Gerald Augustinus points out some interesting information from a Catholic church's parish website in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Interesting, in the sense of being contrary to Catholic church teaching.
The small church with the open door nestles in a quiet corner of Prospect Park just east of the Mississippi - a haven in winter, a blooming jewel in summer. Immediately you are caught up in the friendship, spirit and shared energy of this worshipping community. There's evidence everywhere that Cabrini opens its doors to all. The building and the liturgy are accessible - no steps, an elevator to the sanctuary, listening devices and signing for the deaf and hard of hearing, a large print version of the weekly bulletin. A raft of posters and notices invites GLBT persons, immigrants, new neighbors and re-entry Catholics. Posted notices also suggest the commitment of the parish to peace and justice in a global environment. ... As Mass begins you will notice immediately the inclusive feel of the liturgy. Led by volunteer musicians, the congregation participates fully in the music. Members adorn the sanctuary with fresh flowers and volunteers assure that the environment reflects the liturgical season. Parishioners share their petitions and their reflections on the readings of the day.Each Sunday worshippers gather after the 9:00 Mass (or 10:00 Mass in summer) for homegrown hospitality in Garvey Hall. Culinary competition among volunteer host households is keen! You'll probably find a craft sale, a letter-writing campaign or a fundraiser in progress. Cabrini is both special and unpretentious, small in number but large of heart, not for everyone but just right for many.
Well so far, no obvious heresy, though having a GLBT ministry (gay, lesbian, bi, transgendered) is usually a warning sign that a parish is heading that way. The teaching of the Church on gay behavior is pretty straightforward.
Just to review, here's how the Catechism explains it.
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
You cannot say it in plain English much more clearly than that. There is not a lot of room for interpretation or nuance there; church teaching is what it is.
And it is not a matter of simple bigotry. It involves the church's understanding of the human body, the role of sex, and the creation of life. Simply put, the church believes that sex that is not open to the possibility of creating human life is contrary to God's intention for the act. Because sex is the means by which new human lives are created, and new souls are put on the Earth, it is an act fraught with great moral significance, and is reserved for married couples -- men and women.
The parish, though, begs to differ -- and has done so in writing. Here is their "Statement of Reconciliation".
St. Frances Cabrini ParishSTATEMENT OF RECONCILIATION
We, the members of St. Frances Cabrini Parish, claim as our own the words of the Apostle Paul. "There is no longer Jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no longer male and female: for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
As members of one body we are grieved by the separation of many of those Catholics who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual from the Catholic Church. We are aware of the centuries of oppression that these brothers and sisters have suffered at the hands of civil and religious authorities. We are aware of recent attempts by our bishops to label our brothers and sisters as "objectively disordered," and to fight against their being granted their full civil rights.
We are also aware that these brothers and sisters have walked with us in our faith throughout the centuries. They have served the Church in every capacity, from the most humble to the most exalted. Despite the hostility they have encountered, they have by their actions proven to be true lovers of Jesus. In being honest about their sexual identity, they have embraced a difficult cross.
I think it is interesting that they are willing to own that particular quote of St. Paul's. I wonder if they they are willing to own 1 Corinthians 6:9-20 as their own, also:
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor boy prostitutes, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Or how about Romans 1:20-28, if that is not clear enough?
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
I'm not so sure St. Paul would necessarily agree with where they are headed with this. But perhaps I quibble, and I'll let them interpret that passage as they see fit for now.
But where the parish says
"We are aware of recent attempts by our bishops to label our brothers and sisters as "objectively disordered," and to fight against their being granted their full civil rights",
this is heading into open disobedience. The teaching of the bishops, while not considered infallible, is nevertheless worthy of considerable respect, and requires obedience from all Catholics. In the Catholic church, a bishop is not simply a man with a funny hat -- he is an heir of the Apostles. When one opposes a bishop, one is opposing the Apostles, and this is getting into dangerous ground.
And the church's teaching on homosexuality is not a new teaching -- it has been held by the church for two thousand years, and by Judaism for long before that. It is not as if this is an obscure or difficult theological point, or something that the church has no opinion on. If one opposes a bishop, one ought to be able to point to other bishops, church councils, Rome, or Scripture to make one's case. One cannot simply reject the teaching of the church without an appeal to another, or higher, authority. This parish instead has chosen to reject the teaching of the bishops without making any kind of theological case for what they are advancing.
I don't want to create a strawman where the parish has not offered an argument, but the argument typically advanced is that it is the opinion of some scientists, and of gay people themselves, that they are born gay.
That may well be. We are all born with inclinations that are sinful. I may have been born with wiring that makes me more likely to be a compulsive gambler, or prone to drink, or likely to have a hair trigger temper. Knowing this might be helpful in explaining my behavior or in mitigating my culpability when I gamble, drink, or swear. But I do not say "I am an alcoholic, and therefore I am without sin." I ought to say, instead, "I am an alcoholic, therefore, I ought to avoid occasions where I am tempted to drink," or "I have a short temper, I must learn behaviors that allow me to overcome my anger lest I hurt someone."
It may be a real struggle for me. It may be something that I struggle with, and never successfully overcome. I may go to my grave drinking, swearing, and gambling, despite my best efforts. But I am compelled to make the effort. I am compelled to acknowledge my sinfulness. I am compelled to confess my behavior as sinful. And I am compelled to try to live up to what the church asks of me. And if I can't do it, the church still forgives. I must still try to avoid the sin, and to avoid bringing the church into the public scandal associated with it.
But let's keep going . . .
With this history in mind we commit ourselves and our community to:
Reach out to the gay/lesbian community, encouraging them to join our parish;
Regularly publish our welcome in the gay press;
Promise to educate ourselves about gay/lesbian issues and work to overcome stereotypes;
Include a gay/lesbian perspective in catechesis at all levels, including elementary school age;
Support lesbians and gay men in ways that promote stable, healthy relationships;
Publicly bless the relationships of a same sex couple after the couple completes a process of discernment similar to that completed by heterosexual couples before marriage; *
Stand willing to accept qualified, openly gay or lesbian priests or lay ministers;
Zealously work for and guard the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, knowing that all of our civil rights are compromised when theirs are;
Pray for greater understanding and acceptance of gay, and lesbian people in official Church teaching;
Encourage other parishes to become publicly reconciled with the gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual community.* Not being implemented at this time.
Approved August 1994
OK, now we're getting into real problems.
"Include a gay/lesbian perspective in catechesis at all levels, including elementary school age."
I guess the Devil is in the details. What, exactly, is that perspective? That homosexual acts are sinful, objectively disordered, and that people with the orientation are called to live celibate lives? If not, then are we teaching something other than the Catechism, and if so -- on whose authority? The other thing I would question is whether the material is age appropriate -- should I be teaching questions of sexual ethics to grade school children, who generally don't practice sex? Might I not gear the teaching of children toward something more productive -- "Don't lie, steal, or cheat in school, kids" or "Here is how you say the Our Father"?
Why bring up questions of sexual ethics to children at all, other than to say "these are matters for adults, and no one, of any sex or age, including your parish priest or this catechist, is to touch you inappropriately"?
Needless to say, were I a parent, I'd want to see anything my children were being taught before I'd endorse a GLBT ethics class for grade school children. And I think I might want the bishop sitting next to me in that review.
Then there's this:
"Support lesbians and gay men in ways that promote stable, healthy relationships."
My only question is if the relationships here are celibate. If not, then the parish is endorsing relationships that are in clear contravention of the Catechism and church teaching. Put simply, it's promulgating heresy.
There's also this line:
"Publicly bless the relationships of a same sex couple after the couple completes a process of discernment similar to that completed by heterosexual couples before marriage;** Not being implemented at this time.
In other words, to paraphrase the authors of this statement, "this line is included to show you what we really think. As a parish, we think the teaching of the Church is wrong. And we're willing to say so in public. And although we're not yet willing to step over that bright red line that will get our parish closed, we're willing to trot right up to it and lean over it. And maybe stick our tongue out at the Bishop, and put our thumbs in our ears, and wiggle our fingers at him. And we've been willing to do so since 1994!"
The same goes for this:
Stand willing to accept qualified, openly gay or lesbian priests or lay ministers.
Sorry, but I think John Paul II already closed the door on the possibility of women priests. And if you think Rome is going to tolerate openly gay, lesbian priests, then I have to question whether you're really living in the same world the rest of us are, or in a fantasy world.
The whole Statement of Reconciliation is disobedient and provocative, especially in that it takes public aim at the bishops, who are the heirs of the apostles and the visible signs of unity in the church.
Now there are times when I think the bishops are wrong in certain of their statements. I think the bishops tend to stray into areas where they do not have a clear role to preach. I think sometimes they give us less than their best efforts or wisest guidance in matters of liturgy. And I think sometimes they are timid in promulgating the faith.
But I do no pick public fights with the Apostles -- which is what they are. I think about what they are saying, and I give them the respect they are due. And where I might hold private beliefs that differ from theirs, I try not to make a public issue of it.
I have written my own bishop on matters where I wanted something different from what my bishop was giving me. For instance, I like to attend the occasional Tridentine mass, and my diocese, prior to Summorum Pontificum, did not offer one (there is still no parish in my diocese that offers it regularly). I asked my bishop if there were plans to offer the mass. His liturgist wrote back to tell me, somewhat tersely, there were not. Since Summorum Pontificum, my bishop still has not commented publicly on the subject of the Tridentine mass.
I wish he would. I wish he would say "Parish X has volunteered to offer the mass regularly, and we'd like to support them in it." I wish he'd promote it.
But you know what? He hasn't, and I accept that. He is a busy man, there is a lot on his plate, and he may not have the time or resources to promote this. He may not even like the Tridentine mass. I don't know.
I do know that in his diocese, he has a Catholic college that he has to periodically rebuke on matters of their teaching, and he does so. He has done this even though it has opened him up to public criticism -- though certainly not from me, on that score.
But where he hasn't done what I want, I do not complain publicly about him. It is not my place to complain about my bishop. It is my place to learn from him. It is my place to accept what he says, not only when it is agreeable to me, but especially when it is disagreeable to me. He is the teacher, and we are the students. He is not infallible, and I do not know him personally, so I do not even know if he is a good man, at heart. I know that the church has appointed him to lead my diocese. And I support him.
And if I had a dispute with him, I'd try to figure out why I had a dispute with him. If it was because he was taking a different line from Scripture, the Catechism, or Rome, I'd certainly address him privately on the subject -- and if I didn't get an answer that satisfied me -- and if i could honestly state that the matter was serious, and I was not in simple error on it -- I'd write to Rome.
But is that the case with this parish in Minneapolis? We see them promulgating open and public disavowal of church teaching. They are clearly moving toward a fight with their bishop, and in that fight, I do not think that Rome is on their side -- and I do not think they could possibly believe that, either.
The Catholic church is not a political party, or a democracy. It may bend from time to time, but it doesn't reject two thousand years of teaching just because it has become politically popular to bless gay marriage. If you expect it to, then you're going to be disappointed. And this is not a simple matter of discipline -- Rome could, for instance, allow married clergy if it wanted to, as it has done so in the past (and in a few cases, in the present -- google the Pastoral Provision for former Anglican clergy if you want to see examples right here in the United States). This is a matter of moral doctrine. It is a matter of Catechism. It is also a matter of theology on which the Church has already devoted a lot of thought, and has already made up its mind. Scripture is clear on it, as well.
It isn't going to change on this one. Period.
But the bigger question I have is this:
If you question Rome's teaching to the point of open disobedience, then why do you even think you need Rome? Either Rome has the authority it claims, or it doesn't. If it does, then you are simply wrong. If it doesn't, then why do you want it to agree with you?
Why not join the Episcopal Church, which has all the beliefs you want, already?