Category Archives: Heaven

BUT I “AM” MY OWN POPE—WELL SORT OF ANYWAY!!!

I was told the other day (on Father’s Day to be exact) by an associate who had been following my Facebook page and this blog that, in regards to my last post about being both Anglican and Roman Catholic, I was being “illogical” in taking such a stance. He took a great deal of time from his Father’s Day (and mine as well) to plaster my FB page with responses to posts he was either offended with (one was a picture of two men kissing, fully clothed—that one nearly did him in I think), or which he simply disagreed with for whatever reason.  Aside from seeing a side to this person I had honestly not realized before, I also was taken by utter surprise at his timing as he is the dad of two lovely children and has a both kind and dutiful wife.  SO WHAT DID THEY DO FOR HIM ON FATHER’S DAY ANYWAY? That very sincerely was my first and foremost question.  I wondered how he had so much time on his hands on what should have been “his” party day. Oh well.

dad-s-barbecue-bbq

My second however was far more serious and to the point of this post, and has to do with one particular comment he made on the post linked just below. I normally would not create an entire post in order to respond to one comment, but this particular one warrants more than a quick and easy answer, so I shut off the blog for a couple of days as I pondered and prayed.

Still Roman Catholic…and Anglican Too! (catholicboyrichard.com)

One of the things he told me in no uncertain terms was that I could no longer call myself a “Catholic” because I disagree with Rome on a couple of arguably major items.  And along with that, I should not consider myself a member of any Roman Catholic parish. He does have a partial point here. I say partial because I am not sure he understands one of the most basic philosophies of the Faith, which is that, once baptized within the Catholic Church, you remain Catholic for life whether you question some things later on or not.  That is also my biggest gripe against the hierarchical system too by the way. During RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) you are generally encouraged to ask all the questions you wish to and have the right to expect an answer when you do. That, in itself, is a drastic change of attitude from when I was growing up as a Catholic.  We were taught, and in no uncertain terms, to question nothing. Ever. But that changed, along with the rest of society, during the late 1960s and early 70s, along with the rest of society. At least now you can question during RCIA if not after. In any case it became fair game to question virtually everything during that milestone period of history, and that attitude seeped rather deeply into the Church as well.  In fact if you were to ask the average Catholic, the Mass-going, offering-giving minority who are still in the pews today, if they are allowed to question such teachings as the authority and infallibility of the Holy Father (Papacy) and Magisterium (hierarchy), and further to have a different view on issues such as same-sex marriage and onward, you would find a resounding “yes”—from those who even knew what a Magisterium is, that is.

Also most priests and bishops would tell you to please, please keep coming to Mass even while working through those questions and issues, in the hopes that at some point you might eventually move from “cafeteria Catholicism” to a more technically correct understanding of the Sacraments, nature of the Church and her core teachings. And most would say so even if you spent part of your time attending another non-Roman parish or congregation too. The simple fact is that they do not wish to lose the minority of Catholics who actually still attend Mass weekly. What they would probably say is not to partake in the Eucharist, but in reality most would anyway and no one would be there to police them or escort them away from the altar, unless they were of course wearing an Obama T-shirt or something when presenting themselves!  A double standard to some extent, yes, but one done with the intent of keeping the Faithful…well “faithful.” Or at least giving them more of a likely potential for that to eventually occur.  And it in no way violates the common understanding of Catholic teaching in doing so.

Where my rather fuming friend is probably correct, however, is that I should perhaps not refer to myself as an active Roman Catholic when I am also actively a part of another Christian communion. My thinking in doing so was to remain close to the Catholic Church (the Roman version that is) as I probably agree more with her than with the Episcopal parish I am now again part of. I continue to practice the devotions I have learned or re-learned upon my return to Rome in 2005, such as the Rosary and asking for the intercession of the Saints, believe in the Real Presence of Christ our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, and with CS Lewis (a fellow Anglican revered by Protestants and Catholics alike) I accept and even embrace some form of purging after death on our way to heaven.  As stated elsewhere on this blog I still believe in the 4 basic pillars of Catholicism, which are the early Creeds, the 7 Sacraments, following the 10 Commandments particularly as expressed in the Beatitudes and finally in Christian prayer with its basis the very prayer given to us by Jesus in the “Lord’s Prayer” or “Our Father.” Either name is incidentally valid and true. So I am more “Catholic” than not.

The places where I differ are in issues that were not even on the table as near back historically as 150 years ago or thereabouts. Papal infallibility was never delineated fully until the later 1800s at the First Vatican Council, and the nature of marriage is frankly a fairly new discussion—but a timely one, I believe, given what science and society now knows about homosexuality. It is ironic to me that I could have been a solid practicing Catholic 160 years ago and not believed in full Papal infallibility, and, due to the understanding of the world at that time, been a closeted LGBT person with no one dismissing me from the altar as a result. I might have been castrated or worse if found out of course. Never mind that I have been careful not to so much promote “same-sex marriage” either here or on my FB page as to simply point out that, through my own and countless other people’s lived experiences, without this enshrined in law we as LGBT are in the very real danger of finding ourselves once again fighting for everything from hospital visitations to wills that cannot easily be contested by biological families who oppose the couples in question, and another 500 or so benefits given to those considered to be “married” by the state and nation which are denied to single people whether straight or gay.  I agree that there is the danger of religious freedom issues being violated with marriage equality laws in place, but I think the other issues far outweigh those dangers personally. Civil marriage can be indeed set up to work for both groups and should be.

My brother fairly recently lost the love of his life to a horrible form of cancer. They had been together for many years (over 10) and in a monogamous relationship, as well as being past the age of child-bearing that was never an issue. For probably half of that time, and particularly in the last couple of years, he took care of her like the champion he is. But they never legally married. Why? Her insurance was based upon a military pension from her first husband. That simple. Had they married he would have lost his home, and likely his business. As well as her. While the Church would not have considered that arrangement “sacramental,” in the eyes of those of us who knew them it was far more sacred. And I fail to see how a legal technicality based upon faulty law would have changed that.

And that is the lot for many LGBT couples too. I find the above and similar situations unconscionable and cannot honestly in my heart support them with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), quoting from Blessed John Henry Newman, refers to as the “aboriginal Vicar of Christ “(CCC 1778), which is our personal conscience. Of course it can be argued that, in that same Catechism, we are told to have a “formed conscience,” with the implication that certain issues can only be decided by the hierarchy, and of course it is that very same hierarchy which will then tell us which issues those are so our individual brains or hearts are not needed nor welcomed anyway regarding those topics.  Ironically then, within just a few pages of each other, the Catechism of the Catholic Church first gives us freedom of conscience and then reels us right back in when we practice it. And I do not agree nor find that system either logical or tenable.

Back to my offended cohort for a moment.  To him, I do not belong within the Catholic Church nor have the right to even refer to myself as a Roman Catholic. Unfortunately he is not alone in his technically correct but what I believe is a deficient understanding of Church History. So many times the Church has changed stances, official ones, and yet has claimed to never once have erred on issues of “faith and morals.” I disagree. During the Reformation it was considered not only legal but well within the authority and duty of the Vatican to painfully execute those who were dissenters, even if fellow Christians. Now our Catechism states that we should call them proudly our Christian sisters and brothers due to our common baptism.  There are many ways to slice that, but to deny that there is a difference in doctrine and how it was practiced in this instance is utter nonsense. I have also heard people defend the Inquisition with such statements as “well not nearly as many were put to death as once thought.”  Using that reasoning, those who do not believe that 6 million Jews were gassed or destroyed during World War II are correct then in giving Germany and the other participants a pass.  Someone I once worked for (an ex-World War II Nazi foot soldier no less) who had come to the United States after the war, once suggested to me that it was “only 1 or 2 million.” I never trusted him after that.

Church of the Convent of San Diego, site of In...

Church of the Convent of San Diego, site of Inquisition burnings. Near the Alameda in Mexico City (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If one person died by Papal mandate (and many more than that did), it was one too many, was it not? And the excuse given is that this was a “discipline” not a universal doctrine, so it then takes nothing away from Rome’s authority or overall truth.  Yet atrocities such as the many human stake-burnings, the seizing of property and livelihood by Church authority directly from Councils such as Lateran VI, Protestant Bibles and other literature destruction done en masse, were conducted universally and with the ecclesial authority of doctrine in reality. If we for example had lived during the German peasant revolt, the Inquisition, several of the Crusades, and an innumerable list of other atrocious and unneeded calamities set up and enforced by the Church, and had we been, as most people were then, illiterate and the Church we belonged to ran both the religion and our totalitarian government, we would have had no choice but to accept those decisions “from above and beyond” as infallible. It is extremely convenient for the Church to say, hundreds of years later, that none of those criminal actions by her hand were doctrinal in nature, but if not what were they then? And each of these was universally enforced when the Church was at her absolute height of absolute political power.

Jack T. Chick

Jack T. Chick (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Saying all this makes me sound like Jack Chick on a bad hair day, but I am not. I am faithful to the early Traditions as best I understand them, but leave room, as Rome teaches we should, for doctrine to develop and grow through the ages. The question becomes then who makes the final decision in whether we are called “Catholic” or not?  The Vatican would say that they do, and our bishops do. Most of the “sensus fidelium” would question at least one or more issues as stated above.  And that lay person’s method of understanding doctrine too is considered to be infallible if, over time and study, it is found to be plausible, reasonable and universal or nearly so (CCC 92).

What it all comes down to, to me, is that being a “catholic Christian” on any level is complex at best and a bundle of seeming contradictions at worst. That is unless you see it on a higher level, one that goes beyond Rome, Canterbury, Greek or other Orthodox, or Reformation/post-Reformation Christian communities of faith.  Somewhere there is a God who keeps us in unity of spirit if we allow Him to do so. One that has given us an inspired (God-breathed) Word in the form of the Holy Bible, and the additional insight of the rich Traditions through the ages to study and learn from. But that unity cannot, in my mind, be based upon the dogma of one of those groups. It goes above and beyond, just as He too is above and beyond our mindsets and always will be. And, yes, that separates me from the official teachings as now understood by Roman Catholicism. I am “close but not quite,” in other words, in my current understanding of theology.

So, to my friend, I should give up attempting to be Roman Catholic or even referring to myself as such.  But according to the Church and Catechism I am still Catholic but dissenting in some areas. To him, my soul is in danger by such dissent. To me, again according to the “primordial” sense of a studied conscience, I am in far more danger by not dissenting. So dissent I do.

Frankly I get the fact, as I have already stated that I probably cannot consider myself “actively” Roman Catholic at this point. But again the Church seemingly encourages even inactive Catholics to go to Mass and participate as appropriate. So to me that was my personal call to make, neither his nor anyone else’s. However his irateness was a microcosm of what I will get if I attempt to, and I am frankly too tired to fight battles I can never win. Plus I am not going to hide anymore, whether behind Rome or a semi-conscious attempt to please my more conservative Catholic friends or relatives.  It is not worth it to me or them obviously. So today I plan to make a couple phone calls, “unregister” myself from the Catholic parish I had intended to become part of (Holy Rosary), resign my associate membership from the Cathedral of St Paul, and from here on will refer to myself as a “catholic Christian” only—small “c.” I am officially a “lapsed Roman Catholic.”

Hopefully that will please my angry (and just a tad self-righteous, or so it would seem) “friend,” and remove any confusion or doubt from the minds of any of the rest of my readership who have been puzzled over my constant vacillating of the last 2 plus years—but if it pleases you not, I don’t plan to lose any sleep over it.  Not a wink.  Not anymore. Nor will I argue about it with even the most well intended “do-gooders” who wish to set me straight, and assume I could not possibly have thought or prayed this through properly.

FINALLY:

Rome will ALWAYS be home to me. One day I may return yet again—one day when more freedom of conscience is allowed and actually welcomed that is. But for now, she and I have needfully parted company—at least on an active level. I hope that return can occur in this lifetime still. The traditionalist circles within Catholicism are likely happily rid of me. And for that I am hugely sad. But, though I sojourn elsewhere for now, she is and remains my Mother. And my love remains for her as well. I am not home yet.

Psalm 137

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

Lament over the Destruction of Jerusalem

137 By the waters of Babylon,
there we sat down and wept,
when we remembered Zion.
On the willow there
we hung up our lyres.
For there our captors
required of us songs,
and our tormentors, mirth, saying,
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

How shall we sing the Lord’s song
in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand wither!
Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem
above my highest joy!

STILL ROMAN CATHOLIC…AND ANGLICAN TOO!

English: Pompeo Batoni: Sacro cuore di Jesù, p...

English: Pompeo Batoni: Sacro cuore di Jesù, painting on the altar in the northern side chapel of Il Gesù in Rome, ca. 1740. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I think I have it figured out. Then again, I have thought so on a number of occasions in the past and each time one part or the other did not fit together entirely or even satisfactorily (sort of like sex can be, but I needlessly digress)…

5901__x400_mated_poster_01

ANYWAY I think I finally understand, “at last,” at least my immediate spiritual path and perhaps my permanent one too. I do not wish to give up on Roman Catholicism. I never have. Even with my “side journeys” in the past and present to the Anglican/Episcopal side of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, I have always seen myself in close affinity to Rome and not a Protestant as such.  The richness of so much of every other Christian faith community depends strongly upon what Rome has preserved for each of us of all persuasions and forever will of necessity do so. Rome has blessed us all in numerous ways. That is simple Church history and the story continues.

And, at least it would seem so far, Pope Francis, of all Pontiffs in my entire lifetime (he is number 7 so far), seems to most clearly and innately grasp a fuller outreach to the rest of Christianity (and beyond even into other world religions), which gives me strong and renewed hope for a new paradigm of Christian unity, one not based totally on agreement in every detail or even dogma, and yet not ignoring them either, nor depending on any one particular Christian organization (including Catholicism or Orthodoxy) to unify the rest as the one and only path towards this lofty and worthy goal. Obviously it is early to assess but his attitude surely seems to be the most honestly “ecumenical, “in the truest sense of the word, which I have seen in my nearly 58 years. Below then are my two “spiritual leaders,” Pope Francis and Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. But beyond them both is and must always be the leadership of Christ within me. And on that point I will not compromise again by allowing any Church, not even the “original” one, to expect my mind and personal convictions to be laid aside in my search for  the greater Truth dwelling beyond her sheltering arms.

fran

In short I believe that there is plainly meant to be room for each of us who name the name of Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, God of the entire universe, and the second person of the Triune Godhead to sit at the same table, both Eucharistically and otherwise. I think it is undeniable personally and have thought so for quite some time. I would never have returned to Rome in 2005 if I could not bring along with me my ongoing relationship or continued conversion to Jesus (gained in fact primarily during my Evangelical years), and to recognize that true “Catholicism” breaks far beyond the borders of Rome or of the Tiber River on either shore.

While certainly and clearly taught by the Catholic Church, this “personal conversion” concept is indeed sometimes missed or at least muddied with spiritual sludge by routine and ceremony, and I think devout Catholics and Protestants alike recognize this need for an intimate connection with Jesus which goes beyond and yet works through the Sacraments of the Church. To lose this understanding is a mammoth tragedy which needs to be addressed and without which no unity, visible or invisible, is even possible. Pope Francis seems to “get it.” So do many others, both within and outside of the Eternal City.

So I am going to try out something out which is new, at least for me, in my Faith expedition.  I have been a daily Mass/Eucharist attendee for the last nearly 8 years, and it has greatly enriched and enhanced my prayer and devotional life. So has the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Both have kept me much more accountable as well as on track at moments I sorely needed to be. While the Episcopal Cathedral I am a member of offers both of these, the daily Eucharist provided is not always at a particularly convenient time and for Penance or Reconciliation a special appointment is generally necessary.  Furthermore, I have never, as stated above, wished to wash my hands of Rome and the riches she offers.  That has never been my intent nor is it now. So what to do?

Going forward I plan to continue regularly attending Roman Catholic Mass, at least weekly if not more, and also partake in the Sacrament of Penance at least monthly. And more if needed and time permits. In doing so I am emulating so many others I know who regularly attend two parishes, such as my Catholic dad and Lutheran step-mom, and who consider themselves connected to both—and so they are. So perhaps I too can become my own “faith merger” and continue in this way to retain links I do not wish to lose.

mark

I plan to keep St Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral as my main parish home overall, while in reality continuing as well to attend Catholic Mass possibly more frequently than the majority of Roman Catholics I know, and partake in such activities as the parish Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration, and many other meaningful devotions which have become so important to me over the years since my return to her in October of 2005. All while retaining the connectedness I need elsewhere as my Catholic Faith walk evolves and grows, and retaining the freedom of my own conscience allowed by my commitment to Anglicanism, and which is in reality taught by Rome too. The best of both worlds truly.

But my primary Catholic parish home  will be a wonderful urban and multicultural Dominican led parish by the name of Holy Rosary Catholic Church here in South Minneapolis, MN.  I have attended there before for a few short periods of time, and I think it would well complement my struggles for finding the unity within my own diversity. The picture below tells it all:

VirgenMayo1

And, finally, during the week, I will still attend the amazing and lovely Cathedral of St Paul for Mass too whenever possible, where I am still an associate member. I have finally realized that my Faith is becoming a “both/and” more than an “either/or.” And I am comfortable and comforted by that idea.

cath2

The real remaining question then is what do I refer to myself as? I am neither a traditional “Anglo-Catholic” nor strictly Romanesque as such, but am likely to find myself a peculiar hybrid of both—a member of the world-wide Anglican Communion as well as a baptized, confirmed and committed Roman Catholic. So maybe I am an “Episcopal Roman Catholic,” although that is a bit long and confusing to some, or a “Catholic Episcopalian” which might be even worse and either would require endless explanation (or I suppose that I could just print out copies of this blog article and keep them to distribute when the question arises!). Or, alternatively, as one friend of mine used to call herself, I could dub myself a “Cathlo-Protestant.” Not so likely to do any of the above though. Perhaps I can just speak of myself as a “catholic Christian” (and Catholic Christian!) and leave it there for now in any case.

I believe I will stick with that. Well I think so anyway!!! Thus the journey continues…and I am still “catholic boy Richard”—and “Catholic boy Richard.” I rest in that—today at least. And yes I am still celibate, barring God so literally catapulting someone my way in such a manner that I am absolutely and unimpeachably convinced otherwise. And I am not expecting that. Nor even looking.

So keep staying posted and  be invited to walk with me on these new steps in the “catholic boy”  Faith expedition, and please keep me in your prayers. I need them. Rest assured of mine.

Richard G Evans

Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

June 7, 2013

What Do You Do When Your Son is Gay?

Reblogged from FreedHearts:

Click to visit the original post

"Mom, I'm gay." Earth-shattering words to many conservative Christian parents -- tragically, many view it as right up there with, "Your child has a brain tumor." Actually, Christians will empathize with a brain tumor, but just try telling the church your child is gay and you will find the limit of grace withheld not only from gay Christians but from their accepting families.

Read more… 2,206 more words

FROM RICHARD--I GET loving and hating God all at the same time...but it is not God we hate, it is the Church's condemning representation of Him. I am 57 and finally coming to terms with this on a more full scale. Thank you for this story. May it break our hearts and makes us think--REALLY think. And pray. God bless the courage of this mom and her love for Christ and her son.  I believe our Blessed Mother felt something the same.

[caption id="attachment_5635" align="alignnone" width="413"]Carracci Pieta Carracci Pieta[/caption]

MUSINGS OF A MATURE MAN WHO DID NOT PLAN TO SWITCH CHURCHES EVER AGAIN…BUT DID–SORT OF (Updated June 1, 2013)

Српски / Srpski: Groblje_Sv._Marko

Српски / Srpski: Groblje_Sv._Marko (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I WISH TO MAKE SOMETHING VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE FOLLOWING POST–I AM STILL A ROMAN CATHOLIC.  MY STRUGGLE IS NOT REALLY WITH DOCTRINE AS MUCH AS WITH CERTAIN PRACTICES THAT ARE PRESENTED SO PERVASIVELY THAT THEY APPEAR TO BE THE “MIND OF THE CHURCH,” AND I BELIEVE THAT EVEN WITHIN THE CHURCH OF ROME THERE IS SPACE TO LOOK BEYOND HER AND SEE THE TRUTHS THAT LIE ELSEWHERE.

THIS IS INCIDENTALLY NOT AGAINST CATHOLIC TEACHING EITHER. BUT MANY WHO APPROACH BOTH THE BIBLE AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WITH A “FUNDAMENTALIST MINDSET” SEEM TO BELIEVE IT IS. I EVEN DARINGLY THINK THERE ARE SOME WHO ARE SERVED BETTER OUTSIDE THE WALLS OF THE ETERNAL CITY, ALTHOUGH THE IDEAL OF COURSE WOULD BE THAT ALL CHRISTIANS BE UNDER ONE GIGANTIC ROOF. THIS ARTICLE IS FOR THOSE WHO, LIKE ME, HAVE HAD TO LOOK FOR CREATIVE AND PERHAPS UNUSUAL WAYS TO LIVE OUT MY CATHOLICISM WHILE BEING TRUE TO THOSE IDEALS, AND THAT IS WHY I ONCE AGAIN SHARE IT. 

Truth all depends on which presupposition you start with. So also with falsehood, and every conceivable combination of both. This is true in daily living, as well as in individual trains of thought. For example, you can be the very best engineer in the world, constructing world-class bridges such as the Golden Gate in San Francisco, CA, following the very best plans and most educated designs for both safety and beauty, but if you start out with soft wood or light plastic as your base foundational substance, you will end up with either a bridge that never stands in the first place or, as in the case of MN a few years ago, a tragic accident due to an unholy union of poor materials and heavy traffic during construction season.

St Paul alludes to this idea in his teaching on rewards in 1 Corinthians. “Wood, hay and stubble” can all be burned up, while gold and silver, when set to the same blaze, become purer. Jesus teaches it another way in his parable about the man who built a lovely and expensive house but used sand for a foundation. It did not last during the storm but rather toppled.

After an over 7 year return to the Roman Catholic circles where I was brought up in and nurtured in my early years, I find myself currently struggling with many of the presuppositions built into their particular interpretation of a beautiful yet bloody, gorgeous but at times grossly savage, and solid but unbendable set of Traditions which I otherwise love deeply.

Around 2 years ago, and again for a few months last summer (2012), I spent several months away from Rome and became part of another Christian “catholic” community, finding many of the answers I was looking for but deeply missing what I had rediscovered within the Roman side of Catholic Christianity. I vacillated a few times during those 6 months, eventually re-returning to Rome, never to “roam” again. Or so I planned. For many reasons I was at peace with this decision, and believed it to be the best for me and others. I continued my studies, kept my eyes open but not away from the Church, and became if anything somewhat of a spokesperson for what I believed to be unfailingly true. It all seemed to fit; it all looked beautiful, and definitely was world-class, just like the bridges and homes I described at the beginning of this piece.

The problem I had then and have now, however, is with the underlying presuppositions. I built many intellectual arguments on topics such as same-sex unions, the Papacy, and onward, only for them to begin crashing around the very issue I thought I had worked through so thoroughly that nothing could yet collapse it again. It was and is an issue of presupposition. One premise says that St Peter was the first Pope, and that the Church, through what is termed as “apostolic succession,” carries that office through him and his successors (the bishops in union with Rome) to this day and age. The other idea is that this succession is borne through Sacred Scripture, and that all necessary teachings of the Apostles are given there, without the actual Apostles being continually replaced through the years in the process. That in fact is the main and (on a very simplistic level) “poles apart” postulation between Catholics and Protestants. One must be correct, while the other cannot be. They cannot be simultaneously true, at least not on a total and unflinching level.

As I prayed and meditated on these opposing concepts, I realized that both have serious problems which the other side can pick apart rather well and easily. That is not my main purpose here but very briefly one teaches that the Bible came through the Church, and is therefore subservient to it, while the other is that the Bible came directly through the Apostles, and what the Church did nearly 400 years into her existence was to officially codify which particular books, already widely circulated and used since the beginning of Christianity, were really and totally inspired as God’s very Word. Both take into consideration the “traditions” that had developed over that four century period. Neither though fully explains how the process was hammered out. Therefore either side could claim “truth” on this issue and its effect on the place of Sacred or Holy Tradition—which, by the way, is a vitally important part of Christianity. If you are not convinced of this, try reading the Bible with no understanding of the societal background, customs of the day, or at least some sense of the original intent and audience, and you will soon find it is very wide open to some extremely bizarre interpretations.

But what about a third concept, one I had not considered? What if God, through natural and salvation history, gave us first Judaism and then through Judaism was born the man Christ Jesus and thus the Christian Faith, while at the very same time revealing Himself to others all over the world in different but essentially valid ways? And what if through that natural development of humankind, people began to develop morality and a sense of religion which, while foreign to the idea of the Trinity or a Messiah, still brought those of good will to an understanding of the Truth within their own cultural contexts? Essentially their salvation would then still be achieved through the blood sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, but they would know Him through another name (or names) or set of spiritualties. And they might well even carry some pieces of the Truth that Christianity does not.

You might rightly say this would bring a rather huge boatload of seemingly contradictory theology, and you would be correct. However it also explains some essential elements of humanity—such as why all people, world-wide, have some sense of the aforementioned spirituality and ethics in their cultures, even though on differing levels, and why faith and morals have been and are in a continuing developmental process within every religion, including modern Christianity of all stripes. Honesty compels us to recognize that, even within the Catholic Church, many, many seemingly authoritative beliefs have changed in just over 2000 years. Examples follow.

One could easily start with the place of Sacred Scripture in the Church, and its before-mentioned 400 years of varied understandings before the regional Council of Hippo first acknowledged in 393 AD the 27 books which are now used by virtually all Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians. For another example church history, even from a Catholic perspective, recognizes the wide variety of teachings on such doctrines as the sacrament of confession, not only how it is done but even how many times a person who named the name of Christ could sin before becoming ineligible for further confession and absolution, along with the types of penances given, which have varied drastically through the centuries.

Another would be the wide and varied decisions made at “ecumenical” (meaning in this case universal or Church-wide) Councils (such as 4th Lateran) which in Canon 3 determined under what circumstances to take land (and therefore livelihood) away from those considered to be wayward and which elsewhere established guidelines whereby Jewish people could be officially persecuted—all during the same Council which clarified the beautiful and clearly dogmatic teaching of Eucharistic Transubstantiation or what is commonly known as the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion—the explanation given of course is that these first two just mentioned and any such discretionary decisions were not actual “teachings” of the Church but rather disciplinary action plans which were in retrospect mistakes, but which take away nothing from the authenticity and authority of the Church in the areas of faith and morals. I cannot help but wonder though how many of the affected illiterate peasants could possibly have understood the difference between a teaching and a discipline? All that they knew was “The Church, the one true Church, has spoken.” And thus she did and still does. Most Catholics in fact still do not know the difference when pressed.

A far likelier explanation than a magically driven Magisterium made up of bishops, Councils and ultimately the Papacy is the idea of a natural development of understanding, which would include of course the Holy Bible, longstanding Church tradition and historical context, and human reason (as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit in each and every believer) to help interpret the other two and apply them to our lives and current situations. Otherwise all of the authority to interpret both Scripture and Tradition goes to one elite group, and a sometimes self-serving one at that. When a Papal decree goes forth to force the Bishops of England to either burn Anglicans or other “heretics” at the stake or to themselves be burned, then it goes beyond “disciplinary decisions” in my analysis. To be sure, other Christian bodies, including early Anglicans, were doing the same or similar things to others. Post-Reformation blood was shed sadly by all involved. But only one major player in this deadly game was claiming to be the original and universal Church while doing so, and only one had the power to enforce that teaching to the death and readily did so. That one was the Roman Catholic Church.

This may sound horribly negative towards Rome and it is not my intent. I love so much of what Catholicism has brought to Western civilization—hospitals, preservation of the Scriptures in a primarily uneducated society for 1000 years, and many other gifts such as these. But where I believe she becomes erroneous is in the suggestion that those “Traditions” are not to be questioned, and are on the same level as Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the same. Historically I do not see how that can possibly be the case.

So back to this third notion of God’s revelation to the world—the idea that He is beyond any one group, and has given a general revelation of Himself to us all, while then allowing us as humans to develop it. Besides seeming to match history, it also has support even in Sacred Scripture, such as when the wise men came from a far country and had, through astrology (something forbidden under Jewish Law) at least apparently, discovered where and when the Messiah was to be born. If that happened, and I believe it did, it occurred because they were listening to the Holy Spirit, even if they called Him by some other title. Another instance of this is in Acts when Cornelius has a vision of St Peter and the others coming to preach the Gospel to him and his loved ones. He was a Gentile during a time when even Christianity was exclusively Jewish, and by very literalist standards should not have been able to discern such a thing without being a “born again Christian” already. And yet he did.

In short, God works beyond any one group and even nature is His witness to the world according to Romans 1. And if that be true, He does so in ways that work with the cultures involved and the revelation which they have of Him. Placing these two concepts side by side, His “cultural and progressive” revelation, and the Church, even the very Church of Christ, having the same types of fits and starts and development through the ages, leads me to believe that no one group, even the one who produced the Messiah, is infallible in its own right. God is perfect—we are not. And when a group insists that they are the only “right” way to Him, then wars and killings occur in His name—and thousands if not millions have tragically died in this manner over the epochs of time. Somewhere we are missing it severely when we buy into the premise that there is one perfect form of religion out there somewhere, even within Christianity.

I still believe in and respect Sacred Tradition in ways I did not begin to appreciate before my homecoming to Catholic circles. I see a far larger picture of Christianity than ever in my life as well. But to place Tradition on the level of Sacred Scripture without being allowed to use my God-given gift of reason and mind—I find that to be implausible. Additionally, to take the Bible so literally that there is no room for other possible interpretations of less clear passages is equally unlikely. Even the most conservative Greek Biblical scholars acknowledge the wide varieties or at very least shades of meaning which can occur in attempting to translate even one verse into another language. And there are thousands of such passages or phrases within the Scriptures where this is the case.

So where does this leave me? I believe in the basics of the “catholic Christian” Faith—the early Creeds (such as Apostle’s, Nicene and Athanasius), The Triune Godhead or Trinity, Christ’s miraculous virgin birth, His death on the Cross in atonement for our sins and His bodily Resurrection, the 72 clearly established books of the Old and New Testaments, with the 7 deuterocanonical books as given by God as well but not primarily to establish doctrine, salvation as a gift received through a living and committed faith in Him (expressed particularly in water baptism either before or soon after), the gift of the Holy Eucharist or Lord’s Supper as a mystical but actual connection to the risen Christ in His body and blood and given through the Sacred Liturgy of the Church, being Confirmed or anointed in our Faith through reception of the Holy Spirit in His Fullness per the laying on of hands, as well as the Sacraments of Confession, Matrimony and Holy Orders, and further the Anointing of the Sick or Unction, the gift and ability to fellowship and ask intercession of the Saints who have gone on before us, the purgation of the same,  and judgment for those who knowingly reject Him, and certainly a few more but those are the main ones. The essentials. Those which make me “catholic” and connected to the early Traditions and go beyond Protestantism in its various scopes. Not better than, but gifted with a fullness that was largely lost during the Reformation.

If you want a reason why I would move to Anglican/Episcopal Christianity at this time in my life, here it is. There are precious few church bodies that recognize the above Catholic sacramental theology and yet allow you to struggle and wrestle with how it applies in today’s world without somehow penalizing you or questioning your worthiness at the Lord’s Table as a result. It is indeed the “media via,” the middle path between Protestant and Catholic Christianity. And it is, at least for now, exactly where I belong. And in Rome too. The two sets of perspectives are not as much contrary and complementary.  It is “both/and” and not “either/or” which is the truest spirit of Vatican II in my mind.

EpiscopalChurchWelcomesYou

emblem of the Papacy: Triple tiara and keys Fr...

emblem of the Papacy: Triple tiara and keys Français : emblème pontifical Italiano: emblema del Papato Português: Emblema papal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Archbishop Nienstedt and his not-so-Catholic “Spirit…”

http://thecatholicspirit.com/that-they-may-all-be-one/the-effect-of-redefining-marriage/

I have been a celibate Christian since before the turn of the 21st century, and returned after many years to Roman Catholicism in 2005. During that time one recurring struggle has remained within me, and has occasionally led to other deeper theological grappling as well. Being “same-sex attracted,” I have tended to distance myself from my actively LGBT brothers and sisters over these 7 “Catholic years,” and although on 2 occasions I attended, each time for a few months, a “gay friendly” Episcopal parish in the area, I always returned after a very short time to Rome. In short I have attempted to be faithful to a more traditional understanding of Church teaching in this area, and now find myself, in the upper portion of my 5th decade of life, wondering yet again if I can continue on that course with real integrity of heart. Perhaps I will end up a “Catholo-piscoplian” or some such thing. Who knows…But I do know that a change is coming and not far in the future.

Please understand I do not mind being celibate for myself, if that is what God has truly called me to. But my heart goes out to those actively LGBT couples and families who have to endure a Church who “lovingly” and repeatedly rejects them, part and parcel, due only to the very genuine love they share one with another. I find that to be ludicrous and for the record always have.

I as well find it somewhere between amazing and shocking that our local Archbishop, in a Catholic Spirit (the Archdiocese bi-weekly newspaper) column called “That They May All Be One,” no less, can spend several paragraphs–5 to be exact–on comparing gay marriage to the scourge of abortion on demand. I find that beyond sickening personally. I am voraciously pro-life, always have been, and presenting such a comparison is likely one of the worst examples of  Pharisaic  snobbery I have ever seen in print. Intended or not, comparing what he considers illicit love to pre-born murder is a horrendous leap into a rather deep pile of steamy dung, I think.  But he does so with a smile.

This is me receiving my Catechetical Institute certificate from the Archbishop...

This is me receiving my Catechetical Institute certificate from the Archbishop…

 If he had off-handedly in one sentence mentioned abortion and then moved onward, one could suggest that it was not deliberate on his part to make such a comparison or perhaps just a slip of the keyboard, and I would be the first to give him the benefit of all my doubts, but I am going to copy below just a small part of what he actually said here, directly from the article itself. If you wish to read it in its entirety please use the link above. It is located in the lower middle section of his very “long and winding” (and bigoted) column.

“The redefinition of marriage in Minnesota is only the most recent example of such destructive laws. We see plainly, with 40 years of experience since the Roe v. Wade decision, the heart-breaking impact of abortion-on-demand.”

(Catholic Spirit, May 23, 2013, That They May All Be One, John C Nienstedt)

While that sentence alone is damning enough, he goes on to write 4 more paragraphs in that same piece, including references to the infamous Kermit Gosnell baby-butchering case which just occurred in Philadelphia and sites several other examples of our callousness as a society (which we are by the way) and which in my opinion he himself is being by using such extreme examples in several rather out-of-context ways to “proof text” his points on traditional marriage. One has nothing to do with the other. It simply does not.

It should be noted that this particular Archbishop also refuses to meet with local LGBT groups unless they first commit themselves to Catholic teaching on marriage–see link below for his own words on the topic, directed in that case to the Rainbow Sash leadership.

http://rainbowsashallianceusa.ipower.com/nienstedt.pdf

Exactly how absurd is that in reality? Quite I must say. What would be the actual point of meeting with those leaders if they agreed already on all the issues raised?  None, and he knows this.  He simply habitually shuts out LGBT persons in this manner and tries to hush them up in the “Courage corner.” And he cannot seem to even fathom that so many good persons are being dreadfully hurt by his painful words which he cannot seem to even abridge. I do not pretend to understand. And since he has chosen not to be silent nor will I will any longer be “one” with his prejudices, for that is what they are. And if he needs to excommunicate me so be it.

But he cannot have my Certificate back.

As a postscript, I would like to add that MN is not the only place where this is occurring. My colleague Joseph Amodeo wrote in the Huffington Post on a similar situation in NYC with Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who some refer to as “America’s Pope.” Personally I am sticking with Francis…here is a link to Amodeo’s well-said piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-amodeo/cardinal-dolan-must-conde_b_3336963.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

A PROTEST BY ANY OTHER NAME…Some Thoughts on the “Dirty Hands” Vigil–REVISED AND UPDATED WITH A PERSONAL NOTE FROM JOSEPH AMODEO…

th

To every story there is a backdrop. And often that backdrop is in the form of a human being. In researching for this article, I found out that the organizer of the recent Sunday “Vigil” at St Patrick’s Cathedral, one Joseph Amodeo, did not do so in a vacuum, but rather after some very real and painful frustration that has been within him for far longer than this last weekend. No matter what one thinks of the event, and as you will see below my feelings are quite mixed on it, and before you vilify our very precious and valuable brother in Christ and the Church I would humbly ask you to read the blurb below about him and his own “Church history.” You might be quite surprised.  Links just below:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/gay-and-catholic-questions-of-identity

 http://garibaldi-gay.com/?p=19612

 Now, having read these, next read his account of what happened Sunday–again you do not need to agree. Nor is my purpose in suggesting that you do.  Just “hear” his very real sorrow with your heart…for it is mine as well. And yours.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-amodeo/cardinal-dolan-denies-cat_b_3219675.html

It is clear to me that this post is going to ruffle some feathers, perhaps even on both sides of the issue of Sunday’s “Vigil” at St Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC. Whether you call it a vigil, protest, a bunch of “whiney people wanting publicity,” or a few very courageous men and women who stood up to the established Church in the face of near arrest, you would be right on all counts–at least in part. I say that because there were likely some of each camp in the group who gathered to both publicize and condemn remarks by Cardinal Timothy Dolan a few weeks ago regarding the LGBT community and “dirty hands.”

To gain proper context on this, first I will share those remarks in full, because without them it is impossible to begin understanding the aftermath. Here they are, directly from Dolan’s website:

http://cardinaldolan.org/index.php/all-are-welcome/

Personally I do not find the remarks offensive. He is attempting to walk the fine line between standing with official Church teaching and at least attempting to cause those with SSA (same-sex attractions) or who are actively LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) to know that they are welcome members of Christ’s body, while at the same time suggesting that they, or should I say we (since I am SSA), are called to follow after the traditional understanding of sexuality as the Church has understood it historically.

I cannot fault him for that. Nor do I. Having said that, I do not think that most people understand how deep the pain and fear reside within those of us from those backgrounds, whether celibate or not. Even after returning to the Church in 2005, 35 years away and 15 of those as an LGBT activist, I had shed many tears over the unthinking remarks of my brothers and sisters in the Faith who have, in one breath, told me how much they “admired” me for my attempt to follow Church teaching as a celibate male, and then who in the next pushed me away when I reached out for their friendship.

I wonder too if people can understand how close to a physical pain it becomes when, while attempting authentic obedience to the Lord, we (I speak in general terms but these examples are things I personally have faced) are told over and over that our very desires are evil, something that the Church never once teaches and which Dolan to his credit clarifies in his post, and/or are said to have the “SSA disorder,” making it sound as if we are somehow pathologically unsound, or who would dare invite us to their homes but not to then give us a hug as a brother in Christ? The worst part, at least for me, is not in those things occurring, but that nagging question of “why?” which follows and haunts.

Perhaps, such as in the above, those who did not hug me just are not the “hugging types”—while I happen to be. And if so that is okay. But I do not know if that is the reason or if there is another more subtly brutal one, one that says “You, Richard, are welcome in my home, but not with those dirty hands!!!” The person who asserts that I have the SSA “disorder” may be genuinely trying to use proper Church language and nevertheless confuses what St Thomas Aquinas, (nearly 1000 years ago and a scientific galaxy away from today), calls “disordered” desires (and I might add the list he presents is rather long and not too many of us from all backgrounds are not on it somewhere) with what modern psychologists now call “disorders,” referring to mental instabilities of one kind or another. The use of the word is not the same in both cases, nor is it meant to be. But the modern mind hearing it equates one with the other very easily. And if someone flippantly says to me “Richard you have my prayers as you struggle with this disorder,” I don’t honestly know whether to hug them or slug them. Part of me says yes, that person is attempting to accept me, and I genuinely appreciate it, and the other part says, he or she is putting themselves above me by saying “you are disordered and I am not,” and that evokes a very different response within me. For the record I have not slugged anyone who has said such a thing to me, but I have, more than one time, winced as though I had been slugged myself. The pain is real, never goes away, and does not “get better.” Basic survival teaches us to live with it however.

And live we do—except for those who can no longer stand it and eventually take their own lives. The suicide rate is exceptionally high among those within the LGBT subculture if you are not aware. I am not sure what it is among those of us who live celibately but the pain of feeling alone and not being fully accepted by either side is at times horrendous. That I can tell you first-hand. So I am guessing it is likely higher than average there as well. And just perhaps, as pro-life Catholic Christians, of which I am one, suicide prevention needs to be on our lucid list of concerns too. I think so anyway.

Take the person who “unfriended” me on Face Book because he wanted no more “drama” from me. We had a definite disagreement, but it was based upon a very felt perceived hurt I had about a totally separate situation–or was it? I admittedly complained to this “friend” because I felt he no longer was interested in me as a human or a person. He ignored my posts and never, or at least very seldom, responded to mine on his page. Now with FB anything can happen, and often does. It is very possible that his seeming ignoring of me was because he was merely overly busy, or having a hard time in his personal life, or a dozen other possible reasons.

“Don’t be so sensitive, Richard!” tends to be the unsolicited advice which more than one has told me in such situations. The problem is, I also knew his general attitude towards gays and lesbians, and he knew of my orientation/inclination towards those of my own gender. So that added layer of uncharted fear provided grounds for me to wonder, whether logically or not, why he was ignoring me, and I dared to ask him. I thought I was doing so with charity, but I also did it quite directly, as I have learned over the years that “beating around the bush” simply adds, not eliminates, drama, at least usually. But his response was, in his words, that he had “no interest whatsoever” in having a friend who carried on such as I did, and I have wondered then and since if he would have responded in that particular way to his wife, to a member of his parish on a face-to-face basis, or the like. And I will most likely never know.

So how does this connect to “dirty hands” and Cardinal Dolan? Both more simply and with more complexity than ever meets the eye. When I as a person with SSA hear the words ”you are welcome” in our Church, I rejoice and say, “finally.” When I hear “but wash your hands first” I begin to despair a bit. Our Lord Jesus always invited people as they were–Simon Peter, who was to later become the first Pope and leader of the Church after our Lord’s Ascension, actually argued with Him in response to His invitation and told Him to “depart from me Lord for I am a sinful man.” St Peter did not do so because he actually wanted Jesus to leave him alone. Not at all. He was desperately crying out and saying, “Jesus, do you realize how unfit I am, how I curse and swear, how I am capable of denying your Name and one day will do so, right when you need me most, how I will limp along as I follow because my foot is generally in my mouth or in other people’s lower cavities? Have you heard the filth I think and occasionally say when the fishing does not go well? And have I mentioned that I get very tired of that sissified John and his brother James who never do their share of the work?”

Yet that was the very Peter who Jesus invited. One who maybe–at least maybe–said or thought those very things, although Sacred Scripture spares us of most of it.  But Jesus called him anyway. And I might add that fishermen in those days (or ours) are not noted for “clean hands.” Jesus called him and then cleaned him up. But we want it the other way around. We want people to “toe the line” or to quit “calling themselves Catholics.” Or to just leave and go somewhere else before they get our hands dirty by their continued presence in complicating our lives.

Someone I also knew on FB, a young Catholic man who I finally ultimately unfriended because of post after ignorant post about the immorality of homosexuals, just celebrated his first wedding anniversary. His baby is at least 6-8 months old, and by my math his zipper did not remain intact before his wedding night. I do not condemn him for that and never have. And never would I. But he has no problem attacking “faggots” such as me, and yet again in the same fleeting mouthful of typewritten air plainly told me that he respected my following the Church in spite of my background and attractions.

But I felt absolutely bodily filthy, and not just in my hands, after going to his page time after time and reading sometimes 6-8 posts in one day about the slimy, grimy dirt of homosexuality. It obsessed him very obviously. I could easily say that he had, or perhaps still has, the OSA (opposite-sex attraction) “disorder.” Because certainly if my behavior has been disordered at times, and still is, so was and is his in his illicit sexual recent past. Has he been to Reconciliation and forgiven by our Lord? I know that he has. But how does he know who else has or hasn’t been there in the confessional line along with him, gay or straight, or who they did with what person the night before? Quite simply he doesn’t.

Does this mean I have turned soft on sin, or am suggesting that Cardinal Dolan need pretend he believes “gay is okay?” No. It does not. But it does mean I “get” how much it hurts to hear what is, rightly or wrongly, filtered freely towards those of us with SSA as a result of some of the statements and seeming lacks of compassionate action discussed above. And those are the tip of the iceberg within our Church and Christianity in general, very sadly.

On the other hand, I can sincerely understand St Patrick’s Cathedral not allowing in for Mass a group of people who deliberately charcoaled their hands and attempted to not call it a “protest.” Just from a practical level, in a huge world-renowned Cathedral with many items of great monetary and esthetic value, everything from hymnals to holy water could have been quickly rendered useless or at least contaminated by their actions within very short minutes. I think that there are quite likely better ways to have protested or “vigiled,” and using other people’s prayer times to do so goes against my grain personally as well. Also when you go to Mass with the express purpose of creating a news story and deliberately embarrassing the Cardinal, who, like it or not, is indeed the wielder of Catholic Christian authority in the “city that never sleeps,” it is rather safe to say that you can expect the NYPD Blues to be called in. Disturbing the worship and peace of others is not perhaps the best way of calling attention to your concerns, even if they carry some or even much validity.

I think that the same can be said about the Rainbow Sash movement, who in a very real way sabotage themselves, at least in my view, in the way that they protest each Pentecost Sunday (and sometimes in between times) at Cathedrals all over the country. Here in MN where I live, they have been invited to receive Holy Communion, but to first “remove their sashes,” and when they do not, they afterwards have publicly complained about being refused Communion. And that seems to be the only part of the story which hits the news most years. I wrote separately on this issue awhile back, and will be revisiting that post in conjunction with this one in the near future. So, the short answer is, no I do not think that these are the most valid ways to attempt dialogue with the Church on issues of contention. But…

Neither do I think that the Church as a whole can go scot-free here. History has shown us that, even by direct ecclesial Church authority over the centuries at times, homosexual people have been literally murdered within her ranks–and yet she has oft-times looked the other way when priests and bishops have had their own “gay subcultures” within seminaries or same-gender relationships in semi-secret.

For what I am about to say in this paragraph and the next, I wish to make it clear that I am not in any way suggesting disobedience to the Magisterium but simply sharing a personal opinion regarding a discipline, not a teaching or dogma, which was instituted shortly after I returned to the Church in late 2005. Since that time, Rome has officially barred those who have actively practiced or been involved in homosexuality in the past from entering the priesthood, even if currently celibate, unless their past involvement has been considered very “minimal,” (which is quite subjective in its interpretation even within the Vatican document dealing with this issue) and yet it has been estimated by some sources that possibly up to 1/3 of our current priests are same-sex attracted, and barring other issues they remain in place as active clergy. Note too that, even if that statistic is inflated, and it very well may be, it is still a significantly higher percentage than within the general population. And some of those are the very best priests and bishops, and yes Cardinals, out there.

Such a ban does not, in my opinion, help the situation but rather confuses it further, particularly since this direction from the Vatican was primarily in response to the child abuse crisis which was not and is not based upon one’s sexual orientation in the first place. And it causes men such as me to feel at times as though my “hands are too dirty” to do anything significant for the Church. I try not to listen to that voice of anger, rage and rejection anymore, but it definitely exists within me at times, and I would boldly suggest it is hidden inside every person with SSA, celibate or not, who has chosen to stay with Rome. To this lay person that type of prohibition therefore seem at very least inconsistent and additionally creates a hurtful and unneeded barrier to service for potential priests and religious, which are sorely needed whether with SSA or not. It also reflects sorely outdated thinking.

So what am I actually saying here? I am pleading to be understood, both as an individual and a group. I am not saying “Rome must change her doctrine,” because I do not believe that is a realistic option nor must it be. But she, our Church, our Mother, can and must at least give us the tools to “wash our hands” instead of just telling us to do so. And to be sure, some of those tools exist already and are vastly underutilized. Confession, the Eucharist, daily Mass and/or Sacred Scripture reading, the Rosary, Divine Mercy Chaplet, Liturgy of the Hours–these are indeed effective and needed weapons of warfare in an unfriendly world. But when we who are SSA are doing those things consistently–and in many cases far and beyond those who post hateful post after post about the “gay agenda,” then genuinely respect us for it. And not from some safe distance either.

In a word, honor those who are attempting to honor Christ with their lives, whatever their background may happen to be. And do so even if you disagree with them theologically. And share a towel and basin with them if needed. You must still have one somewhere–your hands too were once dirty after all.

 AND NOW:

As a postscript, and in the interest of full disclosure, I would like to add that I received a very lovely email from Joseph Amodeo, the organizer of this event, who was kind enough to read my article above, and he gently pointed out to me that it was planned all along, even in the printed instructions handed out to those in vigil last Sunday, to be sure and wash their hands before receiving the Eucharist that day. There was absolutely no intent to damage or diminish any of the beauty of St Patrick’s.  I then verified this and am providing the instructions as handed out directly below. It would appear to me that St Patrick’s at very least hugely overreacted to this entire situation, and I am sad for my brother in Christ and his brave group. One may agree or disagree with the Vigil itself but it was not done maliciously in my opinion. At all.  I think then a very real injustice was done in how this was both handled and, in some cases, reported. Thanks, Joseph, for bringing this to my attention.

First, with his permission,  Joseph’s email to me:

5:29am

Joseph Amodeo

Dear Richard,

Thank you for sharing your blog and for your statement of support. I found your post to be very interesting and I appreciate many of the points you raise.

One thing I am beginning to notice is that many commentators are failing to realize that we were all planning to wash our hands before receiving the Eucharist. In fact, as the organizers, we even posted these directions on the Facebook page for the gathering and distributed a hard copy of guidelines the morning of, I only point this out, because in our hearts, we truly sought to attend the Mass to be with Christ.

Even today. I’m saddened by the church’s response to our presence at the Cathedral.

Again, thank you for your post and for your message.

Peace, Joseph

 
7:19am
Richard Gerard Evans
May I add your letter as a comment on the post? I obviously missed that point as well.  In any
case I will add something about it. But it would be nice coming from you. God bless you so very
much.
And finally…
These instructions were clearly given before the actual Vigil event.  Whatever you may think of the actual Vigil itself, I think in fairness it cannot be denied that those participating and leading this event were doing so with kindness, humility, and a spirit of love for Jesus in the Eucharist as well as in each other. We can all learn from this. I definitely did.
 

Good morning,
Tomorrow is the day. Please see the event description for additional information about where we are meeting at 9am.

Also, I wanted to respond to a few concerns that have been shared with me regarding tomorrow’s silent presence at St. Patrick’s Cathedral: … Respect for the sacred nature of the Eucharist is of the utmost concern of the organizers. In light of this, we are encouraging those who are participating and who wish to receive the Eucharist to wash their hands using a supplied “handi-wipe” as they prepare to receive the Eucharist or receive such on their tongue. Upon returning to their pew, they will be able to re-darken their hands. This action will not only maintain respect and reverence for the Eucharist, but will also hold a symbolic meaning — we are all clean before Christ even if some members of the Church’s hierarchy view us has having dirty hands.

As a reminder, this will be a silent vigil.
For those who are unable to attend Mass, please join us at 11:20AM outside of St. Patrick’s Cathedral for a silent vigil/presence. We will meet on the sidewalk across the street from St. Patrick’s main doors.

 

Related articles–from various perspectives: