14 – 17 June 2012

This special week of recreation and retreat in wonderful Dorset offers the opportunity to discover where we are as gay and bisexual men on our journey as spiritual beings in this world. We will connect with and re-discover our potential as people who are loved and capable of loving others with a special contribution to make to society. We will also focus on the integration of your sexual identity and your spiritual self. During the retreat we explore together this essential question: What does it mean for gay and bisexual men to live a sacred life?

Group discussions, lectures, guided visualisations, meditations, liturgies and worship services will help our understanding of ourselves, the others, the world and God. Ray and Urs will be working from a gay affirming and open Christian perspective that acknowledges the existence of the divine in each of us, no matter our spiritual beliefs

The retreat will be at the The Othona Community, Coast Road, Burton Bradstock, Bridport, Dorset DT6 4RN UK Tel. 01308 897130
Email: mail@othona-bb.org.uk
www.othona-bb-org.uk
Cost for retreat and full board: £ 260 (Conc. £ 215)

RETREAT LEADERS

Urs Mattmann, qualified Social worker and a Psychosynthesis therapist with further training in theology and a background in meditation. Living with his partner in London, both are members of a Christian community. Since 1997 leading retreats for gay men and lesbians. Wild Goose Publications has published his book Coming In – Gays and Lesbians reclaiming the spiritual journey. (www.ionaboks.com – www.urs.mattmann.com )

Rev. Ray Andrews, for years member of a monastic Benedictine community , now Anglican priest in a Central London Parish. He also is a qualified Social worker with much experience in Mental Health and Addiction. He has a ministry in Spiritual Direction and conducts retreats. Appeared in BBC documentary “Father Ray Comes Out”.

PDF flyer

The coalition government at Westminsterannounced in 2011 that it is to launch a consultation in the spring of 2012 on proposals to change the law in Englandand Walesto allow gay marriage by 2015. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government began its own process of consultation in 2011 calling upon interested bodies and organisations to submit their comments, etc by 9^th December 2011. Reaction from the Catholic bishops on both sides of the border was immediate and critical of the proposals.

Catholic doctrine of marriage

The most common argument against the proposals is that same-sex marriage redefines the meaning of marriage, i.e. a social institution under which a man and a woman freely consent to live as husband and wife by making a public, legal commitment. The Catholic Church expands this bald definition, teaching that marriage is divinely ordained and is a permanent, exclusive and indissoluble bond between a man and a woman who complement one another, and that procreation is the specific and intrinsic perfection of marriage. Marriage is regarded as sacramental when both parties are baptised Christians. Underpinning the sacramental theology of marriage is the image of the Church as the Bride of Christ drawn from the writings of St Paul (Ephesians 5); an image originating with the prophets to describe God’s relationship with his unfaithful people.

The marriage of baptised Catholics in a civil ceremony is considered invalid or non-sacramental by the Church because it lacks canonical form, i.e. it was undertaken without the permission of the Catholic authorities and not according to an authorised Catholic rite.  Marriages to be officiated by a non-Catholic minister require a dispensation from canonical form. It follows that baptised gay Christians who undertake a civil marriage are not confecting a sacramental or valid marriage, not only because they are have failed to obtain the necessary dispensation but because the ‘accidents’ or ‘symbols’ are wrong, i.e. they are not of the opposite sex.

Complementarity and sociological/psychological developments

Quest respects the centuries-old teaching of the Church and recognises the distress that many Catholics experience as our secular society increasingly challenges traditional Christian values and moral principles. At its most basic, the stress placed on complementarity as the exclusive domain of heterosexuals by those opposed to same-sex marriages relies almost exclusively on biological arguments based on anatomy to defend the complementarist position. However, significant advances in social sciences, psychology and of the natural world in recent decades have led us to see same-sex attraction as a perfectly natural, minority variant in the world of human sexual preference. Lesbians and gay men in relationships are often heard to articulate that their partner complements them, that they feel more whole and fulfilled when they are with that person. Critically, if one asks this of a religious lesbian or gay couple, they are likely to adopt language which has its roots in spiritual terms. Such people “give thanks to God” for the gift of their partner, they feel called to bear witness to God and the divine life in the context of their relationship.

In everyday language gay men and women, their families, friends and colleagues often refer to the registration of civil partnerships as ‘weddings’. Since December 2005 when the first registrations took place many of the rituals associated with heterosexual weddings have been adopted. Traditional arguments in favour of same-sex marriages have frequently been rooted in secular terms that take as their inspiration the equality of all before the law. If all human beings have entitlements to be treated with respect and dignity, it is argued, there can be no justification for discrimination against groups of people solely on grounds of their sexual orientation. Marriage, in civil terms, carries with it a number of taxation and benefits rights which, if exclusively the domain of heterosexuals, amounts to unfair treatment of thousands of lesbian women and gay men.

If, as we believe, all love and fidelity between human beings has its ultimate grounding in God, then Quest sees no inherent reason why the dedication of two human beings, committed in a public act of self-giving and devotion, should not take place in an explicitly religious setting. Indeed, for people of faith, not to include that element in an act of public devotion would be to exclude an essential dimension, the dimension of faith. These considerations are primary for a lesbian and gay Catholic group like Quest since they have very serious implications for questions not only on marriage in the civil context afforded and supported by the State, but also on the extra dimension of whether places of worship should become the settings for marriage ceremonies.

Same-sex marriages in places of worship

It will be the good fortune of those gay sisters and brothers whose faith groups welcome them as a greater or smaller part of their communities that same-sex marriage ceremonies on religious premises may become the norm where permitted by the principles and practices of those faith groups. Quest nevertheless recognises that the history of Christianity is the history of different traditions, beliefs and practices and that the Catholic Church in the light of its current teaching on homosexuality will prohibit such ceremonies.

In his visit to theUnited Kingdomin September 2010, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI drew attention to “worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square.” Coercion by the state in requiring faith-based groups to solemnise same-sex marriages in places of worship and the use of other premises would be clear contrary to democratic values and respect for religious freedom.

Quest believes that the proposed introduction of same-sex marriage in parts of theUnited Kingdomis an opportunity for a more radical change in the marriage laws and we therefore call for a separation of civil registration of marriages from faith-based ceremonies. We advocate a system similar to that found inFrance, where only civil marriage is recognised. Religious ceremonies are optional and have no legal status; they may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day). In this way, faith-based groups will be under no obligation to marry same-sex couples and may continue to abide by their own traditions.

At present a heterosexual marriage is civilly registered in the context of a religious ceremony. If this practice was to continue following a change in the law allowing same-sex marriages to take place in religious buildings, a divergent situation would arise between those faith groups that allow such ceremonies to take place in its buildings and those which do not. In essence, the state would legitimise discrimination by faith groups opposed to same-sex marriage whilst those same groups are fulfilling state functions in respect of heterosexual marriages.

At the very least, it would be better for those faith groups that will not solemnise same-sex marriages or allow their premises to be used for such ceremonies on an equal basis with opposite-sex marriages, to forfeit the right to civilly register opposite-sex marriages in the context of a religious rite, i.e. a complete separation of the civil registration in space and time from the faith-based celebration of a marriage.

Conclusion

Quest supports the proposed legislation to redefine marriage to allow homosexuals to marry in civil ceremonies inScotlandandEnglandandWales. Quest wishes those faith groups well who consent to civil partnerships being registered on their premises.

Catholic lesbians and gay men who choose to make a public and formal commitment in a civil marriage ceremony do so in full knowledge that they live in contradiction to the Church‘s teaching and thus risk official censure. The best that might be hoped for in a pastoral sense is that the law of gradualism would apply. As defined in Father Kevin T. Kelly’s influential work, Divorce and Second Marriage (Collins, 1^st edition 1982): “The law of gradualism refers to the kind of dilemma situation in which two different points of focus have to be kept in view even though for the present they cannot be fully aligned with each other”. In effect, as Fr Kelly goes on to explain, the first focus is “the universal value or law which is concerned with the good of human persons in general and which challenges the individual regardless of his particular situation. The second focus . . . involves the individual’s capacity at this stage in the history of his personal development and also any features in his particular situation which may have special human significance.” The aim is for an eventual growth towards alignment of the universal with the particular. Of its nature this process of alignment can take time, even many lifetimes.

Encouragement and support for a couple entering into an exclusive physical and emotional relationship serves to strengthen that relationship. In turn they, by their loving union, are living witnesses to divine love, drawing us all more deeply into God’s wondrous design of love; bringing love and harmony, peace and friendship to our world.

Acknowledgements

1. Germain Grisez, Living a Christian Life (The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2). Franciscan Press, 1993.
2. Kevin T. Kelly, Divorce and Second Marriage – Facing the Challenge. Collins Liturgical Publications, 1982.
3. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Geoffrey Chapman, 1994.
4. Quest, Response to the Consultation on Civil Partnerships on Religious Premises,  23 June 2011.
5. The Canon Law Letter and Spirit, Geoffrey Chapman, 1995

You can also submit this questionnaire online.

As a thank you for your participation in this survey, you will be able to enter a draw to win one of three copies of James Alison’s latest book and a free Quest T-shirt will be offered to a further ten others drawn at random. You can enter the draw by supplying your name and email address on the tear-off slip below. This will be detached by the secretary on receipt so your answers will NOT be linked to your name or email. If you submit the questionnaire online, please advise by email to secretary@questgaycatholic.org.uk – your answers and email will NOT be linked.

Thank you in advance for your time and feedback.

The Quest Committee

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/T75LQNF

‘Love Free or Die’

Bishop Gene Robinson is a thorn in the side of the Church. Banned from attending the Lambeth Conference in 2008, the first openly gay and partnered bishop in Christendom, he has been a standard bearer for LGBT Christians. This film explores his problematic relationship to the Church with an account of his life as a husband, a father, a priest, and a lover. Some within the Episcopalian Church see his creation as a Bishop in 2003 as an abomination. Selected for this year’s Sundance Film Festival, the film follows Gene Robinson’s courageous ministry in the face of many obstacles and documents his struggle. This is a close-up portrait of a man who has taken on the Church hierarchy and is relentless in his need to stand up and be counted. By turns both disheartening and inspiring, this is a developing story of the Church’s relationship to its LGBT members.
Brian Robinson

Saturday, 24 March 2012, 1.50pm

Students/Concession   £6.75
16-18 year olds              £4
Adults                             £10

For tickets, visit bfi.org.uk/llgff or call BFI Southbank Box Office on 020 7928 3232.

John Ashman

Robinson, J. Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus. The Columba Press. ISBN 9781856076605.

Six years ago on the recommendation of a friend I read Rabbi Jesus, an Intimate Biography by Bruce Chilton, an American Episcopalian (i.e. Anglican) priest and professor. Drawing on recent archaeological discoveries, new translations and interpretations of ancient texts, Chilton makes some astonishing claims about the life, influences, and teachings of Jesus. Had those claims been made in earlier centuries Chilton would almost certainly have been condemned as a heretic and thus suffered the consequences, possibly even leading to his execution. It was one of the books that I could not put down as it rewards the reader with a refreshing, revolutionary and, indeed, shocking portrait of Jesus’ ideas and beliefs that certainly challenge – many would say, undermine – the Church’s understanding of the identity of the central figure of the Christian faith.

Fortunately I suffered no ill effects, no lightning strikes, or loss of faith as a result of reading Rabbi Jesus, but I was left wondering whether the Jesus we seek to serve and follow has been masked, even distorted, by the present structures, historic teachings and doctrines that have accumulated over two millennia. We are entitled to ask, as the disciples once did, ‘If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly’. The present Pope has contributed volumes to increase our understanding of Jesus, including his remarkable two volume work, Jesus of Nazareth, but he has done so from within the rarefied atmospheres of, first, academia and, latterly, the Vatican. Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, who was auxiliary Bishop in the archdiocese of Sydney from 1984 to 2004, is exceptional in that he dares to say that one of the ugliest events to emerge from the Catholic Church, namely the sexual abuse of minors and the concealment of that abuse by church authorities, stands in complete contradiction of everything that Jesus lived and taught. In Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church he speaks not only as a bishop who, in 1994, was elected by his fellow Australian bishops to head the National Committee for Professional Standards, coordinating the response of the Church in Australia to revelations of sexual abuse, but, he confesses he was himself the victim of sexual abuse when he was a child, albeit the abuser was not a priest or religious.

The assertion of this book, first published in 2007, is that the source of the abuse scandal is rooted in the power structures of the Church. He calls for nothing less than a thorough restructuring, a ritual cleansing, of the Catholic Church, including a constitutional papacy, arguing that: “Papal power has gone too far and there are quite inadequate limits on its exercise.”

Bishop Robinson lays the blame for the crisis firmly at the feet of Pope (now Blessed) John Paul II: “I am convinced that if the Pope had spoken clearly at the beginning of the revelations, inviting victims to come forward so that the whole truth, however terrible, might be known and confronted, and firmly directing that all members of the Church should respond with openness, humility, honesty and compassion, consistently putting victims before the good name of the Church, the entire response of the Church would have been far better. With power go responsibilities. The Pope has many times claimed the power, and must accept the corresponding responsibilities.”

In order to reclaim the spirit of Jesus in the Church, the bishop advocates far-reaching changes. In the firing line are the present teachings on divorce and remarriage (about which “many bishops are uneasy”), sexuality (including homosexuality), papal infallibility, collegiality, mandatory priestly celibacy, the ordination of women; he even suggests that some phrases in the Nicene Creed might need tweaking. The list is comprehensive, even down to questioning the need for bishops to wear mitres (to be “consigned to the dustbin of history”).

Bishop Robinson has paid a price for his outspokenness and, naturally, he is a prime target for the venom of certain “faithful catholic” bloggers. One such says of him: “Bishop Robinson is a lover of this world with a haughty contempt for the Church of Christ”. This is certainly not my understanding based upon my reading of his book. Other dissenters have paid a higher price. A fellow Australian bishop, Bishop William Morris, was removed from his diocese in 2011 for publishing a pastoral letter in which, among other things, he set down certain options to meet the declining number of priests in his diocese, such as the ordination of married men and of women. Discussion of the latter is apparently now taboo. In 1994, John Paul II published a document in which he declared that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”. The present Pope in an elucidation, when he was at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that this definitive teaching had been decided ‘infallibly’.

Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, a Franciscan Capuchin priest and Preacher to the Papal Household, once said that the primary aim of all evangelisation and catechesis was not teaching people a certain number of eternal truths or of passing on Christian values to a rising generation, but to “bring people to a personal encounter with Jesus Christ the only Saviour by making them his ‘disciples’” (quoted by James Alison in Knowing Jesus, SPCK, 1993). Reading Bishop Robinson’s book, and his thoughtful meditations at the end of each chapter, it is clear that the author believes that Jesus Christ and his teachings are of inestimable value to humanity. In a profound and provocative way he desires that we should all grow – Pope, bishops and the whole church – in holiness, compassion, and humility. In his own words in the final Meditation: “The most fundamental change of heart and mind required of us is that of a constant return to the Great Tradition, the person and story of Jesus Christ, and the song that he sang”.

This text has originally been published in the Quest Bulletin no. 62 (Winter 2012)

John Ashman

Of Gods and Men (2010, in Arabic and French with English subtitles)

On the night of 26-27 March 1996, seven Trappist monks from the monastery at Tibhirine in Algeria were kidnapped by Islamist militants during the Algerian Civil War. Two months later, on 23 May, their kidnappers reported in a communiqué that the monks had been killed on 21 May. On 31 May the Algerian government announced that the monks’ heads had been discovered but their bodies were never found. Ever since, controversy has raged about the kidnappings and killings. The Armed Islamic Group (GIA) claimed responsibility for both, but the then French Military Attaché reported that the monks had been accidentally killed by an Algerian army helicopter during an attack on a guerrilla position, then beheaded after their death to make it appear as though the GIA had killed them. It has also been claimed by conspiracy theorists that the GIA cell responsible had been infiltrated by the Algerian secret service.

Whatever the truth behind this appalling tragedy, what lies at the heart of this film is the rhythm and witness of this contemplative community in an Islamic country, 34 years after independence from France, in the increasingly tense final months before the murders. The names of the monks are real and, while the screenplay draws on documents, including the journal of the prior, Christian de Chergé, the characterisations of necessity are fictional.

Having spent a few weeks ten years ago living with a community of Trappist monks, I can say that the film captures with astonishing accuracy the austerity of their way of life. At times I felt that I was watching a documentary. Overall there was a serenity permeating this film arising from the community’s prayer life and its closeness to the villagers among whom they live and for whom they provide an outpatients’ clinic. And yet, paradoxically, this serenity is mixed with an underlying tension; we, the audience, know how this is going to end.

When the local chief of police offers the community protection, following the murder of Croatian construction workers nearby, there is dissent among the community about the Prior’s decision to refuse it without first consulting the other members. The community is divided over whether to leave or continue to serve the villagers. One monk in particular has his faith in God severely tested as he contemplates the fate that could be befall him by remaining in the village. By the end of the film, however, the discord has dissipated and all agree by a show of hands to stay. This was for me the most contrived part of the film, although others have been critical of the “Last Supper” scene which is its climax. The community gathered in the refectory is served with red wine by Bro Luc, the physician among them, while overture from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake plays on a cassette player in a corner of the room. At first this scene struck me as out of place until it gradually dawned on me that we could read into the expression on the monks’ faces their different emotions, encompassing resignation, fear, joy, anticipation regarding what the future might bring.

There is a suggestion in a couple of scenes that perhaps the Algerian government was complicit in the killings. Bro Christian is asked by the military to identify the body of a dead terrorist the local garrison, the leader of a group that had visited the monastery on Christmas Eve, seeking medical attention for injured comrades. The officer in charge is angered first of all by Christian’s implied criticism of the treatment of the man’s body and then by the silent prayer the Prior offers for the dead man. Later, as the monks are in their chapel, a military helicopter threateningly circles the monastery, almost drowning out the singing of a psalm.

An added bonus on the DVD is a short documentary featuring interviews with members of the monks’ families, a Cistercian monk who represented the Vatican at their funeral, and a priest who each month visits the now deserted monastery. This feature ends abruptly, perhaps indicating a fault on my disc, but before it did so, I was interested to discover that the Carmelite Seminary in Paris which Christian had attended has now established an exhibition in the room he formerly occupied. One wall consists of the testimonial he left with his family two years before the tragedy, to be opened in the event of his death. This testimony is reproduced on pages 10 and 11 of this issue.

This is a powerful film and one that does not give its audience a suffocatingly pious depiction of religion. The ‘F’ word even creeps in a moment of irritation between two monks on kitchen duty. I have not heard such language used when visiting monasteries, but it served its purpose in showing that even monks can sometimes speak out of anger.  Above all, this film is a testament to hope, one that invites reflection and involves us in a bit of heart-wrenching in its portrayal of the healing power of faith and community.

This text has originally been published in the Quest Bulletin no. 62 (Winter 2012)

The then Chair, Peter Rodgers, asked Guy Torrance to draft a response on behalf of Quest. The summary of our response stated that the scope of the consultation and its proposals were too narrow in that faith groups might be protected from legal challenge in choosing not to allow their buildings to be used for civil partnerships but that government might itself be open to such challenge. The Quest response made clear its concern that Government may be seen to be legitimising discrimination by faith groups whilst those groups are fulfilling state functions (whether as to premises or persons). Currently the Catholic Church fulfils a state function when it registers marriages in its churches.

Quest’s submission acknowledges that faith groups who welcome LGBT worshippers as the greater or smaller part of their membership will be allowed to go a stage further towards equality in registering civil partnerships in their buildings. Quest wishes those faith groups well and looks forward to faith groups having and sharing their own Civil Partnership Registrars.

The response calls for a complete reform and coherence in legislative provision for all religious partnership formation on an equal basis leading to buildings simply being deemed suitable for Partnership Formation, irrespective of the gender of the parties, whether marriage or Civil Partnership. It suggests that where faith groups, such as the Catholic Church, do not wish to conduct partnership formations (either weddings or civil partnerships) on an equal basis, they should no longer exercise civil (i.e. state) functions. This would mean a complete separation of the civil element in space and time from the faith based celebration of the event, akin to the system in France.

In November the Government Equalities Office published a summary of the responses it had received including draft regulations to implement the proposals consulted on. These do not include the stipulation that those faith groups who do not wish to register civil partnerships should no longer be allowed to register marriages in the context of religious ceremonies. The Government is confident that there is protection for faith groups from the risk of successful legal challenge, but the risk remains that the Government itself could be open to legal challenge on the grounds of legitimising inequality.

Subject to the will of Parliament, it is expected that the regulations necessary to implement section 202 of the Equality Act 2010 will provide the framework to allow for civil partnerships to be registered on religious premises from early 2012.