Often, and sadly, part if that confusion arises from religious viewpoints that treat gays and lesbians as, pursuant to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, “intrinsically disordered” and morally inferior. To find full realization of your identity through any form of sexual expression is to render one a sinner destined for hell. For someone seeking the peace and love of God in a community that holds these religious views, theirs is a hopeless position: a life of sexual isolation or spiritual condemnation. The Pope himself noted that he received letters from lesbians and gays who felt “socially wounded” by the Roman Catholic Church. Even persons of perceived privilege can be impacted by the religious pressures. As professional soccer player Robbie Rogers noted, “Try convincing yourself that your creator has the most wonderful purpose for you even though you were taught differently.” My own campus at Emory University is reeling from the award to an alumnus of the theology school who actively worked to exclude LGBT persons from his church. It is not surprising, then, that many gays and lesbians ultimately leave their spiritual communities altogether and seek acceptance elsewhere. And such exclusion can be harmful to one’s sense of self.
The religious right does not have a monopoly on what it means to be a Christian. Part of the beauty of being a Christian is learning of the rich diversity of views and interpretations of the Bible and other sacred texts. Christians who are gay, lesbian, or straight allies need to reclaim their Christianity. They need to speak out and identify themselves as Christian, with equal force of those opposed to gay and lesbian rights.
h/t: Tim Holbrook at TPM
Pope Benedict XVI is carrying out his final engagements as head of the Roman Catholic church before flying in a helicopter to a hilltop town where he is expected to spend the next two months.
Benedict has been the leader of the Catholic church for eight years and is the first pope to retire since 1415.
BREAKING: Election of Benedict XVI’s successor could be sooner than March 15th
BREAKING: Vatican raises possibility of holding conclave to elect next pope earlier than March 15— The Associated Press (@AP) February 16, 2013
Pro-LGBTQ Episcopal Priest Luis León Will Deliver Obama's Inauguration Benediction, Replacing Louie Giglio
The Presidential Inaugural Committee has selected the Rev. Luis León, an Episcopal priest in Washington, to deliver the benediction at President Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony on Jan. 21, replacing the Rev. Louie Giglio, the Atlanta pastor who bowed out after controversy erupted over an anti-gay sermon he gave in the mid-1990s.
León, who ministers at St. John’s Church, an Episcopal parish near the White House and the one that Obama most frequently attends with his family, confirmed his selection to The Huffington Post via phone on Tuesday night.
"I’ll be doing it," said León, who declined to elaborate until the news was officially announced. A source close to the Presidential Inaugural Committee, speaking on background because the news had not been announced, confirmed the selection of León to The Huffington Post. The source said the official announcement would be made in coming days. The selection was first reported by CNN.
The choice is a contrast to Giglio, a conservative evangelical who was until last week best known for his work combating human trafficking. That work was eclipsed when reports and audio emerged of a Giglio sermon in which he spoke out against the “aggressive agenda” of the gay community and said gay people could change their sexual orientation “through the healing power of Jesus.”
León’s own parish is known for welcoming openly gay members. The church, which has openly gay, non-celibate priests and has had a gay bishop, announced this summer that it would bless same-sex partnerships and ordain transgender priests. This month, the Washington National Cathedral, an Episcopal church, announced that it would also begin same-sex marriage ceremonies.
Obama and his family have attended St. John’s many times during his first term. Former President George W. Bush, attended the church regularly as well. León gave the invocation at Bush’s 2005 Inaugural.
Giglio’s selection was announced last Tuesday, along with that of Myrlie Evers-Williams, the widow of civil rights activist Medgar Evers, who will deliver the invocation at the inauguration. Giglio’s controversial sermon was reported on Wednesday, and he announced his withdrawal on Thursday, saying his prayer would be “dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration” and that speaking on gay issues “has not been in the range of my priorities in the past 15 years.”
León is the 14th rector of St. John’s Church. He began his tenure there in 1995, after serving as rector of Trinity Church in Wilmington, Del., and St. Paul’s Church in Paterson, N.J. He is known for building inner-city parishes through spiritual leadership, preaching, stewardship and outreach that involves parish members in the community. He teaches courses nationwide in parish building and stewardship and is a frequently requested commencement speaker.
León began his spiritual journey when he was baptized into the Episcopal Church in Guantánamo, Cuba. In 1961, when he was 12 years old, he came to the U.S. on the “Operation Peter Pan” flights out of Cuba, joining thousands of children whose parents feared for their future in Cuba. When he arrived in America he was supported by the Episcopal Church in Miami.
h/t: Huffington Post
In the autumn of 1978 the Washington Association of Churches and the Washington State Catholic Conference jointly published a six-page pamphlet they called “Abortion: An Ecumenical Study Document.” Their work offers a fascinating snapshot of Christian thinking at the time and raises some equally fascinating questions about what, exactly, has happened in the last 35 years.
The pamphlet does not contain a position statement. Quite the opposite, in fact. From the beginning, the authors explain that such an agreement is impossible: ”Clearly there is no Christian position on abortion, for here real values conflict with each other, and Christian persons who seek honestly to be open to God’s call still find themselves disagreeing profoundly.”
At the time, five years had passed since the Rove v. Wade decision, and the Church, broadly, was wrestling with ethical and spiritual complexities the decision brought to the surface. WAC, which existed “to express and strengthen the unity Christians have in Jesus Christ” had asked member denominations to create a study group because strong feelings on the question of abortion were threating that mission. In the absence of an agreement, the study group articulated a set of shared values and then assembled statements on abortion from member denominations.
Some of the contents would come as little surprise to anyone aware of today’s struggles over abortion ethics and rights. For example, the Catholic Church pronounced that even when pregnancy threatens a mother’s life, abortion “increases the overall tragedy.” Catholicism has wavered over the centuries about when a fetus becomes a person with a soul, but the hierarchy has been consistent in its opposition to abortion after ensoulment, which is now proclaimed to happen at conception. Furthermore, the Catholic hierarchy has long sought to enforce its ethical judgments via civic and criminal codes, and 1978 was no exception: “A legal context in which abortion is presented as a legitimate way of resolving tragic situations creates an atmosphere that reduces respect for the value of life. Ultimately, such an atmosphere dehumanizes the lives of all who live in it.”
What might be surprising is how little the other denominations represented in the 1978 study group agreed with them. Consider the following statements:
Because Christ calls us to affirm the freedom of persons and the sanctity of life, we recognize that abortion should be a matter of personal decision. —American Baptist Churches
The ALC recognizes the freedom and responsibility of individuals to make their own choices in light of the best information available to them and their understanding of God’s will for their lives, whether those choices be in regard to family planning or any other life situations. —American Lutheran Church
The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) believes that the mother has an overwhelming stake in her own pregnancy, and to be forced to give birth to a child against her will is a peculiarly personal violation of her freedom … . The fetus is seen as a potential person, but not fully a person in the same developed sense in which the mother is a person with an ability to think, to feel, to make decisions, and choices concerning her own life… . That prior right however, carries with it a tremendous responsibility, for human life, even potential human life is valued. —Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Abortion should be accepted as an option only where all other possible alternatives will lead to greater destruction of human life and spirit… . We support persons who, after prayer and counseling, believe abortion is the least destructive alternative available to them, that they may make their decision openly, honestly, without the suffering imposed by an uncompromising community. —Church of the Brethren
Christians have a responsibility to limit the size of their families and to practice responsible birth control… . .where there is substantial reason to believe that the child would be deformed in mind or body, or where the pregnancy has resulted from rape or incest … termination of pregnancy is permissible. —Episcopal Church
The status of the fetus is the key issue. That status is affected by consideration of the fact that it is the organic beginning of human life. Further, its status is defined by its stage of development, its state of well-being, and its prospects for a meaningful life after its birth.
—Lutheran Church in America
Human life develops on a continuum from conception to birth. At some point it may be regarded as more “personal” and higher in “quality.” At some undesignated time, the value of this life may actually outweigh competing factors; e.g., the vocational and social objectives of the family, etc. —United Church of Christ
Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion. —United Methodist Church
The artificial or induced termination of pregnancy is a matter of the careful ethical decision of the patient, her physician, and her pastor or other counselor and therefore should not be restricted by law … —United Presbyterian Church
Today when we think of Christianity and abortion what comes to mind may be clinic picket lines; or “personhood” zealots who insist that microscopic fertilized eggs merit the same hard-won civil rights as walking, talking, thinking, breathing men and women and children; or even the fanatics who have now murdered eight doctors in the name of life.
The picture of Christianity revealed in the 1978 study document is very different. Mind you, across the board we do see an ancient religious tradition that treats life as sacred and human life as the pinnacle of creation. Outside of Christianity, these are not points of universal agreement. A secularist might treat the loss of early embryonic life with pragmatic acceptance—more than half of fertilized eggs self-abort; human reproduction is a funnel designed so that lots of false starts produce a few healthy adult offspring.
The Protestant denominations involved in the ecumenical study group were mainline traditions that today are considered theologically liberal. Most continue to affirm quietly that abortion decisions are best trusted to a woman and her understanding of God, with spiritual council and community support. It may be more surprising to many people that at the time many biblical literalists similarly saw abortion as a matter of individual decision. Jonathan Dudley, CNN commentator and author of Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics, lays it out:
In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:
“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: ‘If a man kills any human life he will be put to death’ (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”
The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.
The WAC members sought to discern God’s will through a combination of scripture, tradition, reason and experience, but evangelical Christians claim to speak from the authority of the Bible alone, a Reformation principle known as “sola scriptura.” Consequently, one striking feature of their shift on abortion is that biblical authority now must be invoked to support an anti-abortion stance.
Culture warriors who think they speak for God—the new God, the one who hates abortion in any form at any point in gestation for any reason—are hoping that young American Christians won’t go to the trouble. That is why, even as they keep the focus visual, they carefully avoid images of early abortions, in which the actual tissue removed may look downright boring. They avoid indicating size, since at six weeks, the gestational sac is about the size of a dime. They also avoid images of fetal anomalies, which could remind viewers that occasionally a fetus has no viable path to becoming a person and might even raise questions about whether God guides pregnancy more than any other natural process.
To date this strategy has worked, but technology may be changing the conversation once again. As the evangelical consensus against abortion has grown, the procedure itself has become a shrinking target.
A robocall financed by the Romney campaign falsely tells voters in Virginia that President Obama “forced Christian organizations” to offer insurance coverage that undermines their religious beliefs and is threatening “our religious freedom.” The Christian community is “supporting Romney,” the spot says:
Christians who are thinking about voting for Obama should remember what he said about people of faith: “They … cling to guns or religion.” And remember when Obama forced Christian organizations to provide insurance coverage that was contrary to their religious beliefs?
That’s the real Barack Obama. That’s the real threat to our religious freedom. Mitt Romney understands the importance of faith and family. That’s why so many leaders of the Christian community are supporting Romney.
They know we can’t underestimate the threat Barack Obama poses to our faith, our values, our freedom.
The call is misleading. While the Affordable Care Act requires insurers and employers to offer women’s health benefits — including contraception — houses of worship and religiously affiliated nonprofits are specifically excluded from the provision.
GOP Suggests Democrats Are Hostile To 'God,' Ignore Lengthy Passage On Faith In Platform | ThinkProgress
A recent media firestorm over referencing God in the 2012 Democratic Platform appears to be a bit of a tempest in a tea pot, ignoring critical context in a fashion that raises serious questions about the role of faith in public life. The controversy was kicked off by the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, who noticed that the word “God” never appeared in the platform text despite the platform’s page-long discussion of the value of faith and religious institutions. The point was picked up by several Republican-leaning outlets, and then migrated into the mainstream media.
The Romney campaign has now jumped on this issue, sending Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan out to bash supposed Democratic hostility to faith:
It’s not in keeping with our founding documents, our founding vision. I’d guess you’d have to ask the Obama administration why they purged all this language from their platform. There sure is a lot of mention of government. I guess I would just put the onus and the burden on them to explain why they did all this, these purges of God.
The platform’s “Faith” section makes this plain:
Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faithbased organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.