Re-blogged post about Catholic attitudes to gays

Wistfall postd this on my TG thread but it isn't really a trans issue but a gay one so re-posted it here

wistfall1 said:

Sorry to hop in here with this, but maybe soon things will get muskiier. Can you believe this? They go with the prevailing wind. Check this out and maybe look for much more acceptance:

Bishops say gays have gifts to offer church
NICOLE WINFIELD
Associated Press

VATICAN CITY (AP) —— Catholic bishops showed unprecedented openness Monday to accepting the real lives of many Catholics today, saying gays had gifts to offer the church and should be accepted and that there were "positive" aspects to a couple living together without being married.

A two-week meeting of bishops on family issues arrived at its halfway point with a document summarizing the closed-door debate so far. No decisions were announced, but the tone of the report was one of almost-revolutionary acceptance, rather than condemnation, with the aim of guiding Catholics toward the ideal of a lasting marriage.

Bishops clearly took into account the views of Pope Francis, whose "Who am I to judge?" comment about gays signaled a new tone of welcome for the church. Their report also reflected the views of ordinary Catholics who, in responses to Vatican questionnaires in the run-up to the synod, rejected church teaching on birth control and homosexuality as outdated and irrelevant.
The bishops said gays had "gifts and qualities" to offer and asked rhetorically if the church was ready to provide them a welcoming place, "accepting and valuing their sexual orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony."

For a 2,000-year-old institution that teaches that gay sex is "intrinsically disordered," even posing the question is significant.

"This is a stunning change in the way the Catholic church speaks of gay people," said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit author. "The Synod is clearly listening to the complex, real-life experiences of Catholics around the world, and seeking to address them with mercy, as Jesus did."

The bishops repeated that gay marriage was off the table. But it acknowledged that gay partnerships had merit.

"Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions, it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners," they said.

Conservative groups rejected the report as a "betrayal" and even heresy.

"What will Catholics parents now have to tell their children about contraception, cohabiting with partners or living homosexual lifestyles?" asked Maria Madise, coordinator of the Voice of the Family, which counts pro-life and conservative groups as members.

"Will those parents now have to tell their children that the Vatican teaches that there are positive and constructive aspects to these mortal sins? This approach destroys grace in souls."
For heterosexuals, the bishops said the church must grasp the "positive reality of civil weddings" and even cohabitation, with the aim of helping the couple commit eventually to a church wedding.

The bishops also called for a re-reading of the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae that outlined the church's opposition to artificial birth control. The bishops said couples should be unconditionally open to having children, but that the message of Humanae Vitae "underlines the need to respect the dignity of the person in the moral evaluation of the methods of birth control."
There has been much talk inside the synod about applying the theological concept of the "law of gradualness" in difficult family situations, including contraception. The concept encourages the faithful to take one step at a time in the search for holiness.

Applying the concept to matters of birth control would be an acknowledgement that most Catholics already use artificial contraception in violation of church teaching. But it would encourage pastors to meet them where they are, and then help them come to understand the full reasoning behind the ban and then adopt it themselves.

Bishops also called for "courageous" new ways to minister to families, especially those "damaged" by divorce. The document didn't take sides in the most divisive issue at the synod, whether Catholics who divorce and remarry without an annulment can receive Communion.

Church teaching holds that without an annulment, these Catholics are living in sin and thus ineligible to receive the sacraments.

The document said these Catholics deserve respect and should not be discriminated against, and then laid out the positions of both sides: those who want to maintain the status quo barring them from the sacraments, and those who favor a case-by-case approach, in which the couple undertake a path of penance.

Pope Francis has called for a more merciful approach to these couples, but conservatives have insisted there is no getting around Jesus' words that marriage is indissoluble.

There have been suggestions that the conservatives were being sidelined, if not silenced, behind the synod walls given Francis' known position on the matter.

Significantly, Francis decided at the end of last week to add six perceived progressives to the synod leadership to help prepare the final document after some conservatives were elected to leadership positions.

Filippino Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle said there had been "ample space" for people to speak their minds.
___
Follow Nicole Winfield at www.twitter.com/nwinfield
10/13/2014 10:20
* * * *

Again, pardon the interruption.

Peace, love, and maybe more good news to come soon.

w

Click to expand...

Any comments etc to Wistfall

The Catholic church is a dying institution. Younger people do not follow the old way anymore. I had a woman get in my face once about it. I asked her How does it affect you at all? Economic? Day to day? Are gay married couples storming your life? Then let it go and focus on yourself. Two gay men in a house far far away making pasta and being in love and married has no affect on my life. I have other things to worry about.

Relative Importance

The Catholic Church has doubled its membership over the past 50 years and 1 in 6 people worldwide are identified as Catholic. The Catholic Church contributes more to medical, educational, and social services annually than any other non-government organization. Over 5,000 hospitals, over 10,000 orphanages, goodness knows how many soup kitchens and homeless shelters, and over 100,000 schools providing primary or secondary education to over 50 million children are operated because of the billions of dollars given each year to Catholic charitable works.

But yeah. Let's bitch about an unenforceable policy regarding the comparable temporal appropriateness of who I'm fucking. That's important.

LesbianChickLit said:

The Catholic Church has doubled its membership over the past 50 years and 1 in 6 people worldwide are identified as Catholic. The Catholic Church contributes more to medical, educational, and social services annually than any other non-government organization. Over 5,000 hospitals, over 10,000 orphanages, goodness knows how many soup kitchens and homeless shelters, and over 100,000 schools providing primary or secondary education to over 50 million children are operated because of the billions of dollars given each year to Catholic charitable works.

But yeah. Let's bitch about an unenforceable policy regarding the comparable temporal appropriateness of who I'm fucking. That's important.

Click to expand...

IMHO, that big Catholic involvement in social services is a big part of why the Church line on LGBTI issues matters so much. Both in Australia and in the USA, a lot of government policy on social services relies on NGOs and especially the Catholic Church doing a lot of the heavy lifting. In some cases the Church even gets taxpayer money to provide those services (while attempting to avoid employing LGBTI staff).

But Catholic (and other conservative Christian) teachings on homosexuality are a major reason for LGBTI kids becoming homeless in the first place... and at the same time they make it harder for those kids to access the services these orgs provide. From Rolling Stone:

Research done by San Francisco State University's Family Acceptance Project, which studies and works to prevent health and mental*-health risks facing LGBT youth, empirically confirms what common sense would imply to be true: Highly religious parents are significantly more likely than their less-religious counterparts to reject their children for being gay – a finding that social-service workers believe goes a long way toward explaining why LGBT people make up roughly five percent of the youth population overall, but an estimated 40 percent of the homeless-youth population. The Center for American Progress has reported that there are between 320,000 and 400,000 homeless LGBT youths in the United States.
...
Siciliano had spent years living in monasteries and serving in shelters run by the Catholic Worker Movement before his own sexuality inextricably came between him and his institutional faith. "I ended up just feeling like the Catholic Church was wack," he says. "Cardinal O'Connor [the archbishop of New York at the time who once said if he was forced to hire homosexuals, he would shut down all of the Catholic schools and orphanages in the diocese] was like the arch-homophobe of America."
...
In one survey, approximately one in five LGBT youth were unable to secure short-term shelter, and 16 percent could not get assistance with longer-term housing – figures that were almost double those of their non-LGBT peers.

Since 2002, when President George W. Bush issued an executive order that permitted faith-based organizations to receive federal support for social services, an increased amount of federal funding has gone to churches and religion-*affiliated organizations where LGBT youth may not feel welcome. The biggest provider for homeless youth in the country is Covenant House, an organization based in New York and a shelter where LGBT teens have historically faced harassment.

Click to expand...

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture...ast-out-by-religious-families-20140903?page=3

Covenant House also has a very problematic record with trans kids:

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/06/covenant_house_humiliates_homeless_youth_again.php

LesbianChickLit said:

The Catholic Church has doubled its membership over the past 50 years and 1 in 6 people worldwide are identified as Catholic. The Catholic Church contributes more to medical, educational, and social services annually than any other non-government organization. Over 5,000 hospitals, over 10,000 orphanages, goodness knows how many soup kitchens and homeless shelters, and over 100,000 schools providing primary or secondary education to over 50 million children are operated because of the billions of dollars given each year to Catholic charitable works.

But yeah. Let's bitch about an unenforceable policy regarding the comparable temporal appropriateness of who I'm fucking. That's important.

Click to expand...

Around 2/3rds ($650 million) of the Catholic church's USA funding comes from government and that article shows how the Catholic church is resisting the law by refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of civil unions or same sex couples when it comes to adoption.
Can it be called charity when it comes with strings attached in this way?

Their synod further confirmed the churches stance on LGBT people today of course so yea, something to bitch about

So I re-read my post and "bitch" was a poorly chosen word. "Harp on" may have been closer to what I mean.

I also didn't mean to imply only private funding. About $3 billion a year in government funding is given to Catholic Charities USA (the largest Catholic affiliated U.S. charity) compared to the $1.5 billion it receives from private donations. The Catholic Charities of Kansas, Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, Catholic Relief Society, and Catholic Medical Mission Board all receive federal funding as well. Resolution has been correctly established that acceptance of government funds requires adherence to law, especially anti-discrimination laws.
http://www.forbes.com/companies/catholic-charities-usa/

The Catholic Community Services of Western Washington is funded largely by state money and at least four of the hired staff are gay and a whole lot of us volunteers. They start taking adoption applications from gay parents next year. (WA passed gay marriage in 2012 and they require three years of marriage before applying.) The only somewhat controversial outreach we have is Project Rachel, which provides counseling for women experiencing PTS and/or depression after having had an abortion. (I tried one day there and couldn't make it. I came home bawling and thankfully my girlfriend forbade me to go back.) Like the overwhelming majority of Catholics across the world, we're legitimately trying to help the poor and vulnerable as an organization without allowing personal judgments to interfere.
http://www.ccsww.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_index

At the Youth Center, we get kids fed and clothed and a safe place to sleep, then addiction/abuse/developmental disability help as needed, then help them to graduate or get a GED and find work and homes. The only time we don't take kids in is when we run out of mat space, but then we still place them. Some gay kids come through, but WA is a very liberal and progressive state so our statistics probably don't match the country as a whole. Most are abused runaways or abandoned youth or the children of gang members or junkies. Quite a few are gang members or junkies themselves.

I've always put MtoF trans kids in the girls' bunkroom. I haven't had any FtoM (that I know of). Bramblethorn, the article you posted seemed to suggest that they may prefer the guys' bunkroom and bathrooms? I don't mean to step on anyone's identity, but some of the kids we have aren't just the victims of bad breaks in life. Some are unpleasant individuals cooling their heels between juvvie and state, and they might very well rape or beat the crap out of someone they all agree is different. At the risk of hurting his feelings or making him uncomfortable, he'd be safer with the girls. I know that's intrinsically discrimination, but I don't want to put a kid in greater danger just to prove a point either?

Also, in *1997* the American Bishops' Committee on Marriage and Family published guidance for Catholic parents:

"...How can you best express your love—itself a reflection of God's unconditional love—for your child? At least two things are necessary.

First, don't break off contact; don't reject your child. A shocking number of homosexual youth end up on the streets because of rejection by their families. This, and other external pressures, can place young people at a greater risk for self-destructive behaviors like substance abuse and suicide.

Your child may need you and the family now more than ever. He or she is still the same person. This child, who has always been God's gift to you, may now be the cause of another gift: your family becoming more honest, respectful, and supportive. Yes, your love can be tested by this reality, but it can also grow stronger through your struggle to respond lovingly..."
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/homosexuality/always-our-children.cfm

There's no teaching that absolves parents of spiritual and material responsibility for their children. Those who do throw their children away out of a sense of embarrassment or shame and blame religion won't change with Catholicism. They're just like misandrists claiming to be feminists or nationalists claiming to be patriots. Anyone with that level of unnatural bigotry will just find a new rationalization.

Thanks for your post LCL and I take my hat off to you for your work. It's good to hear that the official rules are bent by those on the ground, but a shame that their efforts are not supported by the church's ruling body. Such is politics I suppose.

I seem to remember reading that the Salvation Army had a problem with providing for trans youth and again, perhaps at ground level, rules are bent?

FWIW, I'd like to be clear that I wasn't trying to slam individual Catholics, and if I came across that way I apologise. My beef is with the church hierarchy; I'm well aware that there are many grass-roots Catholics who are far more progressive about these issues. (My best friend and half my family are Catholics or ex-Catholics, though leaning more to the ex- these days; two decades of George Pell has a lot to do with that. And I have a lot of time for Father Bob Maguire.)

LesbianChickLit said:

The Catholic Community Services of Western Washington is funded largely by state money and at least four of the hired staff are gay and a whole lot of us volunteers.

Click to expand...

Yep, I suspect that if all the queer folk left tomorrow a lot of the Australian RCC would fall apart!

I've always put MtoF trans kids in the girls' bunkroom. I haven't had any FtoM (that I know of). Bramblethorn, the article you posted seemed to suggest that they may prefer the guys' bunkroom and bathrooms? I don't mean to step on anyone's identity, but some of the kids we have aren't just the victims of bad breaks in life. Some are unpleasant individuals cooling their heels between juvvie and state, and they might very well rape or beat the crap out of someone they all agree is different. At the risk of hurting his feelings or making him uncomfortable, he'd be safer with the girls. I know that's intrinsically discrimination, but I don't want to put a kid in greater danger just to prove a point either?

Click to expand...

I agree there's a dilemma there. But keep in mind that for a trans boy in that situation, he's probably already been through a lot of trauma related to people refusing to accept his gender identity - we're not just talking about the sort of hurt feelings that a cis person might feel on being accidentally misgendered, this is "rubbing salt into a festering wound" level. Refusing to acknowledge his gender ID may result in him leaving the shelter altogether.

I'm no expert in homeless care, but the National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have put together a guide to trans-friendly shelters. Their recommendation:

Each person should be treated as an individual. The best solution for these situations is
to have a conversation with the person about his or her privacy and safety needs, and
to ask that person, “Would it be better for you to be housed with women or with men?”
The transgender resident should be offered all of the housing options that are available
under shelter policies. The solutions to these situations will vary with the individual.
After discussing these issues with the resident, the staff person must ultimately allow
transgender people to make their own decisions, based on a personal evaluation of
which place is safer.

Even if he ends up deciding that it's just too dangerous to sleep in the male dorm and he'd better sleep in the female dorm instead. But there's still a huge difference between letting him choose between two not-great options and having the choice made for him without his input.

Failing that, if he can't be given that choice because of age or some other reason, the decision should at least be based on individual circumstances and not some blanket rule. Blanket rules are not friendly to trans people. (TBH, they're also not friendly to cis women who might be a little startled to be bunking with Buck Angel (NSFW) or similar.)

There's no teaching that absolves parents of spiritual and material responsibility for their children. Those who do throw their children away out of a sense of embarrassment or shame and blame religion won't change with Catholicism. They're just like misandrists claiming to be feminists or nationalists claiming to be patriots. Anyone with that level of unnatural bigotry will just find a new rationalization.

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of truth to that. People who are determined to be jerks will find a rationalisation for it in whatever religion they happen to follow, and the Church has made some steps in that direction.

But it's still sending extremely mixed messages on the subject. Not long after repeatedly refusing Communion to out gay parishioners and describing homosexuality as "a much greater health hazard than smoking", Pell was promoted to Archbishop of Sydney. And then to Cardinal. And then to head the Secretariat of the Economy. Not exactly encouraging. (Although there's some speculation that the latter was to get him out of the country; his testimony to the Royal Commission on Child Sex Abuse has been something of a train wreck.)

stickygirl said:

Thanks for your post LCL and I take my hat off to you for your work. It's good to hear that the official rules are bent by those on the ground, but a shame that their efforts are not supported by the church's ruling body. Such is politics I suppose.

I seem to remember reading that the Salvation Army had a problem with providing for trans youth and again, perhaps at ground level, rules are bent?

Click to expand...

Their website claims they're GLBT-friendly but the message doesn't seem to have got through to some of their individual members. A couple of years ago their Media Relations Director in .au agreed with the proposition that non-celibate gays deserved to die and trans people have been turned away from Salvos shelters, sometimes with fatal consequences. They also have a history of political lobbying against LGBT rights, and at least in .au some major abuse against children in their care.)

http://transgriot.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/rest-in-peace-jennifer-gale.html
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/05/04/3433957/salvation-army-transgender-shelter/
http://www.bilerico.com/2011/11/why_you_shouldnt_donate_to_the_salvation_army_bell.php

Just saw this one (I realize it is from a while ago!). With the Catholic church and its members, you always have to be careful, and I hear where Bramblethorn is coming from with the church and its hierarchy versus ordinary catholics. Ordinary Catholics here in the US, outside a conservative 20% who have their heads totally up the butts of the Bishops, are cafeteria Catholics, and most ordinary Catholics are a lot more positive towards gays than the general population (last I checked, about 65% of Catholics surveyed support same sex marriage, 80+ % support legal protections for LGBT people), so you cannot say "Catholics hate gays", it isn't true.


That said, the problem is with the hierarchy, especially here in the US, the Bishops for the most part were appointed by JPII and Benedict, who quite frankly for all their claims represent the most repressive, anti gay feelings of the church, all the talk about loving the sinner and hating the sin is absolute bs. As a group, when I see pictures of the US bishops, what i see are a bunch of nasty older men, who seem only obsessed by sexuality and sexual issues, like gays and abortion. These are the same men that while the current Pope (who isn't perfect but my God what a breath of fresh air compared to pete the polish prince and Der Pope) is talking about the incredible gap between rich and poor, the concentration of wealth in the upper 1% that is making the 19th century look tame who respond saying "Capitalism is Christian" and have have stayed shockingly silent while their political allies in the GOP have embraced Ayn Rand and the idea that the poor and working class are lazy garbage.......

The real problem with the church has been its leaders, and has been for a long time. The church has teachings, they have these formal documents from the vatican and so forth, that are supposed to be the true teachings of the church......but the problem with that is they are just words on a piece of paper if the actions of clergy and the hierarchy don't follow them. Church teaching says having gay sex is a sin, but it is a sin like others, and as Francis says, 'whom are we to judge?'..sounds all nice and good, we love you, etc......the problem is that the old "do as I say, not as I do doesn't work"..so take a look at the actions of actual churches and Bishops in this country. They claim to love gays as people, but for example, the official position of the US Bishops (which by the way was the position of both JPII and Benedict) was that the church should fight legal protections for LGBT people, anti discrimination laws and the like....what was laughable was the claim that anti discrimination laws "get people angry at gays", so therefore this is protecting LGBT people.....

Most Catholics don't read the teachings of the church, they pick up what is teaching from what their priest or Bishops or for that matter, what fellow Catholics do. So while for example church statements might be parents should love their gay children and have the duty to take care of them, when they hear a stream of stuff from the local priest, or fellow Catholics, or the Bishops, that obviously places being gay above other sins (for example, technically masturbating is as much a sin as being gay/having gay sex, yet how many parents these days would throw their kid out of the house for being gay). More importantly, the church in the past 30 years seems to have turned Catholicism into being anti gay,anti abortion and these days, anti contraception as the only thing the church stands for. They censored a group of nuns because *gasp* they spent their time catering to the poor and helpless and didn't spend time and money fighting abortion and gay rights.....and so forth. Churches have expelled openly gay members and recently, have expelled gays who have gotten married legally, what do you think that tells people? This is especially bad among Catholics of color, where black and hispanic gay and trans kids often make up the all too large populations of the homeless, who have been thrown away by their parents or ran away because of beatings and the like (I am not saying it is only people of color, there are a lot of kids of other racial groups as well, of course, but people of color who are catholic tend to be a lot more accepting of church teaching, lot less cafeteria catholic, then other groups IME, at least when it comes to gays).

There is a historical parallel to this, and it is telling. Officially, the Catholic Church is not anti semitic, official church teaching does not demonize the Jews, their writings and their statements are not an official policy of being anti semitic. Yet if you look at the history of the Catholic world, of the actions of the leadership and its members, it has often been brutal anti semitism. The last Islamic chunk of Europe falls in 1492 in Spain, and the first thing that happens is Jews are expelled who had been living in those areas in relative peace. Passion plays at Easter often portrayed Jews as Christ killers, and it often led to mobs and such, the inquisition, which was charterd by the church, commmitted horrible acts against the jews...and in modern times, the holocaust had the scope and breadth it did in part because of the anti semitism that was still quite prevalent in the church, from the inaction of the vatican on the issue of the final solution (something that they didn't even address until the late 70's in terms of writing about it), to the Catholic Bishops, especially Spellman in NY, helping to actively can any attempt to take in Jewish refugees in any numbers into the US (no, the church was not alone, what we call "evangelical Christians" today likewise had fits).

When you have 'Do as I say, not as I do" many people pick up the "as I do". They teach parents that attitudes are caught, not taught, and with the church, that is very true; their writings might appear warm and loving, but the actions of the church, of its hierarchy, are often not, and that is a big problem.

No I like 'bitch about' it's just more flowing but I take you're point to re-phrase for the sake of the bit- er, whiners.

'Unenforceable policy about the comparable temporal appropriateness of who I am fucking.'

Agh that is just so fucking funny. Love it.

I have very strong views about gays and marriage. I don't care whether they have gifts to offer or not. That sounds a bit like the Wise Guys turning up at the manger and one of them was gay, maybe, but he had gifts to offer...

I think gays should ONLY be allowed to marry if a proportion of them are compelled to look after children and raise them or help raise them. And that should be the L.A.W. LAW!!!!

I know that would be unenforceable too, but then, this just proves Jesus Christ's main point: the law is useless.

It's the spirit or idea behind it all that counts or matters, however you like to say it.

For what it's worth, two of the SCOTUS judges who ruled in favour of same-sex marriage yesterday are Catholic.