There’s yet another scandal involving the Catholic Church and homosexuality and this time it’s taken place in the motherboard of all things Catholic: Italy.
Italy-based Panorama Magazine claims to have video footage of three priests having gay sex and doing other gay things with other gay people, like dancing at gay clubs and shopping at IKEA for babies:
“By day they are regular priests, complete with dog collar, but, at night it’s off with the cassock as they take their place as perfectly integrated members of the Italian capital’s gay scene,” reads a preview of the article distributed to the press. A reporter used a gay “accomplice” and “gate-crashed the wild nights of a number of priests in Rome who live a surprising double-life.”
This claim prompted Cardinal Agostino Vallini, the Vicar of Rome and one of the Vatican’s top leaders, to announce that the time has come for gay priests to come out of the closet and leave the church.
“No one is forcing them to stay in the priesthood to exploit the benefits,” the Diocese of Rome said in a statement posted on its Web Site. “If they are coherent, they should come out into the open.”
THIS IS A REALLY BIG DEAL. Not because of the priests’ actual actions (which I’m not condoning, but from what I can tell this seems to be a natural act engaged in by two consenting adults) or because they’ve broken the Catholic moral code of abstinence and furthermore (shock!) done so with men. (If these codes were being broken with women, would we even hear about it? Probably not.)
And yes, it is obviously super terrible to have him condemning and outsing such a large group of people, as its inherently homophobic and patently un-Christian. But there’s a silver lining: what makes this a REALLY BIG DEAL to me is the underlying acceptance of homosexuality as an actual “thing” implied by Cardinal Vallini’s statement. He’s basically saying yes, some people are gay, and no amount of prayer or emotional, verbal or physical torture can undo this.
Now, most of my life, I’ve been guided by existential ethics and, slightly, by the morality preached by the Catholic Church. The past year has been difficult, however: I came out to my conservative Catholic mother and have been struggling to reconcile being “queer & proud” with being a believer in my ingrained religion.
A seemingly highly-regarded religious figure suggesting that “gay priests should come out of the shadows and leave their flocks” reflects a new attitude than the one I’m used to, which is “being gay and being religious is a hellish choice which you can fight off and ignore or dive into and consequently PERISH (something I hear every day, unfortunately).” The Cardinal, you guys! The Cardinal didn’t say they should fix their homogayness, or suppress their desires, or just move to another church where nobody knows about what happened and never talk about it again.
However, he is still hating on the gays per ush, and I would argue that it’s definitely possible to be both gay AND religious. I am! Many churches accept and love the LGBT community wholeheartedly. The Canadian organization Student Christian Movement (SCM of Canada) is dedicated to queering Christianity while maintaining the Christian belief system. If you’re interested in being super gay AND super holy, they offer counseling, seminars and even retreats all around the country which you can find out about at Queer & Christian.
So while it’s absolutely unfortunate that, again, we have a violation of a very well known religious code of conduct via priests engaging in sexual acts, I’m asking anyone to see the greater side of this very Catholic “turning of the cheek” where the Cardinal is concerned. I mean, excommunication is better than being burned at the stake, right? Baby steps, baby steps.
Hmm, so now a choice is offered between ex-gay and ex-Catholic? That doesn’t really sound like progress to me when, as you say, there are people that wish to be both.
I went on a couple of dates with a gay Christian lady once (or at least I think I did, we don’t really do dating here, but I think that’s what you call it when you go for a drink with someone but end up not having sex, yes? Or is that just a bad date…), and she’d spent ages trying to find a church that would be accepting. The vast array of contradictions and hypocrisy within one religion baffles me, I’m quite glad I never had to wrap my own head around it.
Anyway, thank you for your insight, new-writer-person.
I agree that it’s not a solution, especially for people who want to be both Catholic and gay, but it is a significant step in the right direction because it’s a higher-up admitting that people are just GAY and can’t be changed. If we could get everyone in the church singing that tune, then the next evolutionary development should naturally be more churches accepting queers and not subscribing to the idea that they can just be fixed. Baby steps turn into trips to the moon, I read that somewhere. Or just made it up.
I see what you’re saying, but to me it just looks like they’re repeating the same equation of being in church equals not being gay, this time saying being gay equals not being in church.
I don’t see how the church had previously denied that gay people existed, when it seemed to spend quite some effort in describing the sin of homosexuality so it could be denounced.
Like I said, I have no personal involvement in the church, so there could be some nuance I am missing here, and anything that happens that increases people’s positivity and ability to reconcile all the bits of shit in their heads is fine by me.
haaai
the church is generally silent when it comes to THE GAY. This is the first time evarrr that i’ve seen them do something other than be silent or completely damning. And again, this is a suggestion of one high-up person in a huge system, so it doesn’t reflect the church as a whole, but because this cardinal is high up, it just counts all the more. But yes! positivity is key in situations like this.
I have to agree with Sally on this one.
As a notes below in the comments, the official Vatican position has for sometime been that homosexuality exists and perhaps the “impulse” can not be eliminated or chosen, but homosexual actions are a sin and should not be engaged in.
Though, as this NPR article mentions, Benedict’s 2005 guidelines excluding gay priests does make an exception for those who had a gay “phase” and have been out of it for 3 years.
So obvs even at the top there is a belief it can be a phase, but the Church official position has not encouraged de-gaying so much as suppression of actions. And in this case telling them to suppress their desires would’ve been on par with what every hetero priest does, so really it just feels like the Cardinal is saying homosexuality is a much greater sin than others or that homosexuals can’t possibly be celibate or spiritual enough that the option is not given to remain a celibate homosexual priest.
Reading the Cardinal’s comments (can anyone find the letter in English/is this the complete text?), his focus is quite clearly on preserving the “sanctity” and respect of the priesthood, more than saying “come out” as in live an openly gay life. He’s concerned with the effect on the church, that the gays should not be priests and not whether the individual should or should not be gay. “Get out” rather than “come out”.
Actually, I’d love to have someone who is Italian read the letter because I don’t think “come out” is a good translation for the only part I could find that would be translated perhaps as that: “Coerenza vorrebbe che venissero allo scoperto” which the article cited here translates as “If they are coherent, they should come out into the open”.
I know this is getting picky with language, but saying “come out” feels like it implies as you felt, some level of acceptance. Whereas saying “identify themselves”, “reveal themselves”, or even just “come into the open” at least for me doesn’t necessarily give that same implication.
The NPR article also makes the point (if a bit poorly maybe by failing to put the quote it refers to in the article itself) that the Cardinal quote’s Benedict’s words from the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in which he spoke of the greatest threat to the church coming from those unholy actions within the church. I hadn’t heard much on this at the time (last month), but they seem to imply that it was understood to be referring to the abuse scandals in the church. I don’t know, reading the Pope’s remarks, if this is fair as he isn’t explicit and the Church has MANY divisions, but if this was done expressly on the Cardinal’s part to tie the two together it would be terrible.
Sorry if this is incoherent, need sleep. But thanks for generating an interesting discussion and adding another voice to say you CAN be a believer and a homo. :)
I think that everybody is right. In previous scandals like this, however, AND I KNOW A LOT ABOUT CHURCH SEX SCANDALS, they generally solve it by saying that the priest should just learn to suppress his impulses. Like oh we caught you being gay? Let’s cover it up, and when we’re done with that, let’s try to convert you to being straight and make you suppress your impulses and then tell everyone it’s possible to do so.
So even though asking gays to come out and leave the church is certainly not acceptance or a positive statement, I think what this article points out is that there is silver lining here — he’s not amping up attention to how we can ignore or not act on these “impulses” but rather just saying “yeah, you’re gay, and we’re not just going to ‘fix’ you.”
Because honestly like, seriously, if you’re gay, you probably shouldn’t be a priest in a Catholic church that condemns homosexuality. Right? There’s other jobs out there. There’s other churches that are more accepting — catholic churches, even!
I don’t see the The Vatican saying it’s okay to be gay any time soon, right? So that’s why there are other Catholic churches that are more accepting or other denominations that are more accepting, and those places would clearly be a better place for these priests to go work and/or pray, in whatever capacity. Maybe I don’t know anything ’cause I’m a silly Jew. This comment might be crazy?
“Because honestly like, seriously, if you’re gay, you probably shouldn’t be a priest in a Catholic church that condemns homosexuality. Right? There’s other jobs out there. There’s other churches that are more accepting”
I am a crazy person agreeing completely woot
I’m going to pretend Riese that your knowledge of church sex scandals comes from sexy sacrilege personal experience.
I guess I just still have a hard time seeing it as silver lining. It’s an angry response meant to put an end to a very embarrassing (for the Church) scandal. Just because in this letter, he doesn’t say they should suppress their impulses doesn’t mean it’s not what he’s thinking or counseling them to do. He doesn’t state it publicly, which may be progress… but since official church position is already that homosexual actions should not happen he just doesn’t need to put it in the letter. He’s just saying that even the presence of the impulse makes them unfit for the job and to save face for the Church they need to get out (not necessarily come out in the big gay sense).
Maybe I’ve just been around too many bitter former Catholics lately, but I just can’t see it that way.
verry interesting, but unfortunately i don’t think catholic leaders on the low end of the totem pole will be quick to embrace this.
when i was outed, my parents took me to a priest for some forced counseling. he basically told me that girls are gay because we miss our mothers (wtf?)
and before that, well some lady at my sunday school told me gays were made to serve the straights, and NOTHING ELSE (including sex).
i have since happily denounced my catholicism, and am looking for something new to worship. perhaps the mighty lady gaga?
blarg, i’m sorry to hear about your being outed and all. Serving straights? Like in the YOU GOT SERVED BAM way or what? Hum, I think for you, a few doses of lady gaga baby monstrosity and maybe some tegan-face and you’ll be okay.
ps i ONLY date women who are pretty much my mom. cough
you know, i never thought of it that way, but i think i will do what that lady told me. from now on when i meet a straight, i’ll be like “YOU GOT SERVED!” and then i’ll get to meet baby jesus, what?!
thanks for saving my soul Sab
The interesting point here isn’t that this particular Cardinal offers an option besides the Ex-Gay-Movement. The first question his statement evoke for me was that he seems to exclude homosexual priests from celibacy, too. So, as a gay priest you shouldn’t come out and leave your convent because you are born that way and he accepts it, but because you’re not even good enough to try and live a celibate life.
I personally know a gay ex-priest who left is convent for his partner. He is still very catholic and very gay, as much as he seems to be a very happy person. But I don’t think it’s an option for everyone. There are priests who both want to do their jobs and be with their partners, straight or gay. And there certainly are gay priests who try to live in celibacy and want to stay in their convent.
The other thing I have to think about is the gay monks my aunt told her visitors in Switzerland about. Where she lived, there was no coming out. It was either being a closet case and marry a woman or being a closet case and live as a monk. Now imagine the jokes about the gay monks, be disgusted, then leave them aside. For these men, mostly, it is really hard to combine their religion and their sexuality. To live as a monk, how sick it might sound, is a possibility for them not to have to live in holy matrimony with a woman.
i’m not so sure that this is a real departure from catholic doctrine. i went to catholic school (sadly) for 12 yrs. i was always taught that catholics, unlike their more fundamentalist christian counterparts, do not deny that homosexuality exists. instead, they view homosexual “practices” as a “sin.” while this is still obviously a terrible message, it’s not quite the same as saying that homosexuality is a choice or something that can be changed. rather, it acknowledges the reality of homosexuality but argues that, like other “sins,” catholics should work toward suppressing such instincts.
despite this, i agree that asking people to come out is a huge step in the right direction for the catholic church. hopefully, this one cardinal’s views, ignoring for the moment the other elements of homophobia inherent in them, will gain greater acceptance by his peers.
I think when we look at individual divisions and districts of the church, there’s a lot of difference of opinion on teh ghey, but yeah, I think in asking people to come out, it’s suggesting that it is not something that should try to be curbed, yknow? And yeah, hopefully this signifies baby steps towards understanding and true acceptance O:
while i agree that the on the ground teachings in each locality differ vastly, i was talking more about the official views of the church as expressed by the vatican and other organs of the church. the US conference of catholic bishops, as well as the vatican, has published various documents on homosexuality since the 1970s and has always distinguished between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. see, e.g., http://www.usccb.org/laity/always.shtml. i think it’s a mistake to equate their views, which are still disgusting and abhorrent, with those of other christian groups that advocate against homosexuality existing period. although i agree that this difference may not matter much if it’s not followed in practice.
anyway, interesting article and hope this is a harbinger of better things to come from the church.
Yea, i agree they do distinguish between behaviour and orientation. Last year, in a religion class (catholic school), they made us watch a video about ‘ethics’. About homosexuality, it basically said “it’s fine to be gay as long as you’re abstinent.”
The people in the video were making a HUGE effort to be ‘hip’ so it would appeal to us kids. I just wanted to punch them in the face.
nice article. i could totally rant an entire follow-up piece on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and our recent ‘sexuality statement’, but for now i’ll just say that im thankful to have been brought up in a christian community that’s moving forward. although we aren’t dealing with the root issues [sin, choice (NOT), etc…] there’s been a consensus on marriage and clergy. a little backwards, but ill take it :) and the congregations that don’t like it are getting the hell out.
OMG THE ELCA. I have so many feelings about this.
The church I grew up in was super conservative, and when someone outed our gay pastor, he was basically run out of town. It was completely horrifying and the least Christian behavior I have ever seen in my life. So, I’m really glad they (finally) released a statement, but I wish it were more decisive and I think it came way too late.
Agh, it’s really disheartening to hear the ironic reality of hate in some church communities. But I think it’s never too late! I think once the churches start getting more vocal, it’ll lift the taboo off followers to talk about it, and hopefully that dialogue will lead to new thoughts. Fingers crossed!
I mean, I think it’s good they finally did it, I just think the fact that it didn’t happen until 2009 is a little ridiculous.
I struggle with this a lot. I was raised Mormon, and I don’t understand gays who stay Mormon. The religion doesn’t want you. The religion requires that you not be gay, and as unreasonable as it is, that’s what it is.
I get that there are cultural things, community, etc, but I don’t get why you’d belong to a group where a major part of who you are is called into question. That feels wrong to me.
But whatever, to each their own and etc etc.
As far as I know, Catholics are not as strict in their belie system as Mormons, and I see how being gay could be more traumatizing to fight for in that community. But speaking from my own experience, I felt your way for a long while, but the resentment I felt didn’t really get rid of my very real feelings that god exists, and like I said, its different for each person and their specific community; I shake my head at the majority of bigots and people who close their eyes to everything and just remain ignorant and bible-thumping, but i’ve been exposed to a lot of people who are of the very same religion and preach only the good things of love and acceptance. I guess you could say i’m blocking out the negativity in favour of the positive, it just works for me, I don’t feel that i’ve lost anything. There is still feelings of hurt and rejection and injustice, but the small good things i’ve been exposed to make me see hope for the group as a whole.
wah that was long.
I agree with you Cait. I dont understand how a gay person could remain a Catholic, especially when the church genuinely wants us to have no rights. The church here hired a lobbyist to work permanently in the Department of justice to lobby politicians to ensure we never got any rights here. It wasnt any other church who did this, it was the Catholic church. Then we have groups like these delightful ‘christian’ individuals-> http://www.campaignforconscience.org/ who work on behalf of the church to spread hate and lies to once again try and ensure we get no rights.
The Catholic church has done so much damage to this country that for me, it’s too late, they can never make things right, no matter what they say or do. They have ruined so many lives here it disgusts me. Maybe it’s just a personal thing but it’s just too late for me, I will never again consider myself to be a catholic, too much damage has been done, too much hate has been spread, too many lives have been wrecked, fuck the church.
although i don’t feel catholic, it’s really hard for me to shake off the culture. like when i get nervous, i do the sign of the cross and i find saint candles to be aesthetically pleasing. its so odd, because i hate the church and everything they put me through. but i guess it’s just the religious/hispanic culture i’ve been immersed in so habits and taste are hard to shake.
yeah, I find myself doing similar things sometimes, which is why i feel that although the catholic morals and codes and customs are not really things I follow or submit to anymore, the spirit/faith of it all is ingrained in me whether I want it there or not, and fighting it is similar to fighting some other natural part of myself. It just feels a little comforting to say it’s still there, even if it’s a big contradiction to everyone else. It’s personal, no one should feel they are wrong when it comes to their own spirit.
*flies away with angels* tra la la
As a Catholic, maybe-gay gal, I was definitely curious to read this article, but I couldn’t help sigh when I read the phrase “the underlying acceptance of homosexuality implied by Cardinal Vallini’s statement.” I know the Church gets a pretty bad rap most of the time (some deserved), but I have to point out that it doesn’t condemn homosexuality. Maybe individual Catholics you know claim otherwise, but at the risk of sounding like an ass, they must not really know their stuff. The Church only condemns “homosexual genital relations.” And I know–these days sex is everything. But keep in mind that the Church also condemns every type of sexual relation that occurs outside of marriage, which is probably 95% of the sex happening in the world today. And by that I mean, gays shouldn’t feel too special when they hear the Church condemning their sex.
Wow, thanks so much for saying that. I’ve never seen anyone look at it that way. Every now and then someone leaves a comment on A.S. that totally opens my mind to other perpectives. Thanks for doing that for me today Liz. It might seem sort of ridiculous for me to say this, but what can I say? I really like hearing from people who aren’t thinking in my box.
(Also: Thanks to the AS community for being so awesome that I can leave this comment without feeling like I’ll become a victim of harsh trolling. You folks are the winningest web community I know.)
H8 trollz. <3 contributing to the conversation!
Thanks! :D
Thank you Liz! As a super catholic and bi girl i was practically screaming this in my head as i was reading some of the other comments. I went to catholic elementary jr. high and now catholic college. So far i have found the catholic community actually pretty accepting. When i was going through confirmation i got this student catholic bible, and in the front of it had like common questions and the catholic churches stance on them. they had a pretty good section devoted to the whole homosexual thing. It kept emphasizing the importance of not dropping your friends if they were gay. How they were people and would need your support. It did say pretty explicitly don’t have sex, but like you pointed out if you were not married in the church they don’t want you doing it. I feel the gay priest thing the most offensive thing about that is that they are having sex. Priests take a vow of chastity and if you can’t handle that you shouldn’t be a priest, end of story. I don’t care who they are having sex with.
but anyhow Liz is cool for beating me to the punch and the whole the catholic church is a prude not necessarily homophobic.
I like your characterization there, it’s a TOTAL prude! :D
While its condemnation isn’t on par with other churches, it does go beyond simply saying that gay sex is bad.
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” – Ratzinger (pre-papacy)
While I appreciate the Church saying I shouldn’t be mistreated, I don’t really love being labeled as a disorder. Yes, this is better than many but no it’s not acceptance.
And while the Church isn’t as damning as others, it does go to great lengths to block my civil rights opposing not only marriage rights but civil unions to the extent that the Pope called on Spanish civil servants to refuse services granted to gay couples under laws there. I can’t even think about the money the Knights of Columbus spent on Prop 8. The problem for me is that they are stepping outside of the sphere of their own followers and trying to use the government to dictate my rights. Sure lots of heteros are running around having un-wed relations, but it’s my legal rights the Church is fighting. And I do find this homophobic.
I do know many Catholics, however, who support gay civil marriage rights because they feel strongly about the government and religion staying separate.
Not for the sake of argument, but because I can’t let a good conversation drop, I just wanted to say 2 things!
1. I can’t speak for individuals in the Church, because although it’s a relatively rigid institution there are still differences of opinion within it, I just wanted to point out its overall stance. As to Ratz’s quote, I like to think if he really thought about that statement, he’d find it quite ridiculous, because of course everybody has inherent inclinations (i.e. liking brie, not liking gorgonzola). Strictly, Catholicly, speaking, it’s not about whether you’re “tempted,” but whether you give into temptation that matters. (FYI I will always like brie). So I know he’s my pope, but like you I disagree with the statement, and I suspect that (hopefully) it is not an official church position.
2. I’m not really aware of the Church’s political activism with respect to gay marriage, but you’re right, I agree they shouldn’t be involved in the legal aspect. This is partly a matter of self-interest, because as long there is separation of church and state, it doesn’t have to perform gay marriages even if they become legal, but more importantly, I think civil gay marriage would completely fly with Catholic teaching. That is, we were created with free will and the right to choose our own course of actions, and pretty much should be (legally) allowed to do what we please, as long as it doesn’t harm other people (i.e. via murder). That’s why, although the Church would say both murder and being mean to your little brother are sins (though not equally so), it only cares that murder is against the law. Being mean to your bro is a personal choice.
But acting on liking brie is not a sin (unless you consider it gluttony, I suppose).
So while everyone has “inclinations” not every inclination leads to what the Church considers a sin.
And this was no off-hand remark- it was part of a letter to Bishops on pastoral care for us homos and was even referring directly to wording used in 1975 guidelines on homosexuality. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
Ahhh yes! I’m glad you said it. When writing the article, I was pretty focused/wrapped up in the attitude towards gayness and gay sex and the church, and the attitude towards everything else slipped my mind quite terribly. But i’m glad you said it, it puts things in context.
I am not saying the church is not homophobic or that this statement suggests it, but that it is a public statement that suggests something -different- from the normal “burn deh gayzz, sodom and gomorrah!” or silence that at least *I* have encountered when dealing with the church.
And i’m embarrased to say I can’t really talk to much on the american political stance of homoness, being that i’m in canada and politics are handled a different way here.
and as for the last sentence, yeah, i’m one of them. I don’t tihnk it’s fair to mix the two, especially when you have one religion dictating a very huge array of different religious believers’ (and non believers’) lives.
But thanks for making this point! huzzah
I just had a little quibble; I appreciated the article!
aha that’s cool, and i’m glad you did! thank you!
My pop’s a former clergyman, an academic, and still very much a Catholic. We have discussions, on a pretty regular basis, on the Church’s view of sexuality (straight, homo, whatever). I rethink my relationship with the church every day–and I think it over even harder when Dad and I talk. But these discussions have lead me to the conclusion that the church’s position regarding human sexuality–that sexual expression of any nature, auto, homo, hetero, outside of the bounds of marriage, is sin–is just as dangerous as the more explicitly prejudiced dogma of other Christian sects (so-called fundamentalists, for example). Anti-gay values are implicit in anti-sex values, but especially where marriage is defined as heterosexual and procreative. It concerns me that Cardinal Vallini’s comments would be seen as progressive. They are exactly in line with church doctrine–the Cardinal merely invokes the language the Catholic church always uses around the idea of temptation (at least for as long as I was practicing). It is the view of the Church that those who give in to temptation without repenting through the sacrament of confession are unfit to participate in the other sacraments: unfit to make communion with God, and also unfit to make communion with each other. Personally, I’ve felt especially hurt by this viewpoint.
That was long, and I probably didn’t say anything that we all don’t know. But I felt it was important to be clear that this isn’t exactly new. World culture has changed to force the issue, but as far as I’ve seen the Catholic church’s view on homosexuality (or sexuality in general) has been fairly consistent of late. I don’t mean to discourage any gay Catholics–spirituality is complicated and personal, and I honor that.
Um, I guess what I MEAN is (sometimes it takes a long, long time for me to understand my own point) excommunication might not be eternal damnation–but they think it COULD be–and because it makes it impossible to participate in the sacraments, it VERY PROBABLY does.
Ugh, sorry. I don’t usually comment, it brings out the obsessive stuff.
I won’t deny at all that the viewpoint expressed is still hurtful and not wholesomely accepting; what I wanted to stress is that the difference in lingo, as small in departure from the catholic norm it is, is still a difference, whereas before I think the punishment for such an act commited by someone in the church was much more than excommunication. I am not suggesting that the cardinal is out to hug all of us and say “WE WERE WRONG” tomorrow, but that this action, while still hurtful and unethical and ignorant, is a very small step in my eyes, away from the norm.
And I think also, as someone who has faith but has been hurt enough by christian hate to question and fight with the church, when I see something like this, however small, I may blow it out of proportion in seeking some kind of acceptance from what I have grown up with/live with. But in general as you said, spirituality is complex and personal and I don’t think anyone, straight, queer, abstinent or banging every night, should be told what to believe or why. I think it will take a lot more fighting and a very long time before the church even begins to accept what they see as ‘sinful’ as a state-of-being natural human thing. I definitely agree that the current stance is dangerous, but I don’t personally think being anti-christian can help eradicate anti-gayness.
Just to be clear, I definitely wouldn’t say that being anti-christian could help eradicate anti-gayness either. I think it’s totally valid (and very courageous) of lay Catholics to challenge Church dogma. It’s too bad that it has only become more difficult, especially in recent years, for members of the clergy to do the same. It makes me feel very empty that dissension from within the clergy has been so rare, in spite of the threat that they may be defrocked. I just think it’s their responsibility. That’s where my bottom-line stands personally, and I suppose that’s why I haven’t made good with the Church. I still don’t really see the Cardinal’s comments as a departure from the norm, but I was raised to understand the doctrine as the cardinal expressed it. And as much as the Church tries to get everything just so (oops, sounds familiar) readings vary from community to community.
I definitely don’t mean to put down anyone’s hope that the Catholic church can eventually be a better place for gays. I would sincerely welcome that, and if you are right that the Cardinal’s comments are a sign of better things to come, that’s wonderful. And thanks for writing about this.
oh yeah, I wasn’t suggesting that was your view, but in general I think there is the presence of christian-hate in the queer community that needs to be addressed (maybe in another article) and I guess I was rambling ahaha, being victim of that. It’s tough to fight being queer with religious people, and then fight being religious with queer people (not you!). Ah well. such is life ;I
But yes, I definitely understand where you’re coming from. I appreciate the insight, hopefully it will get easier to deal with as time goes by.
thanks!
Does=is. UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH