You could almost feel sorry for U.S. Catholic Bishops. Periodically they gather, issue "Tut tutting" pronouncements, and everyone ignores them. You have to wonder why they even bother.
Assembling in Baltimore in mid-November, the bishops delivered themselves of an amusing piece of badinage titled "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination." There they claimed that although a person with a homosexual inclination is not disordered, the inclination is disordered, that such persons should not marry each other, adopt children or disclose their inclination outside a trusted small group.
In other statements the Bishops opposed contraception and said sexually active homosexuals and heterosexuals using birth control should not take communion. As Spokane Bishop William Skylstad asserted, "There is a mocking reduction of sexuality, debasing it from God's beautiful gift of creation to little more than casual chemistry and inconsequential recreation."
Hardly anyone pays much attention to what the Catholic bishops say about sexuality. The bishops have simply lost the argument. Either they should give up or come up with new and better arguments. But their statements do indicate the Catholic hierarchy's inability to talk coherently about homosexuality.
Consider that word "inclination." The bishops avoid the word "orientation." Orientation suggests something much more fundamental and comprehensive, a part of the basic structure of people's psychological constitution. The bishops would not refer to a mere "heterosexual inclination."
It is as if the bishops refuse to acknowledge the fundamental nature of homosexuality. Although they do not say a homosexual inclination can be changed, it is as if they are leaving an opening for some future statement that homosexual feelings are less deeply rooted than heterosexual ones so they can more easily be suppressed or even replaced.
Although the bishops claim they are reaching out to gay Catholics, few gays are likely to be lured by having their deepest emotions labeled "disordered." Is any gay man likely to agree that, "It is disordered that I love John with all my heart" or "I love John deeply with a disordered love"?
No more than a heterosexual man would feel that way about his love for a female partner. Love is pretty much self-validating. The statement is more likely aimed at reinforcing heterosexual disapprobation of gays and promoting shame, anxiety and self-doubt among vulnerable young gays. Certainly that would be its easily predictable effect.
If a person with a disordered inclination is not a disordered person, why should the bishops disapprove of gays disclosing widely that they are homosexual? Fundamentalist Protestants fear that coming out would solidify a "homosexual identity." There is a whiff of that in the bishops' statement.
But more likely the bishops fear that if people know that friends and neighbors who are decent, friendly and helpful are homosexual, they might think well of gays, want them to be treated equally and stop believing that they have a disorder. Apparently the bishops believe that it is better that people believe damaging stereotypes about gays promoted by anti-gay polemicists. And--what could be clearer?--the bishops hope to silence opposition from self-affirming gays.
If gays are not disordered, it is also unaccountable why the bishops oppose gay adoption. If they do not object to a single parent raising his or her children, then why would they object to a gay person's adopting children? Absent any plausible rationale, their actual reason may be that they do not want gays to seem normal, responsible adults with a capacity for love, affection, and family life.
Bishop Skylstad's statement itself demonstrates deep ignorance of sexuality and human psychology And he perpetrates not one but two obvious errors by reducing sex to "the gift of creation" or else "inconsequential recreation." First, "recreational" sex is hardly inconsequential. Like all play, sex can be life-enhancing and promote psychological development.
Second, Skylstad perpetrates a false dichotomy. Sex can be not only for procreation or recreation. It can also be a mode of personal relating and bonding, certifying affection and solidifying and deepening a human relationship. The bishops seem ignorant of this fact.
Whether sexually active gay Catholics should take communion is not my issue. But traditionally for Christianity the informed conscience is authoritative. The Informed conscience takes into account not only traditional doctrine but also the individual's condition and circumstances. If gays are fully convinced that their sexual activity is not sinful, they should feel free to take communion. Most heterosexual Catholic couples using birth control have already made exactly that determination.
31 Comments for “Those Amusing Bishops”
posted by John on
Being gay and having grown up Catholic, I have many thoughts on the topic, but why bother? The Catholic Church has lost every shred of credibility and is undergoing a well-deserved demise throughout the West. Let’s leave these old fools to die in peace.
posted by James on
I disagree with the bishops. I don’t think homosexual orientation is disordered. I agree with the bishops that there are ways of expressing a homosexual orientation which are disordered. I think that the only way to express homosexuality, as with heterosexuality, is within a sexually exclusive, lifelong relationship.
I think that the church must balance acceptance and accountability. Gay people need to be welcomed, but they also need to be held accountable for their actions. It is to be hoped that the church will see that being gay is part of God’s good creation. That doesn’t mean that every form of gay expression is acceptable to God. The church needs to encourage gays to seek sexually exclusive, lifelong relationships and discourage promiscuous, exploitative, and abusive behavior. Acceptance doesn’t mean simply baptizing secular culture.
I wish the Catholic bishops would see the goodness of being gay–but I also want them to hold gays accountable for those actions which lead them away from God.
If the gay community is going to ask for marriage, and if it wants the church’s support, it is going to have start developing lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships and making those the norm for gay behavior. If Christians see the Spirit at work in these kinds of relationships, they will be more likely to be persuaded that God blesses lifelong, sexually exclusive gay relationships.
posted by John on
James – You want the Church to hold gay people accountable for those actions that lead them away from God? I’m a gay, former Catholic who has absolutely nothing to do with the gay super-organism that you seem to imagine exists. I’ll tell you what led me away – falling in love, chaste and totally unrequited love. My action was to make the radical decision that come hell or high water I wouldn’t spend the rest of my life lying to everyone around me.
posted by James on
I think that not lying is an important step, and I dislike the idea that the bishops suggest we continue to hide who we are. On the other hand, I’m not into the “Hey, world, I’m gay!” 24/7 attitude so well represented by Rosie O’Donnell.
Part of being a member of a spiritual community is acceptance–but the other is accountability. We should be able to accept the fact that we don’t always know what’s best for us. I think it is important for church leaders to set guidelines–but they overstep their bounds when they try to stand between people and God.
I think that those in the gay community who want to live in relationship with God should start figuring out what the guidelines are. We don’t have to be tolerant and accepting of every form of homosexual expression–sometimes, we need to speak the truth in love and say what is not working. There is much at the Pride rallies and parades which I don’t feel I need to support or tolerate.
For that reason, I like the fact that the bishops are trying to understand homosexuality and offer guidelines for homosexual moral choices. I think they got it wrong. But I don’t think George Michael and Lance Bass have the right answers, either. I think that gay marriage is the solution, and we have to be willing to be seen as intolerant and unsupportive if we reject those behaviors which don’t lead to a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship.
posted by John on
James – I hope you will begin to think about how some ostentatious manifestations of being gay are simply a reaction to rejection. Human beings can be dicouragingly cowardly, it’s true, but if you yourself have the courage I think you will find some gay men who live up to your hopes.
posted by raj on
James | November 24, 2006, 9:33pm |
Part of being a member of a spiritual community is acceptance–but the other is accountability. We should be able to accept the fact that we don’t always know what’s best for us. I think it is important for church leaders to set guidelines–but they overstep their bounds when they try to stand between people and God.
Poor deluded James. James apparently believes that the Pharisees–uh, church leaders–are supposed to set guidelines for the rest of us. Including the rest of us who do not believe in Kissing Hanks–er, god’s–Ass. If James wants to kiss Hank’s ass, that’s his business. Some of us aren’t interested in doing so.
I think that those in the gay community who want to live in relationship with God should start figuring out what the guidelines are.
As far as I can tell, they have. And those of us who aren’t interested in kissing Hank’s ass have figured out our own guidelines. So, what’s your problem?
posted by Michael on
I am a practicing Catholic and am active in my parish. I am troubled by the bishops position, but I feel as long as they do not address adultry, divorce and sex between unmarried straights, they have no credibility with me. I am called a supermarket catholic (picking what to follow) but it seems to me so are the bishops when they are not speaking out against all out of wedlock sex. I remain Catholic because a faith based on the Word and Sacraments is an avenue to relationship with God that other denominations do not provide.
posted by Randy R. on
I was born and baptised a catholic. The only things I find worthwhile in the catholic church are the beautiful clothes of the bishops, the wonderful baroque or romantic style churches, and the nice music. Other than that, I really dont’ see anything for me.
So I go once in a while to the Christmas mass and other holy days just to enjoy the pageantry. It’s quite nice.
Once I lived in Cleveland as a student and the nearest catholic church was celebrated in a god-forsaken basement! I refused to go at all. For Easter, I went to the Italian church, which was quite a hike, but well worth it — much prettier, and better music. Plus all those hot italian men.
posted by Randy R. on
Ever been to a protestant church? Geez, could it be more boring! Usually, they are this modernistic-type building, there is no stained glass, nothing to delight the eye.
But the worst are those mega-suburban churches. Might as well be a cattle ranch. Just a big ugly auditorium with a stage, filled with amateur musicians who can’t sing on-key, or worse, they have a drum section. They sing these horrible ditties about “God love me, and He loves Everyone!” Except gays, of course. Once I went to a one of these churches because my sister dragged me there. There was a huge banner overhead that proclaimed, “All Sinners Welcome Here!” That made me want to puke.
All in all, I prefer some tasteful Victorian church that one can still find in an old section of downtown in most cities. The stained glass is usually impressive, the organ is in good condition, and most of all, the pews are empty of righteous people. in fact, they are mostly empty of ANY people.
It’s there I feel most welcome and at home.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I’m with Randy R. I love beautiful churches and ritual. I like to attend temple for the same reason and I love cantorial/Hassidic music.
But…
There is NO justification for this restraint of gay people and the evidence that gays and lesbians are a symbiotic, universal and indigenous part of human life.
Different, but not BAD.
This is where I tire of strict religious groups.
Our civil, marriage and family laws regard difference within a few basic EQUALIZING basic factors.
Even people with CLINICAL emotional problems are allowed to marry and bear children.
No human being is denied basic rights based on SINGLE characteristic discrimination. And this single characteristic of being gay, bears EVERY resemblence to being straight, just shy of procreating.
But intentionally or involutarily or temporarily sterile straight people aren’t treated so cruelly by any church or society any more.
They qualify what love is between gay people through a STRAIGHT people lens.
Frankly, I am WHOLLY distrustful of strict organized religious communities.
All religious texts were written, interpreted and controlled by MEN.
Strict religious communities are offended by women’s bodies and functions.
Denial of education and equality is the first casualty of such power to religious teaching.
Only those homes of worship where all are welcome, equal, respected and loved-regardless of gender, sexual orientation and other religious affiliation is where I”ll go.
Hopefully these places will be the gold standard for those who want to commune together.
And hopefully God’s goal from the beginning.
posted by JoySword on
Very interesting and supportive commentary from the National Catholic Reporter (see http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006d/112406/112406v.htm). Here’s a sample:
“It is difficult to figure out how to approach these documents. They are products of some realm so removed from the real lives of the faithful one has to wonder why any group of busy men administering a church would bother. They ignore science, human experience and the groups they attempt to characterize. The documents are not only embarrassing but insulting and degrading to those the bishops are charged to lead. The saddest thing is that the valuable insights the bishops have into the deficiencies and influences of the wider culture get buried.”
posted by James on
You can criticize the bishops, but what do you have to offer in their place? At least they’re asking the right question: What kind of homosexual behavior does God approve of? I believe in God. I want to do God’s will. I’m gay. It would be helpful to know what God intends for me as a gay man. I think that much of the behavior the gay community tolerates is not acceptable to God. Where are those in the gay community who, like the bishops, are trying to discern the will of God for gay men? I don’t find them at Pride parades or Rainbow rallies. Go ahead and accuse the bishops of being wrong–but where else do we turn to find any community trying to figure out God’s plan for gays?
I suspect there will be a lot of mocking and derision from the “tolerant and diverse” group of gays we have here, just for asking about God’s will. Oh, well–mock away–but if anyone has a serious answer, I’d love to hear it.
(And don’t say the MCC or UCC–they’re just trying to use moral relativism and call it Christian.)
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
When can we have a media-covered convention of Logicians, who can issue a very simple one-sentence statement:
Religion is mystical superstition produced as a form of non-governmental control.
posted by raj on
James | November 28, 2006, 11:00am |
You can criticize the bishops, but what do you have to offer in their place?
Sorry to have to tell you, but it is not up to those of us who are sentient beings to offer those, who are apparently, not anything “in their place.”
At least they’re asking the right question: What kind of homosexual behavior does God approve of? I believe in God. I want to do God’s will.
For those of use who are uninterested in kissing Hank’s ass, your comment is irrelevant. If you feel a need for you to kiss Hank’s ass, please feel free to do so. The problem is that many of those, like you, who apparently feel a need to kiss Hank’s ass want to make the rest of us kiss Hank’s ass, too.
So, go away, run back to your buddies at FreeRepublic.com, kiss Hank’s ass, and leave the rest of us alone.
posted by Marc on
“Hardly anyone pays much attention to what the Catholic bishops say about sexuality.”
Exactly. And that is the entire point here. Who really cares what the bishops, the pope, et. al. say about the gay community? I simply don’t understand why any self-respecting gay man would subject himself to a dogma that is little more than prejudice wrapped in pompous self-righteousness. At what point do we think these humans have any authority to question what is moral or not? (And please don’t give me the Bible argument – we hardly follow everything that human-written book says.) Society certainly dictates that we practice our sex or sexuality in private, or within reasonable bonds in public, but as long as that is with a consenting adult, I don’t see why we should give a rat’s ass about the bishops. Their statements would almost be funny if they weren’t so tragically misguided and hypocritical.
posted by Fitz on
“Hardly anyone pays much attention to what the Catholic bishops say about sexuality”
Well, their are more than a billion Christians world wide. Catholocism represents the largest denomination amoung them.
posted by James on
While your points are good, they are not “gay.” Gay people can disagree about whether there’s a God. I start with the premise that God exists. I’m still gay. I believe God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. Still gay here. I believe that the Christian community can work with the Holy Spirit to discern the will of God. Yep, still gay.
So, I look to the leaders of the church community, who have set themselves apart to actively discern the will of God, to help me make decisions. I don’t want to know what you or what society at large thinks of my behavior. I want to know what God thinks of my behavior. I want to know what God wants this gay man to do with his sexuality. In the same way I trust my doctor to know more about medicine than I do since he has given his life over to studying medicine, I trust church leaders to know more about the will of God than I do, since they have given their lives over to discerning the will of God.
I think the church leaders were wrong in this case. However, at least they are trying to figure out what God wants gay men to do–the gay community doesn’t seem to care if their actions are in line with God’s will or not. Which is fine, if you don’t believe in God or care whether He exists. But for those gay men who believe in God and want to do God’s will, the gay community doesn’t help very much.
I am coming to believe that God blesses lifelong, sexually exclusive gay relationships. I am hoping that the Christian Community as a whole will discern this. I don’t want gay marriage unless it is God’s will.
posted by Fitz on
James – I like your open minded, God centered approach. By way of good will- I recommend the following links. (just suggestions, paths that have worked for others)
“I want to know what God wants this gay man to do with his sexuality. In the same way I trust my doctor to know more about medicine than I do since he has given his life over to studying medicine, I trust church leaders to know more about the will of God than I do, since they have given their lives over to discerning the will of God.”
http://davidmorrison.typepad.com/sed_contra/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/courageonline/
posted by James on
I appreciate the links, but I don’t believe that God requires or even wants chastity for gay men. I think that homosexuality is part of God’s good creation. I like being gay. I’d like to have solid, loving gay relationship which involves a lot of sex. I think God wants me to have that as well. I want to have a lifelong, supportive partnership. I think my current chastity and celibacy is pretty much shame-based. I think the bishops’ teaching is shame-based and toxic. However, I also think much of the flamboyant and exotic behavior of the gay community is shame-based and toxic. I just want a normal, everyday marriage. I wish there was a community which celebrated gay normality.
posted by jomicur on
Marc, there is a very simple reason why what the bishops say matters. They have enormous political clout and financial resources. To my knowledge, the Catholic church has opposed gay equality legislation in every single jurisdiction where it has been proposed. And have won the day in more than a few of those jurisdictions. What they say matters because, even for those of us sensible to recognize it for the nonsense it is, it still affects our lives.
posted by Ley Druid on
I would also like to thank James for his posts. They are another example of good that has come as a result of the Catholic bishops’ statement.
Is chastity good, bad or neutral?
Consider two people who express their love for one another sexually. Later, unintentionally, one discovers that s/he no longer loves this person, but rather, truly loves somebody else. Who should be denied the desire to live in a lifelong, committed, sexual relationship (the one who continues to love the other or the one who now loves someone else)? Why?
posted by Marc on
Good point, Jomicur. I was meaning it more in terms of self-image. Gays should not allow the rantings of a dysfunctional organization – that has long since shown its true stripes as far as morality goes – affect how we feel about ourselves. But it is important for gays to call them on these nonsensical statements. It is a sad reality that they still hold so much political clout, but the latest election may prove that people are wising up. Still, I find it incredible at this point that gays would cling to the Catholic faith even after such remarks. The logic I often get is “I love the Catholic faith, but don’t agree with everything they believe,” but I don’t really know how you can separate the two. You can’t cherry pick which parts of their doctrines you like, and call yourself Catholic. It is the same way with the Bible. You can’t only believe certain parts, and say you think the Bible is true word of God. Maybe that’s why I am part of the growing trend of people who think spirituality and faith are personal matters that really don’t need a dogma to give them clarity.
posted by Godless Sodomite on
“You can’t cherry pick which parts of their doctrines you like, and call yourself Catholic.”
I agree with you, but it seems that we are both wrong. I left the church a long time ago, but most of my family are still Catholic. No two of them believe quite the same thing; they all have make-it-up-as-you-go-along religions but still identify as Catholics, though their beliefs diverge severely from official dogma. While I’m sure there are many Catholics who follow church doctrine and believe dogma, I don’t personally know anyone who does. Not a single one.
Not for nothing, but the bible is so internally contradictory it is impossible not to cherry pick from it. Even the most die-hard fundie must necessarily ignore some passages.
posted by Marc on
Not sure we are wrong, Godless. (Love the name.) Like you, I have many “Catholic” friends who go to church but believe zip in the church’s doctrines. It makes me wonder why exactly they identify themselves as Catholic. Some tell me they like the window dressing – the ceremonies, the music, the architecture, etc. — but this seems even more incredulous to me. If you’re religious belief is guided by the pomp-and-circumstance or aesthetics of the building, then I think you need to seriously evaluate your religion. I even know priests who tell me they don’t believe in the church’s doctrines. True Catholic? Maybe there really isn’t such a thing. Practicing Catholic? That sounds even more disingenuous.
posted by jomicur on
Marc, I find this ?cherry-picking Catholicism? (or Methodism, or Presbyterianism or whatever) equally baffling. When I reached what the church calls ?the age of reason? and began to think for myself, it became quite clear to me that I think most of what they teach is rubbish, much of it pernicious. (And that happened during my year in a seminary.) So I got out. Why others don?t is completely bewildering to me. It?s like saying ?I?m a mathematician but I don?t believe 2 + 2 = 4.? My own view tends to mirror Nietzsche: The last Christian died on the cross.
posted by Mountain Queen on
The first person to tell me that homosexuality was a sin was a Catholic priest. I wasn’t Catholic…but I went to talk to a priest…go figure. Years later I know that Catholic priests know from nothing. Promoting a religious doctrine is only power-seeking. These guys have created a system backed by false literature and the craftiest bull on earth. When the world grows up, they’ll shut down the collection plate in every small town in America; they’ll shut down the embassies, the churches, and well all live in peace. It’s gonna take a few thousand years, but eventually the Catholic church will go the way of other failed belief systems.
I won’t live that long to see it, but I know it’s coming.
posted by Raot on
Perhaps the Catholic Church is right and homosexuality is only an inclination, not an orientation? This is not meant to be an offensive suggestion – I just wonder how convincing the evidence for the view the Church is rejecting really is.
posted by Fitz on
Raot
?Perhaps the Catholic Church is right and homosexuality is only an inclination, not an orientation??
?just wonder how convincing the evidence for the view the Church is rejecting really is.
Well Raot ? the most recent research can be seen to support the contentions of the church regarding the malleability of sexual expression. The largest study to date is quoted below.
?[E]stimating a single number for the prevalence of homosexuality is a futile exercise,?
Laumann declares in the first paragraph of an entire chapter devoted to the subject.
“It is futile not because of bias, underreporting, methodological difficulties, or complexities of behavior, but ?because it presupposes assumptions that are patently false: that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.? 19 All the evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is not a ?stable trait.? Furthermore, the authors found to their surprise that its instability over the course of life was one-directional: declining, and very significantly so. Homosexuality tended spontaneously to ?convert? into heterosexuality as a cohort of individuals aged, and this was true for both men and women?
Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States Chicago: University of Chicago (1994).
posted by Godless Sodomite on
In keeping with the sentiment of Mountain Queen, I’m with Diderot on this one:
“Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”
I couldn’t agree more.
The White Queen in ALICE IN WONDERLAND boasts that she “believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” The religious people I know manage to keep believing those things long after lunch. Perhaps this cognitive dissonance is the reason why so many people are content to call themselves Catholic (or fill-in-the-blank denomination) without actually caring about most of the dictates of their chosen creed.
I agree with you guys. This all makes as much sense as a lifelong butcher who doesn’t believe in killing animals for a living. If you know what you do and don’t believe, why not call yourself what you are rather than its opposite. As an atheist, it would be very foolish of me to call myself a Catholic merely because I was baptized as an infant. And yet I know people who would call themselves Catholic if asked but who hold no belief in the supernatural.
posted by Terry on
I have met priests who do not think I can ever be a priest because I am a woman. My gaydar is not half bad and to those priests that is super hypocitial.
I grew up with my two ‘aunts’ who have been together for forty years. It’s natural to me.
When the vatican put out it’s letter that started with “the Church, expert in humanity…” I really thought I was going to vomit.
I think God makes us what we are and to honor him, we must rejoice in it and circle ourselves with God’s love. Anything else is hurtful and hateful.
Terry
posted by Gilbert Caron on
Paul, with the way the American bishops castigated Brokeback Mountain, I’m surprised that you make no mention of it. Surely, no intelligent persons with even a rudimentary understanding of the arts would buy into such claptrap. Why didn’t you grab the opportunity to discredit the bishops even further?
I try to think as objectively as possible, fully aware that my sexual oriention may have some unconscious influence on my thinking. I am quite sincere in my belief that Brokeback Mountain is one of the most brilliant movies ever made. However, that is besides the point.