Bishops Defund Immigrant Rights Group in Guilt-By-Association Case

July 19, 2014

The Voz Workers’ Rights Education Project in Portland, Oregon advocates for and aids migrant workers. Their Martin Luther King, Jr. Workers Center assists hundreds of Latino men each month. Their wage theft campaign is alive and well in Oregon.

One thing they do not do, however, is advocate for marriage equality. Still, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) will withhold funding to Voz  because it collaborates with a leading Latino rights organization, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), which does support marriage equality.

Voz has received ten previous grants from CCHD, a project of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to aid its work connecting immigrants with employment. Voz was seeking a $75,000 grant when officials from the CCHD national office requested the Portland nonprofit cut ties with NCLR, which endorsed marriage equality in 2013. The Oregonian reports on what happened next:

” ‘Our board felt like what they were asking us to do was take a position on marriage equality,’ said Ranfis Villatoro, Voz’s development director. Voz has never taken a public stance on the issue, he said, although it does offer services to gay and lesbian couples. Therefore, the board voted last month to reject the grant.

“The grant would have been a significant chunk of the nonprofit’s $310,000 annual budget.

” ‘By making this decision, we run the risk of decreasing staff size and decreasing hours,’ Villatoro said.”

It appears Voz has not been the only community organization questioned by CCHD for its ties with NCLR. Victor Merced who heads Hacienda, a Portland nonprofit which assists low-income Latino families with housing and receives CCHD grants, told The Oregonian he was questioned about ties to NCLR. He reported that “leaders from the local chapter [of CCHD] seemed embarrassed that they had to ask in the first place” and said a litmus test on LGBT rights would be “ridiculous” to implement.

CCHD director Ralph McCloud told ABC News that Voz “self-disqualified” by refusing to cut ties with NCLR, from which Voz also receives funding. He said that after a 2010 review of CCHD grant recipients, nine grantees were defunded for being in coalitions which were pro-LGBT and/or pro-choice and other grantees stopped seeking CCHD funding. He continued:

“It’s certainly difficult and painful, because Voz has done some tremendous work…But it became obvious that they were assisting in something that was contrary to the teachings of our traditions.”

Now, many social justice organizations are promising to stand with Voz and the workers its serves in filling the massive funding gap through fundraising and a petition to CCHD leadership. You can view statements from a number of labor, LGBT, and faith leaders in a video posted by Voz supporters by clicking here. The petition reads, in part:

“VOZ has told CCHD: ‘We are a worker-led organization that empowers immigrants and day laborers to gain control over their working conditions. At the root of that mission, is the pursuit of justice and equality for all immigrants and day laborers. We have always found that to do this, we need all allies, day laborers, and immigrants to stand together in unity.’

“We know that our faiths, prophets, and scriptures never put conditions on supporting the poor and caring for the most vulnerable. Just look at Jesus, who offered God’s love to the sick, the poor, corrupt tax-collectors — EVERYONE. That’s why VOZ decided to take a stand, believing that there are more people who want unity and who support its principles than those who want to see them violated.

“With the new Pope, a new era of openness and acceptance is appearing that the groups pressuring the Catholic Campaign for Human Development to corrupt its funding strategies are entirely counter to.”

An important point in all of this was made by Marco Mejia of Portland Jobs with Justice during the Voz supporters’ press conference. Mejia, who is Catholic, reminded everyone that the money granted through CCHD is supplied by American Catholics and they intend for that money to organize marginalized communities for justice. He states:

“The Catholic Church, the money that they’re giving away through the CCHD is not their money. It’s the money of the community. This is the money I give every Sunday right? They are using the money of somebody else to decide what they want to do, not what the people want them to do.”

This is not the first time the Campaign for Human Development has defunded effective and impassioned organizations working to defend those in poverty because they were simply associated with other organizations supportive of LGBT rights. (See our previous posts on past examples at the end of this post.) Each time the CCHD punishes these groups for guilt by association, many are affected and most especially those for whom Christ has called us to make a preferential option.

You can lend your support to Voz and the immigrant workers it assists by signing the petition here or making a donation to their crowdfunding effort here.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Related posts: 

Bondings 2.0:Immigrant Rights’ Groups Cut Budgets Because of Loss of Catholic Funds

Bondings 2.0: “Donors Fill the Gap When Bishops Cut Funds Because of Marriage Equality Support

Bondings 2.0: “On Gay and Lesbian Immigrants, Catholic Bishops Need to Do a Lot Better”

Bondings 2.0:  “Attacks Against Bishops’ Anti-Poverty Efforts Come at the Expense of LGBT Community

Bondings 2.0:  “Catholic Grant Money Returned Because of Warning About LGBT Rights Involvement

Bondings 2.0: “The Laity’s Pocketbook Expresses Solidarity with LGBT and Immigrant Rights

Bondings 2.0: “WithCharityForAll.org”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Will US Bishops Stop Obsessing About Marriage At Last?

July 7, 2014

The National Catholic Reporter published an editorial last week firmly criticizing the American bishops’ ongoing involvement in the now terminal debate over same-gender marriage rights.

NCR‘s jumping off point is San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s recent appearance at the March for Marriage, which places the Church in league with anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage who have ties to international LGBT persecutions in places like Uganda and Russia. Of this, NCR writes:

“No amount of claiming the church’s love for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community will disguise the reality of the company one has to keep in order to further the cause of opposing same-sex unions.”

Cordileone is given credit for affirming the Church’s commitment to upholding each person’s dignity, regardless of sexual orientation, but with a major caveat. NCR writes:

“Underlying the sincere declarations of love for all of the God’s children is the real nub of the issue, the language that stings no matter how one might try to disguise its harshness beneath theological nuance. The church has declared that people of homosexual orientation are objectively disordered. With that understanding, the church effectively tells the LGBT community that it must quarantine its sexual reality, its affections and its members’ love of one another in order to be welcome in its worship spaces and among its ministries.

“Perhaps that inherent contradiction — professing to uphold the dignity of all while simultaneously requiring some to block off an integral part of who they are in order to be a member of the community in good standing — is the reason the church is losing the battle in the courts and at the ballot box.

NCR notes the disparity between what the bishops have said–that same-gender marriage threatens heterosexual marriage, that children need a mother and father, that Catholic priests will be forced to perform weddings they disagree with–and the reality that all the aforementioned has proven to be false. In light of this disparity, NCR asks why the bishops are even fighting this issue.  The editorial concludes:

“It is mystifying, with so many social problems needing attention, to watch so much of the U.S. Catholic leadership obsessed with these sexual matters. The fact is that people of other than traditional sexual orientation no longer engage in self-sequester or quarantine. That age has passed, and it has little to do with willful disregard for church teaching and far more to do with a growing understanding of the complexity and diversity of humankind.”

Leaders like Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison and Archbishop Cordileone will still release bombastic statements against LGBT people. Bishops like Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland reflect more of Pope Francis’ call to be merciful, though he still opposes equal marriage rights.

Yet, not all Church leaders want to keep fighting it appears. Perhaps they have experienced the ‘reality check’ called for by Catholics a few weeks ago. The above instances of extremism are actually evidence of a new reality: opposing marriage equality is less a united effort by the American Church and more the cause of individual bishops obsessed with stopping LGBT rights. Brian Roewe summarizes the varied episcopal responses to marriage equality’s legalization, noting:

“In most states that have seen bans thrown out, bishops have issued joint statements through their policy arms, but not all have made comment of their own. New Mexico’s bishops issued a statement in December that counted fewer than 60 words; Texas’ 15 bishops issued a three-paragraph statement.”

These statements are hardly the prioritized and bombastic opposition to marriage equality once common for bishops, and they seem more in keeping with statements released by state conferences on a host of other legislative and judicial issues. Could it be that these bishops realize, as Pope Francis has insisted, that truly pressing issues of social justice, like immigration, demand their attention instead?

Sidelining the political and legal fight also means there is room to honestly address pastoral care and the strengthening of family life in a society which now embraces LGBT rights. Roewe ends his column quoting St. Louis University theology professor Julie Rubio, who says:

” ‘I think people are ready for a different conversation…’

“Where the bishops’ discussion of marriage so far has been almost exclusively in terms of fighting same-sex marriage, Rubio sees others arenas to turn the discussion: issues of single-parent families, divorce, broken families, and the needs of children.

“Turning the gaze away from federal courts and toward parishes and individual couples’ struggles offers another starting point for strengthening marriage.

” ‘Talk to married couples and talk to single parents, talk to younger people who are dating and thinking about marriage, and ask them what they need’.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is still dominated by men who seem determined to stop LGBT rights. There are others, however, who seem to understand Pope Francis’ admonition to stop ‘obsessing’ over same-gender marriage and build up the common good instead. Let’s hope this latter group’s voices are amplified more and more in the discourse over LGBT issues in the U.S. Church.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry


Religious Leaders Want Right to Discriminate in Obama’s LGBT Executive Order

July 6, 2014

President Obama meets with Pope Francis, who has asked Catholic leaders to refrain from judging LGBT people and instead build up the common good for all

Prominent Catholics have teamed with other religious leaders in calling on President Barack Obama to include extensive religious exemptions in his promised executive order which will state that federal contractors cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. These religious leaders are attempting to enshrine anti-LGBT discrimination into law, and to further mask it as religious belief.  Such an action raises troubling questions on just where the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in America is focused.

Fourteen religious leaders with close ties to the president submitted a letter to the White House on Tuesday, including Catholic Charities CEO Fr. Larry Snyder and Dr. Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America. Michelle Boorstein of The Washington Post reports:

“The letter reminds Obama of his own earlier faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage, as well as the government’s massive partnerships with faith-based social service groups that work on issues including housing, disaster relief and hunger…

“The signers said they supported the executive order — ‘we have great appreciation for your commitment to human dignity and justice, and we share those values with you”’— but said an exemption is essential.”

UPDATE:  Another, similar letter asking for a religious exemption, sent to Obama with 138 signatures from religious leaders, has also been made public.

The White House has refused to comment on the letters thus far, though Schneck said he is hopeful that an exemption could be worked out.

Additionally, several bishops who chair committees at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released their own statement against the executive order. Joshua McElwee of the National Catholic Reporter writes:

” ‘Because we do not know how the executive order will define these critically important terms [sexual orientation and gender identity], or if it will provide sufficient (or any) religious freedom protection, we cannot provide substantive comment on the order,’ state the bishops.

” ‘On the other hand, when the U.S. Senate recently passed legislation on the same topic, we raised detailed objections to that legislation,’ they continue, asking those interested to review their previous comments on the Senate legislation…

“Friday’s statement was signed by four U.S. bishops’ committee chairmen: San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chairman of the bishops’ subcommittee for the promotion and defense of marriage; Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski, chairman of their domestic policy committee; Baltimore Archbishop William Lori, chairman of their ad hoc committee for religious liberty; and St. Paul-Minneapolis Archbishop John Nienstedt, chair of their committee on doctrine.”

At least two bishops who signed the letter, Archbishops Cordileone and Nienstedt, have been heavily criticized lately for their aggressive opposition to marriage equality. Cordileone appeared alongside anti-LGBT groups in June at the March for Marriage, even while 30,000 Catholics asked him to forgo the event. Nienstedt is currently being investigated for multiple allegations that he made sexual advances on priests and seminarians.

LGBT advocates have long opposed religious exemptions, and several like the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Get Equal have withdrawn support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in its current form over such exemptions. Chuck Colbert writes in PrideSource about this ongoing debate around exemptions, noting the near absence of such exemptions in previous civil rights legislation. He reports:

“Advocates for LGBT equality maintain the proposed religious exemption, unprecedented in civil rights legislation, would in effect gut the non-discrimination protections…

“On the matter of social conservatives’ efforts to empower discrimination against LGBTs, Jay Michaelson, Ph.D. offered his assessment.

” ‘Religious conservatives have really succeeded at ‘moving the goalposts’ here. Just two years ago, this kind of broad exemption was a huge compromise for the Obama administration, in the context of the Affordable Care Act. Now, ENDA’s backers are offering it up as the default position. That is a huge, silent victory. And we all know what the ultimate goal is: Religious exemptions for anyone who wants one, including corporations and individuals. That would represent a tragic erosion of the rule of law’…

” ‘Employment non-discrimination is vitally important, but at what cost?…Hopefully, progressive members of Congress will insist on an appropriate, narrow exemption for churches and religious functionaries, while rejecting this over-broad one that would leave hospital orderlies, school cafeteria workers and shopping mall security guards without protection.’ “

After last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, the idea that corporations could discriminate against employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity does not seem so far fetched. You can read Bondings 2.0 initial reporting on the Court’s decision and potential impacts by clicking here.

Michael Sean Winters, in his third post on the proposed executive order, asks a pivotal question: “Why do we need to have this fight?…Why do the leaders of the Church want to have this fight, on this issue?” Reading up on the USCCB’s backgrounder on ENDA, Winters explores why the bishops seek religious exemptions in the first place. Apparently, they are concerned that employers would provide healthcare and “other fringe benefits” to same-gender partners. Of this, Winters writes:

“Health coverage is not properly termed a ‘fringe benefit’ by leaders of a Church that has repeatedly taught that access to health care is a basic human right. Our nation has a particularly quirky way of delivering health care coverage, through employers. It makes no sense, to be sure, but it is what it is. But, it is not clear to me how the providing of such benefits can be seen as ‘facilitating or cooperating with same-sex sexual relationships.’ The employee engaged in a same sex relationship is not looking for approval or permission from his employer. He or she is looking for health care benefits from the employer. If there is a heterosexual, married couple, they may, on their free time, be engaged in any manner of activities that the Church would not endorse, but we do not investigate that.”

Looking to the past, when Cardinal William Levada, formerly of San Francisco, negotiated with that city when extensive non-discrimination policies were passed, Winters believes the bishops need not have fought at all:

“I do not see how hiring someone who is a good teacher or a good counselor or a good cook, and who keeps their private life private, requires us to sniff around their bedrooms…

“Twelve or even ten years ago, if the leadership of the USCCB had followed the +Levada model…I suspect we would be in a better place, the culture wars would be diminished, and the Church would not have the aggressively litigious face it wears today…The culture warriors in the conference decided that instead of trying to balance the dignity and legitimate interests of gay people in gaining access to benefits, we were going to dig in, to fight, draw a line in the sand.”

Winters points to younger Catholics’ views as the best evidence that the bishops’ unceasing opposition to LGBT rights is becoming fringe itself:

“I encourage them to go to any place that young people hang out and ask them their thoughts on same sex relationships. Those young people do not feel threatened by gay people. Those young people will not discourse on the threats to religious liberty. Those young people will ask simple, and better, questions such as: ‘Why not help people gain access to health care?’ That is a question the USCCB has failed to ask, let alone answer, in this situation. If the conference did ask that question, they would be less likely to take to the barricades.”

It remains an open question how Catholic institutions, and specifically those like Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services which contract with the federal government, will respond to the upcoming executive order. For inspiration, they could turn to Catholic Vice President Joe Biden who many credit with moving the Obama administration towards greater LGBT equality. Hopefully, cooler hearts and clearer minds will prevail and realize the common good is far better advanced by protecting LGBT rights and continuing the good work of the Church in relationship with the government.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Related Articles

National Catholic Reporter, “Faith leaders call for religious exemption from LGBT executive order


What Impact Will Hobby Lobby Ruling Have on LGBT Rights?

July 2, 2014

Demonstrators gather outside Supreme Court building for Hobby Lobby ruling

Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case is causing LGBT advocates to question what practical impacts it may have in LGBT people’s lives as corporate personhood advances and for-profit businesses now ‘have’ religious beliefs in our nation’s courts.

First, an explanation of the case may be helpful, and Mark Silk of Religion News Service provided an excellent background of some of the key issues and factors:

“When the decision comes out in June, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood will be given not an exemption to the contraception mandate but an accommodation comparable to what has been afforded to religious non-profits, under terms that define the nature and character of for-profit companies that can make free-exercise claims. Free exercise rights will thus be extended, but not at the expense of the government’s compelling interest in gender equity, which will be preserved via the requirement that the cost of contraceptive coverage be assumed by the insurers who administer the insurance plans of the qualifying companies…

“In order to understand the decision, you have to know that it is based on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which tells the court that in order to overrule a claim of religious free exercise (against federal law), 1) the state must have a compelling interest to do so; and 2) in doing so it employs the least restrictive means. In Hobby Lobby, the court assumed (without coming to an actual determination) that the state interest in providing the full range of contraceptive services was compelling, but (as I predicted) found that the Obamacare mandate was not the least restrictive means of fulfilling that interest.”

dotCommonweal blogger Grant Gallicho pointed out that the decision applies only to corporations that are “closely held” (meaning fewer than five individuals own more than half the stock value of a company) and applies only to the Department of Health and Human Service’s contraception mandate. The Court explicitly states this ruling is not intended to allow people to use religious beliefs to deny other medical procedures or to  allow racial discrimination. How the ruling may be used in cases of exual orientation and gender identity remain an open question. For a full round-up of what the ruling does and does not allow, see US Catholic‘s report here.

Still, the decision’s constraints are not allaying fears of LGBT advocates who see that the logic in the Hobby Lobby case may expand into other employment issues. A report in The Advocate stated:

“Activists had warned that if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties — the businesses that challenged Obamacare — could use their “sincerely held religious beliefs” to deny contraception to employees, then they might use the same power to deny health care to transgender people or might withhold coverage for HIV and AIDS treatment to LGBT employees…

“Some had warned that depending on the reach of the ruling, business owners might try to use the decision to object to mental health services or substance abuse treatment — health issues that disproportionately affect LGBT Americans.”

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, noted that she is ‘mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce’ and went on to explore that. ‘Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations,’ she wrote, ‘its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private. Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate.’

“Ginsburg further wrote, ‘Until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in ‘the commercial, profit-making world.’ Profit-making companies do not exist to further religious goals, and their employees are drawn from a multitude of faiths, she pointed out.”

Unsurprisingly, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) celebrated the ruling saying “justice has prevailed.” The National Catholic Reporter observed that other bishops reaffirmed their commitment to the USCCB’s  ‘religious liberty’ campaign. You can read the USCCB’s full statement here. Despite the bishops’ support of the decions, so far, it seems, Americans disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Equally Blessed, a coalition of Catholic organizations committed to LGBT justice that includes Call To Action, DignityUSA, Fortunate Families, and New Ways Ministry, said in a statement:

“The Supreme Court’s ruling could have disturbing and harmful consequences for our country. By allowing privately held corporations to be exempt from compliance with laws with which they disagree on religious grounds, the Court may have unintentionally opened the door to enormous social confusion and instability. They may have also ushered in an era of increased discrimination, making it harder for many to access a wide range of services and benefits.

“While it may seem that this is a narrow ruling focused on how women access contraceptive medications, the reality is this judgment could have incredible ramifications throughout the U.S. This ruling might open the door for corporations not to provide benefits to employees in same-sex marriages, or not to cover appropriate health care services for transgender employees.

“Equally Blessed members said it is distressing to hear religious belief put forward as a rationale for continued discrimination, when most people understand the religion should be about respect, love, and inclusion.”

However, not all LGBT advocates are worried and some believe the debate will depend on whether President Obama signs a promised executive order protecting LGBT federal workers triggering new lawsuits. Religion News Service reports:

“If Obama signs the executive order or Congress passes ENDA (a bill stalled for 16 years), the same battle could ensue with religious owners of private businesses, said Kevin Theriot,  vice president of religious freedom litigation for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the owners of Conestoga…

“Ian Thompson, of the American Civil Liberties Union, who specializes in legislation affecting the LGBT community, said that ‘while the court expanded corporate power, it made really clear that the decision was narrow. It will not operate as a shield from other kinds of discrimination laws.’

“Like Thompson, Human Rights Campaign legal director Sarah Warbelow pointed to the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, which made a point of saying the justices were talking only about health care and not opening the door for broad interpretations.”

In more hopeful news, Buzzfeed reports that the Supreme Court upheld California’s ban on ‘reparative therapy’ without comment. California will now be able to enforce a ban on services which try to ‘convert’ gay youth to a heterosexual orientation.

As for whether the Hobby Lobby case will cause increased LGBT discrimination by employers citing religious belief, it remains to be seen.  LGBT people of faith must remain vigilant that their beliefs are not used to justify exclusion.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Related Articles

America, “Hobby Lobby Reactions


ALL ARE WELCOME: Pope Francis’ Impact Visible During Pride Celebrations

July 1, 2014

OECTA teachers march in WorldPride 2014 held in Toronto

The ALL ARE WELCOME series is an occasional feature on this blog which highlights Catholic parishes and faith communities that support and affirm LGBT people. 

LGBT and ally Catholics appeared at Pride festivities around the world this month, visible signs of Pope Francis’ desire for a more merciful and welcoming Church. Canadians welcomed Catholics from around the world for WorldPride 2014 celebrations, while Catholics in the U.S. participated in local celebrations.

Toronto was the site for WorldPride this year. All Inclusive Ministries (AIM), based at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in that city, brought “its message of faith and love to this celebration” by welcoming Catholics from around the world to their monthly Mass and gathering. AIM began with support of the Archdiocese of Toronto in 2012 after the Jesuit parish ended its affiliation with Dignity Toronto Dignité, which now meets elsewhere. Another church, St. Joseph’s Church in Ottawa, sent a delegation to join AIM’s liturgy and march in the WorldPride parade, having witnessed in their local parade for many years.

Members of St. Clement Church in Chicago march during Pride

The Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) also marched in WorldPride’s parade following several months of criticism from Toronto’s cardinal and others who opposed the teachers union’s decision to march. OECTA President James Ryan told the National Post the teachers’ participation was an “internal union matter” made through a democratic process. The paper reports further:

“In March, the OECTA voted to send a contingent of more than 100 to the parade as a visible and vocal message that Catholic-school teachers in the province want students to feel supported and free from discrimination.

“OECTA is just aligning with other public unions and teachers’ unions Canada-wide, said Mr. Ryan, whether Catholic or not.

” ‘Coast to coast in Canada, pretty much every teachers’ union I know of does support LGBT rights without exception,’ [Ryan] said. ‘The Canadian Teachers Federation has been very forward with its support for LGBT rights.’ “

You can read Bondings 2.0‘s ongoing coverage of OECTA’s decision this spring by clicking here.

Boston College’s Graduate Pride Alliance marching

Catholic parishes in the U.S. marched in Pride parades in their citis, as well. In Chicago, St. Clement Church parishioners marched alongside Dignity/Chicago members for the second year in a row. The Chicago Tribune reported on the marchers:

” ‘We don’t want to be dictated to anymore,’ said Rob Svendsen, 41, a parishioner at St. Clement for nine years. ‘With the new pope, we’ve all been given a new ray of hope.’…

” ‘What St. Clement demonstrates is there are Catholics in the pews out there who think this is a time to be united and give witness to what the church’s true mission is,’ [former Dignity president Chris] Pett said. ‘We are here to advance justice. We should be a church united in justice, love and respect for one another. What’s exciting about it is they come from a very affirming community.’ “

In Boston, contingents from both Boston College and St. Anthony Shrine were present during the city’s June 14th Pride festival. For their part, the Franciscan friars from St. Anthony’s in Boston hoisted a banner with the pope’s famous “Who am I to judge?” quote in rainbow lettering.

Franciscans from St. Anthony’s staff their Pride booth in Boston.

In San Francisco, St. Agnes, Most Holy Redeemer, and other Bay Area parishes joined together to ‘show their Catholic pride‘ at the city’s parade.

Parishioners from St. Francis Xavier in Manhattan in the city’s Pride parade.

In New York City, parishioners from St. Francis Xavier Church marched, as did a collaborative contingent from various metro NYC area gay-friendly parieshes,  marching behind the banner of “LGBT Catholics and Friends.”

In London, England, members of the Archdiocese of Westminster’s pastoral outreach to LGBT people (called “Soho Masses” because of the neighborhood in which they originated) took part in that city’s pride march, complete with a giant street puppet of Jesus draped in a rainbow flag.  More photos can be found here.

London's LGBT Catholics march in Pride.

London’s LGBT Catholics march in Pride. (Photo by Martin Pendergast)

Repeatedly, Pride participants cited Pope Francis as a reason for their witness this month and also tied their actions to the Church’s standing commitment to social justice that has resulted in American Catholics’ overwhelming support for LGBT equality. Earlier this month, Bondings 2.0 suggested that marching for Pride was a key way to show solidarity for church workers under increased scrutiny for their support and involvement with marriage equality or because of their gender identity.

Additionally, many of the parishes mentioned above are on New Ways Ministry’s listing of gay-friendly Catholic parishes and communities. To find a parish near you, or to suggest a new parish for the list, please click here.

Did your parish or Catholic school participate in a Pride celebration? Let us know in the ‘Comments’ section below, so we can continue spreading the good news of an inclusive Church in the era of Pope Francis.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry


Catholic LGBT Advocates React to ‘Disappointing’ Synod Working Paper

June 29, 2014

Sr. Joan Chittister

In May, Benedictine Sr. Joan Chittister wrote that the upcoming Synod of Bishops on marriage and family life would be a chance for Church leaders to “do things right.” However, the Vatican’s working paper (in Latin, instrumentum laboris) released this week is leaving many observers and Catholic LGBT advocates with the impression all is not quite right.

The working paper, which Bondings 2.0 covered earlier this week, compiled questionnaire responses from around the world with the aim of furthering discussions at the meeting this fall.

Equally Blessed LogoEqually Blessed, a coalition of four Catholic organizations seeking LGBT equality, released a statement expressing its members’ disappointment with the working paper. The coalition members are Call To Action, DignityUSA, Fortunate Families, and New Ways Ministry. Thestatement said, in part:

“We are disheartened that the challenges of families trying to reconcile their unambiguous love for their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) family members and Church teachings that are too often harsh and divisive are not addressed…

“The Bishops once again claim that the problem is not that their teachings clash with the Biblical teaching of love, but that Catholics are unaware of the teachings. Catholics are not unaware, rather they have long struggled with these teachings, and ultimately reject them as inconsistent with the Gospel. US Bishops have spent millions of dollars defending their right to discriminate against our families, a fact that increases the alienation of many families from the Church.

“We are living the faith we love and speaking up for the Church we believe in.  Celebrating the diversity in our Church is integral to our understanding of a faith that stands up for those on the margins and recognizes the face of God in everyone.”

Marianne Duddy-Burke

Marianne Duddy-Burke

In a separate statement for DignityUSA, executive director Marianne Duddy-Burke said:

“Many Catholics hoped that the upcoming Extraordinary Synod on the Family would be an opportunity for real dialogue with Church leaders on issues that are very important in our day to day life. Instead, what we see is a rigid adherence to existing teaching, and what we hear are complaints that the people of the Church are misinformed or uneducated. This is a gross simplification and incredibly insulting…

“It fails to show any acknowledgement of the profound love and commitment shared by many same-sex couples, minimizes the realities of LGBT people raising children, and fails to offer any hope to families who love their LGBT members unconditionally, but struggle with Church teachings that are too often demeaning. Furthermore, the bishops continue to show a severe lack of understanding of transgender identities. If they begin to truly listening to our transgender kin, they will learn much.”

Jim FitzGerald

Call To Action’s opinion was expressed by executive director Jim Fitzgerald:

“When Catholics heard last year that the leaders of their Church were seeking feedback on the topic of ministry to the family, they responded enthusiastically, sharing their experiences, insights and desires. Catholics believed it was a new moment in which leadership would listen and honor their voices, experiences and wisdom…

“While today’s report is a disappointment, today’s Catholics are not. They do get it: they understand perfectly well the call to love rooted in the Gospel. Catholic parishes, schools and communities across the country will continue to live with love, welcoming our brothers and sisters who’ve struggled through divorce, remarried with love, stood proudly as LGBT persons or used contraception when creating their family.”

While disappointment is a common reaction for many, Francis DeBernardo reminded Bondings 2.0 readers on Thursday that this working paper is not the last word on marriage and family.

Perhaps the wittiest response to this document came from veteran church observer Jesuit Father Thomas Reese, who quipped:

“The document acknowledges that ‘the primary task of the church is to proclaim the beauty of the vocation to love,’ but there is little beautiful or inspiring in this document. If married life is as boring and joyless as this document, I am glad I am celibate.”

There is still time for bishops to listen to Sr. Chittister’s words from earlier this year, when she expressed caution and  hope about the synod:

“The first time the church found itself in major public discredit, the reformers of the 16th century were crying out for serious review of both the theology and practices of the church. They railed against clericalism, the wealth of the church, the use of arcane language that distanced the laity from its inner operations and made them second-class citizens, the sale of relics, the conferral of indulgences in exchange for alms, and a theology that left laypeople to be docile and unthinking consumers of a faith long bereft of either witness or spiritual energy.

“The answer of the church at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) to these concerns was 150 anathemas at the very thought of change.

“Or, in other words, Trent’s answer to the pressure for renewal of the church was more of the same. Only this time, they went even further and added an index of forbidden books to dampen any more of that kind of thinking in the future; the total rejection of the vernacular to make general discussion of just about anything ecclesiastical impossible for laypeople; greater episcopal control; and more and better rules for everything else.

“But the need for change and real renewal never went away.”

Chittister points out that, similarly the bishops are gathering to address the question of reform and renewal and there is a chance to “get it right” in how the institutional Church will respond to a changing world:

“Thinking may be the sign of a healthy group, but it is not the sign of a complacent, tractable or acquiescent group. Once people begin to think together, community sets in, energy sets in, possibility sets in, and new life sets in. For them all.

“Trent’s 150 anathemas were a mistake that lost half of Europe to the church, that divided the Christian community for 400 years, that plunged Catholicism into the Dark Ages of thought, and that left the Christian witness adrift in “the scandal of division.”

“From where I stand, it looks as if we have been given another opportunity to do it right this time. The only question is whether or not the bishops who were entrusted with gathering the answers of the laity to these questions will start at all. Let alone go all the way.”

If there is one hopeful sign in all of this, it is Pope Francis. He has both the ability to influence the Synod towards a more compassionate and inclusive conclusion and the belief that dialogue can help the Church resolve all problems, as he reiterated in a homily last May:

” ‘By sharing, discussing and praying, all problems in the Church can be resolved, with the certainty that gossip, envy and jealousy never lead to concord, harmony and peace. There too it was the Holy Spirit who crowned this understanding and this enables us to understand that, when we let ourselves be guided by the Holy Spirit, it leads us to harmony, unity and respect for different gifts and talents’.”

Let us pray that this Synod’s working paper will be treated much like the documents released at the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, which were thrown out and rewritten entirely to insure the joy of the Gospel and a positive view of the world were included.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry


Will Baptisms Be Celebrated According to Love or the Law?

June 28, 2014

Lourdes Badillo and Cristal Cobas preparing to baptize their child

Recent debates over baptism for children of same-gender parents received into the Church, may mean baptism is an upcoming point of conflict with newborn children right in the middle.

David Gibson of Religion News Service takes up this question, explaining what had been the status quo until recently:

“The default position for most bishops — reiterated in a major Vatican document released on Thursday (June 26) — is that if the parents pledge to raise the child Catholic, then no girl or boy should be refused baptism.

“They generally let parish priests make the final call and let them administer the sacrament, though it is usually done in a private ceremony with the biological parent — not the adoptive mother or father — listed on the baptismal certificate.”

The Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin recently changed procedures on how it handles same-gender couples who wish to have a child baptized. This announcement comes shortly after a judge’s ruling legalized marriage equality in that state, a judicial decision which Madison’s Bishop Robert Morlino vociferously criticized. The Wisconsin State Journal’s report said the two decisions appear unconnected, and the diocese’s decision was developed before marriage equality became law.

Authority for requests from same-gender couples shifted from the parish priest, who could use pastoral sensitivity when addressing a sometimes challenging situation, to the diocese’s office of the vicar general. Monsignor James Bartylla is the current vicar general, and author of the memo announcing the procedural change. He wrote, in part, that there are

” ‘a plethora of difficulties, challenges, and considerations associated with these unnatural unions (including scandal) linked with the baptism of a child, and such considerations touch upon theology, canon law, pastoral approach, liturgical adaptation, and sacramental recording…please seek consultation and coordination with the office of the vicar general, since each case must be evaluated individually.’ “

Gibson’s report highlights the problems that could emerge from Madison’s policy targeting same-gender couples, especially if it is adopted by other bishops across the country:

” ‘While this process might protect couples from the negative whims of a local pastor, Bishop Morlino has such a strong record against supporting lesbian and gay people that I worry he might be more restrictive about baptizing their children than most local priests would be,’ said Francis DeBernardo, head of New Ways Ministry, a leading advocacy group for gay Catholics.

“If that happens, he said, it ‘has the potential to blow up into a pastoral disaster.’ …

“DeBernardo said the problem with a policy that focuses specifically on gay parents is that it ‘stigmatizes lesbian and gay couples as being more suspect than any other parents.’

” ‘It is very likely that no parents that present a child for baptism are perfectly following all church rules,’ he said. ‘Why single out only lesbian and gay parents for further scrutiny?’ “

Commenting on the baptism question, Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese said:

” ‘In general, the Catholic church does not punish the child for the sins of the parents…As archbishop of Buenos Aires, (Pope) Francis got angry at priests who would not baptize children born out of wedlock. I would presume the same principle applies here.’ “

Indeed, at least two bishops are following Pope Francis’ lead. In April, an Argentine bishop welcomed the baptism of the child of a lesbian couple, Karina Villarroel and Soledad Ortiz. There are now reports that Bishop Raul Vera Lopez, of Saltillo, Mexico baptized the child of a lesbian couple, Lourdes Badillo and Cristal Cobas. Bishop Vera Lopez has previously made headlines for his support of lesbian and gay people, even calling homophobia a mental illness at one point. Banderas News reports further:

“The bishop met two weeks ago with Pope Francis in Rome, and according to the Mexican newspaper Excelsior, the prelate discussed his views of ‘caring for vulnerable groups, such as the lesbian-gay community’ with the pope.

” ‘I have been open and given clarity to homosexual couples or whatever…But some groups within the Church say I promote promiscuity, those are conservative groups that harm pastoral care. Who am I to judge? The Pope has the same attitude as Christ did’ …

” ‘If I find the natural daughter of one of two women, how can I deny her baptism? If the parents seek it, it’s because there is a Christian faith,’ he explained to the media.”

These more inclusive practices around baptism, and more broadly, the pastoral welcome that LGBT people and their partners received, stand in stark contrast to those who would make marriage more difficult for these families. Perhaps Bishop Morlino would do well to read a reflection by Benedict Luckhurst published by Quest, a UK LGBT advocacy group.  Luckhurts urges the Church to live by love, not the law. Of Mark 7:1-4 which describes Jesus observing Jewish purity laws, he writes:

“The ritual hand, dish and pot washing practised by the Pharisees – there is no evidence to show that this was a widespread practice among Jews – likely sprang from a fear that they could have come into contact with ritually unclean things in the course of daily use.

“This obsession with purity gave rise to a sharp rebuke from Jesus. Labelling the righteous Pharisees as hypocrites he quotes to them from Isaiah, ‘This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. Their reverence of me is worthless, the lessons they teach are nothing but human commandments’ (29:13)…

“A little over a year has passed since the Papal Conclave of 2013 that elected Pope Francis I. I am reminded of words he spoke in his interview for Jesuit journals throughout the world: ‘The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you . . .How are we treating the people of God? I dream of a church that is a mother and shepherdess. The church’s ministers must be merciful, take responsibility for the people and accompany them like the good Samaritan, who washes, cleans and raises up his neighbour. This is pure Gospel. God is greater than sin. The structural and organisational reforms are secondary – that is, they come afterward. The first reform must be the attitude. The ministers of the Gospel must be people who can warm the hearts of the people, who walk through the dark night with them, who know how to dialogue and to descend themselves into their people’s night, into the darkness, but without getting lost.’ 

As LGBT rights and acceptance become the rule rather than exceptions in society, clergy and pastoral ministers are faced with a choice: to welcome all in love and celebrate baptisms openly or to adhere so strictly to the law which could cause pastoral damage. The Church must stop baptisms from becoming a battleground over LGBT rights before it even starts. Let’s pray (and urge) our Church’s leaders to be people who are not afraid to be ‘unclean’ when it means following love above all.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry


Gay Parishioner Told to Observe Mass from Crying Room, Expelled from Ministries

June 18, 2014

Bobby Glenn Brown, right, and his partner, Don Roberts

Bobby Glenn Brown committed himself to his longtime partner, Don Roberts, in a small backyard wedding ceremony. For that, Brown has been removed from several parish volunteer positions in his Catholic parish in Marquette, Michigan, and told he may observe Mass only from the ‘crying room’ at the rear of the church.

The couple gathered with friends and family last Saturday for eacxh partner to make vows to one another after 31 years together, even while Michigan does not yet recognize their relationship legally. ABC News 10 reported on the following morning’s events:

“Brown was an active parishioner at St. Michael’s Catholic Church in Marquette as of Saturday, but an incident Sunday morning with Reverend Larry P. Van Damme caused him and several regular church-goers to boycott services in protest against the diocese. Less than twenty four hours after the a commitment ceremony, the couple’s tears of joy dried to heartbreak as Bobby Glenn Brown was all but blacklisted from participating in traditional Catholic ministries…

“Five parishioners at St. Michaels who were present at Sunday’s services accompanied Brown in the lobby before Sunday Mass then exited the building in solidarity after Van Damme confronted him about Saturday’s “fake”  wedding ceremony. Because of it, Brown said he was informed that clergy decided to restrict his participation.”

Restricted participation means Brown can no longer serve as a lector or music minister during liturgies, and he was removed from the pastoral council where he  had just been re-elected as was serving as acting secretary. The priest also told Brown “he now could only observe in the windowed section in the back of the church designated for crying babies.”

Parishioners rallied around Brown and Roberts. It was no secret that Brown was a partnered gay man during his years of service at the parish. Of the incident, Brown told ABC News 10:

” ‘It’s a mixed message, and I think it’s the wrong message…There is a psalm that says “loving and caring and forgiving are you, oh Lord”. That’s the message that needs to be brought to the students at Northern [Michigan University, which St. Michael's parish ministers] , especially to a church that’s so close to campus and a place where they should feel welcomed and able to worship. And that message is being lost.’…

” ‘And my whole point was, I never was anything else and I always have been who I am…To be told that you can’t worship or aren’t welcomed somewhere to worship where you’ve been so welcomed, that in itself sends a mixed message.’ “

Many parishioners are upset that Brown’s dismissal will  drive younger Catholics from the Universityaway. It seems older Catholics are considering a move as well, with longtime parishioner Kathy Crowley Andel saying:

” ‘I just think it’s wrong…Everybody is supposed to be welcome in the Church and God is a loving God, and I don’t think we should discriminate against anybody because that’s not what God wants us to do. Even Jesus welcomed everybody.’

” ‘I’m not sure where I’m going with things. I am looking at options. I mean, I was born and raised Catholic and have been very active with things, but at this time I just feel very, very crushed with what’s going on because I don’t think it’s right. It’s like, who are we to judge? And they’ve been together 30 years. They love each other…it’s just not right what’s going on.’ “

For their part, Fr. Van Damme and Diocese of Marquette officials have remained quiet aside from a statement from Bishop John Doerfler citing the need for ministers to “give witness to the Gospel and the Church’s teachings.”

In moments of pain, like this exclusion of LGBT Catholics from ministry and even participation in the liturgy, it is important to look for hopeful signs and ways of building bridges. Pope Francis’ more welcoming tone seems to be filtering down through some of the hierarchy, as the English bishops and Cardinal Vincent Nichols’ recent remarks on sexuality make clear. The US bishops do not quite understand yet, but Catholics must not negate the profound and positive impact of lay people can have in righting these parish- and school-based injustices.

Though we cannot necessarily right the wrongs against Bobby Glenn Brown and his partner, this incident is a moment for all of us to pause and consider two questions:

1. How can we actively support LGBT parishioners in the present moment?

2. How might we respond to the exclusion of a volunteer or firing of a church worker at our own parish and school?

If you have suggestions for either question, please leave them in the ‘Comments’ section below.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry


Ignoring Pope Francis, US Bishops Reaffirm Their Work to Oppose Marriage Equality

June 14, 2014

Pope Francis

It was a question asked last November, and now again this spring by those like Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese: will America’s bishops follow Pope Francis’ lead?

This past week’s meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in New Orleans proved the conference will again ignore Pope Francis’ new direction for the Church. Instead, they reaffirmed the their opposition to marriage equality and other culture war issues.

While New York Times article heralded that “US Bishops Seek to Match Vatican in Shifting Tone,” the shift that article describes is in the area of poverty and social equity. That shift is welcome, though there seems to be no change in terms of emphasis on issues concerning sexuality, which Pope Francis had explicitly asked church leaders not to “obsess” about.

In this post, Bondings 2.0 will highlight LGBT-related news from the USCCB meeting,  and readers are encouraged to read more extensive coverage using the provided links.

Staying the Course

National Catholic Reporter reports the bishops opened by voting to “stay the course they have set for themselves over the last several years,” which includes sustained opposition to marriage equality and renewal of the ad hoc committee concerned with religious liberty. Joshua McElwee and Brian Roewe write:

“Going into the event, many analysts and even some bishops had asked if the prelates would be reorienting their work around the new emphases of Francis’ first year as pope, particularly his apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”), and his pastoral tone.

“Yet in three and a half hours of open discussion on 17 topics Wednesday, the bishops focused more on old business than new.”

Not all were pleased with this continued direction, including an unnamed bishop who criticized the meetings for their lack of pastorally-inclined discussions.   Similarly, the lay-led National Advisory Council urged the bishops to ” ‘re-examine how it reaches out to those experiencing brokenness’ and work for ‘more dialogue and greater acceptance, rather than what is commonly perceived as judgment.’ “

Anti-Marriage Equality Speakers Prominent

The bishops heard from two speakers, Helen Alvaré and W. Bradford Wilcox. Alvaré, a law professor and advisor to the Pontifical Council for the Laity, addressed the bishops about evangelization and the poor. Her talk somehow included a defense of heteronormative ethics while skipping social justice, according to The National Catholic Reporter’s  Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ.

Wilcox, who heads up the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project, spoke on marriage and the economy. National Catholic Reporter columnist Jamie Manson notes Wilcox previously aided in a now-discredited 2012 study by Mark Regnerus that claimed the children of same-gender parents fare worse than those raised by mixed-gender parents. He recently co-authored a Washington Post opinion piece which said women should marry protective men if they wish to stop sexual violence. This questionable sociologist engaged several bishops’ questions on same-gender marriage.

You can read a full report on their addresses by clicking here.

Faithful Citizenship

The bishops approved a committee to revise and add a new introduction to the 2007 edition of “Faithful Citizenship,” their election year voters’ aid.  Anti-marriage equality efforts may be granted greater prominence in the political document,  as USCCB vice president Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, said that since the last revision there has been greater “prominence” in the political world given to “religious liberty and the redefinition of marriage.” Fr. Reese worries that a now perennial defensiveness in the conference will influence the document negatively overall, including on the question of LGBT rights. Final changes will be approved during the bishops’ November meeting.

Marriage & Family Life

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, the USCCB’s president, made general comments about how US Catholics responded to the Vatican questionnaire on marriage and family. His takeaway appeared to be that the hierarchy must sway opinions more effectively on such topics.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chair of the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, gave a report in which he called this a “critical point” and suggested a constitutional amendment would be necessary to stop the inevitable victories on marriage equality.

Pope Francis’ more accepting style is being well received by bishops worldwide, who now work to open doors for LGBT Catholic and their loved ones. British bishops recently made positive remarks about transgender people and civil unions for same-gender couples. Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Mumbai met with a leading Catholic lesbian, and he was India’s only religious leader to condemn the opportunity for renewed criminalization of homosexuality in that country. These stories and others show it is possible for the US hierarchy to be more accepting of LGBT people and throw open the American Church’s doors.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Related Articles

The Advocate: Catholic Bishops Meet on Marriage; What ‘Threats’ Will They Discuss?

New York Times: “US Bishops Seek to Match Vatican in Shifting Tone

Associated Press: “US Catholic bishops keep focus on abortion, marriage in political guide


Archbishop Responds to Marriage Equality in Style of Pope Francis

June 8, 2014

Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland

A few weeks ago, this blog asked “What happened to ‘respect, compassion, and sensitivity’?” on the part of the US bishops? A new column from Portland’s Archbishop Alexander Sample reveals these values are not quite gone totally.  Could this shift be due to Pope Francis?

Responding to the May 19th court ruling which legalized marriage equality in Oregon, Sample’s column in the diocesan newspaper this week show the ‘Francis Effect’ may just be alive and well in Portland.

The archbishop condemns marriage equality in the Catholic Sentinel, relying on familiar arguments about anatomical complementarity and procreation as the primary functions of marriage.  Yet, he refrains from the harsh, even apocalyptic, language that often surrounds such condemnations. Sample interjects positive statements about lesbian and gay people beyond trotting out the line about “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” often tacked on to anti-marriage equality statements as an afterthought. He writes, in part:

“Let us be clear.  We all know people who identify themselves as gay or lesbian.  They are our friends, our neighbors, our co-workers, and members of our own families.  We love and cherish them.

“On the specific issue of same-sex marriage, we are deeply aware that this is a complex and very sensitive issue.  In no way do we wish to add to any existing discrimination against those who identify as gay or lesbian.  The Catholic Church fully teaches that all human persons, including those who are gay, are sacred, valued, have an innate dignity, and are loved by God.  We believe that all people should be treated with love, dignity and respect, regardless of what they think, how they act, or who they are.  We welcome those who are attracted to people of the same sex into our churches and into our hearts.”

Towards the end of the column, Sample admits that harmful mistakes have been made during the hierarchy’s crusade against marriage equality, and he seeks dialogue to heal some of the wounds:

“Our teachings are not meant to engender attitudes of disrespect or hostility, and perhaps we don’t always do the best job of stating them.  The Catholic Church is not interested in numbers in the pews or money in the collection basket, but only in bringing people to Jesus, serving the poor, reaching out to the lost and the broken, and in helping lead all to eternal salvation in Christ.  Where we are failing in these areas, we need to change, but we cannot change Christ’s call to be faithful to the truth of the Gospel.

“Further dialogue is needed to ensure that each individual’s civil rights are being upheld.

“As this dialogue and discussion continues, we wish to extend a full welcome to every person who wishes to be a part of our faith community, knowing some of these tensions will not be easily resolved.”

Sample’s column contrasts with a statement from the Oregon Catholic Conference, which Sample leads, that displays language more common for the bishops and calls marriage equality’s legalization a “travesty of justice.

His column also contrasts  with the archbishop’s previous actions on LGBT issues, having once called opposition to equal marriage rights a “top pastoral priority” when Catholic Oregonians for Marriage Equality began organizing. He also banned a local parish from marching in Portland’s 2013 Pride parade, though parishioners stood in solidarity with the LGBT community and marched anyway.

Could Archbishop Sample’s new style be attributed to Pope Francis who wants to open doors to LGBT people and their allies instead of causing divisions and exclusion? Perhaps the archbishop is following the pope’s lead and ‘smelling like his flock.’ He could be listening to Portland’s Catholics in their widespread support for LGBT rights. Perhaps he read Harvey Thoennes’ letter published in the Catholic Sentinel last year, which says, in part:

“The persons we need to learn the truth about are the gays and lesbians in our communities. If we reach out to them we will find out that they want and deserve the same things that we do: to live without persecution or bullying, to be in a committed relationship with the person they love and to have this relationship acknowledged by society through marriage.  If we ‘love our neighbors as ourselves’ we should support and work for the right to marry for gays and lesbians.”

Whatever the cause, let us hope more bishops in the US will follow Archbishop Sample’s and respond to the legalization of marriage equality in their area with a renewed sense of “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” — and perhaps, even more.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 991 other followers