Monthly Archives: March 2009

Catholic_Church

Catholic ‘Dissent’

Leave a comment

As a child in Catholic primary schools, I vividly remember memorising, page by page, the catechism of the church:  first a slim little red version, later a slightly fatter grey-green version for older students.

“Who made you?
God made me.”

“Why did God make you?
To know Him, to love Him, to serve Him in this world,  and to be happy with Him forever in the next.”

But by the time I reached secondary school, Vatican II was in progress, enthusiastically embraced by the priest who taught me RE for the next 5 years. I never again saw that little catechism.

There is a quaint view in some quarters that to be a Catholic requires that one suspend all powers of the intellect, and meekly agree to believe, and to live, exactly as one is told.  This view I emphatically reject.  One of the key parables in the Gospels is that of the 10 talents. We are taught that the Lord requires us to use all the talents we are given, for his greater glory and to further His reign on earth.  Surely the intellect is one of the greatest talents He has bestowed on us?  (Another is our sexuality, which should also be used – but that is another story.)

Michael Bayley, at The Wild Reed, writes an impressive blog from what he calls a ‘progressive, gay, Catholic perspective.’  I am a regular reader, admiring in particular the way he has of presenting not only stimulating personal views, but also the best of writing from a range of others.  He also has excellent cross-references and links, so that I find that his archives alone are worth spending hours on, to explore specific themes.  But in yesterday’s post, he shares a letter he has received from a reader who states that

“this blog is just an exercise in false advertisement. For while you may in fact be progressive and gay, you are most definitely not Catholic.”




In making this assertion, the writer cites as evidence Michael’s regular criticisms of the hierarchy, his occasional writings on other faith traditions, and on some of his other activities, such as the work of the Spirit of St Stephen’s.  The comment boxes at the Wild Reed have been filling rapidly, with readers rushing to Michael’s defence.  I made my own response there, so I do not intend to elaborate further on Michael, and my support for him.  (Go to the Wild Reed yourself. Read the interchange, the recent posts which led to it, mull over the comments.  But also explore his valuable archives on dissent, and on what it means to be a Catholic).

What I do want to do here is to explore some of my own reflections on this interchange, as it affects me and this blog.

Ever since the approach of Lent, I have been struggling to get my thoughts down on the keyboard, and this is part of the reason.  I have never been one to see Lent as primarily a time of sacrifice:  rather, it is for me a time of reflection, in preparation for the great feast of the Easter resurrection.  My reflections this year have left me wanting to resolve some personal issues in developing a closer relationship with my local parish and diocese.   These do not lend themselves to public writing.

Furthermore, in setting up this blog in the first place, it was never my intention to devote it to reflexive, incessant attacks on the established church. This is what I wrote in my founding statement:

“….to all you who are gay Catholics or lapsed Catholics, a plea and invitation:  come in and come out. If you have lapsed, come back in to the Church, and help to make a difference.  If you remain a regular churchgoer, come in deeper – take on more active ministry.  Let there be no doubt of your credentials  as Catholic. Then, cautiously and gradually, come out as gay

…….. Coming out in the church will be more difficult, so you will need even more support.  I hope that this site will help you to find a suitable support network for face to face contact and discussion.  But the virtual society of the blogosphere can also represent support of a kind – and that, we definitely aim to provide.”

My track record since then has been less balanced.  (Unfortunately, simple responding to current news has left me with little choice).  Still, I am mindful that my intention from the start was to focus on the ‘Good News’ that is inherent in the Gospels, in the gift of our sexuality, and in the great tradition of the Catholic Church.

So, the debate at the Wild Reed has brought into focus how I can (belatedly) reflect in this blog, part of my own Lenten resolution. For the next few weeks, I will be attempting to present a more positive view of the Church which, for all its failings, remains my spiritual home.

Related articles

Catholic_Church

Benedict’s New Clothes

Leave a comment

Michael Bayley, at The Wild Reed, and Colleen Cochivar-Baker at Enlightened Catholicism, show a fascinating exchange of views on the declining numbers in the Western church.  (Both are responding to a reported drop in numbers in the US /Canadian Catholic Church, but the same pattern applies even more in Europe.)  Colleenbelieves that this decline is a reflection of disillusion by baby boomers at the failure of Vatican II, coupled with an ingrained aversion by generation x’ers and millenials to enforced conformity; Michael argues that his ‘crisis’ is in fact an opportunity, and quotes examples of the  ways in which local churches are refusing to go along with the Vatican, and taking control of their own circumstances.

In general, I agree with Michael, but here I am tempted go even further. Reading and reflecting on his links, and on some related material, I began to wonder. In our outraged reactions to the events of the past few months, to Vatican excesses and stupidity, have we all been missing the point?  In seeking to assert and extend Vatican control, is not Benedict increasingly resembling the Hans Christian Anderson’s Emperor:  displaying to the world the new clothes he does not have?

Among Michael’s links, I was particularly enthused by the story from the Netherlands, reported in the National Catholic Reporter. Later, I came across a report in New Catholic Times on how Asian bishops are holding fast to the V2 reforms, and a story in Dignity’sQuarterly Voice called “The Gay Catholic Insurgency”.  In this, Brian McNeill reflects on a book about the Russian military’s struggle against Afghan insurgents, which he sees as an instructive analogy for the struggle of the church to contain gay Catholics.  Substituting the words “Church authority” for “the military” and “the Catholic faithful” for “the people”, he quotes:

“The church authorities can never defeat a truly grassroots movement of the faithful. We, the GLBT insurgents, never need to win, we just have to continue to fight. In fighting against us, the hierarchy is fighting its own people, which thwarts its stated purpose of proclaiming the Gospel, and creating the Reign of God. They will never win as long as we continue our efforts. The harder they fight us, the more they alienate the Catholic faithful and reveal themselves as hypocrites.”

Quite so.




From my own experience, I draw a different analogy.  Growing up in South Africa, the first 25 years of my life coincided with the relentless extension of apartheid repression into many areas of life.  In 1976, the Soweto youth revolt began a new phase of popular resistance.  Increasingly, the state attempted to counter with increasingly harsh security legislation and military control, but this was simply met with further resistance.  As years passed, it became obvious that real power was being transferred from the official apparatus of the state to the unofficial popular leaders in the townships. One after another, bits and pieces of apartheid legislation fell into abeyance as they were ignored or publicly flouted in passive resistance, until these laws were gradually repealed.  When the formal political transformation began in 1990, this was not out of the generosity of the government wanting to change, but out of simple realism – the recognition that political reality had indeed changed already, and there was a need to adjust to the new circumstances.

In “The pain and the endgame”, one of James Alison’s many insightful observations was that as a consequence of the bludgeoning we gay and lesbian Catholics have received, we have become highly sensitive to small slights, while tending to lose sight of the signs of progress. So let us take stock of current progress (not specifically on LGBT issues here, but more generally).

Whatever the stance of the Vatican on sexual issues, it is a common observation that at the local level, Catholic parishes and individual priests are far more tolerant and understanding of nonconformists (e.g. to contraception, to divorcees, or to young adults in sexual relationships before marriage) than they used to be.

At senior levels of the hierarchy, the fuss over SSPX, and over earlier controversies, saw unprecedented levels of public criticism from the ranks of the bishops.

Despite official insistence that the topics of married priests and women priests are off-limits, in practice such discussion is becoming widespread, even encouraged, in some national churches.

Despite vigorous opposition, the womenpriests movement is growing, and attracting willing congregations. At the Spirit of St Stephen’s, parishioners are doing it for themselves – just as the Netherlands’ Dominican order is actively recommending. And the full body of Asian bishops is insisting on continuing to implement the empowerment of the laity, and of local churches, as promised by Vatican II. This degree of resistance, public criticism, and non-compliance would have been unimaginable before the Council.

In lamenting the incomplete implementation of the council’s intentions, the failure of the laity themselves to accept fully the responsibilities they were offered, and current attempts to undermine the reforms, we lose sight of one crucial fact: The empowerment that was put into effect, cannot be undone. To switch from Hans Christian Anderson with whom I headlined this post to the Arabian Nights, the genie has been let out of the bottle, and cannot now be forced back.

There was a time when it was possible for church authorities to control all access to religious knowledge and influence, but those days have gone. First was ceded access to scripture, then to a vernacular Mass, to active participation in the liturgy and to ministry, and to formal theological studies. In the world of modern technology, theology, canon law, church history and scriptural study are all freely available to anyone, even outside formal training institutions, to anyone with a keyboard and internet connection.

In the secular world, democracy has spread even in Latin America and Africa.Organisations of all kinds have found, over the last few decades that the old hierarchical pyramids of control no longer work as they used to, and are being replaced by flatter structures and horizontal project teams. Osama’s victory was just the most dramatic, most public example, of the value of this.

No power can continue indefinitely to hold onto control without the consent, or at least the acquiescence, of the governed. Benedict’s attempts to further centralise control are flying in the face of modern realities. Unless he and shi successors recognises this reality, the greater the danger that they will find themselves controlling a shrinking, lifeless institutional church – but life and authority will have flowed to a real, living church beyond his reach.

Catholic_Church, Pastoral Ministry

Soho Masses

Leave a comment

I spent last Saturday with a group of 20 LGBT Catholics on a pastoral planning workshop for the ‘Soho Masses’.  These Masses are now marking a double anniversary:  this week is the 2nd anniversary of their formal recognition by the diocese, and a move into a Catholic church, while April will mark the 10th anniversary of their inception, on a much smaller scale.  I thought this would be a good opportunity to tell you a little more about who we are, and why this journey has been important.

For American readers, bear in mind that here in the UK, we are way behind you – the British are well known for their national reserve in all things, which extends also to LGBT activism, and to the church.  (An American participant on Saturday noted how marked is the contrast she has seen, with British laity far more subservient, and less assertive in dealings with the hierarchy, than their American counterparts.)  So we have a long way to go – but it is still worth noting how far we have come.




10 years ago, a small group of lesbian and gay Catholics met in private domestic premises in North London for what was in effect a house Mass.  This became a regular monthly event, with a steady rise in numbers.  After a while,  the premises became no longer available, forcing a move.  This turned out to be beneficial, as we were able to make use of premises in the heart of Soho – London’ s gay mecca- in a modern Anglican church.  The nature of the physical space and the location  were ideal, and numbers continued to expand.  Frequency was also increased, to twice monthly. (Many of the congregation travel in from outlying areas, where they are actively engaged in local parishes of their own.)

Surveys of the congregation showed how highly the participants valued these services, for the simple affirmation that they represent, for the sensitive and intelligent homilies appropriate to our lives, for the impressive liturgies (thank you, Martin),  and for the warm welcome and community experienced over tea and biscuits.

Increasing success, however, also brought unwelcome attention from some more conservative opponents, who began agitating  for the Cardinal to close down the ‘heretical’ Masses which were being celebrated for ‘sinners’ in an Anglican church.  From our side, relationships with the diocese were confused and cautious, with decidedly mixed signals being received, so that we were were never quite sure whether we would in fact be shut down, or if we might achieve some degree of diocesan accommodation or recognition.

When the change came, it was the latter. Late in 2006, we received information that the Cardinal, through his representative, wished to open discussions with a view to offering us a permanent home in an inner London parish. – and made clear that he hoped to see the move concluded rapidly, within weeks.  We welcomed these discussions, but refused to be steamrollered.  After some months’ careful and frank discussions, we did indeed move into our present home in Soho. This parish has a long and notable history of its own, but as an inner city parish no longer has a significant resident population.  There were still regular Sunday and weekday Masses, but these were poorly attended.  The agreement reached was that we would be specifically welcomed, ‘within a parish context’, at the regular 5:00 pm Mass on the 1st & 3rd Sundays of each month – identical to our existing timing.

Although we welcomed the formal recognition and acceptance that this implied, we had some important reservations and suspicions, which involved intensive consultation and discussion with the community before we agreed, and celebrated (in grand style) our first Mass in the new home in March 2007.

The effects of the move were clearly mixed.  We welcomed the signs of acceptance and diocesan integration that it implied, but were equally cautious of the parallel implications that the diocese was attempting to exert control.  Opposition also increased (it is ironic that the group who tried to shut down the Masses because they were held in Anglican premises,  simply saw them transferred to a historic Catholic church, where the diocesan vicar-general is now the parish priest.)      Our opponents responded in a very traditional Catholic way – by a public prayer vigil outside the church, during our Masses.  Have you ever been prayed at?  Finding myself on the receiving end of prayer as an offensive weapon was distinctly disconcerting, even to me.  Several of the less brazen congregation were sufficiently put off to stop attending.  How on earth  do these people imagine they are doing God’s work by keeping people AWAY from Sunday Mass?

Still, they persevered (in all weathers), and so did we.  From a small group 10 years ago meeting privately once a month for Mass, to a larger group of 40-60 ‘squatters’ in an Anglican parish, we are now up to 70 – 100 at any one Mass, and an estimated total of regular participants probably exceeding 200, some of whom travel great distances to attend.  (My own journey of 4 hours travelling for the round trip is not exceptional:  others come from still further afield.)  We are now strong enough to have seen 20 people give up their Saturday for a lengthy meeting, which showed me convincingly that we are have overcome the difficulties of transition, and are not ready for planned further growth.

From our existing, narrowly focused programme of Mass twice a month, we have identified the need to find ways to offer LGBT retreats, and also some form of regular meetings for discussion of LGBT related faith issues.  With regained confidence, our liturgies are likely to become (still more) assertive in affirming our LGBT identity.  We have recently formed a young persons special interest group: an older persons group may soon follow. We are also slowly developing an internet based virtual community, to support those who are unable to attend, and for all of us between Masses. We continue to enjoy liturgies which are rich spiritually and musically (we have THREE excellent organists sharing honours.)  Our celebrants, taken from a roster of remarkably gifted priests, continue to provide excellent homilies.

There remain challenges.  We have still to work out quite how to develop the relationship with the parish for the other Sunday and Weekday Masses.  The diocese, after almost pleading with us to move into the Soho church, has been remarkably unforthcoming in publicly demonstrating support in print or on their website. We will soon have a new man heading the diocese, and we have no idea how he will respond to the situation he finds himself with. Will he encourage us, try to control us, or to shut us down? And what of all those people who cannot easily get in to Soho?  Is there potential to consolidate, then replicate, the Soho model?

We do not know.  What we do know, is that there has been remarkable growth and increasing acceptance over 10 years.  In the days before our very 1st Mass, London was rocked by a vicious bomb attack on a London pub, in what was very much a hate crime.  Since then, public acceptance and legal protection for the LGBT community have grown beyond recognition. Our position  within the church, while still fraught with difficulties, is also clearly stronger than it then was.  The quality of the discussions, the enthusiasm and the positive tone on Saturday leave me convinced that  the next 10 years will bring still further growth and opportunities.

Deo Gratias!

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
You might also like:
LGBT History Month (in Church)
A (Very British) Start of a “Priests’ Initiative” for …
Parish Priest Spouts Bigotry: Now I’m ashamed to call …

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Bible, Old Testament / Hebrew Bible, Sexuality and gender

Clobber Texts: A New Reading of Leviticus

Leave a comment

As I continue to investigate the issues around faith and sexuality, I am constantly in search of reliable information and analyses to set against the misinformation, selective quotations and misinterpretations that masquerade as the conventional wisdom on the subject. Recently, I was delighted when three different readers brought my attention to two useful sources, which between them contain some important, thoughtful material that deserves to be taken seriously.

The first of these that I want to introduce to you is an article by Renato Lings called “The Lyings of a Woman: Male-Male Incest in Leviticus 18:22”, in the peer review journal “Theology and Sexuality”. This journal, edited by the renowned theologians Gerald Loughlin and Elizabeth Stuart, carries an impressive range of scholarly articles, many in the fields of gay and lesbian theology, and of queer theology. (A second article in the same issue is on “Queer Worship”, which I have scheduled for publication tomorrow).





It was the well known and highly respected theologian James Alison, (who writes “from a perspective Catholic and gay) who referred me to “The Lyings of a Woman.” He wrote to me that he considered it an important article, and suggested that I get a suitable person to write a full review of it, for publishing here at QTC. I agreed fully with his assessment, and plan to publish a couple of such reviews shortly – one by John McNeill, and one by an Old Testament specialist from the Pacific Centre for Religion. I will publish these commentaries as soon as I receive them) .

[ad#In post banner]

Many people in the past have assumed that these two verses from Leviticus present a clear condemnation of all forms of homosexual activity. More recently, more careful analyses have shown variously that the passage is situated in the context of the Jewish purity laws, and so represent not so much a statement of sin as of transgressions of Jewish ritual purity, with only limited relevance to Christians; or refer only to sexual penetration, with no wider application to other forms of erotic activity; that the intended meaning is not against homoerotic relationships, but is tied up with the practice of male cult (or temple) prostitution; and apply only to males.

Lings’ analysis, based on close study of the specific Hebrew words and the broader context of the passage, argues that the apparent agreement among the standard translations hides the complexity and opacity of the original Hebrew. Specifically,he suggests that the translators have erred with the phrase “as with a woman”, which is central to the conventional modern understanding. He states that there is no equivalent in the Hebrew text to the words “as with”, which distort the original meaning. To recover some sense of what that original meaning might be, he provides a close analysis of the specific Hebrew words as used elsewhere, and of the more extended context of the two verses in the full chapters that contain them.

These two chapters, he shows, are about different forms of incest. The conclusion that follows, is that the sexual activity that is prohibited is sexual relationships with males who are close relatives ! Two possible translations he suggests are:

(a) You shall not lie with close relatives, whether male or female;

(b) With a male relative you shall not engage in sexual relationships prohibited with female relatives.

Concluding, Ling paraphrases these as

You shall not commit incest with any close relative, male or female.

I hope this has whet your appetite. Look out for more formal evaluation later, from commentators better qualified than I. However, the article as a whole deserves to be read in full. Unfortunately, it is not possible to carry it here, so you would need to get hold of a copy of Theology & Sexuality from the publishers.

Remember, in all of the Old Testament, there are precisely three texts which even appear to condemn homoerotic relationships. The passage from Genesis 19, telling the story of Sodom, quite clearly has nothing to do with sexual relationships, which leaves only these two twin texts from Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13. Lings’ analysis, combined with the other modern interpretations as described above, at the very least shows that whatever else the precise words may mean, they do no exclude all forms of loving relationships between men – as long as they are not incestuous, not done as part of temple or cult rituals, non-penetrative, and not between Jews.

That leaves open quite a lot of possibilities, then

See also:

For a Quaker view of this paper, see the discussion at Friends World Committee on Consultation

Recommended Books:

Boswell, John: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality

Countryman, William : Dirt Greed & Sex

Rogers, Jack Bartlett: Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, Revised and Expanded Edition: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church

Helminiak, Daniel What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality

 

 

 

 

 

Related articles