Tag Archives: religion

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

24 Replies


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

Other Related Articles :

WHY I STAND WITH TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE…AND REJOICE WITH MY LGBT “FAMILY”

8 Replies

934627_562700940441498_1965664545_n (2)“He’s gone off the deepest end of the swimming pool this time,” you say. Well perhaps I have but I do not think so. An interesting thing is that Rome, on this topic as well as so many others, has many, many layers of theology and reason, all of which are both important and needing consideration in order to come to a cohesive understanding of the topic at hand.

MN will almost certainly become, as early as next week, the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Note I did not call it, as is today popular and chic, “marriage equality.” Actual and literal marriage equality would necessitate polygamy, an issue from the last century or just before it, and very possibly the marriages of close relatives, also something which occurred more prevalently then and still occurs now in some states (19 to be exact). It could even mean that children could once again marry (the late country singer Loretta Lynn was married in 1948 at age 13) just as another example, and one, I would suggest, more serious than allowing non-related adults to marry of either gender.

All of those are instances of marriage “equality “gone awry and not particularly good for society. Many would put same-gender marriage in the same categories as the above, but I am not sure we can do that, either as a Church or society. Why not?

A stark history lesson going back to the Founding Fathers of the United States might be in order here for starters. Thomas Jefferson, who is often thought of as one of the ‘liberals” of the bunch who signed the Constitution into law, was of the belief that homosexual males should be castrated. And, up until the early 1970s, the condition of SSA (same-sex attraction) was thought to be a mental illness by most, which has now been refuted by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, and most other health and social service organizations have followed suit. The American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, as has National Association of Social Workers and numerous other mental health professionals since that time. Very few think otherwise.

On the other hand, the clear and unwavering teaching of the Church is in favor of traditional marriage, both for society and for the children produced by it. I am as well, and not disputing this ideal in any way. I wish to remain clear on this as I write what may now seem to contradict the interpretation of some within the Church on this matter.

With that, here is the rub between the last two paragraphs. Church authority as well teaches that we are not to discriminate against those with homosexual orientations in any unneeded ways, and to treat those of us from that background with the utmost respect and kindness. That line of thought is directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) of 1992. Yet if you present that line of reasoning to many, they will come up with astounding interpretations that support their view, yet are clearly contrary to the spirit and letter of the CCC. Just as an example, I have heard or read on several occasions that the “kindest” response would be to make homosexuality illegal again (which by the way has only been legalized on a nationwide level since the Supreme Court decision of Lawrence vs. Texas in 2003) in order to “protect us from ourselves.” That to me is akin to making smoking cigarettes or purchasing super-sized sodas illegal since both are clearly bad for us and somewhat addictive besides.

My point is this: some personal decisions and choices are going to be made anyway and either way, law or no law, and therefore are better gently regulated than outlawed. And I think my Libertarian as well as many staunch Republican friends would tend to agree. The sexual behavior of two consenting adults is, in my view, squarely in that category. I am not sure how it can be otherwise unless the police plan to stand guard at all houses and apartment complexes, with ears to the floor and allow only squeaky bedsprings with wiretaps tightly attached. On a practical level alone we just do not have the resources for such a police state nor would anyone sane, LGBT or otherwise, accept that in our day and age.

So how do we best obey Church teaching while at the same time offering true and authentic tolerance here? Obviously on a personal level we can and should share our Faith and values with our families, friends and neighbors. But I question if it is the best use of our time and energy to continually fight over this issue, and spending millions upon millions of dollars to do so. And in addition, intentionally or not, we are painfully alienating an entire segment of society in the process. I mentioned the 1960s earlier, and what many do not realize, because among other reasons it was not “newsworthy” enough to even be reported in the news, is that LGBT people were constantly being arrested, harassed, beaten, and tormented in those days, days within my lifetime. Was it not for Stonewall (see link here)—

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

there might never have been even a mention of homosexuality within the Catechism promulgated less than 25 years later. The gay rights movement, whether one wishes to admit it or not, brought some very powerful and important changes which were sorely needed to society, and exposed to the light some of the horrific discrimination that did and still does exist at times due to sexual orientation. And sadly it was not the Church who first recognized this miscarriage of justice. The video below from the 1950s is one dreadful example of why people still think that LGBT people are “child molesters.”

On one level it is utterly laughable, but when I realize I missed by less than a full generation carrying such a stigma myself, and still have glimpses of it from the occasional few who are back in time with Jefferson and the others, I find it chilling to the freezing point. Were it not for amazing and courage-laden LGBT activists there would not even be discussion today of hospital visitation rights or wills shared between lifetime partners, much less permanent legal protections for couples in any way akin to marriage.

But, you may say “marriage” goes too far. And on a purely religious level I might agree with you. However one theological notion which has developed within the living Tradition of the Church, long before the issues of “marriage equality” or the sexual revolution ever occurred, is the principle of doing that which is “least evil.” It in fact is a standard which applies even and in fact especially to non-negotiable issues of faith and morals in a religious context. A simple explanation might be this—for the sake of societal concerns, there are times one must choose, whether politically or in other ways, what choice is the least problematic when, no matter which decision is made, all available choices may violate some or several of those principles.

I am of the belief, given the long-standing as well as recent history as well as present day of severe oppression of LGBT people, that some sort of “marriage” type of legal arrangement is more necessary than not, and that it should be similar and transferable throughout the nation too. Otherwise I fear, not a little but greatly, that the post-Stonewall advances discussed above made will fast be reversed, and I would hate to return to an era in the United States when it is legal to not only discriminate but to castrate those of us with SSA. We cannot afford to ever let that happen again. Neither in our lifetimes nor in our children’s. And it is naïve to assume it could not. Ask Matthew Shepard if you do not believe me.

I also know that there are very real dangers with “marriage equality.” The fears that schools and social service or adoption agencies among other groups will be drastically affected are not without warrant. Canada has had same-sex marriage in effect nationally for a number of years now, and churches have been very nearly forced by the government to drastically “tone down” their language in their teachings on the topic. To me those apprehensions are not insignificant or to be ignored. But the bottom line is, this is coming. To a state or nation near you. And especially near me. Most likely very soon in fact. So now is the time to begin seriously collaborating, which neither side has been particularly famous for on this thorny issue. And in the meantime, just as the late  Holy Father John Paul the First  congratulated the first invitro-fertilized couple upon the birth of their child, although conceived in a way that the Church did not in any way approve of or condone, I plan to gladly congratulate my LGBT friends who obtain the protection of law when they legalize their unions in a civil marriage. I will do so because I believe it is better than the alternatives which are now left available. While civil unions in theory might at one time have been “enough,” the example of Vermont, first a civil union state and now a same-sex marriage state, should clearly show us that the LGBT leadership will not be satisfied with “separate but almost equal” in this matter. Not anymore.

I believe and accept the fact that this will never be considered the “Church ideal” now would I personally ask it to be. I do not expect the Church to somehow create an 8th Sacrament for unions of the same gender either. But I move forward with the hope that she, our Mother the Church, will finally begin concentrating more on how to integrate our precious LGBT couples and, yes, families, into parish life when possible, and according to Church law, rather than fighting about whether they should even exist or not. That demographic is not going to disappear—and as my friend Joseph Amodeo eloquently wrote, they do not have “dirty hands” either. Many same-gender couples and parents could easily teach the rest of the Church a few things about love, sacrifice, and raising children in an atmosphere of love. Will we at last let them?

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

9 Replies

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:

TOWARDS A MORE NUANCED FAITH-BASED VIEW OF SAME-GENDER UNIONS—my personal thoughts on “Marriage and the Supremes” by Frank Bruni

2 Replies

Frank+Bruni+10th+Annual+New+York+Times+Arts+MldLdfV8Hi2l

FIRST a short disclaimer:  Neither Bruni’s views nor my opinions on them are to be read as official or unofficial Catholic teaching on the topic. First of all I am not sure of Mr. Bruni’s religious affiliation or if he even has one, but I am sure of mine and in sharing my point of view here do not wish to violate what I believe is clear Roman Catholic doctrine regarding same-sex attraction and homosexuality. I believe, and accept with the Church, that marriage is the lifetime union of one man and one woman.  I am sharing this article however because I believe along with Frank Bruni, that we are on, in his words, the juncture of an “aura of inevitability” regarding LGBT/SSA issues not just in our nation but in the world. Change is coming. And using my old Boy Scout motto from childhood, we must “be prepared.”

If that be so, the question then becomes how to view that change, as well as what to do about it. And my suggestion is for us as Catholic Christians to sit back for just a short moment and reflect upon that “query” (pun intended) before doing more screaming and fighting about the “definition of marriage” and what it should be, as well as what it isn’t.

If not we clearly shall—not maybe but definitely will—lose many, many fine LGBT/SSA people to other Christian communities, or, worse yet, drive them away from God totally. Many already believe that both God and the Church hate them personally. And, sadly, we have often given them reason to think so. And to me that is far more to the heart of the issue than who wins or loses in the ever-more heated debates on the topic.

With that, I share first Bruni’s article and then some subjective reflections on it. And, again, these thoughts are my own and not meant to be construed as Catholic teaching as such, however I believe they hopefully may present some thinking beyond the current paradigms of “yes or no,” “black or white” rationale we so easily fall into on complicated societal foci.  Particularly on a subject matter which has at least 50 (or more) shades of grey to it. Here then is the article:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/bruni-marriage-and-the-supremes.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&smid=tw-share

No matter what one’s view on the topic, this is a thoughtfully written piece which expresses in no uncertain terms the crux of the matter I think. No matter what the Supreme Court decisions here, marriage is not “going” to be redefined. It was redefined long ago. The Church’s, particularly in Catholic circles but within other Christian communities as well, definition of marriage will always conflict with the societal one. And it always has. When I was a child growing up in the late 1950s, then 60s and early 70s, I literally lived through perhaps the biggest redefinition possible. In 1960 the marriage and divorce rate was 2-3 per 1000 married couples…and among evangelicals and Catholic Christians even smaller. And I can remember a time, in my lifetime, when those married outside of the Church were not even considered “married.” Today in all camps it is around 50%. That is a mind-boggling reversal in just one generation. There are of course reasons for that which I will not attempt to develop here, but some include the legalization of “the Pill” in 1961, the legalization of abortion in 1973, and in the middle of it all the sexual revolution best represented by the “summer of love” in 1969. Woodstock was only a microcosm of the mind-shift which was already occurring and has yet to stop. “Free love” has been the most costly of all societal swings to the Biblical ideal of marriage as presented by our Lord Jesus Christ.

So perhaps the real concentration of effort among those of us who are more traditional on the topic needs to become strengthening traditional marriage within the Church, which right now is every bit as fragile as marriages which exist outside of her. Traditional marriage becomes appealing to people on the basis of seeing long-term commitments which actually do work, and which take the words “till death do us part” seriously.

Bruni would include in this long-term same gender relationships, and I am not sure he is totally wrong in his assessment here. I have known loving couples in the LGBT world with commitments that would put the multiple-married pundits such as Limbaugh and Gingrich to well deserved shame. And no, I am not picking on them or other Republicans, since I am a Republican myself and divorced. But I use them as examples because both of them have been so very loud and clear on what is or is not “American and godly,” and somehow serial monogamy is presented, albeit subtly, as superior to the love and dedication of a same-sex couple who has been together for 50 years—and many have. Someone close to me has been with the same partner since his senior year in high school, and he is just 10 years younger than me or thereabouts. This same person and his very loving significant other have been together  30 years or more, and only were able to legalize their union last year in their home state of Iowa. Yet Gingrich, Limbaugh, and Britney Spears have all legalized multiple relationships with no end in sight. We all agree that those situations are “unfortunate,” or perhaps even sinful, but we do not waste our energy or time attempting to stop them from doing so. No-fault divorce, another 1970s innovation, has made this far easier as well. And none of the above scenarios are likely to be reversed anytime soon.

Am I suggesting to throw up your hands and give up the ghost on this thing of traditional marriage? Not at all. But I do wonder how costly we may one day find the battle was—and it is a battle we are losing—on “preserving” a tradition which essentially no longer exists outside the Church? Most couples of either gender live together before marriage, if they indeed do ever marry, and as stated already 50 % then divorce later on. With such statistics, I would rather see the Church give viable alternatives to both straight and gay couples, and ones that would very possibly keep them within our ranks.  Here are a few that I have had in my mind for a long while now, and perhaps some of the readers will have more to suggest:

1)       Love them anyway. An important clarification here is that love and “approval” are not identical twins, nor must they be. I once had a pastor who was pretty conservative in LGBT/SSA matters, and someone asked him “what should I do if I find out my loved one is gay?” His reply—“take them to lunch.” Sounds simple but it is not always so. If someone reveals to you that they are struggling (or not struggling) with same-sex attraction, it means first and foremost that this person is trusting you. Do not misuse that trust by ignoring them, shunning them, or hammering them with Church doctrine. Nor does that mean you cannot or should not share your views with them. But it does mean your relationship with them does not need to fundamentally change. When I divorced in 1991, a woman I worked with pulled me aside to discuss it with me. I anticipated a very tense conversation, as she and I were probably two of the most outspoken and visible Christians in that particular workplace. All she said to me was “I need to say to you that I do not approve of divorce.” No lectures, no looking down upon me, and no condemning in her voice. Just those words. We never discussed it again, and she and I remained close friends as a result. Conversely I met another woman while out shopping who I used to attend church with. She asked me how my former wife was, and I told her I did not know as we were no longer together. She looked at me incredulously, told me that my news was “shocking” to her, quoted Scripture to me about “what God hath joined together let no man put asunder,” and then proceeded to tell me that she was going to be sure and let those at her church know about it (presumably to pray for me—or else to lynch me—I still am not sure which one–I didn’t ask and she didn’t tell).  I do know that I never once visited that church again, even though I had other friends there, and that I could not sleep for the entire night after that encounter. So how you say what you say makes a lot—and I mean a lot—of difference. If someone trusts you with personal information about themselves they deserve your respect, not your disdain. Honesty ought to be respected.

2)      Do not fight or bicker with them about the “marriage issue.” Am I saying do not attend pro-marriage rallies or sign petitions, or vote according to your conscience? No. I am saying it is a generally useless and at very least mountainous uphill battle to debate someone who is in a stable same-gender relationship about the morality of their “lifestyle.” They just may be more moral than you in the eyes of God anyway. The Catholic teaching on mortal sin (sin which kills the soul) is three-fold, it must be serious matter, we must know that it is, and then choose to do so anyway. How do you know that this person has sufficiently worked through all three of those steps in coming to their conclusions on how to deal with their un-asked for attractions? Simple answer—you don’t. But if you have cheated on your opposite-sex spouse, quit attending Mass or confession, support “a woman’s right to choose,” or the like, and done so knowing what the Church teaching is but not particularly caring in any case, you may—and again I say may—be in mortal sin yourself. So do not judge their souls. And fighting with them about the marriage question can truly appear to be indeed judging the eternal soul of another, at least in their eyes and especially their emotions. What we want to do is win people, not arguments. So tread carefully here.

3)      Work on your own relationships. One of the things that absolutely helped to draw me back to a more traditional and sacramental understanding of marriage was simple observation of people who did not even know I was watching—and with whom I was not even consciously attempting to do so. The amazing Catholic Christian actor Jim Caviezel, long before doing the movie “Passion of the Christ,” was in a movie with the very beautiful Jennifer Lopez. In it there was a love scene where she was to be topless. He literally stopped her before she exposed herself and famously told her, as well as the directors and all in authority over him at that juncture that “I wanted to respect my wife – and her. The only bare breasts I want next to me belong to Kerri (his wife).” In Hollywood that is pretty unheard of behavior these days. And could have easily been anathema to his fledgling career at the time.   But hearing that story made me long for such authenticity in the Christian life, as it has been sorely missing from our culture for decades now. And he earned my undying respect at that moment. There also were a number of Christian couples and families who I knew with similar values on a more personal level. In most cases none of them ever said a word regarding my “lifestyle choice.” Instead they simply became my friends, and I found myself literally hungering for what they had—which was something I had sadly lost. And their “lifestyle choices” gave me hope for a renewed innocence. We often lose sight of the fact that purity of heart is able to be regained by true repentance and giving of ourselves to Christ. I saw that purity lived out in them. And I wanted it again. And, years later, I found it in Christ and His Church. And the confessional.

4)      Quit being mad at “those gays.” Before I came out to my family, I was terrified. Extremely so. Almost every person with SSA will tell you this is the case with them as well. And I was in my mid-30s, so I was revealing this side to myself at a much later age and maturity level than most do today. Someone in my family had once made fun of a female impersonator in front of me, and it took me exactly twice as much “oomph” if you will to finally speak to this person. When I did she was very kind about it, but I was nevertheless far more fearful due to one simple sarcastic remark she probably does not even remember saying to this day. And that was in an era when marriage “equality” was not even being discussed. If you go around telling people, over and over, via Facebook page or other means, that “gays are ruining our country,” bringing the “judgment of God” upon us, or other such statements, do not be surprised when your son, daughter, sister or brother never dare tell you their “secret.” Why would they? And you will not be able to help them without first winning their trust. Even as a celibate Catholic man who deals with SSA daily, I sometimes cringe with certain people when the subject arises. The reason? Fear. Fear that they will not “really” accept me, or that they will believe the lie that I am quite likely to molest their child, or that I may fall in love with them if they give me a brotherly hug.  And if I have those fears, I would imagine my actively LGBT brothers and sisters have them far more. In fact, after 15 years in the active LGBT world, I am categorically sure that they do. I was invited to a friend’s home a few weeks ago—he may even be reading this—I hope so–and  met his wife and children. I was far more touched than he will ever know when his little son sort of “took” to me and kept climbing all over me, and in general made a fuss over this old man. It brings tears to my eyes writing this in fact. The unconditional love of that child was and is far more needful than a thousand lectures or questions could have been. And, in another life, that might have been my grandson. I so appreciated this couple’s willingness to share of themselves and their children with me that evening, knowing full well that my background has been less than “letter perfect.” In short I felt at home there. Again an amazing example of a Christian family in action.

So those are just a few ways I see to “fight” the culture of death which menacingly pervades our society, including traditional marriage, in our day and age. It is not all about protests, or whether the Supreme Court wins or loses. As Frank Bruni aptly expressed, no matter which way the Court decides on these two cases, the die is most likely cast. The question is what Christians, Catholic and other, will decide to do about it and how they will react to those who have relationships and “marriages” they may not approve of. Will they “take them to lunch,” or just keep writing more and more angry blogs and believe that somehow they are doing God’s work by blasting? I hope it is more of the former, and less of the latter. But that decision is up to you, the reader, not me. God bless you this Palm Sunday.

English: Description: Left Apsis: Jesus enteri...

English: Description: Left Apsis: Jesus entering Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Fresco in the Parish Church of Zirl, Austria. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles–(and as always from varying views):

A MUSICAL LOOK AT THE END OF AN ERA IN ROME…with deepest apologies to any apologists who may be reading…

6 Replies
Pope Benedictus XVI at a private audience (Jan...

Pope Benedictus XVI at a private audience (January 20, 2006) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Well since I love to write and I love music, I thought I might try to combine the two for a short moment and share some admittedly disconnected thoughts I have had this week in light of the resignation/retirement of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI. I of course do not take this lightly, and with most other Roman Catholics I anxiously await the next era in the history of the Church.

But for now, since almost all the “heavy” stuff has been covered well by other bloggers, I would give you a lighter look at the Papacy, our Church, and the future. I dare to do this because it is all in God‘s well-exercised hands anyway. So here you go:

First, how many of you knew that, on the same day of this announcement, lightning actually struck St Peter’s Basilica? When I first read that I thought it was something invented by the “Onion” and checked a couple other sources before believing it.  But pictures do not lie, although they are sometimes Photo shopped–however this one wasn’t.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/feb/17/pope-benedict-resigns-news-resources

In honor of this event I give you an Italian Catholic whose music was at the time condemned by the Church.  His words and lyrics are so mild compared to now that I would not be surprised if someone, somewhere, has not used the following song for an Offertory hymn during a guitar Mass over the years…take a listen.

Well maybe not. But if lightning didn’t strike Lou, I am pretty sure God did not aim it at Benedict that day either.

Another one–for all of you sedevacantists out there, in a very real sense it is going to happen–we will have a living man, who was the Pope, stepped down, and until the conclave at least we will not have a Pope even though we will still have Benedict–or Ratzinger–or whoever.

The song I have chosen for this is by one of many of our all-time favorites, Diana Ross and the Supremes. Just change one word (love) and substitute Pope…

Finally for those of you who consider this all a giant conspiracy to bring the anti-Christ into the halls of the Vatican, I give you one thus-far-undiscussed theory of why Pope Benedict “really” is stepping down. He is getting married. Why? Because some silly but sly female visitor to the Vatican slipped some of the following into his beverage during a private audience. It is as likely as some of the other theories out there…

It could be.

Related articles

10 Ways NOT To Pray The Rosary (okay so it’s 11 and some are how to’s)…

27 Replies

rosary

rosary (Photo credit: rebeccavalfl)

Everyone in blog-universe seems to do lists of 10 for various things.  So today I started thinking about the Rosary (or prayer in general) and my first (and perhaps only) contribution to this “effort of 10s” will be in that regard. So here are 10 ways not to pray the Rosary—and yes, I have done every one of them at one time or another. Just saying…

1)       Do not get comfortable in bed, pillows all in place, lights off, and then expect to get through even the first decade. And, contrary to “Catholic folk tales anonymous,” there is no teaching that your guardian angel finishes it for you whenever you snooze. If he did, you could simply save a lot of time and do that every single night.  However he has enough to do guarding you from prowlers during those hours.

Couple in Bed

Couple in Bed (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

2)      The car is a great place to pray—if you have a Rosary or otherwise prayerful CD, that is. A Christian radio station with soft music might be acceptable too—but the “oldies” station is definitely not. Keep in mind that “Vaya Con Dios” is not actually a religious song either. The clue to this is the words “my darling.”

3)      The above also holds true while watching frightening or scary movies on cable. Even if it is the Sorrowful Mysteries, it can be very distracting when someone’s neck is bitten or when Spartacus makes his moves. You might pray for the soul of the man who played him, however (Andy Whitfield). And his family too. He tragically died 2 years ago of lymphoma cancer at age 39. Incidentally this might be a good time to remind us that we can pray for specific intentions every time we pray this powerful set of Prayers.

Cast "Spartacus, Blood and Sand"

Cast “Spartacus, Blood and Sand” (Photo credit: houbi)

4)      If you do pray in bed or in that comfortable recliner with an “old-lady” style blanket on your lap, and you suddenly find your Rosary is across the room, get up and go get it. Offer up that 30 seconds of chilled air to our Lord and He will bless you for it. Do not use your fingers alone when a blessed Rosary is available.

Beechwood House Rest Home (Broadwood), 3 Beech...

Beechwood House Rest Home (Broadwood), 3 Beechey Road, Bournemouth, Dorset (Photo credit: Alwyn Ladell)

5)      Speaking of blessings, do not assume that the dime store quality set of plastic beads you received in the mail yesterday in order to entice you to support a mission or apostolate, even a very worthy one, is actually blessed unless they tell you it is.

6)      Get every single Rosary you use blessed. It takes 30 seconds for a priest or deacon to do so. A blessed Rosary unites your prayers with the prayers of every other Rosary-praying person at that moment in time.  And the prayer of agreement is indeed one of power. You may ask for more than one set of beads to be blessed at a time by the way. Unlike us in confession, rosaries can indeed be sanctified in groups.  And although he may scowl slightly, the priest is secretly glad to do so. He is glad you are praying for him. And tell him of your prayers while you are at it. He does not hear that often enough.

angry priest?

angry priest? (Photo credit: rot ist die farbe der hoffnung)

7)      Do not wear a Rosary as a necklace. And (personal opinion) neither is it a bracelet—unless you are wearing it for convenience so you can use it to pray with during the day or while out and about. Still skip the necklace idea. You will look like a gang member. And your angel may not protect you in this case.

ms13beads

8)      MEN—carry your Rosary in a case, not just loose in your pocket. Chains break, especially when they tangle up with your cell phone, pocket change and small screwdriver sets. And random pieces of old popcorn.

9)      WOMEN—if you carry it in your purse, give it a designated place or compartment just for it. Nothing like dumping out the contents of your purse at the altar of the Chapel of the Blessed Virgin Mary when the tough-as- nails Rosary leader calls on you to announce the next Mystery. And if you attend my parish she will. Okay I have not done this one. But she is indeed tough as nails. She has several times literally scared me into praying the Rosary with the group, which is not always a bad motivation. And a small card listing the Mysteries for each day is invaluable. Use one even if you know the Mysteries by heart. At least in public.

10)  Remember that the Rosary is a prayer to Jesus, not to Mary! We ask her to pray for us in it—53 times in fact. But while it is in honor of her, it is not for the most part directed at her.  Of the 20 Mysteries, all but 2 are directly about Jesus, His life, ministry and Passion. You are praying with Mary, not to her. And she is praying it with you. When I first came back to the Church I prayed only the first half of the Hail Mary’s due to fear of committing idolatry. Since there are 53 of them that is a lot of prayer I was skipping.  Even though seemingly aimed at her, let your mind dwell more so on the Mystery at hand, whether the birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, or the rest.  Let the words of the Hail Mary be the background music for this “mind movie” you are experiencing and let the Hail Mary’s be the sound effects too. This is the reason you see pictures or statues of Mary praying the Rosary. She is not in fact praying to herself. She is praying to her Son, just as you are. Join her.

Mary_world_rosary

11)  Okay so I cannot count, but one more thing—do not pray at the speed of a train wreck. A fast Rosary is around 20 minutes—a well prayed one is most likely 30-35.  And you will notice the difference…guaranteed. If you must break it up into two segments, do so. Just remember where you left off. A good place to stop is just after the introductory Prayers and the first 2 decades. Then the last 3. Even on a short car trip you can then finish it. And again, without the oldies playing, unless you consider Gregorian chants as such…they do in fact predate Elvis as well as the Beatles. Possibly not the Rolling Stones though.

Related articles