Category: Human Rights

Posted on

LGBTQ Catholics dream of a changed church, while seeing reasons to hope

By

As a child in inner-city Milwaukee, Father Bryan Massingale’s grandmother gave him a leather-bound copy of The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, along with a dream that he might need it someday.

“My grandmother was not delusional. She did not live in denial of reality,” said Massingale, a Jesuit priest who holds an endowed chair in ethics at Fordham University, in New York City. “Her gift was a vision, an act of hope. It was a dream, a hope, a reminder that the neighborhood, with its drugs, violence and rodent-infested corner store with overpriced goods, did not define or limit who I could be.”

That’s important to know, he declared, since he was speaking as “a Black, gay priest and theologian” at Fordham’s recent Ignatian Q Conference for LGBTQ students from Jesuit campuses. This event was a “space for our dreaming, for queer dreams” of hope for “despised and disdained and stigmatized peoples,” he added.

“I dream of a church where gay priests and lesbian sisters are acknowledged as the holy and faithful leaders they already are,” he said, in a published version of his address. “I dream of a church where LGBTQ employees and schoolteachers can teach our children, serve God’s people and have their vocations, sexuality and committed loves affirmed. …

“I dream of a church that enthusiastically celebrates same-sex loves as incarnations of God’s love among us.”

Theological visions of this kind inspire hope for some Catholics and concern for others.

Thus, the North American phase of the Vatican’s global Synod on Synodality found “strong tensions within the Church,” while participants in the virtual assemblies also “felt hope and encouragement and a desire for the synodal process to continue,” according to the 36-page report (.pdf here) released on April 12 by U.S. and Canadian Catholic leaders.

Catholics are “called to act co-responsibly in a synodal fashion, not to wait until we know how to do everything perfectly, but to walk together as imperfect people,” said one group, in its summary of the process. Another group added: “When Church structures and practices are dynamic and able to move with the Holy Spirit, everyone is able to ‘use their gifts in service of the Church and of each other.'”

Calling for “greater inclusivity and welcome” within the church, the final report said this was especially true with “women, young people, immigrants, racial or linguistic minorities, LGBTQ+ persons” and “people who are divorced and remarried without an annulment.”

But the report also warned about the “danger of false or unrealistic expectations regarding what the synodal process is meant to be and to ‘produce,’ since people living in “North American culture” tend to focus on “measurable results and … winners and losers.” Some participants, for example, questioned calls for “radical inclusion,” while asking about the “pastoral and even doctrinal implications” of that term.

The explosive nature of these debates jumped into the news weeks later when the Church of St. Paul the Apostle in New York hosted, next to a side altar, a “God is Trans” exhibit.

In his written explanation of his art, Adah Unachukwu said this display “maps the queer spiritual journey” through “Sacrifice, Identity and Communion.” There is, he added, “no devil; just past selves” and “Communion rounds out the spiritual journey, by placing God and the mortal on the same plane.”

After seeing headlines, Archdiocese of New York officials promised to investigate the exhibit at the Paulist Fathers parish. The congregation also offers, on its website, an “Out at St. Paul” ministry to the “Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Trans and Queer community.”

Media reports early this week noted that parish leaders changed the name of this art exhibit, but that it remained in place.

Massingale delivered his Fordham address before that controversy. However, he did stress that Catholics must dare to share dreams of change – even those with “an inherently subversive quality” – while seeking a “new and more just social order.”

Referring to the “wedding banquet at Cana,” when Jesus turned water into wine, the Jesuit theologian called for a changed church in which “people of all races, genders and sexualities rejoice at the presence of love” and a world in which “spiritual wounds will be healed, where faith-based violence will be no more, where fear and intolerance are relics of history.”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence ‘outraged’ by getting boot from Dodgers on Pride Night

— The LGBTQ advocacy group defended itself a day after the Dodgers disinvited them from Pride Night, while politicians and groups condemned the team.

The Dodgers’ June 16 Pride Night is now mired in controversy.

By Jim Buzinski

A day after the Los Angeles Dodgers disinvited the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence from their upcoming Pride Night after a leading anti-gay bigot and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio complained, the Sisters expressed “outrage and deep offense” at the team’s decision. At the same time, state politicians and LGBTQ organizations and supporters condemned the Dodgers’ action.

The events in the last 24 hours have become a PR headache from the Dodgers, with fans on social media expressing outrage and a Congressman urging a boycott of the June 16 Pride game, historically the largest one in sports (Disclosure: Outsports is a partner in the event). The media focus has centered on the Dodgers caving to anti-LGBTQ forces, not the kind of attention a team wants as it seeks to promote an event around inclusiveness.

In a statement posted on Twitter, the San Francisco Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence issued their first detailed comments about being disinvited from receiving the team’s Community Hero Award:

The San Francisco Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence a leading-edge Order of queer and trans nuns in San Francisco, Calif., today expressed their deep offense and outrage at the Los Angeles Dodgers’ recent decision to retract their offer of a Community Hero Award, to be presented to the Los Angeles Sisters, following criticism from religious conservatives.

The Dodgers capitulated in response to hateful and misleading information from people outside their community, who target not only the LGBTQQ++ community but also women’s autonomy over their bodies, people and communities of color, and other faiths and nationalities.

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote, condemned the Sisters as a “blatantly perverted, sexual and disgusting anti-Catholic hate-group.” This is simply not true. The Sisters began in 1979 in response to the AIDS crisis, when gay men, who their faiths and families had abandoned because of their orientation, were sick and dying. The Sisters were among the first to raise money to help care for people with AIDS and to create and distribute safer-sex information.

In the decades since the Sisters have grown with chapters across the world. They are a 501(C)3 charitable organization that annually raises thousands of dollars to distribute to organizations supporting marginalized communities. They support other groups, including several mainstream churches, in their work. Sisters are regularly called upon to minister to the sick, the dying, and the mourning

Our ministry is real. We promulgate universal joy, expiate stigmatic guilt, and our use of religious trappings is a response to those faiths whose members would condemn us and seek to strip away the rights of marginalized communities,” said Sister Rosie Partridge, abbess of the San Francisco Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

The Sisters are not anti-Catholic, but an organization based on love, acceptance, and celebrating human diversity. To be condemned by representatives of the Catholic Church is particularly ironic, given that organization’s long history of condoning and concealing the sexual abuse of children. It’s a statistical fact that children are at less risk in the company of drag queens than clergy. Yet, the LGBTQQ++ communities are consistently targeted by the right, because it is easier to foment fear of the unfamiliar than to take a hard look at very real threats ranging from gun violence to global warming.

The San Francisco Sisters call on the LGBTQQ+ community and its allies to express their disappointment with the Dodgers by contacting them at fanfeedback@ladodgers.com or 866-DODGERS, option 9.

Do not let people who hate us all decide that some parts of our community are more tolerable than others, that some shall be seated at the table while others are locked out. We all stand on the shoulders of brave souls who endured much to get us this far and we owe it to them, and those yet to come, to condemn the voices of haters at every turn. The struggle continues, but we look forward to a better, more inclusive world where human diversity is seen as an advantage, not something to fear.

Meanwhile, state politicians and groups weighed in against the decision.

  • The Los Angeles LGBT Center, the region’s largest, pulled its participation from the event and called on the team to reverse its decision, saying:

“We call on the Dodgers to reconsider their decision, honor the Sisters, and bring the true spirit of Pride back to Dodgers Stadium. If the decision is not reversed, we strongly encourage the Dodgers to cancel Pride Night. Any organization that turns its back on LGBTQ+ people at this damning and dangerous inflection point in our nation’s history should not be hoisting a rainbow flag or hosting a ‘Pride Night.’ We want the Dodgers ally ship to be consistent with our experience partnering with them over the past many years. The people of Los Angeles County have consistently and overwhelmingly shown up for LGBTQ+ equality. If one of our most beloved institutions — the Dodgers — refuses to stand by us at this moment, we are terrified of what will come next. Los Angeles is a leader — not a follower. We call on the Dodgers to set an example.”

  • California State Sen. President pro tempore Toni Atkins tweeted: “Capitulating to demands from anti-LGBTQ officials in other states to remove the @LADragNuns from Pride Night is a shameful decision by the @Dodgers. I stand with the @LADragNuns — we will not give in to politicians who seek to silence our #LGBTQ+ community.”
  • The ACLU of Southern California pulled out from Pride Night, tweeting: “The Dodgers, which broke the color line in baseball in 1947 by signing Jackie Robinson, were champions of inclusion. Seventy-six years later, they take a giant step backward banning a long-standing drag charity. In unity with @SFSisters, we will not participate in Pride Night.”
  • U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia, the openly gay former mayor of Long Beach, called for a boycott, saying, “This is shameful and you will not divide and separate our community. I hope we all boycott your ‘pride night’ and protest this cowardly decision.”
  • California State Sen. Scott Wiener from San Francisco, who is gay, got in a sports dig in his statement condemning the Dodgers: “In the past month, right wing mobs demanded that Anheuser Busch stop featuring a trans woman in an ad & that the Dodgers kick drag queens out of its Pride celebration. Both Anheuser Busch & the Dodgers caved. The danger to our community grows by the day. We expect more from our sports teams — even the Dodgers.”

My take

This whole controversy started with a letter from Sen. Marco Rubio to MLB Commissioner Rob Manford. Rubio represents Florida, literally on the opposite side of the country from Dodger Stadium, so it’s unclear why the Dodgers would give a damn about what Rubio says about anything. What pressure Manford might have put on the team is unknown.

Then longtime anti-gay bigot Bill “Gay Marriage is the Work of the Devil” Donohue of the Catholic League, an advocacy group that is not part of the church, weighed in to condemn the Sisters’ inclusion. No one who cares a whit about LGBTQ people should listen to a thing Donohue says. It’d be like someone organizing a Black History Month exhibit listen to input from the KKK.

The Dodgers’ biggest mistake was their knee-jerk reaction to the letter and caving in so quickly. Then game is not for a month, plenty of time to give the matter serious thought before reaching any decision. They then made it worse with a statement that threw the Sisters under the bus with zero acknowledgement to the heroic work they have done for 40 years, saying the decision was made because of the “strong feelings of people who have been offended.” So the standard is now anyone with “strong feelings” rule the day?

What happens next?

Damn if I know, but my guess is that more groups pull out as the word spreads. As for ticket sales, the Dodgers have the best attendance in baseball and the June 16 is against the hated San Francisco Giants so Dodger Stadium will be packed, though whether the team will match the 18,000 in specific Pride Night tickets from a year ago is unknown.

This whole thing is sad and infuriating because the Dodgers have been a pioneer for sports teams in addressing LGBTQ inclusion and that should be applauded. Yet they threw a lot of good will away when catering to the most extreme elements in society, people trying to reverse decades of progress at a time when LGBTQ people need all the allies we can get.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Who will Catholics follow? Pope Francis or the right-wing U.S. bishops?

Pope Francis welcomed President Biden to the Vatican for talks in October 2021, as U.S. Catholic bishops debated denying the president communion in American churches.

By Mary Jo McConahay

It’s time to take a clear look at the far-right politics of U.S. Catholic bishops. They won a 50-year campaign to turn back legal abortion, but they will not rest, it seems, until the country becomes a Christian nationalist state, with their moral principles codified into law. The religious right has long been identified with white evangelical Christians, but the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, some 250 men, mostly white and past middle age, ranks among the nation’s most formidable reactionary forces. As a Catholic, I must protest.

There was a time when I was proud of the principled but often unpopular positions of my faith leaders. During the Cold War, they spoke out against nuclear proliferation. When neoconservatives rose to power in Washington, the bishops issued a powerful letter on the economy, reminding government of its responsibility for making a “preferential option for the poor.” They stood against Ronald Reagan’s support for autocrats in wartime Central America — I was covering the region as a reporter and met several bishops who traveled south to see for themselves before making the policy decision.

Since those days, the proportion of conservative U.S. prelates has increased with nominations by the two pontiffs who preceded Pope Francis, and the USCCB drifted far to the political right, narrowing its focus to the “preeminent threat” of abortion. Its members lead the country’s largest and hardly monolithic faith group — 73 million American Catholics — but it also attempts to sway the law with amicus curiae briefs on cases from gay rights to prayer in schools, and with a powerful lobbying arm, its Office of Government Relations, tasked with influencing Congress. The bishops are driving the U.S. church to the point of schism with opposition to Pope Francis, who emphasizes pastoral care more than doctrine, and who virtually slapped down their attempt to forbid Holy Communion to lifelong Catholic Joe Biden, who is pro-choice.

What shaped the conservatism of the America’s bishops?

The roots of today’s right-wing church hierarchy go back to the 1970s when Catholic activist (and Heritage Foundation co-founder) Paul Weyrich persuaded evangelical minister and broadcaster Jerry Falwell to join forces in a “moral majority” — Weyrich suggested the term. As a movement, ultraconservative Catholics and evangelicals would restore the values and morals of the founding fathers as Weyrich, Falwell and their followers saw them, a promise taken up by Reagan, their favored presidential candidate. Abortion became the Moral Majority’s flagship issue.

That highly politicized obsession has put U.S. Catholic bishops sharply at odds with the global church (and public opinion) in their animus to Pope Francis, who calls capital punishment, euthanasia and care for the poor equally important “pro-life” issues.  For moderate Catholics like me, the deviation hits close to home, pushing the U.S. church too far from too much of Christ’s most elemental teachings while engaging in modern culture wars.

About sexual orientation, Francis, who recently celebrated 10 years as pope, famously said, “Who am I to judge?” but U.S. bishops rail against the “intrinsic disorder” of homosexuality. They ignore his urgent call for action on climate change and its existential threats. They drag their feet on his unprecedented process to prepare for a global Synod this year in Rome, which asks people, and in particular women, at every level of the church’s life — not just bishops — to contribute assessments and aspirations meant to define the mission of today’s church.

During the COVID pandemic some U.S. prelates tried to undermine the authority of both church and state. Francis encouraged vaccination, but San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone distributed communion unmasked and unvaccinated and played the aggrieved victim (a Christian nationalist trope), claiming that “cultural elites” treated Catholics with “willful discrimination” by limiting public gatherings. Timothy Broglio, archbishop for the Military Services USA, contravened the pope by saying Catholic service members could request a religious exemption to the shot, despite Pentagon orders they get it. Broglio is the newly elected president of the USCCB.

The U.S. church has a history of discrimination against Black Catholics in parishes and seminaries, and now the bishops go wrong, with notable exceptions, by failing to adequately condemn white supremacy. After Black Lives Matter protests, Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez — president of the U.S. bishops for three years until late 2022, and vice president of the group before that — called out social solidarity movements as “pseudo-religions” that are part of “a deliberate effort … to erase the Christian roots of society and to suppress any remaining Christian influences.”

Wealthy laity support the vision of far-right prelates. Southern California billionaire Timothy Busch, for example, is the founder of the Napa Institute and its influential summer conference where well-to-do conservative Catholics hobnob with bishops, archbishops and right wing politicians. Archbishops Gomez and Cordileone are advisors; last year Trump administration Atty. Gen. Bill Barr was a keynote speaker. Busch, who sees unregulated free markets as congruent with Catholic teachings, has little to say about Francis’ attack on the “sacrilized workings” of the global economy.

Perhaps of greatest concern, the USCCB has been increasingly willing to render the wall between church and state a mere gossamer curtain. Invoking novel theories of “religious liberty,” the bishops have fought legislation and court decisions most Americans support, notably laws protecting same sex marriage and access to contraceptives.

At age 86, Pope Francis is close to the end of his pontificate. Among American Catholics, a stunning 82% view him favorably. But he may not live to appoint enough like-minded cardinals to elect a similar successor.

Moderate U.S. prelates do not go along with the USCCB right-wing hardliners, but they are a minority. I can only hope their numbers grow in time, providing the church with the leadership devoid of political considerations that American Catholics deserve.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Church’s ‘God Is Trans’ Display Sparks Controversy

— ‘The Church Should Not Be Promoting This’

By Michael Foust

A church in New York City has divided members and ignited a social media debate after hosting an art display claiming “God is trans.”

The “God is Trans: A Queer Spiritual Journey” display at the Church of St. Paul the Apostle, a Catholic congregation, includes artwork that maps the “queer spiritual journey,” according to a description of the artwork at the church. The New York Post first reported on the controversy.

“The church should not be promoting this,” one member told The New York Post. “I understand there are transgender people. I pray for all people, but enough is enough.

“It seems like they are trying to force the agenda on others,” the member said. “Also, when a friend asked a priest about this, they didn’t answer. You can’t put this out on the altar and then hide.

“That’s what gets the church in trouble.”

The pro-transgenderism display by artist Adah Unachukwu conflicts with the teachings of the Vatican. Pope Francis this year called gender ideology “dangerous” and said it blurred “differences and the value of men and women.” In 2019, the Vatican released a document saying it’s a “fact” that “a person’s sex is a structural determinant of male or female identity.”

The description of the artwork said it focused on three points: Sacrifice, Identity and Community.

“The painting Sacrifice and its complementary act in the film speak to the need to shed an old life and personhood in order to be able to focus on your spiritual need,” the description said. “There is no devil: just past selves. Identity is the most impactful part of the exhibition. What does holiness look like? What does your god look like? Are these two portrayals that can be merged? Finally, Communion rounds out the spiritual journey, by placing God and the mortal on the same plane to speak to one another. This part of the installation is about a spiritual home and the ways we can achieve this home in our everyday lives.”

Some church members supported the display.

“I don’t understand the art, but this church is very liberal, which is why I love this church,” Cherri Ghosh, 80, told The Post. “They are really in the present when others are not.”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Why Uganda’s LGBTQ Community is Under Renewed Fire

by David Malingha

Uganda is already a tough place to be LGBTQ, but lawmakers want to make it even harder. The east African nation’s parliament has approved a draconian “Anti-Homosexuality Bill” that would extend colonial-era sodomy laws and see violators sentenced to lengthy prison terms or even death. Civil rights groups have condemned the measure amid warnings that it may deter foreign aid and investment in one of Africa’s fastest-growing economies if it is signed into law by President Yoweri Museveni.

1. What’s the backdrop?

Homosexuality is banned in more than half of the 54 African nations and frowned upon in many others. That includes Uganda, which inherited its original anti-gay laws from Britain, the former ruling power. Ugandan lawmakers and religious leaders — often encouraged by US evangelical groups — have said LGBTQ practices are contrary to their culture and have no place in Uganda. In February, the archbishop of the Church of Uganda, Stephen Kaziimba, condemned a decision by the Church of England to allow clergy to preside over a blessing for same-sex unions — an issue that has split the Anglican Communion, of which both are part. (Uganda was among those boycotting last year’s conference of the global grouping of Anglican churches.) Museveni signed a previous version of the law that was later struck down by the courts on a technicality. At a public appearance in April, the president described homosexuality as “degeneration” and a threat to procreation, and he subsequently indicated that he’ll sign the new bill.

2. What does the new bill propose?

It states that the nation’s capacity to deal with “emerging internal and external threats to the traditional, heterosexual family” must be enhanced and that Ugandans need protection against activists who “promote” homosexuality. These are some of its main provisions:
• The death sentence may be imposed on those who are found guilty of so-called “aggravated homosexuality.” That categorization includes same-sex intercourse involving someone who is HIV positive or under the age of 18.
• Individuals can be sentenced to life imprisonment if they are convicted of engaging in acts of homosexuality.
• Persons under the age of 18 who are found guilty of homosexuality can be jailed for as long as three years.
• Legal entities that are convicted of “promoting homosexuality” can be fined 1 billion shillings ($267,000).

An earlier version of the bill approved by lawmakers in March sought to punish people for merely identifying as LGBTQ, but that provision was removed on May 2 after Museveni requested changes. The president has 30 days from when the latest draft is submitted to him to sign it into law or ask parliament to make additional amendments.

3. Is this constitutional?

The Constitutional Court struck down similar anti-gay legislation in 2014 that Museveni had signed. But that was on the grounds that lawmakers approved the law without the required quorum, and no determination was made on its constitutionality. Some legal experts have argued that discriminating against people based on their sexual identity or practices could constitute a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression, association and liberty. Sexual Minorities Uganda, a coalition that fights for LGBTQ rights, and other organizations have indicated that they will challenge the new law in court if the president approves it.

4. How has the bill been received internationally?

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk described the bill as devastating and discriminatory — “probably among the worst of its kind in the world” — and called on the president not to approve it. The World Health Organization cautioned that the legislation risks stunting progress made in reducing the spread of HIV in Uganda. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other civil rights groups warn that homophobic attacks could increase. The US and other Western governments have condemned the measure, while the African Union has refrained from commenting.

5. What’s the potential economic fallout?

The International Monetary Fund has said it expects Uganda’s economy to expand by an average of more than 6% annually over the next five years. However, the new law could make operating in the country awkward and place billions of dollars of investments at risk at a time when companies such as TotalEnergies SE are looking to start producing oil in Uganda. The World Bank and other lenders that have helped to shore up Uganda’s finances may also face pressure from shareholders and rights groups to review their relationship with the country. Almost a fifth of the country’s latest budget was funded using external financing. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Museveni’s son, tweeted that Uganda could do without foreign investors.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!