On Sept. 16, Fordham University kicked off the "More Than a Monologue" series on Catholic responses to homosexuality and to other sexual minorities, such as transgender and intersexed people.The title of Fordham's daylong public conference -- "Learning to Listen: Voices of Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church" -- points to the aim of the series. Since the Vatican's 1968 letter on contraception, the Catholic discussion of sex has more and more resembled a determined monologue, in which Church officials speak and Catholics in the pews see no good reason to listen.
As African-American Catholic theologian Fr. Bryan Massingale (one of the conference speakers) suggested, most Catholics retain a strong sense of sexual morality and sin. For example, most Catholics are clear that spouses cheating on their partners, or priests molesting children, are both very seriously wrong. What is collapsing is the sense that the Pope and his bishops are interpreting the Catholic ethical tradition in authentic or relevant ways. Whether the topic is married people's use of condoms, or same-sex marriage and attraction, or even the mortal dangers of masturbation and women priests, the faithful are not convinced.
The conference series brings together two leading universities and two academically prominent seminaries. Fordham in New York and Fairfield in Connecticut are both run by the famously free-thinking Jesuit fathers; Union Theological Seminary in New York and Yale's Divinity School are both liberal and non-denominational (though traditionally and still largely Protestant).
In the US today, the two biggest denominational groupings are Roman Catholics (about 24 percent of the US population) and former Catholics (about 10 percent) according to a recent Pew report. As a collaboration between progressive Catholics, former Catholics and liberal Protestants, the series hints at the transformative power that might be tapped if Catholic-minded people start talking about sexual diversity in considered ways with their pastors, their bishops and their fellow citizens.
The story of one panelist's grass-roots ministry demonstrates how difficult it may be to get the current Catholic leaders to listen. Faced with a growing number of homeless LGBT youth in her community, this woman and her husband began taking these young people into their home. They coordinated with social workers from local LGBT services agencies; they raised money and collected clothes from their church group and their wider circle of friends; when possible, they held reconciliation meetings with the young people's parents; when not, they helped these kids to find a job -- away from hustling, off the street, onto a path of independent life. The message they received from the lieutenant of their local bishop? "Help these kids in any way that you like. Just make sure you never describe it as a ministry of the Catholic Church."
On the neuralgic topic of sexual diversity, the Catholic Church appears to be a community dramatically out of synch. Its impetus towards Jesus-like ministry is matched with a powerful political fear of moral contagion. Fear was a recurring theme during the Fordham conference. Are bishops and Vatican officials afraid of moral relativism, or of the growing demand that they engage their followers in thoughtful and adult-like conversation? Meanwhile, activists, scholars and many clergy themselves are afraid: for some, of talking back to the honored authorities of their childhood; for others, of the career-ending persecution that can come from taking too public a stand in support of LGBT people and their relationships.
As sociologist Jerome Baggett, another conference participant, pointed out, Catholic church-goers, whether "conservative" or "liberal," are equally adept at engaging their Catholic tradition. They both strive to select and interpret scriptures and teachings to help them make sense of their lives: to help them become better Catholics and holier human beings. Liberals and conservatives may have different pieces of the tradition on their trays, but both are essentially "cafeteria Catholics," picking and choosing from their Church's offerings to create what -- by their own lights -- will be a nourishing spiritual meal. With upcoming conferences on gay teen suicide, same sex marriage, and sexual diversity and celibacy in ministry, organizers hope that the conversation at the Catholic lunch line becomes both more attentive, and more intense.
The next conference in the More than a Monologue series, "Pro-Queer Life" is scheduled for October 1st at Union Theological Seminary in NYC. Inspired by concern over bullying and teen suicides, Union Theological Seminary poses hard questions: What has church teaching got to do with it? How can things get better for Queer youth.
believe people are free to live their lives the way they want. I do assist other gays. The only thing I teach is abstinence. Practicing that is their choice. I'm actually the first openly gay man with Aids to start a religious order in the history of the church. I have no difficuties in being celibate. However I have compassion for those who struggle with it. I'm far from being judgemental.
Br. Christopher
The old guard is afraid of losing control. Thus, they want a smaller church where their is more control. The Vatican II Catholics want to engage the world and bring to it the Good News that was preached on the mountain.
What the world is seeing at this conference is the struggle between the two.
Who exactly are the 'old guard' that you speak of? Who is frightened?
Yes, those who are paying attention to this conference may see it as a struggle between a modernist Catholic view and a Roman Catholic one, but you overstate the number of people actually interested. The world is seeing this conference as a struggle? The world is going to sports events, listening to Lady Gaga and playing video games, except in those places where they are starving, being shot at, and having their churches burned down.
Most people who hate the Catholic church don't hate it at all. They hate their misunderstanding of it. Reread those Vatican II documents. You'd be surprised at how 'traditional' they are.
Are they? Is Rudolph Giuliani, who went very public with his adultery after defending "family values" for years, that atypical?
Spencer Tracy would sleep with Hepburn. He just wouldn't divorce his wife so he could marry her - because that would have been a public sin, as opposed to the supposedly private one he was committing with Hepburn.
Unfortunately, for many Catholics, "morality" is negotiable. Or so it seems when you see such behavior.
You say "The Catholic community is dramaticalÂly out of sync with the popular view of homosexualÂity." Numerous surveys show that Catholic church members are roughly in agreement with the rest of the society. The people who are "dramatically out of sync" are the church hierarchy, and their attempts to impose their views via monologues addressed to the people in the pews isn't working, and hasn't for many decades.
If Catholic church members as a group fail to follow their leaders, why should the rest of society have to go along with them?
Sperm is for one reason only. Anyone misusing is using for their own selfish and deviate pleasures. There is still affection. Humans think this misuse is a way to show love. Oh how wrong they are.
I speak the truth, for I am the truth.
You never rubbed one off or had premarital sex or anything like that, right, Todd?
I'll bet your keyboard is stickier than flypaper. ;-)
As I mentioned earlier, man has misused this act for its own selfish pleasure, a pleasure that man is too selfish to understand.
And you lost your bet. I accept PayPal.
Did you know that only about 30% of women are capable of climax from just penetrative sex? The overwhelming majority of us need extra stimulation from a body part that has NOTHING to do with reproductive biology and everything to do with having a very good time? If sex really was just for procreation - why would all those nerve endings work so well? (and why would they be in all sorts of places that aren't involved in conception?) We evolved as a social entity and sexuality is just part of it.
Sex is for bonding, it is for feelings of closeness and intimacy, it is for FUN (hell, I know couples in their 60s who still have a regular sex life after 40 years of marriage - and why not?)
But hey, if you want to only ever have sex a handful of times to make kids, that's your choice. But kindly refrain from trying to assert truth when those of us with mature healthy sex lives are just laughing at your attempt to have "insight".
(And, just so we're clear--I'm male, gay, progressive, and live in San Francisco).
I could say a lot--I'm not going to I am just going to say that the seething liquid hatred underneath the "love the sinner hate the sin" masquarade was truely frightening.
I do have to draw attention to the msgr who runs the archdiocease of washington blog. He erased comments he didn't like, chastised one person for name-calling, then proceeded to call several posters "childish". (He didn't respond to their statements, just called them childish). I refuted one of his statements with a non-edited scripture text (with no other commentary) and he refused to allow it to remain on the site. This was, of course, in a blog about how the catholic position on homosexuality was actually not bigotted.
I have decided to donating to, and will hopefully be able to donate time to Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and anyone else I can find who will help curtail the negative influence the catholic church has on Amercan secular society.
And anything
I speak the truth, for I am the truth.
How, exactly, did you come to the conclusion that they were being anything but forthright?
Like I said--I spent time on Catholic websites. They were saying incredibly hateful things and claiming what they meant was "love the sinner, hate the sin."
And honestly--engaging them was as futile as asking paint to dry faster.
And while it would be nice if we could reject labels and just be "human beings" would you care to take a guess at why some people - the ones who are badly treated and denied the rights and legal protections that others take for granted - need to band together under an inclusive umbrella?
I suspect you already know the answer is BOTH.
The bishops and the Vatican both have rather simplistic, child-like understandings of "moral relativism" that leave them terrified of actually loving those they regard as sinners.
And at the same time, they aren't just unwilling to to engage the laity (and many religious) in conversation, they see no role for conversation on issues of morality. The current cast of bishops and Vatican officials were all appointed by John Paul II and by Benedict, and that cast believes it already knows all the answers. All that remains is for the laity to hear them, heed them, and obey them.
But conversation among the laity (and some religious) is still highly worthwhile.