Rather than write anything myself on the unfolding chaos in Balitmore, I will link to remarks made by Balitmore Orioles COO John Angelos, who actually seems to get it:
I recently found out that the traditional Catholic boys boarding school that crashed a burned a couple of years ago in the wake of a sex abuse scandal is back in business with many of the same characters back at the helm:
The phrase “If only public teachers/coaches/scout leader/whoever could marry!” is often bandied about by conservotrads to mock the notion that the clerical abuse crisis is caused by celibacy, noting that non-Catholic individuals who are presumably free to marry are also guilty of sexual abuse. While it is true that child molesters can be of any marital status, religion, or profession, the “If only X could marry!” view ignores the reasons why the reputation of the Catholic church has been so damaged by the clerical sex abuse scandal.
Section 2358 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about the plight of LGBT people in this well-known and often quoted text:
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.
What we have is the church trying to maintain a “middle road” between the notion of “gay liberation” and the hardline evangelical view that considers LGBT people as an existential threat to “traditional values” and “traditional Christianity.” Conservotrads like to use this passage to show that the church really does care about LGBT people and doesn’t wish them any harm. However, if this is true, then why is it that the Catholic church always supports measures that aim to codify discrimination against LGBT people? Conservotrads would probably answer by saying that these “religious freedom” bills are necessary to protect religious organizations and religious people against discrimination lawsuits. But if your actions are putting you at risk for lawsuits, doesn’t that mean that you are by definition engaging in discrimination? I would say so.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines discrimination as, “the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people.” Refusing to serve someone because of their sexual orientation constitutes treating a group of people unfairly. As many people have pointed out, even if a business owner find gay people objectionable from a religious standpoint, it begs the question of why he or she isn’t refusing service to other categories of “sinners” like divorcees, gluttons, heterosexual adulterers, Sabbath breakers, liars, inhospitable people, etc. Why is the “sin” of homosexuality to be treated so differently than others? I suppose that much of this is due to the fact that LGBT people are a relatively small minority, whereas divorcees and gluttons are so numerous that their “sins” don’t even seem like “sin” even to other religionists.
Discrimination is nothing less that institutionalized violence by the legal system against a particular group of people. For the Catholic church to assert that it doesn’t wish violence onto LGBT people while at the same time supporting laws that legalize discrimination against them is the height of absurdity. It’s even more ridiculous, given that prelates in Africa have gone on the record as supporting “kill the gays” bills or laws that would jail LGBT people for simply congregating in one place. One is reminded of the behavior of Yasser Arafat, who used to say one thing in English to the Western media and would then say the exact opposite in Arabic to the Middle Eastern press. However, the Catholic church in the West is still advocating for violence against LGBT people like it is in Africa, just in a different way.
The fundamental problem with the way the Catholic church deals with LGBT issues is that it regards such people as being outside of its moral concern, much in the same way it traditionally regarded Jews and similar to how the church in America traditionally viewed black people. LGBT people are a social and moral problem, not individuals in their own right, similar to how Western societies once spoke of “the Jewish question,” “the Negro question,” and even “the woman question.” While it is unclear if any of the a fore mentioned questions have adequately been answered, it is obvious that in 2015 “the gay question” is the major moral and political issue of our time. Since Catholic moral theology has traditionally seen homosexuality as a sin to be repented of or a crime worthy of death, it can’t easily assimilate the “gay liberationist” framework into its thinking. Given how much time and energy the church has investing in trying to spread the notion of LGBT people as “objectively disordered” it can’t exactly back away from its position without alienating conservotrads or looking stupid. My guess is that in 50 years or so, the “objectively disordered” language will be de-emphasized, and conservotrads will insist that the church always taught LGBT equality. Until then, the Catholic church can’t claim that it is against violence towards LGBT people while support legalized violence against them.
Several weeks ago, I wrote about the problem of sexually active priests in general and the ongoing situation of former EWTN friar/personality David Stone. In that post, I stated my belief that consensual relationships between priests and adults were abusive by definition, not just because of the power deferential but also because of the secrecy and lies that such a relationship requires. I recently finished “Celibacy In Crisis” by A.W. Richard Sipe, a former Catholic priest now turned psychologist, and I now realize that my previous assessment of priestly sexual relationships was too kind.
(Given the controversies about feminism that have been cropping up again and again in atheist circles, I think that this unpublished essay that I wrote last year would be apropos)
(Note: This expands upon a response I originally left at Bilgrimage.)
There’s been a lot of discussion on the Catholic blogosphere on the subject of morality clauses being used against lay employees at Catholic institutions, especially if said employees are heterosexual females or some combination of LGBT. While all employees at Catholic institutions are theoretically held to the same standard of conduct, the only types of sins that these clauses seem concerned about are those of a sexual nature; to my knowledge, no one at a Catholic school or university has been sacked for gluttony or inhospitality, for example. Female employees are disproportionately targeted by these measures, since they literally carrying around the evidence of their perceived “sin” if they get pregnant out of wedlock or through IVF. LGBT employees of either sex are also vulnerable, should they chose to be open about their sexual or gender identity. In many cases, however, the school community has been sympathetic to the “sinners” point of view, leading to showdowns between the hierarchy in charge of enforcing adherence to faith and morals and the community that the school is supposed to serve.
Last year, I told a condensed version of my de-conversion story on Rod Dreher’s blog in response to a post he did in which he crowded about how millenials are supposedly flocking to conservative churches with traditional liturgies. One of the other posters asked me why I couldn’t “just believe” rather than over-analyze and over-think the elements of Christianity. Why couldn’t I be satisfied with the simple Biblical tales enshrined in stained glass windows that had sustained the faith of the peasantry for centuries? As I recall, the essence of my reply was that while “just believing” like a little child (see Matthew 18: 3) may be considered a virtue in Christianity, it’s really not a good idea. In fact, I would go as far to say that the notion of “just believing” is one of the worst ideas that the Abrahamic faiths in general have foisted on the world.
Earlier today, I was looking for some more articles about the Bishop Williamson and found this article about the disgraced friar Francis Stone via “The Deacon’s Bench” blog on the Patheos Catholic channel: