Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Sojourners Refuses Once Again to "Take Sides" in Struggle for Gay Rights

 
 
I've noted in a number of previous postings that I no longer offer support to Sojourners, though I'd like to do so.  We sorely need organizations in the U.S. that draw together coalitions of faith-based communities working for progressive change.  But Sojourners' (and Jim Wallis') ongoing refusal to  support gay rights (and gay and lesbian human beings) has become more than a blind spot in that organization's work for justice, as far as I am concerned.



The homophobia (and that's what it is, when battle lines are clear, and the refusal to take sides represents a failure to stand on the side of justice in a historic battle to see justice done) increasingly undermines for me any position Sojourners takes about anything.  And so I also increasingly turn a deaf ear to anything I read by Jim Wallis.

And Robert Chase's report yesterday at Religion Dispatches about Sojourners' recent refusal to support the "Believe Out Loud" campaign, since Sojo doesn't "take sides," hardly causes me to revise my opinions about the organization.  It's time for good people of faith to stop playing these shameful games.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Minnesota Moves Towards Statewide Vote on Constitutional Ban for Gay Marriage



As an update to my several recent postings about the role the Catholic leaders of Minnesota are now seeking to play in the political life of that heavily Catholic state, particularly in attacking its gay citizens: at the end of last week, the judiciary committee of the Minnesota senate passed a bill that will call for a statewide vote to amend the state's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.  The bill now goes to the state legislature, which has been Republican-controlled since the 2010 elections, and is likely to pass at that level.


This is a step that Minnesota Republicans have been maneuvering to take for some years now, but which they've been thwarted in taking by Democratic legislative majorities in the past.   It is a step explicitly endorsed by the Catholic bishops in Minnesota, who want to assure that their state does not follow the example of the neighboring state of Iowa and permit civil marriage for same-sex couples.

It's difficult to predict the outcome of this statewide vote, if this constitutional amendment does, indeed, receive legislative approval.  Numerous historical examples demonstrate that, given the opportunity to do so, the majority will almost always vote to deny rights to minorities.  This becomes even more likely in times of economic and cultural difficulty, when the feel-good effect of finding a stigmatized minority on which to vent anger and even hatred is appealing for many citizens.  And when that feel-good effect is actively cultivated and even blessed by religious leaders, those calling for human decency in deliberations about the human rights of a targeted minority often find themselves not making much of a dent at all on the consciousness of many people.

Constitutions, and the court system in the U.S., are set up precisely to protect minority groups from the tyranny of the majority, by articulating foundational principles to which everyone must adhere in order to build an inclusive civil society, and by assuring legal protection for those principles when they are attacked--as they always are--by those intent on discriminating.

For those who want to follow the Minnesota situation and read about it in depth, Michael Bayly (who lives in St. Paul) is providing his usual stellar commentary at his Wild Reed blog and the Progressive Catholic blog.  A selection of recent articles by Michael that I recommend:


The day will come--and it is not far down the road in much of the developed world--when the leaders of the Catholic church in the late 20th century and first part of the 21st century will be judged very harshly for their active support of legalized discrimination against a vulnerable minority group.  As a majority of American Catholics turn against such discrimination, the willingness of the U.S. bishops actively to promote it and to see it enshrined in legal documents begins to appear less and less like a demonstration of Christian charity, and more and more like a political decision that is willing to make the lives of some human beings miserable to serve the interests and goals of an elite group within the society--to whom the leaders of the Catholic church have handed over their souls and forfeited the future of the church they lead.

In a state that has constantly been in the national news for several years now due to the number of teen suicides in which bullying because of perceived sexual orientation has played a key role, you'd think the leaders of a group looking to Jesus as its founder would find other ways to spend their time and energy.  Wouldn't you?

Saturday, April 2, 2011

End of Week News Round-Up: Catholic Congressional Briefing re: Gay Rights, Elizabeth Johnson, Other Philadelphias



A number of interesting news items as the week ends:


Sr. Maureen Fiedler has an excellent report at National Catholic Reporter about a briefing held in D.C. this past Wednesday.  As she notes, "The Catholic Bishops of the United States have been lobbying for years against equal rights for the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) community."  (And what a shocking indictment of the U.S. Catholic bishops and implicitly of the church they lead, if you think about it, this bald statement is: a group of leaders of a major Christian church in the U.S. actively lobbying against equal rights for a marginalized minority group!)

But, as Fiedler notes, since a majority of American Catholics have come to a different moral judgment about the issue of gay rights than that of their pastoral leaders, the group Equally Blessed this week met with members of Congress to ask that Congress listen as attentively to what lay Catholics think about these matters as to the bishops.

As Fiedler concludes, this is a positive development, in which we see (parallels here to the Elizabeth Johnson story) that, no matter how loudly the bishops insist that they own "the" Catholic voice, there's an increasing willingness on the part of some other members of the church to claim our right to speak on behalf of the church, too.

Also following up on the Elizabeth Johnson story: at the Catholica site today, Brian Coyne posts commentary by Australian theologian Emmy Silvius which notes the importance of Elizabeth Johnson's 1993 book Women, Earth, and Creator Spirit.  As Coyne's preface to Silvius's commentary notes, it's serendipitous that Silvius sent her piece to him in the last week, before the USCCB condemnation of Johnson's work came down.  And as he adds, "People are no longer listening to the bishops and the old patriarchal line anymore."

As I've been noting, and as Silvius's outstanding article richly illustrates, people of faith are now looking to theologians like Elizabeth Johnson, Denis Edwards, Thomas Berry, Ilia Delio, Neil Ormerod, Tim Flannery and others to understand who God is and how we relate to God.  Not to the bishops.  No matter how loudly they keep squawking about their exclusive ownership of The Truth and the tools by which salvation is effected for the rest of us.

And speaking about how the bishops have perhaps most definitively undermined their claim to teach with moral authority: the New York Times has an editorial today encouraging the bishops to get on with that house-cleaning they've been promising us since the abuse crisis broke wide open in 2002, promises that the Philadelphia grand jury report calls into question in a startling way.  As many Catholics and other people of good will are noting, the Times editorial notes,

The haunting question is how many other Philadelphias may be out there. 

And Paul Moses follows up on that question with a good reflection at the Commonweal blog, entitled "Other Philadelphias."   Where Frank Gibbons notes, rightly, that if we need any indicator that there definitely are other Philadelphias out there, we need look no further than the case of the Jesuits and Fr. Donald McGuire.

2011 is shaping up to be an interesting year in Catholic news.  And with the beatification of John Paul II now just around the corner, I expect it's going to get interestinger.  And curioser.

(Also, as I noted in a comment to yesterday's posting about the Elizabeth Johnson story, there's a thought-provoking thread now underway at Commonweal in response to Mollie Wilson O'Reilly's piece about this story entitled "It's Not About the Feminism (Except When It Is)." 

The graphic is Oregon artist Linda Ethier's cast glass piece entitled "Newspaper Reading Room."

Monday, March 7, 2011

African-American Faith Communities and the LGBT Community: An Arkansas Church Builds Bridges



National Organization for Marriage chair Maggie Gallagher has recently been crowing that the opposition to marriage equality in Maryland is being led not only by her own Catholic church but by black churches as well.  (Unfortunately for Maggie, her fellow Catholics decidedly do not support her attempt and that of the Catholic hierarchy to block the human rights of LGBT citizens: as Tom Fox noted recently in National Catholic Reporter, Catholic lawmakers and Catholic citizens have bucked the hierarchy to support the marriage equality bill, and polls show 49% of Maryland Catholics supporting marriage equality with 42% opposed--a higher percentage of support than among citizens at large).  


And given the persistent attempt of right-wing political and religious activists to drive a wedge between African Americans and their gay brothers and sisters, I think it's important to note that some of the strongest supporters of the movement to protect the rights of gay Americans have been and remain African-American people of faith.  Martin Luther King, Jr.'s widow Coretta Scott King famously stated in 2003 that her own strong support for LGBT rights was an extension of her husband's civil rights activism:

I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. ... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.

Seasoned veterans of the Civil Rights movement including Georgia's former congressman Julian Bond have spoken out forcefully on behalf of the human rights of their gay brothers and sisters, drawing a clear line to connect the struggle for black civil rights and gay civil rights.  As I noted last week, Harvard professor and chaplain Peter J. Gomes, a distinguished African-American theologian and Baptist minister (and a gay man) who died on 28 February, spoke out passionately and repeatedly against homophobia in American Christian churches and on behalf of justice for LGBT persons in noted books about the state of American Christianity (and here).

Since Gallagher and other right-wing political operatives with non-existent histories of any real concern to address racial injustice want to engage in ugly, divisive wedge politics when it comes to the relationship between the African-American and gay communities, I'm happy to report these and other countervailing trends which disprove Gallagher's point--that black people of faith oppose gay rights.  Yesterday, a wonderful black church in Little Rock about which I've blogged before (and see also here) invited Steve and me to speak to their educational group about gay issues.

New Millennium is a black Baptist church (but inclusive: it has both black and white members) that shares facilities with another Baptist church which my aunt attends.  It's pastored by a wonderful, prophetic leader, Rev. Wendell Griffen, who also holds a judge's seat in Arkansas--and whom Steve and I count ourselves blessed to call a friend, along with his wife Pat, a psychotherapist and professor of psychology with whom we worked several years ago at Philander Smith College.  Wendell's stellar blog Cultural Competency is in my Bilgrimage blog list to the side of this posting.

Because Pat, Wendell, and their congregation recognize the need to call African-American people of faith to engage in the struggle against homophobic injustice, the church has undertaken an ongoing study of gay issues and questions, in light of the scriptures, theology, and the tradition of the church.  They've been reading and discussing for some time now studies of what the scriptures have to say about these issues (or what many anti-gay believers imagine the scriptures say), about the political background to anti-gay movements in the U.S., about the connections between those movements and movements that have historically sought to oppress people of color, and about what it means to be church, to walk in Jesus's footsteps, in a culture in which these struggles play a prominent role.

Steve and I felt honored to come to New Millennium and help further the dialogue by talking about own own some forty years of life as a committed gay couple, and about the real and painful experiences of injustice through which we've sometimes walked in those years--experiences made even more painful because they have often occurred at the hands of people of faith.  And we ourselves are people of faith, brothers and sisters of those doing gross injustice to us.  We met in the context of the chaplain's office at a Catholic university, and have, from the start of our relationship, considered our life together a shared journey of faith.

I say we felt honored to speak at New Millennium: we also felt trepidation.  We felt no little fear and trembling.  It is not easy to talk about what is closest to one's soul.  It is not easy to talk about the intimate aspects of one's life and relationship in a culture inclined to overlay gay lives and gay relationships with crude myths about sexual promiscuity, disease, pedophilia, and so forth.

Giving witness to the grace that runs through gay lives and gay relationships can feel like being in a forensic witness stand, with bright spotlights aimed at your face.  And that's, unfortunately, even more the case when the witness stand is in a church.

But the experience yesterday could not have been more positive.  My youngest nephew Patrick, who attends the university across the street from the church--University of Arkansas at Little Rock--got wind of the fact we'd be speaking at the church yesterday, and showed up to support us (and we were very touched by this).  And the community at New Millennium had invited us to worship with them prior to our dialogue with the church educational group, laying a foundation for warm inclusion as we sang and read scripture together, and listened to God's word broken in a sermon followed by the breaking of the bread of the Lord's Supper.

For readers who may not have followed this blog from the beginning, it occurs to me to mention something I mentioned frequently in some of the initial postings at this Bilgrimage site: this is that the single factor which, above all, drew me to the Catholic church as a teenager was the Eucharist.  The Southern Baptist church in which I grew up celebrated the Lord's Supper only infrequently, four times a year.  Those celebrations were always solemn and deeply meaningful, amd were preceded by a time of preparation rooted in Anabaptist theology, which stresses the communal aspect of communion--the way in which eating the one bread and drinking from the one cup both makes us one, but also reflects our communion in the body of Christ.  And so it's important, in Anabaptist theology, to try to become the body of Christ by healing division before one celebrates the unity of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

And, frankly, because these solemn celebrations meant so much to me growing up, I wanted more.  When I encountered it, I cherished the Catholic tradition of daily celebration of the Eucharist.  The warm-hearted piety of the evangelical tradition in which I had been nurtured, which views the life of discipleship as an intimate walking with Jesus, found a new expression in the thought of such intimate union with Jesus that one could eat his body and drink his blood--and be nurtured and strengthened in a premier way as one walked the journey to the cross with him.

And so far and away, the most painful aspect of finding ourselves pushed to the margins of our church has been, for Steve and me, finding ourselves shoved from the table of the Lord.  As I've shared in previous postings, for us, the breaking point came when Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina fired first me and then Steve on specious grounds (in my case, no reason at all was given for the firing), and when we tried after that to go to liturgy at the abbey church that belongs to the Benedictine monks who own Belmont Abbey College.

Seeing the very men who had spearheaded our unjust expulsion from the college community stand at the altar and preach about the human rights of everyone, about justice for all, and then break the Lord's bread and offer it to worshipers, when they had removed us from the table of daily bread by taking away our livelihoods, our health insurance, our vocations, was too much for us.

It was impossible for us to believe that Catholic priests who claim to believe in the Eucharist can really or effectively believe in what they proclaim each time they offer the Bread of Life to others, when they can so cavalierly remove others from the the table of daily bread, while enjoying secure lives with assured housing, jobs, health insurance, etc.  The table of the Lord's bread and the table of daily bread are intimately connected.  When the church itself breaks the connection by violating the human rights of lay believers, it undermines everything it wants to proclaim about the Eucharist--and it does so in a very stark way.

And so being invited to the table of the Lord's Supper yesterday at New Millennium, as a preliminary to our sharing our lives in the educational session, was profoundly meaningful to us.  The sharing created a communion on which we built in the dialogue about gay lives and gay issues that followed.

(An aside, but a pertinent one: in the strictest canons of Baptist belief, many Baptist churches practice what's called "closed communion."  This means that not only do they exclude Christians of other denominations from their celebrations of the Lord's Supper; they also historically excluded even other Baptists who did not belong to their particular church.  According to the traditional Baptist theology with which I grew up, each Baptist church is autonomous, and the practice of closed communion safeguards the beliefs of the individual Baptist church celebrating the Lord's Supper--since its beliefs may not agree in every respect with those of another Baptist church.

And so when I was a child and before I became a church member at the age of 8, my parents and other adults in my family would not allow my brothers or me to participate in the Lord's Supper.  With one exception: the aunt about whom I blogged some days ago when I noted that, in my view, the principle that should govern adult interactions with children is the principle of doing no harm--my aunt Kat--did allow us to have a share of the bread and grape juice as it passed to her during the Lord's Supper.  She'd invariably take a tidbit of her bread and offer it to us, along with a sip of the juice.

Doing no harm meant, in her worldview, including.  Not excluding.  Though we children were not yet professed and baptized members of the church, worthy members.  And I thought of all of this, all over again, yesterday as we shared bread and the cup at New Millennium.)

And what to say in conclusion?  Simply this: it's important that churches like New Millennium are inviting openly gay people and gay couples to talk back and forth with members of their congregations.  As one of the church members who came up to thank us for our presentation yesterday said, these dialogue sessions are absolutely essential so that we can get to know each other as human beings . . . 

When many folks, including many people of faith, know their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters only as stereotypes.  As false stereotypes.  It is harder to hate and do injustice to someone when one sees the human face of the person one wishes to treat as an inhuman object.  And the people of God at New Millennium yesterday could not have been warmer, kinder, more inclusive--and well-educated about the issues we were discussing, in ways that should set a standard for other church communities.

When Steve and I returned to Arkansas in 1997 to provide care for my mother in her final years, in a setting familiar to her and close to her siblings, I went to a number of leaders of churches in this area, to ask if they would consider doing precisely what New Millennium church is now doing.  I asked if they would consider helping me organize a speakers' bureau of local gay and lesbian people of faith (and also those scarred by encounters with faith communities, who have understandably distanced themselves from these communities), who would be available to go from church to church simply to meet and talk to people in each church.  About our lives.

No church took me up on my offer.  None wanted to deal with the pushback that always comes when churches in our area open their doors to gay and lesbian folks who are out of the closet, and, more importantly, when faith communities demonstrate solidarity with gay people in the struggle for human rights.

In a heavily churched part of the world like Arkansas, where churches wield enormous cultural and political influence (and where, according to a Pew study whose results were released last fall [see also here], people's religious knowledge is nonetheless abysmally low), initiatives like the one New Millennium church has begun are enormously important.  This small, prophetic African-American church is leading the way among Arkansas churches right now, when it comes to building effective bridges between the gay community and people of faith.

I can only hope that other churches will get the word and begin to do likewise.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

They Call It a Non-Sequitur . . .


I call it the sacramental principle.


Margaret O'Brien Steinfels has posted an interesting summary at Commonweal's blog re: Catholic presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's response to a question asked by a student when Mr. Gingrich spoke yesterday at the University of Pennsylvania.  Student Isabel Friedman asked Gingrich,

You adamantly oppose gay rights ... but you've also been married three times and admitted to having an affair with your current wife while you were still married to your second.  As a successful politician who's considering running for president, who would set the bar for moral conduct and be the voice of the American people, how do you reconcile this hypocritical interpretation of the religious values that you so vigorously defend?

And some of my brethren of the Catholic right, as they discuss this question and Gingrich's dismissive response to it at the Commonweal site, are calling Ms. Friedman's question a non-sequitur.  That is, what does Gingrich's own moral behavior in the realm of sexuality or his marital history have to do with his right to oppose gay rights?

This is precisely the point I addressed in my posting yesterday noting the increasingly high price the Catholic church is paying now for turning itself into a heteronormative homophobic old boys' club in which any and all heterosexual men, no matter how morally dubious their behavior in the area of sexuality and marriage, are considered the standard-bearers of "traditional" morality and "family values."  While any and all gay or lesbian persons, no matter how morally admirable, are considered ipso facto to be betraying Catholic moral values.

Once again: the price the Catholic church is paying for equating morality with the Newt Gingriches of the world and denying the title "moral" to every self-accepting gay and lesbian person in the world is a price of cognitive dissonance: the clear disconnect between the moral lives of the Gingriches et al., who are the most stalwart defenders of the Catholic hierarchy's continued ugly attacks on gay and lesbian persons and gay and lesbian rights, and what the Catholic tradition really teaches about moral values and goals is too stark for many Catholics to support any longer.

In a church based on a sacramental principle, there's no getting around the lives being led by those doing the teaching and the proclaiming.  When those lives are at an utter remove from the values being proclaimed--and being used to bash others on the ground that those others aren't up to moral snuff--people will stop listening.

As they should stop listening, since what a group lives is far and away its more important message than the words it uses to proclaim its message.  

What these right-wing Catholic brethren call a non-sequitur, I call the sacramental principle.  When men who have been married three times and have cheated on one of their wives while married to a previous one preach to me about sexual morality, I tend to listen with jaded ears.  As I do when leading Catholic journalists whose own widely known sexual histories and lived witness to traditional marital values in no way conform to the ideal then egg the bishops on to attack gay and lesbian folks, in the name of defending the sanctity of marriage.

P.S. When I read uncensored (!) comments of my Catholic brothers on Catholic blog sites comparing my committed, monogamous relationship of love with another man to bestiality, I feel--precisely so--as I feel when I go down to my city's public library, scroll through newspapers from my state in the 1950s and 1960s, and read letters from white Christian gentlemen of those decades describing African Americans as apes.

Yes, those letters exist.  And yes, they were freely published at one time.  No credible newspaper would publish them now--not on your life.  Nor would anyone air these opinions in public, not even those who continue to whisper such ugly lies in the privacy of their homes and clubs.

In another century, people are going to scroll through Catholic publications now considered credible and professional, and be equally shocked to read comments like the bestiality ones now being made about gay human beings in these publications.  And people are going to wonder what kind of publication that wished to call itself Catholic and to be thought credible would permit such comments to go uncensored--when these same publications freely censor comments of gay folks trying to defend themselves against such slander.

And they're going to wonder, as I wonder both about my fellow Christians of the past in my part of the U.S. and about these Catholic brothers in the present: who gave these men such an astonishing sense of entitlement?  Entitlement to regard themselves as the center of the universe, and their lives full of power and privilege as the norm to which everyone else should aspire?  Who anointed them the moral arbiters of the universe, even when their own lives in no way conform to the values they're preaching to those beneath them?

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Gabriel Arana Calls Obama Administration's Bluff on Justification for Defending DADT

At American Prospect, Gabriel Arana calls the Obama administration's bluff as it continues to try to justify slow-walking repeal of DADT and taking the "long view" on issues of human rights for gay and lesbian human beings:
Members of the administration have admitted that gay-rights issues have taken a back seat, and indeed, it seems reasonable enough to ask the gay community to be patient while Obama fixes the economy and health care. But here's the thing with civil rights: Whether you think there are more pressing things to do depends on whether you take civil rights seriously. Civil rights aren't perks that you deal with once you get all the practical stuff in order; they are the practical stuff -- they allow all Americans to participate fully in tackling collective problems.
The Justice Department's ardent defense of DOMA and "don't ask, don't tell" have only added insult to injury. The administration's standard justification for defending discriminatory laws in court has been that it's Congress' job to repeal laws; the Justice Department is tasked with defending the laws on the books. But as John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog have pointed out, that's not quite the case. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all declined to enforce federal laws that they found beyond the pale.
Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke truth to power when he wrote, in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.' We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that 'justice too long delayed is justice denied.'"

It is exceptionally shameful that the first African-American president of this nation should take the cynical tack that President Obama has taken in the area of human rights for gay citizens.

H/t to John Aravosis at Americablog Gay.
Enhanced by Zemanta