By April 2, 2012 3 Comments

A Catholic response to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

I’m not sure just how many points Kathleen Kennedy Townsend gets wrong in her piece from the Atlantic, entitled, The Case for Gay Acceptance in the Catholic Church (March 28, 2012).  Frankly, I’m not sure I can count that high.  In any event, her entire article is below with my editorializing and pontificating added in.

On St. Patrick’s Day I had the pleasure of speaking to about 350 Catholics who gathered together to attend a conference put on by New Ways Ministry, which is an effort to support the LGBT community in the Catholic Church. (#1 New Ways Ministry is not a “Catholic” organization and it dissents from Roman Catholic teaching.  Therefore the people associated with the group may call themselves “Catholic” but if they practice New Ways’ sexual ethics, they are acting in direct opposition to Church teaching) The women and men I spoke to included nuns and priests, children who had come out and parents who wanted to be supportive. Two female priests gave me special blessing and I left the meeting inspired by the devotion of those who attended. (#2 The Catholic Church does not have female priests.  Further proof this meeting had little to nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church).

New Ways Ministry has a critical mission, since changing the Church will help those who suffer from ill-treatment not only here in the United States but around the world, where the Church has so much clout. The Church has millions of members in Africa and South America, where being gay or lesbian can lead to a death sentence.

Worse, the Church’s own teaching encourages bigotry and harm. (#3 Just a flat out lie! There may be people, even ordained men, who encourage bigotry, but the Church’s teaching does not!  To say the Church’s teaching encourages harm, without any reference, is as irresponsible as it is inaccurate.  For example, consider the following quotation from a letter to bishops regarding the treatment of homosexuals: “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law”  (CDF Letter to Bishops, para 10).)

Just last year, my father’s memorial, the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, gave its human rights award to Frank Mugisha, a gay activist in Uganda whose good friend had just been brutally killed in his own home. American missionaries have encouraged the discrimination Mugisha suffers. Refuting their religious arguments is critical, and so is making a moral and religious case for gays. What we need is a transformation of hearts and minds, not merely a change of laws.

The Catholic Church’s attitude towards homosexuality is at odds with its tradition of tolerance and understanding. (#4 Another unsupported, inaccurate statement.  The Church’s attitude towards homosexuals and homosexuality is one of acceptance.  Homosexual sexual acts are what is sinful because they take place outside the sacrament of marriage.  So too, heterosexual acts, that take place outside the sacrament of marriage, are considered sinful.  Sex outside of sacramental marriage is the Church’s focus, not who the sex is taking place between.  From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has “put on Christ,” the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life” (CCC 2348-2350).)  The actual practice of the Church is true to this tradition. What other institution separates men and women and encourages them to live together in monasteries and convents where they can develop deep relationships with those who share their kind of love?

The fight for the dignity of the LGBT community is a fight for the soul of today’s Church. Some conservatives see the hierarchy’s current, traditional teaching on sex as the Church’s defining position. They don’t really like to talk about, or even be reminded of, the Church’s teachings on immigration, or protection of the environment, or the greed that produces financial meltdowns, all of which they would find distastefully liberal.

For them there is only one issue — sex, or pelvic politics as some call it. The Pope himself pointed this out on in visit to Mexico, where he said that “not a few Catholics have a certain schizophrenia with regard to individual and public morality…. In public life they follow paths that don’t respond to the great values necessary for the foundation of a just society.” (#5 Any attempt to twist the Holy Father’s words to “prove” he is chastising those who are too singularly focused on “pelvic politics” is shameful.  Instead of manipulating Pope Benedict’s words, in order to forward an agenda, why not look at what he has said clearly and plainly: “In this regard, particular mention must be made of the powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage. The Church’s conscientious effort to resist this pressure calls for a reasoned defense of marriage as a natural institution consisting of a specific communion of persons, essentially rooted in the complementarity of the sexes and oriented to procreation” (Pope Benedict’s Letter to American Bishops, 9 Mar 12.)

If we wish to change the Church, we must first convey our views in language, images, and theology that reach people where they are. And secondly, we should make it clear that disagreement with the hierarchy is a critical part of our history. (#6  Whose history?!?  The only people who consider disagreement with the Church’s hierarchy as laudable are people currently OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH.  The decision to leave is one Ms. Townsend, and any one else for that matter, is free to do any time they wish.  There are plenty of other churches, some that even dress up and “play catholic,” that will welcome her with open arms.  What the Roman Catholic Church truly celebrates is its unbroken lineage of apostolic succession that leads all the way to the upper room and Jesus Christ himself (CCC 1555).)

The fact that so many Americans see themselves as religious, as God-loving church goers, means we have a better chance of reaching them if we use a language, a book, and symbols they understand. Polls find that 85 percent say that they believe in God and 50 percent claim that they go to church every Sunday. The fact that only 25 percent do just goes to show that you can’t trust everybody’s self-reporting.

In The Good Book: The Bible’s Place in Our Lives, the recently deceased Peter Gomes describes interviews with 400 people who had been jailed for hate crimes against gays. (#7 Hard to argue for the “Catholic” position, when referring to a book written by an ordained Baptist minister.  Notice the only person taking the time to quote any Catholic sources is ME – there is no support for Ms. Townsend’s position within the authoritative writings of the Church.)  None felt remorse. They thought gays were the devil, so fighting them was cause for pride, not shame or regret. Laws are important, but the moral case can be even more compelling. (Obviously, at least it should be obvious, the Catholic Church does not support in any way, shape, or form violence against innocent people, regardless of their sexual orientation (see my #3 above).)

When my father visited South Africa in 1966, he spoke with students in Cape Town about apartheid. They defended the abhorrent practice by pointing to Biblical passages that suggested that discrimination was fine. In an effort to reach them, my father asked, “Suppose you die, and you go up to heaven, and you enter the pearly gates, and suppose, just suppose when you get there, you find that God is black.” Today we can ask, “Suppose God is gay.”  (#8 – Sure, we can ask, but why waste time on such a dumb question?  The idea of God possessing human attributes like skin color, gender, sexual orientation sinks below adolescent levels.  This type of unsophisticated argumentation is not convincing and actually works against the position a person is advocating for.  For example, If I wanted to respond in kind, I could toss out the question: “Oh yeah, well what if God is really a red-neck homophobe, with a rebel flag hanging in the back of his pick-up?”  How compelling is that?  Not very.  People need to stop trying to paint God with their political paint brush.)

My father grasped, as did John Kennedy and Martin Luther King, that in America the leader who wishes to enlarge freedom’s sphere must appeal to an audience’s religious beliefs as well as to their understanding of American liberty. This is what I wrote about in my book, Failing America’s Faithful. While researching it, I gained many insights into the Church and its history of both prejudice and tolerance.

The Great Awakening of the 1740s gave people the idea that they could find God within themselves and need not trust preachers. As one perceptive British writer pointed out, if they don’t need rectors, soon they won’t need British rulers. Sure enough, once Americans got used to trusting themselves, they did rebel. Then the Second Great Awakening, in the 1850, instilled in Americans the idea that not only did the divine reside within them, it also resided in women and slaves. The Abolitionist movement grew from that religious revival, as did the suffragettes. (#9 The Great Awakening…ah yes, that extremely significant Protestant rival movement of the 18th century.  This obviously is closely related to the teachings of Roman Catholicism.)

A few years ago, I read the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, and to me the biggest revelation was how misogynistic it was. That made me realize that the Catholic Church was on to something when it allowed only educated priests to read the Bible. My mother’s generation was prohibited from reading the Bible, and when I told my grandmother that my father used to read the Bible to us, she was shocked, “Catholics don’t read the Bible,” she said. The Church figured that people could take passages out of context and come to unwarranted conclusions. This changed after Vatican II and now Catholic parishes offer Bible study classes.

But those outrageous passages did not deter either the abolitionists or the suffragettes. They boldly rejected them as cultural detritus. Instead, they asserted that the primary message was that all people were made in God’s image. Thus we are born to be free.

Unfortunately, a century later, in the 1970s, feminists and gay rights activists did not adopt the same strategy and tactics. I think this happened because their movement grew out of the non-religious part of the civil rights movement. Recall that the civil rights movement was split between the followers of Reverend Martin Luther King on the one hand and Stokely Carmichael and the Black Panthers on the other. The latter group felt that religion was weak. Why turn the other cheek? Why not fight back? This secular strain also attracted many intellectuals who were, to put it bluntly, uncomfortable with religion.

Happily, that has now changed. Women have entered schools of theology and can now show that Jesus was one of the first great feminists (#10 Ummm…by whom?  Ms. Townsend?  The female priests who “blessed” her?  Her Protestant friends?  Give me a authoritative, Catholic source that “shows” Jesus “was one of the first great feminists.”)   Mary Magdalene is no longer thought of as a prostitute but as the “apostle to the apostles.” Gays, though, are still excluded.

Progressive Christian and Jewish believers have accepted gay rights. (#11  I’d label this type of argument as argumentum ad populum if it really represented a majority or popular position; however, since it is such a minority it doesn’t seem terribly convincing that 2000 years of Tradition and 1.2 billion believers need to suddenly change direction.) Theologians now argue that verses in Leviticus that call for the killing of men who sleep with men apply only to a particular historical moment (#12 WHO?  Are they Catholic?  What publications?). The death penalty no longer applies to people who divorce, curse their parents, or sleep with women during their period — rules that are also in Leviticus.

Obviously, some people continue to read scripture simply to sustain their preexisting prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals. But theologians now point out that the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until the 19th century, and it wasn’t included in the Bible until 1946.

Choose your passage. King David talks about sleeping with his friend Nathan as “better than sleeping with a woman.” The Ten Commandments don’t mention homosexuality. Nor does Jesus. In fact, our Lord teaches us that love of God and love of our fellow human being arethe two most important commandments. He doesn’t exclude the love that one man can have for another, or one woman for another (Ahhh…finally a point on which I agree with Ms. Townsend.  Love between individuals, even of the same gender, is perfectly consistent with the Bible and Church teachings.  You just can’t marry them!)

The 2000-year-old passages favored by Church authorities don’t hold up as being anti-gay. Not only is the hierarchy — the Church’s cardinals and bishops — imposing its own interpretations, its views are harmful to many men and women. (#13 News flash!  It is the cardinals and bishops, in union with the Bishop of Rome (i.e. Pope), who are empowered by Christ himself to teach authoritatively!  It’s not Ms. Townsend.  It’s not me.  It’s not a group consensus.  It’s not a democracy.  I’ve said this many times in conversation and on my blog.  The foundation of all wayward thinking in the Church begins with a broken ecclesiology.  Since people don’t know or reject what the Church is, they are able to proceed with all kinds of crazy ideas.  If their ecclesiology was locked down tight (i.e. Church is founded by Christ, left apostles in charge, granted them infallibility in faith/morals, bishops carry on apostolic work), then their theology wouldn’t stray so far from the Church’s position.)  I would hope that the lens through which one reads scripture would be one of love and openness to others, not fear and anger and meanness.

Contrary to conservative propaganda, though, the Vatican is not immovable. It has a long history of changing position to follow new understandings of society and morality. Usury is no longer a sin. Women are no longer considered “the devil’s gateway.” Railroads are no longer cursed as the work of the devil, and teaching that there is such a doctrine as “freedom of conscience” does not merit censure, as it did for John Courtney Murray in the 1950s: In fact, Vatican II now recognizes “freedom of conscience.” Pope John Paul II apologized for the Church’s treatment of women and its persecution of Galileo. Sex between husband and a wife is no longer just for procreation but has value in itself.

Kathleen Kennedy TownsendThat history can continue with its position on gays — and the laity has a critical role to play in pushing for these changes. As Cardinal John Henry Newman, the foremost 19th-century Catholic theologian asserted, bishops have at times “failed in their confession of the faith.” There can be instances of “misguidance, delusion, hallucination.” He said that the body of the faithful has the “instinct for truth.”  (#14 We are near the end of the article and she finally quotes another Catholic.  Well that’s good news at least. Unfortunately, it doesn’t amount to any thing more than quote mining.  Cardinal Newman was not discussing the rights of gays; however, he was discussing the role the laity played in the development of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  Ms. Townsend’s selected quote is in the middle of Newman’s treatment of the events surrounding the Council of Nicaea in the early fourth century (as it pertains to Marian devotion).  Newman’s larger point in the piece was arguing that the laity have role in preserving doctrines when bishops fail, not in creating new ones.  That distinction is critical in Newman’s argument; not surprisingly, it was not mentioned by Ms. Townsend.  Newman writes in the conclusion of the same article:  “As to the present, certainly, if there ever was an age which might dispense with the testimony of the faithful, and leave the maintenance of the truth to the pastors of the Church, it is the age in which we live.  Never was the Episcopate of Christendom so devoted to the Holy See, so religious, so earnest in the discharge of its special duties, so little disposed to innovate, so superior to the temptation of theological sophistry.”  A few sentences later Newman called the laity a “reflection or echo of the clergy in matters of faith.”  It doesn’t sound as if Newman was advocating for the laity to inform Rome on what is to be definitively held/taught.  Sorry Ms. Townsend.)

Already, I have witnessed that instinct for truth in the argument over contraception. Despite the hierarchy’s position, 98 percent of Catholic women in the United States use contraception. (#15 Here we go again!  If you aren’t convinced by this point that Ms. Townsend’s writing and research completely lacks creditability, entirely apart from the subject, the reference to the 98 percent of Catholic women who use contraception should serve as the last piece needed to persuade you.    How many times does it needed to proven that this statistic is bogus?)  I believe that Human Vitae was the Holy Ghost’s way to teach us that we must use our conscience, and not lazily rely on the hierarchy when it is in error.

At this time, when the hierarchy does not want to recognize that we are all made in the image and likeness of God, and that the one of the two most critical commandments is to love one another, it is critical to assert that God loves the LGBT community equally. Sometimes the Church moves slowly, sometimes quickly. The point is to make sure the voices of dissent are not quiet and the Holy Spirit can be heard.

I don’t have much more to say on this piece.  It is political propaganda dressed up as Catholicism.  I only highlighted 15 of the more glaring errors she commits, most of which could have been avoided with two things: a desire to accurately present the teachings of the Catholic Church and an internet search engine (i.e. Google).  Obviously, Ms. Townsend did not posses the former so she didn’t take the time to use the latter.

Related posts:

3 Comments on "A Catholic response to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. KK says:

    I usually think you’re articles are well written and thought out, but I was disappointed with this one. There was nothing new offered and it read more like an attack than a critic. According to “Nostra Aetate” the church “rejects nothing that is true or holy in these [non-catholic] religions” and this wasn’t particularly respectful of other religions ideals.
    I would also point out that most anti-gay scripture is taken from Leviticus, a book that condemns eating shellfish and rabbits. It also says anyone who touches a women (or anything she touches) during her period must wash his clothes and take a bath. Would you call people who don’t follow this rule false Catholics as well?

    • Christopher says:

      There was plenty “new” offered! There was stuff like Catholic teaching offered! There was stuff like truth offered! Neither of those two things were available in Ms. Townsend’s article. Just look at the through way I dissected Ms. Townsend’s article. I sent her a link to this post by the way. Not surprisingly, she didn’t respond.

      Call it an attack or “critic” (I’m assuming you meant critique) or what ever you like. Ms. Townsend claims to be a Roman Catholic yet she willfully and most likely, knowingly, misrepresents the Catholic Church’s teaching in her article. To entitle her piece, ” The Case for Gay Acceptance in the Catholic Church” is misleading to Catholics and homosexuals alike. She does both communities a disservice with her article.

      The positions I have stated in my response to Ms. Townsend are well supported by the Catholic Church as the numerous hyperlinks to Catholic documents attest. Ms. Townsend, while claiming the points she puts forward are from a Catholic perspective, they are the perspectives of one individual who claims to be a member of the Catholic Church. They are far from the teachings of the Church itself as I clearly demonstrate.

      Finally, if you have read Nostra Aetate, you would know the Latin translates to “In our age” and it is the document produced by the Second Vatican Council to address religious pluralism in the modern world. It is commonly referred to, in English, as “The Declaration on the Relations of the Church to non-Christian religions.” Ms. Townsend is not advocating a position of a non-Christian religion, she is offering her privately held, distorted view of Catholicism and she should be held accountable for that. Nostra Aetate has nothing to do with Ms. Townsend’s article.

      “Most anit-gay scripture is taken from Leviticus.” Don’t know that I would agree there. While there are a couple of references to it in Leviticus, there are also references to it in: Genesis 19:1-13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and some scholars have interpreted 1 Timothy 1:8–10 and Matthew 19:12 to contain references to homosexuality as well. Bottom line, scripture has plenty of references apart from Leviticus.

      Additionally, and this is going to sound crass but it’s fact so we might as well deal with it. The sexual act between homosexual men many times consists of one man inserting his penis into another man’s anus. Consider if you will, what these parts of the body are really designed for. The penis is not only a part to expel bodily waste in the form of fluid, but is also the reproductive organ of male component of the species. The anus, male or female, is intended to expel solid bodily waste. It has no other intended purpose. It truly is, as so many people are fond of saying, an “exit only” orifice. So, what about the sexual act between two men is natural, normal, or right when they use their body parts in ways that nature did not intend? It doesn’t seem logically consistent to say, “God made me this way” or “Nature created me this way” when in either case, the way they are using parts of their body is inconsistent with their intended usage.

      People think of discussing homosexual relationships in this context as disgusting or disrespectful, but why is that? We can openly discuss heterosexual activity? The stigma attached to the homosexual sexual act is because intuitively people know that is wrong. It doesn’t make sense. We know what are body parts of for and the way gay men use them in their perverted version of the sexual act goes against what people intuitively know is right.

      Oh to be sure I answer all your questions (because I wouldn’t want to accused of avoiding answering them), I would not label someone a “false Catholic” for not following 5000 year old rules given to the Jewish people. They were Jews. Anyone non-Jewish is considered a Gentile. Gentiles are not obligated to follow mandates from God directed to the Jewish people as outlined in the Old Testament. A person can’t be a “false Catholic” for not following Jewish rules.

  2. Andy says:

    Good article.  A couple of other points/questions that you did not touch on:
     
     
     
    1. “The Church has millions of members in Africa and South America, where being gay or lesbian can lead to a death sentence.”
     
    - First, it appears (according to Wikipedia) homosexual relations are legal everywhere in South America, other than for males in Guyana, and generally is more tolerated than even in Canada, according to opinion polls.  Second, the very few states in Africa that have a death penalty for homosexual activity (Sudan, Mauritania, Somaliland) aren’t exactly Christian dominated areas.  I honestly don’t know what happened to legislation in Uganda, but this article implies that Catholics in South America and Africa are executing homosexuals, which is demonstrably ridiculous.
     
     
     
    2. “Frank Mugisha, a gay activist in Uganda whose good friend had just been brutally killed in his own home. American missionaries have encouraged the discrimination Mugisha suffers.”
     
     
     
    American missionaries have encouraged killing the good friends of gay advocates?  Really?
     
     
     
    3. “The fight for the dignity of the LGBT community is a fight for the soul of today’s Church. Some conservatives see the hierarchy’s current, traditional teaching on sex as the Church’s defining position. They don’t really like to talk about, or even be reminded of, the Church’s teachings on immigration, or protection of the environment, or the greed that produces financial meltdowns, all of which they would find distastefully liberal.”
     
     
     
    What is this supposed to mean?  Isn’t she cutting off her nose to spite her face?  Isn’t she saying the Catholic teaching has admonitions for both the left and the right of the political spectrum, then goes on to imply Catholic teaching criticizing the right should be amped up and teaching criticizing the left should be done away with?  That is supposed to make things fair?
     
     
     
    4. “A few years ago, I read the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, and to me the biggest revelation was how misogynistic it was.”
     
     
     
    Yet she still claims to be a Christian.  Does this make her a misogynist?
     
     
     
    5. “That made me realize that the Catholic Church was on to something when it allowed only educated priests to read the Bible.”
     
     
     
    Granted I am a recent convert, but was this ever true?  It is a common myth, but in my rather limited reading on the subject, I’ve found no evidence to support this.  I’ve only found 1) early handwritten Bibles were handwritten and expensive and their availability was limited, thus few actually read it; 2) certain heretical versions of the Bible were banned; and 3) a few bishops throughout the years forbade some members of their diocese from reading parts of the Bible, but that was extremely rare and never a universal practice.  Why is a Catholic promoting this myth?
     
     
     
    6. “The death penalty no longer applies to people who divorce, curse their parents, or sleep with women during their period — rules that are also in Leviticus.”
     
     
     
    Granted Leviticus does mention the death penalty in reference to cursing one’s parents, but I’ve never heard any mention about death penalty for the other two examples.  I’m pretty sure Old Testament divorce laws were pretty lax. 
     
     
     
    7. “Obviously, some people continue to read scripture simply to sustain their preexisting prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals. But theologians now point out that the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until the 19th century, and it wasn’t included in the Bible until 1946.”
     
     
     
    Terrible logic!  Modern English hasn’t been around for 500 years yet.  By her logic, everything that is stated in Modern English was clearly not what was intended in the Scriptures because the words modern translators use hadn’t been invented yet.
     
     
     
    8. “Choose your passage. King David talks about sleeping with his friend Nathan as “better than sleeping with a woman.””
     
     
     
    This threw me for a loop until I realized she was talking about Jonathan. (Nathan? really?)  I think I could count the number of Biblical scholars, Catholic or otherwise, who believe Jonathan and David were lovers on one hand.
     
     
     
    9. “The Ten Commandments don’t mention homosexuality.”
     
     
     
    Doesn’t mention prostitution or drunk driving either. 
     
     
     
    10. “Usury is no longer a sin. Women are no longer considered “the devil’s gateway.” Railroads are no longer cursed as the work of the devil, and teaching that there is such a doctrine as “freedom of conscience” does not merit censure, as it did for John Courtney Murray in the 1950s: In fact, Vatican II now recognizes “freedom of conscience.” Pope John Paul II apologized for the Church’s treatment of women and its persecution of Galileo.”
     
     
     
    Most of these are quite complicated and nuanced issues to which she implies the Church made a binary change, which is an effective rhetorical point, but not accurate.
     
     
     
    11. “At this time, when the hierarchy does not want to recognize that we are all made in the image and likeness of God…”
     
     
     
    Holy smokes!  I should respond, “Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who obviously hates puppies and old people,…”
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

Post a Comment