In this issue . . .

• Dialoguing with the Bishop
  In this installment of our regular feature, the editorial team of The Progressive Catholic Voice responds to Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt’s public statements concerning “natural law.”
  

  
  
• The 'Underground Church'
  Michael Bayly outlines the findings of Kathleen Kautzer’s comprehensive study of the “underground church” movement – a movement embodied by the emergence and growth of Eucharistic communities and parishes that have intentionally moved beyond the institutional structures of Rome so as to create and sustain Catholic communities of vibrancy and authenticity.
  
  
• In Good Conscience: "Ways to Advocate on Behalf of LGBT Persons and Their Families
  Or on Behalf of Other Issues of Justice"
  CPCSM Co-Founder David McCaffrey makes his own case for taking more drastic measures against the local archdiocese on behalf of LGBT persons and their families and invites others to join him in his actions or to adapt their political actions to advocate on behalf of their own issues of justice.
  
  
• Statute of Limitations for Sex Abuse Victims: “You Can’t Get Healing in a Court of Law”
  In a follow-up to her article in last month’s Progressive Catholic Voice, Paula Ruddy responds to two arguments opposing the extension of the statute of limitation in child sex abuse cases.
  
  
• The Myth of ‘Conversion Therapy’ and the Pseudo-Science of NARTH
  In the first in a two-part series, Michael Bayly reports on how mainstream science counters the claims and psychotherapeutic practices of the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH), an “ex-gay” organization cited by some within the Catholic Church as a credible source of information.
  
  
• It’s Not a Mortal Sin to Work for Justice
  Mary Jean Smith, the mother of a lesbian, responds to Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt’s contention that “those who actively encourage or promote homosexual acts or such activity within a homosexual lifestyle formally cooperate in a grave evil and, if they do so knowingly and willingly, are guilty of mortal sin."
  
  
• Soul-Searching Moral Moments: “Trusting My Heart and Soul”
  In this first article in a new series on how moral decisions are made in the real world, Mary Beckfeld recalls the two most difficult decisions of her life, and the loving God that she relied on to make them.
  
  
• Among the “Witnesses for Social and Loving Action”
  “Cradle Catholic” Tom White shares his appreciation of the Quaker faith.
  
  
• Growing Up Catholic: "The Best Little Catholic Boy in the World" by David J. McCaffrey

• Upcoming Events
  
  
• Recommended Online Articles
  
  
• Contacting Us
  
  
• To Download This Issue for Printing (.pdf format)

  
  [Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Dialoguing with the Archbishop

By the Editorial Team

Archbishop John C. Nienstedt writes a column in The Catholic Spirit entitled “In God’s Good Time.”  We take his public statements as an opportunity to discuss his views with him.

Dear Archbishop Nienstedt:

Please accept our condolences on the loss of your father and mother.  We were touched by your heartfelt comments regarding your parents, their faith, and the hope you conveyed despite the sadness of their passing.  We appreciate your honesty and can emphasize with your words of hope.

Your Catholic Spirit columns of January 10 and 17 give us much to think about.  We were troubled, however, that once again you asserted a number of conclusions about the immorality of abortion, stem-cell research, same-gender marriage, etc. based on a welter of philosophical generalities.

On January 10 you quote Pope Benedict XVI’s October 5, 2007, address to the members of the International Theological Commission.  He reiterates the Catholic Church’s commitment to reason and dialogue in deciding how humans ought to relate to one another.  He says of the natural law theory of morality:

With this doctrine two essential goals are reached: on the one hand, it is understood that the ethical content of the Christian faith does not constitute an imposition dictated to the human conscience from the outside but a norm inherent in human nature itself; on the other hand, on the basis of natural law, in itself accessible to any rational creature, with this doctrine the foundations are laid to enter into dialogue with all people of good will and more generally, with civil and secular society.

In commenting on the Pope’s address in your column of January 17, you say “God, therefore, decides what is objectively right or wrong and, as believers, we submit to that judgment.”

Do you mean that God decides what is objectively right or wrong in specific instances and reveals it to the individual conscience in the moment?  Perhaps you mean that God reveals moral truth to the Roman Catholic hierarchy?

Do you imply that one has to be a “believer” to be moral? This sounds like divine command theory rather than natural law theory.

As you know, divine command theory holds that God’s law, the source of right and wrong, is revealed to humans supernaturally, through scripture or otherwise.  Contrary to divine command theory, the basis of natural law theory is that humans, a social species with the ability to reason, have within themselves the authority to construct their own ethical, moral, and legal relationships. Natural law theory holds that moral rightness is accessible to all rational people, not just believers. The human species discovers truths about right relationship from its own inclinations and experiences of relationship, analogous to the way they discover truths about the “laws” of physical nature from observation in the world.

We are profoundly grateful that the Church prefers natural law theory to divine command theory.  It means that we are at least in tune with Western civilization on that score.  “God told me in a dream” does not hold up as legal justification in a court of law, nor does it hold up as an ethical justification in civil life.  “God said so in Leviticus” does not qualify as a reason to limit a person’s or a group’s freedom or to deny them equal protection under the law in the U.S. The human community that devised the rules in Leviticus and the human community out of which the US Constitution was developed have many similarities but are also quite different. As the Pope points out, continual dialogue with the texts of all cultures and all ages is needed to arrive, if we can, at moral truth.

You enumerate some examples of actions that God has decided and we are to submit to. These concern an unspecified problem with Roe v. Wade, “therapies involving embryonic stem cells, arguments promoting ‘mercy killing’ of the aged, a rejection of the church’s condemnation of the use of contraceptives within marriage, or even those movements which seek to redefine marriage as anything less then [sic] the union between one man and one woman.”

In your version, “the natural moral law” is like a specific list of rulings that have been delivered by a supernatural Supreme Court. Do you imply that because the institutional Roman Catholic Church has taken positions on each of these questions, that these positions are God’s (divine command theory)?  Or do you mean the Roman Catholic hierarchy has plumbed the moral experience of the whole human species once and for all, articulating it in a catechism published in 1997 (natural law)?

Jean Porter, natural law scholar at the University of Notre Dame, writes that the classical and medieval conceptions of natural law “leave open the possibility of more than one plausible specification of general natural ideals and norms, more than one way of distinguishing true virtues from their similitudes, sorting out the dialectic between possession and need, regulating sexual relations, placing constraints on violent aggression and the like.  Nor is there any obvious way, on this approach, definitively to fix on one particular set of specifications as the only defensible or even the best natural ethic.” (Emphasis ours.)

Porter goes on to quote Thomas Aquinas, the paradigmatic natural law philosopher on whom the Church depends, (Summa I-II 94.4), after which she writes:

It is worth underscoring that Aquinas does not simply say that the precepts of the natural law are not equally well known; he also says that these precepts are not the same for all, because the further we descend from general principles to specifics, the greater the place for contingency and variability in formulating norms of conduct. As he explains in more detail elsewhere, this variability is an ineliminable feature of natural law reasoning.

Jean Porter, “Moral Ideals and Human Nature,” in Universalism vs. Relativism,
edited by Don Browning, 2006, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., p.66.

As you probably know, the “ethical relativism” the Pope is worried about is when people say there is no such thing as moral truth, when they claim that moral norms are cultural constructions, not inherent in a universal human nature.  If moral norms are not grounded in “nature” or some other “reality,” the question arises about the basis for judging them.  Who can say which constructions are right or wrong?  The fear is that, in the extreme, these theories may justify power elites deciding what is right and wrong, or an “anything goes” mentality. May we ask you to explain specifically what you fear about “ethical relativism” in this Archdiocese?

Please explain how you come to know the list of rulings about right and wrong that you say God has made.  We don’t mean to be disrespectful in this request.  It is at the heart of the question about authority that seems to separate us. When we experience suffering in ourselves and others caused by moral pronouncements that we do not see the reasons for, we believe it is immoral to submit to them without question.  We hope you will accept that we are in good faith as we believe you are when you take an obedient and firm stand on some abstract formulations from the past.

If you would enter into the ongoing discussion of moral positions with good reasons, even grounded in the developing understanding of natural moral law theory, instead of giving us conclusions and attributing them to God, we would be grateful.  We and the world need wise leadership in these discussions.

We believe that to be persuasive your reasoning would have to take into account the best science on human physical and social functioning, the best thinking about human life available, and, above all, it could not claim to be anything more than the best provisional knowledge of the human community to date. And this is because our minds are all finite and formed out of historical, cultural contexts. We just have to be humble about it.  And we have to believe, hope and trust that the human species has within its matrix the desire to live in community and to thrive. Some of us believe that the Spirit of God is with us throughout the whole process, helping us to reason carefully, imaginatively and feelingly.

Finally, if you do not reason with all the communities of inquiry within the society, what distinguishes your pronouncements from those of the power elites you caution against in this paragraph?

“The one (or ones) who has power, whether it be in the form of military might or cultural/ideological influence, becomes the ultimate source of law governing human behavior.  This leads to an ‘ethical relativism’ since the source of such law becomes rooted in the subjective whim of the one (or ones) who holds power rather than resting with the objective truth (read here natural moral law), which sustains the human good as found in our very nature. Such relativism threatens the very freedom of those individuals whose dignity stands at risk of being denied by the one (or ones} in power.”

As people whose freedom is threatened and dignity stands at risk of being denied by the cultural/ideological influence of the Roman Catholic institution when it claims to be the ultimate source of law governing human behavior, we ask you to approach questions of morality with a mind open to the experience of the whole community.

Sincerely,

The Editorial Team of The Progressive Catholic Voice:

Michael Bayly
Mary Beckfeld
Steve Boyle
Susan Kramp
David McCaffrey
Brian McNeill
Mary Lynn Murphy
Rick Notch
Theresa O'Brien, CSJ
Paula Ruddy

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

The 'Underground Church'

by Michael Bayly

I’m a member of a Catholic parish in the Twin Cities that, along with a number of other “progressive” Catholic communities, has recently been ordered by the archdiocese to conform its liturgical practices with the rubrics as stated in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal.

I’m sure that for many Catholic parishes, the rubrics of the Roman Missal serve well to express and reflect their faith and community life. Yet for the past 30 years, the parish to which I feel blessed to belong has developed its liturgy in ways that beautifully reflect the presence of the Spirit discerned in the unique gifts and needs of its members and in our shared lives together. This development has been a very intentional and faith-filled embodiment of Vatican II’s call for the “full and active participation” of the laity in “liturgical celebrations” (Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), 1963). Yet many feel that now, in one fell swoop, this embodiment - along with the Spirit that nurtured and inspired it - has been discounted by the Archdiocese in its demand that it be abandoned for the rubrics of the Roman Missal. It seems that in this situation, the “form,” which Jesus said “profits nothing,” has been elevated above the “Spirit” which gives life.

According to Catholic theologian and author Richard McBrien, those ultimately responsible for demanding this type of Spirit-denying conformity comprise “a small but powerful and determined group within the Vatican who have never accepted the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI.”

The resistance of this “small but powerful” clique to these reforms (and to subsequent Spirit-led innovations within Catholic parishes and communities from the Netherlands to South Minneapolis) is, insists McBrien, “at root ecclesiological in nature.” What they oppose is the “de-clericalization of the liturgy” and Vatican II’s call for the “full and active participation” of the laity.

In the minds of those resistant to such “full and active participation,” writes McBrien, “the Church is identical with the hierarchy and the priests who serve under the bishops. The laity, on the other hand, are simply the beneficiaries of the sacramental ministrations of the clergy, in a process ultimately controlled by the Vatican. The problem for the resisters is not so much that the Mass was put into the vernacular, but that the laity could now fully understand it and actively participate in it. . . . It is [the] underlying ecclesiology [of Vatican II] that is rejected, and not simply the changes in language and rituals. What the resisters oppose is the very idea that the Church is the whole People of God, laity included, rather than the hierarchy and clergy alone.”


Inclusive welcoming, participatory liturgies, and democratic governance

The recent efforts of the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis to enforce strict liturgical conformity, along with its efforts to promote the pseudo-science of NARTH, forbid dialogue, and ban certain speakers, have left many experiencing feelings of deep frustration, sadness, loss, and anger. Such responses, coupled with McBrien’s observations regarding the rejection by many in the Catholic hierarchy of Vatican II ecclesiology, bring to mind Kathleen Kautzer’s comprehensive study of the “underground church” movement, and specifically this movements efforts to move beyond the institutional structures of Rome so as to create and sustain Catholic communities of vibrancy and authenticity.

Kautzer is an associate professor of sociology at Regis College, a predominately all-women’s Catholic college founded by the Sisters of St. Joseph in Weston, MA. She teaches courses in peace studies, women’s and children’s issues, social movements, and spirituality. For the past four years, Kautzer has traveled the country studying the Catholic reform movement and, in particular, the emergence and growth of Eucharistic communities and parishes that operate outside Vatican control. Her study, soon to be released as a book entitled The Underground Church, drew on theories of nonviolence and social movements to interpret and evaluate the Catholic reform movement.

Last November, Kautzer spoke at the annual Call to Action conference in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As part of her presentation, entitled “The Underground Church: Nonviolent Alternatives to Vatican Empire,” Kautzer shared photos and descriptions of “Vatican II-styled communities marked by inclusive welcoming, participatory liturgies, and democratic governance.” She noted that “some are within, others outside the institutional structures of the Roman Catholic Church.” Many of the Catholics that comprise these “resistance communities” no longer find dialogue with the hierarchy constructive. Accordingly, they are proactively creating, discovering, and employing “a range of nonviolent strategies to preserve or create vibrant communities that fit their vision of a just Church.”

Kautzer defines the “underground church” as the movement to reform the Church structurally. The term encompasses a range of Vatican II-styled parishes and reform groups, from Voice of the Faithful to Call to Action.

Generally, all such parishes and groups are working for four basic reforms:

1) A formal role for laity in decision-making.

2) Fiscal transparency and accountability (an important issue, says Kautzer, given that a recent study found 85% of the dioceses looked into had serious problems of embezzlement).

3) An inclusive priesthood - one welcoming of married clergy, women, and gays.

4) A commitment to renewing and expanding the direction of Vatican II.

Kautzer chose the term “underground church” in part because it parallels Elisie Boulding’s concept of the “underside of history,” which Kautzer explains is the idea that “in any society, even if the dominant culture is oppressive and hierarchical, there is always an underside where people try and practice cooperation and nonviolence.”

Although the scope of Kautzer’s four-year study was limited to the U.S., she notes that there are similar “underground church” movements underway and flourishing in other parts of the world. Perhaps the most well known of these is represented by the liturgical reforms being carried out by the Dutch Dominicans.


“Above-ground communities”

Kautzer organized the communities she studied according to the different forms of non-violent resistance they embody. Many Vatican II-styled parishes, for instance, along with the reform group Voice of the Faithful, comprise the “lightest form” of non-violent resistance. These “above-ground communities” often employ the “insider tactics” of “protest and persuasion.” They attempt to work “within the system” and, in the case of Voice of the Faithful, avoid “controversial” issues such as female ordination.


“Borderline communities”

“Borderline communities,” says Kautzer, are those engaged in “a little stronger form of non-violent resistance” than the “above-ground communities.” They sometimes engage in the “insider tactics” of protest and persuasion, but more often than not engage in the “outsider tactic” of non-cooperation. Some examples of borderline communities include:

1) Convents in which Catholic nuns perform their own liturgies (including Eucharist) and new types of rituals.

2) Eucharistic communities that are at least tolerated by the hierarchy and rely on “insider priests” (i.e., priests recognized by the Vatican) but engage in church reform work.

3) Vigiling Parishes that are resisting closure orders and conducting their own rituals (e.g., St. James the Great in Wellesley, MA, which is part of the Council of Vigiling Parishes).


The “underground church”

The “underground church” is defined as groups, parishes, or networks of parishes that operate outside of Vatican approval or control, and work for church reform. They tend to employ the “outsider tactics” of non-violent intervention and the creation of parallel institutions. Examples of the underground church include:

1) Catholic reform organizations such as Corpus, Women’s Ordination Conference, Roman Catholic Womenpriests, Catholics for a Free Choice, and Dignity, which, unlike the others, says Kautzer, “has no choice but to operate as an underground church because of the Church’s punitive policies towards homosexuals.” (In most dioceses, including the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis, Dignity is banned from meeting on church property.)

2) Eucharistic communities that are not approved by the Vatican, rely primarily on lay persons or “outsider” priests (i.e., priests who have married, resigned, or been defrocked), and engage in church reform work. For example: Community of God’s Love in Lowell, MA.

3) Parishes that are not recognized by the Vatican, but retain the “Catholic” label and engage in church reform work. For example: Spiritus Christi in Rochester, NY, and St. Stanislaus Kostka in St. Louis, MO.

4) Communions and/or networks of parishes that are non-Roman yet identify and are recognized as Catholic, and provide governance structure and support services for “underground” parishes. For example: the Old Catholic Church (for an extensive interview with Rev. Robert Caruso of Cornerstone Old Catholic Church in St. Paul, MN, click here), the Reformed Catholic Church, the National Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Catholic Communion. This last group has developed a constitution based on the Association of the Rights of Catholics in the Church. Among other things, this constitution expresses welcome to all “regardless of race, national origin, religious affiliation, gender, or sexual orientation,” and mandates that people within parishes vote on policy and elect their priests.


Disadvantages and advantages

Kautzer acknowledges that the underground church communities are labeled “schismatic” by the Vatican. Others dismiss the movement as being like a modern-day Protestant Reformation. “It is in a way,” says Kautzer, “but the difference is that people aren’t creating new denominations. They’re saying, We are Catholic, but we’re just going to do it without Vatican approval.”

There are, of course, some potential pitfalls – including the ongoing struggle for funding and membership, and the potential for cult-like and/or unqualified leadership. However, it’s not as if qualified leadership is guaranteed by reliance on the Vatican, notes Kautzer. In addition, the Vatican itself encourages cult-like organizations, for example, Opus Dei. Many of these organizations, says Kautzer, are documented in Gordon Urquhart’s book, The Pope’s Armada: Unlocking the Secrets of Mysterious and Powerful New Sects in the Church.

Advantages of the underground church include not being restricted by Vatican pronouncements – many of which reflect a narrow and impoverished theology, especially around issues of gender and sexuality. As a result, the underground church, says Kautzer, “challenges dualistic categories that separate laity/clergy, men/women, celibate/married, the sacred and the profane, thereby embodying the notion of the priesthood of all believers and the sacred dimension of reality.”


Impediments to reform

As to why so many Church hierarchs are resistant to the type of change heralded by the underground church, Kautzer suggests that one factor is that many of them, especially those within the Vatican, “tend to be isolated and surrounded primarily by like-minded colleagues selected precisely because of their conformity and subservience.”

Drawing on the theories of human consciousness development pioneered by Ken Wilbur, Kautzer notes that the current pope, like his predecessor, operates primarily from a “traditionalist philosophical framework” – one that is highly authoritarian and dismissive of alternative perspectives and views. Most Catholics, Kautzer contends, operate from a “post-modern or even integralist framework” or worldview. In terms Wilbur’s model of human consciousness development, these are two stages beyond where the vast majority of Vatican officials are. “This gap in worldviews,” says Kautzer, “makes it difficult for people to communicate.”

Kautzer also draws on the insights of psychotherapist Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea, author of Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, when she describes many Catholic hierarchs as “narcissistic,” a state that Frawley-O’Dea maintains is “reinforced by the highly deferential treatment of unchecked power.”

In light of all of this, Kautzer, paraphrasing Gandhi, insists that: “We must be the change we want to see in the Church.” “If ‘We are the Church’,” she says, “then we don’t have to sit back and wait for the hierarchs to make decisions.”


Status and prospects of reform

The hierarchs, however, are making decisions – ones that many Catholics find, at the very least, problematic, and, at most, intolerable. It’s too early to say how my Catholic community or others within the Archdiocese of St.Paul/Minneapolis will respond to the latest demands to conform. My sense is that the “insider tactics” that many have embraced for years are rapidly losing their appeal.

Perhaps the abandoning of such tactics is long overdue. After all, during her talk at the 2007 National Call to Action Conference, Kautzer could give “no substantive examples” of successful insider strategies (i.e., of people working, protesting, and attempting to persuade authority figures within the system) bringing about reform. For substantive change to occur, she declared, outsider strategies must be employed.

“There’s a lot of exciting stuff going on in the underground church,” said Kautzer. But within reform groups focused on insider reform, great difficulties and obstacles – including financial – are being encountered. Voice of the Faithful, for instance, is experiencing a “funding crisis.” People seem to be giving up on insider reform, she said, and are “tired of having the iron thumb of the hierarchy on their back and saying that you can’t talk about this, or think that, or do this.”

“The prospects for reform are dim if we rely solely on insider tactics,” said Kautzer. This is especially true given that the new priests coming into the priesthood tend to be very conservative and authoritative; that Vatican II priests, bishops, and cardinals are either “dying off or being forced out”; and that Pope Benedict XVI has stated publicly that he wants a smaller, purer Church, and that he wants reformers to leave unless they can support everything the hierarchy teaches. “[The pope] doesn’t care if you leave,” says Kautzer. “He’s happy to push you out the door.”

This isn’t true, however, of all cardinals and bishops, many of whom are not as isolated as the pope. They are acutely aware of what such an exodus would mean financially for the Church. Even some conservative Catholics are worried. Writing in the February 2008 issue of the Catholic World Report, Russell Shaw refers to David Carlin’s book, The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America, and notes that: “Carlin concludes that the outcome of the crisis will probably be the de facto collapse of the Church in America and the retreat of Catholics into the status of a ‘minor and relatively insignificant sect.’ Traditionalists will have won the internal Catholic power struggle, mainly because the progressives will have drifted away. But in the end, the small band of traditionalists will find themselves isolated in ‘a new Catholic quasi-ghetto,’ with about as much influence on the culture as the Amish and Hasidic Jews have now.”


Movement of the spirit

I’m not interested in living in any type of ghetto, yet that’s what Pope Benedict XVI seems intent on creating for Catholics. I’m drawn to a Church open to the Spirit, a Church that recognizes and celebrates itself as the Risen Body of Christ, alive and afoot in the world; a Church unafraid of journeying and engagement, of growth and change. My sense is that the birthing and rising of the “underground church,” as described and documented by Kathleen Kautzer, is the movement of the Spirit, seeking and finding welcoming and fertile soil beyond the fortress-like walls of the Vatican’s current state of rigidity and its fearful retreat into conformity.

I cannot help but think that Kautzer’s study validates Rosemary Radford Ruether’s observation that the more the hierarchy stagnates and retreats, the more numerous and freewheeling the creative initiatives that spring up on the ground.

I do not believe that such initiatives herald the destruction of the Church or it’s collapse into insignificance. Rather, I believe that the initiatives that comprise the “underground church” are, in fact, the hope of the Church, and herald its transformation into the fullness of new life.

Michael Bayly is an editor of The Progressive Catholic Voice and the executive coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM). This article was first published on Michael's blog, The Wild Reed.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

In Good Conscience

Ways to Advocate on Behalf of LGBT Persons and Their Families
Or on Behalf of Other Issues of Justice

By David J. McCaffrey

Please also see in this issue of the Progressive Catholic Voice David McCaffrey's article, entitled Growing Up Catholic: "The Best Little Catholic Boy in the World" by David J. McCaffrey, which recounts the earlier years of his life that led up to his work with CPCSM.

___________________________________________

LGBT Catholics or their families seeking pastoral ministry services from the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, for example, by calling the Office of Marriage and Family Life, will receive only a referral to Courage (for gay men or lesbians) or to Encourage (for the family members and friends of gay men or lesbians). Both groups are collectively called "Faith In Action" in the local archdiocese, which states that its mission is to support men and women with "same-sex attractions" to live chaste and holy lives. The Courage website indicates a positive attitude toward conversion therapy and will support its members who seek out such therapy. Also, the website has multiple links to organizations within the "ex-gay" movement.

Searching the Archdiocese's website for "homosexuality" (after finding that the more respectful term, "LGBT pastoral ministry," yields no results) also leads only to Courage and Encourage. Such a search also results in a link to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), an organization that recommends conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians and promulgates documents based on pseudo-science -- both of which have no credibility among any of the reputable professional mental health or medical associations, such as the Amercian Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Council on Child and Adolescent Health, and many others. (Please see the article in this issue of the Progressive Catholic Voice reporting on CPCSM’s recent educational program, “The Myth of Conversion Therapy and the Pseudo-Science of NARTH.”)

The underlying attitudes toward LGBT persons and their families, reflected by the Archdiocese through its staff in the Office of Marriage and Family Life and by its website, are not only sorely lacking, they are reprehensible. In fact, it should be said that Courage and Encourage provide neither competent nor compassionate pastoral ministry. To tell LGBT persons that they are "objectively disordered" and must maintain a lives of sexual abstinence simply because they find themselves attracted to members of their own gender is outrageous – especially when the vast majority of today’s behavioral and biological scientists believe that homosexuality is innate, not freely chosen, and not a psychological disorder that can or should be treated.

Furthermore, it is an outrage to LGBT persons and their families for Courage to compare the situation of gay men and lesbians with that of alcoholics who follow the 12 steps of AA. It is not appropriate to recommend that LGBT persons follow an adaptation of those same 12 steps in order to abstain from pursuing meaningful committed relationships. Forming such relationships is the only way that God has created them to find the love in another person that mirrors God’s unconditional love for them.

Therefore, the approach that the local archdiocese advocates, through its Faith In Action Program, is contrary to the life-experience of millions of LGBT persons and has no foundation in the current sciences and in present-day medical and mental health practice. But to recommend that LGBT persons abstain from all committed same-sex relationships, while giving tacit approval to conversion therapy when all reputable professional groups have condemned it as being ineffective and potentially dangerous, is also incompetent, insensitive, and lacking in compassion -- and is even unethical.

Furthermore, John Gonsiorek, a national expert on competent psychological practice and ethics said at CPCSM’s recent program about conversion therapy and NARTH that for a church group to advocate for conversion therapy is tantamount to practicing psychology – and bad psychology at that -- without a license, which is a criminal offense in Minnesota.

Over its past 25+ years working in the local church, CPCSM has provided workshops and inservices to virtually all of the heads of archdiocesan offices during Archbishop Roach's administration, presented its parish-based gay-lesbian ministry training to more that 25 parishes, resulting in active LGBT ministries in at least 6 parishes and competent and compassionate pastoral staff at many other parishes.

Furthermore, for 10 years, from 1983 to 1993, Catholic Charities and CPCSM cosponsored a program in which Deacon couple Roger and Donna Urbanski, who have a gay son, faithfully provided one-to-one counseling and a monthly support group for Catholic family members and friends of LGBT persons.

From about 1993 to 1997, CPCSM was an active member of a Study Group on Sexuality and Spirituality, requested by a group of local Catholic high school presidents, which was comprised of representatives of most of the local Catholic high schools and the archdiocesan education staff and met monthly under the auspices of the Archdiocese's Catholic Education and Formation Ministries (CEFM) Program.

At about the same time CPCSM, by presenting its 4-session Safe Staff Training Program to the whole CEFM staff and to 8 of the 11 Catholic secondary schools in existence at that time, helped create for LGBT students in most of the participating schools, safe spaces and safe school staff patterned after the groundbreaking Safe Staff Programs (Out For Equity and Out For Good) in both the St. Paul and Minneapolis public high school districts. (CPCSM's safe staff training program is fully described in its recently published book (edited by Michael Bayly), Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective (Harrington Park Press).

For the incoming archbishop, with edicts more characteristic of a dictator than a pastoral leader, to put a end to nearly 30 years of these excellent pastoral efforts, carried out by good, holy, well-intentioned Catholic professionals --with the blessing of the local ordinary--who were trained to carefully listen to and respond to the special, unique pastoral needs of each person seeking their care, cries to heaven for justice!

It is for these reasons that I strongly believe that in good conscience I must personally begin taking more drastic political actions against this archdiocese – and I urge all readers of the Progressive Catholic Voice to consider doing the same, whether it be because of the archdiocese’s treatment of LGBT persons and their families, or for another issue of justice about which they feel as outraged as I do.

Much of the change regarding the treatment of LGBT person in this local church came about through the pressure put on the Chancery by members of right-wing fundamentalist groups that threatened both to withhold their contributions to the archdiocese and to contact the archbishop's superiors in the Vatican if he would not take a more conservative orthodox approach – and hence, one that is also less tolerant and compassionate – toward LGBT persons and their families.

Therefore, because these kinds of strategies appear to speak louder to the Catholic hierarchy than do personal appeals or rational arguments -- whether they be from a theological, philosophical, or scientific point of view -- or even public protests, I am recommending the following actions as a show of solidarity for our LGBT brothers and sisters and their families:

• A letter writing campaign to Archbishop Nienstedt's superiors
  
  
• A boycott of the Archbishop's Annual Appeal.
  
  

Letter-writing to Archbishop Nienstedt's Superiors

The following addresses are to those members of the Catholic hierarchy that are directly responsible for Archbishop John Nienstedt being appointed as the Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis. It is best if your letters come from your heart and reflect your own personal opinions as to why--based on his record in New Ulm as bishop and here, so far, as Coadjutor Archbishop--John Nienstedt is not a good fit as archbishop for this archdiocese. You might consider writing to the Apostolic Nuncio and then sending a copy to both Cardinal Re and Pope Benedict XVI.

Archbishop Pietro Sambi
Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W,
Washington, DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 333-7121
Fax: (202) 337-4036

Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
Palazzo delle Congregazioni,
Piazza Pio XII, 10
00193 Rome
Italy
Tel  (from USA): 011-39-06-69-88-42-17
Fax (from USA): 011-39-06-69-88-53-03

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
The Apostolic Palace,
00120 Vatican City State
Italy
Email: benedictxvi@vatican.va

[Back to Top]

___________________________________________

Boycott of the Archbishop's Annual Catholic Appeal

Editor's Note: The boycott of the Archbishop's Annual Catholic Appeal that I am recommending here is based upon my own personal outrage about the archdiocese's 180-degree change in its attitudes and the (outrageously incompetent and insensitive) "pastoral care" that it is now recommending for its LGBT members and their families. I am inviting all readers to join me in this boycott. However, there may be other issues that the archdiocese has been addressing about which readers feel more outraged (e.g., liturgical reform, treatment of women, treatment of lay ministers, treatment of non-Catholics at Catholic liturgies, etc.). I strongly encourage readers to feel free to adapt their own boycott efforts, including the wording of the sample statement below, to fit another particular issue of injustice that may seem closer to their hearts.

Also please note that the sample form below allows for a number of options (i.e., withholding only a portion of the Appeal funds and giving them all to one or more LGBT-friendly organizations, withholding all of the Appeal funds and giving all of them to LGBT-friendly organizations or one part of them to LGBT-supportive groups and the rest to other social justice organizations (which you will have to locate through you own searches: for example, by calling the local First Call For Help at "2-1-1", or by online web searching).

The suggested sample form (or one of your own making) that follows can be mailed directly to the Archbishop's Catholic Appeal Office at the following address:

2008 Archbishop's Annual Catholic Appeal
Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis
328 Kellogg Boulevard West
St. Paul, MN 55102

SAMPLE FORM

Boycott of the Archbishop's Annual Catholic Appeal in Support of my LGBT Sisters and Brothers In Good Conscience . . . I can no longer continue to be a silent witness to the neglect and abuse that my lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) brothers and sisters and their families have been suffering at the hands of the Catholic Church in general, and in this archdiocese in particular. The Church is a place where we should all be feeling the unconditional love of God, where all should be treated as equals. Instead, my LGBT sisters and brothers and their families have been subjected to unjust discriminatory treatment that lacks true compassion since it denies the validity of their relationships, life-experiences, faith journeys, and special needs and gifts and goes contrary to the findings of modern science. Until this Archdiocese begins to provide truly competent and compassionate pastoral ministry to God's LGBT people and to their families--and not simply the grossly demeaning and sorely inadequate treatment offered by Faith In Action programs (Courage/Encourage), I will withhold (all/a portion) of my finan-cial contribution to this year's Archbishop's Annual Catholic Appeal, in the amount of $ ____________ . Instead, I am giving these funds to another non-profit social justice organization that recognizes and/or provides pastoral ministry or other social services that show a competent and compassionate regard for the special gifts and needs of LGBT persons and their families, or to an organization that advocates for social justice for LGBT persons and their families. Identifying Information Optional but Recommended Name _______________________________________________________ Address _____________________________________________________ Phone _______________________________________________________ "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."   (Matthew 25: 40) "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. . . . In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."   (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. )

List of Suggested Organizations for Funds Withheld
from Archbishop's Annual Appeal

Catholic-Oriented LGBT-Related Organizations

CPCSM, The Progressive Catholic Voice, or Catholic Rainbow Parents
(To send a check to any of these organizations, make the check payable to:
 CPCSM and indicate which group the money is intended for on the memo line on the check.)
The House of the Beloved Disciple
2930 13th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Phone: 612-201-4534
Email: cpcsmmail@gmail.com

Dignity Twin Cities

Other LGBT-Related Organizations

The following is a list of local non-profit organizations, which are welcoming and affirming of LGBT persons and are not part of the Archdiocese; and the list may include organization(s) to which you might wish to redirect the funds you are withholding from the Archbishop's Annual Catholic Appeal.

Faith, Families, Fairness Alliance
(an interfaith alliance)

Avenues for Homeless Youth

The Bridge

District 202

OutFront Minnesota

PFLAG, St.Paul-Minneapolis Chapter

Project Offstreets

Quatrefoil Library

Rainbow Families

Safe Zone for Homeless, Runaway, At-Risk Youth
(Face-to-Face Health and Counseling Service, St. Paul, MN)

St. Paul Youth Services

David J. McCaffrey is a founding member of The Progressive Catholic Voice and a cofounder of CPCSM.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Statute of Limitations for Sex Abuse Victims:
“You Can’t Get Healing in a Court of Law”

By Paula Ruddy

In January, The Progressive Catholic Voice published an article about the bills in the 2008 session of the Minnesota legislature to extend the time for civil suit for childhood victims of sexual abuse.  At present, if victims don’t bring civil suit within 6 years after they turn 18, the law bars them from holding abusers or their employers liable. The proposed bills would extend that time to sue, recognizing the emotional and psychological disabilities that follow sexual abuse in childhood.

We raised a question about the morality of the Archdiocese’s all out effort to defeat the bills when their efforts protect not only themselves, but other employers of sexual predators.

The Catholic Spirit weighed in on January 29 with an editorial about Wisconsin’s effort to eliminate the statute of limitations in sex abuse cases and Milwaukee’s Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s testimony against it.  Editor Joe Towalski reports Dolan’s argument: it isn’t “fair play” to take Archdiocesan money from programs for the poor to pay victims of clergy sex abuse. He didn’t say to what extent programs for the poor are supported in Wisconsin, as in Minnesota, by federal money, independent of diocesan funds. We agree it isn’t fair to punish the innocent.  Would it be fair to determine who was responsible for the church’s negligence in each diocese and to cut their budgets?  Is the hierarchical lifestyle feeling the pinch?

Towalski gives one sentence to Minnesota legislation: “There have been few proposals in the Minnesota legislature in recent sessions to pass similar laws, but they haven’t progressed far.”  He doesn’t say that they have not progressed because the Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis has led the fight with paid lobbyists and personal testimony to block them since the mid 1990’s. Our question remains unanswered:  Why should an institution that negligently employs sexual predators be protected from civil liability?

Another reaction from Catholic readers, those genuinely concerned for victims, was that lawsuits are ineffective in facilitating healing of those sexually abused in the church as children, but merely drain the archdiocese of much-needed finances.  Since payment of money isn’t healing, they reason, it is not so bad to cut short the time for a victim to sue.

They are right that the business of courts is not to heal. However, the state does compel the defendant who has caused personal injury to return the plaintiff to the status quo ante. The injury cannot be undone, and there is no way to return a childhood sex abuse victim to the status quo ante, but that does not relieve the state from the duty to enforce the victim’s right to as much compensation as the injuries warrant. Though money itself does not heal, it pays for the healing help of professionals and for the myriad costs that emotionally disabled people struggling to live in the real world incur daily.

I agree with people who think the bottom line for victims is healing. The best case scenario would have been for the bishops, when they learned of the abuse, to do everything in their power to rebuild relationships with the victims, their families, the communities affected by the abusers.  Unfortunately, that did not happen. The Archdiocese did set up some programs for people to ask for therapy and probably even financial help.  But, obviously, what they did or how they did it was not enough to heal the relationship between some of the victims and the institution.  Maybe the damage was too great to be healed even with the most compassionate, imaginative, and generous strategies.  In any event, some victims turned to the civil courts.

Even if the legal remedy is only money in a civil lawsuit, healing can occur because some of the people involved in the system are humane. I have been an observer at a local conference on sexual abuse in which many victims, clients of well-known plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Anderson, gathered to tell their stories, to support one another, and to encourage other victims to begin the long process of healing. A victim who is motivated to come forward publicly gets the chance to tell his or her story within the supportive structure of people working on the case. Difficult as it is, victims assert their own dignity in standing up to their abusers within a public system.

The people at the conference were part of a larger effort to move legislators to a greater awareness of the incidence of child sex abuse and the horrors it causes. Legislators were there and listening to them.  Being active in the cause of preventing sex abuse for other children moves these men and women from the status of victim to the status of survivor.  If the Catholic church had handled the problem of clergy abuse with the same moral courage and compassion as I saw at that conference, I wonder whether so many people would be filing civil suits against it.

Finally, beyond compensating current victims, civil lawsuits save more children from becoming victims of sex abuse.  The numerous organizations in Minnesota working on the problem want more than just criminal record checks for people who work with children.  For the state to enforce criminal penalties, a chain of occurrences has to happen: the child victim has to tell someone about the abuse, the person they tell has to believe the child and has to call law enforcement to charge the perpetrator: be he or she a church or school leader, or a relative or family friend who has been a secret abuser.  After police and prosecutors are involved, they have to get evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict.  For every sex abuser with a record, how many do you suppose there are who were never reported, prosecuted or convicted?

The threat of civil liability motivates an employer to make the extra effort to develop screening methods to find perpetrators despite their not having criminal records. Insurance companies who pay the costs of defense and settlement will demand more careful screening. At this time in Minnesota, employers and their insurers are free of any liability in most cases if the child victim does not come forward before the age of 24.  The odds of avoiding liability are in their favor. Why spend money on screening?

If you think that the Minnesota law should be changed, call Representative Joe Mullery, chair of the Public Safety and Civil Law Committee, and ask him to bring House File 1239 to a vote. His number is (651) 296-4262.  Or email him: rep.joe.mullery@house.mn

Paula Ruddy is a founding member of The Progressive Catholic Voice.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

The Myth of 'Conversion Therapy' and the Pseudo-Science of NARTH

PART I – DEBUNKING NARTH

By Michael Bayly

In this first of two articles, CPCSM executive coordinator Michael Bayly highlights the insights and information presented by John C. Gonsiorek, PhD (1) during his January 29 presentation at the House of the Beloved Disciple.

INTRODUCTION

On January 29, 2008, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) sponsored an educational program entitled, “The Myth of ‘Conversion Therapy’ and the Pseudo Science of NARTH.” 

Held in Minneapolis at the House of the Beloved Disciple, this program featured two local licensed psychologists, Jeffry G. Ford (2) and John C. Gonsiorek, who shared their perspective on the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) and the theory and practice of “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, advocated by NARTH and other so-called ex-gay ministries and organizations.

These ex-gay groups are adamant that homosexuality is preventable in childhood and treatable in adulthood, and that most gays and lesbians can successfully convert to heterosexuality through what they label “reparative therapy” or “conversion therapy.”

The program was prompted by recent efforts on the part of the Archdiocese to promote NARTH as a credible scientific organization.  For instance, in the November 8 issue of The Catholic Spirit (the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis), Fr. Jim Livingston (3) endorsed NARTH by citing the organization as a useful resource and by encouraging people to visit its website so as “to learn . . .about the emotional root causes of homosexuality.”

Fr. Livingston also recommended an audio CD of a talk given by NARTH co-founder Joseph Nicolosi, an individual whom Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt, when he was a bishop in Detroit, invited to speak to the priests of the archdiocese as an “expert” on homosexuality.

Many Catholics are concerned by the local Archdiocese’s increasing reliance on the perspective and “findings” of NARTH to support and validate Church teaching on homosexuality.

A “fraudulent healthcare system”

Dr. Gonsiorek began his presentation with words of advice for Catholics troubled by the Archdiocese’s efforts to present NARTH as a legitimate scientific organization and to use its “findings” to validate Church teaching on the “disordered” nature of homosexuality.

“If you’re going to challenge the Archdiocese in its attempts to introduce what I consider to be a ‘fraudulent healthcare service,’” said Gonsiorek, “then you need to become educated about what the behavioral sciences say about sexual orientation.  That has to be the base from which you operate as opposed to reacting to the ‘flakiness’ of organizations like NARTH.”

For the most up-to-date information regarding sexual orientation, Gonsiorek recommends the website of the American Psychological Association, and in particular, this site’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Concerns page, its Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients, and its Division 44, also known as the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues.

The Origins of NARTH

Dr. Gonsiorek then proceeded to provide some insightful background information on the origins of NARTH – origins inseparable from the wider cultural debate on homosexuality and, specifically, the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders (followed two years later by the passage of a similar resolution of the American Psychological Association).

This change in the diagnosis of homosexuality was the result of the wealth of research data gathered since the early 1950s that showed no difference between homosexual and heterosexual populations in terms of “adjustment.”

Gonsiorek also noted that a significant “sea change” took place in the early 1970s when biological psychiatry began taking over the field of behavioral science from the psychoanalytical establishment.  Indeed, the change in the diagnosis of homosexuality, says Gonsiorek, was “essentially a run-up of a long-standing fight” between these two groups, and was an important moment for the biological psychiatrists, “not only because they had a strong data base to support such a change, but because the psychoanalysts had always considered human sexuality to be their domain.”

In time, the psychoanalytical establishment also changed in its understanding of homosexuality; it now has the same sets of policies and principles about sexual orientation as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.  Yet there were “old guard” psychoanalysts who were disgruntled about being displaced and seeing their organization change its views on homosexuality.  This disaffected group of psychoanalysts formed an alliance with conservatively- and religiously-oriented psychotherapists.  It was from this alliance that NARTH was established.

The problem with “conversion therapy”

Gonsiorek then outlined the problem with “conversion” or “reparative” therapy, the theory and practice that treats homosexuality as a pathology, as a disorder that can be “repaired” and changed.

“It’s nonsensical to have a treatment for a diagnosis that doesn’t exist,” says Gonsiorek.  “With homosexuality being de-pathologized in 1973, what exactly is being treated?  There is no data to support that sexual orientation can be changed and there’s no reason to change it; there’s no impairment.”

So why do people subject themselves to such a “nonsensical” treatment?  Gonsiorek notes that there can be a “a great deal of coercion, a great deal of social pressure in some families and communities for those struggling with homosexual feelings to submit to conversion therapy.  If they don’t, they’ll be socially ostracized.

Some ex-gay therapists insist that in recommending and/or offering conversion or reparative therapy they are merely giving people a choice as consumers to meet their personal health goals.  This argument, says Gonsiorek is “specious and borders on malpractice.”  Healthcare providers, he insists, “should not just do what consumers want but offer services that are based on established standards of care.  And if the consumer wants something that is flakey, the answer is ‘No.’ To give them what’s flakey is malpractice.”

Gonsiorek also noted an “obvious sexism associated with the ex-gay movement.”  “Most of the change efforts are focused on men,” he says.  “Women are not so important to the ex-gay ministers and therapists.”

And there is yet another aspect of sexism reflected by this movement: If women marry supposedly ex-gay men and the marriage fails, it’s these women and any children produced by the marriage that suffer.  “There’s a lot of this type of ‘collateral damage,’” says Gonsiorek, “but it’s rarely talked about by NARTH and the wider ex-gay establishment.”

Big business

Gonsiorek also observed that: “This whole discussion on reparative therapy is occurring in a socio-political context in which it’s becoming standard practice for both corporations and right-wing religious organizations to heavily fund institutes and think-tanks, and to purchase the science they want.”

“We saw this very dramatically with the tobacco company lawsuits, where the tobacco companies, for decades, bought their own science to support their positions,” he said.  Yet despite the pseudo-science being exposed in such cases, “the funding by right-wing organizations within the scientific community and within church organizations [remains] big business,” notes Gonsiorek.

“It’s understandable,” says Gonsiorek, “that the lay public can become confused when every behavioral health organization does not support reparative therapy, and yet there are these official-sounding organizations, endorsed by people like archbishops, that make the argument that they are just one more credible voice among many.”

The real issue

At one point during his presentation, Gonsiorek was asked: “How do the people involved with groups like NARTH respond to the reality that every major professional organization in the behavioral sciences disagrees with them?”

Gonsiorek noted that they often attempt to “re-pathologize” homosexuality by making the following argument: Because certain subsets of the lesbian and gay population have higher rates of certain problems, it must mean there’s inherent pathology.

In response to this ploy, Gonsiorek notes that: “In reality, every group that is treated as second class has higher rates of both mental and physical health problems.  If you treat people badly, they get messed up.  You don’t need a PhD to figure that out.  Yet we don’t say that women are inherently pathological because they have a higher rate of depression and eating disorders.  Neither do we say that Native Americans are inherently pathological because they have higher rates of alcoholism.”

The “real issue,” says Gonsiorek, “is that if you can find anyone at all in the given population who is not pathological, then that disproves that the group is pathological.  If you have a 20 percent higher base rate of a particular problem within a population, and if there are people within that population for whom that particular problem is not an issue, than it’s clear that something else is going on other than inherent pathology.”

Exploring the issue further, Gonsiorek noted that: “What often happens with people who are maneuvered into reparative therapy is that they’ve been trashed for years by churches and communities – even by their own families.  As a result, they’re often depressed and anxious.  That’s what the problem is, and that’s what requires treatment.  So the reparative therapy is often done instead of what needs to be done – which is to undo the damage caused by harassment, ostracism, and disparagement.”

Science and religion

Gonsiorek concluded his talk by noting that “both the behavioral sciences and religion attempt to understand the human condition and to respond to problems within the human condition.”  Yet he was adamant that science and religion are “not the same, and that one cannot speak for the other.”

“For a church leader to tell you what is good behavioral science,” he said, “carries about as much weight as your Uncle Joe telling you.”

Reflecting on the current situation in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Gonsiorek said: “As a psychologist, I find it almost fraudulent for someone who claims to be a moral authority to be grandly operating in an area in which they have no competence.”

In the March issue of The Progressive Catholic Voice, Michael Bayly will share highlights from Jeffrey Ford’s (3) contribution to CPCSM’s program, “The Myth of ‘Conversion Therapy’ and the Pseudo-Science of NARTH.”

NOTES

1.  John C. Gonsiorek, PhD, is a fellow of American Psychological Association (APA) Division 9 (also called the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues), and Division 12 (the Society of Clinical Psychology).

John is also a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Minnesota, and a Past-President of APA Division 44 – also known as the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues. For 25 years, he had an independent practice of clinical and forensic psychology in Minneapolis.

John has published widely in the areas of professional misconduct, sexual orientation and identity, and professional ethics. For many years, he provided expert witness evaluation and testimony regarding impaired clergy and professionals, standards of care, and psychological damages. He has also provided training and consultation to a variety of religious denominations and organizations.

A consulting editor for the APA journal, Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, John is also the author of a number of publications, including: Breach of Trust: Sexual Exploitation by Health Care Professionals and Clergy, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy (with Weinrich); Male Sexual Abuse: A Trilogy of Intervention Strategies (with Bera and Letourneau), and Homosexuality and Psycohtherapy: A Practitioner’s Handbook of Affirmative Models.

2.  Jeffry G. Ford, MA, is a licensed psychologist and psychotherapist.  Interestingly, Jeff was formerly the executive director of OUTPOST, an “ex-gay” ministry located in Minneapolis.  For ten years, Jeff claimed to be a “former homosexual,” and was a national speaker for Exodus International, the governing board and communication hub for most ex-gay ministries.  Today, however, Jeff identifies as a gay man and is a nationally known consultant and speaker on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues. He specializes in addressing the complexities involved with the anti-gay theory known both as “reparative therapy” and “sexual conversion therapy,” which purports to prevent and cure homosexuality. Jeff dedicates his time and energy to challenging the unethical and dangerous use of pseudo-scientific theories associated with the ex-gay movement, a movement that includes NARTH.

3.  Fr. Jim Livingston serves as lead chaplain to the local chapter of Courage (which goes by the name of Faith in Action in the St. Paul/Minneapolis Archdiocese). Courage purports to help people move beyond “same-sex attraction” by encouraging a life of “interior chastity in union with Christ.” The movement labels itself a “pro-chastity ministry,” and equates chastity with celibacy.  Although Courage -- which, along with NARTH, Livingston enthusiastically promotes in his November 8 commentary -- acknowledges that the “inclination of homosexual attractions” is “psychologically understandable,” the group, nevertheless, considers such attractions “objectively disordered” – a view promulgated by the hierarchical church.  Courage often substitutes the words “homosexuality” and “gay” with the NARTH-coined phrase, “same-sex attraction disorder” – a term unrecognized by any professional mental health association.  Following NARTH’s lead, Courage likens homosexuality to alcoholism, and conducts its “support groups” using the 12-Step format developed by Alcoholics Anonymous. Some members of Courage even consider their “disorder” to be curable, and explain its origin using debunked theories of dominant mothers, distant fathers, and abusive family relations.  Livingston’s commentary in The Catholic Spirit is clear evidence that the quackery of NARTH is actively endorsed and encouraged by some within the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

It’s Not a Mortal Sin to Work for Justice

By Mary Jean Smith

The following commentary was published in the January 29 issue of the St. Paul Pioneer Press.  In it, the mother of a lesbian responds to Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt’s November 15, 2007 contention that “Those who actively encourage or promote homosexual acts or such activity within a homosexual lifestyle formally cooperate in a grave evil and, if they do so knowingly and willingly, are guilty of mortal sin.”

My husband and I have been married 49 years. We are the parents of five grown daughters, one of whom is a lesbian. I speak with passion concerning our experience, which is marked by intense sadness because of the alienation my daughter and others like her continue to suffer, especially at the hands of the [Roman] Catholic Church.

Our daughter is in a long-term loving relationship. She and her partner have pledged their fidelity to one another in a commitment ceremony. They are the parents of a son, a fine young man of heterosexual “inclination” who is a full-time college student. Our daughter is a college graduate employed as a counselor; her partner is a registered nurse. Together, they also care for three mentally challenged adults in their home.

From the time our daughter was about 15 until she was a young adult, she was suicidal. She was struggling with the painful emotions of being “different,” thinking she was mentally ill, and terrified. She was hospitalized on at least three occasions, during which time we, too, were very much afraid. Adolescents often fear the consequences of “coming out” to family and friends because of the built-in ridicule, hatred and discrimination.

Our daughter says that even when she was 7 or 8 years old, she had the feelings of being different from her sisters and other girls her age. Sexual orientation is not chosen. It is primarily determined by genetics and hormones. When God created humankind in God’s own image and likeness, God saw that it was good.

It was not until our daughter could come to terms with who she was and that God created her this way that she was able to accept herself.

We find it strange that any reference to persons of homosexual orientation is always reduced to sexual acts. They are sexual beings like the rest of us, but as with their heterosexual counterparts, spend very little time in actual genital activity. Have you asked a married couple lately how often they engage in sexual intercourse? Gay and lesbian people are productive members of society. They work at meaningful vocations eight or more hours a day, spend time eating and sleeping, shopping, doing chores, watching TV, reading, studying and doing a myriad of other activities. And yes, they raise children - sometimes adopted, hard-to-place children with special needs. Once in awhile, they make love.

Regardless of what the “experts” say, there are no “former” homosexuals. Many gay and lesbian persons marry in an attempt to live as society expects; however, many of these marriages end in disaster. They cannot live a lie. Our lesbian daughter cannot change her sexual orientation any more than our four heterosexual daughters can change theirs.

Because of and through our daughter, we have met many other gay and lesbian people, wonderful human beings. We all know many gay and lesbian people, although we may not realize it. They are our doctors, nurses, teachers, chefs, artists, musicians and, yes, even nuns and priests. The gay priests we have been privileged to meet are among some of the holiest and most talented. (Please do not confuse homosexuality with pedophilia. They are not the same. And most pedophiles are heterosexual.)

Our daughter and other same-sex couples we know mirror our own ideal of marital love. She and her partner are loving parents and are supportive to other members of their families. We feel blessed to have her as our daughter. Although it was a difficult and painful time while she was finding out who she was, and there were times when we asked God to “take this cup away,” we now thank God for sending her to us. Her life is truly a gift, and we will continue to support her and the gay community as well as try to change society's attitude toward them.

I don’t recall Jesus saying anything about homosexuality, although it’s been with us since antiquity. He said nothing about sex, either, but he did have a lot to say about love and removing the plank from one’s own eye before talking about the speck in another’s.

As part of my own education, I did extensive research on homosexuality. I suggest those who have a problem with the issue do the same in an effort to further understand and rid the mind of flawed ideas as well as hurtful, vindictive judgments. The archbishop and others are wrong on this issue. I am not guilty of mortal sin. It is not a sin to love my daughter and work for justice on her behalf.

Mary Jean Smith lives in Chetek, Wisconsin.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Soul-Searching Moral Moments:
Personal Stories of Moral Decision-Making

"Trusting My Heart and Soul "

By Mary Beckfeld

In this first article in a new series on how moral decisions are made in the real world, Mary Beckfeld recalls the two most difficult decisions of her life, and the loving God that she relied on to make them.

I have the good fortune to have been raised in an ecumenical home with an Irish Catholic mother and a German/Norwegian father who converted to Catholicism when he was sixteen.  His mother was the best Lutheran ever, and included my sister and me in her church events and attended all events we were involved in.   I only say this because I think bringing these traditions together is what formed me into the wife, mother, grandmother, and great grandmother I am today.  I am also the product of twelve years of Catholic education.

I am the proud mother of eight sometimes-wonderful children, fifteen always-wonderful grandchildren and two amazing great granddaughters.

My seventh child, David, was born with multiple physical and mental handicaps in 1971.  He never learned to walk, talk, or feed himself.  He was also never able to be toilet trained.  Despite these disabilities, David was the joy of our family and the “great communicator” and taught all of us what real unconditional love was.  He found ways to tell us his wants and needs.  It is amazing to me, even today, how he totally wrapped nine of us around his little finger.

On New Year's Eve of 1986, as we were wishing each other “Happy New Year,” David was struck down with a bacterial pneumonia.  Of course, he was hospitalized and after three days, was placed on a respirator to ease his breathing and allow an opportunity for the doctors to identify the bacteria and begin treating the infection.  Unfortunately, on January 6, the Feast of Kings, David suffered a heart attack and went into cardiac arrest.  There was no time to do research, contact theologians, or the archbishop or anyone else who had the “wise” answers.  Because my husband had been called out of town, I knew that I, and I alone, had to make the hard decision: was David to live or die.  When resuscitation did not revive him, the doctors called for the paddles to electric shock his heart back.  I had watched my son struggle for fourteen-and-a-half years – years of painful physical therapy and of painfully watching his brothers and sisters living their lives in ways he knew he never would.  Maybe his mind didn’t grow, but his body did, and he was a fully-grown fourteen-and-a-half-year-old young man and his struggles were many.

My heart and soul told me that enough was enough, and that it was time to let him go and be with the God who loved him and was waiting for him.  I told the nurse: “No more!”  She responded by asking me three times if I was sure about this decision, and if I really understood the consequences of it.  I replied with a strong YES.  Within minutes, I held my son and sent him to finally walk with God, as he had never walked here on earth.

Ironically, fifteen years later, my husband, an ordained deacon, had a dissection of the aorta.  Most people die instantly, but he lived for six days.  Early in the morning of the sixth day, he suffered a massive heart attack and was placed on a ventilator, even though, at that point, there was no hope for recovery according to the attending doctors.  My husband and I had often talked about end of life issues and we both agreed that when the time came, we had to let the other one go.  Once again, without any input from theologians or clergy, but by simply trusting my heart and soul, I had to make a hard decision: to remove my husband from the respirator and give him over to God.

Do not misunderstand me: these decisions were and are the hardest decisions I have ever had to make.  And I hope I never have to make decisions like these again.  Looking back, I realize that in making these decisions I relied during those times, as I continue to rely today, on a God who never leaves me and who only wants the best for me and my family; a God who knows I would never be instrumental in taking a life needlessly; and a God of forgiveness and love who has embraced my husband and my son and welcomed them home, and who is waiting to welcome me as well.

Mary Beckfeld is a founding member of the Catholic Rainbow Parents and of the editorial team of The Progressive Catholic Voice.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Among the “Witnesses for Social and Loving Action”

“Cradle Catholic” Tom White shares his appreciation of the Quaker faith.

Edina residents Tom and Darlene White raised their three children in Catholic parishes from Florida to Minneapolis and were long-time active supporters of Pax Christi Parish in Eden Prairie.  They have advocated for the poor, the homeless, and the disenfranchised for thirty-five years as “Friends” of St. Stephen’s Catholic Community in Minneapolis, and are members of Call to Action Minnesota, Women against Military Madness, Pax Christi Twin Cities, Grandmothers for Peace, and Veterans for Peace.  They have been members of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) for almost twenty years.

In 2005, already frustrated with the churches’ feeble response to speak out against the war in Iraq, and the poverty and homelessness caused by the cost of that illegal and immoral war, the Whites were dismayed by the all-out effort of the bishops of the Roman Catholic dioceses of Minnesota to amend the Minnesota constitution so as to deny same-gender couples and families, including their daughter’s family, the same civil rights afforded to heterosexual couples and families.  Stepping up, Tom and Darlene helped found the Catholic Rainbow Parents, and joining with other coalition groups to defeat the bishops’ effort.

The Whites say that the bishops’ injustice and hypocrisy in teaching the message of Jesus has made it impossible to continue to support the Archdiocese and the hierarchical church.  They now nurture the best of their Catholic faith within the Quaker tradition and several small Christian communities. 

Following is a meditation address that Tom White gave to the Quaker Meeting that he and Darlene now attend.

___________________________________

Good Morning, Friends – I am Tom White and, as a Catholic “in exile,” I am humbled by having been asked to provide some food for your reflection this morning, to you whose reflections have been so nourishing to me.

Darlene and I have been truly enriched by our relationship with your Meeting these past couple years; and if I could fulfill my intended purpose this morning, it would be to help you reflect on the power of your Quaker faith as observed by a relative outsider. Why have Darlene and I chosen to worship here at this particular time in our lives?

Many of you had parents and grandparents who were Quaker and you are therefore “cradle Quakers” as we are “cradle Catholics.”  In 1986 our National Conference of Catholic Bishops introduced a document called Economic Justice for All.  It included among the Six Basic Principles of Catholic Social Teaching:  1) Dignity for every human person;   2) Basic human rights for all; and, particularly, 3) The Option for the Poor which stated that “as individuals and as a nation, we are called to evaluate social and economic activity from the viewpoint of the poor and the powerless.  Those who are marginalized and whose rights are denied have privileged claim if society is to provide justice for all”!

If that marvelous document were really lived would not every pulpit of the Catholic Church rage against the billions of dollars being spent on war and empire-building?  Some people joke that those Principles are the Catholic Church’s best-kept secret, and the Catholic Church is not any more guilty than the other large hierarchical churches.  Someone said, “Your actions speak so loudly I can’t hear what you’re saying,” implying that talk is cheap.  Well, in the case of the Quakers your actions have been speaking so loudly that we wanted to hear more of what you’re saying.

You have had a consistent message and a consistent commitment to a better world through non-violence.  The reputation of the Quakers as “witnesses to social action and loving action” is renowned.  In forming our own faith, Darlene and I have been fortunate to have been blessed with some wonderful Quaker moments and Quaker witnesses that have played a large part in our being here today.  I will mention a few:

First of all, Suzanne, who entered our lives 20 years ago as the partner to our daughter, Karen.  She carried her family's Quaker background from California to Minnesota and is one of two wonderful moms to our grandchildren, Mac and Morgan.  Mac and Morgan have grown “in the light” as this loving community has supported and valued them as “children of the light".  Also the conflict resolution they’re learning at First Day School is already paying dividends.

Don Irish, a cherished friend and retired professor, who accompanied me to Cuba and shared my adventures in Central America.  I have embraced Don as a mentor because of his undying commitment to pacifism and non-violence as a way of life

Ten years ago, Tim Power, the pastor at our former parish, Pax Christi, in his homily said: “Wouldn’t it be great, if we as Catholics, were granted Conscientious Objector status as a result of our faith alone (like the Quakers) and would be honored by being called ‘The Friends’ ”.

Darlene couldn’t believe that I could sit silently for one hour, or close my eyes very long.  However, I have even come to understand how silence can be "‘the cultivation of the internal life".

A few years ago I would occasionally drive a friend of ours to her chemotherapy sessions.  Although a lifetime Catholic, she had left the institutional church a couple years before she died, mainly because of the inequality toward women.  Shortly before she died, we were driving to her chemo discussing heaven when she said: “Tom, I never knew how spiritual I could be until I left the institutional church.  [My spiritual life] became God, Jesus, my small community and me.  I am directly responsible to God!”

I now understand more fully what she meant as I sit here and see very ordinary people rise from the silence to speak eloquently about very complex things.  It is obvious that you have embraced the “temples within each of you.”  I guess George Fox had it right saying that: “God lives and talks directly to people and reveals himself/herself to anyone ready to listen.  God is a living presence and a continuous illumination.”

A good example is the debate that is going on in so many churches regarding same-sex relationships and domestic partnerships.  It appears that many Quakers have affirmed GLBT people, their relationships, and their families, as a consistent stand for your principles of inclusiveness and equality.

Each meeting seems to fulfill the promise of Jesus, “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst.”   No-one seems shy in being a ”witness” for your values, seen clearly in your belief that all human beings are created equal, in your anti-war testimony, your discipline for non-violence and non-discrimination, your dedication to tolerance and simplicity, and your respect for creation.

For over 300 years you have upheld your principles. The Quakers were pioneers in the abolition of slavery.  You were a link in the “underground railroad” for slaves, and your conscientious objection to war and capital punishment is legendary.  I want you to know that your light has definitely been shining forth; and I have real hope that my grandchildren, and other young people here, will carry on the values that Quakerism has steadfastly stood for.

I will close with two quotations, one Quaker and one Catholic, that I would like to dedicate to those prophets of both faiths, of yesterday and today, who have kept these values alive.  The first is from Quaker Elfrida Vipont Fouls in Let your Lives Speak:

One inescapable conclusion is that a vision has to be earned.  Who knows in what far mountain of the spirit the vision of our own day awaits us?  It may be there, even now, in place, in space, in time . . . but to behold it the seeker, or group of seekers, must accept the same challenge, the same inspired madness.

The second quotation I’d like to share is the poem, Prophets of a Future Not Our Own, by Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador.  He was assassinated at the altar on March 24, 1980, one day following his national broadcast pleading with the government soldiers that, “The law of God must prevail over killing, and you must stop the oppression of your own people”:

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Growing Up Catholic

“The Best Little Catholic Boy in the World”

By David J. McCaffrey

Please also see David McCaffrey's article in this issue of the Progressive Catholic Voice, entitled In Good Conscience: "Ways to Advocate on Behalf of LGBT Persons and Their Families Or on Behalf of Other Issues of Justice." There he summarizes many of the accomplishments in which he shared as a cofounder of and perennial active volunteer in CPCSM; the recent political developments in the local archdiocese that have been undermining those accomplishments; his reactions to those developments; and some political actions he is taking and in which he is asking others to join him, in support of either LGBT issues or any other justice issue in the local archdiocese about which they may feel similarly outraged.

______________________________________________

There are many stories I could tell from my years growing up in a strict German Catholic family, including the 16 years that I spent in Catholic educational institutions. Many are very positive, causing feelings of nostalgia and longing for the simplicity of those days. Some are quite humorous, and I have spent many fun hours at parties and other social gatherings recounting them.

However, today I want to focus on one story from those early years of my life that is quite painful and is full of many unpleasant memories -- the story of my growing up with the knowledge, since about the age of five, that I was attracted to other males, even though I tried my hardest to be perfect in every other way.

First, however, I should say a bit about my immediate family. My dear mother, Eleanor, was a sweet but highly-principled woman, who was very bright but because of her shyness did not flaunt her intelligence and scholastic accomplishments – for example, she was the salutatorian in her class (1930) at St. Joseph’s Academy, having graduated magna cum laude. Because of her father’s sudden death after routine surgery in the fall following her graduation, she immediately went to work as a filing clerk for 14 years to support her mother and her 10 year-old twin brother and sister.

Fearing that she would grow too old to have children of her own, at the age of 34, my mother met and after a very short courtship married my dad, Allen, a gentle and extroverted assembly line laborer. Although my dad was nine years her senior, he was also “a loving husband, a Catholic, and did not drink or chase around.”– in other words, to my mother’s way of thinking, a fit man for a husband and the father of her children. Unfortunately, although my dad was very hard working – even working a second job when we had extra expenses – his 7th-grade education, and my mother’s insistence that mothers should not work, limited our family’s income. It was only because of my mother’s disciplined saving and spending measures, that my parents “just barely made ends meet”.

I should also add that my dad’s own father had died when he was only 3 years old, and he spent his childhood being passed from one aunt to another while his mother worked as a domestic and later as a practical nurse. Unfortunately, dad never really learned how to be a father himself and left the child-rearing to my mother and maternal grandmother, who lived with us most of my life. Actually, my dad was more of a musician, able to play the violin, harmonica, accordion, and Hawaiian guitar “by heart.” For example, he would listen to a song on the Lawren