![]() |
| Vincent van Gogh, "The Good Samaritan," original in the Kroller-Muller Museum in Otterlo, The Netherlands, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for online sharing. |
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Ruth Krall, "Bearing Witness, Part Two — Speaking Truthfully" (2)
Monday, January 13, 2020
Ruth Krall, "Bearing Witness, Part Two — Speaking Truthfully"
![]() |
| Vincent van Gogh, "The Good Samaritan," original in the Kroller-Muller Museum in Otterlo, The Netherlands, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for online sharing. |
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Ruth Krall, "Bearing Witness: Part One — Paying Attention" (2)
![]() |
| Vincent van Gogh, "The Good Samaritan," original in the Kroller-Muller Museum in Otterlo, The Netherlands, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for online sharing. |
The following posting is a continuation of Ruth Krall's essay "Bearing Witness: Part One — Paying Attention." The first half of this essay appeared in this previous posting. As that posting and others preceding it have noted, this essay is one in a series of essays Ruth has entitled "Compassionate Peacemaking: Healing the World's Wounds One at a Time." Clicking from one preceding essay to the next will show you the entire series posted on Bilgrimage thus far.
Saturday, January 4, 2020
Ruth Krall, "Bearing Witness: Part One — Paying Attention"
![]() |
| Vincent van Gogh, "The Good Samaritan," original in the Kroller-Muller Museum in Otterlo, The Netherlands, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for online sharing. |
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Ruth Krall, "Bearing Witness: The First Step in Reconciliation" (2)
![]() |
| Vincent van Gogh, "The Good Samaritan," original in the Kroller-Muller Museum in Otterlo, The Netherlands, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for online sharing. |
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Ruth Krall, "Bearing Witness: The First Step in Reconciliation"
![]() |
| Vincent van Gogh, "The Good Samaritan," original in the Kroller-Muller Museum in Otterlo, The Netherlands, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for online sharing. |
Friday, August 9, 2019
Ruth Krall, Moral Corruption in the Religious Commons (1)
![]() |
| Theodore Rombouts, (1597-1617), "Christ Driving the Money-Changers from the Temple" (i) |
(Mathew 21: 13, Good News Translation)
If it takes a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to repeatedly enable sexual abuse of that same child. This is so whether she lives inside secular society or he lives inside a deeply pious religious and worshipping community.
Saturday, July 6, 2019
Ruth Krall, Looking Slant: Oppressive Ideologies and Belief Systems (2)
![]() |
| Ebola: Transporting a Sick Child to a Care Facility |
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Continuing Moral Witness: Churches and Their Apologists Offer Language of Healing in Face of Trump Presidency. We Need Language of Resistance.
"The Further A Society— relombardo (@relombardo3) January 11, 2017
Drifts From The Truth,
The More It Will Hate
Those That Speak It."
~George Orwell pic.twitter.com/CgIxTakB3n
Monday, December 14, 2015
Quote for Day: Judith Light, "It Was the LGBTQ Community That Inspired Me to Be the Kind of Person I Wanted to Be"
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
"Just Who Do We Think We Are?": Real People with Real Lives Affected (Really!) by Marriage Equality
Every time something like this happens, somebody says we have to have a conversation about race. We talk a lot about race. There’s no shortcut. And we don’t need more talk. (Loud applause.)
~ President Obama eulogizing Rev. Clementa Pinckney, 26 June 2015
Monday, October 28, 2013
The Sea Change in Cultural Attitudes Toward Gay Lives: Importance of Telling Gay Stories and Bearing Gay Witness
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Bearing Witness: The Gift of Reconnecting to Old Friends
There’s something I’ve needed for some days to write here. But I’m having trouble formulating my thoughts—understanding the point I feel I need to make. The feeling is there—a tug in my soul—but the thoughts connected to the feeling aren’t entirely clear. I know that the impulse I’m feeling has to do with my insistence on our call to bear witness. But I’m not precisely sure what it is to which I need to bear witness here, what kind of witness I’m compelled to offer in this statement.Perhaps the best way to follow this persistent impulse is just to write the thoughts out, and let them lead where they will. To connect heart to mind by pulling the thoughts of the heart into the head, as I write.
And that’s part of the challenge with the particular kind of witness I want to bear here. It proceeds, as many of the significant experiences in our life do, from a fullness of heart that’s not so easy to verbalize. We know that our hearts have been moved. But how they’ve been moved, and the import of their reshaping, is not simple to express to others—let alone to ourselves.
Here’s what happened. Here’s what provokes this attempt to find words to give testimony. Recently, as Steve and I headed to Charlotte to visit a friend for Thanksgiving, we spent two days in Atlanta, where Steve had work-related meetings.
As we checked into the hotel in Atlanta at which a national gerontological conference was being held (Steve’s meetings were connected to it), I happened to glance over to a circle of sofas and chairs in the lobby area, and catch sight of a face that appealed to me. It was the face of a man, a smiling, welcoming man, speaking to a group of women—holding court, almost, since he was talking and they were listening.
I think what struck me, and made me want to look more intensively, beyond the initial glance we give to most of those we meet, was the man’s ease with a group of women. Many men freeze in the company of women. Many men cannot smile with much ease, because the rigid script that determines male behavior forbids the giving away of oneself emotionally. It forbids making oneself vulnerable, especially to those lower on the power scale than oneself.
Dorothee Sölle writes about this somewhere, noting that gay men attracted her, because gay men are often socialized (or naturally bent) in another direction, one less vigilant about keeping oneself in the top-dog space. Sölle notes the freedom with which some gay men who are at ease with their feminine personas move and interact with others, and how this contrasts with the constrained way in which straight men intent on fitting macho stereotypes often move and interact.
So. What caught my eye with the man whose face I glimpsed was the way in which he was exchanging conversation and laughs with the group of women among whom he was sitting.
And then this happened: I looked again, and realized that I knew the man whose face had caught my attention. Or I thought I knew him. I looked yet again, trying not to stare, to be sure I was correct: yes, the man I’d spotted was my high-school classmate, someone I had not seen in 41 years. Not since we had graduated and gone our separate ways.
I couldn’t avoid staring now. At the same time, I felt frozen to my spot, unable to decide to go and say hello to my classmate. I vacillated. I thought about approaching Bob and saying hello. But I finally turned away and tried to look inconspicuous as I waited for Steve to do the check-in at the hotel.
From other classmates and friends, I knew something of the life and career of my classmate Bob. I knew that he had become a distinguished scholar, teacher, and writer in the field of geriatric psychiatry. He had spent almost his entire teaching career in the same university, and had been amply and rightly rewarded for his contributions to that university. It made sense that I would spot him at a gerontology conference, given his work in the field of geriatric psychology, where books he has written are, I’m told, now standard textbooks in many classes around the country.
My hesitancy about introducing myself had everything to do with the sense that, by comparison, I have all too little to show for the 41 years after graduation. In the years in which I taught and did administrative work, I bounced from pillar to post, often trying to find any kind of work at all in the checkered, dispossessed lives and careers Steve and I have had as first closeted and then unapologetically gay Catholic theologians living in a public, long-term, committed relationship.
How does one explain any of this to someone one is seeing suddenly after more than four decades, someone whose own career as a scholar and teacher has been so productive and stable, by contrast? I decided not to try. Bob was brilliant in high school, one of two mathematical geniuses I’ve met in my life, who have that astonishing intuitive ability to know, without knowing how they know, the precisely correct answer to a complex mathematical problem other (moi, certainly) would take hours to solve, and then perhaps solve wrong.
And then I made the mistake of telling Steve whom I had spotted. Steve knew the name. I had spoken of Bob over the years, for reasons I’ll explain in a bit more detail below.
Steve stopped me on the spot, made me turn around, told me I absolutely had to overcome my inhibitions and go and say hello to someone who had been a significant part of my adolescence. And I did so, and am very glad I did so.
I’m not sure Bob knew me at first. And why should he? I had more hair when we last saw each other, and it was dishwater blond hair then, untinged with gray. I weighed considerably less in the past. My eyelids weren’t drooping and my step had spring to it.
When we had made contact, though, and realized that we did, in fact, know each other and had much to catch up on, I was surprised at how full my heart felt at the surprising gift of this encounter. I found myself suddenly close to tears, especially when Bob asked about a classmate who was a mutual friend of ours (and my best friend in high school), who died of AIDS in 1995—something I knew, but Bob hadn’t yet heard.
So many years, so much to catch up on: so much in both of our adult lives to reconnect to the adolescent selves we had known in the past, in the years in which we were in school together. We made plans to get together for drinks the following afternoon, to catch up.
Bob was not, I should explain, a close friend, but he was a cordial acquaintance, someone I knew through at least six, and possibly more, years of school. More than that, he was an academic rival, someone with whom I competed throughout high school, as our grade point averages rose and fell with razor-thin margins, his now topping mine, mine suddenly inching past his.
Like me, Bob was the quintessential nerd in high school, and—again like me—a 90-pound weakling who consistently failed to meet the expectations of the burly coaches who were determined to whip us into a macho shape ludicrously impossible for either of us to attain. We first bonded in junior high school in p.e. class when we found that our smallness and lithe, skinny bodies enabled us to dodge balls better than anyone else in dodge-ball class—and when we both realized that our success at the game was also our doom, since it left the two of us, each class period, standing in front of a firing squad of boys twice our size, hurling balls from all directions at our heads and groins, as we were the last two standing on our side.
Ironically, p.e. was the one class that created the rising-falling grades that allowed one or the other of us to move ahead of the other academically throughout high school. When Bob got a B for the semester in p.e., and I got a C, my GPA fell below his, and vice versa. In general, the coaches decreed that I performed at a lower level than Bob did in p.e., so my GPA was constantly dragging downward, solely because of that class. Our entire academic future—our comparative standing in our class—depended entirely on how we performed in a class neither of us liked, could do well in, needed for academic reasons in the least.
In our final year of school, this and one other bizarre twist caused Bob’s GPA to surge slightly above mine as we finished high school, and we graduated with a bit of consternation on my side that I’d been unfairly deprived of a graduation honor due to murky circumstances that favored my competitor unfairly. If Bob and I didn’t keep up from graduation forward, perhaps that consternation was a factor in my losing touch. I don’t know that that’s true, though. People just do lose touch with each other when they graduate and move on into adult lives and careers.
As I say, I’m delighted that I reconnected to this classmate recently, and perhaps that’s what I feel obliged to give witness to: to my gratitude at the unexpected gift of meeting an old acquaintance, after many years, in surprising circumstances. This isn’t an experience we have frequently in life. When it does come to us, it seems to be grace.
These encounters not only give us a chance to catch up, to assess our lives after the passing of time. They also give us a chance—an unexpected opportunity, a gift—to look back at experiences through which we lived with that feeling that young people always have, the feeling that we are the only person in the world who has ever struggled through such a tight space, moved through such a confusing passage.
Though my friend Bob and I have led very different lives, in some ways—he has married a number of times and has children—in other ways, we’ve led very similar lives. We both chose to go to church-related colleges, to the astonishment of our classmates and guidance counselors, who encouraged us to choose ivy-league schools and were confident that we could go to such schools, since we were both national merit scholarship finalists and had academic records that would open doors. We both chose as well to go into service-oriented, help-related fields that haven’t brought either of us fortunes.
We write. We teach, in our own ways. Politically and religiously, our lives have followed amazingly similar trajectories. Bob has moved gradually away from his rather constricting conservative evangelical background, without repudiating the Wesleyan social teachings and values inherent in that tradition—something I’ve done, too, as I’ve been pushed to the margins of the Catholic church.
We both think that the Civil Rights movement, which resulted in the integration of our high school during the final two years we were there, shaped our political views in ineluctable ways—ways for which we’re grateful. When we met, Bob reminded me that there was widespread joy in the school when Martin Luther King was assassinated, and that we and several friends and a handful of teachers constituted a tiny minority among the white population of the school who celebrated this event. We have very similar memories of the murder of a black teenaged boy in our final year of school, for which—as I’ve shared on this blog—three of our classmates were charged but not convicted.
And so to what am I giving witness here? I suppose first and foremost this is a testimony of gratitude for an encounter that moved me profoundly, in the depths of my soul—for a gift that doesn’t drop into one’s life every day. I’m deeply grateful for the chance to reconnect to someone I admire, with whom I had long since lost touch, and with whom I’ll now remain in contact. Bob has made plans to visit on his next trip to see his mother.
I’m grateful, too, for the gift of having the chance to revisit the past—and to think about how it has shaped me—with a sympathetic and intelligent friend who lived through some of the same past I did. There aren’t many people in the world with whom I can now talk about our chemistry and physics teacher, Miss Marian C., who smoked cigars and flew into rages when asked questions in class, assuming—always—that even the most innocent question indicated the questioner’s disdain for the credentials of a woman scientist.
And who remembers Mrs. Sallie C., our Latin teacher who was so justifiably proud of her master’s degree from a distinguished Boston university, who wore her hair in a Romanesque chignon and loved to display her Roman profile as she stood at the blackboard writing out the scansion of a passage from Virgil? Or Mrs. Margaret H., our English teacher, who had us read Goethe, Lady Murasaki, Balzac, François Villon, Cervantes, and a long list of other writers from around the world, and encouraged us to think we had the ability to write, and told us that the world outside our tiny town was larger and might prove more inviting to those with an interest in books?
Above all, I’m grateful for the inkling of confirmation I had in my meeting with my classmate of yore that, though our lives have had their twists and turns, something of what we glimpsed as we committed ourselves to building a better world during the Civil Rights movement in our small Southern town, and something of the gospel values that inspired that commitment, remains alive and useful for us even today, these long years later, when the world seems to have grown older. And colder. There is a line—a line of continuity, no matter how tortuous—running through both of our lives from those years, from what we saw and learned in the midst of rapid, necessary social change as legal segregation fell by the wayside during our adolescence. And it is a thread that has run true for both of us, I think.
The photo I've chosen as a graphic, entitled Old Friends, is by Herbthyme, who has generously uploaded it for non-commercial replication and sharing at Wikimedia Commons.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
More on Bearing Witness: The Contribution of People of Color to Recent Debates about Gay Rights
Following last week’s New York Senate vote against same-sex marriage, I blogged about my commitment to a politics of bearing witness. I wrote,I have committed my life, it seems to me, to the belief that moral witness ought to count for something in the political and cultural arenas. I believe, fundamentally, in a politics of giving witness. I believe that when people pour out their hearts in witness to moral values, as a number of senators in New York did this week when the New York Senate considered same-sex marriage, something ought to happen. We ought not to receive such witness in dead silence.
And it’s that belief in the importance of bearing witness that compels me to speak out now about an aspect of the New York Senate discussion that I haven’t yet addressed. It’s important, I think, to note who took the political risk of speaking out in last week’s debate—who put his or her political reputation on the line while others calculated and tested the prevailing winds, and chose the safe rather than the right thing to do.
A significant proportion of those who spoke out in last week’s New York Senate discussion to articulate the decent, the merely humane, thing to do were members of the Jewish and African-American communities. In my view, it is important that the LGBT community recognize the statement of solidarity that two other minority communities made last week, in what took place in the New York legislature.
In particular, I want to focus on what the support of African-American members of the New York Senate should mean, in my judgment, to members of the LGBT community. (And I don’t mean to overlook or downplay the Jewish community’s support for the LGBT community here; in concentrating on the relationship between the black and gay communities, I’m focusing on an area in which healing needs primarily to occur.) There has been strong tension between the black and gay communities in the U.S., and that tension has been growing rather than diminishing after the election of Mr. Obama—in part, because the president’s election coincided with the roll-back of same-sex marriage in California, as media commentary suggested that African-American voters in California played a key role in passing prop 8.
I have written on this blog about the growing tension between these two minority communities. I have also taken note of Coretta Scott King’s appeal to the African-American community to overcome its homophobia. I’ve noted my own experience of deeply painful and corrosive homophobia as a white gay man working for many years in historically black colleges. And at the same time, I’ve lambasted the considerable racism that continues to exist within white gay communities in the U.S., and which undoubtedly elicits reactive homophobia among some people of color.
Because I have written about all of these topics, it’s incumbent on me—it’s part of my obligation to bear witness—to give thanks for the strong support that many African-American members of the New York Senate offered the LGBT community last week, as same-sex marriage was debated. Again and again, it was people of color who stood up to note that our nation represents a yet-to-be-finished experiment in democracy that has a history of conspicuous blind spots as it professes to be about liberty and justice for all. African-American senators noted the gradual, conflicted process by which American democracy first enfranchised non-property owners, then women, then people of color. African-American Senate members made a powerful, incontrovertible connection between the historic struggle of people of color for rights in the U.S., and the current struggle of the gay community for rights.
It was, notably, senators of color who articulated the moral case for justice last week in the New York Senate, while a majority of senators who want to tout themselves as preeminent defenders of morality sat in stony silence listening to this testimony, not ever seeking to counter it or to justify their decision to vote against same-sex marriage. The point I’d hope the LGBT community in the U.S. could begin to see more clearly after what happened in the New York Senate is this: it is precisely the experience of unjust marginalization that people of color (and Jews) experience in American society which propels many members of these marginalized communities to make solidarity with their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
Solidarity that reaches across the boundary lines of one’s own particular marginalized community is powerful solidarity. One reason the religious and political right has worked overtime in recent years to drive a wedge between the LGBT and black communities (and has exported homophobia to places like Uganda) is that the right knows very well how effective and powerful solidarity between all marginalized communities in the U.S. would be, if it ever truly happened. When Martin Luther King developed his poor people’s coalition and marched on Washington to protest not only racism, but the Vietnam War and economic injustice, he became a serious threat to the powers that be in this nation—who wanted him stopped at all costs. Even more than they had wanted him stopped when his exclusive goal was combating racism . . . .
It’s important that the LGBT community recognize that African-American religious and political leaders who speak out to condemn discrimination against gays and lesbians often pay a considerable price for their moral courage. There are exceptionally strong pressures within many African-American communities for African-American leaders either to remain silent about these matters, or to parrot the party line of the religious right. Those pressures are being massaged by powerful, wealthy right-wing interest groups. Those pressures have also been in full view in Washington, D.C., recently, as leading black religious figures have fought tooth and nail against gay rights initiatives in the nation’s capital.
But even as these religious leaders have vocally expressed their opposition to gay rights, other remarkable people of color including Michael Crawford and Rev. Cedric Harmon have spoken strongly and loudly about the need for societies that want to claim to be humane to treat everyone with dignity and respect. These African-American leaders and many others have dared to face ostracism from some members of their own community, as they give voice to their consciences in debates about gay rights even knowing that they will pay a price for speaking out.
As I think about the dynamics—about the moral courage and witness to the supremacy of conscience—that have led a number of my African-American friends to step out and take strong public stands against anti-gay discrimination, I keep remembering something that poet Adrienne Rich said some years ago. This was in a book of essays that included an essay describing her experience teaching in an inner-city school. I don’t recall the title, but I do recall vividly some observations Rich makes in this set of essays.
In the essay about her time teaching high-school youth in an economically deprived urban area, I recall Adrienne Rich noting that young folks who grow up in impoverished settings often resist the kinds of insights that progressive political activists want to teach, when we come into such schools as savior figures. But when progressive insights reach students in marginal communities, Rich notes, students in these communities become committed to working for social change in a way that far surpasses the commitment of young people in affluent liberal communities, for whom progressive insights are presumably old hat.
I recall Rich quoting Daniel Berrigan at this point. In fact, I remember Rich noting that Berrigan spoke about the resistance he encountered when he spoke about his anti-war activities in working-class schools. But, Berrigan noted, he preferred the support of students in those schools, after they had fought with him and found common ground with him through verbal sparring. He preferred such support to the lukewarm, polite, but ultimately vacuous support of more affluent students who listened to his words without putting up a fight, expressed agreement, and then went about their business untroubled by the message he had sought to bring them.
In my view, many African Americans who support gay rights do so because they have reached a point of conviction after having struggled seriously—and at a certain cost—with the issue of gay rights. Please note that I’m not saying that the African-American community is homogeneous, or that all African-Americans are working-class.
What I want to note here is that, within many African-American communities, there are strong pressures confronting those who call for honest, open discussion of matters of sexual orientation, and these are akin go the dynamics students in economically deprived communities sometimes encounter when they struggle to understand cultural and political battles that seem, on the face of it, to have little to do with the experience of privation faced by these students.
What I am saying is that when people pay a price for arriving at a moral conviction, the political solidarity that flows from that conviction is likely to far more solid than is the solidarity of those who do not pay a price for their solidarity—and whose solidarity may lack any moral underpinnings at all. For this reason, I applaud the witness that Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson and other African-American senators in New York bore last week, and I am grateful for their courage in giving witness—and to bloggers like Fran Rossi-Szpylczyn for highlighting this witness.
The graphic is the FBI's listing for Dr. Martin Luther King in its Rabble Rouser Index, 1967.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Bearing Witness: Creating Welcoming Spaces to Hear LGBT Catholic Stories of Grace
I’ve been stressing the need to bear witness on this blog recently. And over and over, throughout the time I’ve been blogging here, I’ve noted the disgraceful failure of centrist Catholic publications and blogs to provide a welcoming place in which the church at large can hear the testimony of LGBT Catholics.I have spent quite a few years of my life as a theologian shut out of almost every “official” discourse space the Catholic church offers, begging the influential American Catholic publications of the center to open a welcoming discourse space in which we who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered and Catholic can bear witness to our lived experience of grace as members of the body of Christ.
My pleas have fallen on deaf ears. As I’ve reported on this blog, when my partner Steve and I first experienced our Waterloo experience with a Catholic institution in which we taught theology, and I approached one of the leading national Catholic publications asking to tell my story there, I was rebuffed. The publication told me that the experience I was recounting was so common in Catholic institutions as not to be newsworthy.
As I’ve also noted, what happened to me in that Waterloo experience was this: after I had taught two years in the theology department of a Catholic college, chairing its theology department, I was given a terminal contract with no explanation. When I asked for an explanation, since I had received an outstanding oral evaluation of my work for the year (this evaluation was never put into writing, despite my repeated request that I have it in writing), I met a stone wall. The president of the institution lied and claimed he had disclosed the reason for my termination to me. The abbot of the monastery that owned the college refused to meet with me, though he later claimed that when I resigned after I had met the stone wall, and did not come to tell him I was resigning, I did so in order to do damage to him!
Two years down the road, the college ended my partner Steve’s employment, claiming it did not have funds to continue his position. The college subsequently filled the position and added others to the theology department. At the same time that it let Steve go, it terminated the jobs of more than 10 faculty and staff members thought to be gay or lesbian. This series of terminations was regarded by the local gay community as a purge of faculty and staff suspected to be gay or lesbian. I have a copy of a letter an alumnus of the college wrote at this time to one of the monks who own the college, protesting the purge of LGBT faculty and noting the widespread discontent of the local gay community at what was taking place.
Since that time, Steve and I have never again been able to find employment in any Catholic college or university. Even so-called liberal institutions, including our alma mater, Loyola University in New Orleans, have closed ranks against us, while claiming to deplore what the right-wing college that terminated our employment for false and specious reasons in the early 1990s did to us. We are personae non gratae in Catholic institutions. We have been made to know and feel the expulsion.
Fast forward to 2009. We now live at a moment of history in which the political shifts of the last U.S. election seemed to portend a certain shift towards greater acceptance of LGBT human beings in both the U.S. and the world at large (since what happens politically and culturally in the U.S. affects global culture in significant ways).
The promise some of us saw in the last U.S. elections has not been fulfilled. To the contrary, we who are gay and lesbian are increasingly subject to a savage backlash both in the U.S. and around the world, which is, I believe, only going to grow worse in coming days. As that backlash occurs, the political leaders of the U.S. keep silence about what is happening, claiming that to touch gay issues is political suicide. The silence invites the backlash.
And right at the heart of that backlash is the Catholic church—or, more precisely, right at the heart of that backlash are the leaders of the Catholic church. Men who profess to be all about doing good and avoiding evil.
Men who are, in fact, doing evil in the name of God. Men intent on harming a targeted minority, in order to deflect attention from their own considerable shortcomings as moral leaders. Men who put the lie to what they teach about God, salvation, the church, communion, human rights, etc., by how they have chosen, at this point in history, to treat their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
In the U.S., just as what appeared to be an opening to a new attitude towards LGBT human beings occurred, we saw the removal of the right of civil marriage from gay citizens of California. This was followed by the removal of that right from gay citizens of Maine in a well-funded political initiative spearheaded by the Catholic church, and supported by donations from Catholic dioceses around the U.S. Following both of these events, the Catholic officials who contributed so largely to these assaults on the humanity of their gay brothers and sisters expressed jubilation at what they had accomplished.
And now New York. In each of these areas, we have seen the spectacle of leading Catholic figures deliberately fanning the flames of prejudice against a vulnerable minority, seeking to keep alive hateful old stereotypes of gay men as child predators (even when the heinous record of Catholic clergy in that regard is apparent to everyone), deliberately marginalizing and lying about their gay brothers and sisters. In the name of Christ.
And across the globe, in Uganda, a nation whose Catholic population is over 40%, a nation that is expected to be, by the middle of the 21st century, the sixth-largest Catholic nation in the world, gay and lesbian citizens will, in all likelihood, soon be subject to the death penalty. Solely for being who God has made them to be.
We are living at a moment in history when a retired Vatican official, a cardinal of the Catholic church, can state publicly (and with impunity) that those who are gay or transgendered cannot enter the kingdom of God. We are living at a moment in history when the most significant voice in the church, that of the pope, is completely silent about what is taking place in Uganda, or about the malicious and viciously homophobic statement of his cardinal—though the pope is quick to speak out about other issues, including use of condoms in the AIDS crisis in Africa, a practice he claims (with astonishing mendacity) is causing rather than working against the spread of AIDS.
We are living at a moment in history in which, at an official level, the Catholic church has set its face against all LGBT children of God around the world, even as it claims to speak on behalf of a God who creates every human being out of overflowing love, to experience love and to find God by loving others.
Ideas have consequences. Stating publicly that gay and lesbian people cannot enter the kingdom of God, stigmatizing gay and lesbian people as disordered, lays a rhetorical foundation for actual physical violence against gay and lesbian human beings—violence that seems to be spiking now around the world, violence that can result in the dismemberment and beheading of gay teen Jorge Steven López or a rise in hate crimes in political districts whose leaders have made anti-gay statements.
Ideas have consequences. Hate speech issues in acts of hate. By engaging in hate speech regarding their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, the leaders of the Catholic church are implicated in the anti-gay violence now roiling many societies in which their words have influence.
And we are living at a moment of history in which Catholics of the center tacitly support this official Vatican pogrom, as they remain completely silent about all that the Vatican and bishops around the world are doing to their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
Because we who happen to have been created gay or lesbian cannot expect solidarity from our silent brothers and sisters of the center, it is extremely important that we develop our own welcoming spaces in which to bear witness to the experience of grace in our lives. Our stories not only deserve a hearing, they need to be heard. They need to be heard because our church is sick unto death, and our stories—among many other stories of grace in the church—point the way to the healing of our sick church.
And so, as I look back on this week and the train of thought I’ve tried to summarize in the preceding comments, which reflect what I’ve posted recently on this blog, I’d like to point to some outstanding examples of the testimony—of the stories of grace—of contemporary gay or lesbian Catholics, which, in my view, deserve wide attention and wide circulation.
In a powerful posting entitled “Encountering Christ on the Margins with Joy: Embracing Ourselves as Exiles,” Jayden Cameron bore witness this week to the grace that runs through his life as an openly gay Catholic. I encourage you to go to his Gay Mystic blog and read his testimony. And as you do so, read the similarly deeply moving testimony of Colleen Kochivar-Baker in the thread of comments following Jayden’s statement. Colleen speaks of one of the preeminent gifts that gay Catholics offer the church—our quest to find and emphasize what binds us together with all of our brothers and sisters.
I also highly recommend Terry Weldon’s recent statement (drawing on James Alison) “Amidst the Stones and the Dust” at his Queering the Church blog. Though this posting is not, strictly speaking, Terry’s personal testimony to the grace running through his life as a gay Catholic, it supplements much that he has written on his blog about how he has found grace in his journey as a gay Catholic who came of age during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, and as a believer grounded in the Jesuit spirituality that stresses our call to offer ourselves totally as gifts for others.
I also find Geoff Farrow’s two most recent postings, “Roman Culture of Death” and “The Question of Outing Priests,” profoundly moving. Out of his own painful experience of repudiation by a hierarchy dominated by closeted gay men, who feel compelled to martyr members of their club who are honest about their sexual orientation, Geoff Farrow speaks transformative truth to power—and his voice would be taken seriously in a sane church concerned to craft a viable future for itself.
I am also impressed by the care that Geoff Farrow brings to the discussion of complex, sensitive moral issues like the question of outing closeted gay priests. Again, this gift of careful, balanced moral thinking, which arises out of the experience of struggling to accept oneself as gay and which predominates in the lives of many gay priests, ought to be cherished, not repudiated, in a healthy church concerned to have a vibrant future.
I am also thankful for and moved by the testimony of Michael Bayly at Wild Reed—in particular, this week, by his tribute to his mother on her 71st birthday, which contains valuable reminders that many Catholic parents stand by and celebrate their gay and lesbian children, and as they do this, also find time to bear witness to authentic Catholic values in other ways, e.g., by participating in protests against militarism. Michael’s celebration of his mother reminds me of Richard Rodriguez’s insistence that a world in which the attitudes of mothers held sway would be a more humane world, particularly for those of us who are LGBT, than a world constructed to serve patriarchal needs.
I’m struck, too, by a statement Colleen made yesterday on this blog, about where hope lies for those of us who continue to believe, despite the savagery of our church leaders towards us now (and the complicit silence of our brothers and sisters of the center). Colleen says,
I believe the response for us at this present time is to let those individuals and institutions wall themselves off while the rest of us move into the future. If this means uniting to create a new form for Catholicism then that's what we do. In the meantime we have to fight the politics tooth and nail because if we don't we betray our own spiritual beliefs and our own relationship with Jesus.
I hear Colleen saying something very similar to what I’m proposing when I talk about the need to create welcoming spaces to allow LGBT Catholics to bear witness to the grace that is in our lives. When a religious institution is intent on building ever higher walls that ultimately not only wall out the unwelcome, but wall in the wall-builders, the only healthy response of those who see religion as all about tearing down walls is to leave the wall-builders to themselves. And to unite and form welcoming spaces without walls, in which everybody’s voice, everybody’s experience of grace, counts and deserves a hearing.
Colleen’s theological, psychotherapeutic insights into what is happening to the Catholic church today—and re: healthy responses to the process of sickness and decay—are extremely valuable. I am grateful for the wealth of compelling, faithful voices of gay Catholics represented by these and many other bloggers and writers. And I encourage anyone reading this who cares about the future of the Catholic church to help find ways to make these voices and their testimony of grace more widely known.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Bearing Witness: Who Points the Way to a Humane Future?
Bearing witness: when all the smoke clears and historians (and people of faith) write the history of this era, who will be seen as a prophetic witness to authentic moral values at this point in history, I wonder:Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr.
or
Diane Savino?
Which of these two is moving the human race forward in its quest to become more fully human? Which of the two deserves to be remembered, celebrated in history books, held up to our children as an example of a decent, kind, morally trustworthy individual?
And which of the two has the support of the Catholic bishops, who tell us that they are all about bearing witness to Christian values?
It’s clear to me where I stand, with which of these people I intend to cast my lot—precisely because I care intently about finding reliable moral guides to follow as I make my way through life. It’s also clear to me with whom the Vatican and bishops have cast their lot—just as it is clear to me that, in making the decisions they have made in this significant moral debate, they are debasing the coinage of Catholic moral discourse even more than they have already done by their behavior in the abuse crisis.
Even as they claim, astonishingly, to have the moral high road in their cynical diversionary attack on their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
P.S. I want to acknowledge the outstanding statement that Fran Rossi Szpylczyn made yesterday about Diane Savino's senate speech on her There Will Be Bread blog. I hope I'm not misrepresenting Fran by saying that I hear her making a very similar point in her statement about Savino, a point she makes very powerfully.
Bearing Witness: The Catholic Bishops and Their Stepped-Up Political Activism
What happened in the New York Senate this week drives to the heart of the primary reason that I feel stuck with this blog. (One reason I feel stuck is that I continue to try to recover from bronchitis, and feel weak and a bit despondent as a result—and I am aware that these feelings color what I write here, and that I need to be careful not to write what tears down the hope of others as they struggle to build a more humane world.)I have committed my life, it seems to me, to the belief that moral witness ought to count for something in the political and cultural arenas. I believe, fundamentally, in a politics of giving witness. I believe that when people pour out their hearts in witness to moral values, as a number of senators in New York did this week when the New York Senate considered same-sex marriage, something ought to happen. We ought not to receive such witness in dead silence.
When we do greet such moral witness with silence, what we are really indicating about ourselves is that we have become so dehumanized, so debased, that not even the testimony of those who have walked through fire and shadow to be faithful to important moral values counts for us.
It is one thing to disagree with the conclusions some people reach, as they try to be faithful to their core moral convictions. It is another thing altogether to receive the testimony of those speaking from profound moral conviction in total silence. The latter response is cynical in the extreme. It suggests that nothing else counts, in the final analysis, except power and political calculation.
I do not know how to function in such a world, frankly—in a world in which nothing counts except power (and power plays) and political calculation (and being on the winning side). I do not know how to speak, to write, to live, to bear witness to my inmost convictions, in a world in which nothing counts except power and political calculation.
This is, ultimately, why I am resolute in my determination to place myself at a critical distance from the Catholic church and those who now hold sway in my church and who are charting its course for the future. It is not primarily that I disagree with some of the teachings of the magisterium at present, or that I dissent from the political decisions guiding the church now.
It is that I refuse to let myself be enmeshed in a system so morally corrupt that to lend support to it in any way at all is to extend that corruption, deepen it, and make credible its corrosive effects on the totality of what the church teaches and stands for. I feel compelled to stand against the moral corruption now pervading the entire life of the Catholic church—and its teaching—precisely because I value the church and its teaching.
To accept, to live with, to regard as thinkable what the leaders of the Catholic church have done and continue to do with the situation of clerical abuse of minors is to say, in some profound way, that nothing the church teaches really matters very much. Not when all is said and done.
To keep talking about love, forgiveness, redemption, God’s impassioned embrace of every person in the world, living in communion—to keep talking about any of these fundamental themes of Catholic belief in the face of the abuse crisis, without interruption and as if the anguished witness of thousands of victims of childhood clerical sexual abuse does not count—is to debase anything and everything we might say about those fundamental themes. It is impossible for the church to continue talking now about those themes, as if the crisis of clerical sexual abuse has not totally undermined the claims the church wishes to make about these beliefs.
It is impossible to go on talking now without interruption. It is impossible to do so unless we really intend to say that the anguished witness of our brothers and sisters who have experienced abuse does not matter to us. Unless we really intend to say that the lives of those brothers and sisters, their humanity, does not matter . . . .
Unless we really intend to say that God does not matter, since it is God who created these brothers and sisters to pursue hope, love, and happiness in communion with God through their experience of the world.
That we continue to carry on, to talk about love, forgiveness, redemption, God’s impassioned embrace of every person in the world, living in communion, as if none of this has happened—as if our brothers and sisters have not had their lives shattered, have not given testimony about what has been done to them—says a great deal about who we have become, as a people. That we can continue to put up with and even defend the leaders of our church, who are responsible for the suffering of our brothers and sisters, and who have immeasurably increased that suffering by their callow refusal to admit their responsibility for the suffering, says much about what it means to be a Catholic in the world today.
And in the United States, where the Catholic bishops have chosen to go on the attack against their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters at the precise moment in which their credibility as moral agents and moral teachers is at its nadir, the bishops cynically count on our willingness to continue to collude with them. To go along with them. To participate in the pretense that, because might is on their side, they have right on their side as well.
The bishops cynically calculate that most of us will remain willingly ill-informed about what they have done to those who have been sexually abused by priests. They count on our having short attention spans, on our ability to be distracted, on our lack of political will to change a system capable of such evil. They count on our worst instincts, our basest behavior in the face of moral challenges.
They count on us to be silent as they work day and night to create a cultural situation in which the moral witness of their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters counts for nothing in political and cultural debates. As they themselves have been silent in the face of the anguished witness of their brothers and sisters who endured sexual abuse by priests when they were children.
The bishops’ wheeling and dealing re: the Stupak amendment is of a piece with their diversionary tactic of scapegoating gays and lesbians now, and of a piece with their cover-up of the crisis of sexual abuse in the church. What they cannot achieve by permitting open public discussion of controversial moral issues like abortion, they hope to achieve through cynical deal-making and behind-the-scenes arm-twisting.
What they cannot achieve by their own moral authority as teachers they intend to achieve by corrupt political means—by coercion, by a coercion that forces their particular religious values and ideological perspectives on the American public at large, as if the wall separating church and state simply does not exist. And they know that as they engage in such tactics, we will permit them to continue to identify themselves as moral teachers and moral exemplars, because they have money and political power on their side. They have the ability to buy media coverage that distorts what they have done in the abuse crisis.
The bishops want the kind of silence that occurred when powerful witnesses spoke with incontrovertible truth about the immorality of homophobic injustice in the New York Senate this week. They have worked very hard to create the situation in which we now find ourselves, in which cogent, well-reasoned, and impassioned moral testimony counts for nothing at all in public debates about the morality of homosexuality. In which money, might, and political clout count more than moral reason or moral engagement, for those with the ultimate power to determine right and wrong.
The corruption that the bishops (and the Vatican) have fostered in the church itself in the abuse crisis is now being extended to the culture at large and the political process, through the stepped-up, coercive, and utterly cynical campaigns the bishops are mounting around select “moral” issues in the United States right now. Rather than build a more humane society, the leaders of the Catholic church are working very hard at present to create a more draconian one, one with a particularly savage face for women and LGBT persons.
I do not understand how anyone of conscience remains silent in the face of what the bishops are doing today. I do not understand at all Catholics who continue to defend behavior that, as it claims to be defending Catholic teaching and values, actually eviscerates everything the church claims most to cherish. The continued collaboration of centrist Catholics with a regime whose corruption is undeniable baffles me.
I do not understand stony silence in the face of compelling moral witness. I cannot accept the pretense of those who receive such moral witness in silence to be admirable representatives of authentic religious values.
I do not understand how anyone can believe that religious leaders who have systematically ignored and covered up widespread sexual abuse of children are credible witnesses to the value of life. Child abusers and those who protect and promote child abusers do not value human life.
If I fall silent on this blog at times like this, it is because I truly don't know what to say anymore, in the face of what seems to be massive, systemic evil, fostered by an institution that claims to be about love, healing, and redemption. Or about the silence of the complicit center in the face of this massive and systemic evil.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Continuing the Pilgrimage: Bilgrimage in the Weeks Ahead
Dear Friends and Fellow Travelers,I’m writing to let you know that Bilgrimage will be undergoing a slight (and temporary) change in coming days. In the several other lives I lead outside blogland, I have a number of responsibilities coming up, which will be taking me away from the blog for a short period of time.
Bilgrimage will continue during that hiatus, though. One of the reasons I asked for your assistance a week ago was that I knew the hiatus in my ability to blog routinely was coming up, and I wanted to know whether the blog is reaching a particular audience who benefit from what I do on it most days.
I appreciated the response to the questionnaire, which was encouraging. Several readers kindly sent very positive feedback by email. It is encouraging to hear that people struggling to value their God-given sexual orientation in faith communities that often inflict harm find strength in the story told on this blog, and that people looking for resources for a spirituality of engagement that resists some dominant trends in the churches find empowerment here.
I’ve decided, as a result, to keep the blog running even when I will not have time to focus on it daily, by posting pre-written material on it. I’ll follow this path for the several weeks that I am away from my desk.
I’ve spent some days now transcribing material from things I’ve written in the past, which haven’t appeared on this blog (or anywhere else, for that matter). What I’ve selected focuses, for the most part, on a key period of my journey, in which I dealt with questions about coming out as a gay man while teaching theology in church-related schools.
As these journal selections will demonstrate, that process was a laborious and difficult one. When I went into the field of theology (or, more precisely, as I saw it, when I was called by God into that vocation), I knew, of course, that there would be a price to pay, in terms of my identity as a gay man. I knew that what I saw as my personal life and not the business of anyone else in a professional setting, unless I chose to disclose that life to someone else, could easily be made problematic by anyone with authority in my church and its institutions who wanted to marginalize me for any reason whatsoever.
I chose to trust in that distinction between the private and the public, and in the ethical integrity of those in leadership in Catholic institutions to respect that distinction. As the material I'll be posting shows, that choice turned out to be an impossible choice, since many of the institution's leaders do make a point of focusing on these "private" matters today, and anyone living in the closet and working in Catholic institutions is susceptible to attack for that reason.
It's far better to be open, honest, and let the chips fall where they may--as I was coming to recognize in the period of these journal entries.
But the path I chose at the start of my career as a theologian (private life, public professional persona) was the only one I saw open to anyone who is gay and working in Catholic institutions at the time. Perhaps things have changed since the late 1980s and early 1990s, which is the period captured in these journal reflections. I’m not sure they have, frankly, in most places.
I believe that gay and lesbian persons working in Catholic institutions still encounter the kind of quandaries that the upcoming series of postings will discuss, as I dealt with them almost two decades ago. And for that reason, I hope the postings will be helpful to anyone else walking the same path today.
I also help they will help LGBT people in general, who are trying to cope with questions about how to claim our God-given identities and to celebrate those identities within faith communities that assault us and deny our full humanity. I know there are many such folks out there, and that they include vulnerable younger people. I know this because some of them have emailed me to thank me for providing a voice for their experience as people of faith, trying to come out as gay, while maintaining positive ties to faith communities. Because they value their spiritual lives and the life of faith . . . .
Finally, I hope the postings that will be appearing on the blog in the coming days may help anyone who is seeking to understand, these days, what it means to be gay in the U.S. at the turn of the 21st century. Churches seldom make a place for our testimony, unfortunately. Faith communities talk about us and to us (down to us), but not with us.
The dialogue, such as it exists, is always unequal. Our voices—our real voices—are always excluded. At best, churches normally permit some sympathetic straight ally within a church community to speak on our behalf.
In the process, churches lose precious gifts that are right at their doorsteps, if they would only open the door and let the stranger in. And listen to her. And treat him as if his humanity counts in the same way anyone else’s humanity counts—precious humanity that comes from the same hand of God that makes every other human being in the world.
And the churches’ handling of issues of inclusion has become, unfortunately, paradigmatic for society’s handling of these issues, in this nation with the soul of a church. Certainly there are strong currents within society at large (and also within many communities of faith) that are pushing and pushing hard for full inclusion of LGBT people in American society, and full recognition of the humanity (and human rights) of LGBT people.
But as we’re seeing with the current administration’s timidity (and the timidity of a Democrat-dominated Congress) to deal with gay issues, to see gay faces, to hear gay voices, to include gay contributions, the response of communities of faith to our presence continues to dominate the political life of the nation, in a way that harms LGBT people.
It is always easier to regard someone else as less human than you are when you refuse to see his face. It is always easier to safeguard your belief that you are a morally admirable human being when you talk about and talk down to someone else, while refusing to hear his real voice. Or to sit at the table with her and break bread with her.
This is among the reasons that I personally argue, and will continue to argue, that anyone interested in gay rights—including those of us who are gay—cannot ignore communities of faith and what they do to us. Faith-based groups frame the response of our political leaders, and thus the response of the culture at large, to LGBT persons at a very fundamental level. And, unfortunately, at a fundamentally negative level . . . .
The churches will one day have to repent of what they continue to do to gay people today, just as painfully as they are now trying to repent of their role in slavery, the Holocaust, millennia of oppression of women, anti-Semitic violence, the Crusades, the upholding of segregation, and the burning of witches.
Meanwhile, I offer this series of postings (which touch on other moral issues of concern to me in the same period, as well, because my approach to gay rights insists on the need for solidarity with all unjustly marginalized Others) with hope. I hope the postings will help someone. And I hope they will be of interest.
As always, I welcome feedback in the comments section, even though I may not always have time for several weeks to reply or acknowledge your contributions. I value your responses and I take them seriously.
The graphic is a picture of a portion of the pilgrimage path for Santiago de Compostela in Conques, southwestern France.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
LGBT Visibility: Giving Witness

Today's AfterElton blogsite contains a posting by Christie Keith entitled "Inching Out of the Closet": see www.afterelton.com/people/2008/2/inchingout. Christie Keith makes an important point about visibility: she notes that studies indicate a strong correlation between the public's knowledge of a gay person--a real-life, flesh-and-blood human being--and increasing acceptance of gay people and support of our rights. As Keith says,
And that doesn't mean visibility to each other, but mainstream visibility. There is nothing more strongly correlated with increased support of gay rights among straight people, from marriage to adoption to opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, than one simple thing: knowing someone who is gay.
Since this is a point I have made in a recent blog exchange at the National Catholic Reporter website, I'd like to lift part of a posting I made several days ago at that site to this blogsite. The person with whom I've been having a dialogue at NCR is a staunch Catholic. He argues that the best churches can offer LGBT people is tolerance, not acceptance.
He points to the "excesses" of the gay community, as exhibited in festivals like the Folsom St. Festival, as justification for the churches' judgment that openly gay folks are public sinners, and as justification for the disdain of mainstream America for LGBT people. Here's part of my reply to this blogger at http://ncrcafe.org/node/1337#comment-20878:
What I think I'd like to draw attention to as a way of moving the conversation beyond that kind of futile rebuttal is this: if we begin our examination of the place of gay folks in the church today with the preconceived notion that homosexuality is all about sex, is a notorious sin, and is a social problem whose public face is represented in carnivals, then we're going to see no problem at all in the church's bizarre (and, I argue, disordered) preoccupation with this notorious sin that is threatening social stability.
But there are a lot of other places we might begin the discussion. Rather than looking at clips of the Folsom St. parade, for instance, we might talk to some gay-lesbian family members or parishioners who have never been to a carnival parade in their lives. If we did that, we might find that the "public face" of homosexuality (to use your phrase) is no more salacious or wild than the public face of heterosexuality.
The majority of LGBT people in our society are leading the same rather mundane and boring lives as the majority of straight people. Most of us work, come home, watch t.v., have dinner, go to bed, and start the round the next day. We are no more concentrated in gay bars than straight people are concentrated in heterosexual watering holes. Many of us spend most of our time caring for family members. Indeed, most of us are actually married but living in the closet.
Which is to say, it's not all about sex. It's about love. It's about the everyday, about people right in my midst and yours who don't deserve to have "public faces" put on their lives--who don't deserve to be reduced to "lifestyle" tags, since we have lives. Get to know us--to know us as real human beings--and many of your preconceptions about our "lifestyles" may fall like scales from your eyes.
You say, "A gay couple is not comparable to a married couple, but to an unmarried one. Cohabitation between two homosexual men or women would be the same near occasion for sexual sin and the sin of scandal as between a heterosexual couple."
Why is this so, I wonder? If the church does not usually inquire into the living arrangements of unmarried straight people as a precondition to their receiving communion, and if it does not assume that two unmarried straight people of the opposite sex living together are necessarily having sex, why should it do so in the case of two gay people?
I would submit to you that right there is the heart of the problem: assumptions--and invidious ones--are being made about the lives and behavior of gay people that simply aren't made about the lives and behavior of straight people. What the church has wisely left to the private forum of the confessional in the case of single straight people, it does not do so today in its public utterances about and treatment of gay people.
This is unjust. And where there is injustice, people surely do have the right not merely to ask for but to demand acceptance.
To behave otherwise when one's basic human rights are violated and when one's very humanity is trampled on would be to collude with those who try to convince one that one's humanity is flawed or less worthy of respect than that of others. If one colludes with such forces, one undermines a very fundamental church teaching: namely, that all of us come from the hand of God as good, as worthy of respect, as having the same human dignity as anyone else, regardless of our skin color, our nationality, our income bracket, our gender, our educational level.
Increasing our visibility is all-important, if the churches and mainstream
Certainly I would prefer to live quietly, without fanfare and self-disclosure. Life has not afforded me that opportunity, however, and I now choose to see the repeated disruption of Steve’s and my life together by gross prejudice of church folks as an opportunity to give witness.
I, we, are called to give witness. We witness to the grace in our lives, the unmerited and unexpected gifts that make our journey possible. We witness to the power of our shared love and of the love we see shared in a multitude of LGBT lives. We give witness to the mere, plain, simple, precious humanity of gay people everywhere.
We must do so, for the sake of LGBT youth. They do not deserve to be bullied, taunted, and scorned. The churches will one day be held accountable at the judgment seat of history for their collusion with the social forces that make such heinous crimes possible, and for their silence in the face of violence against LGBT youth.
It is time that those of us who are LGBT and who continue to maintain some hope, however tenuous, that the churches will live up to their calling to walk in the footsteps of a Lord whose love embraced everyone he met, speak out and call the churches to accountability. It is time for us to break silence. It is time for us to demand that the churches do so as well.









