Dear Reader,
Before I begin, let me start off by explaining what this letter is NOT:
- It is not meant to be a theology lesson. (For info on the Catholic church’s teaching on gay “marriage”, look here and here.)
- It is not about the politics around being gay in the US.
This letter is simply a reminder that we are all humans. All of us.
“Well, duh,” you might say. This seems to be an obvious statement, as it should be.
Unfortunately, some Christians have reacted with ill-will and even hate towards those with same-sex attraction. It has created division among groups that shouldn’t be divided. It has led many of us to forget what we all should know:
That we’re all human. But what does that mean, exactly?
It means that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. It means that we are more than just our sexuality. We are more than heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual. Some of us get so caught up in pushing our beliefs and agendas that we lose sight of the obvious. We look at people who are dynamic, 3-dimensional, and God-made, and pare them down until they’re nothing but their opinions or sexual preferences. We lose the person behind the politics.
We are people first. And because we are people, we ALL deserve the following:
- Respect.
- Dignity.
- Love.
Now, don’t get me wrong; our sexuality is a very important part of who we are as humans. But it’s not all of it, and it certainly should not cause us to hate another human, or make them feel unwelcome anywhere, especially at church.
Did you know that many people who identify as homosexual feel unwelcome next to you in the pew? Did you know they see your anger and hate and think the Church hates them, too?
We must remember that we are all welcome – the Church is for everyone, no exceptions. We must remember that Jesus bought all of us for a price. He died for ALL of us. Who are we to behave in such a way that we keep our brothers and sisters from His love?
Please know that I love you and I, too struggle with loving as God loves. I don’t want to judge you or ridicule you for your faults, just as I don’t want you to ridicule mine. I simply want to remind you of our mission to love one another as God loves.
Finally, let’s end on this note: Jesus died out of love for us, and rose 3 days later, conquering sin and death in his wake. He loves each of us – regardless of sexual orientation – as if there were only one of us. If you haven’t seen this short documentary already, please take a moment to watch it: Desire of the Everlasting Hills.
For more support on this issue, visit Courage: http://couragerc.org/.
If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? … The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. – Pope Francis
Photo taken by yours truly. Fall 2013.
UPDATE: Please read Addendum: “An Open Letter to Angry Christians Against Gay Persons“
Writer, we must pause and put ourselves in the shoes of our brethren with opposite-sex attraction. How difficult must it be for them to be judged, persecuted and isolated? How difficult must it be for them to be judged “angry” or “full of hate”? “What must it be like to be called names or scorned?” “I don’t want to judge you”, except, uh, I have, throughout my column, been insulting and judging you. But it doesn’t count as judging or scorning because I use patronizing language like “dear reader” and besides I exhibit absolutely zero awareness that I’m being judgy & scornful of you poor pathetic unwelcoming hate-filled angry mere Catholics. Hey, if I write a few more columns like this maybe I’ll get picked up by Crux or even HuffPo! Fingers crossed, Dear Homophobes!
David Brandt: you know, it’s possible to disagree with the blogger without being a jerk. She does not come off as being judgy and scornful and she didn’t call anyone unwelcoming or hate-filled or angry.
Um. You can’t read very well, and I mean that just as nonjudgily as Dear Writer means it when she tells us that we’re angry and judgy & stuff. Maybe you should try reading her piece before you leap to its defense. Then you might be able to see that if I come across as a jerk it might be because I quote the author extensively, and ape her diction when I’m not quoting her directly. Thanks.
Sweet, happy puppies and beautiful flowers. (These are the opposite to green vomit and hate.) Balloons. Clouds. Sunshine. OK, now I feel better.
It would be a pity to let this irony-challenged day pass away without pausing to examine the world, to discern the most tweeted and retweeted display of anger and hatred directed against a sweet gay couple, and to note that this display of tolerance, this celebration of diversity, was led by Elton John.
David… It’s unfortunate that anger and hurt keep you from having real, honest conversations – the type of conversations that could actually create change in the world. You think I’m patronizing and have zero awareness? Fine – let’s have a real (insult-free) conversation about it. Help me see what I’m missing. Honestly, I’ve been so hurt by the mean things I’ve heard Christians say to same-sex couples that I was reminding them to forget about the issues and just be loving. If you take offense to the way I defend the dignity of same-sex couples, there’s nothing I can say to that except thanks: I can only grow when I’m challenged. I’m sorry if anything I wrote offended you – either emotionally, spiritually or even grammatically. Please know, if you respond to this with more hatred, this conversation ends and no progress is made. I hope we can move past that.
Why do you want to be like that? Wouldn’t you rather be full of the love and joy of the Holy Spirit? Nobody is asking you to love what is wrong, only to love others as yourself, whoever they are, and to strive for that. That’s all. I’m sorry I offended you. Maybe that was not the best response. Your snarky, angry remarks offended me. I wish you joy in the love of the Lord, and this for myself, too. Nobody is trying to hurt you. We’re just all trying to be better Christians and follow our Holy Father’s lead. I am sure that is what you are trying to do too. Just try to be kinder, man. I am trying too.
Oh, my. Ain’t there nobody here can read what the writer wrote? Don’t nobody see that the author’s whole point is that you, yes, you, sitting there in the pew, _you_ are full of anger & hate!
There are plenty of notionally Catholic media outlets that are wholeheartedly embracing the gay agenda of insisting that you are evil if you fail to embrace that gay agenda too, every jot & tittle of it.
I don’t feel that it is enough merely to ‘unlike and unfollow’ ACNM. I feel that, much like the Catholic head of Mozilla, I am not pro-gay enough to maintain my position as a mere Catholic. At least not here in the Diocese of Austin.
Hi David. I want to also say to you thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas as well. I can’t and won’t speak for you, but I know when I get really frustrated and/or downright angry it is because I care very deeply. I could be wrong, but it sounds like you do care deeply about this issue and your faith. And you write about it, just like Britt. For what its worth, I have gotten really frustrated even with some of the posts on this site. And said “I am never reading this again”. And here I am:)
I am fairly new to Catholicism, but one great thing I have learned from my Catholic friends is that even through the strongest of disagreements and hurts, they stay true to their faith because they deeply love it. And sometimes that involves getting really angry and frustrated and not feeling understood.
I support what Britt is saying because see is taking a risk and being honest. It may sound patronizing to you, I think I understand what you mean. And I support what you are saying because you mean it. And that may sound patronizing to others. We are human.
So, thanks, too, David. You are not alone in your thoughts and feelings. And I hope you don’t feel patronized by this. Really.
For me, it only becomes disheartening when we quit talking. I have been there.
Take care, David.
Problem is, this isn’t just random bloggers bashing away at problems that may or may not exist. The social situation addressed here doesn’t appear to exist, although its contrary is very much in the news. This is a non-random site, whose bloggers must be vetted & approved by the Diocese of Austin.
If Mark Shea takes to Patheos and judges the interior dispositions of anyone who isn’t as anti- or pro- whatever he insists Every True Catholic must hold, so what? Shea’s not the boss of us.
But if my bishop, whose teaching office is extended through blogs like this, wishes to hold his flock responsible for this new sin of Unwelcomingness, then we his flock need more details on it than a vaguely inferrable “you are committing the sin of Unwelcomingness if the gay person in the pew beside you doesn’t feel (sufficiently) affirmed by you”. We need the bishop to clarify and teach this new sin clearly and unvaguely. How welcoming does one need to be to be compliant with this new policy?
For instance: If one is generally disinclined to participate in the Rite of Handholding during the Our Father, mustn’t one set aside his or her distaste for this nonrubrical liturgical novelty _prudentially_, as it were, in case a gay person standing next to one might sense the sin of Unwelcomingness if one doesn’t dutifully hold hands with him or her?
For it seems to be out of one’s hands, be one ever so obsequious, whether one is committing Unwelcomingness or not.
Sounds like some good things to think about, David. Blessings and Peace.
If that is your understanding of who we are and what this is, I can see why you would be frustrated. I have a few points for clarification.
1. We do not speak for the bishop or the diocese. We are only a voice in the local Church. At stated in the disclaimer at the bottom of the site. “We work to support the local church in the Diocese of Austin, but Austin CNM does not directly represent or speak for Bishop Joe Vásquez or the Diocese of Austin.” We work to support their work, but we are independent. The Catholic Spirit and e-pistle are the only official publications of the Diocese.
2. This is not a definitive teaching on anything, as clearly stated at the beginning of the post. This is only a spiritual reflection.
3. Each contributor on our blog brings different perspective and experience to share. They are here to show the diversity of the Church, and there is no one collective voice from the contributors outside of the defined teachings of the Church. We each are completely committed to the Church and Jesus Christ.
4. Since this is only a blog of various personal perspectives, you are free to take or leave any post you enjoy or disagree with and not feel that this is in any way mandated by the local Church.
Mean People Should Be Nice!
You know, there is a difference between ‘We’re just random bloggers who happen to support the Diocese of Austin’ and ‘We’re just random bloggers who work with, or for, the Diocese of Austin’.
It turns out that the author, though her blogger bio here doesn’t include it, works for the Diocese of Austin. In a supervisory capacity. Counseling families.
This might not appear, to the site’s other bloggers, or ACNM’s founder/administrator, to be an important detail.
But it adds some context to the headline, which, let us tediously repeat, is not an open letter to Catholics who are intolerant of people with SSA, but an open letter to Catholics who are engaging in the sin of anger about, in her wording, “Gay-Marriage.”
There is not a current vacancy at the Pastoral Center, but if I recall correctly, descriptions of job openings are prefaced by a stern paragraph about the teaching office of the bishop, and the job’s- and applicant’s- status as a sort of extension of the office- the mission- of the bishop.
After days of defense and high fives, is it dawning on anyone yet that ACNM cannot serve both the teaching of the Catholic Church and the cause of “gay marriage”?
I’ve been watching this discussion swirl around for the past week and I just have one question for you David. Regardless of the blog post how do YOU interact with people who have same sex attraction? We all know and support the teachings of the Church but we also live and work side by side with people who don’t understand or care to understand why we believe what we believe. Are we supposed to just shun and ignore those people or are we supposed be be Christ to them even if they openly reject His and His church’s teachings? Our Lord was nailed to a cross for all not just for those who believe in Him and we must be willing to do the same. So yes we must stand pat to the teachings of the Church, we must be willing to defend those teachings when challenged on them. But we have to do that in a way that is as loving and kind as possible. Will it always be perceived that way? No. Will we be called bigots and haters for our beliefs? More than likely. But that shouldn’t cause us to be hateful right back at them and I’m pretty sure that’s the point Britt was trying to make.
Dear JD-
I respond to the long-absent author below; to you I can think only of this: if a critical reader appears to be examining and picking apart successfully the implicit and explicit arguments made by one of your blogging buddies, the obvious, logical, Catholic thing to do is utterly ignore the substance of the critique and go ad hominem on the critic.
The internet is chock full of people who say and apparently actually believe that anyone who takes issue with anything they say can _only_ be motivated by a. stupidity or b. hatred.
Therefore how I deal in my personal life with SSA people is irrelevant. But since you ask–really it’s more of a judgment that a question, isn’t it? But leave that aside–when my old roommate, now dean of an honors college at Big State U (not in Texas), and an adult convert to the Church, happily married to his husband and warmly accepted in his Jesuit parish, takes to Facebook to call me a f___ a____ and tell me I need to go to Confession because my view of gay marriage is too nuanced to fit on the bumper sticker he wants, I defriend him. On the other hand, I am still good friends with the very first guy ever to proposition me. So yeah, big ol’ hatebag: guilty. You nailed it in one.
I remain puzzled. The absence of objective moral criteria, the preference for feelings–the author’s feelings are hurt, the nice Carmelite lady is sorry my feelings are hurt, etc–the desire to dismiss my arguments by convicting me of hatred/anger/bigotry–the fuzziness of the ACNM’s circle-the-wagons defend-the-blogger-by-attacking-the-person-of-the-comboxer.
Is this sin of which ACNM seems content to pretend it has convicted me-sheesh-really only about the feelings inside a person which are not really subject to control by me, especially the me sitting in the pew seething with attention to the rubrics and prayers and actions at the altar and not really trading soul gazes with the people in the pews around me?
David, would you say that Jesus put feelings over objective moral criteria? I would say no because love is ac act of the will, not a feeling. He did, however, present a moral hierarchy which placed mercy and love above the one’s judgement about other’s adherence to the moral rules. Love comes first in the Gospel. Love comes first in the Church. Yes, I am sorry you are so upset. I, too, am puzzled. I also think we should stop with this conversation that has little good fruit to show for all the effort.
Good fruit cannot come from a conversation that goes like this:
Me: Please clarify your intentions.
ACNM: Ohhh, so angry!
Me: Yeah, accusations without a ground or a clear object are frustrating. Please clarify.
ACNM: Oh, hateful Pharisee!
Me: No, really, are Austin Catholics hating on gays?
ACNM: You must be anti-gay!
ACNM: Not that we’re pro-gay!
ACNM: Except we’re loving!
Me: Goodness, “clarify” doesn’t mean “heap confusion upon confusion!”
ACNM: This has been so unhelpful We’re all sorry you’re a bigot. We should stop now.
Me: Well, aside from all that being silly yet hypocritical, if I _were_ Mr Hateful Bigot, wouldn’t Luv & Stuff mean reaching out to me? Isn’t _that_ the point of the piece in the first place, to repeat yet another question nobody at ACNM felt undefensive enough to answer?
ACNM: (Probably): Let’s block this hateful bigot! Super piece, btw! Love it love it! U Go, Grrl!
Or kin youse guys do better than that?
I think we did awesome. And I think we’re done. Again, sorry you are so very upset.
“Shut up,” she explained.
There is joyful, confident defense of the faith in the contemporary public square. That is what I thought ACNM was supposed to be about. My mistake there!
There is crabbed thin-skinned joyless prickly passive-aggressive defensive defense of the blogger by other bloggers. That is a private writing club, a clique that seeks viewer Likes and Retweets but is otherwise a closed circle: that is ACNM.
Yes, we are done here.
1. Apparently one cannot fully delete one’s remarks. I am not sure it was worth the abuse from the ACNM community to spend so much time getting a twofer badly-written yet heretical headline changed to a merely cheesy one. Maybe one of you administrators who has been attaboying the notion that one isn’t really supporting gay marriage, despite what one’s words mean, if one doesn’t _feel_ that one is, herself, pro-gay marriage could wipe the slate clean of any trace of my wasted time.
2. After these days of running repeatedly up against the stone wall that is ACNM’s collective ear, it strikes me that many of you may have come of age at a time when logic is regarded as a tool of racist, sexist, and, of course- the trinity of today- anti-gay oppression. You have not been exposed to the tools of reason: terms, propositions, sentences proceeding to build an argument, and similarly analyzing an argument, breaking it down and examining the parts for various fallacies.
3. This is not what is called for by the teachings of the Church or the foundation documents of the New Evangelization. Let us turn to paragraph 5 of Fides et Ratio: “[T]he Church judges philosophy to be an indispensable instrument for acquiring a deeper understanding of faith and-” listen! “-for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who as yet do not know it.” I would quote the entirety of the preceding paragraph leading up to the declaration of the necessity of philosophy for evangelization: John Paul talks a bit about logic, deduction, recta ratio (correct reasoning).
4. Who is your audience? If it is Catholics who were raised Postmodern, as a number of you seem to have been, then, sure, you need to be able to sling that lingo. But St Peter, no more than John Paul did, did not say ‘always be ready to give a feeling for what you believe’. You might want to spend a board meeting considering whether ACNM’s bloggers should have read and been tested on their understanding of Fides et Ratio, and too whether ACNM might not better serve the Diocese of Austin and the New Evangelization if you spent a staff retreat or workshop on reasoning- understanding the basic tools of argumentation. There are professors of logic and philosophy in the Diocese who might be persuaded to squeeze a semester into an afternoon for you.
5. ACNM needs a proofreader, at the very least. More critically, ACNM should consider seeking a qualified person to serve as at least a ‘quick & dirty’ nihil obstat guy.
That is all. He who has ears to hear, let them be unstopped.
Then delete all my stuff.
(Oh but this is worth a quick perusal as well: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20110128_dec-rif-filosofia_en.html )
David,
As one of the founders of ACNM I would be more than happy to meet you for lunch and answer any questions you might have.
Thanks you,
Jason
You have to create a Disqus account in order to delete them, but we can hide or delete them as requested.
Shawn Chapman, you easily win the passive-aggressive, beta male, politically-oh-so-correct Comment of the Day Award.
Hugs, even.
David… I have remained silent up until this point because I felt that anything I said would not be heard or accepted. You are right that I work for the Diocese of Austin. You are right that I counsel families – I see first hand the effect of anger/hate on those with SSA. It’s heartbreaking. But let me be perfectly clear: I do not support gay marriage, nor did I mention anywhere in my post that I support gay marriage. I support love and respect – I was simply speaking to those who let anger blind them to the reality that we are all human, God-made and worthy of respect and dignity. Sometimes anger causes us to lash out in ways that demean another person – I am against that.
My post was not meant to “serve the cause of gay marriage”. Nothing about this post goes against Church teaching. Read the quote by Pope Francis at the end – my entire post is simply a reflection on his words. If anything I wrote gives you a different impression, this is a matter of misunderstanding on your part, and perhaps a lack of clarity on mine.
I appreciate your comments, because they have made me reread and edit my post. However, I don’t appreciate the insults, mockery or insinuation that I speak against the Church, whom I love deeply. If this conversation continues, let it continue without the anger. If not, I wish you the best and I thank you for reading.
Perhaps, ma’am, you should read the title of your piece.
If, as seems increasingly clear, this is one of those group blogs that exists as a virtual writing circle, where workshoppers gather to support uncritically each others’ writings as they work pieces up to publishability, then ACNM should sever any links which give the appearance of any link with, support from, or, most crucially, support of, the Diocese of Austin.
I don’t appreciate the insults, mockery, or insinuation either. It is deeply disappointing to me that after reading all of this you haven’t had a light click on- ‘oh, a reasonable reader who isn’t one of my fellow-blogging besties could read this piece as a defense of gay marriage- especially since it’s notionally and critically addressed to Catholics who are opposed to- ‘angry about’- “gay-marriage”(sic).’
Try to put yourself in my shoes: pretend that I am the innocent ordinary pro-life Catholic you wrote about a few months ago, and that you, via your column, are the red-faced pot of accusatory anger. I’m sitting in my pew, like you were in your seat, not saying anything, just quietly being Catholic; and then, apparently only because we are Catholic, some red-faced anger-monger angrily accuses us of being full of anger, of hate.
Your only out is that your article is so vague- to whom is it addressed? ‘To self-reporting haters’, is one ingenuous answer. To me, implies an administrator today, because, _obviously_ I must be full of anger & hate & judgment. To people “angry” about “gay-marriage”: directly implying, no? that being ‘angry about gay marriage’ is wrong, yes?
I think you guys need all to take a collective step back, give yourselves some time for this shoulder-to-shoulder defensiveness to fade a little, and then reflect quietly on how & whether you agree or disagree with the Church’s teachings wrt the Pelvic Wars, and how–the ‘whether’ sounds foregone, frankly–you guys at ACNM think the Church should change her teachings and certainly her pastoral practice.
And then you should submit, collectively, a letter or petition to our bishop outlining the changes you advocate- whatever those changes end up being.
In the meantime, you guys should consider passing your pieces around for some honest, non-high-fiving critiques to see how your words might sound to us outside, ‘non-bestie’ readers.
Thanks.
Beautifully said, Mark. And David, I am sorry you felt offended and misunderstood, as you seemed to feel. God bless us, sometimes we try and it doesn’t help as much as we want. God bless us all. He knows!
This article begins by linking to the detailed and well-defined teachings of the Church straight from our Catechism. These teachings cannot change, and no where does it state that she is in support of sin. The author and Austin CNM do not support any deviance from Truth.
Between the link to the Catechism and the link to Courage is a great deal of talk about hatred of gays, anger toward gays, and the apparent crime of gays “feeling” unwelcome that remains deeply unsatisfying from a merely orthodox Catholic perspective. Are there any Catholics in the Diocese of Austin who are hating on gays, or what, if not tacit appeasement, is the column’s purpose?
David, what do you think about the quote from Pope Francis at the end. This article, to me, sounds like an extension of the tone that Pope Francis has taken on the issue and is no way being hateful.
The author addresses a particular audience: “Unfortunately, the gay marriage debate has brought out a lot of hate and tunnel vision in some Christians.” *some Christians* This is an invitation to introspect on your words and actions, to be honest with yourself about your predisposition or biases – maybe in doing so you don’t find yourself in the group of Christians who struggle with hate toward homosexuals or supporters of gay marriage. Good.
“Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’ But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” -Luke 18, 10-14
You may say that the author is being like the Pharisee, I don’t think she is, but if she is… aren’t you too?
Wow, everybody refuses to look at what the author herself says, and everybody insists that I am angry and full of hate- oh, and pharasaical too. No being judgy here! How is this not, to quote meaningfully and in context the Holy Father, “making a lobby out of this tendency”?
David, we’re not jumping on you for being judgy and full of hate, we’re jumping on you for misrepresenting the content of the article and attacking the author based on untruths.
The article can be summed up as: “If you’re being hateful, you’re causing brothers and sisters to feel unwelcome where all should feel welcome” but you’re claiming that the article is summed up: “You [Christian who opposes gay marriage] *ARE* being hateful, and you should stop that and be okay with gay marriage”
Nowhere does she equate being opposed to gay marriage as equaling being hateful. Nowhere does she say anything about what qualifies as “hateful and angry.” She leaves it up to the reader to self-evaluate.
In a way, you’re right, Tim: she’s very vague. I, for instance, am angry: I am an angry Catholic. And I am opposed to gay marriage- so firmly that I usually envelope the phrase in scare quotes. Is the article addressed to me? I am angry about the gay agenda. I am angry about the success the gay agenda enjoyed in hijacking the Synod o. The family
Thank you, Britt. This is courageous and beautiful, humble and humbling, too.
Very beautifully spoken, Britt, and since she put it so well, I merely will let Shawn’s words stand and say “ditto”. Thanks for writing and sharing this.
Some scattered thoughts–
1) Catholics have a right to be angry about attacks on marriage; indeed anger is the proper thing to feel at desecrations of holy things (ask Jesus, who assaulted the moneychangers in the temple with a whip).
2) Given that, we need to be clear about what’s at stake. Vigorous and full-throated denunciations of the evils being peddled by the “gay rights” lobby are not just good, they’re morally obligatory, yet that’s precisely what’s condemned by a lot of people when they talk about how the Church needs to be more welcoming of homosexuals. This is often true even when those denunciations are impersonal, i.e., not targeted at specifically identifiable people. Presumably that’s not what the author intends to warn against here — but it’s not clear what she does intend to warn against, either, since virtually no one anymore veers in the direction of being too strident against homosexual behavior.
3) Yes, that righteous angry and spirit of denunciation of worldly evils shouldn’t spill over into violence or unreasonable crudity. But one would have to go pretty far afield to find Christians (or at least Catholics) who do indulge those things, at least publicly. It’s not clear that this is anywhere near the widespread and pervasive evil as is practiced and preached by the “gay rights” lobby, and which go remarkably unremarked-upon by mainstream Catholics. I’m reminded of something I think C.S. Lewis said (probably in the Screwtape Letters), to the effect that the Devil is great at distorting perspective, at getting good people to spend the most energy fighting the least important and least pervasive evils.
4) Let’s extend the argument. We must also be charitable toward ISIS fighters. Does that mean we must refrain from being angry about ISIS’ atrocities, or condemning their actions vigorously, even if the net effect is to make ISIS fighters double down out of spite?
5) As David said, individual homosexuals may feel unwelcome in the Church but it’s not clear that this is, on average, for any reason other than a refusal to repent, to believe in the Gospel, and to reform their lives. Since I converted I’ve heard no homilies about the evils of sodomy, but at least two about the evils of homophobia, along terms very much like this. If there is a problem with nasty old Catholics spitefully turning away gays who are banging down the doors of the Church in an effort to get in, it’s not an obviously pressing one.
Skip past the red-meat quotes from Cardinal Sarah to the disquisition on marriage in today’s culture by Cardinal Caffarra. Some or much of this might, if read with openness and devotion to the teachings of the Church- including the ‘hard sayings’- be helpful to some in the community of ACNM bloggers.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351011?eng=y