« Talking About Music | Main | The Presser »
November 14, 2006
On Homosexual Inclination
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.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I wish Niederauer could be reduced to a footnote.
Posted by: Romulus at Nov 14, 2006 12:10:57 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 at Nov 14, 2006 12:19:29 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 at Nov 14, 2006 12:24:50 PM
Full steam ahead with a grossly deficient document...gotta' get to lunch, by god!
Posted by: midwestmom at Nov 14, 2006 12:25:49 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 at Nov 14, 2006 12:31:41 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 at Nov 14, 2006 12:32:08 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 at Nov 14, 2006 12:32:44 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 at Nov 14, 2006 12:33:13 PM
"weight," of course. Too much Percocet.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 14, 2006 12:33:58 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 at Nov 14, 2006 12:36:46 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 at Nov 14, 2006 12:44:28 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 at Nov 14, 2006 12:56:24 PM
Which of the several Bishop Sullivans was this?
(New York, Brooklyn, Richmond?)
Posted by: mio at Nov 14, 2006 1:00:04 PM
Jeff Miller,
Thanks for the link. Unbelievable!
Posted by: midwestmom at Nov 14, 2006 1:03:29 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 at Nov 14, 2006 1:07:40 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 at Nov 14, 2006 1:25:14 PM
I see that many of these bishops appeared in earlier posts and were identified there. Sorry and never mind.
Posted by: James Kabala at Nov 14, 2006 1:29:47 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 at Nov 14, 2006 1:34:04 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 at Nov 14, 2006 1:35:04 PM
Sounds to me like some Courage is needed, and I'm not referring to the ministry.
Posted by: RAnn at Nov 14, 2006 1:38:53 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 at Nov 14, 2006 1:42:19 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 at Nov 14, 2006 1:55:42 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 at Nov 14, 2006 2:09:33 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 at Nov 14, 2006 2:19:53 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 at Nov 14, 2006 2:21:55 PM
