Andrei Rublev’s Trinity, representing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a similar manner. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Today is “Trinity Sunday” on the Liturgical Calendar. There have no doubt been literally thousands of arguments, both for and against, this central doctrine over nearly two millenia, ranging from “where is that in the Bible” to “non-Trinitarians are going to hell,” and every range in between.
I have known lovely and loving people who accepted Christ as Lord and God, but did not accept the concept of “three persons in one God.” So are they Christians? And what about those who believe Jesus was God’s “first-born” (in other words created by Him) such as Jehovah’s Witnesses teach, and the Arians as well hundreds of years earlier? Are they “real” Christians? Or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who believe in a Triune God of sorts but that He is one of many, and that we too have the potential to one day rule and reign in our own universes? Are they Christians?
Scary isn’t it? So many love Jesus but cannot agree about who He is. Each of the above groups who deviate from traditional Trinitarian thinking also believe that Jesus is the Son of God, lived a perfect and sinless life, died for our sins, and is forever in heaven with His Father. It is very hard to then say “they do not believe like I do so hell awaits.” And I do not believe so. But I will get back to that thought in a moment.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) clearly indicates that belief in this doctrine is indeed the bedrock of any true form of Christianity. While not in the Sacred Scriptures expressly, the concept exists and was in fact universally approved by the Church before that same Church approved which books even belonged in Sacred Scripture. Protestant friends please understand I am not referring to any Old Testament books but rather the New Testament, which virtually every Christian denomination (and the splinter groups listed above as well) agree upon. The teaching of the Trinity came first.
Says the CCC in 232:
Christians are baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Before receiving the sacrament, they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son, and the Spirit: “I do.” “The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity.”54 (189, 1223)
In 189:
The first “profession of faith” is made during Baptism. The symbol of faith is first and foremost the baptismal creed. Since Baptism is given “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” the truths of faith professed during Baptism are articulated in terms of their reference to the three persons of the Holy Trinity. (1237, 232)
And in 1223:
All the Old Covenant prefigurations find their fulfillment in Christ Jesus. He begins his public life after having himself baptized by St. John the Baptist in the Jordan. After his resurrection Christ gives this mission to his apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28: 19) 18 (232)
It is important to note that the teachings of the Catechism are based upon early Traditions which go back to the earliest Church Fathers and even the Apostles themselves. Sacred Scripture as well, not mentioning the word “Trinity,” makes multiple other references besides the above, such as the following quote both from Holy Writ and with commentary from St Athanasius, an early Church Father who lived in the third and fourth centuries AD and who in fact was the first to identify the 27 books of the New Testament as universally recognized today. Here is what he says:
This is also Paul’s teaching in his second letter to the Corinthians (13:13): The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. For grace and the gift of the Trinity are given by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Just as grace is given from the Father through the Son, so there could be no communication of the gift to us except in the Holy Spirit. But when we share in the Spirit, we posses the love of the Father, the grace of the Son and the fellowship of the Spirit himself. St. Athanasius
And the following:
We acknowledge the Trinity, holy and perfect, to consist of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this Trinity there is no intrusion of any alien element or of anything from outside, nor is the Trinity a blend of creative and created being. It is a wholly creative and energizing reality, self-consistent and undivided in its active power, for the Father makes all things through the Word and i…n the Holy Spirit, and in this way the unity of the holy Trinity is preserved. Accordingly, in the Church, one God is preached, one God who is above all things and through all things and in all things. God is above all things as Father, for he is principle and source; he is through all things through the Word; and he is in all things in the Holy Spirit.- St. Athanasius
-
Last, in a more modern context, a modern Catholic theologian, Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio states the following:
-
“Happy Feast Day of the Holy Trinity. We are Christians because we are followers of Christ. But besides this, we are also Trinitarians, because we believe in one God in three Divine Persons, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If we are truly to “know” our God, we must know this. But if we are ever to understand ourselves, we must also know this. For we were made in the image and like…ness of God, and God is a community of self-donating love. That means that we can never be happy isolated from others, protecting ourselves from others, holding ourselves back selfishly from others. Unless we give ourselves in love, we can never be fully human. And unless we participate in the life of God’s people, we can never be truly Christian either. Because Christianity is about building up the community of divine love which is called the Church. If God is Trinity, then there really is no place for free-lance, lone-ranger Christians.”
I think it can be thus established that belief in the Trinity is foundational to the fullness of salvation and our understanding of it. So how about those “Christians” who do not believe in this doctrine?
In both Sacred Scripture and in the early Church, the concept, if not the word, of “Catechumen” was used of those who were beginning to follow Christ but had not been baptized or who had yet to comprehend the full teachings of Christ. For example, in the New Testament a convert named Apollos was preaching Christ but missing some very important details due to poor or lack of instruction (catechesis). A couple by the names of Aquila and Priscilla took him aside and explained the plan of Christ to him more clearly, and then he went on his way. Also, St Paul, when first meeting the Ephesians, finds that they were not properly baptized, and had no concept of the Holy Spirit. They were then re-baptized and received the Spirit of God. See passages below:
Ephesians 18: 24-28 (ESV)24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
Ac 19:1 (also ESV) And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.
Quadruple combination opened to the Book of Isaiah – note the cross references between Biblical and Latter-day Saint scripture in the footnotes (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
So what does the Church teach about those who are following Christ as best they understand Him? Are they headed for heaven or hell? To answer that I think it depends first of all on the hearts of the people involved. But again we turn to the Catechism (CCC) for an answer. People who are attempting to follow Christ in the New Testament are referred to by the Church as catechumens. They may be mistaken on many points, ignorant on others, but still are part of the family of God if they truly believe according to their best understanding.
1257 (CCC):
The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. (1129; 161, 846)
1258:
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (2473)
1259:
For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1249)
1260:
“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. (848)
The only conclusion I can come to on this wonderful Trinity Sunday is that Trinitarian baptism is the normal means of entrance into the Kingdom of God. It both issues from faith and brings faith–it is the Sacrament of Faith. But for those who believe in an incomplete way, or misguided way, there would appear to be provision through what the Church clearly calls the “baptism of desire.” That is how generous the Trinity truly is.
Holy Trinity by Fridolin Leiber (1853–1912) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
There have been a deluge of articles on homosexuality of late within the Catholic and other Christian faith communities, many which seem to center around “what to call” those of us from homosexual backgrounds who are now celibate. This is obviously of great importance to many people, and there is some validity to the desire on the parts of those who, whether from homosexual or heterosexual backgrounds, wish to clearly define “what” those of us who have dabbled in erotic thoughts or behavior with people of our own gender should be termed as. To be honest that is the least of my problems when I get up in the morning and drag my ever-older body to work each day or go to Mass on Sundays or weekdays. It seems to matter not at all to our Lord Jesus Christ or to the Blessed Mother when I pray my Rosary at night either. But it matters to society, and I get that point. And that is why I write this post.
Let me start out by saying that I am not writing this to attack those who disagree or may find fault with my views here—I get, very much first-hand in fact, the reasons for using terms such as “celibate gay,” as well as those who may refer to themselves as “ex-gays” (mostly within Protestant circles). I have also noticed that the term SSA (which I prefer, and which means “same-sex attracted” ) is becoming increasingly hijacked by many who do not understand its meaning in the first place but who choose to use it in some cases against those of us who have come to a decision of celibacy and are aiming for ever-increasing chastity. And I have noticed this trend to constantly redefine terminology among both “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” people, which is what makes it increasingly ironic to me.
But that in itself does not make one set of terms wrong at all times, nor the other set always correct. I will deal with each of these semantics then, share my own observations on why they seem to be increasingly used, abused and misused, and then give some concluding thoughts, and I do so respecting those who may disagree with my pre or post-suppositions. But I think that words make a metamorphosis, and I am noticing a whole lot of folks who are using them incorrectly while feverishly trying to explain me to myself. Please do not tell me who I am. Let me explain myself to you, just as I would hope you choose to do so with me, and let me use the terms and understandings I have as a Catholic Christian. That is called mutual respect. Is there room for dialogue and discussion? Absolutely. But in the final analysis how I define myself is up to me. And God.
First off I resisted the term “SSA” for a long time, even after returning to the Church. It still seems clumsy to me at best, and like a clinical disease at worst. I would prefer to say I am “same gender attracted,” but even that was pointed out to me by a fellow blogger to cause its own confusion since not all agree on what gender even is in these days. Yikes! Besides if I started calling myself SGA then absolutely no one will know what I am referring to—not the least because it sounds more like a supermarket than a condition. So, SSA will need to do for now. But why use it in preference to “gay,” or LGBT, or (and I truly hate this one, as my wonderful brother in Christ Jesus and the Church Tony Layne knows), LGBTQ? Quit the Q!!! I am begging you…
So to answer this let’s do the old “Kermit the frog dissection” trick for a moment (my deepest apologies to the Sesame Street generation, which tragically I just barely missed—I was raised on Captain Kangaroo personally). But getting back to the dissection…the gradual history of the word “gay” in reference to homosexuality goes back to the following transitions, more or less, reprinted in full below but referenced here:
English: Promotional postcard for the television program Captain Kangaroo. Shown from left are: Dancing Bear, Bunny Rabbit, Captain Kangaroo, Grandfather Clock, Mister Moose, and Mister Green Jeans. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
And I would only add that there is importance in knowing that, while there may be disputable details in the following, the basic chronology listed here is accurate and documented in many other sources as well: So here are the insides of “Kermit:”
Kermit (Photo credit: Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer)
The meaning of the word gay has changed dramatically during the 20th century—though the change evolved from earlier usages. It derives via the Old French gai, probably from a Germanic source. The word originally meant “carefree”, “happy”, or “bright and showy” and was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature.
The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century, being used with meaning “addicted to pleasures and dissipations”. This was by extension from the primary meaning of “carefree”: implying “uninhibited by moral constraints”. By the late nineteenth century the term “gay life” was a well-established euphemism for prostitution and other forms of extramarital sexual behaviour that were perceived as immoral.
The use of the term gay, as it relates to homosexuality, arises from an extension of the sexualized connotation of “carefree and uninhibited”, implying a willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores. Such usage is documented as early as the 1920′s. It was initially more commonly used to imply heterosexually unconstrained lifestyles, as for example in the once-common phrase “gay Lothario”, or in the title of the book and film The Gay Falcon (1941), which concerns a womanizing detective whose first name is “Gay”. Well into the mid-20th century a middle-aged bachelor could be described as “gay” without prejudice.
By the mid-century “gay” was well-established as an antonym for “straight” (respectable sexual behaviour), and to refer to the lifestyles of unmarried and or unattached people. Other connotations of frivolousness and showiness in dress (“gay attire“) led to association with camp and effeminacy. This range of connotation probably affected the gradual movement of the term towards its current dominant meaning, which was at first confined to subcultures. The subcultural usage started to become main-stream in the 1960′s, when gay became the term predominantly preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. Gay was the preferred term since other terms, such as “queer” were felt to be derogatory. “Homosexual” was perceived as excessively clinical: especially since homosexuality was at that time designated as a mental illness, and “homosexual” was used by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to denote men affected by this “mental illness”. Homosexuality was no longer classified as an illness in the DSM by 1973, but the clinical connotation of the word was already embedded in society.
By 1963, the word “gay” was known well enough by the straight communityto be used fluently.
When you read the above definition, given to us from the best research within the LGBT communities, the realization is apparent that the term pretty much assumes active involvement in the lifestyle and support of the overall homosexual community. Since I am celibate, and I have withdrawn my support for such things as unconditional “marriage equality” and the like, dropped my memberships from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and OUTFRONT Minnesota, no longer attend or participate in Pride parades, and relinquished my position where at my place of employment as the lead LGBT spokesperson, all of which were only parts of activism activities I have been involved with over the years, I am not acting, by the LGBT’s own definition, particularly “gay” these days. So there is not much of that lifestyle left in my life other than a still definite attraction to members of my own gender (using the traditional sense of the word, not some manufactured “this is how I feel” type of definition). And I am definitely a man, despite the screen/blogger name “Catholicboyrichard” (one lone reader incidentally objected to my use of that name, since, after all I am 56 and not a “boy” anymore). He obviously has not heard of the concept of “second childhood,” which I cling tenaciously to. Oh well. The other nearly 25,000 who have “hit” my page since starting it just over 6 months ago seem not to mind.
My point—I do not live as a “gay person” and yet I still have attractions which I would be lying to deny their existence. So what am I? I no longer identify with a community I was bound integrally to for 15 years, however nor am I suddenly “macho man” plus. Plus, yes, macho no. The most macho thing I probably have learned over the years was how to become a couch potato, and my doctor is not putting up with that these days anyway. Damn him. Incidentally the same reader who thinks I should stop with calling myself “Catholic Boy” also thought I needed to get involved in some sports, “if it’s not too late” given my age that is!!! FYI (and his too if he is reading this) I ran 5 miles 3 times a week for many years, keeping a perfect weight and fitness level into my early 40s. The fact that it has gone to hell since then is purely due to age and laziness, not a lack of testosterone. In fact it may be a sign of it.
So back to the definitions—I am someone with something. I am a person, in the image of God my Maker, marred yes by sin, but in His Image nevertheless. I have leanings towards and see the beauty in other males more quickly than I do with females. That is it. I am “same-sex attracted.” SSA. The term fits and makes sense to me. But I am not “gay,” which implies an innate make-up in my being that I am powerless to do anything about other than to but accept. There is an old commercial (for Oil of Olay—or “Oil of Delay” as my old friend Ken used to call it) which says “I do not intend to age gracefully—I’ll fight it every step of the way.”
Well that is how I feel about my SSA. And when I say “fight it,” I do not mean I must become a boxing fan, watch violent TV or movies (except True Blood of course!), or start passing gas or burping in public places. I am still allowed to be a fairly sensitive, kind-hearted person and to prefer cooking or reading to football. It may surprise the straight men reading this that Jesus Himself was pretty “not-so-macho.” Let’s see—He wore a robe all the time, hung around with men constantly, loved women but never made passes at them or checked out their rears, secretly or otherwise, cooked for the Disciples on occasion (fish for breakfast, anyone?), and shared parables and stories based on His own hours of prayer and studies. In short He was strong but knew when to be tender. And in His day and age, the societal standards of what made men “manly” were somewhat different than in ours today. This is exactly my point, of course. He showed us that the “measure of a man” consisted of very different things than what Americanized John Wayne types currently look for. And since the sports of choice in His day were such things as throwing people to the lions for lunch, using them as human torches, and earning their freedom from noxious slavery by “killing their way to the top” via gladiator activities, I doubt He was particularly an athletics aficionado either. He loved sacred music and knew Sacred Scripture as if He wrote it—oh wait, He did. He could be tough as nails (not only such as the ones used to torture Him on the cross but the type apparently used in His carpentry work) and yet gentle towards women who would gladly have had Him for their pleasure, and simply told them “Go and sin no more.” He was the quintessential man of men. We need to look no further for what makes one manly. And the same can be said for our Blessed Mother in regard to womanhood. Mary was the original feminist—and the only person to ever get by with telling Jesus when to begin His miracle ministry at the wedding in Cana. She followed Him but never doted. She submitted to St Joseph but never backed down when he was ready to divorce her for becoming pregnant outside of wedlock while engaged to him. And she worked and travelled all through her pregnancy until the very day our Lord and Savior was born.
One of the best lists of “manly” characteristics in the New Testament is in 1st Timothy 3:1-3. I am quoting from the ESV (English Standard Version) here:
1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
That is what being a “real man” is all about and nothing else. My point is this—neither our King of Kings nor His and our Queen Mother followed social norms, even of their own days, as to what being “manly” or “womanly” supposedly meant then or now. The asexual parts therefore of my nature, which may or may not have contributed to my own SSA leanings in some way, are not sinful, and do not need surgical removal. In fact there are a few of them I would prefer to keep intact.
Melinda Selmys touches on this beautifully in her book Authentic Sexuality, as well as on her blog which is linked at the end of this article. Melinda is a married mother of 6, a Catholic Christian woman, and lived as a lesbian for years before converting to the Faith. While I disagree with her in regards to her use of the terms LGBTQ quite freely in her writings, I also understand why she does so. St Paul told us to be “all things to all people.” We can and should reach people where they are at. However I do not think “dumbing down” or eliminating our hard-earned terminology is the fullest answer. Presenting a loving explanation of it, in more than just a sound-bite or slogan, is. I once worked with a Christian drug/alcohol program which included men who had been on everywhere from skid row to near death row. Many if not most had been in gangs. All of them had severe life-controlling issues. One of my duties was to teach them Bible classes with a very practical approach, dealing with such issues as anger and submission to authority. But I wanted to take this a step further, and give them a firm foundation to learn to read the Bible for themselves, so I developed a curriculum from Genesis to Revelation which covered highlights from each book, but then zeroed in on certain passages—kind of an overview but yet including deeper looks at key passages that might apply in their particular situations. One tool I used (and I was questioned at first for using this) was religious art. Looking back, even though I was an evangelical Protestant minister at the time, I realize now that certain parts of my Catholic upbringing never had left me, and this love of sacred art was one of them. I was told that “these guys are not going to relate.” But they did. Hugely in fact. It soon became one of our most featured and looked-forward-to sessions when I would bring out the art books and show them Michelangelo or others who had captured the lessons of the day. I believe it worked because I did not assume that these men could not “handle it.” I knew that they could. We would look at the pictures and pick out the lessons we had just learned, discussing everything from facial expressions to Scriptural accuracy or the lack thereof. And men who had spent their lives pulling knives on each other and stealing drugs for a living suddenly were, in some small way, introduced into the marvelous culture of Church History and Tradition.
That is why I believe we sell our actively LGBT sisters and brothers short when we do not call ourselves by the correct terminology. If we use expressions such as “that’s so gay” or, worse yet, call ourselves “queer Christians,” we are telling them essentially that we are at no different place in our journey than they are. It may get our foot in the door occasionally, but it makes it at least more difficult to differentiate between our experiences and theirs. St Paul was a God-loving and strict Pharisee fundamentalist—but a Christ-hater. He called all of those involvements and accolades for being one of the elite religious of the day “dung.” I call my years of “gay pride” exactly the same thing. And no, I do not call LGBT people “dung.” They, like me, are precious people in the image of a wondrous and holy God. But, as in the beautiful but out-of-print book by David Morrison, Beyond Gay, I am at least, step by slow step, moving beyond that familiar world. And I want to take my actively LGBT/gay friends and family with me on that journey.
Thus here is where she and I may differ—I do not think referring to myself as a “celibate gay Christian” is particularly accurate or truthful. I think it automatically labels me into a corner of the world I no longer belong to. It seems to me a lot like calling myself, as my former wife (but current good friend) Shirley, who happens to have epilepsy, an “epileptic.” Clinically, both terms are accurate. But one says I am something. The other says I am a human person with something. And, again, words matter. One is a label, and the other is a description of an imperfect but real creation of God. One makes me sound like an “ex-con” and the other like a current and present member of the family of our Lord Jesus and His Church. Which would you like better if you were in my shoes?
Lastly, I have heard the ghastly use of the term SSA of late by someone referring to same-sex attraction as the “SSA disorder.” Whether involved in the community or not, whether celibate or not, whether I term myself as LGBT (or even Q!), I can be a doctor, lawyer, priest, minister, married or single, well-adjusted or poorly so. I get very disturbed when I hear people say such things as “for we know that the gay lifestyle leads to a higher risk of HIV, depression, substance abuse, and a generally lower life expectancy. To oppose the normalization of a lifestyle that leads to this degradation of the human person — specifically the same-sex attracted person — is no hate at all, but a love. Not a love most people want, but a desire for the good of the beloved nonetheless.” If by that statement you are referring to same-sex “marriage,” I would fully agree. And in fairness the author quoted here, Marc Barnes of “Bad Catholic” fame, was doing exactly that, I believe. In his own inimitable way he is one of the most fair and kind-hearted young men I have never met. A link to the entire blog post in question is at the conclusion of this one—and I think you will agree. But if by it you mean let us go a bit further as a society and, for “their own good,” let’s get those anti-sodomy laws back on the books and start screaming “faggot” to the next homosexually inclined person we meet, then I would just say hold up. Now. 50 years ago, or less, it was considered “acceptable” to beat up “queers” or at least bully them mercilessly. I was there. Less than 30 years ago it was a very real question within the health care communities as to whether we should even treat those with HIV, since they “brought it upon themselves.” I can only say then, please quit treating obesity, diabetes, which is a direct result of it in many cases, cancer, particularly if it is caused by smoking, and a host of other diseases or conditions which are preventable but deadly. And for God’s sake do not waste our tax dollars on preventative health education. Let them read it on their own. And if they fail to do so, slam the hospital door in their faces. Just don’t miss Mass on Sunday.
EWTN logo.svg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
One night on EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network), normally one of my favorite television stations and one which I still would recommend to anyone researching the Catholic faith, had a guest on who thought we needed to “bring back the stigma” to young girls who became pregnant. He thought that would make a bold statement of our faith and not encourage so many out-of-wedlock pregnancies. He might be right that, in a very few cases, it would stop girls or young women from getting pregnant. Instead though, it would quite probably push them towards the use of abortifacient contraceptives, and, if those failed, abortions, and this to young, frightened girls or single women who were already scared to death and feeling utterly alone in their unfortunate situations. I do not recall who the guest was, and I do not expect to see him on that station again. I fervently hope not at least. But it sickened me to think that we truly do have modern-day Pharisees who still delight in the sins and failings of others such as he seemed to be doing.
So how does this fit with the misleading term “SSA disorder?” Quite easily in fact. If I as a human being am disordered, and I will concede that the wound of having SSA does include a “disordered passion,” so too are my non-SSA friends who undress every woman that they see while sitting by their wives in Mass or church, as well as the pastors (some statistics would say 50%) who have their occasional slippage into the world of pornography. And “porn” is not what it was when I was 14 and snuck a look at some old Playboys found in the neighbor’s dumpster by my friend Marty. The most I ever saw at that time was the human body, but never in action as such. The fact that 10 year olds can now see actual sexual intercourse (oh pardon me I mean the “marital embrace” for those of you who are offended at the use of the word “sex”), neither hinted at nor suggestive of, but the real thing, including the climax, by the click of a button, should alarm us drastically. Do not call me “disordered” and then forget to include yourselves as part of the photo-op. We are all disordered in some way or another, and when the term was originally used in the Church it was made quite clear that this was the case. When St Thomas Aquinas and Rome included that term, it was the overall passions of humans gone awry which they were referring to, not the modern Freudian or clinical definition of the word, used primarily in our day and age to mean that SSA is somehow just a bit more disordered than what the average person deals with. We already know we are a fallen people—so perhaps just look in the mirror if you think you are less “disordered” than I am.
So those are just some of the many reasons I am not defining myself as “gay” anymore. It does not mean I have been instantly or miraculously delivered from the “demon of homosexuality” or that I now can throw a football 100 yards. It indicates I am not demarcated by anything I was, or even still struggle with—whether weight, sexual lust towards either gender, gossip, or slandering of others. It states that, instead of being born a Capricorn, I was born again under the sign of the Cross. It means I am, and will be, a Catholic Christian. No more, and no less.
PLEASE NOTE: each of the web pages or blogs listed below had some direct influence on this particular article. Each of them has some great things to say, as well as some things I have very honest disagreements with. All of them are worth reading. They are listed in no particular order.
My confirmation and first communion were wonderful! I had ached to take part in the Eucharist for months now and I finally got to. I was so excited! I was actually shaking while I was up front for confirmation. My leg was going a mile a minute and I was afraid that it might give out on me, luckily it didn’t.
FREAKED ME OUT...in a good way of course!!! This lovely young woman, Vivien Betland, entered the Catholic Church and was confirmed this Easter Vigil, 2012. Great, you may say...but what is the big deal? Well, her story was just featured on the "Why I'm Catholic" website. Her and I have never crossed paths, although we are both from MN. But imagine my surprise when the featured photo for her story was the same priest who confirmed me, 6 years ago, at the very same parish she now attends--St Olaf in Minneapolis, a mile from my home!!! Small world so they say. BTW if you wish to see the BACK of Father Mark's head look on my story, at the end of the article itself, just before the comments, and you will see this same priest administering Confirmation to me. What a huge family we have in Christ and in the Church. May God use Vivien in her work and future. And I have prayed for her without even knowing it. Very cool.
Donna Summer, a diva and icon of the disco era, has passed on Thursday, May 17 (2012). As a child of 5 or 6 years old, Donna Summer and the Bee Gees were among my favorites. I was enchanted by the dance music of the seventies. Discotheques were a place where grown-ups went, all dressed up in shine and glam, big hair and frilly clothing.
Adding even more about Donna Summer, specifically her walk with Jesus Christ...her picture is so much more lovely than in the days of skin-tight or revealing wardrobes that made her famous but never happy. She looks simply beautiful here, inside and out. The love of Christ clothes her in loveliness beyond this earth. God's peace be with her.
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="280"] I Got Your Love (Photo credit: Wikipedia)[/caption]
Yesterday, when I wrote my piece regarding Father Thomas D Williams, I did not know that Donna Summer was ill, much less with cancer.
I do know that she had a real and life-changing experience with Christ at an extremely low point in her life years ago, although it was a high point in her career. And it changed her. Forever.
At the last moment, I used her YouTube video of “The Last Dance” in that post. It was very much an afterthought, and I even debated its relevance, but it fit with something, oddly enough, about his current battle with cancer and how that may have possibly affected some of the decisions he made, both wise and not-so-wise. So I ultimately shared it.. Not knowing that today Ms Summers would be in the hands of the Lord due to that very disease... Kind of gives me the chills now.
May our Lord and Blessed Mother hold her tight. I believe they will. Thank you for Teresa Rice for sharing this tribute to the Queen of the disco era and far beyond. And, far more, to a woman of courage and Christian faith. Donna, pray for us tonight as we pray for you.
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 CaliforniaPROP 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:
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:
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.
