissive to their husbands. (OK, so this is the “long reading” option, the short reading omits most of the offensive verses and is the one most often read in churches.) It also talks about not being too hard on the kids, but that the kids should obey. In deference to current understandings of families, the reading then stops after having covered husbands, wives and children. But Paul’s original goes on to talk about the 4th group in the household: the slaves, who are told to obey their masters. Ah, Biblical values! Impermeable, unchangeable Biblical values!

In the 20th century, the women’s sufferage movement was “an attack on the family.” After all, how could the family survive if women had the vote. They might not defer to their husbands if they had the legal right to not defer to them at the polling place, where they would be beyond his reach. Even after the 19th Amendment, the full legal independence of married women was a slow and gradual process, and at each step there were cries that these were attacks on the family: women working, pay equality, independent right to own and dispose of property. Various elements of the doctrine of femme couvert died a slow and lingering death.

In theology, the ideas of Sunday school are upended and subjected to careful dissection and analysis. Theology has been defined in the Catholic tradition as “faith seeking understanding.” As a practical matter, this means that we ask ourselves: “What do we mean when we say the things we’ve said since before we remember?” When we say “God,” or “Our Father,” what do we mean? And that becomes a very complicated question. When we say “true God and true man,” are we saying what is impossible? What is “church,” “inspiration,” “grace,” “sacrament,” “error,” “heresy,” “dogma,” “sin,” “salvation,” and a host of other terms? Theology teaches us, or should teach us, the limits of language, the limits of human thought, the humility that is necessary to admit we always know less than we think we know, and that we always know less than what we don’t know.

On this Holy Family Sunday, we gather during a curious time. Once again, we are told, that the family is under attack. Once again, we are told, the attack is political, as we were told that in earlier generations. I think all this is mistaken, for several reasons.

First, the family is under attack. But this is nothing new. The family is under attack by selfishness, by greed, by lust, by desire for power, by the desire for comfort at the expense of others. Each family is under attack by the unredeemed parts of each member of the family. The lack of charity, the desire to control, the rash judgments and jealousies, all these are attacking the family. And all these are the subject for the spiritual discernment and struggle for self mastery of each family member. That is the hard moral lesson, and the challenge. It is won or lost in the small acts of the household: to wash what you did not dirty, to pick up what you did not drop, to hold one’s tongue even when you are right, to compliment even the foolish choice of another. There are a hundred different ways each day that each of us can defend the family. We do so by living virtuously.

Second, the “family” is not simple. “Family” as an historical fact, as a sociological and anthropological reality, and as a subject for theological analysis is not univocal, simple, or obvious. One of the most striking aspects of the writing of those who would defend “the family” as an institution is the simplemindedness of their rhetoric and their theology. They accept too much as fact, they argue glibly, they do not examine their premises. They assert, rather than reason. They overstate their case; they do not exhibit any awareness of the complexity of life as it is lived, or of the complexity of the biblical and Christian tradition. They live on the level of slogans.

Of course, those who are arguing for fundamental changes in the legal definition of marriage are guilty of the same. So often their level of argument comes down to self-interest, or to a statement that this is right because they want it. These are not arguments. They also are sloganeering.

However, the religious examination of the issue from the point of view of those who are urging a re-thinking is, in fact, increasingly nuanced and careful. Whether this is being done within the Catholic tradition (as for example by John McNeil or James Alison) or the Anglican tradition( for example by Tobias Stanislas Haller) or in other Christian traditions, these thinkers are considering the question carefully, reverently, and seriously. There may be a bit of wishful thinking in their work. They tend to end up where they want to end up, and that is always cause for caution. But the very seriousness with which they grapple with the issue is leagues beyond those who simply shout out their opinions.

On this Holy Family Sunday, let us agree that nothing, especially our particular families and our consideration of family matters, is simple. Let us have the humility to examine our actions and attitudes and the charity to listen carefully to the the words of others. Let us treat well those we meet today, as we would wish to be treated. May we have the peacefulness in our hearts that would allow us to live in a stable, to flee persecutors, to entertain smelly visitors, to deal with our families, and even to listen to bishops and political pundits, all without undue distress.

An archbishop who is mad as a hornet! At last!

2009-12-23T03:38:00.000-08:00

What follows is taken in its entirety from yesterday's entry in the ever interesting and carefully researched Whispers in the Loggia blog. The contrast between the leadership shown in Ireland and the lack of testicular fortitude in America is breathtaking. For the original, see www.whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com

Jump or Get Pushed: After Murphy, Martin Declares War

During his year as coadjutor-archbishop of Dublin, it's been said that Diarmuid Martin had a difficult time finding a lunchmate. Waiting in the wings as Cardinal Desmond Connell's successor, the longtime Vatican official might've been a native son of the Irish capital, but the Curia he'd soon inherit made its message clear: he wasn't one of them.

Given what's transpired since last month's release of the Murphy Report -- namely, the archbishop's all-out denunciation of the chancery culture that facilitated the history of abuse and cover-up the state inquiry uncovered -- that divide, never completely out of view, has come center stage in a seismic way.

Five years into his mandate, the 66 year-old prelate still largely finds himself a lone rider in the inquest's wake, handling its fallout without the teams of lawyers and spinners who've come to embody ecclesial damage control elsewhere. Yet just a week after the Pope expressed his own "outrage, betrayal and shame" at a Vatican summit on the crisis, and hours after the primate's public warning that "responsibility must be taken by all" archdiocesan leaders who failed to act as the "protection principle" endured, Ireland's largest paper reports the aftermath's wildest turn of events to date -- either the four active prelates who helped oversee the Dublin church as it routinely shuffled accused clerics step forward with their resignations over Christmas... or Martin will grease the skids:
THE Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Diarmuid Martin will seek to have four bishops fired by the Vatican if they refuse to step down over the Murphy report into child sex abuse cases in Dublin....

Sources told the Irish Independent that if the bishops -- who say they did no wrong -- do not stand down voluntarily on the principle of collective responsibility, Archbishop Martin will petition the Congregation of Bishops in Rome to fire them.
Of the four current and former Dublin auxiliaries, while Bishop Jim Moriarity of Kildare and Leighlin, 73, is reportedly moving toward the plank, other prelates on the archbishop's "hit list" have challenged their placement on it; Bishop Martin Drennan of Galway -- who, it should be noted, was not named in the report -- protested that his "integrity is being called into question" and termed the move "a spiral of revenge," and longtime Dublin Auxiliary Bishop Eamonn Walsh viewed calls for his departure as an "injustice" unto himself, adding that the torrential media coverage in the report's wake had served to "turn up the pain" of abuse survivors who, he said, "do not know how to cope with all the publicity."

Meanwhile, having tussled with his successor in court over the release of documents to the inquiry, a former aide to Connell lambasted Martin for a "catastrophic" approach of "communicating with people who are [his] auxiliaries through" Irish state television.

In his 1 December appearance on RTE's Prime Time, the archbishop called for "answers that people can accept and believe" from those indicated in the report, adding that he was "not satisfied" with the responses given to that point and, indeed, going so far as to publicly name the prelates from whom he demanded sufficient explanations.

Along the way, Martin's push has received added, repeated heft from a high-profile church commentator with ties to Pope Benedict: a retired professor of moral theology at Ireland's national seminary, Fr Vincent Twomey -- a student of then-Fr Joseph Ratzinger at Regensburg -- likewise took to the media to back the resignation calls, warning that the embattled prelates' continuance in office was "causing great scandal" in itself.

"The longer they dig their heels in and refuse to resign, the greater damage they are doing to the church," Twomey said in a radio interview. "What was done to" the victims, he added, "is a crime that calls to God for vengeance."

Calling for an "honest investigation" of the Isle's Catholic culture -- which, he said, had produced a "sterile orthodoxy" at its highest levels -- Twomey likewise penned a lengthy op-ed for the Irish Times advocating "some other way of choosing suitable bishops, [one] which will involve some real participation by priests and laity."

After last week's first report-induced resignation -- Bishop Donal Murray's departure from the helm of the diocese of Limerick -- the Dublin prelate said in a statement that, amid the investigation's findings of "serious difficulties of structure and communication" which resulted in further abuse, "accountability must be assumed... and radical reform is required in the archdiocese, not just in the area of child protection."

"Priests and people of this diocese see that there can be no healing without radical change," Martin added. "Along with many others, I am committed to that change."

Lastly, though, yesterday saw a different outpouring of emotion as Kiltegan Fr Jeremiah Roche was remembered as a "mighty, mighty man" at his funeral.

The 68 year-old St Patrick Missionary had spent most of his four-decade priesthood ministering in Kenya, where he was murdered last week during a robbery of his home.

SVILUPPO: In yet another fresh development, it's emerged that the Irish government has ordered each of the country's 26 dioceses to hand over a list of every allegation they've received in the last five years before 8 January.

Termed a "dragnet," the "massive investigation" will be carried out by the state's Health Service Executive in conjunction with the church's National Board for Children.

While the Independent reported that the Dublin curia received 131 new claims of past misconduct even before the Murphy release, another 600 complaints are already under investigation by the authorities in the wake of May's Ryan Report, which detailed a staggering history of abuse in residential schools entrusted to religious orders.

SVILUPPO 2: As of early Wednesday morning, even more developments -- RTE reported that Moriarty (who, a fortnight ago, said he didn't feel "any grounds" to leave his post) was expected to announce his resignation in the afternoon, and Drennan told a local radio program that, given his "guilt by association" with his Dublin confreres, "if there is a mass resignation called for, yes, it could come to me resigning."

An unscientific poll on a Galway newspaper's website found that 72% of respondents sought the latter's departure.

Sometimes good is the enemy of the perfect.

2009-12-13T07:49:00.000-08:00

There is a saying that sometimes the good is the enemy of the perfect. But I think it is also true in reverse: sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. On the most prosaic level, for days I've put off responding to an interesting question raised by a commentator on this blog. I had been hoping that I'd have time and inspiration to write the perfect response, but frankly, that will never happen. So here is a merely good (I hope!) response. For perfection, we will have to wait for the second coming. This entry is long, and does not contain my final answer on this matter. But it does set the stage for an answer, which will, I hope, be forthcoming.

FDeF wrote, in response to my December 5 entry: "But how do you/we address the issue that was brought up in this discussion previously: the fact that some/many of the priests in question are doing exactly what is forbidden of those in the pews; people who if they are honest and open and attempting to live authentic lives, would be refused the sacraments. There is no justification for such duplicity in church teaching, so far as I can tell. I am not necessarily an advocate of "outing" but something's gotta give."

How should we address this? First, Jesus condemned hypocrisy in the most strong terms, and it is clear that hypocrisy is a great temptation to religious types, including priests. Jesus condemns those who lay heavy burdens on others and do not lift a finger to help. He condemns those who have lost perspective, and tithe on mint and dill and cumin, and neglect charity. Jesus makes it clear that the shepherds must care for the sheep and that bad shepherds do exist. Jesus makes it clear that those who cause scandal, especially to the most vulnerable ("the little ones") would be lucky if a millstone were tied to them and they would sink into the sea.

Second, there are different ways that priests and bishops and others may be "doing exactly what is forbidden" to those who are in the pews. All people are sinners, and all are in need of the grace of God. Some priests and bishops may "slip" and sin once. Other priests and bishops may be living a double life more or less consistently. And there are many points in between these extremes. The response to the former, as to all sinners, is to urge repentance and to say, with Jesus, "Go, now, and do not commit this sin any more." The response to those who are more habitual or compulsive in their sin or who do not consider the sin to be sinful, requires something more. This most likely will require an intervention or other means (such as in confession or spiritual direction) of raising the question of whether they are so attached to their sin that they cannot give it up, and must therefore recuse themselves from continuing in public ministry. If they cannot give up their sin, and will not recuse themselves from public ministry, then they must be removed from public ministry. I do not think that a single policy can be applied to every priest who sins, without doing an injustice to the sinner. On the other hand, public sin cannot be dealt with by a purely private means. Some guidelines are needed, so that bishops and religious superiors are acting consistently, firmly, and prudently, and are not simply acting ad hoc or on the basis of their own prejudices.

Third, one has to address the question of what happens when a priest or bishop simply does not believe that the Church teaching is correct on an issue. When this happens, usually the clergy just gets very silent. For example, a priest who does not believe that artificial contraception is gravely sinful is unlikely to preach about it or mention it voluntarily. He will have to decide how to address the issue when someone else raises it, for example, in confession. Will he repeat Church teaching that he doesn't believe? Some do. Will he create the impression that he believes whatever a penitent seems to believe? If they confess it as sinful he will go with that. If they say they don't believe it is sinful he will go with that. He's flexible. Or will he try to nuance the issue, split hairs, and find loopholes so that he can uphold the teaching but, in effect, find some reason why it doesn't apply fully in this case, and maybe not in any case. I've used the example of artificial contraception, but one can see this can apply to any moral issue: sex outside of marriage, homosexual acts, abortion, issues of economic justice, racism, whatever.

Finally, I have to conclude that one part of the problem of what to do with priests who are sexually active, or who engage in other behaviors which are sinful (e.g. stealing parish resources), is that alone of all the professions, the ministry has no self-policing powers. If a doctor violates the standard of care, there is a professional committee of other doctors that one can complain to, and they have real enforcement powers. Priests, deacons, and bishops have no such oversight committee, and have no professional standard of care that is objective and accepted. This is highlighted by the reactions of various church officials to reports of the sexual abuse of minors. Prior to the bishops' Dallas agreement several years ago, there simply was no standard to which one could point that a bishop or priest could use to decide what to do about reports of abuse and when to do it. The minimal, baseline standard was not a professional one, but was the criminal law. And even that was ignored in the mistaken belief that such laws somehow did not apply to the church. Now, thankfully, there are explicit policies in all dioceses and religious orders, that when a report is made, this and that is to be done. When a report is found to be credible, this or that is to be done. With such standards in place, bishops, religious superiors, priests and others can be held to account. And everyone knows what ought to be done and when it should be done when minors are involved. Even these policies, though, are not "professional," insofar as the profession of priesthood is not self-regulating. Instead, the bishops are doing the regulating. Now, that is not bad, but just who is regulating the regulators? Who is minding the bishops? Apparently, only each bishop is in charge of himself. And from the point of view of professional regulation, that is not good.

But the abuse of minors is but one way a priest or bishop may misbehave. Adult sexual activities do not have the same level of scrutiny and articulation of policy, nor does the use or misuse of money. Further, the whole area of pastoral practice seems almost beyond scrutiny. I heard recently of a pastor who felt obliged to tell his parochial vicar (Catholic talk for assistant priest) that he should not mention President Obama in the pulpit. The vicar had regularly taken positions on the president, mostly consigning him to hell for some violation of the vicar's sense of right and wrong. Now, I think in that case the pastor was correct. But what professional standard did he have on which to base his intervention? Really, only common sense. But what would have been the standard if the roles were reversed and it was the pastor who was blatantly political in the pulpit? And who would have enforced it? Ultimately, the bishop and diocesan officials would have intervened. But again, there was no clear professional standard.

Further, is there such a thing as pastoral malpractice? And if there is, what is it and how does one know if something is malpractice or not? There are no clear standards, except the base minimal standard of what can get a pastor arrested or sued. In not having standards, and leaving the issue of what is forbidden to the prosecutors and the courts, the Church is putting itself in a precarious position. It is basically ceding the field, and this will result in civil officials telling us what is or is not acceptable.

On the outing of gay priests.

2009-12-05T20:47:00.000-08:00

On the outing of gay priests: a comment left in the comment box of Fr. Geoff Farrow's blog:http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/

This is truly a vexing issue with many aspects. It is my personal experience that in religious orders the superiors know the orientation of most of the men in their province (regional division). There are some religious order priests whose orientation may not be known, of course, but generally, one cannot live and work with other priests for a lifetime without some idea of which "team" they are on. Whether they have kept their vows or not is a question that is more difficult to determine. I suspect that diocesan priests are in a similar situation, but perhaps for them the category of "unknown orientation" is larger, since they tend to work alone more often, and do not live in such close quarters. No bishop or religious superior who has a whit of sense doubts that at least 20% of his priests are homosexual. Most estimates are higher than 20%, and no bishop or provincial is unaware of this. Given this, just what does "outing" mean?

I offer the following possibilities, which are not meant to be exhaustive.

1. "Outing" may mean that the priest is sexually active now, or was so in the past and this becomes known. If this is known, he will most likely be removed from ministry, and will likely be effectively abandoned by the diocese or province. He will be blamed personally for his faults, all responsibility will be attributed to him, and the institution will not change. The pool of priests in ministry will become smaller, more closeted and more condemning of homosexuals.

2. "Outing" may mean to say publicly what the superiors and fellow priests already know or seriously suspect privately. This will force the hand of the superiors, and they are most likely to follow whatever course of action is recommended by Catholic laity who are particularly vocal. This won't be a majority vote by Catholic lay people. It will be a decision of the most vocal mob, and the mobs at the moment tend to be pretty right wing. This will likely result in the same effects as number 1, above.

3. "Outing" priests will embarrass the Church, of course, and this is always a worthy goal, in the eyes of some. But is that really a worthy goal? I, for one, do not think so.

Consider the discussion carefully, as lives are at stake. Not just the lives of priests, but also the lives of the people they would have assisted had they been able to continue in ministry: the funerals unprayed, the baptisms undone, the counseling not offered, the encouragement not given, the works of justice and charity that will not be done.

Ultimately, this is not a question of tactics or strategy. This is not an issue of how to change an institution. The institution needs to change. However, I do not think that it is in anyone's best interest to try to change the institution by mere political pressure, as if it were simply a political party or governmental entity, or corporation trying to make a profit.

We need moral conversion. We need to strengthen ourselves by prayer. We need to raise ourselves up, to understand that this seems to be a time of prophetic witness. We need a Gandhi. We need a Martin Luther King (or a Martin Luther, for that matter). We need to assert the moral high ground.

The problem of injustice within the Church is a problem that cannot, in the end, be resolved by lack of charity. Indeed, lack of charity cannot be a remedy for lack of charity. Simply getting back at those we find inadequately brave is not just, and is unlikely to be very successful. Lex talionis, - an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is not a remedy. It is merely a prescription for a blind and toothless world.

Found on Blue Truck, Red State..........

2009-12-02T21:36:00.000-08:00

Russ, on Blue Truck, Red State found this clip somewhere, and posts it tonight with really cogent thoughts about the arc of change, and the degree that society has transformed itself, and is still transforming itself. Wednesday, the NY State Senate voted down a gay marriage bill. Russ points out that even when the news is not good for gay equality, there is much that has changed, and much to be thankful for. I point you to his most eloquent blog.

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

2009-11-28T21:16:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-11-28T17:57:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-11-27T17:09:00.000-08:00

2009-11-24T21:17:00.001-08:00

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

2009-11-20T22:43:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-11-15T19:27:00.000-08:00

"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.

2009-11-15T19:00:00.001-08:00

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.......

2009-11-14T23:26:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-11-13T16:47:00.001-08:00

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

Maine, marriage, and mayhem on the First Amendment

2009-10-31T14:11:00.000-07:00

From the National Catholic Reporter, a liberal independent newspaper covering the Catholic Church (http://ncronline.org/news/politics/maine-same-sex-marriage-catholic-issue)

In Maine, same-sex marriage is a Catholic issue

Oct. 29, 2009

By Chuck Colbert

Politics

Anne Underwood of Catholics for Marriage Equality joined two dozen clergy speaking out for same-sex marriage at a news conference in Portland, Maine. (photo by Chuck Colbert)

Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF version

Commentary

Several hundred Catholics in Maine have publicly declared themselves supporters of same-sex marriage, in direct opposition to their bishop, Richard J. Malone of Portland, who they say has gone overboard with a no-holds-barred campaign to roll back same-sex marriage in the Pine Tree State.

Maine voters are to decide Nov. 3 whether to keep or reject a bill extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples that the state legislature passed and the governor signed in May.

"Question One," on the ballot reads, "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"

If passed, it would be the first time -- in more than two dozen tries -- that same-sex marriage would be approved by a majority vote of the people.

Stakes are high. Advocates for marriage equality, still smarting from a referendum last year in California that repealed same-sex marriages in that state, have marshaled forces in the state. Groups opposed to gay marriage hope that victories in California and Maine will give the cause momentum nationally.

Catholics have taken prominent roles in the campaigns on both sides of the issue.

Expressing a sense of urgency, more than 140 of the state's high-profile business, legal, and civil leaders have placed newspaper ads, giving voice to a Catholic case for same-sex civil marriage.

"We are Catholics who are concerned that the current political campaign to repeal Maine's civil marriage equality law is at odds with fundamental principles of truth and charity, and with vital American traditions of separation of church and state," they write in an extraordinary eight-paragraph statement (Click to see a pdf file), which ran as a paid advertisement in Maine's leading daily newspapers the two Sundays before the vote.

"We believe that the church has a right and often the responsibility to speak out on moral and social issues, to present its views, to seek to educate its member and others," the signatories say, continuing, "But we also believe that the church should continue to recognize that Catholics are free, indeed obligated to follow their own informed consciences on such issues."

More than 500 Catholics signed a declaration of support for same-sex marriage being circulated by the Portland-based Catholics for Marriage Equality, the group announced Oct. 28.

However, Bishop Malone is a primary leader in a highly visible and vocal campaign to stop any reformulation of civil marriage to include of same-sex couples.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two related stories:

Gay marriage supporter removed from parish ministries

Experience, research refute arguments of same-sex opponents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides spearheading a parish-based petition signature drive, assisted by local and national socially conservative groups, Malone also padded church bulletins with anti-gay marriage messages — on six consecutive Sundays. He required that pastors throughout the diocese preach on traditional marriage.

Bishop Richard J. MaloneMalone has produced a DVD, in which he stars, explaining why marriage matters, and directed that it be shown in all parishes. (See Marriage: What the church teaches.)

Last month, Malone called for a second collection to be taken up during Sunday Masses, with proceeds going to Stand for Marriage, the organization leading the repeal effort.

The second collection netted $86,000. In total, the Portland diocese has given $550,000 to the effort to repeal the same-sex marriage legislation. The Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus, has given another $50,000 to the cause.

While the church's view of sacramental marriage — with its sacred rites — is one thing, civil marriage, which is a basic human and civil right, is quite another. Lay Catholics are well aware of these nuances in their advocacy for pro marriage-equality.

The bishop has missed the point.

Particularly irksome for some Maine Catholics -- estimated at 15 to 16 percent of the population — is Malone's insistence "that it is the doctrine of the Catholic church -- not my personal opinion — that all Catholics are obligated to oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage." He said that in a September pastoral letter, quoting Pope Benedict XVI.

"Where does that come from?" asked William H. Slavick of Portland, a retired college professor. "It's my duty to follow my informed conscience" and respecting "pluralistic considerations in the United States."

Slavick, a long-time coordinator of the Pax Christi Maine chapter, favors keeping the civil marriage law, saying that the church is wrong to try to impose a Catholic view of marriage on society.

Sharing those sentiments is attorney Anne Underwood of Topsham, Maine, co-founder of a new grass-roots organization. "Our organization — Catholics for Marriage Equality — agrees 100 percent with the [bishop and the] church's theological teaching on marriage as a sacrament," she told NCR.

But Underwood takes strong exception to Malone's "political opinion" on civil marriage. "We urge Catholics to vote no on question one," she said. After all, "God is love."

Catholics for Marriage Equality is speaking out publicly to raise awareness and is asking Catholics to increase their visibility in opposing the referendum. The group provides bumper stickers and buttons to those who want them. Underwood urges Catholics to wear something red to Mass, as a sartorial sign of support for the cause.

In May, Governor John E. Baldacci signed into law the bill passed by the legislature that extended civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples. Baldacci, a practicing Catholic and former altar boy, once supported civil unions, but not gay marriage. In a telephone interview, he explained to NCR why he switched. He said that principles of "fairness" and "equality" provisions in the state Constitution, guided his reasoning process. He weighed his decision to sign the bill "carefully," he said. "The new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees." "A civil union is not equal to civil marriage," Baldacci said. "I am the governor of all the people. Everybody must be treated equally under the law in Maine."Jack Dougherty wears his Catholics for Marriage Equality button each Sunday. "I am a person who thinks the law is correct and the bishop is wrong," he said. Dougherty of Eliot, 72, is a parishioner at St. Raphael Parish.

"I think there's a clear distinction between the Catholic church's requirements for marriage and the state and its requirements," said Bob McAteer of Ellsworth who believes the current law should stand.

Church funds going to the referendum campaign has angered "No on 1" Catholics.

"I am apoplectic," said Karen Saum of Belfast, who identifies as a lesbian. "I am appalled at the bishop."

"I am furious that my church is spending money to oppose legislation," said David Meuse of Portland, a widower and father of two. "I cannot believe it -- it's infuriating that our money is being spent that way," he said. That money should be used to"feed a family or clothe somebody."

Only a few more days are left for the battle over same-sex marriage. It will be played out in television ads, door-to-door canvassing, yard signs, buttons, and bumper stickers. Money and volunteers on both sides of the question continue to pour into the state.

The group "No on 1," or Protect Maine Equality, said in its campaign finance report to the state, filed at the end of last week, that it has raised $4 million, according to the Associated Press. That figure overshadows the $2.5 million raised by Stand for Marriage Maine, which forced the referendum through a petition drive.

In addition, the Princeton, N.J.-based National Organization for Marriage has donated $1.5 million to repealing the same-sex marriage law, according to the Portland Press Herald.

Public opinion polling indicates a tight race. The most recent public opinion poll, released Oct. 26, showed marriage equality backers with a slight lead: 53 percent of those survey support same-sex marriage and 42 percent oppose it. For this poll, the Pan Atlantic SMS Group of Portland interviewed 400 Maine residents between Oct. 20 and Oct. 22. It has a margin of error of 5 percent.

A poll released last week by Public Policy Polling of North Carolina showed a 48percent to 48 percent tie on the same-sex marriage bill. That survey polled 1,130 likely voters.

It is safe to say this one is too close to call.

Perhaps it is now clearer why several hundred Catholics have taken their bishop to task in such a public manner. As the signatories have so eloquently stated, "The current political campaign to repeal Maine's civil marriage equality law is at odds with fundamental principles of truth and charity."

Such clarity -- the voice of these faithful, resounding a profoundly simple yet painfully embarrassing Catholic truth.

[A frequent contributor to NCR, Chuck Colbert freelance journalist from Cambridge, Mass.]

Family values

2009-10-27T07:24:00.000-07:00

I posted most of this in a comment on another blog: http://jesuslovesgays.blogspot.com/

Nearly 40 years ago, when I told my parents I am gay, my mother responded that she didn't care what I did as long as I changed my name and no one knew I was her son. My father was pretty silent, but chastised me for upsetting my mother, and attempted to argue with me as if this was a political position that I had taken, something that I could be argued out of.

It took the wisdom of a loving aunt and godmother, and a lot of time, before those wounds were papered over enough for me to feel any degree of comfort in their presence. For years, there was at best an awkward silence, a silence that descended whenever anything - a news story, a sit-com plot, the comment of someone else - came close to the dreaded topic. Indeed, the closet seemed to expand, not contract, with my coming out. Eventually, I just learned to play by their rules, by the rule of non-engagement, by the rule of silence.

I realize now that this was a sort of emotional blackmail. I was allowed back into the family circle as long as IT was not spoken of. If IT ever popped back out of the closet, I would be punished by silence, by her attributing all her ills and insomnia to knowing this awful truth, and once by her suicide threat based on my being gay.

Now, as I end my 50s, my mother approaches 90, she is not nearly so mentally sharp as she once was. I wonder if she has forgotten. She now peppers her conversation with talk about the country going to hell, about all those people who are doing wrongful things (gays, Mexicans, politicians, criminals, Obama, etc. etc.), and sends me endless right wing nonsense that people of her sort mass email to each other. She tells me proudly of giving money to people who promise to restore morality.

The wounds of so many years ago are resurfacing. In her twilight, I can barely speak to her. Homophobia kills families. Family values kill families.

A good short case for partner medical benefits

2009-10-22T07:57:00.000-07:00

I've had rather contentious discussions with priests about the "granting" of medical care benefits to same sex couples. These priests never have to worry about paying a doctor bill, and are by and large, have no responsibility for the health care costs of others. The economic and human cost of failing to grant benefits to everyone is huge. Thanks to Pamshouseblend.com where I discovered this video.

Reflections on the National Equality March

2009-10-11T20:34:00.000-07:00

It has been a very busy day. I was not up for walking, and DC metro confounds me, so I drove and parked as close to the US Capitol as I could - which turned out to be very close indeed. That was just a lucky break, but it made things so much easier! I walked up part of the mall, and the crowd was excited. People were carrying signs, mostly home-made. I took my place on the inside of the west lawn, and propped myself against the wall enclosing the lawn. Recorded music filled the air, as march volunteers wandered with last minute preparations. Slowly, the space began to fill with others who did not march but who wanted to be there.

It was really an amazing collection of people. There were many lesbian and gay couples, and some obviously straight couples. There were groups of men and women who had the casual familiarity of extended families. There were a significant number of children, more with the women than with the men, it seemed. There were other old, obviously out of shape folks, and a few who were frankly very wobbly and unsteady. There were, in both the early gatherers and in the marchers when they arrived, fewer men than there should have been in their 50s and 60s. These were the lost generation, the AIDS generation. A group of 4 in their early 60s came in, looking healthy, and I thought of all those who didn't make it to their age. The music began to pick up, and then it was announced that the marchers were about three blocks away.

I turned and looked west-northwest over the wall. You could see them in the distance. They were being routed up Pennsylvania Avenue and then right toward the lawn, but breakaway groups began cutting the corner, coming up the parking lot that is a direct path to the capitol lawn. And there they were: hundreds and thousands. At this point, I was really overcome, in a couple of senses. The loudspeakers interspersed enough 60s music - including We Shall Overcome - that I was taken back to the anti-Vietnam War marches of those years. There was that feeling of peaceableness in the crowd, and I was taken back to that time of my youth. I was overcome by the sheer joy and blessing of being there, and by the sadness of being there alone. And, I have to say, I was overcome by what began to resemble Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, as first one person, then another, then whole groups, jumped the wall I was leaning against. This was an easy entrance, rather than wait for the narrow way that the National Parks Service had planned - two small sidewalk entrances on either side of the lawn.

I abandoned my post, and wandered from the Senate side to the House side of the lawn. The music continued, this time with a person whose name I can't remember, and then the DC Gay Men's Chorus. At one point the announcer self-importantly said that "From the days of Stonewall until today music has played an important part our movement. I ask that you all listen carefully and join in singing the next song." Well, what would it be? The national anthem? And out rang "Somewhere over the rainbow........" and the crowd laughed and applauded. A perfect build up to a surprise, and a fun one at that. A bit of theater never hurts! The national anthem did eventually come, and the crowd stood respectfully. In the center of the lawn, everyone was standing. At the periphery, there was room to sit or even to spread out. Eventually speeches began, and the crowd thinned a bit. The real work was done. The real work was just showing up. Being there.

So who was there? Mostly, everyone seemed pretty normal, except that they were paired in arrangements that aren't usually seen in mainstream portraits of America. I didn't see anyone who looked too outlandish. The most outlandish were two women who were wearing wedding dresses (separately, not together). I saw no counter demonstrators, except when I was driving away a placarded truck had signs reading: "Obama health care will pay for sodomy. What is a moral wrong cannot be a civil right." At some point I should write about the last part of that statement.

It just felt so good. So good. So good to be there. It was affirming, and it raised for me questions that I need to deal with. I have not yet found a way to be truly who I am in an integrated whole in all the places I am and all the people I deal with. Tonight, just as an example, I spent some time with someone from another country who told me a few days ago that he "didn't believe in this homosexual thing" - he was not condemning, he was just saying that it didn't really exist. Tonight I refrained from saying that I had spent the afternoon with perhaps as many as 200,000 people he thought didn't exist. But I need some way of bringing all the pieces of my life together.

Driving away, I passed lots of folks walking, and some even in the neighborhoods where one wondered if it was a good idea to carry that sign, or wear those colors, in that place. Everyone seemed to be having a peaceful, good time. I certainly did.

National March for Rights

2009-10-11T13:02:00.000-07:00

I have to say, I was amazed by the number of people today. How many? Who knows....but the west lawn of the capitol was full, overflowing down the mall and into nearby streets. I had a nice wall to lean on, where I thought I'd get a good view of the marchers as they arrived. Well, I did....and some marchers decided to jump the wall...the crowd surged in as I moved to a less crowded location.

Where were you............

2009-09-10T21:42:00.000-07:00

Where was I on the evening of September 10, 2001? I was on vacation. In Chicago. In a bar, talking and reminiscing. Perhaps that vacation week was the first time I realized that I could reasonably expect to go into a bar and become engaged in interesting, generally accepting, conversation. After that week, I've tested it again. I can go into any number of churches and shrines and cathedrals and emerge hours later without having anyone smile at me, without having any human connection with anyone, except perhaps at the kiss of peace. Even then, as often as not, the offered hand is reluctant, the smile is returned tight-lipped. But in a bar, within a few minutes, conversation flows.

I had shunned such places for many years, beginning with my conversion. And now, since September 10, 2001, I venture in only rarely, perhaps a couple of times a year. When I do, I am driven by my loneliness, by my need for an actually honest and direct conversation, during which I don't need to play a role of wise person or otherworldly person, when I can be just a person, I enter in. And talk. And leave. Alone.

That night, September 10th, I stood at the end of the bar, slowly sipping my beer, and talked to a small group of men who had not known each other before the night. Only one stands out in my mind, not for anything he said, but because he was a flight attendant. The next morning, as news of the outrage spread, I thought of him. I wondered initially if he had been on one of the planes. But he was not. He would have started his day from the midwest, not from the east. And so he was safe. But I wondered what the day was like for him. The fright we all felt must have been amplified by what he felt. The need to take care of others must have kicked in. He must have tried to calm and reassure others, even as he and his fellow attendants speculated and wondered and feared.

On the morning of September 11, I was exiting a motel when I saw the news. The vaguely mid-eastern desk person was transfixed at the counter, as was I. Only much later did I wonder why I assumed his reactions mirrored my own. The scene was unbelievable. I had seen those towers built. Now I saw them fall.

I quickly decided to cut my vacation short, to return to "my people" - my pastoral post. What good I could do I didn't know. I still don't know if I did any good at all. The long cross country drive was confusing and difficult. There were panicked people everywhere, at every rest stop. I remember a frantic suited man screaming at a woman behind a counter at a rest stop: WHERE IS WASHINGTON? HOW DO I GET TO WASHINGTON? It seems that he was never on the ground, never studied geography, only knew airports and runways, and, I suspect, first class.

September 11th. Where was I? Where am I?

Don't trust a thought unless..............

2009-08-13T19:17:00.001-07:00

I once had an idea, when I was young and vigorous long years ago, that I should not trust any idea that came to mind except those which arose while I was walking. In those days, I traipsed endlessly through city streets and parks and woodlands. When I wasn't walking, I was bicycling. When I wasn't walking or bicycling, I was involved in more horizontal pursuits, for good or ill. I'm not sure, even in those years, whether I fully believed my theory of ideas, but I knew then and now that it contains within it a kernel of truth. There is something clear headed about walking, something which both diverts the mind and focuses the thoughts. My mind's eye would study the sidewalks and the brickwork of Philadelphia or Lancaster, would look at the buildings, notice the traffic of pedestrians and motorists, but deeper than this noticing, my mind would be churning away at some problem or issue or life situation. Most often, the walking did not yield any great insight. Most often, my walking simply diverted my attention and fueled my muscles. But sometimes, sometimes, walking would clarify some situation or other.

In those years, bicycling seemed to move too rapidly for this process to work. One had to be more attentive to traffic and to imperfections in the road surface. The world moved at too high a speed for getting lost in thought. That's the difference between three miles an hour and ten. At ten miles an hour, you'd better allow yourself to forget what's on your mind and pay attention to more practical things, like how to avoid becoming a hood ornament on an errant driver's car.

The intervening years have not been good. I went from being a more or less fit thirty-five year old to a decrepit fifty something. An odd nerve disease was diagnosed, and one is undiagnosed I am sure, notwithstanding the opinions of an army of doctors. I limp. I gimp about. Walking is difficult, stairs are uncomfortable, bicycling is out of the question. The knees! The back! The hip! The lungs! Well, if none of them are cooperative, at least they are all in it together, all in this conspiracy to immobilize my body.

Does it also freeze my thoughts? I am afraid it may be doing that too. Somewhere in my 30s I began to love alcohol and now I am tempted to say that I do not trust any idea that does not come to me after at least one drink. Drink loosens the connections enough, you see, for other connections to be seen, if only I could remember them.

So I sit here, sipping my evening's scotch, and wonder what ever became of the young man who thought such thoughts and walked such walks. I sit here, wondering about the prisons of my life, mostly prisons of my mind. If I could walk distances easily, would I walk? If I could walk, would I see myself clear enough to walk to a better place?

She reads me like a book.

2009-07-10T04:52:00.000-07:00

Like most people, I like to believe that there is something mysterious about me. I prefer to think that "what makes me tick" is not obvious to others, and that I can more or less effectively manage the impressions that others have about me. Time and time again I've realized otherwise. But no one "reads" me like mom. And that is a problem.

Earlier this week, I phoned her. "Oh, hi, what's wrong," says she. "Nothing," I reply, "I've just been busy." Silence. "So what is new?" she asks. And on it goes. An ordinary conversation, about nothing in particular. Except she knows. She KNOWS, from the moment I say hello, that something is up. And something is. Except I don't really have words to describe it, and even if I could describe it, I think she wouldn't understand. But she knows, nonetheless, in some inchoate way.

How does this happen? How is it that I have not seen her in months - we live several hours apart - and our telephone conversations are about nothing significant - and I confess, I tend to avoid calling her - and yet she knows that something is amiss? My brother - the not-so-devoted-son - has become the good one, the devoted one, the one who calls daily to check in on her. God bless him. And I, the formerly good one, evade.

I hate being known, in that sense. I hate being read like a book. I prefer to have my secrets, my personal issues, my crises, without them being obvious to anyone. But she knows.

There is a sort of instinct mothers have. And there is something of a sixth sense that some people have. Put those together, and it results in an uncomfortableness for me. Mom has often thought of someone, mentioned them to me, only to find that they were on that day going through some crisis, or had died, or would be calling unexpectedly in a few minutes. This happens so frequently as to be unremarkable. There is some way in which she intuits, or senses, or "reads" what is going on. But between her and me, or rather from her to me (the reverse is not the case) I can hide very little.

She reads me like a book. And I hate it.

The day after the phone conversation, she emails me (not bad for a woman in her late 80s, this mastering of emails and web surfing). She writes: "You sounded so tired, physically. But you sounded even tireder in SPIRIT."

Yup. She has the words for it that I didn't.

I don't recommend it, but..........

2009-06-02T18:59:00.001-07:00

I don't recommend it, but ...........Apple ear buds can be washed and dried! I found mine in the bottom of the dryer tonight, and they sound as good as they ever did.

Murder is murder.

2009-05-31T13:27:00.000-07:00

On the way home today from running errands, I heard about the murder of the abortionist in Wichita. That was awful, on many counts. First, of course, for the man and his family. One can only give them one's prayers at this point. But it is also awful for the pro-life cause, which attracts more than its share of nuts and losers, its zealots and crazed persons. Undoubtedly there are some on the pro-life side who will somehow see this as good news, or at least neutral news. it is not. It is awful and wrong in itself, and it is likely that it will work against the pro-life cause. In order to succeed politically in the US, a group must appear to be "normal" and to appeal to the broad consensus of the American people. When a crazy, violent or vengeful act like this is done, it deprecates the pro-life cause and all who are involved in it.

Thoughts on the report on Irish schools

2009-05-21T05:54:00.000-07:00

The report is here: http://www.childabusecommission.ie/index.html?bcsi_scan_974662F3747638A9=1

We should all be ashamed, for there is obviously something tragically broken in this institution that we love, the Church. It has somehow derailed badly, and is overly concerned with reputation, prestige and power. Even today, while steps have been taken to prevent abuse of minors, the primary goal seems to be to preserve the reputation of the Church, as if that were possible.

Indeed, a case can be made that the much applauded "Dallas agreement" in the US was simply an agreement to pursue the traditional goal by other means. The traditional goal was to protect the Church's reputation, and to this end the victims of abuse were sacrificed. After the scandals broke in the US, the goal of protecting the Church's reputation was still primary, but now it is the priests and volunteers of the Church who are the bearers of the burdens, while the bishops have never investigated themselves or held themselves accountable. In the present system, priests have no rights that bishops are bound to respect, and accusations alone are enough to destroy a life. But having said that, one must also say that many, even good, priests and religious still don't "get it." They still don't understand the horror and outrage that is legitimately directed at the institution and its bishops and priests. They don't understand the severity of the problem, and they don't understand that we live in a totally different age than even ten years ago.

Angels and Demons and Libelers

2009-05-13T06:44:00.000-07:00

CNN today posted an article about how moviemaker Ron Howard and his crew believe that there is nothing controversial about their new film Angels and Demons. However, they play fast and loose with the truth. Dan Brown consistently mixes fact and fantasy in his writing, and in interviews he gives, to give the impression that it is all really factual. The film apparently does the same. People take away the impression that his works are fictionalized accounts of real events, much like a fictionalized movie about George Washington deals with a real figure and real events. But this is dissimulation. Brown - and Howard et al. following him - make things up. In this book and movie, for example, he says that Copernicus was opposed by the Church (not true), was murdered (not true), and that the Church persecuted and murdered a group called the Illuminati in the 1600s (not true - they didn't even exist until two centuries later).

Accusations such as Brown's and Howard's against any other entity might well be met with libel actions. Yet Brown and Howard profess that they have made overtures to the Catholic Church, and imply that the Church is unreasonable in not cooperating with a film that portrays it as murderous. The link to the CNN story follows.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/13/angels.demons.controversy/index.html

Obama on gay marriage and "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

2009-05-12T18:50:00.000-07:00

The blog "Pam's House Blend" has two wonderful stories today about the Obama administration's inconsistencies on gay marriage and on "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Wander over to http://www.pamshouseblend.com/ for a few minutes. It will leave you chuckling, scratching your head, or muttering under your breadth.

Assisi and the Sacro Convento

2009-05-04T05:42:00.000-07:00

This picture shows the Basilica of St. Francis complex, as seen from the valley. The nearer part of the building is the Apostolic Palace, which is reserved for papal use. The basilica complex is an extraterritorial possession of the Holy See. Further toward the church is the Sacro Convento, the friary that has been continuously occupied since the middle of the 13th century. It serves as the central convento of the Order of Friars Minor Conventual - one of the three branches of the First Order of St. Francis. Behind the basilica is the cloud-shrouded Mount Subasio. Assisi is build into the side of the mountain.

Unbeliever in the pews! Wonderful!

2009-05-03T16:09:00.000-07:00

The American Public Radio program "This American Life" this week includes a segment by Dan Savage. Savage writes a witty and sometimes raunchy sex and relationship advice column. In his memoir, which is about half way through the hour-long program, Savage talks about his mother's death and how it has driven him back into the pews of Catholic churches despite his unbelief. The episode is poignant and heartfelt, and raises so many interesting questions about church, belief, and the sometime ability to be touched by religion. The podcast can be accessed at: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=379 Savage may think he is done with God. But it would seem that God is not done with Savage.

Oh boy..........

2009-04-29T06:19:00.000-07:00

The blog "Joemygod" www.joemygod.blogspot.com excerpts part of the following column from the Rhode Island Catholic: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8908 The comments in jmg are predictably, and mostly understandably, anti-Catholic. Bishop Tobin, in his column has some reasonable points and then adds to them very unreasonable arguments. There is some logic to the position that, if homosexual acts are immoral, then the state should not be in the position of recognizing them. But there is no logic or fact that supports his statement that the Church may be forced to "witness" gay marriages. By "witness" I assume he means the Church officiating at such ceremonies (in Catholic theology the Church witnesses the couple marrying each other). Obviously, Bishop Tobin needs a crash course on First Amendment law! On the other hand, if he means that the Church should not even have to see or notice such things in society, that means that he wants to exterminate any public reference or acknowledgment that gays exist. That is truly offensive and chilling.

Torture anyone?

2009-04-28T19:46:00.001-07:00

I have to say that when the first news came a few years ago that we were torturing people, I didn't believe it. As evidence mounted, I couldn't bring myself to believe it. When we saw pictures, I thought that it was just a couple of bad apples in the barrel. And now I feel ashamed. I should have known. I should have seen. I should have had ears to hear and eyes to see. The Bush years truly brought this country to its lowest point. And it doesn't matter if it was effective. As Sunday school teachers say to their charges: "the ends don't justify the means."

The basilica of St. Francis, Assisi

2009-04-22T06:25:00.000-07:00

The basilica has three levels. The upper church, seen here, is Italian gothic, and its nave contains the Giotto frescos of St. Francis' life. These are based on the biography of St. Francis written about 25 years after his death by St. Bonaventure. The lower church is romanesque, and contains one of the earliest portraits of St. Francis, by Cimabue. Beneath the lower church, is the tomb of St. Francis. Originally, this was hidden and inaccessible. In the 19th century it was excavated, and may now be visited. Near Francis' tomb are the remains of five of his early followers, four friars, and one enigmatic woman friend, Jacopa.

A time of challenge; a time of grace.

2009-04-22T05:54:00.000-07:00

My days are passing quickly in a blur of meetings and other work. I can't imagine what may come of all this activity. It all seems so important at the time, but after even a few days pass, most of the formal meetings, the budgets and the filling out of papers, appears to be irrelevant to the big questions, to the big project.

Students are asking the big questions now, as the semester rushes to an end. "Why am I in this life?" "Why is this so hard?" "Why can't I seem to understand _________?" Fill in the blank with the title of any philosophy or theology course, or the name of any friar in the house or ministry supervisor, or person to whom they minister. It is the season of their self-doubt. In a few weeks, as grades will be posted and as they go to summer assignments, they will realize that they know more than they think they do, did better than they feared they would, and have indeed grown in the process. With effort, they will avoid smug self-congratulation though, and realize that the road traveled is still shorter than the road ahead.

My job is to make sure that they continue to ask the questions, to poke and probe and jab and weave if they try to give pat answers or are not self-reflective, and to encourage them in their efforts to become their best selves. I can't give them the answers. Their answers have to come from their own hearts. And I can't take away the questions or make all the doubts go away. That would be unfair to them, to me, to the Church and to God.

This life is challenging, and will become more challenging for them as they grow in the life (although for now, they can't imagine how that might be so). In a few years, the supports that they have now will be lessened. In a few years, they will, God willing, be the solidly planted pillars of strength who will be able to walk into a room where a thirty something wife has just learned that her husband has died suddenly, who can preach a funeral homily that comforts and lifts up and points to ultimate truths, who can stand in front of a parish and say what needs to be said whether it is popular or not, and who is able to be the same man when others are watching and when he is alone.

To get them to that point requires now that they be gradually stretched and stressed. To get them to that point, they must "unpack" and examine their theological and religious beliefs, test them, so that they know what they believe and why and can articulate that to others. To get them to that point, they must come to know themselves deeply, to be aware of their foibles and the stories that they tell themselves about themselves, and to see themselves and the world as directly and honestly and deeply as they can. To get them to that point, they must know what the Church teaches and why, and why it makes sense, and how to explain it, and how to love those who despise it. To get them to that point, they must be open to the operation of God's grace and holy will in their lives.

It is a tall order. So much focus is on them during this season of their lives, yet they must become less and less self-focused. They must be aware of the wiliness of their natures, and learn the ways of grace and the Spirit. They must die to self and rise to God, then descend to others to teach them the way.

The semester speeds to its conclusion. There is so little time left.

St. Sebastian - Church of St. Agnes, Piazza Novona, Rome

2009-04-19T08:16:00.000-07:00

800 Years Old and still ticking.....

2009-04-16T07:39:00.000-07:00

In the year 1209 (some say 1210), a poor man walked to Rome with eleven companions. He wanted to see the pope. This was not a "done deal." There was no advance team, there was no pre-meeting meeting between "his people" and the "pope's people." There was no carefully crafted post meeting statement. Not a bit of that. In fact, it isn't exactly clear when the meeting took place - not the day, nor the hour - and even the year is in some dispute.

What is known is this: a man in beggar's garb got himself admitted to see the pope, personally. It seems that his bishop, Guido of Assisi, happened to be in Rome and that smoothed the way. It seems that a generous-minded Cardinal, Hugolino, spoke favorably of this man's enterprise. It seems that the pope had rejected the man, and then dreamed of seeing the great Lateran Basilica (where the pope lived then, not at the Vatican) falling down, and this poor beggar propping it up with his shoulder. This scene is reproduced in the Giotto frescos in St. Francis' basilica in Assisi. It seems that the poor man had scribbled some notes - mostly Gospel passages. And it seems that the great Innocent III accepted this as a Rule of Life, at least provisionally.

The poor man and his brothers returned to the Assisi area. Innocent III continued to rule the Church. And if anything was written down, no one has found it yet. But the Franciscan Movement was launched. It had been given at least verbal provisional approval. Within a few years, thousands of men would join the brotherhood of beggars, and the Church, which had been falling into ruin, would be rebuilt.

Last night and today, Franciscans of all stripes from around the world gathered together to remind ourselves that one day, 800 years ago more-or-less exactly, a pope and a beggar talked, and from that talk has come so much.

May God give you peace!

The Quiet Day

2009-04-11T07:53:00.001-07:00

"The world in quiet stillness waits." That is a line of a Christmas carol, but it describes Holy Saturday, when the liturgical services of Holy Thursday and Good Friday are done, and all is in readiness for the Great Easter Vigil. There are no sacraments celebrated today, except viaticum for the dying. All is hushed. Even when preparations are underway, when there is last minute baking and cooks begin the early stages of preparing for tomorrow, when rehearsals must be done for tonight, and excited catechumens and candidates for entry into the Church need to be encouraged, there is an undercurrent of silence beneath the noise, a stillness undergirding the activity. Holy Saturday is a feast for introverts.

Holy Saturday teaches us to wait, to just wait, and to hope, and to understand that all that must happen will happen. Even when the choir's handbells are not all shined up, when the vestments are not fully ironed, and the Easter fire is not perfectly formed, and the plants have too many whites and not enough foliage, no matter. No matter. It does not matter. Easter will come. Ready or not. Mankind has been trying to delay Easter since, well, since the first Easter. We have enjoyed our sins, we have rejected our God anew, we have failed to prepare ourselves, and we have failed to do all manner of mundane things to prepare (where are those egg dyes anyway?). No matter. Easter will come, it will come. The Savior will rise, has risen, remains always risen, but will come again in liturgy. The new Paschal Candle will have the date 2009 written into its soft wax, the bells will ring again, the lights will brighten again, the organ will stir from its Holy Week silence, and the "A"-word will ring out in hymns and psalms and prayers. We simply wait in stillness. For it is about God, not us, and God will not fail, will never fail, to do his part.