Catholic Bishops Oppose Violence Against Women Act Because of LGBT Protections

After a lengthy political battle centered around specific LGBT, American Indian and migrant protection, President Barack Obama finally signed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act yesterday, but not before five Catholic bishops announced their opposition to the legislation in a statement released Wednesday.

Lauren Markoe writes in The Washington Post about the bishops’ rejection of this legislation that strengthens and funds federal initiatives to further protect domestic violence and human trafficking victims. The 2013 re-authorization added explicit protections for victims regardless of their “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” which is the source of Republican legislators, as well as the bishops’, concerns. Markoe writes:

“[The bishops] are opposing the newly authorized Violence Against Women Act for fear it will subvert traditional views of marriage and gender, and compromise the religious freedom of groups that aid victims of human trafficking…

“That language disturbs several bishops who head key committees within the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that deal with, among other issues, marriage, the laity, youth and religious liberty.”

The bishops signing the statement include Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, and Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles. Several of these bishops previously opposed marriage equality and LGBT civil rights in prominent ways, making this letter only the latest in the narrative against full equality.

In 2010, during the last re-authorization vote in the Violence Against Women Act, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops supported the legislation as an effective measure to reduce gender-based violence. At that time,  emphasis on Catholic teachings around human dignity, justice, and non-violence played a central role in the decision to support the legislation. The recent action of these five bishops re-orients episcopal judgement on the bill to sexual ethics exclusively.

Will the bishops continue to make their view on sexual ethics the only litmus test for all social policy?  Such a position would be socially disastrous.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

British Nurse Takes On Archbishop of Westminster in Marriage Equality Debate

A 65-year old nurse in England has written a letter to Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, upbraiding him for his stand against marriage equality during that nation’s recent debate on the issues.  Even though we may have heard some of these arguments before, this nurse, who has chosen to remain anonymous, makes the case with such simple force that they bear repeating here.  Gay Star News printed the letter in its entirety, and it can be viewed here.  The following are excerpts.

On celibacy:

 ”I do not find it at all easy or even possible to uphold the church’s teaching on homosexuality. Among gay people of my acquaintance are those who have a deep spiritual life, to have one’s sexual orientation, an orientation that one is born with, described as an ‘objective disorder’ and to hear homosexual acts described as ‘intrinsically evil’ surely makes it almost impossible to feel at home or welcome in the church. It is utterly unrealistic to expect homosexual people to live celibate lives (We all know that many priests find this very difficult and sometimes impossible). The revelations of clerical sex abuse have led many of us to look with a very critical eye on the so-called celibate life and to realize that it has all to often lead to warped and destructive behavior.”

On other social ills:

“When I meet people in my day to day existence they talk about the economic climate (bad), lack of employment (bad), uncertain future for their children (bad), state of schools, hospitals (bad) – never ever has anybody expressed concern about a threat to their marriage by the proposed legalizing of same-sex marriage.”

On clerical hypocrisy:

“Sadly you still think your pronouncements will be accepted without question by a meek credulous herd. You have spent far too much time telling us just how sinful we are while drawing veils of respectability over your own grievous wrongdoings.”

On Jesus’ example:

“I sometimes despair of this church, this institution. It seems to me in my reading of the Gospels that Jesus had no problem whatsoever with those who were considered outsiders or exceptions. He appears to have happily shared meals with prostitutes, drunkards, lepers, Gentiles and I do not doubt with people of same-sex orientation since such an orientation has existed since time began. The church seems much happier with its version of order over compassion and love towards the so-called exceptions. It has an appalling history of excluding and torturing those who do not think or subscribe to its definition of ‘right’. “

On misplaced hierarchical priorities:

“The world is facing disaster on all levels and this church, when not obsessing about matters sexual, spends an inordinate amount of time on pointless activities such as changing the liturgy back to a correct translation of the original Latin – a language not spoken by Jesus but spoken by the oppressors of his time and country. Do you imagine that this obsession with precisely translated texts will win you a single new adherent? To me, you (particularly but not exclusively the hierarchy) appear to be a frightened group of men preoccupied with titles, clothing and other religious externals. You seem, with some wonderful and brave exceptions, to pay only lip service to ecumenism and matters of social justice. I would love to see the so-called ‘Princes of the Church’ (Where did all these triumphant, utterly anti-Gospel titles you award yourselves come from?) get rid of the silk, the gold, the Gucci shoes, the ridiculous tall hats, croziers, fancy soutanes etc etc and substitute bare heads and a simple pilgrim’s staff on all liturgical occasions and that might be taken as a small outward sign of your inner acceptance of fundamental Gospel values.”

On the threat to heterosexual marriage:

 ”I will always be unsure of the validity of any principle or opinion that makes one act in an unkind or intolerant way. Toleration, of course, has its limits, I want you to cry out against injustice and cruelty. Explain to me please exactly how marriage will be ‘changed forever’ by the proposed new laws, specifically tell me how my marriage will be threatened.”

I couldn’t have said it  better myself  Amen!

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

“Love Is Never a Sin. God is Love.”

Three days ago, we posted about Bishop Charles Scicluna of Malta expressing respect for the love of gay and lesbian couples.  Thanks to one of our readers, today we are able to provide video of an interview with Bishop Scicluna.  Though he clearly does not endorse marriage for gay and lesbian couples, he does show a pastoral sensitivity to the human relationships of same-gender couples that few bishops exhibit.   Towards the end of the interview, he explains the hierarchy’s use of the term “disorder” to describe sexual orientation.  Again, while his definition is not overwhelmingly positive, he does remove from the term any connotation of stigma and mental illness.  He also categorically states that people should not use the word “evil” to talk about gay and lesbian people.

Perhaps his most affirming sentences of the interview:  ”Love is never a sin.  God is love.”

You can view the short interview here:

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

CAMPUS CHRONICLES: Stonehill College Students Win Improved Non-Discrimination Statement

Students during the September 21st walkout

The Board of Trustees of Stonehill College, a  Catholic college in Easton, Massachusetts, approved a new non-discrimination statement last week that now lists sexual orientation among the protected categories.

In a release by President Mark Cregan, the Board’s decision was announced after consultation at their most recent meeting and with outside counsel. The new statement will read in part:

“Therefore, Stonehill College prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability, age, marital status, religion, color, sexual orientation, or national origin in admission to, access to, treatment in or employment in its programs and activities, except where such conditions may constitute bona fide qualifications for the programs or activities in question.

“Nothing in this statement shall require Stonehill College to act in a manner contrary to the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Stonehill College is operated by the Congregation of the Holy Cross, the same religious community which operates the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, which is also debating a non-discrimination policy.

Students, faculty, and staff began advocating for the inclusion of sexual orientation in 1997 with the recognition of Stonehill’s first gay-straight alliance, PRIDE. Bondings 2.0 spoke yesterday with 2012 graduate Ashley Trebisacci, who wrote her thesis on the fifteen year movement.

Trebisacci detailed the multiple interactions students had with the college’s administration and Board of Trustees since 1997, and the responses students received that entailed a document called ‘Spirit of Inclusion’ in 1998 and several presentations to the Board.

In 2012, several Stonehill students began organizing again for sexual orientation in the non-discrimination policy and released their own ‘It Needs To Get Better Video’ coinciding with an online petition and alumni pressure.

The Taunton Daily Gazette reported student reactions to the new policy:

“For the students, the issue was always one of equality and fairness.

“‘I’ve never felt prouder to be a Stonehill student,”’said junior Kristen Bailey. ‘It was a great day.’”

Bondings 2.0 contacted the current student leadership about the Board’s decision. This most recent iteration of the ‘It Needs to Get Better’ movement continues today and is responsible, with the support of faculty, staff, and alumni, for this most recent victory.

Senior Amanda Macchi, one of the leaders, detailed September 21, 2012′s events. At 9:30am that day, over 185 members of the Stonehill Community staged a ‘walkout’ and went to Alumni Hall where the Board of Trustees was meeting in a show of solidarity and to reinforce that Stonehill cares deeply about this issue.

Supporters make their presence known to the Board

Macchi noted that the Board’s statement does not constitute a change in the College’s non-discrimination policy:

“It’s a non-discrimination statement that the Board of Trustees make and their statement influences and guides all the school’s policies. So when the policies come up they will be revised to add sexual orientation.

“We’re very excited. This is a huge step forward and we’re relishing in that. We’ll keep track of changing all the policies. The next step is to ensure that everyone is equal…to have further discussion about what this truly means and ensure everyone is protected.”

Sean Borger, a leader in the ‘It Needs To Get Better’ movement as well as an on-campus LGBTQ discussion group, spoke to the heart of Stonehill’s needs in the future:

“When I spoke with them [the discussion group] last year more generally on the campus climate, it wasn’t that they didn’t feel safe. They didn’t feel they could be open…My hope is that with this change in statement, which hopefully our campus policies will reflect eventually, they will feel more comfortable expressing themselves.”

The student leadership spoke warmly of the overall campus atmosphere for LGBT community, but remains committed to continuing the work of inclusion and safety. Ashley Trebisacci summarized this:

“Being at a Catholic college presents problems for LGBTQ students that they may not encounter at colleges that aren’t religiously affiliated.

“Overall, we are blessed with a progressive, caring, and open faculty and staff, which in both this campaign and in general makes it a great place to be. The group of students as well are great and now, in part because of this activism and other activism in the past, the groups on campus are much more engaged and passionate about what they do.”

New Ways Ministry congratulates the Stonehill College community, especially the student leadership behind this movement, for moving towards a more inclusive campus.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Notre Dame’s President on LGBT Issues on Campus

 

It’s the time of year when students across the nation are returning to college campuses.     At the University of Notre Dame, that means the revival of the major debate on LGBT issues that took place at their school during the past academic year.

Students in the campus’ 4 to 5 Movement, led by sophomore Alex Coccia, had made great strides last year in gathering support from a variety of university groups to support their quest for an officially recognized student-run gay-straight  alliance (GSA), as well as trying to have sexual orientation added to the university’s non-discrimination policy.  At the end of the school year in May,  the university postponed the GSA decision until the fall, which has now arrived.

In one of the first issues of this The Observer, the student newspaper, Fr. John Jenkins, Notre Dame president discussed the  possibility of amending the university’s non-discrimination policy as well as the possibility of establishing a GSA.

On the latter issue, Jenkins offered some hope to the students who want a GSA.  He stated:

“Are there better structures to achieve our ends? I think it’s time for a fresh look.”

On the issue of adding sexual orientation to the university’s non-discrimination policy, Jenkins defended the current policy of not including the category:

“ ‘At Notre Dame, we do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,” Jenkins said. ‘That’s a fundamental thing, but that’s not the only thing. The Spirit of Inclusion, which was approved by the Board of Fellows, higher than me, the highest level of the University, says that not only don’t we discriminate, but we want to be a place, an environment, where people feel — of same-sex orientation, anything else — feel respected, supported, fully involved in this community.’ . . .

“ ‘If Notre Dame voluntarily took this on, our fear is that it would be seen as a broader and stronger commitment with regard to same-sex orientation that may undermine our ability to live in accordance with the Catholic teaching because we distinguish between orientation and action.’ ”

Jenkins explained that he feared that adopting such a policy would make the university vulnerable to law suits and that he didn’t think such a policy would end discrimination:

“I don’t believe that step [of including sexual orientation in the non-discrimination clause] would achieve the goal of creating an environment of welcome, of support. I fear that it would tend to be divisive. So I am absolutely committed to try to create that environment, but I think there are other ways to do that.”

Jenkins offered that the university will continue to work in other ways towards non-discrimination:

“I think so much of this is about climate, and it’s not what I’m, what the president, is doing in his office. It’s about what all of us are doing on campus. I think that’s extremely important, and that’s something we work on with hall staff, that’s something we work on with our Student Affairs personnel. … We just have to keep working on it.”

Fr. Jenkins is correct that adopting a policy is not a guarantee that discrimination will end.  What he fails to recognize, however, is that adopting such a policy would send a strong and important message that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unacceptable.  While it may not guarantee an end to discrimination, it would surely be a giant step towards achieving that end.

Adopting such a policy does not mean that the university’s work stops there.  Other measures, such as recognizing an official GSA on campus, would also be an important step towards achieving a fully inclusive community.  While these steps may not guarantee a fully inclusive campus community, not having them certainly guarantees that the movement towards inclusion will be hampered and less likely to be achieved.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

 

When Courage Fails

A recent news report that the Archdiocese of Hartford will be instituting a “Courage” support group for lesbian and gay people has me reflecting on the approach that Courage takes to LGBT ministry.

Courage is a national organization with local chapters.  It was founded in 1980 by Fr. John Harvey, OSFS; its main purpose is to help lesbian and gay people maintain a celibate life, in accordance with magisterial teaching.

There are many reasons why people have objected to Courage groups.  Some say that the ministry’s approach treats homosexuality as a psychological defect.  Others object that Courage often uses a 12-step spirituality approach to homosexuality, thus treating it as something akin to an addiction.  Some point out that Courage groups have often veered off into the areas of reparative therapy or conversion ministry (i.e., trying to change one’s orientation to heterosexual) even though this approach was never sanctioned by Fr. Harvey. Still others observe that Courage does not take a positive attitude toward committed, loving sexual relationships.

The main problem I see with the Courage ministry is that it primarily views lesbian/gay people in terms of sexual activity.  This approach does not consider lesbian/gay people as whole people, but narrowly defines them in terms of sex.

Lesbian/Gay people are so much more than their sexuality, and ministry with them should address the totality of their lives.  For example, lesbian/gay people  have often suffered alienation, marginalization, and oppression, and these factors need to be addressed, too.  They are also people who have come to a remarkable and wondrous discovery about themselves that is very different from the majority of the population–a difference which should be celebrated.  Lesbian/Gay people may have experienced harsh messages from church authorities which may have affected their relationship with God which may need healing.  Most importantly, lesbian/Gay people have spiritual gifts which they long to bring to the church community, so ministry with them could focus on opportunities for them to share these gifts.

In short, a ministry which primarily focuses on the possibility of sexual activity is a very stunted ministry.    It is a model of ministry which ignores a great deal about the human person and how they can be integrated into a community.

Because of their emphasis on celibacy, Courage’s leaders often claim that they are fully in accord with magisterial teaching.  Not so.  In the Vatican’s “Letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” pastoral ministers are reminded

“The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation.”

Courage’s emphasis on sexual behavior violates this principle by reducing people not only to their sexual orientation, but reducing them even further to consider them in terms of possible sexual activity.  This kind of thinking violates another important pastoral principle, articulated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in their letter, Always Our Children:

“Do not presume that all homosexual persons are sexually active.”

Many parishes and faith communities have adopted a more integrated approach to lesbian/gay ministry than Courage does.  New Ways Ministry maintains  lists of  these gay-friendly parishes and gay-friendly Catholic college campuses which follow this healthy and holy path of outreach. Models of ministry which consider the totality of  the life of  lesbian/gay people offer a better, more effective invitation to life in the Christian community than the Courage model offers.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

“All We Want For Christmas Is Our Human Rights”

To protest the Philippines Catholic Bishops’ Conference’s “move to ask for the removal of sexual orientation and gender identity in the list of punishable forms of discrimination under Senate Bill 2814 (The Anti-Ethnic or Racial Profiling and Discrimination Act of 2011),” an LGBT rights group there went Christmas caroling in front of the  bishops’ conference office in Manila today.

This creative form of protest included among other songs with changed lyrics, “All We Want For Christmas Is Our Human Rights.”  A full description of the protest can be read in this news story.

Anger over the bishops’ conference position was inflamed when it was reported that a lawyer for the conference, Jo Imbong,  said that LGBT people  “should not be protected from discrimination”  because they had the power to choose their sexual orientation.

It sounds like the Filipino bishops are having the same problem that the U.S. bishops had recently when their adviser on marriage issues, Daniel Avila, suggested in a column in a Catholic newspaper that homosexuality was caused by the devil.  Under pressure, Mr. Avila resigned.

Let’s hope and pray that Jo Imbong either resigns or is dismissed.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry