Sashers And Social Justice–Revisited

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.

Related articles

• Dolan Rejects Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage (lezgetreal.com)
• Why Catholics Should Support the MN Marriage Protection Amendment (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• CELIBATE BUT NOT CHASTE??? CHASTE BUT NOT CELIBATE??? A Quick Catholic “Snapshot” of SSA Theology (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Obama supports gay marriage (seattlepi.com)
• Leaked: White House Talking Points On Gay Marriage Flip (buzzfeed.com)
• Biden May Not Speak for Obama, But He Speaks for Most Catholics (newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com)

Blogging, Arabia, Dark Shadows and Heaven…

Image via Wikipedia

When I was debating last week about continuing my blog, I received many wonderful comments from people who I had never met, as well as friends both online and off. So I guess will stick around as long as my fingers can operate this crazy keyboard  hehe. I realized something just today from another person’s post too–this blog can and should be my legacy for others and will likely outlast me if I choose it to.

One day when I pass, be it sooner or in 30 years, these writings, good, bad, ugly or other, will still exist somewhere and be a record of my life and why as well as how I lived it. So I am writing my memoirs and didn’t even realize it! Kind of a humbling thought very honestly. But it also means some great-niece or nephew or whoever will get the big money too when it becomes a made-for-TV movie (fairly unlikely!)…because I do not expect to see that day hehe. But blogging or various other internet contacts are potentially a gift for us all to benefit from.

Image via Wikipedia

Some say that the online community prevents us from reaching out to our local neighbors–I disagree.  Since the earliest days of American Online (I first signed on 17 years ago in 1995), and in more recent years with Face Book and now blogging I have connected with friends from over 100 nations, virtually every US state, and priests and ministers (and an Archbishop or two such as Chaput and now-Cardinal Burke!) who I may never myself meet but who have met or who have known such greats as the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI or Blessed John Paul II–or others who personally  knew Blessed Mother Teresa or hosts of other amazing persons or potential saints who will live forever in this world and the next.

Pope in Fatima (Photo credit: Catholic Church (England and Wales))

I have been privileged (as well as chastised at times!) to chronicle my own changes in both my religious and political leanings, and have been challenged strongly at every juncture but have learned (and hopefully helped others to grow as well) during that evolutionary process which still goes on towards the final gift of a life with the God we all one day will face.

Image via Wikipedia

I have been gifted with–just today in fact–a two-hour conversation with a new FB friend from Michigan, two states over from MN where I live, where we shared in-depth about things absolutely no one among my “face to face” family or friends has taken the time or energy to even learn about me. And I hopefully helped and encouraged him too. I think I did.  I “walked” online with and later by many phone conversations another friend, also from Michigan, for 3 full years who was confirmed a Catholic in 2006 on the same evening I was, from the moment we met in a Catholic chatroom on Yahoo until his untimely death from cancer at age 29. And I still miss Rich so very much. Our lives indeed touched each other and now I know that he prays for me from beyond. The simple crucifix I sent to his widow when he died was used on the casket during his wake and funeral. His lovely wife now has a new love in her life and a beautiful baby on the way, after having experienced more pain than any one young woman deserves at such an age. I am happy for her.  Rich is too.

I have discovered old friends from high school and college who I had wondered about for over 30 years. I have also interacted with not one, but 4 or 5 of my favorite actors or actresses from my childhood favorite television show “Dark Shadows,” among others, and who have personally at least said at very least a hello or two, one even wishing me a happy birthday this year (thanks Marie Wallace!), and another (Christopher Pennock) praying (well in his case chanting, as he is Tibetan Buddhist) for the recovery of a dear loved one from cancer. To think that they actually cared enough to do so is utterly mind-boggling to my brain and heart. I have an email or note from one not one but two of the actors from the greatest movie of all time “The Sound of Music.” I have even connected with people from worlds I am no longer a part of, but whose lives still mattered to me then and now, such as two (be scandalized if you must!) who bared it all in PLAYGIRL in the 1980s when I was a young man struggling to work through my SSA sexuality while still hanging on to a traditional marriage. Who would dream that one day I would be in contact with any of the above-mentioned people–priests to porn stars, actors to old friends from school days, and almost daily a new person who shares the Faith which is now more important to me than all of the past–my Catholic Christian journey.

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Because of certain health issues of my own I do not get out “on the town” a lot other than work, sleep, work, and more sleep. Plus in between I study a lot and live alone so my life is somewhat reticent-leaning, you might say.  But I have a world-wide family and I can talk to them day or night. You cannot sign on to the computer at any given hour without at least someone, somewhere, who is readily available to chat if you wish to do so.

Yes it is true it can be misused or overdone. And I have done both at times. It can also replace the “face to face” and we should not ever allow it to. But why choose between the two, when we can have such a great gift at our literal fingertips? A young man, a bright and brave teen who is a devout Christian from the primarily Muslim Pakistan called me and sang “HAPPY BIRTHDAY” to me last year when I turned 55, when most of my siblings or other friends and relatives and even my dad forgot to do so! I have a Christmas birthday and it is easy for it to get lost among the shuffle of other events that time of year so I am not complaining. But I saved his message to CD and will always have it and treasure it. Thank you Chris Michael.  A similar thing happened from India a few years ago with another Catholic Christian friend named John.

And, speaking of Muslim brothers and sisters, I have a FB friend who produced an I-MAX movie “Arabia” (which just came out on DVD/Blu Ray–so get to Amazon and buy it for an amazing treat!) and who I have had many warm contacts with. Many worry, and rightly so, that Muslim extremists are on the increase. They are. That however is all the more reason for us to learn from those beautiful Muslims who, like Hamzah Jamjoom, have chosen instead to be “bridge builders” and do so in such a brilliant way. And who would guess I would be able to one day speak, at least online, to this extraordinary young man who loves God and humanity.

Image via Wikipedia

The entire world is ours right now. We should enjoy it while we can. One day it may not be. But today–TODAY–whatever faults FB or “Al Gore‘s Internet” may have, we still have an online community made up of real people and a world that I would not have dreamed of knowing or connecting with as a child or young adult. Even early rock stars or those in Hollywood did not have the opportunity for contacts that the average person can have today at the flip of a switch.

So yes let’s use it–just don’t abuse it. And to each of you and to those I may not have specifically mentioned,  I have a feeling this short answer may develop into a much longer post one day…so much more to say.  But the short answer is this…we would not have touched one another had it not been for this crazy internet thing…and thank you all for reading the blog and letting me know my words actually do matter.  God bless–lots– to my friends and family, old, new, and yet to be known.  I think this may be a small taste of what heaven will be like.

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

• Catholic First, Christian First (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Another Blogging Milestone: 15,000 “Hits,” 130 Posts, “Visits” From 97 Nations, Nearly 200 Followers Counting Facebook, Twitter, and Email Subscribers, and a Personal Note From Jefferson Bethke: Not Too Bad for 3.5 Months!!! (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Some Milestones, an Award…and Dr Thomas Howard Too! (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Christopher West, SSA and Heroes (and Brandon Vogt too!) (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Archbishop Chaput says Obama administration sold out Catholic supporters By Benjamin Mann (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• Archbishop Nienstedt – Hero of the Faith and Family Values (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)

HHS Mandates, Families, and Sometimes Strained Friendships

Jesus told us that, should we choose to follow after Him, that many of those most vociferously opposing us would be those we are closest to, whether family or friends. While far from experiencing what Jesus went through, I have learned more and more of late the truth of this when attempting to fight in some small way the culture of death and jeopardy to religious freedom that we live in today.

Below,  in context, is an example of what happened to our own Lord Jesus Christ when He “went home” after becoming well-known and arguably the most powerful spiritual leader within Judaism of his time or thereafter. The passage is Mark 6: 6-7, and the translation used is the Revised Standard Version, considered by many scholars,  both Catholic and Protestant, to be one of the very most accurate available. The bold print is added by me.

¹ He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him. ² And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands! ³ Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. ⁴ And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” ⁵ And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.  ⁶ And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.

While this passage is dealing with the preaching of the Gospel in general, it with certainty applies extremely well to the recent HHS Mandate which will potentially force all religions (not only Catholic) to follow government guidelines on women’s healthcare or to be heavily fined or possibly even shut down if not. Since the Catholic health care system is the largest in the world, and Catholics make up the largest religious group in the United States, the effect on health care for both women and men could be staggering.  The effects on religious liberty even more so.

Others have written more eloquently than I could hope to on this issue, and I would not waste your time or mine in repeating their words here (I have linked to some of them at the end of this post however). But what has prompted my post today is a series of comments made by Rush Limbaugh, who arguably made a rather rash and hasty judgment of the motives behind one Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who appeared before Congress earlier this week to state her case about the “needs of women” to have access to birth control during college.

Image via Wikipedia

I am not into name-calling. I do not agree with Rush or his attitude in how he presented his views here. He referred to her as a “slut” and has refused to apologize. His words have not helped the case in any way, but rather have simply lost him advertisers (ironically one has been Select Comfort, a bed company!!!). But Limbaugh for once makes a daring but valid point. A good friend and colleague of mine had a rather heated exchange with me on this whole thing last night, particularly in regards to the definition of “slut.”  I think it may be partially a generational thing, as my colleague is younger than I, but to me “slut” and “prostitute” are pretty much interchangeable. To him they are not. Rather than wrestling about the words here though, the argument Mr. Limbaugh was actually making has some validity in my opinion. Asking the government to force payment for women (or men) to have sexual relations is “slutty” on many levels.   At one point he (Rush) likened government involvement to prostitution for that very reason, and he does speak an element of truth here. By forcing payment for universally free contraception, “we the people” become the “pimps” of both men and women who choose to become sexually active, when, at least in most cases, no gun is being held to their heads to do so.

My friend rightly brought up two seeming inconsistencies, however. One is that insurance should not be forced to pay for Viagra either, since it would be doing the same thing for men. I think he is right to a large extent. We hand out “pleasure candy” to both genders and then wonder why they “eat and enjoy.” As I wrote earlier and reference below this article, we have become very good at “enabling” bad behavior in the United States and beyond. There is one difference between Viagra and contraceptives, however, and it is a “huge one” (please pardon the unplanned pun here!). Viagra can be used to create life, at least indirectly, in an otherwise infertile couple who is not able to have sexual intercourse and thus become pregnant.  Part B of that difference is that Viagra or its other forms such as Cialis do not ever remove life from this planet, however tiny. Birth control pills on the other hand do, as does the IUD(inter-uterine device) and even more true with the infamous “morning after pill,” now becoming available in many cases over the counter for anyone over age 17! Each of those ingestible or otherwise invasive contraceptives have the potential of working after fertilization, and science and medicine have proven clearly that it is at that moment of fertilization where a new life technically begins. Not even an atheist can disprove that point, nor do they try.

Image via Wikipedia

The other inconsistency, which is the one Ms. Fluke spoke of, are the rare times when a woman really does have a health issue such as endrometriosis that can be helped or greatly aided by using a contraceptive such as the Pill. What interestingly appeared in a very passing way during her conversation with Congress was that Georgetown University already covers such use of those particular medications under their insurance in such cases!  While it quite apparently true that she had a good friend who was denied this by the college’s insurance administrators, that would then be the insurance who is at fault in their processing of the claim, not the college or the Church. I do not think there is a person, Catholic, Protestant, or other, who would disagree that this was a terrible injustice done to her friend. And without putting words in His Excellency’s eloquent mouth, that would most surely include Cardinal Timothy Dolan, head of the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops).

But to change the entire way in which the contraceptive issue is dealt with by every single Catholic or otherwise religious institution in the nation due to the “fluke” (pun intended this time) of the Georgetown insurance providers is not only ludicrous, but was not seemingly her main reason for speaking on the issue at all. While extremely important, is nonetheless a side issue, albeit one that arguably must be included in the protection of women’s health on any final bill in regards to this whole complex set of issues. It, in fact, would be the only time that contraceptives ever even become a health issue. And as such, this has already been the long-standing policy of the Church on that topic. And that is no “new news.”

The late and great Father John Hardon of happy memory wrote on this exact thing a number of years ago (he passed away in December of 2000, almost 12 years ago ). In his highly informative Modern Catholic Dictionary, he writes the following on other uses of contraception rather than birth control: Again the emphasis is mine.

ENDOMETRIOSIS

A gynecological illness caused by the abnormal presence of tissue that more or less perfectly resembles the lining of the uterus (endometrium) but growing outside of the uterus itself and distributed in other pelvic areas. Since this aberrant endometrial tissue responds to the hormone-induced changes of the woman’s menstrual cycle but, unlike the true endometrial lining of the uterus, is entrapped in other tissue such as bone and muscle, its cyclic changes of menstruation, causes the problem to repress, and even after the pregnancy improvement is sometimes sustained for a period up to three or four years.   

Since a surgical approach to the problem is not always practical or successful, the so-called “contraceptive pill” has been recommended for use over prolonged periods to eliminate the cyclic changes of the menstrual cycle and thus eliminate the periodic pain of endometriosis. It should be noted, from a moral viewpoint, that although this progestational-estrogen type therapy is, in itself, essentially the same as that used in the “contraceptive pill,” it is not used in theses cases as a contraceptive. the purpose of the therapy is to ameliorate a seriously abnormal and indeed pathological condition insofar as it is aggravated by hormonal changes of the menstrual cycle. Although temporary sterility is a side effect of the treatment, contraception is not the purpose, and thus the treatment in no way conflicts with Catholic teaching.

The point of this whole thing to me is simple:  none of this has been hidden away in the proverbial “closet” somewhere. Taking certain contraceptives, if done primarily for health reasons and not reproductive ones, has not been and is not the issue here, nor will it ever become such. But when my friend’s Wisconsin Synod Lutheran minister is one day arrested for speaking out against homosexuality, just for an example, which he apparently frequently does, my friend may wish he had opposed what is the biggest affront to overall religious liberty in our time. The other point, more subtle but still serious, is that such invasiveness is pitting people against one another.  My friend and I will do just fine–but some will not. And the idea of using such difficult and divisive issues to “divide and conquer,” as it clearly appears the Obama administration is expert in doing, is reprehensible to me. I have begun to believe it is his hallmark.

Last but not at all least, I would like to share Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s official letter, as of just yesterday, on this ongoing battle. If you are Roman Catholic, you are obligated as part of your Catholic Faith to be in willing submission to what he shares here. The Bishops, particularly the Bishop of Rome (Pope Benedict XVI) are the legitimate leaders of the Catholic Church. And that is not negotiable.

Image via Wikipedia

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/Dolan-to-all-bishops-HHS.pdf

Much has been made about the fact that a significant number of Catholic couples ignore the prohibition on contraception, as if that somehow justified it. But as my dear, dear friend and brother in Christ the late Angel Cruz used to often say (and Angel knew, first-hand, having been a former heroin addict and dying of HIV/AIDS as a result in 1986, at age 33) “If the whole world decides to go to hell, that does not mean I have to.” I am with Angel.

I do not ever recommend for anyone to leave the Church.  But if you truly cannot abide by her principles and precepts, then it is far better to leave in honesty than to stay and attempt to deliberately undermine the entire leadership as some have done in this fight. Perhaps Sister Carol Sheehan, Kathleen Sebelius, and Nancy Pelosi, among others, need to be reminded that they are neither practicing Catholics nor leaders within her sacred ranks. And pretending that they are is unbelievable hypocrisy and arrogance at best, and endangering their very souls at worst.

Image via Wikipedia

NOTE:  After I released this article Mr. Limbaugh did indeed apologize to Ms. Fluke.  I will leave it to the reader as to his reasons or sincerity, but at least it was not a “oops it was a wardrobe malfunction” type of apology.   Here is a link to it:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/03/a_statement_from_rush

Other related articles:

• With ‘Slut’ Rant, Rush Limbaugh Has Become GOP’s Own Worst Enemy (usnews.com)
• HHS Secretary: Decrease in Number of Americans will Cover Mandate Cost(constitutionclub.org)
•  http://onemoresoul.com/contraception/risks-consequences/what-a-woman-should-know-about-birth-control.html
• Lawmaker: Men Who Want Viagra Should Have To Watch Graphic ‘Side-Effects’ Video (chicago.cbslocal.com)
• Obama Calls Student After Slam by Limbaugh (newser.com)
• The HHS Mandate and Conscience Made Simple – Five Things You Should Do Now (integratedcatholiclife.org)
• Institutional “Enabling” And the HHS Mandate (theconservativehillbilly.wordpress.com)  REPOSTED FROM CATHOLICBOYRICHARD

Institutional “Enabling” And the HHS Mandate

Last week I wrote some thoughts on the tragic death of Whitney Houston.  In that article, I also opened up regarding some of my own personal past events, in an attempt to relate, as best I could, to the sad but clear truth that we could all without a doubt be a “Whitney,” had we been thus enabled by walking in her shoes and situation.

In re-reading my piece, I began to find myself further exploring the whole idea of “enabling” on a societal level, whether drugs, alcohol, or within the realm of sexuality.  It briefly occurred to me then, but more so now, how much the entire flap over forced payment of contraception and abortifacients by church and para-church organizations is indeed a case of this type of enablement.

What I do not think people fully realize, even those who are against this move by the Obama administration, is how much of a slippery slope we have already been on to even bring us to this point, or for how many years. It was called in the 1960s the “New Morality.” With that change in paradigms the birth control “Pill” became common, living together outside of marriage was suddenly acceptable, and sexuality in all forms was openly explored. It was no longer tied to one of its main purposes, which is the continuation of the human species, and became an end in itself. That altered thinking or, as some call it, the “contraceptive mentality,” was major in its ramifications. It was no longer the “norm” for a woman to stay at home and raise a family, but became just as common or more so to work and day care centers began to boom as an industry. Divorce became “no-fault” and those, like myself, from backgrounds of same-sex attraction too were liberated. What had been commonly accepted as correct behavior was turned on its head in a short enough time that I, even as a child and then teen during that era, easily observed the entire change by the time I graduated from high school, the year after Roe v Wade legalized abortion on demand nationwide.

I have seen many who have written on the Constitutional and religious liberty issues with regard to this issue but not so much on this more subtle piece to the puzzle. Perhaps we shy away from it due to our own senses of guilt or shame, or other reasons too, but I think we need to face squarely the fact that our society allowed this to happen and did not in fact even notice it coming because we were too busy participating.  Some forward-thinking people, such as Pope Paul VI, obviously did, to be sure, but they were considered to be overly inflammatory, “haters,” or just plain gloom-and-doom types who did not really know the score.  As it turns out, they were the only ones actually keeping score.

Image via Wikipedia

We as fallen humans use some very complex psychology in order to enable others on any level, personal or otherwise. We first try to second-guess what might be the best for people, basing it upon possible or probable future behavior, whether good or bad.  Instead of then dealing with the underlying behavior issues, such as in this instance sexual promiscuity and wanton selfishness, we try to help them to plan for it. The faultiness in this approach is clear to me just by looking at my own past grievous faults and actions.

In my other article, I speak of a man with whom I was briefly involved in 1993, one who turned out to be HIV positive (the virus which causes AIDS).  The ironic thing is that I had never been in even a remotely dangerous sexual liaison until in my early 30s and in the process of divorcing, and had lost my dearest friend in ministry, as well as his wife, in the mid-1980s to this lethal illness. In his case it was due to a drug-dependent past, and then after he became a committed Christian he unknowingly passed it on to his equally unsuspecting wife. So I was aware of the horror of HIV/AIDS early on.  I was also educated on ways to prevent it.  But I still stepped into the trap of risk-taking.  And the very people who aided and abetted me in those risks were the same ones whose stated intentions were to help people make wiser decisions, such as the MN AIDS Project and others.  Let me be clear that no one told me to take risks. But it was assumed that I would, and thus thought necessary to teach me how to minimize them while maximizing my own pursuits for pleasure.

Image via Wikipedia

Obviously I was old enough and knew enough that I must own any choices I made at that time, but the fact remains that I might have been swayed otherwise if I had been warned more clearly about the gravity of the perils I was walking into, even of such things as failed condom usage and of the many other sexually transmitted diseases not always prevented by “playing the field” as I was heartily doing, even in a supposedly “safe” manner.  Instead the local LGBT bars handed out condoms for free to all customers, and the view was very simply that “we were going to do it anyway” so we might as well do it as safely as possible.

The striking similarity between giving an alcoholic just enough drinks to make him or her “feel good” and then to hang upon the futile hope that they will cheerfully comply with a 2 or 3 drink limit is an irony not lost to me. The bars, the MN AIDS Project, the LGBT publications, and even the “gay-friendly” churches all presumed the same thing—that being sexually active was the “new norm.” And, partly at least owing to that pervasive attitude, we did exactly that. People strongly tend to act as they are expected to. Basic psychology 101.

For my part I was not overly risky in my activities, and always stayed within commonly recommended “safer sex” guidelines. But when a person who I had spent one passionate night with died just one year later, of a disease I had sworn I would never allow myself to even get near to, it jolted within me a wakeup call, slowing me down abruptly  and considerably.  While it was several more years before I became fully celibate, I was suddenly far more particular as to who I went home with and how often, knowing that each encounter could be the one that might give me that dreaded and lethal condition. In effect the “field” became less fun but had far fewer weeds at that point.

The idea therefore that we must provide easy contraception for women who are sexually active is ludicrous to me in the same way as the well-intentioned folks at the bar who used to give me condoms by the dozen at no charge.  In both cases we are expecting the worst, not the best, to occur, and in doing so we essentially make it easier to happen.  That is what enabling does.

I was blessed, not deserving so, I might add, to find myself after 9 months of tests to still to be HIV negative. Other people, good people who our Lord loves and who carry His dignity and image, have not been so blessed as me.  But I wish to heaven someone out there had truly cared enough to not suggest that I have “safer sex,” but instead would have seriously challenged me to be celibate.  I am not sure I would have listened—but I might have—and did eventually.  No one though within the LGBT community or for that matter among other family and friends ever even attempted such a thing. Not one, and not once that I recall at least.

Fast-forwarding to now, in the name of “women’s health” of all things, we are doing the exact same type of enabling with HHS. The idea of even suggesting abstinence is approximately somewhere between idiotic and far-fetched to many of the people involved, and yet one of them is a faithful and at least apparently monogamous husband (President Obama), several are noted Catholic women with longstanding marriages, such as Kathleen Sibelius and Nancy Pelosi, and one, the head of the Catholic Health Care Association, Sister Carol Sheehan, has taken a lifetime vow of celibacy and chastity, which we can only assume she follows personally.  What a strange, strange group to be promoting promiscuity in the name of health!!!  How it must be a stench before our God.

Image via Wikipedia

Revelation speaks of the “whore of Babylon” and her desire to spread her immorality to others. Why would the above-mentioned group (picture is slightly different), all who claim to be practicing Christians, spend so much of their valuable time, efforts, and even reputations to do the same?

Image via Wikipedia

Birth control is not illegal in this nation.  Nor, for that matter, is abortion sadly.  But the idea that it is somehow our moral responsibility to begin paying for such services to those who otherwise could not afford it, rather than using that same exertion and money in educating  those women (and men) in better ways to live, such as abstinence outside of marriage and NFP (Natural Family Planning) within it, which has been long proven to work just as well as the “Pill” by the way, causes me to wonder just what could motivate anyone who names the name of Christ to encourage others to do things with their bodies that they themselves clearly choose not to do?  The word stupid does not begin to describe it.

I am baffled, sickened and irate about this whole thing, as are many, many others. But I know one thing on a first-hand level that seems to be missed in this whole argument in both directions. I know the fear and apprehension that comes from supposedly “safer sex.” And I have seen friends die from it.  That to me is reason enough to oppose this immoral mandate.

Image via Wikipedia

Adding one last but very crucial point, the MN AIDS Project does many fine things. I would take nothing away the fact that they have pioneered efforts to fight HIV when few were doing so. I am simply saying that I fervently wish they would add abstinence education to their agenda. I do not expect them to do so, however. So this is not primarily about them–but it is about me and the many of us who once supported everything within the LGBT community, and can no longer do so.  However they (MN AIDS Project) do raise much money each year to fight AIDS and to help, in practical ways, those who currently are afflicted with it. A link to some of those activities is listed just below this paragraph. A better approach however might be to give to Catholic groups who also assist those with AIDS, but do so without advancing the idea of so-called “safer sex” but instead abstinence and helping people to achieve this this goal, no matter what their sexual inclination may be. Many such fine groups exist, such as Catholic Relief Services and the apostolate Courage. Their links are just below as well: 

http://crs.org/hiv-aids/

http://couragerc.net/

https://community.mnaidsproject.org/aidswalk

OTHER Related articles

• CELIBATE BUT NOT CHASTE??? CHASTE BUT NOT CELIBATE??? A Quick Catholic “Snapshot” of SSA Theology (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• Thoughts on a Tough Topic – Contraception and Rome (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
• HIV warning to women using injectable contraception (guardian.co.uk)
• HIV-positive man deported from Canada for not disclosing status to sexual partners (calgaryherald.com)
• The Little Sisters of Limousine Liberalism (spectator.org)
• Catholic Churches Distribute Letter Opposing Obama Healthcare Rule – ABC News (blog) (abcnews.go.com)
• Pelosi parts ways with bishops yet again, opposes abortion exemptions for Catholic healthcare facilities (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• Sebelius touts health IT initiative in KC (kansas.com)
• Sebelius Didn’t Consult Bishops on Contraception Deal (blogs.wsj.com)
• Sebelius Smears Catholic Insurers (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• Clearing Confusion on Who Speaks for the Church | Suffering With Joy (intostillness.wordpress.com)
• The Politics of Sex: Where Does Obama Stand? (bizgovsoc2.wordpress.com)
• Obama: Supporting LGBT Rights Is ‘Profoundly American’ (thinkprogress.org)
• ‘To Hell With You’ (catholicglasses.com)
• Archbishop Wenski: “The President Should Honor His Pledge” (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)

GO TO YOUR PRECINCT CAUCUS TONIGHT!!! LET’S CHANGE AMERICA TOGETHER AND FOREVER…

Rick Santorum (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Caucuses MATTER, especially in this coming election.  Please attend yours tonight.  I am strongly supporting Rick Santorum, and I believe his campaign can indeed keep going if we work and pray hard. But–whoever you vote for please go.

This year more than ever it is not just our right but our duty to vote and participate.  You heard it here. Check out the links below as well:

 

Related articles

• My choice: Rick Santorum (hotair.com)
• Will Santorum Surprise In Minnesota? (huffingtonpost.com)
• GOP gets Minn. focus now, uphill fall fight awaits (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Romney looks to cement lead in Colorado, Minnesota (ctv.ca)
• http://thepulp.it/2012/02/07/tuesday-religious-liberty-extra-i-2/

Bishop David Zubik is "checking the air outside" in defense of "to hell with you" comment

Reblogged from Catholibertarian:

Hed: Checking the Air Outside

By Bishop David A. Zubik from the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh 

I have a friend who smokes. Like most smokers I know, he’s not very proud of it. Whenever he has to have a cigarette, he excuses himself by saying that he is going to be “checking the air outside” for a few minutes. I hope and pray that the day will come soon when he manages to quit.

Read more… 1,236 more words

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption] Well there are a few people who just keep turning out such good stuff i have to share it, and Teresa Rice is on...here is her latest post from Catholibertarian.

Related articles

• Bishop David Zubik is "checking the air outside" in defense of "to hell with you" comment (catholibertarian.com)