ALTHOUGH I HAVE POSTED THIS ARTICLE PREVIOUSLY, I THINK, IN LIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT’S “COMING OUT” REGARDING HIS WORST KEPT SECRET, WHICH IS HIS CLEAR AND RATHER UNSURPRISING SUPPORT OF SAME-GENDER UNIONS, AND THE IRONY (NOT SO LIKELY ACCIDENTAL EITHER I MIGHT ADD) OF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT HAPPENING WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER NORTH CAROLINA’S VOTE AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, IT SEEMED VERY FITTING AND TIMELY TO SHARE IT ONCE AGAIN. IT IS MY OWN BEST EXPLANATION I AM ABLE TO GIVE AS TO WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT SUCH UNIONS, ALTHOUGH I ONCE DID FULLY DID SO WITH NO HESITATION. PLEASE READ ON…I DO NOT ASK YOU TO AGREE, BUT TO AT LEAST OPEN YOUR MINDS AND HEARTS TO THE REASONS I SHARE HERE. DIALOGUE WELCOME.
Awhile back (late fall of 2008) I wrote an article
on my personal take regarding California PROP 8 and the legalization of
same gender marriages. While I have at times struggled with my own views on the
topic, even since that writing, my firm belief now is that the biggest overall
need is to find ways to bridge the gaps between each opposing group and bring
them together. I do not believe this will occur by redefining marriage, but
rather by redefining attitudes within the Church towards LGBT (lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender) people, and doing so in such a way that does not
destroy the sanctity of the Sacrament of Matrimony as already established.
I also believe that the LGBT community, of which I have
been part of and still embrace as my brothers and sisters, also carries some
responsibility here to understand and respect, regardless of agreement, the
religious views that are perhaps not their own in some cases. My original
article is reprinted below, and also some additional thoughts which further
clarify my take on this topic.
My challenge is to take your time (just 10-15
minutes or so) and read this in its entirety before forming judgments. After
that, respectfully written comments on all sides of the issues at hand are of
course welcome. Here goes:
What about Gay Marriage?
Another LGBT Perspective
Same-Sex Marriage Rally (Photo credit: City of West Hollywood)
As a same-sex attracted individual, it is often
assumed that I would naturally support what is commonly called “gay marriage.”
When I recently shared at a family gathering that I did not, at least not as it
is currently being proposed in California and other states in recent years, it
prompted a rather lively discussion with some of my siblings. After gathering
my own thoughts I wrote the following as an attempt to explain my reasoning in
light of Catholic Christian teaching as well as my own LGBT experiences. Not
all on either side of the issue will likely totally agree with my thoughts
here, but please give it a read:
Dear ____,
I have to admit that I was to some extent rattled
yesterday during our discussion regarding my choice to return to the Roman
Catholic Church and my choice to remain single and celibate. I somewhat
felt that I was the recipient of an intervention of some kind, and that was not
a good feeling! I think we all agree that none of us owe each other
explanations on why we believe as we do, but I want to share anyway, so please
bear with me. Maybe it will help.
Having said that, I realize that my evolution
of faith over the years is understandably puzzling and troublesome to others
(not just family, but a few friends too) at times and I am going to do my very
best to put my thoughts and beliefs into clear words here. I do not ask anyone
to agree with me totally, but I do hope it to be understood that I am not
blindly following my faith out of some misguided or confused zeal or naiveté.
Hopefully I am beyond that and you believe better about me than that. I think
you do.
I did not choose celibacy because I am having
trouble finding dates, have gone blind (and therefore see no attractive men out
there!), need Viagra, or no longer have homosexual inclinations—and by the way
I still get hit on sometimes! When I returned to the Catholic Church 5 years
ago it was not because I felt pressured or forced to do so. It came as a result
of searching for truth in the best manner I knew how, and in the process of
that search I came to believe that the Church was truly the best place for me.
And I went there with joy. Do I miss romantic companionship at times? I would
not be human if I didn’t. Am I better off spiritually and emotionally than I
was during all of the 15 years I was actively involved in the LGBT world? I
personally think so. I honestly have a sense of purpose and peace that was decidedly
missing during my years of “freedom.” The Church has not denied me anything
really.
One belief espoused both by Catholic and Orthodox
Churches that is not generally taught by Protestants is that there is both
Sacred Scripture (the Holy Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the essence of how that
truth is meant to be lived, not always in written form, but based on the
earliest possible interpretations of Scripture and other teachings handed down
from the Apostles). Protestants generally believe in “Sola Scriptura”, or the
Bible alone as the guide for faith and morals, and that each individual is free
to interpret it as they see fit. Catholics believe that the Bible is the Word
of God, but also that the teachings of the Magisterium (meaning the Pope and
the bishops in union with him only when making official or universal
pronouncements as such) are also the Word of God. That includes Sacred
Tradition as well as the Bible and how they are to be interpreted in each day
and age. And some of the specifics may differ from generation to generation,
but much of it does not. That bears an explanation.
What gets a bit confusing with the above
terminology is that there is a Sacred Tradition and just plain human
tradition based on culture and human advances in science, and other variable
factors. Meaning—teachings that are current customs of the Church,
such as eating meat on Friday, celibacy for the priesthood, whether the Mass is
offered in Latin or English, and various other such disciplinary practices, are
changeable with the times—and should indeed be. Those are simply “traditions,”
and every denomination or religious group has some. Within Catholicism, those
“small t” traditions are binding only for as long as the Church determines that
they are necessary—hence, when we were children growing up one week it was
considered a serious or mortal sin to eat meat on Friday and the very next week
it was no longer considered to be so at all, although still each Friday (and
many do not realize this) we are asked to either not eat meat or to do some
type of penance or good work in honor of the Lord’s death on the cross and for
the salvation of others. The particulars changed but not the principle behind
it.
On the other hand, the Sacraments (such as
baptism, marriage, the Eucharist, and the like) fall into the category of
Sacred (or “large T”) Tradition. Also in that category would be the doctrine of
the Trinity, a teaching that is not actually in the Bible itself but which is
implied in Sacred Scripture over and over. Within it as well are teachings
which numerous Church Councils determined to be part of the “Deposit of Faith,”
such as the various Creeds and Church dogmas, in addition to decisions based on
later Church Councils such as Trent, Vatican I and II.
Here is where Sacred Tradition ties into my
search regarding LGBT issues. There has never been a time in 2000 years of
Church history, Catholic or Protestant, when homosexual relationships were ever
officially placed on the same level as male/female marriages. There have always
been individuals who believed otherwise, but the Church as a whole has never
endorsed or approved those relationships. And, as an aside, since Christianity
is a direct outgrowth of Judaism, that particular “tradition” actually goes
much further back (several thousand years in fact) to the very earliest Old
Testament times and no provision for same gender sexual relationships during
either Old or New Testament times has ever been commonly accepted by either
ancient Israel or the Church.
And it is not a matter of discrimination—or at
least does not need to be. I personally think that enforceable laws could be
set in place which allow for those who do not follow Catholic or other more
conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs in the area of marriage to still own
property jointly, visit loved ones in the hospital, have tax credits, and the
like. Or perhaps those protections could be done in a totally different way
altogether such as having no differentiations between single and married
individuals, no matter what their relationships may happen to be. There are
varied and numerous ways to protect the interests of both church and state
which have yet to be tried, and could at least (prayerfully) begin to bring
together those on either side of the issue.
I understand that for many LGBT people it feels
very insulting not to refer to their relationship as a “marriage,” and I am
actually fairly sympathetic to that view-point, having had friends in that
situation and, not many years ago, believing it would be “only fair” for myself
too. However one of the several reasons that I now see it differently is that,
in countries which allow same gender marriages such as Canada and elsewhere, it
has triggered a slippery slope. A number of ministers and bishops, for example,
simply by preaching that homosexuality is sinful from their own pulpits, have
been taken before the Canadian tribunals and forbidden to even speak on the
issue or else face charges. A number Christian radio broadcasts in Canada have
been forbidden to mention the topic, calling it hate speech or worse. These
have not necessarily been “Fred Phelps” types either, but simply religious
leaders who belong to denominations that historically have taught that
homosexual activity (not the orientation) is sinful. Incidents such as those do
justice to neither side in my view.
Speaking of naïve, I think it would be such to
think that this could not happen here too. Already groups such as Soulforce (an
activist group made up primarily of evangelical Christians who are LGBT) travel
regularly to private Christian colleges with former students, such as at North
Central University here in the Twin Cities, an Assemblies of God college where
I myself once attended, and have accused them of “religious abuse” solely
because they dismissed a student for promoting active sexual relationships with
others of his own gender. When I was a student there years ago, it was
considered sinful to even have an alcoholic drink, much less any type of sexual
activity outside of marriage, and I am fairly sure they would still dismiss a
student whether gay or straight who was in an ongoing sexual relationship
without being married. And, as a private college that is and should be their
prerogative. But as groups such as Soul Force become more powerful, and they
are becoming so, accusations such as religious or other abuse are likely to
become more and more common. How much better to just separate this whole thing
out from religion in the first place, while making sure that private or
religious groups retain the liberty to speak what they believe is the truth as
they understand it? That is my fear with even calling long-standing same-sex
unions “gay marriage” and essentially attempting to recondition society to
accept those unions as such. Most people view marriage as a religious
institution, and feel threatened when something is called marriage that
historically has never been so. And for the record I saw that danger before
ever returning to the Roman Catholic Church, and had already begun to distance
myself from some of the more militant LBGT groups I was once part of as a
result.
I know it is a tricky balance, but the old adage
of “loving the sinner while hating the sin” is to me the safest approach.
Tricky though, because many “Christians” use that as an excuse to hate gay
people and that of course is seriously wrong. Tricky too, since those from a
more secular perspective sometimes use it as a reason to force a fairly radical
gay agenda on the rest of society. I think either approach is unbalanced, and just
continues or exacerbates the hatred or near hatred on both sides of this
teetering fence for each other, essentially wounding or even killing other
creative solutions that both could conceivably live with if they just listened
to one another with open hearts.
Having formerly been simultaneously a fairly
conservative Christian and actively LGBT, I have certainly had my share of
internal conflicts working this through. In my Protestant years, it is
absolutely true that, going strictly by verses from the Bible that directly
mentioned homosexuality, I did not think a strong enough case could be
made to definitively oppose living that lifestyle. What I never considered
however in those studies was the concept of Sacred Tradition, and the belief
that the Church, who had actually given us the Bible in the first place, also
has been given the authority to interpret it, and has consistently done so with
the idea of marriage being a sacred union between one man and one woman.
Obviously that view is in opposition to the culture we live in, and counter to
what I believed for many years even after my own very sincere study of Sacred
Scripture in a vacuum. But it is what I now believe to be true.
So what about gays and the Church? There needs to
be far more dialogue to be sure. There must be a genuinely welcoming atmosphere
and some allowance for those who have not come to the same conclusions I have
after years of both struggle and study. I certainly can judge no one who
disagrees with me. And in both cases just mentioned, most of Christianity,
including Catholicism, oftentimes has done a rather lousy job of reaching out
to the LGBT community. That absolutely needs to change.
However, I do not think it is best done by referring to something as marriage
that has never been historically considered as such by the Church! Loving all
people, welcoming them to Mass or church services, and yet teaching from the
pulpit what is official historic Catholic/Christian teaching is the only
intellectually honest approach I know to have. And I realize not everyone will
not be satisfied with that answer, but I do not see another better one on the
horizon.
I know this is somewhat long and drawn out but I
could not explain in 5 quick minutes all of the reasons I have listed here for
my changed views, and which took countless hours and even months of soul
searching to work out within my own mind and soul, so I appreciate your
patience for hearing my heart on this. You may still think I have jumped off
the deep end here, and that is your privilege, but I hope at least it may help
you understand the reasoning and thinking behind my beliefs.
But what I really pray and hope for most is a
balanced and compassionate approach which reaches out to gays and lesbians yet
does not undermine marriage as some outdated institution that needs to be
“redefined” and that allows for both groups to continue to reach out to one
another. Then perhaps we can at least begin to fulfill Jesus’ own prayer that
“we all may be one.”
RGE 12-1-08, revised 10-15-11
SOME THOUGHTS SINCE THAT WRITING:
A few months ago I regretfully was
“unfriended” by both Randi and Jacob Reitan, (very strong and
powerful LGBT advocates here in MN ) for suggesting that going to established
churches and Christian colleges to attempt to change their theology did not
make sense to me. It still doesn’t. Jacob started a group called “Freedom
Riders” a number of years ago which included a number of former students
of Christian private colleges who were expelled for being actively gay. I
totally respect both Randi (his mom, who started the infamous Target boycott
during the last governor’s election) and Jacob. He is an intelligent and caring
young man by anyone’s standards. They have since protested everywhere from
Focus on the Family headquarters to the Vatican and joined with Soulforce, an
activist group started by former Jerry Falwell “ghost writer” Mel White. But
respecting them does not mean I am forced to agree with their methods. In
sharing my disagreement I lost them as FB friends, and I find that regrettable.
It is that type of strategy I object to, and I
see it very often in politics on all sides. I wish for basic protections for
LGBT people–I am one. But to make ourselves “victims” when we are
not is pushing the envelope in my view. Further the views of those of us who
choose celibacy for religious reasons is most often either pitied or ridiculed,
but rarely understood. To me that is poverty. When I accepted the tenets of my
Catholic Christian faith no one put a gun to my head. The real victimization
here is when we do not respect one another. Disagreement should not be viewed
by automatic labels such as homophobia or bigotry.
I also had an experience with another LGBT
“activist” group commonly referred to as the “Rainbow
Sashers.” My experience with them dovetails this just a bit–and by the
way, yes I did wear a “sash”–one time only. I will not do so again.
In any case a number of years ago I attended a
“Rainbow Sash” gathering at the Cathedral of St Paul, which is my
home parish. This group generally meets at Cathedrals all over the nation and
beyond, on Pentecost, to protest Roman Catholic policy on not allowing Holy
Communion to openly non-celibate LGBT members of the Church. Regardless of
one’s opinion on that issue, and I have struggled with it myself but as already
shared do stand with the Church, their strategy is to interrupt Mass at a given
signal, usually during the sign of peace or shortly after, and then to go
forward during distribution of the Eucharist wearing the “sash” and
trying to pressure the priest, deacon, or Eucharistic Minister to present the
Sacred host to them.
My purpose that time in attending was to
support, as one who had “been there and back” so to speak, the right
of the Church to set standards on this issue. I listened carefully and my
absolute favorite priest in the world gave the homily that day. He explained
the Church position with absolutely no rancor, and then invited
“Sashers” who were present to come forward for a blessing, or to
simply remove the Sash and receive Holy Communion. They could even put the Sash
on afterwards again! The solution sounded more than reasonable to me. I
personally spoke to several members both before and after, told them of my
respect for this particular priest, and made sure to welcome them, as one of
their complaints (and perhaps rightly so) had been open hostility to them in
the past when attending these “Mass disruptions.” I also told them of my own
SSA background.
To my sadness, but not great surprise, they
wrote of their experience on the DIGNITY website (a site which
considers itself representative of Catholic Christian ideals–not endorsed by
the Church hierarchy however) and said something such as this ” Father
___scolded us and then refused us Holy Communion.” It was a blatant
and simplistic misrepresentation of his very difficult position. They did not
mention anything I had said to them nor did they mention the woman who nearly
knocked over one of the older female Eucharistic ministers as she literally
forced her hand into the ciborium of Communion hosts and began distributing
them freely herself. Nor the members of the Cathedral who were sitting in the
front row weeping quietly.
I say all of this to say–we can become so
much part of a “cause,” any cause, that we become blinded to how we
behave towards others as believers in Christ or just simply as other humans.
That is the bigger danger here. No one with an ounce of genuine compassion
wishes for hate crimes or deliberate bigotry towards other groups of people. But
institutions, Church, private schools, and the like, have the right to not be
intimidated into silence either. It is that kind of thing that stopped me from
being a “gay activist” even before my return to the Church. And when
I wavered and nearly went back, which some of you know I did a time or two this
last year, it is that kind of thing that reminded me of something my dad used
to and probably still does say (he is nearly 90 and going strong)–”My
freedom ends where yours begins.” Free speech is fine–a free-for-all is
not. As one of the posters said in response to this thread, this public style
of ridiculing others is now popular in our society. I see it as a sign of
something far deeper. Respect is gone. If tolerance does not exist in both
directions, it does not exist at all.
I am attaching a link to a very interesting
article which I recently came across which to me is a sign of hope—it is about
Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI. He is far from ultra-liberal, but speaks
about an option of “reciprocal benefits” which could give both sides what they
need. I like his approach. Here is the link:
http://www.golocalprov.com/news/7553/
And lastly, from an evangelical Protestant
perspective, hope comes as well from Tony Campolo. His link is below:
a_possible_compromise_on_the_gay_marriage_controversy
I post these, not saying they are the final
word, but as clear evidence that there is room to think outside the pink
triangle or the church steeple—both which are similarly shaped,
incidentally—and to honestly and fully come to grips with each other in a
combination of gentle love and tough truth. There is indeed room in this world
for both the LGBT community and the traditional Church. And I am not the only
person who thinks so. Peace.
For more on this topic:
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=23911
A great and well spoken article by Stephen White about the Sashers movement from a traditional Catholic perspective.
0.000000
0.000000
Like this:
3 bloggers like this post.
