Out Of Touch – Page 96 – Hear Our Voices

July 10, 2013

Eleven Reasons Why I’m Leaving The Catholic Church

By Joseph Amodeo recently organized a vigil in front of New York City’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral, which led to the police threatening the arrest of anyone associated with the action. In this exclusive op-ed, Amodeo explains why he has decided to leave the Catholic Church.

A few hours after the events that became known as the “Dirty Hands Vigil” unfolded at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, I received the following message from a priest I know in Manhattan:

“so disappointing!!!!!!!”

Soon after, I found out that his disappointment was not due to the fact that ten Catholics were denied entry to the Cathedral, but rather with me because, in his view, I had attempted to cause scandal.

Well, I have a few disappointments of my own to share:

1. I am disappointed in bishops who have allowed financial interests to drive their response to the clerical sexual abuse crisis.

2. I am disappointed in a Church that has attempted to argue that same-sex couples and their families are somehow less able to live up to the Christian ideal than their heterosexual counterparts.

3. I am disappointed by a hierarchy that has attacked the dignity of women and LGBT people.

4. I am disappointed by a Church that feels it has the authority to silence academic voices like Sr. Elizabeth Johnston, Sr. Jeannine Grammick, or Fr. Robert Nugent.

5. I am disappointed by a Church that asserts free will and the supremacy of the conscience, but negates such teaching with a practical commandment to obedience and what it deems a “well-formed” conscience.

6. I am disappointed by a Church that has failed to meaningfully discern the inclusion of women in the diaconate or priesthood.

7. I am disappointed by the Church’s reliance on time. As we face progress, the Church has allowed its sluggish character to take hold of its conversations with the world.

8. I am disappointed by those who are afraid of the hierarchy.

9. I am disappointed by an institution that has used faith to bully public servants and has denied communion to those who have sought only to serve the common good.

10. I am disappointed by clergy who have used the pulpit as a means to proselytize a particular political agenda.

11. I am disappointed by the American bishops’ selfish claim of ownership of the principle of religious freedom.

In short, I am disappointed in the Church and its hierarchy. Standing in and looking around a Catholic Church, I not only feel as if I am no longer in my own home, but I also fail to recognize the Church itself. As a human being, I will not be a part of an institution that has allowed fear to drive its theology as is evident in nearly all of the issues that I cite above. For this reason, I have decided to leave the Catholic Church.

I am disappointed, frustrated, and saddened; yet amid my decision to leave the Roman Catholic Church, I am liberated. By this decision, I am following a conscience that leads me to believe that humanity has been created in the image of God. If we truly accept and believe this fundamental teaching, our world of judgment turns into a paradise of acceptance and compassion.

I am not leaving the Catholic Church because of any one particular issue or person, rather because I believe that the Church itself has lost sight of its meaning. A Church founded on hope and charity has become a tradition steeped in an approach that can best be described as “command and control.”

With this decision, some will argue that I should stay and continue efforts toward dialogue and the evolution of theology. On the other hand, some will say that I should have taken this step a long time ago, and still others will say “good riddance, so long.” The reality is that the journey of faith cannot be controlled by others, but rather is dependent only on one’s relationship with his/her Creator.
I now stand at new juncture in my faith journey. It is a place that can be described as both unfamiliar and yet eerily recognizable.

As I depart, I remain disappointed in the Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchy; however, I realize now that I am not joined by chains to the Church. In fact, it is the Church that taught me how to free myself from the bonds of oppression so as to constantly seek liberation. The question is when will the Church choose to loosen its own bonds so as to truly engage with the world around it?

Complete Article HERE!

July 7, 2013

Protests mount over fast track for John Paul’s beatification

Sex abuse controversy refuses to go away as Catholics prepare for ceremony in Rome

By Tom Kington

A growing lobby of churchmen and religious experts are challenging the speed with which the Vatican is propelling Pope John Paul II towards sainthood, just six years after his death.

Hailed as the pope who helped bring down communism, who prayed alongside Jews and Muslims, and shrugged off an assassination attempt, John Paul will be beatified in St Peter’s Square next Sunday, a first step towards sainthood.

The Vatican is erecting tent cities and stocking up with millions of bottles of water. More than 300,000 people are expected to descend on Rome to honour the Polish pontiff whose charisma gave Catholicism a new lease of life.

But as the crowds begin to arrive, doubts are being expressed over the decision to begin beatification proceedings for John Paul immediately after his death in 2005, instead of observing the usual five-year waiting period.

Some experts are questioning whether John Paul is fit for sainthood at all, pointing to his poor record in handling the sex abuse allegations against priests that came to the fore during his 26-year papacy. “I oppose this beatification and predict history will look unkindly on John Paul, who was in denial as the worst crisis since the Reformation happened in the church,” said Father Richard McBrien, a theology professor at Notre Dame University in the US.

“My doubts are about John Paul being beatified by his successor, Pope Benedict,” said the Catholic historian Michael Walsh. “It appears incestuous and akin to the habit of deifying one’s ancestors.”

Even as Benedict faced the fallout from accusations that scores of priests abused children around the world, he has pulled out the stops to beatify John Paul. Sorting through hundreds of miraculous cures attributed to the pontiff, Vatican officials have selected the overnight recovery from Parkinson’s disease of a French nun as the miracle required for beatification. Experts believe canonisation could follow in two to three years.

“Years from now people may be saying, why the rush?” said Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author. “It takes a little bit away for future generations.” Tom Reese, a theologian and author, added: “What we need are fewer popes and priests beatified, and more real lives.”

The ramifications of the sex abuse scandal will continue as an internal Vatican report on predator priests in Ireland reportedly lands on Benedict’s desk, ahead of the publication next month of an Irish government report on the scandal. It is expected that the report will shed light on whether the abuse was ignored by Bishop John Magee of Cloyne, a former private secretary to John Paul.

John Paul’s unwavering support for Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Mexican priest and morphine addict who ran the powerful Legion of Christ movement, has also sparked concerns. Maciel has been accused of abusing seminarians, fathering up to six children and allegedly pacifying the Vatican through large donations, despite complaints about his behaviour dating back to the 1970s.

Supporters of the pope have argued that John Paul was wary of sex abuse accusations after seeing communist officials use fake charges to discredit priests in his native Poland. But Walsh said there was no excuse with the Legion. “John Paul clearly safeguarded Maciel,” he said. Benedict was quick to banish Maciel to a life of penitence in 2006 after his election as pope.

Those voicing reservations over John Paul’s beatification are very much in a minority. Martin said: “Among church insiders there is a sense of the perceived haste over the beatification, but it’s a small concern among ordinary believers. The Vatican is often criticised for not responding to the will of the people, but here you can argue it is doing just that.”

Visitors to his simple marble tomb are convinced John Paul is worthy of beatification. “He had courage, look at how he forgave the man who shot and wounded him in St Peter’s Square in 1981,” said Olivier de Pommery, a banker from Paris. “Through his own illness at the end of his life he taught us to live and suffer with love,” said Marie Louise Murebwayire, from Rwanda. “He made suffering become love and gave dignity to all people who suffer.”

Following his beatification, John Paul’s remains will be moved to a large, ornate chapel near the entrance to St Peter’s Basilica. The tomb of a 17th-century pope, Innocent XI, will be moved to make space.

Complete Article HERE!

July 5, 2013

Scalia’s Son Says Homosexuality Doesn’t Exist, Plans to Address Group that Encourages Lifelong Abstinence for Gays

File under: The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Two men with big fat homo issues. Poor dears!

By Brian Tashman

Courage, a Roman Catholic group that encourages gays and lesbians to live lifetimes of abstinence, is planning to hold its annual summit this month at the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill., which will include a speech by Fr. Paul Scalia.

Paul Scalia is the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and his involvement in Courage is well known.

The conference’s website lists Scalia as “the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Courage apostolate” and says he will speak on “Fearing the Lord … and Not Being Afraid.”

Courage also points to an article Scalia wrote for the Fall 2012 edition of Humanum: Issues in Family, Culture & Science, in which he reviews three books authored by Courage founder Fr. John Harvey.

Scalia’s piece claims that critics of homosexuality are being silenced and mistreated, while in “this radical transformation of society, one of the greatest casualties is the individual who experiences homosexual attractions but who desires to live chastity.” He adds that it is unfortunate that Harvey used the term “homosexual person” since according to Scalia, those people do not exist: “We should not predicate “homosexual” of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations.”

After hailing Harvey for having eventually “ceased using the term “homosexual” or “homosexual person,” Scalia goes on to claim that many people have “have found freedom, to varying degrees, from homosexual attractions” and deny that people have sexual orientations: “Homosexual tendencies (to use a term from magisterial documents), do not constitute a fixed, unchangeable aspect of the person and therefore should not be considered an “orientation”…. Either our sexuality is oriented in a certain direction (i.e. toward the one-flesh union of marriage), or it is not.”

Consider how swiftly American society has changed as regards homosexuality. The “Stonewall riots,” the touchstone and unofficial beginning of the gay rights movement, occurred in June 1969. Since then, the demands from the gay community have progressed from simple tolerance, to acceptance, to the right to marry, to now the silencing of any opposition as bigoted and “homophobic.” Those who once insisted on tolerance for their lifestyle will now tolerate no disagreement. Society now requires everyone’s approval of what not long ago was regarded as morally abhorrent.

In this radical transformation of society, one of the greatest casualties is the individual who experiences homosexual attractions but who desires to live chastity. He finds, on one hand, the homosexual community encouraging him to live out his sexual desires, to claim his gay identity, to embrace the lifestyle, and so on. Worse, even some in the Church will encourage him to do so. Unfortunately, among those to whom he turns for help, he may find insensitivity, ignorance, misunderstanding, or simply an unwillingness to help. This individual is caught in the crossfire of the broader battle. He suffers great loneliness and often despair in the face of a struggle that some see as futile and others ignore.

…

In these books Father Harvey repeatedly articulates and explains the principle that guided his work and the work of Courage – namely, the distinction between the person and his homosexual attractions or tendencies. Those who advocate the goodness of homosexual acts and lifestyle do so because they identify the person – always a good – with the homosexual inclinations. They therefore conclude that such inclinations must be good and so also, of course, the actions. Likewise, those who feel shame and loneliness do so precisely because they have come to identify themselves (their very persons) with their same-sex attractions, which they know (both intellectually and affectively) to be wrong. The work of Courage (and of the Church as a whole) turns on the person/attraction distinction. We can fairly summarize that work as distinguishing the person to be loved from the attractions to be resisted and even overcome.

In this regard we must note the unfortunate title The Homosexual Person (and therefore also the unfortunate title of the CDF document). In short, we should not predicate “homosexual” of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations. The chronology of the books helps us to see the development in this area of language. Indeed, the Church is still trying to find the right vocabulary to speak about this modern phenomenon. Thus in his last book, Father Harvey ceased using the term “homosexual” or “homosexual person.” His thought and ministry brought him to realize that it is better to speak of someone with “same-sex attractions.” Although lacking brevity and ease of speech, this phrase has the virtue of precision. It acknowledges both the person/attraction distinction and the complexity of the condition – not fairly summarized as an “orientation.” Which brings us to another matter of vocabulary.…

Father Harvey’s use of the term “orientation” also underwent a deserved change. In his first two books we find the use of this word to describe homosexual inclinations or attractions. In the last book, however, he deliberately avoids it. This reflects the increased appreciation for the fact that homosexual tendencies (to use a term from magisterial documents), do not constitute a fixed, unchangeable aspect of the person and therefore should not be considered an “orientation.” Further, the term does violence to a proper understanding of human sexuality. Either our sexuality is oriented in a certain direction (i.e. toward the one-flesh union of marriage), or it is not. We cannot speak of more than one sexual “orientation” any more than we can think of the sun rising in more than one place (i.e. the orient).

Indeed, one of Father Harvey’s contributions is his discussion of the possibility for healing of homosexual attractions. He deftly navigates the extremes (on one hand, that change is impossible… on the other hand, that it is morally obligatory) to present the simple truth that many have found freedom, to varying degrees, from homosexual attractions. Thus we cannot speak of it as a fixed, unchangeable, unchanging “orientation.” (For this reason also the Church made a similar correction in the second edition of the Catechism, removing unfortunate language that implied homosexuality is a fixed orientation.)

Complete Article HERE!

June 27, 2013

Philly Archdiocese grappling with pensions for clergy

File under: Say it ain’t so! Financial irregularities? In the Catholic Church? Can’t be!

By John P. Martin

A pension fund for priests cited as a priority in a $200 million fund-raising campaign by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has fallen precariously short of money, and church officials want parishes and retired clergy to help cover the shortfall.

In meetings this spring, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput told priests the plan had been underfunded, poorly managed, and was spent on rising health-care costs for clergy, according to three priests who attended or were briefed on the talks. Chaput said the fund needed $90 million to be solvent but had less than $4.5 million, they said.

Clergy living at the archdiocese’s Delaware County retirement villa and other church-owned facilities are expected to contribute 40 percent of their pensions to the archdiocese, the priests said. And parishes’ annual assessments to the pension fund will rise from $6,700 to about $9,300 per priest, they said.

The changes come two years after the archdiocese ended a fund-raising campaign that made shoring up the priests’ pension plan one of its goals.

Kenneth Gavin, a spokesman for the archdiocese, said the policy requiring priests in church-owned facilities to refund portions of their pensions started in April. He would not discuss other changes or aspects of the pension plan, including what the archbishop said in his private meetings with clergy.

Gavin said the archdiocese planned to release “detailed financial reports” about its spending and costs this summer.

Rumblings about the pension troubles started last year, catching some priests by surprise.

“I was certainly horrified to learn that our pension fund was not secure, as would be any person who works in any organization,” said the Rev. Christopher Walsh, pastor of St. Raymond of Penafort in Mount Airy.

Walsh, who helped organize a fledgling association for archdiocesan priests, did not attend the meetings but said he learned about them from others who did. He said he hoped Chaput and his staff would “quickly establish a secure pension fund as a matter of justice.”

Dioceses across the country have faced similar financial struggles in recent years, compounded by dwindling attendance, aging clergy, and the economic downturn. But the impact has been acute in Philadelphia, where more than a million Catholics and hundreds of priests are also grappling with the fallout from clergy sex-abuse allegations. “The caveat for priests was always that the diocese was going to take care of you,” said one Philadelphia pastor nearing retirement who asked not to be identified discussing his employer’s finances. “None of us knew when Chaput arrived here 20 months ago that the diocese was in this bad of shape.”

Chaput himself didn’t know it, he conceded in an interview with The Inquirer in the fall. Only after moving from Denver in 2011, he said, did he realize that his predecessors in Philadelphia had relied on deficit-spending budgets for 15 years.

His tenure since has included a drumbeat of grim financial decisions: shuttering schools, closing or merging parishes, and selling off assets, including the cardinal’s residence on City Avenue and an oceanfront home for clergy in Ventnor, N.J.

The archdiocese has 425 active priests, most living in rectories and other church-owned facilities across the region. It also counts 161 retired priests on its rolls, and cares for many of them. If they remain healthy, priests typically retire at age 75 and qualify for an annual pension worth half their final salary, usually about $12,000, clergy members said.

Some leave to live with relatives or on their own in private homes. Others live in parish rectories, or at Villa St. Joseph, a church-owned retirement complex in Darby. But some of the older archdiocesan priests never registered for Social Security, and they end up retiring without a guaranteed government check or medical benefits, priests said.

Adding to the pension fund was one of six goals highlighted during the “Heritage of Faith, Vision of Hope” fund-raising campaign launched in 2009.

“Established in the early 1990s, the priests’ pension plan currently has over $10 million in assets,” literature for the campaign said. “In order to meet the anticipated needs of our retired priests, the pension plan requires an additional $40 million.”

That campaign sought $12 million for the pension plan and $3 million for renovations at Villa St. Joseph.

When it ended in early 2011, the campaign had yielded pledges of more than $220 million, church officials said. Earlier this year, they publicly acknowledged that collections on those pledges had fallen short, and they downgraded their projected receipts to less than $180 million.

Gavin, the spokesman, said $4 million in Heritage of Faith donations were transferred into the priest pension fund on Jan. 31. But he declined to elaborate or discuss updated totals for the rest of the money collected and spent, a topic the archdiocese is expected to address in its report this summer.

One suburban pastor said the redemption rate on pledges “took a dive” soon after the campaign ended, about the same time a Philadelphia grand jury report led to the arrest of four current or former priests and the suspension of two dozen others accused of child sex abuse or misconduct.

In his meetings with clergy, the archbishop specifically denied that their pension funds had been used to cover costs related to the suspensions or ensuing investigations, some of which are still open, the priests said.

Last year, Chaput reported that the archdiocese had spent more than $11 million through June 2012 related to those cases.

The abuse and misconduct allegations have had at least an indirect impact, pushing more priests into early retirement. Priests who have agreed to leave public ministry and accept a life of “prayer and penance” after being accused of sexual abuse or misconduct are eligible to collect their pensions, according to information on the archdiocese’s website. At least 19 priests are now living under such restrictions, most on the same campus as Villa St. Joseph’s.

At least 25 other priests from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia have been laicized or voluntarily left the priesthood in the last decade. Church officials have not disclosed how many of those defrocked priests, some of whom were in the clergy for decades, collect a pension.

Earlier this month, Gavin declined another request for that information.

One pastor who attended a meeting with Chaput said he believed the archbishop was doing everything possible to keep them informed and find solutions to the financial mess he inherited. “I have total confidence that we’ve been given a correct and honest appraisal of things,” the priest said. Rita Schwartz, union president for non-religious teachers in archdiocesan schools, said she had heard about the troubles with the priests’ pensions, but was confident that pensions for archdiocesan teachers, which are managed through a separate trust, were stable.

Clergy pension funds have plunged in Boston and other dioceses, according to Charles Zech, who directs the center for the study of church management at Villanova University. Zech said he had not examined the financial situation in Philadelphia but wasn’t surprised to hear about the pension-fund troubles.

This archdiocese, he said, seems to have been battered by “a perfect storm of bad things happening at once.”

Correction: This story was corrected to reflect that the $11 million cost to the Archdiocese stemming from the sexual abuse scandal was not covered by insurance.

Complete Article HERE!

June 26, 2013June 26, 2013

Columnist and Activist Both Criticize Cardinal George on LGBT Issues

File under: Francis, The Killer Fruit

By Francis DeBernardo

Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George has been in the news lately not only for his vocal opposition to Illinois’ marriage equality bill, but because he recently denied communion to a gay Catholic activist at a Mass celebrating the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach in his city.

Robert McClory, a columnist for The National Catholic Reporter, took apart an essay about marriage equality written by George in the Chicago archdiocesan newspaper. McClory exposes some of George’s fear-mongering rhetoric, not only on marriage equality, but also on the issue of religious liberty, which seems to be one of George’s main purposes in writing the column.

For example, McClory is justifiably incredulous at George’s depiction of how secular society is “marginalizing” Catholics. McClory writes:

“George then launches out into the deep about the separation of religious faith from public life. He blames John F. Kennedy for starting a roll down the slippery slope and worries Catholics will be eventually barred from federal judgeships, medical schools, editorial offices at major newspapers, the entertainment world and university faculties.

” ‘If Catholics are to be closeted and marginalized in a secularized society, Catholic parents should prepare their children to be farmers, carpenters and craftsmen, small business people and workers in service industries,’ occupations that ‘do not immediately impact public opinion.’ What?”

McClory hits the nail on the head in his concluding paragraph which points out George’s true blindspot:

“Unfortunately, what Cardinal George cannot consider is the possibility that Catholics at the grass-roots level are coming to understand new and different ways to welcome to the table those previously excluded. Many, including not a few theologians, propose that the essence of marriage is the love and permanent commitment of two persons to one another — period. As that conviction matures in time, I believe the church will have to make accommodations with its implications, just as Christians in the time of Galileo had to reinterpret so much they and their ancestors had taken for granted as irreversibly, dogmatically true: the movement of the earth, the sun, moon and stars. It was for many a painful, revolutionary process. And the one believing Christians face now will be for some no less painful and revolutionary. But it must be done, lest the Catholic church disintegrate into a closed, inconsequential cult.”

McClory doesn’t comment on what I consider George’s greatest errors in his essay. Speaking of marriage equality advocates, George states:

“Further, the claim that one is not equal under law is powerful in our society; it makes one a victim. And the claim that one is being demeaned and personally wounded is even more powerful evidence of victimization. “

Yet, isn’t that what so many Catholic bishops are doing when they claim that their religious liberty is being curtailed because of pro-LGBT laws? Aren’t they claiming “victim” status? Isn’t George guilty of exactly the thing he accuses his opponents of doing?

The cardinal presided at the 25th anniversary Mass for Chicago’s Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach (AGLO), and he was greeted by about 25 protesters from the Gay Liberation Network and the Rainbow Sash Movement (RSM). The latter group is composed of Catholics who present themselves for communion while wearing a rainbow sash, indicating that they believe in the full equality of LGBT people and that they disagree with the hierarchy’s prohibition of sexual activity between person’s of the same gender. When the RSM’s director, Joe Murray, went to the cardinal for communion, he was refused.

Joe Murray
The Windy City Times reported:

“Murray stood up with his back to Cardinal George during parts of the Mass, and then he went up with the estimated 200 others in attendance to receive communion. George refused him, and Murray walked away with his hands open and empty, showing the congregants that he had been denied.

“But in an emotional show of solidarity, Brenna C. Cronin, who had already received her communion as part of the church choir, went back up and took another communion wafer (called a Host) and brought it to Murray herself.

” ‘One of my brothers, a member of my community, who is a full and equal member of the body of Christ, was denied communion. So I got back in line and I brought him communion, as I would for anyone else,’ Cronin told Windy City Times after the Mass. Cronin, who is a lesbian, has been involved with AGLO for two years and is also a cantor.

” ‘I was denied communion by the Cardinal,’ Murray said after. ‘I turned to Christ, I walked back open handed, and showed the community that I was denied communion, and Christ, in his mercy, sent me a priest [Cronin] to give me communion.’ “

The news story indicates that some in the congregation supported Murray’s action, while others were critical of it. You can read the entire news account HERE. It contains additional comments from both George and Murray.

Complete Article HERE!