World Meeting of Families Document Discusses LGBT Topics in Negative Language

November 26, 2014

A printed copy of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s new catechesis

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has released a preparatory teaching aid for the 2015 World Meeting of Families which relies on negative language about LGBT people and their relationships. The catechesis is accompanied by extensive curricula intended for Catholic schools and religious education classrooms in the coming year.

The document’s negative LGBT message was made public by Good As Youa pro-LGBT website.

The teaching aid, entitled Love is Our Mission: The Family Fully Alive, is a book-length primer on marriage and family. Two of the guiding principles give a sense of how LGBT issues are treated in the text:

“[7]However, many temptations arise which try to coax us into forgetting that male and female are created for covenant and communion. For example, poverty, affluence, pornography, contraception, philosophical and other intellectual mistakes can all create contexts that challenge or threaten healthy family life. The Church resists these things for the sake of protecting the family. [Note: ‘Philosophical mistakes’ is where the movement for LGBT equality, including same-gender marriage recognition, is placed.]

“[8] Many people, especially today, face painful situations resulting from poverty, disability, illness and addictions, unemployment, and the loneliness of advanced age. But divorce and same-sex attraction impact the intimate life of the family in especially powerful ways. Christian families and networks of families should be sources of mercy, safety, friendship and support for those struggling with these issues.”

In the accompanying curricula for high school and elementary school students, the archdiocese explains homosexuality and same-gender relationships in very negative ways.

Marriage equality is dealt with in a lesson titled “Light in a Dark World,” which asks students to imagine what they would do to protect gold at Fort Knox if attacked. This image is analogized to ways in which they can defend the faith in a hostile world. It includes the following language on legalizing same-gender marriage:

“Separating sex and procreation results in the perception of marriage as simply sexual or emotional satisfaction, and this logically leads to the acceptance of same-sex unions…

“While the Catholic Church will not approve same sex ‘marriages,’ the Church does appreciate and acknowledge the importance of chaste same sex friendships.”

The lesson also identifies marriage equality as a “threat to healthy family life” by which “the state (conceding to pressure from various groups) is trying to create a new definition of marriage and family.” That section concludes with a bolded statement:

“In order to protect families, marriages, and children, it is necessary to resist this movement to give the state the power to redefine and reconstruct marriage and the family.”

A handout for students includes almost identical language, asking them to think about light in a “dark world.”

Elsewhere in the curriculum, lesbian and gay people are identified as “those who struggle with same-sex attraction.” A middle school lesson plan asks students the following question with some suggested answers provided in italics:

“What are some of the reasons that Jesus’ and the Church’s teaching on same-sex attraction is hard? (We feel like we are judging people; we know and love people who are attracted to the same sex; it seems mean to tell them they are wrong if God ‘made them that way’; they can be in loving and committed relationships too, it’s mean to deny them the ‘right’ to get married, etc.)

Students are also asked to brainstorm “specific difficulties” like loneliness, financial difficulties, and feeling excluded that LGBT people supposedly experience.  The text juxtaposes these descriptions with the idea that the Church “is already doing a good job making sure no one in the Church…feels lonely.”

Finally, throughout the several hundred pages on marriage and family, the curricula offer anti-gay resources like Courage, a national ministry which promotes chastity as the only pastoral option for lesbian and gay people, and The Third Way, a very negative film released this year to defend positions about lesbian and gay people which are actually pastorally harmful .

Few comments are necessary as the documents from the Philadelphia archdiocese speak for themselves. They are out of touch with Pope Francis’ more open approach, many of the discussions at October’s synod of bishops, and the general trend among most Catholics towards LGBT inclusion and affirmation. I offer three brief thoughts.

First, it appears Archbishop Charles Chaput and those on his staff desire that Catholics be “prophets of doom” so readily condemned by Pope John XXIII as he opened Vatican II. Pope Francis is speaking of a culture of encounter, while these documents instead reiterate a defensive withdrawal into a church under attack.

Second, the discussion of homosexuality is not pastoral in the least. Advising chaste friendships and ignoring the church’s deep complicity in creating difficulties experienced by LGBT people are forms of oppression. And why is it that only gay people are the ones who seem to struggle? These documents are clearly working against bishops who seek to recognize goodness, as well as the gifts and qualities, possessed by LGBT people.

Third, I cannot imagine any effective religious educator or youth minister actually using this document. In the United States, the general trend is that the younger a Catholic is, the more affirming they will be of LGBT people. That’s 85% of Millennials, those 18-29, and probably even higher, I imagine, for younger aged teens. A few weeks ago, I asked what young Catholics want from the church, and while the answer to that is still undetermined, it is assuredly not what these documents present.

In the year to come, LGBT advocates must strive to correct these false narratives and intentional distortions in the minds of fellow Catholics, most especially those of the bishops.

Take a moment this Thanksgiving weekend to write Archbishop Chaput and let him know LGBT issues, in their fullness, must be addressed at the next synod.

You can write to Archbishop Chaput at the following postal address:

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archdiocesan Pastoral Center
222 North 17th Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1299

Or you can send him an email at:

shepherd@chs-adphila.org

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry


Should Civil Marriage Be Separated from Sacramental Marriage?

November 25, 2014

Conservative religious leaders, including some Catholics, have imitated an action that many pro-marriage equality advocates have used successfully:  they have pledged not to perform civil marriage ceremonies until their view of marriage is accepted by the state.

According to an article in Crux, the conservative Catholic opinion journal First Things has posted “The Marriage Pledge” on their website, which is a statement by Christian ministers who agree not to perform the civil aspect of wedding ceremonies (i.e., not signing the marriage licesnse) until same-gender marriage is revoked.  The pledge states, in part:

“. . . [I]n our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles ­articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.”

What I find most interesting about this stand is that in many states across our nation, pro-marriage equality ministers took a similar pledge as they were advocating for the state to adopt marriage for lesbian and gay couples.  The pro-marriage equality pastors pledged to not sign any marriage licenses for any couple until marriage was extended equally to all couples.

When opponents adopt the same strategy to achieve opposite ends, something must be happening.

I think that “something” is a growing consensus on the idea that marriage in the U.S. should be separated from religious institutions.  In other words,  civil marriages would only be performed by government officials, and not religious leaders, who currently are authorized to do so.  If a couple chooses to have a religious ceremony in addition to the civil ceremony, they are free to do so, though the religious ceremony by itself would not be legally recognized.  As many people are aware, this is how marriage is conducted in many European countries.

Some pro-marriage equality advocates, including Catholics, have been advocating for this distinction for a long time.  In addition to being intuitively fairer, this situation also helps to clear up  the muddy interaction that religious and government institutions have about the definition of marriage.  In that sense, such a distinction supports marriage equality.

One major problem that marriage equality advocates have had is that some people see marriage as a mixture of civil and religious ideas, and so the thought of changing even just the civil part of marriage makes them fear that the religious part of marriage will change, too.  Separating the two institutions thus paves the way for the state to democratically decide who should be allowed to marry, and for religious institutions to decide who they want to marry according to their own definitions.

There has already been a discussion of this separation from Catholic advocates on both sides of the marriage equality question.  Back in July 2013,  Bondings 2.0 carried two connected posts exploring the debate.  The first was by Jesuit law professor, Fr. Frank Brennan, who advocated for such a separation as a way to allow lesbian and gay couples to marry:

“It is high time to draw a distinction between a marriage recognised by civil law and a sacramental marriage. In deciding whether to expand civil marriage to the union of two persons of the same gender, legislators should have regard not just for the well-being of same sex couples and the children already part of their family units, but also for the well-being of all future children who may be affected, as well as the common good of society in setting appropriate contours for legally recognised relationships. . . .

“It would be just and a service to the common good for the State to give some recognition and support to committed, faithful, long-term relationships between gay couples deserving dignity, being able to love and support each other in sickness and in health, until death they do part.”

Arguing for the same distinction, but for an opposite purpose, was the Archdiocese of Washington’s Msgr. Charles Pope, a pastor, who said:

“It is a simple fact that word ‘marriage’ as we have traditionally known it is being redefined in our times. To many in the secular world the word no longer means what it once did and when the Church uses the word marriage we clearly do not mean what the increasing number of states mean.”

After giving an interpretation of why he thought such a redefinition took place, he stated:

“So the bottom line is that what the secular world means by the word ‘marriage’ is not even close to what the Church means. The secular world excluded every aspect of what the Church means by marriage. Is it time for us to accept this and start using a different word? Perhaps it is, and I would like to propose what I did back in March of 2010, that we return to an older term and hear what you think.

I propose that we should exclusively refer to marriage in the Church as ‘Holy Matrimony.’ ” [emphasis, his]

Interestingly, Msgr. Pope called for exactly the type of protest that First Things is now encouraging:

“A secondary but related proposal is that we begin to consider getting out of the business of having our clergy act as civil magistrates in weddings. Right now we clergy in most of America sign the civil license and act, as such, as partners with the State. But with increasing States interpreting marriage so differently, can we really say we are partners? Should we even give the impression of credibility to the State’s increasingly meaningless piece of paper? It may remain the case that the Catholic faithful, for legal and tax reasons may need to get a civil license, but why should clergy have anything to do with it?

The Crux article cited other examples of this type of proposal in the last few years, from both liberals and conservatives, Catholic and Protestant:

The concept that civil and religious marriage should be separate is not entirely novel. At US Catholic, columnist Bryan Cones has asked, “Is it time to separate church and state marriages?” And writer Len Woolley raised similar questions at the Mormon-run Deseret News. . . But the idea isn’t just limited to conservatives.

Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, proposed the idea as early as 2009. By 2011, three North Carolina church pastors and at least one in Virginia quit signing marriage licenses as a way of opposing state bans on same-sex marriages they felt violated their conscience.

And in July of this year, Paul Waldman argued at The American Prospect, a liberal publication, that religious couples should fill out state-mandated marriage forms and then have the religious ceremony of their choosing. “The wedding, in other words, should be a ritual with no content prescribed by the state, no ‘By the power vested in me by the state of Indiana’ at all.”

Waldman added: “The state doesn’t tell you how to celebrate Christmas or Ramadan, and it shouldn’t tell you how to get married.”

Such an interesting development!  What do you think?  Should marriage be separated into civil and religious institutions?  Leave your ideas in the “Comments” section of this post.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

Related article:

Ethika Politika:  The Marriage Pledge: Black, White, and Red All Over”

 


Art Show on Queer Saints Plays with Depictions of Gender

November 24, 2014

Artwork displayed in the “Queer Santas” show.

How does gender inform understandings of Catholic saints? An art exhibit at the Pacific School of Religion is rethinking those understandings by playing with gender, furthering the idea that there are transgender Catholic saints.

“Queer Santas: Holy Violence” is Alma Lopez’s show that plays with gender in religious artwork and asks viewers to “reconsider our ideas of religion, beauty and gender,” according to Religion News Service.

Lopez compared these saints to LGBT people today because they refused to adhere to female gender norms imposed by their societies and faced severe violence as a result. The artist added:

” ‘In our community, we do endure so much because we believe in certain things and we know ourselves. So I wanted the Queer Santas to stand for that and start a discussion of how much we endure to be who we are and love who we want to love…

” ‘So it is really me painting their masculinity and their beauty through the story of the Santas,’ she said, using the Spanish word for female saints.”

The show features icons of St. Lucia, St. Liberata, and St. Wilgefortis, as well as mermaids from Mexico termed “sirenas” which trans girls have taken up as symbols. Each of the three saints is traditionally understood to exhibit male characteristics, like St. Liberata’s and St. Wilgefortis’ beards or St. Lucia’s (or Lucy’s) refusal to marry a man, which resulted in  her eyes being gouged.

Pacific School of Religion professor Justin Tanis commented about Lopez’s depiction of the saints, saying:

” ‘I am natural, I am one of God’s people.’ And yet this is an image that many people would consider heretical because gender play is involved…All of these saints are women who took their own agency and stepped outside gender norms. In that sense, they were queer and violence was done to them for it.’ “

Lopez’s previous work has been controversial in the past, drawing Catholic protests for pieces like a semi-nude Virgin of Guadalupe. So far, the Pacific School of Religion exhibit is drawing only praise — and has drawn some into deep meditation and prayer, according to Tanis, who is also director of the Pacific School of Religion’s Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry.

In recent years, the highlighting of lesbian and gay saints has opened Catholic eyes to the reality that sexual orientation is a gift from God that has helped many attain holiness. Lopez’s art further adds gender identity, as the church grows in understanding and appreciation for the holy trans people in our world.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry


WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Theologian Fr. Charles Curran Calls for Change in Church Teaching

November 23, 2014

Fr. Charles Curran

“WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?” is  Bondings 2.0′s series on how Catholics–the hierarchy and laity–can prepare for the Synod on Marriage and Family that will take place at the Vatican in October 2015. If you would like to consider contributing a post to this series, please click here

In a new interview with the National Catholic Reporter, Fr. Charles Curran openly calls for the Catholic church to rethink and, ultimately, change some of its moral teachings on sexuality, including gay and lesbian relationships.

Most reflections during and after last October’s synod were concerned with pastoral practices and a slow doctrinal developments, if any, but Curran’s proposal is more straightforward.

Acknowledging what he calls “creeping infallibility” by the hierarchy in recent decades, Curran highlights the possibility of change in church teaching:

“In my judgment, there never has been an infallible church teaching on a specific moral issue. The reason is that these issues are removed from the core of faith and deal with many different specificities and complexities…if there is any doubt about it, it cannot be infallible teaching…

“The fact that the church has changed its moral teaching in a number of very significant specific issues is proof that such teaching is not unchangeable and what is taught today as noninfallible teaching can also be changed in the future. Perhaps the best explanation of why such teaching can be changed is simply looking at the language. Noninfallible really means that something is fallible!”

Among those teachings which have changed, Curran notes, are understandings of sexuality and marriage. He proposes a rethinking of sexual ethics that incorporates the good of the dignity of the human person and their relationships. Rejecting the current papal teaching which demands that “Every single act, therefore, must be open to procreation and expressive of the love union of husband and wife,” Curran continues:

“The problem with the Catholic approach is using the nature of the faculty [of sex as procreative and unitive] as the criterion for discovering whether an act is right or wrong. One can never see the power or faculty of sexuality apart from the human person and the human person apart from one’s relationship to other persons. Thus, for example, for the good of the person or the good of the marriage, one could and should at times interfere with the procreative purpose of the sexual faculty. In the same manner then, one could justify homosexual relations and unions on the basis of what is good for the human person and the human person’s relationships.”

On the theological concept of gradualism, raised anew at the synod and Pope Francis’ new pastoral approach, Curran comments:

“The primary role of any minister in the church, including the bishop of Rome, is to be a pastor. The pastor has to be close to the people and to know and experience their joys and their sorrows, their laughter and their tears…

“The pastoral approach in a very true sense should embrace all that the various ministers of the Gospel do, but it certainly also has relevance to very practical moral problems that people are experiencing. I have already mentioned that with regard to gradualness. This brings to mind one of the statements that was found in the first summary of what went on in the synod: ‘The truth is incarnate in human fragility not to condemn it, but to cure it.’ “

Commenting on the synod itself, Curran praised open discussions between members of the hierarchy but expressed disappointment that no teachings were changed, a position defended by “even those who were in favor of pastoral change.” Looking ahead,  Curran concludes with more practical considerations on how the church should proceed:

“I think it is necessary for the papacy to admit that some of its present teachings on sexuality are wrong. But that is going to be a very difficult task to do…Without doubt, it will be very difficult for papal teaching to admit that its teaching in the past has been wrong…On the other hand, history has shown that such teachings have been wrong. Perhaps the problem has been that the papacy has claimed too much certitude for its own teaching…

“I recognize all the problems and difficulties in the way of recognizing that past and present papal teaching has been wrong, but this is the real problem that we have to face. However, in facing it, in light of what we talked about earlier, I am certainly willing to accept some kind of gradualism …

“But with this acceptance of gradualism, there comes a warning. In the past, the Catholic church had a long time to deal with the possibility of change, or what it preferred to call development in its teachings. But because of instant communication today, the church no longer has the luxury to take that long. There is an urgency to change the present teaching for the good of the church.”

Fr. Curran was the first recipient of New Ways Ministry’s Bridge Building Award, which recognizes individuals who, through scholarship or pastoral actions, help to promote justice and equality for LGBT people.  He also wrote the introduction to the book Building Bridges:  Gay and Lesbian Reality and the Catholic Church, by Father Robert Nugent and Sister Jeannine Gramick, New Ways Ministry’s co-founders. He has also spoken at New Ways Ministry’s national symposiums.

To read the full interview, which delves far more deeply into the theological underpinnings of Curran’s desire to change church teachings, click here.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry


Detroit Archbishop Bans Parents’ Group Because of Speaker Choice

November 22, 2014

Francis DeBernardo, left, at World Pride 2012 in London. British Catholic gay advocate Martin Pendergast, right, helps him carry the New Ways Ministry banner.

Michigan LGBT advocates will proceed with a planned meeting for Catholic parents of LGBT children today after being barred from the Catholic parish that was set to host it.

Archbishop Allen Vigneron banned Christ the King parish in northwest Detroit from hosting the Fortunate Families support group because Francis DeBernardo of New Ways Ministry is scheduled to speak. According to organizer Linda Karle-Nelson, the parish hosted a similar gathering last year and this change of venue greatly disrupts the event. She told The Detroit Free Press:

” ‘It’s really been a problem trying to get the information out to people who have registered and those who might want to walk in…The reason we invited Frank DeBernardo, is he just returned from Rome and the Synod on the family, and he was going to share his perspective and where do we go from here…The pope has asked for reactions and to weigh in.’ “

DeBernardo, who heads New Ways Ministry, noted how far Vigneron’s action is from Pope Francis’ welcoming style and added:

” ‘I feel bad for the message that it sends to Catholics that there can’t be discussion of an issue of great importance to them and their families — how to stay in better communication with their church and their gay and lesbian children.’ “

Linda Karle-Nelson and Thomas Nelson

Christ the King’s pastor, Fr. Victor Clore, is also baffled by the archbishop’s decision, telling the Free Press:

” ‘I’ll give you a quote from one of my parishioners, who said: “It amazes me how Pope Francis eagerly and happily engages those who openly deny the divinity of Christ, yet (New Ways) DeBernardo is deemed unworthy to enter our church’…

” ‘That’s pretty much my feeling, too…It’s treating people as if they were children.’ “

Archbishop Vigneron’s record on LGBT issues has not been positive. In the past, he has warned that pro-marriage equality Catholics should not receive Communion (though his auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton thought otherwise) and is on record saying Pope Francis “didn’t say anything different” on homosexuality.

In contrast, Karle-Nelson and her husband, Tom, were awarded by PFLAG for their pastoral efforts within the church through Fortunate Families. They have led protests at the Detroit chancery and stood by Dignity/Detroit when its 39th anniversary celebrations came under fire from the archdiocese.

Fox 2 News of Detroit quoted DeBernardo explaining a bit about the content of his talk:

“Pope Francis has demonstrated openness on these issues and he has called for greater discussion of them as we saw in the synod at the Vatican last month. I wish the Archdiocese of Detroit had inquired more deeply about the substance of my talk. They would have found that it is very Catholic on its content.”

His talk is about how the recent synod on marriage and the family discussed gay and lesbian people.  In the talk, he quotes almost entirely from bishops and cardinals, as well as the pope.

Please keep the Fortunate Families group in your prayers today as they meet at an alternate location. These dedicated parents and family members are answering Pope Francis’ call to create a church that is “home for all” through dialogue and welcome.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry


LGBT Issues Need to Be on the Agenda of World Meeting of Families

November 21, 2014

Philadelphia’s Archbishop Charles Chaput seemed to indicate that LGBT issues will not be high on the agenda at next September’s World Meeting of Families to be held in that city.  A National Catholic Reporter article said that Chaput said:

“[The World Meeting of Families] will deal with a wide range of family issues where our religious faith is both needed and tested.

“These are matters that affect all families, not only in the United States but on a world scale. So we want to focus next year not just on the neuralgic sexual issues that seem to dominate the American media.”

Though he did not mention marriage equality or adoption by lesbian and gay couples, since those two topics are very frequently reported on in the American media, it would be hard to imagine that he was not including them in his intention.

Chaput said that the meeting “will deal with a wide range of family issues where our religious faith is both needed and tested.”  He made these comments while attending a Vatican conference on male and female complementarity in marriage.

It will be a grave mistake not to include LGBT issues in the World Meeting of Families.   Almost every family in the United States is touched and affected by such issues, either by having an LGBT family member or because they know someone close to them who is LGBT.  And families headed by LGBT people are becoming increasingly more visible in the U.S. Catholic community.

7f826-archbcharleschaput

Archbishop Charles Chaput

Does Archbishop Chaput think that it is wise to ignore a reality which everyone in the United States is discussing?  The fact that these topics are in the media show that, in fact, they are part of the concerns of families.

Indeed, the World Meeting of Families organizers would do well not only to put these topics on the agenda, but to include as speakers Catholic LGBT people and their relatives to discuss their experience of faith, family, and church.  Why should this segment of the Catholic community be invisible at such an important discussion?

At last month’s Vatican synod on marriage and the family, bishops and cardinals from around the world did not shy away from talking about lesbian and gay people and their families.  And we saw, based on the synod’s interim report, that a large number of them were willing to speak positively about the Christian values found in lesbian and gay relationships.  If the world’s bishops can speak freely about such topics, why shouldn’t Catholic families attending the meeting be able to do so, too? After all, they are the ones most intimately connected to these people and issues.

The National Catholic Reporter article noted that some of the topics that will be included in the meeting will be “poverty and the family, marital intimacy, raising children and the impact of divorce, as well as issues affecting the elderly and the disabled.”  These are certainly important topics that need to be discussed.  But they need to be discussed fully and completely.  Families with LGBT members experience many of these same realities, though their perspectives on them might be somewhat different based on their unique position.  Wouldn’t it be best to have all perspectives represented at an event which calls itself the World Meeting of Families?

New Ways Ministry hopes that Archbishop Chaput will re-think this planning guideline, and that, instead, he will include LGBT voices, including those who affirm their committed relationships and the families they are part of, on the agenda of the World Meeting of Families.  We encourage Catholics to write to him and ask him to make positive approaches to families with LGBT members a priority for next year’s World Meeting of Families.

You can write to Archbishop Chaput at the following postal address:

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archdiocesan Pastoral Center
222 North 17th Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1299

Or you can send him an email at:

shepherd@chs-adphila.org

He will not know how important LGBT issues are to Catholics unless he hears from them.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

 

 


Jesuit Students Honor UCA Martyrs with Transgender Education and Justice

November 20, 2014

Teach-In participants remember the martyrs in prayer

Today is Transgender Day of Remembrance, when people worldwide will remember those transgender people who died this past year as a result of anti-LGBT violence.

As vigils are held and prayers are offered, I want to highlight a moment of hope for trans justice that happened at the Ignatian Family Teach-In for Justice last weekend.  The Teach-In is an annual event that brought together 1,600 students and staff from North American Jesuit high schools and colleges.  New Ways Ministry presented a workshop titled “Trans-forming Love” which looked at transgender issues through an affirming Catholic lens.

Over 40 participants explored not only justice for transgender people, but the gifts and qualities that gender diverse communities offer our church and our world. The conversation touched upon the Catholic Social Tradition, spirituality, and the ways in which students’ communities can become more inclusive.

Transgender justice fit in well with the Teach-In this year which was held on the 25th anniversary of the Universidad Centroamericana (UCA) martyrs, who were killed for aligning themselves with the poor and victimized of El Salvador. The UCA continues the prophetic witness of the Jesuit martyrs today, including support for LGBT people by hosting the first LGBT human rights conferences in El Salvador (which you can read about here and here) in 2013. At that conference, which New Ways Ministry participated in, it was obvious that trans advocates were leading the way for equality in that country.

A prayer card honoring the six Jesuit UCA martyrs and their two female colleagues

Fittingly, LGBT justice was included among the many social justice causes being discussed, prayed over, and advocated for during the Teach-In, including a workshop addressing homosexuality offered by Arthur Fitzmaurice of the Catholic Association for Lesbian and Gay Ministry.

Wider church reform conversations were on the conference’s agenda as well. Jesuit Fr. James Martin told young adults that you address systemic injustice in the church the same way you address it in the world — “You fight it.” Fr. Thomas Reese suggested that Pope Francis will leave it to local episcopal conferences to respond to same-sex relationships being legalized.

I am profoundly inspired by the students who attended the Teach-In, who I met at the workshop and also at New Ways Ministry’s exhibit table. During conversations with participants,  I found that students needed no convincing that LGBT rights were indeed human rights and questioned how anyone could oppose full equality and inclusion. They were, understandably, unhappy with the church and yet, for many, it was the church which deeply informed their passion for justice. I spoke with faculty courageously working to make their institutions safer and more welcoming, sometimes at great personal risk.

I was happily surprised at how affirming, and indeed informed, these teens and young adults were about issues of gender identity and diversity. Trans justice was as much a given as anything else.  Many students raised questions about how to be a better ally.

During this Transgender Day of Remembrance we mourn, for mourning is necessary and indeed an act of resistance. As Christians, it is important to remember that death is not the final word, even violent and gruesome death. The UCA murders prompted hundreds of thousands of people to seek justice in El Salvador and beyond. Today, the hate crimes against transgender people motivate thousands more to demand justice for this group of people in the very same way. At the intersection of these many tragedies, a group of students from Jesuit schools helped the light of LGBT justice burn a bit brighter last weekend — and that is Good News for us all.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,112 other followers