From my position at Fairfield University I have been keeping a close watch on the U.S. Catholic Church for exactly 30 years. In this time I have seen attitudes change among friends, colleagues and students in many ways. One of them is the cultural acceptability of sexual diversity in the Church. Here in the second decade of the 21st century, we seem to be at a turning point. The time has clearly come for a serious conversation. Every year fewer people, especially among the young, are willing to argue for heterosexual normativity, and that speaks loudly for a future without discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Strikingly, of all American Christian groups, Catholics are the most supportive of same-sex marriage and/or civil unions: a whopping 74 percent expressed support in a recent poll from the Public Research Institute. This is despite the strong opposition of their own bishops.
One important step toward a more open conversation will be taken this coming fall, when, under the collective heading of "More Than a Monologue: Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church," two Jesuit universities and two interdenominational divinity schools will host a series of four day-long conferences open to the public. Fordham University and Fairfield University, Union Theological Seminary and Yale University Divinity School will each create distinct opportunities for all who wish to attend to speak and to listen to the many and varied voices that Catholic have on this issue.
What do you do in the Catholic Church when the bishops and the Catholic population as a whole seem to be so far apart on something that everyone thinks is important? On the part of the bishops, simply speaking louder against equality is no solution. Any good teacher knows that a failure to communicate cannot simply be blamed on the students. Sometimes it is plainly the fault of the teacher, whether poor content or poor presentation. Good bishops, like good teachers, know to examine their methods and maybe even their content when reception of what they have to say is on the wane. And Catholics as a whole need to know why they believe what they say they believe and what are the positions and opinions of their fellow religionists who come to very different conclusions. Perhaps, everyone needs to take a deep breath.
The issue of Church opposition to same-sex marriage or civil union is not the heart of the problem. It is simply a symbol of marginalization. The truth of the matter is that Catholic gays and lesbians, transgendered and bisexual Catholics, live in a Church which they perceive is not welcoming them as the people God made them to be, created surely "in the image and likeness of God." In civil law the struggles against discrimination and the movement for marriage equality may well primarily be issues of civil and human rights. In the Church they are that and much more. To be made in the image and likeness of God, as the Christian tradition sees it, is to be made -- body and soul -- to reflect the Trinity, that is to be made for love and relationality. When the Church requires life-long celibacy of all people who are not heterosexual (the demand it makes of homosexuals who wish to participate fully in Church life), it imposes a sanction which is, in effect, the imposition of a life of less love and human relationship than is available to heterosexual Christians. A call to be less loving, body and soul, is a call to be less in the image and likeness of God.
Bishops have responsibilities to defend law and doctrine, and sometimes that makes it hard for them to hear the voice of the Spirit moving through the body of the baptized. Catholic laypeople, as they exercise their ministry in the secular world, are primarily motivated by their ordinary human experience, living and working alongside their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender friends and family. Catholic or not, these people have the same human needs and concerns as their heterosexual counterparts, they are often role models of Christian life and love, and they look to the Church for acceptance as the people they are.
The objective of the public conference series, "More Than a Monologue," is to raise awareness and generate vigorous debate on sexual diversity issues within the community of faith and beyond to the broader civic and political worlds that the Catholic Church and the Catholic people inhabit. The doors of the conferences will be open to all, whatever their points of view, in the confident expectation that true dialogue and honest conversation is the way forward. The conference organizers are motivated by a deep love of their Catholic tradition. "More Than a Monologue" is an act of faith and hope that there is a sure and full place in the Church for people of diverse sexual orientation and experience.
Paul Lakeland, one of the "More Than a Monologue" conference organizers, is the Aloysius P. Kelley S.J. Professor of Catholic Studies and Director of the Center for Catholic Studies at Fairfield University.
James Peron: The Gay Marriage Revolution Started Centuries Ago
Jesuit universities to hold conferences on 'sexual diversity ...
Stand strong Roman Catholic Church!
Apart from all the daydreams about things like God and the Holy Spirit, what people really have to contend with day-in day-out is other people. Sartre said that Hell is other people. Other people are Heaven, too, and a lot of the stuff in between.
"just jump to Z, realize that God doesn't exist"
-- but of course I should've said "realize OR ADMIT," because surely many people have advanced that far logically, but don't say so because of their situation in traditional society, and so perpetuate societal nonsense for the sake of personal convenience. J'accuse! Come out, come out, you atheists!
The Holy Spirit would not move to deceive the faithfull, the spirit you are referring to is not holy.
Celebacy in the church has only existed since aroung the 1100s when a pope declared priestly celebacy for all priests in order to keep property in church's hands. Priests were married prior to that time, the apostles were married, as someone who taught in the synogogs, Jesus by custom, would have had to be married as well.
It's time for the Catholic church to grow up, allow married priests, and welcome gays/lesbians into the church as full members and children of God. Same sex marriages won't destroy marriage. The increasing divorce rate among evangelicals show that Christians need to get honest about the failure of their own marriages and clean up their own side of the street before keeping two people of the same sex from acknowledging their love for each other.
it came about, how those old theologians were reasoning and thinking, and so forth.
For instance celibacy and chastity seem the perfect moral while when closer looked
at what a not suspected and very raucious, abusive, intellectual arrogance comes to light.
http://socratesbooks.blogspot.com/2008/11/decent-critic-of-church-religion-and.html
But here's my question - Shouldn't the Catholic clergy be in agreement about what their doctrine is regarding same-sex orientation before these conversations take place? To date I've heard them promulgate two contradictory views: Same-sex orientation is fundamentally "disordered" (and therefore ideally shouldn't exist), on the one hand, and, on the other hand, that all sexuality is a gift from God, but that God calls upon homosexuals to remain celibate. I don't agree with either - The former view betrays an entirely simplistic understanding of sex from a biological and evolutionary point of view and the latter is simply ridiculous, but nevertheless - Which is it?
The fact that while the Catholic *people* aren't so strongly against LGBT equality doesn't mean that they aren't represented in politics by a hateful Church and right-wing political mouthpieces like 'the Catholic League' who clalim to *speak for Catholics as a voting bloc in government and politics, thus misrepresenting their own people as well as using religious authority to oppress and defame others in civil matters. *
The Church uses a *great* deal of defamatory language and deceit, inside and outside its walls, particularly in trying to push blame for its own crimes off on everyone else, then absolve itself, thus leaving everyone but themselves holding the bag for what they've done and baselessly accused others of doing.
You call the Church hateful, but have you actually attended a Mass or service. When you do, then compare it with the vitrial coming from the pulpit of the Evangalists, born again sects. You will not find the priests spewing hate. I know that non-believers can not be persueded by a few words on a blog. But I would like you to check your facts before you write.
Okay, let's say I am an adulterer. Why can't I say that the Catholic Church is "not welcoming [me] as the [person] God made [me] to be?"
And sotto voce the teaching remains that disorders, including dispositions, are curable. "And such were some of you" etc.
100% percent of Catholics are sinners. Does this mean that the Church should sanction all sin?
Jesus did not take the vote of the apostles when he said that marriage is between a man and a woman, nor did they vote when he forbade divorce, nor about whether he should allow himself to be crucified.
Substituting democracy for the word of God is bizarre path the Catholic Chruch will never take. "Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
Also if you truly understand the Bible in context of history, you will see that marriage was a completely different institution than it is now.
Women were considered as property
Women had no say in who they would marry
Women would have to marry the brother in law upon the death of her husband
It is acceptable in the Bible to hit a wife with a stick as long as it is not thicker than your thumb.
Marriage was considered a political institution until the catholic church got into it in the 1500's, for political reasons.
So if you want "Biblical Marriages", I would like to see you say so.
If the Bible were properly understood, the biggest building in the middle of every small town from Chile to Siberia wouldn't be dedicated to fearfully trying to follow its rules. It would just be another ancient collection of tales and taboos and it would have no more contemporary impact than the widespread ancient customs of wearing tattoos as protection against evil spirits or sending a father-to-be to bed when his mate was about to give birth, and we'd have one huge reason less to senselessly condemn homosexuality and a lot of other things.
Clearly, our society as a whole is still a long, long way from understanding the Bible in the context of history.
And women only had to marry brothers-in-law if they were widowed with no children. It was a protection for women to make sure they were not left without provision.
how long did it take the church to forgive the guy that found out the earth rotates around the sun. a few hundred years?
then you have the idea that someone had to die for humanity's sins. that will be a big one to climb.
then you have the jesus is god thing. ouch big one there. even jesus did not say he was perfect.
signed oh well it does not matter does it. :-)
Man, an apostle advocating that we live a life with less love! Wow! Or is it that our ability to love is not restricted to acts of our genitalia.
You're on the right track there, but you still have one thing sort of backwards. Paul restricted love FROM certain acts of genitalia. Not to -- from.