Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Forcing science (and people) to “fit” theological understandings.


THE embattled head of Belgium's Roman Catholic church today defended his controversial remarks on AIDS, gays and paedophile priests, insisting that his words had been twisted.

Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard has been accused of homophobia and his spokesman abruptly resigned after the church leader described gay love as a travesty of nature and AIDS as "a sort of intrinsic justice". FULL STORY


Benedict XVI and Archbishop Leonard are in fact practical proponents of sexual promiscuity. By willfully ignoring, the Church’s own statement made in 1975 that there are “homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.” They refuse to accept the logical conclusions of both this statement and the findings of the science of psychology regarding sexual orientation.


The consequences of this childish obstinacy are multiple.



· “Forming” young people with same-sex orientation in the Church's 19th century understanding of human sexuality cripples them emotionally, psychologically and socially.


· This “formation” instills denial and lying in people with same-sex orientations. This begins for most at puberty, when they do not possess an adult psychological/emotional skill set to effectively deal with this attack.


· In denying the social institution of marriage to same sex couples, the hierarchy of the Church forces people into sham heterosexual marriages, and/or to seek clandestine (promiscuous) sexual liaisons. The spiritual, psychological and emotional damage caused in the Name of God are as horrifying today as when Jesus commented, “Woe to you lawyers [religious leaders] also! You lay impossible burdens on men but will not lift a finger to lighten them.” [Luke 11:46]


· In those happy cases were an individual becomes sufficiently self-actualized and enters into a Union of Life and Love [marriage] with another person, they are denied the legal protections, benefits and social support granted by Civil Marriage. This undermines both fidelity and stable homes which are the basic cell of society.


· Theological condemnations of gay people engender and encourage social bigotry against gay people. This includes bullying in schools, employment discrimination, unjustly denying certain career options (e.g. military service, education, ministry, etc) to persons with a same-sex orientation.


· Increasingly many LGBTQ persons and their loved ones are not only abandoning the Catholic Church, but many have abandoned faith in God altogether. This is due to the monstrous abuses perpetrated in God’s name by those who claim to be God’s agents in this world.


· In addition to vile attacks on LGBTQ people, Benedict XVI and many bishops are also complicit in the Cover-Up Scandal that protected pedophiles, and thereby created new instances of pedophilia.




In this light, I heartily agree with Archbishop Leonard’s assertion, “Badly handling physical nature causes it to treat us badly in turn and badly dealing with the deeper nature of human love will ultimately always lead to catastrophes on all levels."



It is time that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church practiced some humility and accepted the findings of science. Let’s hope that it takes them less time than it did for them to admit their error and apologize about Galileo.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Standing up & Proud: Vietnamese Tet Celebration


I was invited to participate at a Vietnamese Tet Celebration in Orange County on Saturday 5 October 2011. The invitation was extended by an Asian LGBTQ organization. The Celebration included a parade followed by a luncheon reception and then, a panel discussion with religious leaders. Last year, the Interfaith Council, specifically the Catholic hierarchy, opposed the participation of the LGBTQ Asian group in the Tet Celebration. That opposition encouraged bigoted slurs being yelled at the Asian LGBTQ group as they marched in the parade.


That prompted the LGBTQ Asian group to invite various religious leaders to participate in the parade and a panel discussion on religion/spirituality following the parade. The organizers had hoped to present a more sensitive and enlightened theological view of LGBTQ persons. Organizers asked me to arrive by 9 AM at the staging cite for the parade. They were informed they were to occupy spot number 75 in the parade, nearly at the very end. When I discovered this, I instantly thought of Rosa Parks and smiled.


Shane introduced me to Gina, one of the LGBTQ organizers of the day’s events. Gina is an attractive young Vietnamese-American woman. She was attired in traditional Vietnamese festive garb. “It is a pleasure to meet you Father, thank you so much for joining us today.” Shane pointed out that Gina’s mother had decided to march with us in the parade. “Perhaps your mother would like to meet Father” Shane suggested to Gina. “Oh, yes! She would be so happy to meet you Father” Gina asked. We walked over to Gina’s mother, a woman in her fifties with graying hair holding a sign that read, “Proud Asian Mother of a Lesbian Daughter.”


Gina’s mother extended her hand and smiled politely as we exchanged introductions. Her dignity and silent strength moved me. Her she was marching with her lesbian daughter down the main street of little Saigon. The very same street where one year earlier people had yelled angry and vile threats at the LGBTQ marchers. She was marching down that street in the plain light of day in front of the whole community at her daughter’s side.


We started to march at 11 AM and Gina was concerned that they had started us out so late in the morning that much of the crowd would disperse. “If the Vietnamese don’t like something they ignore it” she said. The Interfaith group had not ignored us the year before. An ambulance from the Red Cross drove slowly past us and the drivers gave us a thumbs-up, “We support you!” they shouted out at our group.


As we started to march, I noticed that motorcycle police was escorting our contingent. “They want to make sure that we don’t get attacked” the Unitarian Minster marching next to me told me. A middle aged Vietnamese man ran up to me and asked, “Are you a Catholic priest?!” “Yes, I am.” The man literally began to shake with anger. “But the Church is against gays!” he said emphatically. “No, many Catholics are accepting of us.” Our conversation was abruptly ended as a young Latina police officer came and informed the man he had to step behind the parade line.


The Unitarian minster commented on the man’s rage, I responded by quoting from Shakespeare “Me thinks the woman doth protest to much!” She nodded and we both laughed. I noticed the faces of the people behind the parade lines. Many of them smiled and waved. The Episcopal priest at my side explained that many of them were LGBTQ people who were afraid to march with us, because they feared being outed to their families.


A short while later, the same Vietnamese man who had run up to me earlier returned. This time he was escorted by a cameraperson and was holding a microphone with a news outlet logo affixed to the handle. “Are you a Catholic priest?” he asked as he pointed the microphone at me. “Yes, I am Father Geoffrey Farrow of the Diocese of Fresno.” The man became visibly angry once again. “What message do you have for the Pope?” “The same message Jesus delivered two-thousand years ago, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Holy Father, love your lesbian and gay children.” My response elicited yet another question. “When will you all change and come back to the Church?” “That would be like asking Latinos, Blacks or Asians to change.” He became more upset and asked, “What do you say to parents who have a homosexual child?” I responded, “Love your children and treat them as you would your other children.” As a police officer approached, the “journalist” quickly left.


We reached the end of the parade route; Gina and the other organizers were jubilant that this year there were no hecklers and no violence. They thanked us for our participation and directed us to the community center for lunch followed by a panel discussion.


I was part of a panel with a Buddhist abbess, a Buddhist monk, an Episcopalian priest and a Unitarian minister. Each of us had prepared a statement and mine follows here:



In the early 1990’s, I read an article in a Jesuit magazine that made a very interesting point. The author stated that we were reaching a point in the United States where Fundamentalist Protestants, Traditionalist Catholics and Orthodox Jews would have more in common with each other than they would with their own progressive co-religionists.


That fault line that runs through the major western religions demarcates two very different approaches both to Sacred Texts and to religion/spirituality itself. The Fundamentalist/Traditionalist/”Orthodox” approach is essentially a literalist approach to the Sacred Text. In this mindset, the text is self contained and fully received. There is nothing more to be said; the text is seen as an “Answer Book” for all of life’s personal and collective questions. Within Catholicism, the Magisterium (the teaching Office/authority) of the Pope and bishops becomes the final word that must be accepted and to which all must conform.


The appeal of such an approach can be found in the writings of Fyodor Dostoevsky. The Grand Inquisitor referring to the common people states “We shall lift from their shoulders the unbearable weight of freedom.” Religious Fundamentalism accomplishes precisely that for its followers. You simply have to follow along and you are absolved of personal responsibility.


Ironically, if you read the Gospels you find Jesus challenging this approach to religion/spirituality. Luke 10: 25-36 in this particular passage Jesus is asked to comment on what is essential. There were six hundred and fourteen laws that an observant Jewish person was expected to keep. To break one, even the slightest law, was to break them all. There existed at the time of Jesus a rabbinical tradition of discussion and questioning. What does God expect from me? It is in this spirit that the lawyer asks this question of Jesus “Rabbi, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?”


In the text, Jesus answers the question with a question, “What is written in the law [Torah/Bible]?” and “How do you read it?” By answering the question with a question, Jesus is requiring the person seeking an answer to think and to become personally engaged in the process. Before any further commentary on the text, it is very important to note this process


In reading Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, we need to comprehend that we are not reading a book that was written last week. We are reading a collection of writings that include multiple sources, poetry, history, and apocalyptic literature. Additionally, these various texts have been combined into what we call “the Bible” which is in fact a library of books written over a 1,500 year time span. As a final twist consider that the authors DO NOT share your culture; therefore, you must first attempt to understand their historical and cultural context, so that you may correctly capture their meaning. You cannot read it as if you are picking up your hometown morning newspaper.


Beyond those technical considerations, Jesus’ question to the lawyer is equally applicable to you and me “How do you read it?” In other words, what is your spiritual disposition in coming to these texts? Do you ask questions to seek personal growth, a deeper understanding, a more compassionate spirituality; or in an attempt to manipulate God and others?


In the cited text, the lawyer (in order to justify himself) asks “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus responds by telling the story of the Good Samaritan. Samaritans were considered beyond hope of everlasting life, since they had corrupted Judaism with pagan practices. Jesus deliberately selects a Samaritan as the hero in this parable about practical charity. He does so to both challenge popular preconceptions about holiness and to underscore that what God desires is not legalistic perfection; but rather, compassion [charity/love].

The Sacred Text/Religious Authority is not the final word, but rather the starting point for thought and discussion. That thought and discussion must be guided by humility as well as compassion.


John J. McNeill, a Jesuit priest, in his book: “The Church and the Homosexual,” makes the following point: “The persons referred to in Romans 1:26 are probably not homosexuals that is, those who are psychologically inclined toward their own sex—since they are portrayed as ‘abandoning their natural customs.’” The Pauline epistles do not explicitly treat the question of homosexual activity between two persons who share a homosexual orientation, and as such cannot be read as condemning such behavior. Therefore, same gender sex by two individuals with same sex orientation is not “abandoning their natural custom.”


In 1973, because of a greater understanding of human psychology, the American Psychological Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness. In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Church’s watchdog for orthodoxy) produced a document entitled: “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics.” In this document, they made the most remarkable statement. They stated that there are “homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.” While these statements are hardly glowing affirmations of gay and lesbian persons, they represent a watershed in human perception and understanding of gay and lesbian people.


These new insights have occurred because of the birth and development of the science of psychology and understanding of brain development in the 19th and 20th centuries.


An elderly Monsignor, under whom I had the privileged to serve, told me “we are not bakers, we work with souls.” Twenty-five years of ministerial service have taught me that we cannot, like Cinderella’s evil stepsister, “cut the foot to fit the shoe.” Attempting to force people to conform their lives to inhuman standards is nothing new in religion. “Jesus answered: Woe to you lawyers [religious leaders] also! You lay impossible burdens on men but will not lift a finger to lighten them.” [Luke 11: 46]


The hierarchy in ignoring the findings of science and their own statement that there are “homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct” are in Jesus’ words laying impossible burdens on people and do not lift a finger to help them. What is the hierarchy saying to people with same sex orientation? What are they demanding from them? What would it have meant to you personally to hear from the pulpit at church that you could never date? Never fall in love, never kiss or hold hands with another person? Never be able to marry? How would you view yourself? How would others hearing those same words be directed to view you? How would you view your life and your future?


What would those words mean to someone in junior high school who discovers that he/she is attracted to people of their same gender? The greatest fear that he/she would have is that they would be rejected by the people they love the most—their family. So, their solution is to try to pass as straight, deceive, and in effect—lie. Of course, this leads ultimately to self-loathing. It should come as little surprise that gay teenagers have elevated suicide rates. According to the Center for Disease Control’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey (1999), 33% of gay youth will attempt suicide.


When the hierarchy prohibited artificial birth control, most of the faithful in the United States, Canada and Europe scratched their heads in wonderment and proceeded to ignore them. There is an expression in theology: “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” If your son or daughter is gay/lesbian let them know that you love them unconditionally. Let them know that you are not ashamed or embarrassed by them. Guide them as you would your other children to finding true and abiding love. Let them know that marriage is a union of love and life and is possible for them too.


If you are LGBTQ stand up and speak out. The moment you stop being “invisible” you challenge the preconceived ideas and prejudices about LGBTQ people. The moment you challenge homophobic slurs and comments you help to defeat bigotry in our society.


At the conclusion of the panel discussion, Gina went to the podium and thanked all the panelists. She then raised her arm towards her mother who was seated in the audience. “I would also very much like to thank my mother for being here today.” Gina’s composure was slightly compromised as her eyes swelled with tears. Her mother looked at her daughter from across the room and smiled. It was a good day.


VIDEO

Sunday, January 9, 2011

The Instument of Violence


The words “Domestic violence” usually evoke images of physical injuries and the violent acts that cause those injuries. The abuser only engages in physical violence when the victim of verbal and emotional abuse speaks out and stands up for their dignity. The physical violence is a “backup” employed by the abuser, when the emotional and verbal violence fails. The abuser is attempting to intimidate and ultimately “reprogram” their victim to act, speak, think, and be as the abuser wishes.


The foregoing is true in many households in our nation and so, it should come as little surprise that it spills over into the public square. Tragically, this happened in Tucson this past weekend.


Some commentators are quick to state that what happened in Tucson is the “senseless act” of one disturbed individual. Closer to the truth are comments claiming that this constitutes a form of domestic terrorism. This is so, because the aim of terrorists is to disrupt people’s lives, to instill fear and force change through physical threat. The physical violence, as in the case of domestic violence, is a means to the end of behavioral (and ultimately thought) reprogramming. Consider the following statement by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik:



"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," said the sheriff. "And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."


Ironically, Giffords stated the following before being shot:



Giffords expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.

"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC.




Many who wish to impose their narrow religious and social beliefs on America will be careful in their comments, for a week or two. These “social conservatives” will attempt to distance themselves from the physical violence that erupted in Tucson. Others who are of like mind in their social and religious world-view will plainly state their thoughts openly. Read what the Westboro Baptist Church posted on its website:




God appointed this rod for your sins! God sent the shooter! This hateful nation unleashed violent veterans on the servants of God at WBC--hoping to silence our kind warning to obey God and flee the wrath to come.



And:



Your federal judge is dead and your (fag-promoting, baby-killing, proud-sinner) Congresswoman fights for her life. God is avenging Himself on this rebellious house! WBC prays for your destruction--more shooters, more dead carcasses piling up, young, old, leader and commoner--all. Your doom is upon you!



The only way to stop verbal, emotional, or physical abuse is to speak out and stand up for human dignity and freedom. The greatest tribute we can make to Tucson’s hate victims is to continue their struggle for a more inclusive, just and decent nation.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

A Collective New Year’s Resolution?


Looking forward to 2011 it is valuable to ask ourselves “What can we do this next year to make our nation a more just, safe and welcoming place for LGBTQ people?” Something that comes to mind reflecting on 2010 were the tragic suicides by LGBTQ youth. The Center for Disease Control in its “Youth at Risk” study of 1999 stated that one-third of our communities’ adolescents will attempt suicide. One-third!


It seems to me that Anti-Bullying Laws would be a very important cause for our community to support in this New Year. Here are some very good reasons:


1. Anti-Bullying Laws will affect our entire LGBTQ community. This inclusive cause will help to heal a rift in our community. Many in the Trans community have felt abandoned by our community in our efforts to pass ENDA and repeal both DOMA & DADT.


2. “Social conservatives” have invoked “the children” as a trump to our civil rights repeatedly. Anti-Bullying Laws enable us to turn the tables on these bigots and places them on the defensive. They will counter claiming their right to “Free Speech;” however, their speech incites hatred, emotional and physical violence that is visited upon children.


3. Anti-Bullying campaigns and laws may be championed at different levels. From the local PTA meeting, School Districts, States and on a National level. This encourages grass roots and Direct Action. Ordinary people without huge financial resources can have a considerable impact.


4. We will be able to collaborate with various other organizations and people of good will. For example, PFLAG, GSA, ACLU, the Trevor Project, and It Gets Better, to name a few.


5. Grassroots action will help to change social attitudes and the very dialogue about LGBTQ civil rights. In short, this will put a human face on our civil rights goals. Children will be highlighted as the victims of anti-LGBTQ prejudice and bigotry.


6. The most important reason of all is that we will become a public voice for those in our community who have no voice. We will become advocates for those who are arguably the most vulnerable. Most of us have experienced the fear and sometimes-outright terror of constant verbal and physical harassment at school. It is time we spoke up and spoke out to end this monstrous evil.


How to start:


1. Have a team of Psychologists and Educators explain the effects of bullying on victims. Have this team also delineate some of the tell tale signs for parents; incidentally, this opens straight parents as our allies in this battle. Have this team also suggest active measures that parents/guardians and local school boards can take to help stop bullying.


2. Ask attorneys to take the recommendations of this team and help to fashion laws/legislation that could be adopted to assist parents/guardians, teachers, and school boards to reduce or eliminate bullying.


3. Ask each major LGBTQ organization to designate one contact person to meet with a national board to coordinate our efforts at advancing Anti-Bullying campaigns.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

A Tipping Point.


After President Obama signed the Repeal of DADT this last week, there have been a slew of comments from both ends of the political spectrum. Regardless of how a person “feels” about this, the conclusion that we have reached a significant “tipping point” in American society is evident. When President Harry S. Truman signed an executive order in 1948 desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces and Civil Service, it sounded the death toll for segregation in American society. The Courts took notice and in 1954, the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education took the President’s lead one step further. The signing of the Civil Rights Act in July of 1964 by President Lyndon Johnson drove a stake through legalized bigotry. Social racial bigotry has been slowly eroding ever since.


The U.S. Armed forces form American youth. Every year countless High School graduates leave their hometown and go to boot camp. Those young men and women acculturate to military standards. Years later I still find it disquieting to see a man wearing a hat indoors. I find myself writing the date/month/year and not the month/date/year. I still think of 4 PM as 1600 hour, the end of the workday at Edwards AFB. These are small things; however, acceptable and unacceptable attitudes about women and minorities are unmistakably articulated and enforced in boot camp. After years of living in this military culture, veterans return to civilian society along with these engrained attitudes.This is the real reason that social conservatives so rabidly oppose the repeal of DADT.


On Friday, the Los Angeles Times reported the following:



In a news conference Wednesday and in recent interviews, Obama signaled that his position favoring civil unions is not fixed and that he may one day conclude that, a committed gay couple should have the same right to marry as anyone else.


Obama's views seem to be tracking those of the broader American public. Polls show support for gay marriage is growing. A Gallup study showed that while in 1996 only 27% of the population believed gay marriage should be legalized, the figure had jumped to 44% in May of this year.


Many social conservatives, such as Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly, refuse to believe that a majority of Americans would support gay marriage.


Gays, she said, are already free to live together. "Nobody's stopping them from shacking up," she said. "The problem is they are trying to make us respect them, and that's an interference with what we believe."



The last comment by Ms. Schlafly constitutes one of those rare moments of clarity when social conservatives reveal their true motives and intent. Judge Walker accurately perceived such motives when he ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. The Judge cited an animus against gay people as the motive of the “Yes on [California’s] Proposition 8.”


Imagine the outrage if Schlafly’s comment had been made about any other minority group, or if interracial couples were stripped of their right to a civil marriage! Of course, 63 years ago social conservative made such comments about African Americans, Native Americans, Jews, Catholics or and women. Today Immigrants and LGBTQ people are the targets of “social conservatives.” Now as then, social conservatives wrap themselves in the flag and cite the Bible in a vain attempt to justify their bigotry. In a painfully slow process, their bigotry is exposed as such. One by one, their arguments are debunked by science and people of conscience.


It is an adage that “It is always darkest before the dawn” bigots will become more virulent and violent, as they correctly perceive they are losing control. Rather than being intimidated, this should embolden us to fight even harder for our rights and human dignity. Ms. Schafly your respect and beliefs are inconsequential to me, but my rights and dignity are not

Saturday, December 18, 2010

The battle for DADT ends. The battle for ENDA and DOMA continues







Pop a bottle of champagne and enjoy this victory we have worked very hard for this day and we should rejoice. This is one battle won in a continuing war for our full civil rights and human dignity. What next?


Barney Frank has said that then next two years nothing will happen in Congress on our front. Perhaps; however, that does not mean that nothing will happen nationally. There are, after all, fifty states connected to the DC beltway. In those states, we need to fight for the election of congressional representatives that will vote for the passage of ENDA (the Employment Non Discrimination Act). While we are on that subject, we need to ask officials of the Democratic Party why the 111th Congress FAILED to pass ENDA.


We need to hold them accountable and responsible, not out of some irrational desire for vengeance, but to remind them and future politicians that they will be held accountable for failing to keep their promises to our community. There must be a real world consequence for selling us out.


The repeal of DOMA (the so called Defense of Marriage Act) should be reinstated in the list of legislative goals of both the DNC and the White House. Both organizations have recently removed them from their list of objectives. We have noticed and we do not like this sin of omission. Politicians and political parties are vehicles towards justice, but often have ulterior motives. Recall that both DOMA and DADT bear President Clinton’s signature. We have been sold out before and if we look the other way, we will be sold out again.


On a local level, I suggest we focus resources on electing State Senators in New York State who support full marriage equality. Common wisdom is that the Ninth Circuit Court or the US Supreme Court will rule narrowly to uphold Judge Walker’s decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. This will restore Same-sex marriage in California. If New York State passes legislation that permits Same-sex marriage, we will have achieved a “critical mass” that will propel same-sex marriage forward in the United States.


Savor today’s victory, but realize that we are still engaged in a war for our full civil rights and human dignity. This is no time to “rest on our laurels.”

Friday, December 10, 2010

Barack Obama [R]?

The following is a list of things that President Barack Obama could do without an Act of Congress.

1. Direct the Department of Justice to immediately drop an appeal of Judge Virginia Phillip’s ruling that DADT is unconstitutional.

2. Order a “Stop Loss” that would effectively end the enforcement of DADT.

3. One/all of over 100 actions as Chief Executive delineated in the “New Beginnings Initiative”

The following is a list of what you can do as a voter if President Obama fails to do the aforementioned items.

1. Encourage your friends and coworkers to consider supporting another Democrat in the primaries for presidential elections in 2012.

2. Work for another Democrat running against Obama in the 2012 primaries.

3. Consider working for/supporting a third party candidate in the 2012 primaries.

4. Join GetEQUAL and help form a local chapter.

5. Engage in Direct Action to help underscore the injustice of laws such as DADT and DOMA.

6. Donate to organizations like ACLU, make a photocopy of the check and mail it to the DNC. Inform them you’re redirecting your funds to organizations that actually make a difference in social causes.


Finally, share the following video clip with your "die-hard" Obama supporters.