They are going through amendments there has been a request to consider separately. They have the amendments in front of them, but we don't know what they are. So it's hard to follow.
Archbishop Burke is speaking about Courage and EnCourage . It seems as if his amendment is calling for explicit recognition of the ministry. Saying that there is no support group that is more faithful or has more history.
Bishop Serratelli: says the committee agrees with Bishop Burke. It's not a question of the group. The committee felt with a generic statement and not to recommend or mention any particular group.
Bishop Paproki gets up and speaks in support of Archbishop Burke and poitns out since this is a document for bishops, it would be helpful to have specific suggestions.
Archbishop Niederauer speaks against Archbishop Burke's amendment. I want to support the committee's judgment for a generic mention. No reason given.
Bishop Kinney speaks in favor of Burke's amendment -
Cardinal George: in favor of the amendemnt, strongly, saying that Courage has been unjustly attacked and falsely misrepresented. The effectiveness of the group has struck him: "they are not only striving to be chaste, but they are striving to be saints. They are holy people." The problem with it is that it is an anonymous ministry. It is a 12-step program. This is one way that should not be overlooked.
Bishop Sullivan: Against the Burke amendment - it's a divisive issue. Such a complex issue. People who are really inately oriented will not be cured.
Serratelli: What about a footnote?
Burke: I was hoping for more than a footnote. Not adequate.
Vote on the amendement as Burke proposed it. Voice vote inconclusive.
Go to the computers: The amendment is defeated 121 to 105.
Now Serratelli has proposed a footnote - put Courage and Encourage in a footnote.
Discussion: Bishop Sullivan, again, against. Many associated with national association of diocesan directors of ministries to gays and lesbians will be offended. They should be mentioned too.
Bishop Morlino: Why can't Burke's amendment be amended?
It's kind of a morass right now. And I've got to go.
Lest you think this is a small matter - it's not. There are many, many in Church structure who are very hostile to Courage and what it stands for.
(Just so you know - Niederauer is now speaking in favor of including Courage and Encourage in a footnote.)
Voice vote on footnote - passed by a wide margin.
I wish Niederauer could be reduced to a footnote.
Posted by: Romulus | November 14, 2006 at 12:10 PM
"it's a divisive issue. Such a complex issue. People who are really inately oriented will not be cured."
Gosh, it's tough to witness such weaping from one whom is called to be a shepherd and be addressed as Father.
Whom are they more concerned about:
the inately oriented, or protecting the sanctity of our children and the holy family?
Their vote on this, indicates it's the inately oriented.
Pathetic as to be expected
Thank God for those who had enough 'courage' to vote with Burke.
Posted by: Marc | November 14, 2006 at 12:19 PM
The footnote is fine. It explicitly recognized that Courage is the kind of organization that the document is referring to. That means it points away from heterodox organizations that don't respect Courage. Even the bishop of San Francisco speaks in favor. That is unexpected.
Posted by: Randy | November 14, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Full steam ahead with a grossly deficient document...gotta' get to lunch, by god!
Posted by: midwestmom | November 14, 2006 at 12:25 PM
Besides, Courage is about chastity, not about "curing" orientation. Maybe some who stay chaste find themselves having some heterosexual orientation, but that is not the goal; this is not orientation change therapy. The goal as I understand it is chastity, including chastity in thoughts and private behavior.....just as it is for all of us.
It seems as if the bishop who spoke against mentioning Courage somehow doesn't understand this. One wonders then, if he and his "ministries" to gays and lesbians, accept the idea that having the orientation equals acting on it, and the way of thinking in which accepting gays and lesbians means accepting that homosexual behaviors can be licit. If so, they are not thinking with the mind of the church on this issue.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson | November 14, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Randy may be on to something. Footnotes and Nota Bena (I hope I've got the Latin right) carry considerable wait and are generally noted/observed in Church documents more than in, say, term papers.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi | November 14, 2006 at 12:32 PM
Who's responsible for the scheduling of the agenda anyway? Going into the meeting, it was very public that the document on ministry to homosexuals would be one of the most controversial items. Why would discussion on it be scheduled for late morning? I think it's scandalous how very little discussion there was on this document.
Posted by: midwestmom | November 14, 2006 at 12:32 PM
A big THANK YOU to Bishop Sullivan for finally giving me an answer to my question re: the fidelty of the diocesan GLBT etc "ministry" to the teaching of the Catholic Church. No One has given me a straight answer but, by Bishop Sullivan's statement that this group( which is supported by my contributions to the diocese) would be "offended" by even a reference to COURAGE...I have my answer!
Posted by: glenna | November 14, 2006 at 12:33 PM
"weight," of course. Too much Percocet.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi | November 14, 2006 at 12:33 PM
Considering that Archbishop George Niederauer has returned Fr. Meriwether of the infamous Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco as Pastor this week, it is no surprise that he does not "encourage" Courage. This parish has a web page which includes pictures of men kissing and Fr. Meriwether blessing the participants of a gay pride parade.
http://www.mhr.org/pride2006.html
Fr. Meriwether forced leave after giving permission for the Sisters of Indulgence to use the parish facilities has worn off now that the media attention has died down.
Posted by: Jeff Miller | November 14, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Bishop Sullivan: Against the Burke amendment - it's a divisive issue. Such a complex issue. People who are really inately oriented will not be cured.
Boy this Bishop doesn't have a clue (or maybe he does and he just wants to propose his own agenda). The goups in reference here are NOT trying to CURE someone. They want them to live chaste and holy lives. This is like saying the person without legs will never be cured so we souldn't out in ramps for his wheelchair.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2006 at 12:44 PM
Are the results of these votes normally made public? It would be interesting to see who voted against Burke's amendment.
Posted by: Michael in ArchDen | November 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Which of the several Bishop Sullivans was this?
(New York, Brooklyn, Richmond?)
Posted by: mio | November 14, 2006 at 01:00 PM
Jeff Miller,
Thanks for the link. Unbelievable!
Posted by: midwestmom | November 14, 2006 at 01:03 PM
mio:
\ I assumed it was Bishop Dennis Sullivan of New York because the other two are retired, and as such, do not have a vote.
Posted by: amywelborn | November 14, 2006 at 01:07 PM
These posts are great, but it would be generally helpful if you could identify what diocese a speaking Bishop comes from - if you know, that is; I don't mean to ask you to do outside research.
Posted by: James Kabala | November 14, 2006 at 01:25 PM
I see that many of these bishops appeared in earlier posts and were identified there. Sorry and never mind.
Posted by: James Kabala | November 14, 2006 at 01:29 PM
Why not use the language of the Church: "Temptation" is the proper word, not "inclination" or "orientation" which mitigate freewill.
There are two and only two possibilities: 1) said persons are tempted but have the full capacity of the freewill and can resist. or 2) they do not have full capactiy of freewill in which case they are sick. Take your choice.
Posted by: Ignacio | November 14, 2006 at 01:34 PM
"This parish has a web page which includes pictures of men kissing and Fr. Meriwether blessing the participants of a gay pride parade.
http://www.mhr.org/pride2006.html "
Absolutely stunning. Check out the "resources" page of this hell-bent parish. This pastor needs to be laicized immediately, the church grounds fumigated and re-consecrated. How long, oh Lord? How long?
Posted by: Jeff Culbreath | November 14, 2006 at 01:35 PM
Sounds to me like some Courage is needed, and I'm not referring to the ministry.
Posted by: RAnn | November 14, 2006 at 01:38 PM
"Why would discussion on it be scheduled for late morning? I think it's scandalous how very little discussion there was on this document."
Well said, Midwestmom. The short shrift given to this discussion will make everyone unhappy.
Posted by: John Jansen | November 14, 2006 at 01:42 PM
Check out the "resources" page of this hell-bent parish.
From the "gay Catholic forum" website they link to:
The day before my ordination as a Roman Catholic priest I had to take an exam to determine whether I could hear confessions or not. If I failed I would not be allowed to hear confessions until I passed another exam!
I went before a board of three priest moral theologians, formally dressed in black. The format was that they pretended to be in a confessional situation with me. The first "case" I was presented with was: "Father I am a married woman with 6 children, I am on the pill and is it ok for me to go to communion or do I have to stop first. Otherwise I am a good Catholic and love the Church and the sacraments."
I decided to take a risk and respond as I would in the real world. I told the "woman" that if she had prayed and thought carefully about it, even knowing the churches teaching on this matter, she could go on taking the pill and be a Catholic in good faith. Thus I told her that she did not have to go on confessing her "sin" of taking the contraceptive pill every week. She could forget about this matter and see herself as a Catholic in good standing, which includes receiving the sacraments.
...
Obviously all this is for you to discern with God. However seen in this light such a gay relationship is a blessing from God and not a curse, a place of grace rather than an occasion of sin. Of course like the rest of humankind you continue to sin in the area of your sexuality, but seen this way, the sin is not in being gay or being in a gay relationship but rather in the ways you live and act within your given sexuality. Indeed not accepting the gift of being gay might be seen as a possible sin.
...
By the way, I did pass my exam and I can hear confessions!
--- Father D.
Posted by: Jason | November 14, 2006 at 01:55 PM
Amy (or someone else "in the know"),
Am I missing something when I wonder aloud why there was so very little discussion on the document?
During the press conference that followed, Fr. Reese was quizzing Bp. Seratelli about the abscence of a line about conversion therapy which was in the original draft. Where can we read the final draft? Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions when I presume there wasn't much changed on this directive. Anybody?
Posted by: midwestmom | November 14, 2006 at 02:09 PM
I, too, feel like I'm missing something.
Courage is all about chastity and happens not to be against conversion therapy. How more faithful to Catholic teaching can you get?
If people are insisting that the freedom to engage in conversion therapy should not tolerated, well, how intolerant and obstinent is that?
Posted by: Saul | November 14, 2006 at 02:19 PM
"By the way, I did pass my exam and I can hear confessions!
--- Father D."
Proof that things will never get better until Rome cracks down on what they are teaching in the seminaries. The bishops are obviously both unwilling and unable to call them to heel.
Posted by: TerryC | November 14, 2006 at 02:21 PM
"Which of the several Bishop Sullivans was this?
(New York, Brooklyn, Richmond?)"
It certainly sounds like something Bp. Sullivan of Richmond would say. But as Amy points out, he's retired.
Posted by: Jay Anderson | November 14, 2006 at 02:32 PM
Does Rome understand how deeply our bishops are failing us? Or are the dicasteries also infected with the same rot?
It is clear that the underlying orientation in the minds of these bishops is conformity with the world, and thinking with the Church goes against their grain. Possibly this has been true in many ages--witness the feudal bishops of the Middle Ages or the courtier bishops of 18th-century France--but it is sad to see that when the Church in this country needs a countercultural witness to the Gospel, those who are supposed to be our leaders do their best to suppress it. If it were lack of courage, one might understand; but I fear it is not lack of courage, but lack of inclination. They are attached to the modern culture, and to maintaining their respectable place in it, and not offending those who are called progressive. They will not correct open disobedience, dissent, and infidelity because they are more in sympathy with the underlying premises of the disobedient, dissenting, and unfaithful than truly converted to Christ in the depths of their minds. Thank God there are a few among them who really believe and dare to take a stand; may there be many more, and may they come to the attention of the Holy Father.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich | November 14, 2006 at 02:47 PM
The USCCB continues its practice of ensuring that orthodox theology is a footnote to Plato.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2006 at 03:09 PM
"Does Rome understand how deeply our bishops are failing us? Or are the dicasteries also infected with the same rot?"
That's the $65,000 question. I think Rome must know. But why nothing is done about it ... I'm really trying to be patient here ... criminey, did you see that website? It would be better to wipe parishes like that off the map than to keep things going as they are. Truly. Bring on the schism, and the sooner the better.
Posted by: Jeff Culbreath | November 14, 2006 at 04:57 PM
Since the brave decision to allow a footnote has been made, does that mean that those others who may still take offense will also be allowed a footnote? After all, that was the reason for not giving Courage a more noticeable position in the document. What, do they think the other groups don't read everything...including footnotes?
Posted by: chris K | November 14, 2006 at 05:32 PM
Are some of the bishops being subtly "outed?" Or are they "outing" themselves.
Go figure... The life of a homosexual bishop...
Posted by: Brian | November 14, 2006 at 05:44 PM
Is it Bishop Andrew Sullivan?
Posted by: reluctant penitent | November 14, 2006 at 06:50 PM
"Go figure... The life of a homosexual bishop..."
O c'mon, it means vacations in Nantucket and Palm Springs...
Posted by: Charles A. | November 14, 2006 at 07:52 PM
Jeff,
Once I was expressing these very sentiments to a good Italian friend, who was a cradle born catholic, alter boy, etc. After listening to me carry on about this very fact of Rome's deaf ears, he matter of factly said, "Ohevin, its about the money the US Bishops send to Rome."
You know, since then, I have always felt that Ole Joe was on to something.
Posted by: ohevin | November 14, 2006 at 09:39 PM
I am appalled at the state of some parishes. I think we need to thank God for the faithful bishops he has given us and pray for more. I have been praying that this false shepherds are removed from positions of influence. I think I need to do more than pray. We all need to sacrifice and fast as well. In Mt 18 Jesus told the disciples that there are demons which will only leave with prayer and fasting. I think we need to listen to him.
Posted by: Barbara Z. | November 14, 2006 at 09:56 PM
Who is that Father D? It does not surprise me that he passed. The gate-keepers are corrupt.
v
Posted by: Ignacio | November 15, 2006 at 06:58 AM
How disgusting. The USCCB approves a document that says that gays are welcome in the Church only if they are silent about who they are.
They'll be "tolerated" only if no one knows they are present.
This happens after the Church scapegoated gay men by for their sexual abuse crisis by deliberately misrepresenting the age distribution of the victims. More than 60% of victims are 13 or under. Clearly, the priesthood has PEDOPHILE problem and probably has transmitted that problem from one generation to the next for more than a millenium
This happens after the Vatican's expert of gays in the preisthood, Msgr. Tony Anatrella, is sued in a French court for allegedly having sex with a seminarian patient he tried to convert to heterosexuality.
Keep your outreach program. I'm not about to try conversion therapy because I don't want to be raped by some self-loathing pervert of a priest. I'm not about to set foot in a Catholic church because if I heard there what I read hear, I'd be obligated to start knocking teeth down throats, and people like all of you simply aren't worth the trouble.
Posted by: CD | November 15, 2006 at 10:58 AM
CD,
Come on! Have you even read the document? Sooner or later, you're going to have to come to grips with Church teaching on the homosexual lifestyle. It's not going to change just because the out-n-proud gang doesn't want to hear it.
Please, pray to the Holy Spirit about your understanding of this matter. And don't assume that everyone who speaks against gay sex hates you and wants you to fall off the face of the earth. It's just not so.
Posted by: midwestmom | November 15, 2006 at 01:58 PM
CD:
From the John Jay report:
tem: 81% of the victims were minor males; 19% were female.
Item: 78% of the abused victims were between the ages of 11 and 17 when the abuse began; 16% were between the ages of eight and ten, and slightly less than 6% were younger than 8 — that is, approximately 2,000 young children were victimized by "pedophile" priests; the remaining 6,600 were victims of homosexual predators.
If you think this is "scapegoating", then so be it. The facts are the facts.
I'm sorry you're so angry that you are unwilling to listen. As the posters have said, Courage is NOT a conversion program. It's about living a chaste life. Somthing we should all aspire to.
And if being challenged to live by the rules of the Church causes you to contemplate "knocking teeth down throats", then I fear the self-loathing you describe may be your own.
Posted by: Zarba | November 15, 2006 at 02:08 PM
"As the posters have said, Courage is NOT a conversion program."
So what if it were? Comments like this are only playing into the activists' premise that there is either no hope for conversion or that no one WANTS to be converted. Bull!
Posted by: midwestmom | November 15, 2006 at 03:55 PM
This opens the door to a groundswell of GBLT out reach programs and so called ministries in parishes across the country. The open SSD dialog in our parishes is an insult to the faith.
Is there any thing else we could better spend our precious time and resources on, other than this? Does this protect the family and our children, or accomodate an acceptance to sin?
Posted by: Marc | November 15, 2006 at 08:44 PM
Zarba,
More than 60 percent were 13 or under, the most common age was 14; and in every year after 14 the percentage declined. This is hardly the case of anyone interested in adults substituting children. The typical male victim didn't even have to shave.
Cardinal Maida's claim was nothing other than scapegoating gays for the failings of the hierarchy and the church as an institution.
The priesthood has always had a problem with intergenerational sex, a form of incest propagated from one generation to the next.
Posted by: CD | November 15, 2006 at 10:38 PM
CD,
I don't see anywhere that homosexuals have to keep silent about who they are. It says only that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is wrong. What I don't get is why is it alright for homosexuals to be intolerant of our beliefs and at the same time rail against us for being intolerant?
Posted by: Barbara | November 15, 2006 at 10:43 PM