A New Respect for Gay Catholics? Not if the Krazies Can Help It

Cardinal Shonbron with Pope
Benedict XVI

What is fascinating is that with the release of the Synod’s mid-term relatio, the krazies have all but forgotten their passion to keep the divorced and remarried from Holy Communion and focused on the section entitled “Welcoming Homosexual Persons,” paragraphs 50, 51, and 52 of the relatio.
Now the first thing to keep in mind is that the relatio is nothing other than a synopses of what has been said in the first week of the meeting so that the participants can begin to focus their ideas towards a more definitive statement at the end. The relatio is not a deliberative document and has no authority whatsoever. It is simply a sort of aide-memoire to guide the participants in their responses and reactions. (Responses and reactions are two different types of replies, somewhat akin to a positive and a negative charge, though not necessarily with a response being favorable and a reaction critical. It is possible to have positive reactions and negative responses. It is more a matter of a response being a considered and rational reply; a reaction being a more spontaneous and emotional reply. ) The Blogosphere has lit up with reactions to the relatio however and with the section on homosexuals and their place in the Church getting much more of a reaction—and a negative one—than Cardinal Kasper’s proposal of some sort of penitential process by which those in non-canonical second marriages could receive the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist. The Bêtes Noires of the Krazies’ Nightmare on Castro Street are Cardinal Christoph Shönborn and Archbishop Bruno Forte. The Cardinal, a Dominican and one of the leading intellectuals among the College of Cardinals, is Archbishop of Vienna. Forte is the Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto in Italy and a distinguished systematic theologian. Both Shönborn and Forte received their Archepiscopal appointments from Pope John Paul II. They also were both well known as progressive thinkers at the time of their appointments. Shönborn in particular had previously criticized a number of traditional positions on sexual ethics and suggested that there is a need for certain matters to be rethought. I could not agree more as most of our sexual ethics have not been informed by advances in the physical, behavioral, and social sciences over the past century and a half.
All that being said, I think the relatio is dead wrong in what it says about persons with same-sex attractions. The section begins by saying:

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities?

What gifts and qualities do homosexuals have? Bruce is gay and he is really good at arranging the flowers on the altar? Doris is a Lesbian and her being a contractor saves us a fortune when the air-conditioning breaks down? I am sorry but Bruce may be really good at fixing the flowers on the altar and that is his gift, whatever his sexuality. Doris has engineering skills and that is her gift, whatever her sexual orientation.  Their sexual predispositions are irrelevant to their gifts and it is condescending to imply that gifts and talents proceed not from the individual in se but from his or her sexual orientation.  We have learned not to make generalities that reinforce stereotypes such as African-Americans have really good singing voices or that Hispanics make really good salsa.  We have had too many Church musicians fired or gym teachers fired because of their sexual orientation to put up with that sort of nonsense. You are a musician or an artist or a designer or landscaper or sheet-rock installer regardless of your sexual identity. Your gifts are intrinsic to who you are at a very different level than your sexual orientation.  What we need to say is that a person’s sexual orientation must not provide an excuse for excluding his or her gifts from the mission of the Church. 

The one gift rooted in the experience of being gay that I can think LGBT people might well have to bring to the Church is that they know what exclusion is, what it means to be kept out and turned away. They also know what it means to be restricted in how they express themselves and how they are expected to show affection by social conventions that are arbitrary and foreign to them. Perhaps one forum in which sexual orientation might make a difference is who preaches the Good Friday sermon.
He was spurned and avoided by men,
a man of suffering, knowing pain,
Like one from whom you turn your face,
spurned, and we held him in no esteem.
Isaiah 53:3 From the Old Testament Lesson for the Good Friday liturgy.

Of course there are others who could equally well give a reflection on this text—exclusion, isolation, and rejection are by no means solely the experience of LGBT people in the Church—just ask the families of those with “special needs” in terms of developmental challenges or autism.  But it does show us why the Synod needs to make it clear that there is room in the Church for all. The issue is not about sexuality: the issue is do we exclude anyone by not guaranteeing them “a fraternal space in our communities.” We need from the Synod guarantees that when people come to church—whether for Sunday worship, funerals, weddings, baptisms, whatever—that they are treated with respect and welcome. We need guarantees that when a same-sex couple bring their child for baptism or to register the child in the school or in a parish athletic program, they will not be turned away or treated any differently than anyone else. Who goes to communion is a matter between the individual and his or her confessor. But any and all should be welcome to sing in the choir or take up the collection or serve as a greeter at the Church door. Unfortunately experience shows us that we do need a clear and unmitigated promise of such a welcome in the Church.

And to be fair to the clergy that welcome is most often there.  The Rector of one major east-coast cathedral told me: “I couldn’t run this place without my gay parishioners.  They are the altar servers, the lectors, the choir members, the ushers, on the parish council, the finance board.  They take up the door-to-door census of the neighborhood, run the food pantry, and drive the old ladies to Church.”  A few years back I was visiting friends of mine, a gay couple, in the Maritime provinces.  Their pastor—a priest from Ireland who is in his seventies—told me: “Those fellows are the heart of my parish.  XXX is chairman of the finance board; yyyy bakes the Eucharistic bread.  They are both there whenever I need them.”  I don’t think that is very exceptional, in fact I think that is the norm.  But I, for one, would welcome a clear cut policy from the top that says it should be so.  I also know enough LGBT people who today are Episcopalians or Lutherans or Presbyterians because the gifts they had to bring—as individuals—were rejected and turned down because they are gay.  Jesus did not hang on the cross for us to turn people away, sinners or saints.  And my experience is is that those who see others as sinners are even more lost in sin themselves while those who appreciate the giftedness of others are blessed with grace.     What the krazies want is continued justification for their bias and they are frightened that the Synod will identify their self-righteousness for what it is: pure pharisaical hypocrisy. 

Blessed Are the Peacemakers; Where Are the Peacemakers?

Recently Argentine President Christina Kirchner asked Pope Francis to mediate Argentina’s dispute with Great Britain over an archipelago which the Argentines, who claim sovereignty, call the Malvinas Islands and which Britain, which holds sovereignty, calls the Falklands.  The Islands, about three hundred miles off the coast of Argentina, have been in dispute since the eighteenth century when both Britain and Spain had settlements there.  The islands were unsettled at the time the Europeans first reached them and the majority of inhabitants there today are of British descent.  In 1982 the Argentines invaded the islands in hopes of establishing their sovereignty but were beaten in the subsequent war by the British.  Argentina is once again rumbling the drums of nationalism and this led to the invitation to the Pope to mediate the struggle.  For years now the Decolonizaiton Committee of the United Nations has called for a mediated settlement—but should it be the Pope?  Britain does not think so. 
Britain declined papal mediation with politicians claiming in the words of one Falklands legislator: “the last thing we need is religion inserted in this.”  Britain’s UN ambassador, Mark Lyall Grant, said: “I certainly share the view that religion is unlikely to help solve this.”  Once again the zanies took up their cry about how the Church is being disrespected.  But it is obvious to all but the most dense that Pope Francis is not the man to mediate this dispute, but not because he is Pope or represents “religion.”  He is an Argentine.  He has a vested interest.  He comes from a background that is bound to bias him.  And it puts him in a no-win situation: he is bound to alienate either the Argentines or the Brits.  It is just a stupid idea.  But even more stupid are people like Ambassador Grant or local councilman who thinks religion is the last thing needed to resolve these counter-claims.  Religious leaders—ones who could be truly uninvested in the dispute—would be perfect.  Perhaps Archbishop TuTu from South Africa would be good at this.  The Lutheran Archbishop of Uppsala or Cardinal Shönborn of Vienna are two others who have the potential to be good mediators.  There could also be Riccardo di Segni, the Chief Rabbi of Rome.  Or, if you wanted the best, the Dalai Lama—no one has more credibility (except in China) than he.  I think religion could play a very valuable role here.  But, of course, there are others like Ambassador Grant, who write religion off.  And not without reason.  For all its potential to be an agency of peace, religion—including Christianity and including Catholicism—all too often are, if not the source of conflict, the gasoline its partisans pour on the flames that only make conflicts worse rather than better.  We need both as Church and as individuals to recapture our vocation to be peacemakers, agents of reconciliation and not division. 

So, Is it John Paul the Great?

So is John Paul II “John Paul the Great.”  One sees him referred to as such at times—will the appellation stick?  There are only three popes known as “The Great” and two of them have the same name making it very difficult at times to figure out which one is being talked about.  You have Leo the Great.  And you have two Gregorys the Great, Gregory I and Gregory VII.  They both deserve the title though for different reasons.  Actually Wikipedia refers to Pope Nicholas I (reined 858-867) as "The Great" but I have never seen him called this in a history book.  The only distinguishing remarks about his papacy would be to say that he wasn't as bad as most popes of the ninth and tenth century so maybe he should be called Nicholas the Mediocre rather than Nicholas the Great.  But let me do some more research on him and maybe I can find some reason to let him join the very exclusive club to which the appelation "The Great" entitles you membership.        Leo the Great, (Leo I, reigned 440-461) is accorded the title for several reasons.  He defended Rome from Attila the Hun. The story goes that the Apostles Peter and Paul wielding swords appeared in the sky over the invader’s army throwing the Huns into panic.  In historical fact, Attila’s support lines were stretched, his troops decimated by plague, and he was afraid that further battle would make retreat back to his secure strongholds beyond the Dolomites impossible.  Who knows?  But Leo had another achievement and that was the "Letter of Leo" outlining the two natures (one divine, the other human) in the one Person of Christ.  "Peter has spoken through Leo" the Council bishops declared at Chalcedon!  His was a crucial papacy in establishing the claim for Rome to be the Apostolic See and arbiter of Christian orthodoxy. 
     Gregory I, also known as Gregory the Great (the first of two) reigned from 590-604 and is known for his patristic writings, most notably the Moralia in Job, probably one of the five most important books of the Christian Middle Ages.  He also sent Augustine and his band of merry monks (no, that was Robin Hood who had a band of merry men, sorry) his band of monks to Canterbury where they established a mission beachhead that was to evangelize the Anglo Saxon peoples of southern England.  And of course there was the chant—never catchy tunes, but hey, they’ve lasted.  Like Leo he is worth a blog entry of his own some day.             
     Gregory VII is also termed “Gregory the Great.” His papacy lasted form 1073 until 1085.    As we have seen in some blogs a great reformer of the Church, he struggled to eliminate simony and impose clerical celibacy.  More important he fought—and suffered greatly—to free the Church from the control of the Holy Roman Emperors.  The eleventh century Reform of the Church credited to him—the Gregorian Reform—was one of the most important epochs in the history of the Church.
     Now, as for John Paul.  It is complicated.  I remember when he died hearing a commentator on the BBC say, quoting Dickens—“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”  That about sums it up.
     As for the best, John Paul was the single most important player in the downfall of the Soviet Empire.  His election to the papacy energized his home nation of Poland and galvanized resistance to its puppet state that followed Moscow’s lead.  John Paul fanned the flames of nationalism, offering public support to the Solidarity movement challenging the hegemony of the Communist Party and demanding governmental reforms leading to democracy.   John Paul wrote extensive critiques of both Marxist-Leninist thought and Free Market Capitalism, offering an alternative to both in his socio-political-economic construct termed “Solidarity.” 
     John Paul, like his contemporary, American President Reagan, had an effective foreign policy but disastrously retrogressive domestic policies.  In terms of external relations of the Church with modern political and religious institutions he was a genius.  Not only did he hammer away at the Marxist-Leninist regimes of Eastern Europe, but he built very good relationships with other Christian Churches and with non-Christian religions.  In fact his ecumenical and inter-religious ties made many in the Church—including his number 2 key aide, Cardinal Ratzinger—very nervous.  Some thought he went way too far in his dialogues with those outside the Church.   Whatever one thinks from a doctrinal viewpoint, he certainly created an atmosphere of trust and open dialogue.  Unfortunately, while it contributed to a deepened cordiality,  it did little to actually resolve any of the neuralgic points and by the end of his reign the various Christian Churches remained as far apart from one another, at least as regards restoring the unity of Christendom, as ever.  He also had a tremendous popular appeal especially to younger people.  They didn't necessarily heed his message--especially regarding sexual and reproductive ethics--but they loved him nonetheless.  He should be seen more as a popular cult figure than a succesful shaper of moral values and doctrines. 
     As to the downside of the John Paul's papacy, within the Church, the fractures grew ever deeper.  John Paul seems to have not been very enthusiastic about many of the developments of the Second Vatican Council, particularly those that restored authority to the bishops that had been taken over by Rome since the Napoleonic reorganization of Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century.  The brilliant leadership that had been appointed by Pius XII and guided the Church through the Council of John XXIII and Paul VI—men like Cardinals Bea, Alfrink, König, Lorschieder, Arns, Suenens—were to be seen no more.  His years in totalitarian Poland—where the Church under its Primate had to be as ruthlessly dictatorial as the State to prevail—imbued him with a fear of pluriformity  and bishops seem to have been chosen for their blind loyalty.  There were exceptions, of course, such as the Benedictine Cardinal Hume of Westminster or the Dominican Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna but overall there was certainly a dumbing down of the hierarchy.  Some intelligent minds such as Dulles or Congar were given red hats when they were too old to be of any danger, but overall the John Paul appointees were mediocre at best.  Nor did John Paul seem to know what to do about the fractures within the Church.  While he could be inflexible he also was overly anxious to hold the Church together even when groups who rejected the Second Vatican Council, its teachings, and its liturgy were acting in bad faith.  His decision to permit the revival of the pre-conciliar liturgy as an acceptable option has only served to polarize the Church even further as he seemed not to understand that the liturgy was not the key issue of the Lefebvre schism but rather the doctrinal thrust of the Council, particularly its stance on ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, and freedom of conscience.  Under John Paul, prelates and priests who reject the Conciliar teachings found their ways into the higher reaches of the Curia Romana and have caused considerable confusion as the papal administration failed and continues to fail to speak with a consistent voice.  This is symptomatic of the problem that John Paul never got control of the Curia which took on a life of its own in his pontificate and has continued to be unmanageable in the reign of his successor.   
     Most detrimental to his historical position John Paul bought the Legionnaires of Christ hook, line, and sinker.  The financial scandals (we won’t mention the sexual scandals) by which the Legion founder, Marcial Maciel bought protection from papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano,  and was able to maintain papal favor are just now coming to light but they threaten to undo the reputation of the late pope to the point of making his beatification a conundrum if not a scandal.   While Opus Dei has yet to be tainted with this sort of scandal, there were serious questions about the beatification and canonization of its founder, Monsignor Escriva, and whether or not his sainthood was “bought.”  Like the Legion, only more so, Opus Dei has a long reputation of freely scattering large sums of money around various Vatican Offices and while no sexual scandal has tainted the reputation of the founder, there were stories that Monsignor Escriva’s disillusionment with contemporary Catholicism was leading him to look beyond the Roman Communion for a spiritual  home for himself and his followers.  Those allegations have been neither proved nor disproved, but equally serious are the ties of Escriva to the Fascist Regime in Franco’s Spain and whether they should have been an impediment to formal sainthood.  If Opus Dei didn’t have the reputation of paying, and paying well, for everything on their agenda, the canonization would probably not be called into question but unfortunately their “generosity” has called the integrity of Vatican officials under John Paul into question.  And that brings up in particular the suspectibility of John Paul’s secretary, now Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow Dziwisz, to being bribed for access to the pope.  Frankly it is all  a mess.  “Blessed”—well, that is water over the dam and perhaps someday “Saint” as his personal integrity—if not his sagacity—seems to be above question.  But “The Great.”  No.  John Paul is not John Paul the Great nor will he ever be if history be taken seriously.