Out of the Box, from Integrity of Episcopal USA

"Voices of Witness: Out of the Box" is a groundbreaking documentary giving voice to the witness of transgender people of faith. Courageously inviting the viewer into their journeys, the film is ultimately a celebration of hope and the power of God's love to transcend even seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Produced by Integrity’s Communication Director Louise Brooks, the film is being offered by Integrity USA as a gift to the Episcopal Church, as a resource for both teaching and transformation.

Father Geoff Farrow Interview Part II

Questions explored in this interview include, 1) How can Equality spread? 2) Can Catholic teachings on Sex adapt? 3) How do we take effective political action now? 4) “Equality is Civil Rights,” is the perceived racial divide real?

Father Geoff Farrow Interview Part I

Passover Now

The following is a portion of a letter I wrote recently to a friend,

Always a pleasure to hear from you, I was touched by the story of how nuns hid your family during the Shoah. I think that story beautifully illustrates two strains within Catholicism that I believe exist in all organized religions. In all of the world's great religions there is an emphasis on Compassion. That "God" is compassion and that as God's children we are called to a personal transformation to become like God who is Compassion. This spiritual process is precisely that, a process through which we chose to become more empathetic towards others and ourselves.


Recently, observant Jewish people all over the world celebrated Passover. The Passover story that most of us grew up with in America featured Charlton Heston as Moses. The climax of the film is when Moses parts the sea and the finger of God writes the Ten Commandments. However, I think the real story of Passover is the forty years in the desert. Forty years, in the Scriptures, represents a life span (a generation).


After the dramatic deliverance from Egypt, comes a life long journey. In the desert the people grumbled against Moses. They longed for the flesh pots (reliable food rations) of Egypt (slavery). I am reminded of Churchill's quip that those who prefer security to freedom deserve neither. In Torah it states that God sent serpents to afflict the people, the recipient of Churchill's quip probably felt similarly afflicted.


The Torah states that the people had a change of heart and God then commanded Moses to fashion a bronze serpent on a staff. The people were required to look upon the bronze serpent to be healed. Think about that. In the wilderness, they had to face what they feared in order to be healed.


The desert sun transformed the gold of Egypt into a heavy and useless burden. What the people originally considered a treasure became a burden. In life's journey we learn to drop into the sands those things we initially thought indispensable. We discover that things (and people, including ourselves) we took for granted are the authentic treasures.


All of that to say, that religion is a first step towards spirituality and that spirituality is not an end in itself, but rather a process towards something greater. That "something greater" is personal integrity, integration with others and with nature, and the fruits of this harmony are peace and serenity.


The problem with all of this is that most of us do not want to face our fears, precisely because we fear them. Most of us want to avoid the work required by the spiritual process and most of us do not want to find ourselves in the situation of the freed Jewish slaves. We, like they, want security and we want to be in control.


Religion (and spirituality) can be externalized and thereby, the perfect place to hide from ourselves, others and God (Compassion). It can be the perfect place to avoid the work of authentic spiritual growth. Religion can be reduced to a myriad of laws that must be obeyed, a game we play. God can be reduced to a celestial version of the IRS that will audit and penalize anyone who dares to violate the smallest part of the law.


The danger here is that religion becomes a "Contract Religion" in which, if I do "X" God must do (give me) "Y." If you happen to believe in a divinity, this is both delusional and blasphemous. It also leads to a false “spirituality” that gradually puffs up the adherent with pride. I am good/holy/superior because I do "x, y and z" while others are ignorant or sinners.


In each of the world's religions, both strains can be found. People may view their tradition as possessing insights and Scripture as a starting point that challenges to both personal and communal development. Alternatively, people may view their tradition as perfect, what Cardinal Dolan called "settled matters of faith" that require no further discussion, thought and certainly not any change. This vision requires personal and communal conformity to attain an idealized utopia. I am reminded of the preface in the book “Brave New World” that states, “The problem with utopias is that they are possible.”


The first vision sees the tradition, Scriptures, laws, etc as being in place to serve people. Practical compassion is the transformative imperative of this understanding. The second vision sees people being in place to serve the tradition, Scriptures, laws, etc. Purity codes and doctrinal/dogmatic rigidity are the hallmarks of this understanding.


The Passover story is not something that happened in ancient history. It is something that is happening today in my, your and everyone’s life. Like the slaves then, we must stand up to our oppressors to gain our freedom. Like them that initial freedom will be sweet, but brings with it the difficulties of personal responsibility. Like them we must face our fears. As we journey through life, we learn who and what is of true worth and value in our life. “The Promised Land” is not a geographical destination; it is a state of being, a way of relating with others and ourselves now.

Post Script: A hopeful sign.

Do not fear failure, without risk nothing is achieved.

Compassion and its role in Spirituality and Justice.

On Monday evening I was invited to attend a meeting of a men’s group at a local Church. This Lent the parish is focusing on the theme of “Compassion.” A panel consisting of accomplished attorneys, financiers, a CEO, a university professor and, an MBA all explained the role that compassion had played in their professional and personal journeys.


After the presentation, the panel fielded questions from the audience. An elderly gentleman raised his hand and asked, “What is the role of compassion in the case of this Sergeant, now held in Fort Leavenworth, for the massacre of sixteen people in Afghanistan?” I sensed that the questioner was prompted not out of a spirit of contrariness; but rather, out of a genuine sense of both frustration and just anger. The moderator answered the man by quoting a passage from the Gospel of Matthew,


“If you forgive the faults of others, your heavenly father will forgive you yours. If you do not forgive others, neither will your father forgive you.” [Matthew 6: 14-15]


Several thoughts flooded my mind. Compassion is a word that comes to us from the Latin language. Literally translated from the Latin, compassion means, “to stand with [someone].” In this sense, compassion is not about “being nice,” compassion is an intellectual and emotional process actively engaged in by a person. Compassion means putting myself intellectually and emotionally in the skin of a person who is suffering.


In the case posited by the questioner, this exercise would entail trying to intellectually comprehend what it means to have lost a loved family member to an evil act of violence. What it means to be a widow in Afghanistan today. I thought of the questions that a widow and mother would contemplate in this scenario. How will I feed and take care of my children? What will happen to our home? Where/with whom will we live? How do I help my children make sense of this, how can I comfort them? What will happen to me? How will I manage, where will I find the strength and means to move forward? Then there is the wife of the Sergeant in Leavenworth and the questions/difficulties she faces.


The importance of compassion is that it is both an intellectual and emotional process, whereby we move beyond ourselves and view reality through the eyes of another person. This has the practical effect of requiring me to consider things from a new perspective, from the perspective of another person.


The danger with the answer from the Gospel given to the questioner is that it can become a forced response. I MUST forgive everyone always. No, you do not. In fact, in the particular case cited, even the widows and orphans of the victims can only offer partial forgiveness, they can only forgive the offender for the hurt he has caused them personally. The deceased cannot voice their forgiveness, or voice their refusal to forgive in this life. The offender would always be left with that question, assuming that he posses/developed the sensitivity of conscience to ask that question.


The other danger with that answer is that it can easily lead to a “contract religion.” Incidentally this is the appeal of religious fundamentalism (literalism), I do “X” and God must therefore, do (give me) “Y.” This is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate God. If you happen to believe in a Supreme Being, such an attempt is simultaneously a delusion and a blasphemy.


The nobility of the sentiments expressed in Matthew, are that they represent a spiritual ideal. This ideal is also beautifully expressed by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice, wherein the qualities of mercy are listed; as well as how mercy heals both the offended and the offender. However, mercy is not automatic and should never be presumed.


The following morning, I read an open letter to Cardinal Dolan by Carl Siciliano. Carl is the director of the Ali Forney Center, the nation’s largest organization dedicated to homeless LGBT youth. What Carl has done in his letter to the Cardinal, is to invite Cardinal Dolan to engage in this exercise of practical compassion vis-à-vis LGBT youth. Carl is asking Dolan to place himself inside the skin of a young LGBT person and to view reality through his/her eyes. I invite you to read both the article and the comments that follow below.


Many readers commented that Carl's letter is an exercise in futility, that Cardinal Dolan is so entrenched in his polemics and his personal end game, that these youth would at best merely be seen as unfortunate, but necessary, collateral damage. Perhaps, but Cardinal Dolan’s strength and position do not come from his titles, wardrobe, or connections in the Vatican. Ultimately, they come from the type of people whose donations built Saint Patrick’s Cathedral. Simple Catholics.


The brilliance and the power of Carl Siciliano’s open letter, is that it appeals to what authentic religion/spirituality is intended to be. Its real purpose and power is about honest compassion, putting oneself in another person’s shoes and seeing reality through their eyes. This leads to becoming a voice for the voiceless, seeking real justice, and extending practical charity.


Holding those in positions of high religious office/authority to the spiritual standards that they call others to will either move them to a higher level of compassion, or it will reveal the emptiness of their claims to spiritual authority.

Freedom of Conscience/Religion has U.S. Catholic bishops seeing Red & White.

“Bishops in more than 140 dioceses issued statements that were read at Mass last weekend [28-29 January 2012]. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., called the requirement “a radical incursion on the part of our government into freedom of conscience.” Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote that “the Obama administration was essentially saying ‘to hell with you,’ particularly to the Catholic community by dismissing our beliefs, our religious freedom and our freedom of conscience.”

This is significant, because it signals a nationwide coordinated plan put into effect by U.S. Catholic bishops. This all revolves, ostensibly, around the question of “Freedom of Religion” or, “Freedom of Conscience.” The particular issue in question here is contraception health services for women being paid for by health insurance plans; however, it can (and will) be expanded to include spousal benefits for Same-sex married couples, Same-sex adoption, etc.

Catholic Culture reports the following statement from Cardinal Mahony on this subject,


“Cardinal Roger Mahony, who served as Archbishop of Los Angeles from 1985 to 2011, has blasted the Obama administration for announcing that Church-related institutions will be required to provide contraceptive and sterilization coverage for employees in their health-care plans.

Cardinal Mahony said that “I cannot imagine that this decision was released without the explicit knowledge and approval of President Barack Obama. And I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today. This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic Community can muster.”

I did a double take when I read Mahony’s statement, since he has never been a champion of the Humanae Vitae (the Church’s prohibition of artificial contraception). Read this article from the California Catholic Daily, a conservative Catholic publication along with comments from “orthodox” Catholics, and Mahony’s 180 degree apparent course change on this subject seems breath-taking.

Then again, Mahony’s nickname, “the Teflon Cardinal” is a testament of his ability to perform flip-flops usually associated with an Olympic gymnastic team, or some politicians. Consider the following statements, from some notable people, on Mahony's quality of conscience.


Steve Lopez, a Los Angeles Times reporter, in his new book “Dreams and Schemes: My Decade of Fun in the Sun,” shares this vignette,

“it includes such tales as the time Lopez was offered a free crypt in the Los Angeles cathedral by Cardinal Roger Mahony if he would take it easy on the Catholic leader on the church’s pedophile-priest scandals.”

and this article from the Los Angeles Times, on Mahony's handling of pedophile priests.

Before His Eminence passes the torch, I put in one last request for an interview, to no avail. That keeps my record intact, but it's a shame because I had several questions about the latest scandal at the archdiocese. This one involves a priest who admitted he was a molester but remained in ministry. The good reverend was even appointed, if you can believe this, to Mahony's sexual abuse advisory board.



and then there is this insight by former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating on the role of Mahony’s conscience in the priest sex abuse/Cover-Up scandal,

"To act like La Cosa Nostra and hide and suppress, I think, is very unhealthy. Eventually it will all come out," Keating said.

Cardinal Mahony, who Keating accused of listening "too much to his lawyer and not enough to his heart," issued a sharp rebuke Friday, calling the comments "the last straw" and saying he would ask other bishops to consider calling for Keating to step down during their meeting this week.

Keating's spokesman told the Times the former governor stands behind his remarks. "He uses strong language to make a point. He tells the truth, and apparently some people don't want to hear the truth," Mahony said.

David Clohessy, national director of the nationwide victims support group Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said Keating's resignation would leave victims and lay Catholics "terribly disillusioned."

"It's very disturbing that a couple of candid remarks are apparently so upsetting to the bishops," Clohessy told the AP from Indianapolis, Ind.

"Here's a devout, conscientious, Catholic lay person who volunteered his time and essentially his reputation to get the bishops out of trouble, and he's suddenly forced out," he said.

But perhaps the most penetrating insight into Mahony’s motives is offered by Peter Hebblewaite, an outstanding Vaticanologist who in some 30 years of reporting on the papacy and the worldwide activities of the Catholic church, its enemies and admirers.
Hebblethwaite, gives the following assessment of Mahony’s intentions,

“he mentions Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony who, he maintains' arrived in that California see with two fevers -- scarlet. for the red biretta; and white for the papacy.”



New York’s Archbishop, and the current head of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Timothy Dolan and newly minted Cardinal stated to the New York Times,


“We see in our culture a drive to neuter religion,” Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the bishops’ conference, said in a news conference Monday at the bishops’ annual meeting in Baltimore.

Dolan is the rising star in the church, unlike Mahony who’s mandatory letter of resignation upon reaching his 75th birthday was instantly accepted by Benedict XVI, enjoys the favor of the current pope. This pope has packed the College of Cardinals, who will elect the next pope, with individuals who share his pre-Napoleonic vision for the future of the Catholic Church.

Using the bishop’s logic on the stated issue of the day (insurance coverage for health care), if your employer were the Jehovah Witnesses, they could deny you coverage for a blood transfusion, since this violates their religious tenets and would be an assault on “freedom of conscience/religion.” The bishops are taking a cherished inalienable right endowed to every person and co-opting it to a corporation. They are saying that an institution’s conscience trumps the conscience of employees of that institution.



What the Catholic bishops are attempting to do here is sleight of hand. They are not speaking of an individual’s freedom of conscience/religion. This becomes very evident when you read Archbishop John Nienstedt’s pronouncement on individual conscience and freedom of religion.


Archbishop John Nienstedt is warning Catholic clergy across Minnesota that there should be no "open dissension" of the church's strong backing of a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would define marriage as a union only between a man and woman.

In a letter to his clergy, Archbishop Nienstedt wrote,



It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this Archdiocese will support this venture [a state constitutional amendment against Marriage Equality] and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead. The gravity of this struggle, and the radical consequences of inaction propels me to place a solemn charge upon you all — on your ordination day, you made a promise to promote and defend all that the Church teaches. I call upon that promise in this effort to defend marriage. There ought not be open dissension on this issue. If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly. If anyone believes in conscience that he cannot cooperate, I want him to contact me directly and I will plan to respond personally.

Contrast Nienstedt’s understanding of conscience with that taught by the Church for centuries,

“Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.” –Saint Thomas Aquinas

So why would Mahony, Dolan and Nienstedt all set aside this principle, the primacy of an individual’s conscience, and pretend such “shock” regarding contraception, as if this were still 1968 and they were collectively unaware that most Catholics (and theologians) disregard Vatican pronouncements on contraception?

First, the Catholic Church is a very highly hierarchical organization. The only way to advance in a clerical career is to please your superior. Right now that means pleasing Benedict XVI and he has very traditionalist views on human sexuality, women, contraception, and the role (power) of the Catholic Church in society. For members of the hierarchy, this means that the only way to move your career forward, is to move your views backwards.

Second, Benedict XVI will probably die in the near future and a new Conclave (election of a new pope) will take place. Cardinals are already considering (and some quietly campaigning) who should be the next pope.

In Cardinal Mahony's case, he is 76 and has less than four years before he turns 80 and no longer will have a vote in papal elections. He has to distinguish himself to the College of Cardinals before he becomes yesterday's news. At 80, he will have zero chance at trading in his red dress for a white dress.

In newly minted Cardinal Dolan's case, he is a rising star in the Church. If he can manage to stall Marriage Equality in the U.S. until after the next papal election and intimidate President Obama into a retreat on contraception, he will impress the cardinals who will elect the next pope. It has been a long held opinion that it is unlikely that any American would be made pope, because of America's international dominance. However, an American pope who can bring an American President to heel, is another matter entirely.


Sadly, we are led to the obvious conclusion that there seem to be two standards at work in Catholicism, one for 99% of Catholics (laity, nuns and simple priests) and another for the 1% elite (bishops, cardinals and popes).

Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny, in announcing he was recalling the Irish ambassador to the Vatican, denounced "the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism – and the narcissism – that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day."




Once in a blue moon, a person of sincere principle actually is elected pope. It happened with the election of Blessed John XXIII and it happened in 1978 with the election of John Paul I. For the sake of the world's 800 million/one billion Catholics we can only hope it will happen at the next Conclave.