Dolan attempts Re-defining “Religious Liberty” for America.

I live in a heavily Jewish neighborhood in Los Angeles. Every Friday I see many of my neighbors walking (it is not permitted to drive on the Sabbath) with their families. Some of them wear clothing that would have been used in nineteenth century Eastern Europe. Some men simply wear conservative suits and yamaka their wives dressed in black or dark blue ankle length dresses.


My next-door neighbor is an Evangelical Protestant. Every Sunday, he and his wife, dutifully climb into their SUV and drive to their church for worship. The Buddhists down the block own a Thai restaurant and have a neatly manicured lawn. There is a gay couple a few doors down the street, one is an agnostic and the other is an atheist. There is a Church of Religious Science located at the end of our street. The Minister and his partner (a Roman Catholic) came to dinner a few weeks ago.


When I think of “Religious liberty” I think of my neighborhood in LA. Religious Liberty for me, and many Americans, means that you are free to follow your own conscience on matters of belief. That no one, no institution and most certainly not the government have the right or the power to dictate to you what you may or may not believe, or what dietary or adult consensual sexual practices you may or may not engage in predicated on those beliefs.


The Buddhist couple, although they are vegetarians, serve meat dishes to their customers who wish to purchase and eat meat. The local supermarket stocks and sells both kosher foods and bacon. When the city repaved our street, the Religious Science Church down the block offered its parking lot to local residents, so that they had a place to park their cars. They did not require us to convert to Religious Science for that convenience. Occasionally Jehovah Witnesses ring the doorbell, I am polite but have absolutely no desire or intention of joining their religion. The Hasidic Jews have not threatened to burn down the Religious Science Church because the Minster is gay and has a male partner.


I would be offended and vocal, if any of my neighbors were attacked or maligned because of their beliefs, or if some entity attempted to force them to change their beliefs. I hope my neighbors would also stand by me, if I were attacked or maligned due to my beliefs, or some entity attempted to forcibly change my beliefs. That is my understanding of “Religious Liberty.” However, Archbishop Dolan of New York City, the current president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops [NCCB] has a radically different understanding of “Religious Liberty.”


“Citing the famous preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Dolan wrote that the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are now "increasingly and in unprecedented ways under assault in America" because of administration policies.”


He goes on to list six items he believes impinge on “Religious Liberty.” These include:


1. Proposed regulations that requires private health insurers to cover contraceptives for patients who wish to use contraceptives.

2. Proposed requirements those religious aid groups, who accept federal money, to include condoms in their HIV prevention campaigns.

3. Dolan claims that “the religious conscience exemptions” in the proposals from the Department of Human Services “are not broad enough.”

4. Dolan also cites the administration's challenge to the "ministerial exception" rule, which will be argued Wednesday (Oct. 5) at the U.S. Supreme Court, which could determine whether churches have to conform to employment discrimination laws for workers who are not clergy.

5. Dolan also blasted the White House's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

6. Dolan voiced frustration that neither he nor the previous USCCB president, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, received responses to private letters sent to Obama. Dolan said that's partly why he decided to take the feud public.




Essentially, Dolan wants,


1. For your health insurance NOT to cover the cost of contraceptives that you chose to use.

2. To use your tax dollars as he wishes, without requirements attached for the use of public funds.

3. To be able to invoke “religious conscience exemptions” at will and at his personal discretion.

4. To apply “ministerial exception” not only to clergy, but also to secretaries, gardeners, custodians, bookkeepers, choir directors, musicians, housekeepers, accountants, security guards, and any other person employed by the Church. That means these employees, as a condition of their continued employment, had better agree with the NCCB.

5. The NCCB not elected representatives, to decide policy decision and civil law.

6. The President of the United States (and all other elected officials and Judges) to “consult” privately with the NCCB in the formation/implementation of laws.

Where did the Roman Catholic Hierarchy get the idea that they have the right and the power to do all of this stuff? The Emperor Constantine and fifteen centuries of dictating moral laws in Europe and Catholic colonies. Oh, and that little exercise of over ruling the California State Supreme Court on Prop 8 (with a huge check written by the Mormon Church's leadership in Salt Lake City).

Thankfully, President Obama and the Federal government are choosing to follow the example of most Roman Catholics (and many Catholic theologians/priests) and simply ignore Archbishop Dolan, the NCCB and the Vatican. True Religious Liberty grants religious entities the freedom to make the laws of their religion, which may be voluntarily followed by their believers, but it does not grant them the power to dictate the law of the land, so far.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, in the NY State Marriage Equality Battle.

First, a heartfelt THANK YOU! To Governor Cuomo for his noble intentions and great efforts on behalf of Equality. His courage, vision and unwavering leadership stand as a national model that will hopefully inspire other elected officials to move from being “politicians” to becoming “statesmen.”


Consider State Sen. Jim Alesi of Rochester, the first Republican senator to express support for same-sex marriage, predicted last week that the measure would pass with 35 votes. Not the bare minimum 32 votes, six of those votes in Senator Alesi’s projected count, would have been Republicans. So, why does it seem that the Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos is choosing kill the bill by political maneuvering?


The “micro” answer is that Michael Long, a majority of Republican State Senators, Archbishop Dolan & Co., and probably the national RNC are applying considerable political pressure in order (among the Republican Party elements) to appeal to their base. On the part of Dolan & Co., it was to appeal to Benedict XVI (and secure future promotions).


The “macro” answer is essentially that Skelos, Long & the Republican Party are driving in a very determined manner, tragically they have their eyes firmly fixed on the rearview mirror and are not looking through the windshield. Politically, this is a strategic error on the part of Republican leadership, since objective poling indicates that Americans now approve of Marriage Equality by 53% (58% in New York state). Furthermore, those polls show a movement in favor of Marriage Equality by 2% to 4% annually.



This posits a serious national problem for the Republican Party, their current strategy might work for one more national election, but after that they will have to do a radical 180-degree course correction on Marriage Equality and other LGBTQ Civil Rights issues. In short, if they kill New York State Marriage Equality legislation, they will squander a credible opportunity to begin making that course correction. An ardent Equality Foe, New York state senator Ruben Diaz said, “gay marriage is inevitable in the State of New York.” Had I been a political consultant to Skelos & Co., I would have advised him to bring the bill to a vote and timed it to occur while the President was delivering yet another of his signature milquetoast speeches at an LGBTQ fundraiser in Manhattan.




In one of life’s delicious ironies, President Barack Obama was speaking at an LGBTQ fundraiser the very night that the New York State Senate Republicans were expected to announce a decision on allowing the Marriage Equality Bill to come up for a vote. Talk about a missed opportunity for the Republicans! Take a moment now to imagine (and enjoy) the frenetic conversations between Obama and his speechwriters as he attempted to calculate the most non-committal and yet “encouraging” speech possible. Reach for an airsickness bag as you read Obama’s statement that Equality legislation should, “Best addressed by the states.” What would you call a politician that made such a statement regarding Jim Crow laws?




Consider Obama's actions on a national Health Care Plan, the two TRILLION dollar wars, the housing/financial crisis, the closing of GITMO in Cuba, his reluctance on ending DADT, hesitation on ENDA and his last hour conversion on DOMA. Winston Churchill's quip about America seems very apt about Obama as well, "Eventually they [he] will do the right thing, but only after they have [he has] exhausted every other option." In my heart, I wish it was President Cuomo instead of Obama, but like a person on a bicycle who sees an Aston Martin drive by, I wish that was mine, but the bicycle will get me were I need to go.


That said, I am not reaching for my checkbook with any enthusiasm or haste and if DADT is not certified by the projected September 2011 date, I will have extra money to spend on gifts this holiday season. I am sure that Obama’s view, and more importantly, his real world actions on, Equality legislation will “evolve.” However, I believe that evolution will reflect objective political polling, and not a personal moral conviction, on the subject. At the end of the day, he is a politician. He may well be of service to Equality, but he is no Joan of Arc, Dr. King, Gandhi or even Abraham Lincoln.


So, what practical lessons have we learned from this circus? The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Stand-up, Speak-out, reward/punish with your vote & checkbook, and perhaps most of all, do not settle for anything less than Equality NOW, or that is what you will get.

Passing, a symptom of bigotry.

We have been here before, at the threshold of equality, waiting and hoping that tomorrow will see an end to discrimination. That tomorrow will bring the relief and hope of a sunburst after a terrible storm. For many of us, that storm began when we were children and discovered that we were “different.”


Learning how to “pass” as straight was a requisite for survival in grammar and High School. The cost of pretending to be something other than our self was self-hatred. It meant dating people for appearance sake. It meant lying to our parents and siblings, our cousins, our classmates, our teachers, to strangers. It meant laughing along at “fag” jokes told by all of the aforementioned people. Do they know? Do they suspect?


For many of us that psychological and emotional straight jacket, with which we were fitted as children, remained immovably in place as adults. Serving in the military, in religious organizations of our birth, in states without protections for LGBTQ workers, in “corporate cultures” that looked down on “them.”


I was at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama attending Chaplaincy School in 1992. President-Elect Clinton had promised to lift the ban on gay & lesbian service in the Armed Forces. About sixty Chaplains sat in a conference room listening to a lecture from a Major. “Let’s brainstorm,” he said, “the Commander-in-Chief has said he intends to lift the ban on gays in the Air Force. I would like all of you to share how this we can implement this change.”


In my peripheral vision, I saw a glass wall, behind which several Airmen were operating recording equipment. Directly in front of each Chaplain on our desk was a small microphone, about the size of a dime. Perhaps it was seven years of navigating my way through seminary, where comments made at dinner, or on the recreation field, or in class, would appear on reports and be inserted into files. Perhaps it was having gone through years of “peer evaluations” and being voted on by professors as to whether or not I was fit for ordination. Something inside of me sensed this was a trap.


“Sir, until the Uniform Code of Military Justice is amended, it is inappropriate for us to speculate on what laws, policies or procedures will change." My comment abruptly ended the exercise. Years later, I discovered that similar “exercises” took place on other bases and that those who spoke out in favor accommodating gays faced career repercussions.


These memories streamed into my mind as I read the following piece in the Baltimore Sun,


In Maryland, Del. Emmett C. Burns, himself a veteran of the civil rights movement and one of the state's most outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage, gave voice to the disconnect between the two issues. During the floor debate on the gay marriage bill, Delegate Burns, who is a minister, said the push for same-sex unions is not comparable to a civil rights movement in which blacks and their supporters were beaten or killed. "If same-sex marriage is to be equated with the civil rights movement that I know … show me your Birmingham, Alabama, where high-pressure water hoses were turned on us, so powerful they knocked the bark off trees."


Reverend Burns concluded: "I am a black man, an African-American. I cannot change my color, nor do I wish to do so. Those who are gay can disguise their propensity. Even in this legislature, 50 or 100 years ago gays and lesbians were here because they could disguise who they were. I was not here because I can never disguise who I am."


I would encourage Rev. Burns to read the story of black Americans who “passed as white,”



Thelma Marshall knows that routine.


During the 1950s and early '60s, she did what her mother before her had done. What her grandmother and aunts had done.


She passed for white.


"One time I told a woman I was black, colored in those days," Marshall recalled. "She said, 'You won't get the job unless you pass for white.' "


So that's what Marshall did.


"I passed for white on lots of jobs," she said. "I had to be white to get the jobs." It's what many fair-skinned blacks did during those times.


Marshall's remarks are without shame or remorse. She felt she did what she had to do. Still, it is a prickly subject, and the 76-year-old woman does not want to offend so she asked that her real name not be used.

Passing for white offered not only opportunities, but also the opportunities white people received. During slavery, it could mean freedom. There are many documented instances of fair-skinned slaves who posed as white to escape. In modern times, it meant being able to vote in the South. It meant a job in the office rather than a job cleaning the office. It meant schools with the latest equipment and books, instead of dilapidated buildings and out-of-date texts. It often meant better housing. It meant being treated with respect, not disdain.


Barbara Douglass recalls the difference between going out with her white college friends vs. her black college friends.


"We went to a show, about six of us [black students]. The manager came and sat behind us. I asked him 'Why are you sitting behind us?' He said, 'I have to make sure you don't destroy anything.' "


Douglass said she told the manager that he had never sat behind her before.


His response was, "You never came with these people before."

Douglass, who the manager had assumed was white, encouraged her friends to leave the theater rather than be insulted.



So, Rev. Burns, what is worse? Being called an epithet, or having someone like you being called that epithet? No more than you had a voice in your skin color, did I have a voice in my orientation. As a child in the fourth grade when I discovered that I was a homosexual, and then discovered that this was “wrong.” I spent decades of my life trying to repress who I was and “passed” as straight, as Thelma Marshall and Barbara Douglass “passed” as whites.

You speak of being able to “disguise” who you are as some sort of a luxury, or personal indulgence. Shame on you Sir! Shame, for your lack of empathy and for the ignorance you have of your own people’s suffering. Shame for having come from a people who were subjected to discrimination and for now choosing to be an instrument of discrimination for another group of human beings.


If the Buddhist are correct, you will come back as a gay man in a culture you helped to create. If Catholics are correct, the same fate will be your purgatory. If Protestants are correct, it may well be your own personal hell. Sadly, for us all, you (like Archbishop Dolan of New York) help to make hell on earth by being an instrument of discrimination, by adding to the sufferings of others, by choosing to be a bigot.

Who decides what is legal in New York (& the USA)?

The New York Times reports,

Several Republican senators in New York are urging Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to consider changing his proposed same-sex marriage bill to better protect religious institutions, addressing a concern that has emerged as one of the bill’s chief obstacles as the legislative session comes to an end.



Conservative religious leaders and representatives of the New York State Catholic Conference made the rounds of the Capitol on Thursday seeking to press their case against the measure.

“We are relaying our very serious concerns to members of the Legislature regarding the religious liberty implications of Governor Cuomo’s bill,” said Dennis Poust, a spokesman for the conference. “It should be noted that we will continue to strongly oppose any redefinition of the historic understanding of marriage, regardless of the strength of the religious liberty protections. However, should the bill pass without adequate protection, it will have potentially far-reaching consequences for our ministries, both in terms of contracts to provide services and potentially to challenges to not-for-profit status.”



Dennis Poust, communications director for the New York State Catholic Conference, says it has a network of more than 60,000 people across the state emailing and making thousands of phone calls to senators' offices.
"We're trying to convince them, this is not right for the state," he said.





The bill does not compel any member of the clergy to conduct same-sex marriages, but some Republican lawmakers are concerned the legal protection is not strong enough.


New York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan on Wednesday equated the actions of lawmakers to restrictive Communist regimes.

Actually, Dolan has far more in common with those dictatorial despots who use the power of the State to impose their vision of right and wrong involuntarily on powerless citizens. Make no mistake, this is not about "morality" it is about raw naked political and social power. It is about the power of individuals to live freely versus the power of institutions, like the Catholic hierarchy, to dictate how those individuals may live. Dolan's assertion is not merely absurd, it is an unsophisticated inversion of the truth meant to seduce and deceive the public and intimidate politicians. In his own words,


"Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America - not in China or North Korea," he wrote on his blog. "In those countries, government presumes daily to 'redefine' rights, relationships, values, and natural law."


So the question is: what's "natural" or "unnatural?" That, in turns, leads to a more overarching question: Is homosexuality a status or a choice?


Some thinkers, including several members of the Supreme Court, seem to reason that homosexuality is an inborn status.
Catholicism--and, indeed most religions--teach that while homosexuality exists, homosexual activity is a "disordered" choice against the laws of nature.
If homosexuality is indeed a status rooted in biology or genetics, then homosexuals, like left-handed people, act according to their nature. But if homosexuality is a choice rooted in behavior, then homosexuals act against nature.


Stay with me, because here the argument splits even further. Are we talking about civil rights or morality?


In terms of civil rights, individuals deserve and are afforded protections for both status (say, skin color) and choice (for example, religious affiliation).
In terms of morality, status is neutral, while choice has implications and consequences.


Catholicism argues that homosexuals deserve legal protections, but not because homosexuality is a status. Catholicism says homosexual activity is a choice. So while bishops support non-discrimination policies, they won't agree that homosexuals are protected because of their genetic makeup.


Catholic thinkers have grappled with this question for ages. Creighton University professors Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler are the latest voices on the Catholic circuit. Their 2008 book, "The Sexual Person," just earned a rebuke from the U.S. bishops' doctrine committee.


Salzman and Lawler's dense academic argument turns traditional Catholic teaching on natural law on its head. They redefine natural law, saying "nature" is personal and individual, and that sexual activity need not be directed at procreation (contrary to what the Catholic Church has always said).


Salzman and Lawler argue that what is "natural" for a heterosexual is not "natural" for a homosexual, and therefore homosexuals and heterosexuals must act in accord with their personal "natures".


In other words, if it's "natural" for a homosexual to perform homosexual acts, then--for that person--heterosexual acts would be "unnatural" and immoral. For the two professors, homosexual activity is only immoral for the heterosexual acting against his or her nature.


Bottom line: Salzman and Lawler are arguing that homosexuality is a status, not a choice. If that's the case, then everyone--including the Catholic Church--should line up in support of an entire rainbow of gay-related arguments and ideas.


Taken to their logical conclusion, Salzman and Lawler's arguments would mean that Catholic moral teaching must do a complete about-face and disconnect sex from marriage--even from procreation--altogether.




Brooklyn Diocese' Monsignor Kieran Harrington says every diocese is now aggressively getting the word out to Catholics across New York, which make up 38 percent of the state population, to encourage parishioners to contact senators.


“Every diocese is speaking out to congregations to realize how significant this is,” he said.


Harrington also accuses Gov. Andrew Cuomo and liberal lawmakers of misrepresenting not only the issue, but also those who would oppose it.
"They're trying to say people of faith are bigots, and we think that's offensive," he said. "If they are convinced we were bigots they wouldn't be giving a religious exemption. How can they be proposing an exemption for bigotry?...They can't have it both ways."



What the “good Monsignor,” (I am reminded of an old seminary saying regarding Monsignors, “You have to kiss purple to wear purple.”) conveniently omits is that the majority of “Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall.”



State Senate GOP Majority Leader Dean Skelos just said there is no decision to bring gay marriage out for a vote, our Glenn Blain told me. Skelos said they were still deliberating the religious exemption issue and working on changes to the bill. Staffs will continue to work on the issue during the weekend but since Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver will be observing the Sabbath, not much official can be done until Sunday.

This is not a “cliffhanger” in the sense of loved ones waiting to hear from surgeons operating on a loved one. In that case, it is a question of skilled physicians and staff working feverishly to preserve life. In this case, it is a question of pope Benedict and archbishop Dolan working feverishly to preserve bigotry.

Bigotry is a term that is bandied about much by people on both sides of this issue. A danger in this practice is that we become desensitized to its meaning. Bigotry means, you don’t get the job, or you lose it because of whom you are. Bigotry means you are emotionally and physically abused EVERY day at school, year after year. Bigotry means that you are afraid to speak the truth about yourself to your parents and siblings. Bigotry means that you have to lie about yourself, simply to survive. Bigotry means that you turn to alcohol, drugs, comfort foods for some temporary relief and these themselves become new demons that you must wrestle. Bigotry means that one third of gay adolescents attempt suicide and many of them—tragically, succeed.

Let me say it here very clearly and unmistakably, archbishop Dolan and pope Benedict are actively promoting bigotry.

Sheldon’s comment about not working on the Sabbath recalls a question from a young Rabbi, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath—or evil? To preserve life--- or destroy it?” [Luke 6:9]

What the Vatican & American bishops DO NOT want you (and Politicians) to know.

At a New Year’s Eve party in 1999/2000 a woman exclaimed, “You are gay and you are a priest! How can that be?!” I asked her if she had ever visited Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. “Yes, I have,” she answered. “Well, let me let you in on a little secret, if straight boys had built that church, it would be an “A-frame” with cottage cheese on the ceiling.” Edgar Allen Poe quipped, “The best way to conceal something is by putting it in plain sight, no one would ever think of looking for it there.”


Lest I be accused of speaking anecdotally, let me cite some published proof for the truth conveyed in the forgoing encounter:




"The exact number of gay priests worldwide is unknown. A study conducted in 2000 by Father Donald Cozzens for his book The Changing Face of Priesthood suggests that as many as 60 percent of all American Catholic priests were gay, but those numbers varied greatly depending on geographical location. “At issue at the beginning of the 21st century is the growing perception that the priesthood is, or is becoming, a gay profession,” Newsweek




Donald Cozzens, Ph.D. a psychologist and former Rector [President] of Saint Mary’s Major Seminary in Cleveland, Ohio, states,


“An NBC [National Bishop’s Conference] report on celibacy and the clergy found that ‘anywhere from 23 percent to 58 percent’ of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation. Other studies find that approximately half of American priests and seminarians are homosexually oriented. Sociologists James G. Wolf in his book Gay Priests concludes that 48.5 percent of priests and 55.1 percent of seminarians were gay. The percentage appears to be highest among priests under forty years of age. Moreover, the percentage of gay men among religious congregations of priests is believed to be even higher. Beyond these estimates, of course, are priests who remain confused about their orientation and men who have so successfully denied their orientation, that in spite of predominantly same-sex erotic fantasies, they insist that they are heterosexual.”

“The Changing face of the Priesthood” (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 2000) page 99



“Equally disturbing is the tendency of bishops to overlook the fact that a disproportionate number of homosexuals are being recruited into our seminaries. I know of one seminary where, two years ago, 60 percent of the students identified themselves as “gay,” 20 percent were confused about their sexual identity, and only 20 percent considered themselves to be heterosexual.” “What Are We Advertising?” The Tablet, April 24, 1999. (553)



“Andrew Greeley believes that U.S. bishops, unclear on how to address the issue of expanding numbers of gay priests, have simply resorted to denial. Among the effects of this psychological defense mechanism is the toleration of lavender rectories and seminaries. ‘Bishops Paralyzed Over Heavily Gay Priesthood,’ National Catholic Reporter (November 10, 1989) 13-14”



“Trappist monk and author Matthew Kelty states,


"Since most men have a woman to love, whom is the gay man to love? God, surely, in the context of community and a noble, celibate service. This is the pattern of history, for then the sexual is absorbed in the loving communion with God and community.
‘The Land I Love In,’ Homosexuality in the Priesthood and Religious Life, ed. Jeannine Gramick (New York: Crossroads, 1989) p. 148.”




Father David Trosch, said the following in a published letter,


“Perhaps a year later in a conversation with a highly placed priest of the archdiocese he stated that approximately 35% of priests were homosexuals. It was most disconcerting to read the following article in which Fr. Cozzens, the head of a Catholic seminary, says that estimates range as high as 60% of American priests are homosexual.

Unfortunately the article states that, "Cozzens is not against ordaining gay men, and concedes some effective bishops and even some popes may have been gay."

I totally disagree with his position of not being against ordaining gay men. I personally believe that it should be incorporated into the Code of Canon Law that homosexual orientation invalidates ordination, that is, makes homosexual orientation a diriment impediment to ordination.”





All of this data might only be of interest to academics, psychologists, sociologists and Church officials; were it not for the fact that those responsible for this state of affairs (no pun intended) in the Catholic Church are themselves promoting an anti-LGBTQ social and political agenda. New York state will be the next battleground for an intense lobbying effort by Catholic bishops (led by Dolan of NYC) of elected officials. This will be an effort by Archbishop Dolan & Co. to defeat Marriage Equality legislation from becoming a reality in New York State.


The fact that many of these Catholic bishops are themselves gay, as the statistics clearly suggest, is something that many of us in the Catholic Church and the LGBTQ community already know. Some of the most homophobic people in the world, are repressed homosexuals.

More bad news for Catholic bishops come from an unexpected source, Catholic theologians.

"Creighton University professors Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler are the latest voices on the Catholic circuit. Their 2008 book, "The Sexual Person," just earned a rebuke from the U.S. bishops' doctrine committee.

Salzman and Lawler's dense academic argument turns traditional Catholic teaching on natural law on its head. They redefine natural law, saying "nature" is personal and individual, and that sexual activity need not be directed at procreation (contrary to what the Catholic Church has always said).

Salzman and Lawler argue that what is "natural" for a heterosexual is not "natural" for a homosexual, and therefore homosexuals and heterosexuals must act in accord with their personal "natures".

In other words, if it's "natural" for a homosexual to perform homosexual acts, then--for that person--heterosexual acts would be "unnatural" and immoral. For the two professors, homosexual activity is only immoral for the heterosexual acting against his or her nature.

Bottom line: Salzman and Lawler are arguing that homosexuality is a status, not a choice. If that's the case, then everyone--including the Catholic Church--should line up in support of an entire rainbow of gay-related arguments and ideas."




Ever increasing numbers of ordinary Catholics are disregarding the Pope and bishops on Same-sex orientation and Marriage Equality. They have already done this with regards to divorce and remarriage, artificial contraception and the role of women in society.


I wonder how long it will take U.S. Elected officials to connect the dots and discover that Catholic bishops do not speak on behalf of Catholic Voters. In fact, listening to Catholic bishops on social issues, is likely to infuriate (Catholic and Non-Catholic) voters and could cost Elected officials reelection.

Easter Spring Cleaning in NYC's Saint Patrick's Cathedral

This Sunday 24 April 2011 is Easter Sunday. A group of LGBTQ people, both Catholics and non-Catholics, intend to meet in front of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.


Why? In their own words,


“Right here in New York, Archbishop Timothy Dolan and other Bishops and other Catholics of New York State will travel to Albany to lobby state leaders on March 8 to, among other things, ‘’oppose efforts to redefine marriage.’’ It should come as no surprise, but the Pope recently said that no one has an absolute right to be married. More laws or doctrines that discriminate can only contribute to a culture of hate and violence.”



Some will attempt to depict this peaceful protest in support of LGBTQ Civil Rights as “an anti-Catholic attack” targeting Saint Patrick’s Cathedral on the Holiest Day in the Catholic calendar.


The reality is that it is Archbishop Dolan and other Catholic bishops who are out of step with the vast majority of Catholics. It is their relentless and unjust attacks on members of their own flocks, that constitute an “anti-Catholic and anti-human attack.” It is they who blaspheme the Holy Day, as Jesus said, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or evil? To preserve life or destroy it?” [Luke 6: 9]


These homophobic attacks on the Civil Rights of LGBTQ Catholics, their dependents and their loved ones, are what are truly anti-Catholic and anti-human. Denying people with same-sex orientation the right to a Civil Marriage, not only robs them of over 1,000 legal protections, rights and obligations associated with Civil Marriage. Dolan and American bishops are supporting a system of Apartheid laws that effectively condone bigotry and stigmatization of people with same-sex orientation in American culture. The Center for Disease Control “Youth as Risk Study” of 1999 states that 33% of gay adolescents attempt suicide, Last years spate of suicides by LGBTQ students was a chilling reminder of the power of hate in our society. Jesus’ words about taking a life on the Sabbath are not mere hyperbole in this matter.


Archbishop Dolan and many of America’s bishops are accomplices to this hatred. Polls demonstrate that they do not speak for the vast majority of American Catholics on this issue. Dolan & Co. attempt to further the cause of bigotry by attempting to unduly influence elected officials, they support hate organizations like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) headed by Maggie Gallagher.


As Jesus said of religious officials of his day, “Their words are bold but their deeds are few. They bind up heavy loads, hard to carry, to lay on other men’s shoulders, while they themselves will not lift a finger to budge them. All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and wear huge tassels. They are fond of places of honor at banquets and the front seats in synagogues.” [Matthew 23: 4-6]


Archbishop Dolan knows all too well, that if he wants to become “Cardinal” Dolan, then he must “persuade” New York’s State Elected Officials to legislate what Benedict XVI wants as law for the citizens of New York State.



The irony about the Church’s overt homophobia is illustrated in Tim Unsworth’s book, “The Last Priests in America” (New York: Crossroad, 1991) on page 248, Unsworth states,


“An NBC report on celibacy out of Chicago stated ‘anywhere from 23 percent to 58 percent’ of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation. A newly ordained priest from a large, multidiocesean seminary believes that at least half his classmates were gay, and a gay Catholic layman, who frequents gay bars in his city stated, ‘I just can’t go into a gay bar without meeting at least one priest….I’m told that the diocese punishes its diocesan priests if they’re seen in a gay bar. That’s terribly ironic since some of the ones meting out the punishments are gay themselves.’ A.W. Richard Sipe’s estimate is that by the year 2010, if the present trend continues, the majority of the clergy will be homosexual.”



Speaking the truth is never an offense against God, or authentic spirituality. Not speaking the truth, especially on Easter Sunday, does constitute such an offense.


What can you do?

1. If you are in, or near New York City on this Easter Sunday join in this peaceful demonstration for Civil Rights and Human Dignity.

2. Write a letter to the Editor in your local newspaper expressing your support for this action.

3. Encourage family and friends who live in the NYC area to participate in this Action.

4. Publicize this Action.