The Price of Hate and Compromise

Tonight I sat down to check messages on my computer and I found myself overwhelmed with incredible sorrow as I read the following post, “CA Teen Filmmaker Commits Suicide After Making ‘It Gets Better’ Video.”



The article goes on to say that Eric James Borges a 19-year-old resident of Visalia, CA was, “Not accepted by his birth family, Eric James was striking out on his own, trying to deal with his personal situation, but also wanting to help others. Sadly even involvement with the Trevor Project was not enough to help him navigate the turbulent waters of young adulthood.”

Eric grew up in Visalia, California, a town I know very well because I lived there for 15 years. One year 1989 as associate pastor at St. Mary’s (the wealthy White parish) and 14 years as pastor of Holy Family Church (the poor Latino parish) located at 1908 North Court Street in Visalia.

The website for the City of Visalia speaks of the pro-South culture of Visalia during the Civil War that alarmed the Federal government enough to build a military installation in 1862 to prevent an uprising, centered in Visalia, in favor of the Confederacy.

Visalia, like most rural communities in the USA, is socially conservative. I recall walking down Main Street about ten years ago; a new shop had opened up called, “Prim and Proper.” Another priest, also assigned to Visalia quipped, “That’s Visalia.”

There is much that I loved and still love about Visalia, but there exists a dark side to most conservative rural towns in America. They are very wonderful places to live IF you happen to belong to the majority and conform to conservative ideas/values, or at least appear to conform. Eric’s story is chillingly familiar because it is the story of far too many of us.

Most of us become aware of our sexuality at puberty. Our physical attraction (sexual orientation) slowly “dawns” upon us uninvited, it simply emerges as we grow from children into adolescents. The greatest fear for a young LGBT person at this point in their life, is that they would be rejected by the very people that they love the most in this world, their family and their friends. As survival mechanism LGBT children adapt by denying who they are, they learn to lie about themselves to their parents, siblings, friends and classmates.

The price of all of this is ultimately self-hatred. The Center for Disease Control’s 1999 Youth at Risk Behavior Study, found that one-third of gay adolescents attempt suicide. One-Third! Not reflected in those statistics are the abuse of alcohol and drugs by LGBT youth. Not reflected in those statistics are the large numbers of gay teens that are driven from their homes, or emotionally alienated by parents practicing “tough love.” Parents attempting to force their children to be something they are not, heterosexual. All too often parents have been misled into adopting this tough “love” by clergy.

The fact that the hierarchy of many religions, including Catholicism, promote these attitudes towards LGBT people and makes them accomplices to this moral evil. The prejudice, emotional and physical violence, alienation of affection between parents and their children, the resulting despair and tragic suicides can all be traced back to religious authorities who willfully disregard the insights of psychology.

Pope Benedict XVI, just this week, made the absurd and unsubstantiated statement that; gay marriage was one of several threats to the traditional family that undermined "the future of humanity itself".


In the USA those states that have Marriage Equality laws have substantially lower divorce rates that those that prohibit Same-sex marriage.



Consider the following report from the BBC,

“A UK HIV charity said there was a clear link between happiness and health.
Research has already suggested that gay men are more likely to suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts than heterosexual men, and that social exclusion may be partly responsible.


Same-sex marriages are legal in six US states, with Massachusetts the first to allow them in 2003.”

And,

“Researchers from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health surveyed the demand for medical and mental health care from 1,211 gay men registered with a particular health clinic in the 12 months prior to the change, and the 12 months afterwards.
They found a 13% drop in healthcare visits after the law was enacted.
There was a reduction in blood pressure problems, depression and "adjustment disorders", which the authors claimed could be the result of reduced stress.”

And,

“A spokesman for the Terrence Higgins Trust, a UK-based sexual health and HIV charity, said: "There is a known link between health and happiness.
"It's no surprise that people who are treated as second class citizens tend to have low self esteem, which in turn makes them more likely to take risks.
"Whether this is drugs, alcohol abuse, or unsafe sex, treating gay men unequally has lasting repercussions for their health."

Tragically, society (like our President) is “evolving” too slowly to have saved the life of Eric James Borges, 19, of Visalia, California. Hopefully, his death will outrage us to speak louder, work harder and fight more uncompromisingly for full federal equality and protection. For the human dignity that is every person’s birthright.

NAACP 102nd Annual Convention: "Overcoming Homophobia"

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE BY KAREN OCAMB IS REPRINTED HERE:

Civil Rights Icon Julian Bond Speaks at NAACPs First Town Hall Meeting on LGBT Rights

by Karen Ocamb on July 29, 2011 | 12:08 PM

The NAACP held its first-ever town hall meeting to discuss LGBT issues on July 25 as part of its 102nd annual convention held at the Los Angeles Convention Center. The theme was “Our Collective Responsibility: Overcoming Homophobia”. Julian Bond, Civil Rights Icon and Chairman Emeritus NAACP, addresses the NAACP. Video by Renee Sotile & Mary Jo Godges of TraipsingThruFilms for LGBT POV and Frontiers In LA. An extensive piece on the town hall with more video is coming soon.

Polite Bigotry

The man who will become the new Archbishop of Philadelphia in September, Charles Chaput:


“This is the issue of our time,” Chaput adds, speaking of “gay marriage,” in an interview published today in the National Catholic Reporter. “The church understands marriage as a unique relationship, with a unique definition, which is the faithful love of a man and a woman for each other, permanent, and for the sake of children. As children, if we don’t know that our parents love one another, our lives are very unstable. That’s why I think every child deserves a family where the father loves the mother, and the mother loves the father. For us to redefine marriage as anything else undermines that notion. I think it’s very important that the church keep insisting on this.



Let us take a closer look at Chaput’s argument, he claims marriage is, “for the sake of children.” Curiously, “The Roman Ritual” revised by decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and published by the authority of Pope Paul VI, places references to children in red brackets. This is done so that the sacred minister at Catholic wedding rites can easily omit all references to children/childbearing in wedding ceremonies.


Catholic theology specifies two ends to marriage. First the “unitive end” and secondly, the “procreative end.” Marriage is a union of love and life that may also lead to physical reproduction. However, not all marriages will be procreative, a common example would be any marriage entered into by a woman who is no longer capable of reproduction. These marriages are recognized as valid and a sacrament by the Church, even though procreation is impossible. The unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid and sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church and always has been. This is not “new” nor does this in anyway constitute a “redefinition” of marriage.


As regards Chaput’s statement, “As children, if we don’t know that our parents love one another, our lives are very unstable. That’s why I think every child deserves a family where the father loves the mother, and the mother loves the father.”
On surface, this statement seems perfectly reasonable and it resonates interiorly with most people. Of course, a child should be raised in a community of love (family), where he/she is loved. However, the term “parent” needs to be defined. The simple biological act of reproduction does not make a person a parent. Saint Joseph did not engender Jesus and yet, I doubt that Archbishop Chaput would argue that Saint Joseph was not a father to Jesus.


Being a parent means taking an active role in the life of a child. It means loving that child. It means waking up in the middle of the night to nurse a child suffering from the flu, measles, or chickenpox. It means making time to help the child with homework and encouraging him/her to pursue their dreams. It means nurturing that child physically, psychologically and emotionally. It means enabling that child to mature into an autonomous adult, who can stand on his/her own, face the world and have a real shot at happiness.


That child may or may not share your DNA. That child may be your grandchild, your niece/nephew, or may be your adopted son/daughter. What makes you his/her parent is honestly loving and caring for him/her. That, Archbishop, is what every child “deserves.” I doubt, hope, that you never “checked” your parent’s genitalia and I sincerely doubt you ever considered that central to their parenthood.



Chaput goes on to say, “I think it’s very important that the church keep insisting on this [that marriage must always be heterosexual].” Again, we need to define our terms. I have already addressed the false notion of “redefinition of marriage.” I would take issue with the use by Chaput of the term “church.” The Second Vatican Council defined the “Church” as “the people of God.” This was beautifully illustrated in the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s:




“Catholic participation in the southern civil rights movement culminated at Selma in March 1965. As was customary in much of the South, Selma’s Catholic churches were strictly segregated, with the priest in charge of the African American “mission” parish ignored by the city’s other clergy. (One attempt at integration of the city’s “white” parish by a group of African American teenagers met with fierce resistance.) 1 In addition, the bishop of Montgomery, Thomas Toolen, attempted to prevent northern Catholics from responding to the please of civil rights activists for assistance, maintaining that outsiders were “out of place in these demonstrations—their place is at home doing God’s work…”2 Regardless, priests from fifty different dioceses, lay people, and nuns flocked to Alabama to join in the marches.

One participant observed that many speakers at the headquarters of the Selma campaign “pointed out with happiness and gratitude that this was the first time that so many Catholic priests, acting with their bishop’s permission, had joined them on the front lines of the movement.” 3 Ralph Abernathy congratulated one priest on the Catholic turnout, jocularly adding that “the only ones they hate more than Negroes down here are Roman Catholics, especially Monsignors.”4 Newspapers across the country, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, carried front-page photos of nuns in full-habit striding down Dallas County roads.5 One editorial concluded that “For a great many Catholics…the pictures of demonstrating clergymen and religious, flashed on TV screens or bannered across front pages, spoke more clearly and directly than any conciliar decree could ever do about the effective presence of the Church in the world today.” A nun marching down Selma’s Highway 80 made the same point more emphatically: “We are the Church,” she declared.6”






During discussions at the Second Vatican Council a “proof text” for the concept of collegiality (that the bishops come to decisions jointly) was being sought. Cardinal Ottaviani quipped, “the only one I can think of is, ‘…and they fled’ [Mark 14: 50]” As citation above demonstrates, bishops (like Bishop Thomas Toolan & his Southern colleagues) often get it wrong. The hierarchy simply remains silent about these popes and bishops, knowing that silence is a stealthy censor and ignorance of history serves as an effective “white-out.”


Chaput’s comment, “It’s also important to say that we’re not against gay people”
It is the standard bromide employed by members of the hierarchy whenever they attempt to destroy the Civil Rights of LGBT people. It is as threadbare as it is hollow; it is a hypocritical nod by vice to virtue. It is reminiscent of bromides such as, “Hate the Race, Love the man.” Employed by Southern racists to justify segregation, Jim Crow laws and the ban on interracial marriage.


Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by the hierarchy, later the hierarchy declared her a saint and martyr for the Faith. It seems that bishops don’t make mistakes, just martyrs and saints, but not always the way God prefers.

Target, Are you Anti-Gay?