Here's a line from The Catechism of the Catholic Church that is not, I would wager, particularly well known. It has to do with the overall treatment of gays and lesbians in modern society:
"They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition" (#2358)
That's strong stuff: every sign of "unjust discrimination" should be avoided. Without getting too theological, Catholics know that a "sign," as it is used here, can mean not just any evidence of discrimination, but anything that points to something discriminatory. In any event, even if you quibble about what "sign" means, that word "every" is clear. Every means every.
Of course most Catholics -- in fact, most educated people around the world -- know well the other teachings from the Catechism on the topic of homosexuality, which are very clearly stated. Most, for example, would know the teaching set forth in #2357, which states that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered." But the full teaching of the Catholic church on homosexuality and homosexuals often surprises many people -- including some Catholics. (That's one reason I would like to focus on it here: it's somewhat less well known.) In #2359, for example, the Catechism says that gays and lesbians who live chastely "can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." That's strong stuff, too: it means that gays and lesbians who live chastely can lead holy lives, and even strive to become saints. After all, that's what approaching "Christian perfection" means: sanctity.
Given that the Catechism sets forth the church's opposition to "every sign of unjust discrimination" of gays and lesbians, I wonder how many Catholics will be celebrating President Obama's signing of the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law today, after its passage by both houses of Congress. The law had previously prevented gays and lesbians who serve in the armed forces from publicly identifying themselves as homosexuals. Originally, the Clinton-era law was, as I understand it, intended to protect gays and lesbians from "witch hunts," that is, formal investigations leading to their ejection from the service. (And indeed, some who admitted their orientation in the past few years were dismissed, which removed many fine men and women from active duty when the country could probably least afford it -- during wartime.) But that earlier law is now judged to be "unjust" by the majority of American lawmakers.
The fact that the gay and lesbian soldiers who were willing to give their lives for their country were unable even to admit their presence within the military, seems about as far as you can get from any reasonable definition of "respect," to quote the Catechism. Much less is it treating them with "sensitivity and compassion." How compassionate is it to tell a soldier: "Feel free to sacrifice your life; just don't expect us to admit that you're here"?
As I see it, the repeal of DADT is not about marriage, or sexual activity, but about something else, and something perhaps more important: simple human dignity. And the innate dignity of the human being is an overarching theme of Christian theology, Catholic teaching and the Catechism: "The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God" (#1700). The repeal also turns on a question of justice, another overarching theme of Catholic teaching. As Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said as the Senate debate opened. "If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn't have to hide who you are." By saying to gays and lesbians, "Yes, you are here with us," the country honors them; and honor is a constitutive element of "respect," and is also related to social justice. This subtle concept is something that the Catechism illustrates in a beautiful line: "Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect" (#2479).
Since today's repeal of DADT says nothing about gay marriage (nor would it have been approved by lawmakers if it had), since it does not contradict church teaching on that matter, and since it takes a strong stance against "unjust discrimination" against gays and lesbians, as the Catechism encourages, will Catholics rejoice over this news? In the past, when Congress passed, or the president signed, a bill offering protection for a marginalized group of people, the church would often take notice. Remember that the Catechism sets forth a strong line on this -- "every sign of unjust discrimination." That's pretty broad. Still, I wonder if there will be much rejoicing for this respectful, compassionate and sensitive act of justice.
This blog entry was first published at "America: The National Catholic Weekly".
Mirror of Justice: Should Catholics support "Don't ask, Don't tell?"
In other news:
The pope is happy to tell us that we are inherently, intrinsically, morally disordered with a tendency towards evil. no other "sin" gets that kind of billing.
The Church is happy to blame us for its pedophilia scandals. Yup. we're the ones who covered up those thousand and thousand of cases of pedophilia (not homosexuality) lest it cause a scandal in the church. Like it has for the last 800 years or so. It's in Chaucer, Boccaccio, and "The Fallen Order" by Karen Liebreich.
The Pope has said that letting gay people adopt children is doing violence to those children. Better no home at all than a happy home with same sex parents who actually want a child.
My marriage has caused the pope to declare it a threat to family, god, freedom, earth, and everything. If I want to stand up for my rights as a human being and an American citizen, the pope has declared ex cathedra from his belly button that I should NOT be surprised if violence ensues.
Just who the hell do I think I am? A Human being?
Most importantly, we do not hold back from condemning sin and error, lest we, by silence, stand aside while our neighbors wrestle with temptations alone, or worse, while they are importuned with false counsel dragging them into sin. .
It's that simple.
Instead of fighting this fight as a religious or social crusade, it should be fought (and easily won) as a basic civil rights issue. It's not about acceptance, and all that other mushy junk, you don't need to be accepted to deserve equal treatment under the law.
Stop playing the culture-war game.
I will continue to always vote my conscience if given the opportunity.
And of course, the term "chaste" can mean either 1) celibate or 2) confining one's sexual activity to a spouse.
The Church of Rome has been unequivocally opposed to gay men and lesbians having any access whatsoever to 2); and its clergy has made sporadic efforts to sell 1) in terms of gays being "called to celibacy."
Whoop de do. I'd advise any gay person who gets this kind of crank call to not answer the phone. That's what God made voicemail for.
You should know darn well how long slavery was *justified* using that same Bible with the same darn 'logic.'
What a cool "avatar"! A picture IS worth a thousand words :-)
Caveat: The Roman Catholic Church accepts Gay people only if they refuse to deny the full expression of their love and commitment to another human being of their choosing.
Fanned!
--ez
Hate to break it to you, but people who discriminate and worse, don't even stop to *ask* about your sex life in particular. And those who use religion to abuse LGBT kids start on it long before they've done any 'sins,' I assure you.
That 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' nonsense is still no justification for injustice, and it *is* nonsense to anyone who knows the reality.
Perhaps Benedict should clean the papal household, first…
In 1981, Cardinal Ratzinger - now Pope Benedict XVI - was aware of Father Stephen Kiesle’s criminal record of child sexual predation.
When Bishop Cummins petitioned the CDF to laicize Kiesle, Ratzinger refused to act:
“This court…deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.
It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time.”
Kiesle was finally laicized in 1989 - nearly a DECADE after Ratzinger knew of the perpetrator-priest’s criminal activity against innocent children!
The Vatican seems far more interested in protecting Benedict and Church assets rather than the children who were savaged at the “consecrated hands” of sexually predatory priests and bishops.
--ez
-----------------
Read Kiesle’s well-documented history of sexually molesting children and Benedict-qua-Ratzinger’s deplorable lack of response to it:
1) http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_04_09_SantaCruzSentinel_TimelineOf.htm
2) http://documents.nytimes.com/the-document-trail-stephen-kiesle#text/p1 scroll to page 15 to see the Latin text of Ratzinger’s letter
You got that right.
Anyway- they are factual-
The Vatican demands congregants and legislators to vote and legislate in ways that prohibit Gay people from adopting children, allow employers to fire Gay workers - including teachers - provide for “the housing needs of genuine families” [vs Gay families], and “landlords' legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants [ie Gays]."
It says that Gay people are “ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
The Vatican declares “neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”
The Vatican insists that “it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the consignment of children to adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or coaches, and in military recruitment.”
The Vatican says “all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory….accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons.”
Thank you...
Fanned
--ez
It's not tolerance. It's just a forked tongue.