St. Charles Lwanga and African homosexuality

Maybe the quality called prudence is called for here.
If the good SF bishop were to actually be threatened with martyrdom for his pains of denying communion, maybe there'd be a case for it.
In this case, the likely result would be an anti-Catholic spot on the evening news with the drag nuns grabbing the limelight (and any file footage they could dig up of the bishop scowling and looking authoritarian). We live in a different age and different tactics may be required. Maybe some things are passed over in silence, and since those drag nuns were no doubt trying to Make a Point and Get Noticed, maybe he paid them in the best coin. Not having been there or in the bishop's shoes, it is not my place to judge his actions. It would be wrong, though, to automatically assume the worst without hearing his side, no?

FYI, the Ugandan Martyrs weren't all Catholic like St. Charles Lwanga. Nearly half of St. Charles' companions in martyrdom were Anglicans. Not surprising, then, that their spiritual descendants are troubled by a "gay" bishop.

Thanks for the clarification, Simon. Jim et alia, it's not necessary to believe that homosexuality and pederasty are the same thing -- they're not -- to understand the deep significance homosexuality and Christianity has for Africans.

Homosexuality and pederasty certainly aren't the same thing. But the notion of consensual same-sex relationships between adults is almost exclusively a modern, western thing. Pederasty has been far more common in the human experience.

Gay advocates occasionally cite the example of various pre-modern or non-western societies tolerating or affirming "homosexuality." Invariably, however, the practice tolerated by such societies (usually twinned with extensive slavery) was the right of a free, adult male to commit pederasty.

P.S. Did not mean you use this attack over and over ... meant society in general.

Homosexuality and pederasty certainly aren't the same thing. But the notion of consensual same-sex relationships between adults is almost exclusively a modern, western thing. Pederasty has been far more common in the human experience.

Given that consensual same-sex relationships between adults have almost always operated in secrecy, by necessity, your evidence for this statement would be what again?

Let me get this argument straight:

* Idi Amin and the King of Uganda were sexual deviants.
* The guys in nun drag are sexual deviants.
* The Ugandan martyrs and the head of the Ugandan Anglican Church were martyred for opposing them.
* Archbishop Niederauer gave the guy in drag communion.
* Therefore, Archbishop Niederauer is unfit to inherit the legacy of Lwanga and those before him?

I seem foolish even having to say that what was worst about Idi Amin and the Ugandan king wasn't that they were gay. This is kind of like saying what was worst about the Nazis were their socialism.

I don't know what path Archbishop Niederauer is pursuing here, and I'm not sure I agree with it. But I don't see a reason he would stand up to oppose a true tyrant bent on raping people because he didn't stop the Mass to deny these guys.

That this would trigger concern from African Christians about acceptance of homosexuality is undertandable. But that doesn't make it right, either. If I was once robbed by a black man, it is undertandable that I might regard other black men with fear, but would not excuse future racism.

There are good reasons why Christians should not embrace homosexuality (the Bible, for one), but "some evil people were gay" isn't one of them.

Also, exactly what chapter and verse of "the Gospel" did Abp. Niederauer fail to defend by giving these guys communion?

Ah, Sig, the voice of reason, as always.

So we know why African Anglicans are so uncomfortable with homosexuality, the question is why are white Anglicans in Northern Virginia and Pennsylvania so uncomfortable with it that they have to get Africans to do their bidding?

And if the competition for souls with Muslims is so tough in Africa that they need to target gays to prove their muster, can we expect they will move on to oppressing women to compete with the Muslims? And will wealthy white Anglicans in the U.S. join in on the fun?

One more note, if the evil of the previous pederasts is justification for Africans (and apparenty, Americans) to be wary of acceptance of homosexuality, is the violence and hatred of past homophobes (real homophobes, not just those opposed to same sex marraige) reason enough for modern Americans to be wary of those who don't want to accept gays?

Or do only Africans get a pass on that train?

Shame on you Rod, for using a piece about pederasty, rape, child sexual exploitation, coersion and slavery (from the 18702, no less), and conflating it with homosexuality in general, and more specifically, the kind of homosexuality - consenting, loving, committed, adult same-sex relationships - that America, Anglicans and most of the THINKING world speaks of today. This is just comparing apples and oranges. You can - and SHOULD - do better.

Recovering ex-P, please calm down. First off, I agree with you, and I think most posters on this thread do too. But please don't attribute to Rod the same mentality these African Christians have equating homosexuality with rape. He's just reporting. I don't think it's there.
As for that link to Archbishop Niederauer, I have no idea what that's about at all. The inconsistencies in the RCC are part of why I'm glad I left. The mixed messages from different parts of the RCC about homosexuality are worse than the mixed messages from my alcoholic parents growing up...

Rod be careful with your conclusions about Africa. I am quite familiar with Nigeria and your story about the Bugandan king has absolutely nothing to do with homo aversion in the former. It is little wonder that many posters here have been led to believe that they now understand why African christians strongly condemn homosexuality. Other then that, the pederasty story is consistent with my knowledge of Arabic/Islamic cultures.

Oh boo hoo hoo. Did you actually read Philip Jenkins' commentary, or were you in too much of a hurry to get to the pity-party to pay attention to it? Jenkins, who is a leading expert in the Christianity of the Global South, says that we have an obligation to understand why the Africans feel the way they do about homosexuality, and not simply to impose our North American culture-war categories on them. You don't have to agree with the Africans to understand the cultural context of their beliefs. Jenkins himself notes at the end of his piece that this is difficult to discuss, because people accuse him of agreeing with the Africans when actually he's just trying to explain them.

My bringing in the cowardly Bishop Niederauer was indeed an attempt to point out that there are African men whom the Catholic Church regards as martyrs for refusing to violate Christian sexual teaching. But a pair of drag queens can present themselves for holy communion to a bishop, and he sees nothing wrong. Is there any wonder why so many African Christians think we're wack?

Daniel,

No, no, and no.

BUT, if death penalty supporters should up for communion dressed like the grim reaper, well, all bets are off. Do people present themselves for communion with signs that say, "I didn't do enogh for the poor, and I'm PROUD of it!"

Receiving communion is not the occasion for promoting controversial issues.

Given that consensual same-sex relationships between adults have almost always operated in secrecy, by necessity, your evidence for this statement would be what again?

I'm the one who needs evidence to prove the non-existence of a phenomenon of which there is virtually no historical record whatsoever? Interesting logic.

My point (more of an aside than anything else) was just to note that, while it is quite true that homosexuality is not the same as pederasty, gay propagandists sometimes speak out of both sides of their mouths about this.

On the one hand, it's "Pederasty isn't homosexuality -- no, no, no!" But on the other hand, it's "Western/Christian/American society has a weird hangup about all this - homosexuality was tolerated and affirmed by some of the ancient Greeks, medieval Arabs, Ottoman Turks."

Well, no, actually. What those cultures tolerated and affirmed was the right of a free, adult male to commit pederasty. The modern western idea of two adults openly having a consensual, same-sex relationship is without precedent in human history.

Quite telling how so many posters here are up in arms over an association between rape and homosexuality but not the suffering of the Africans; not to mention so little ire raised over the fact that the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, was served to someone flagrant and unrepentant of their sexual sin. Tolerance of everything but the traditional Christian view is increasingly the rule of our day...and they say all the hypocrites are in church.

San Francisco isn't alone, here in the spiritual cesspool of Seattle I've witnessed too many Catholic priests serving the Eucharist to openly gay couples; it was a big factor in why this former Protestant converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

At the end of the day, yeah there probably was suffering and great atrocities committed in africa by the king of buganda, But that was pederasty, and i`m sorry, but pederasty does not go hand in hand with homosexuality, any more than it does with heterosexuality. Homosexuality is attraction to members of the same sex as one's self. Heterosexuality is the attraction to the opposite sex. As a gay man myself i know quite a few gays, and none of them are pederasts. To suggest, as many are doing so here, that the two are linked is nothing but pure slander, and as such is being un-christian. To the poster who expressed dismay at openly gay couples being given communion in church, Those couples are trying to live an open and honest life, and i would dare say aren't harming anyone. If they are truely in love with each other, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that its appalling that they are given communion? To the poster who said that most of the gay people he knows support non-christian cultures, Is it any surprise? given the bullcrap lies that islam, christianity, and many of their their respective followers spout about gays? Neither right-wing christianity nor islam has any truth about gays in its teachings, only bile and hatred. So how can you possibly be surprised that so many gays, though ill-informed (ill bet that most of the gays you know dont realise that some of the ancient people they use examples were pederasts - i certainly didn't untill a year ago), support non-christian things?

in a nutshell - the mainstream monotheistic religions spread lies about gays, with christianity being the most vocal offender, and then a story like this comes up and they associate the atrocities of a small group of men with all gays, and thats just not fair play. One might as well say that because Hitler was a christian, that all christians are murderous hypocrites (a small few are), or that because Osama bin laden is a muslim, that ALL muslims must be terrorists, intent on destroying us(again, a small few are). Of course, neither statement is true of all followers, but then again neither is the statement that all gays are bad people either.

Really, for a bishop deciding whether to give someone communion, is "what will the Africans think of this?" really what should be going through his mind, any more than, "what will Maureen Dowd think of this?"

Rod,

"Jenkins ... says that we have an obligation to understand why the Africans feel the way they do about homosexuality, and not simply to impose our North American culture-war categories on them."

Perhaps a better "obligation" would be to educate them instead of holding up their abhorrent practices and beliefs as if they were rooted in God's truth. It is not "imposing" our understanding, it is correcting false impressions and saying a firm "NO!" to the continued bearing of false witnes about god's gay and lesbian children.

"You don't have to agree with the Africans to understand the cultural context of their beliefs."

"Agree with" them??? Why on earth WOULD we, Rod? "Understand" them? They are foundationally FALSE.

To quote Joseph, "So just so we are clear homosexuality may not cause people to rape children but it certainly makes it more likely right? I mean that's the association you are drawing here?"

That is precisely the inference in your posting these kinds of stories. Ditto for your hysteria 2 weeks ago about the mis-guided gay parents who took their kids to the Folsom Fair 2 years ago. Their behaviour has about as much to do with gay parenting as Britney Spears' does with str8 parenting. Fear monger much?

Are "a pair of drag queens" not God's children either?

"Is there any wonder why so many African Christians think we're wack?"

I'm not an "African Christian", but I sure as heck know why I think you're "wack".

(Oh, and 'boo hoo hoo' youself!)

begat,

"so many posters here are up in arms over an association between rape and homosexuality"

And rightly so, don't you think?

"but not the suffering of the Africans"

We're extremely upset about that, too. They're certainly not exclusive. But that's not what Rod's column is about, si it?

"so little ire raised over the fact that the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, was served to someone flagrant and unrepentant of their sexual sin"

That would be because we don't SEE consenting, loving, committed same-sex relationships between 2 adults as "sin". But of course, THAT isn't Rod's topic either.

"they say all the hypocrites are in church."

Not "all" but certainly many. And yet you wonder why. Clearly there's evidence.

"here in the spiritual cesspool of Seattle I've witnessed too many Catholic priests serving the Eucharist to openly gay couples"

GASP! Say not so! Imagine, treating all of God's children with dignity and respect! Imagine loving one another! How teddibly "un-Christian", eh? Sorry, but I do not share your "outrage".

>>"The modern western idea of two adults openly having a consensual, same-sex relationship is without precedent in human history."

Yet more bearing of false witness. Google Saints Sergius and Bacchus. Read up on Jonathon and David, Ruth and Naomi.

Ridiculous, thoroughly discredited, pro-gay "scholarship."

Next.

Ridiculous, thoroughly discredited, pro-gay "scholarship."

You beat me to it, Rob. But this is from the same source who has previously claimed that once upon a time the Church blessed same sex marriages. This is all John Boswell swill: History stripped of even the most basic respect for truth and concerned only with inventing "facts" which may be useful in contemporary political battles.

So I guess Rob and Simon are more knowledgable about this than the Head of the Medieval History Department of Yale University, with access to Vatican files.

Ridiculous, thoroughly discredited, anti-gay "scholarship.

In the account of Saints Sergius and Bacchus, Bacchus appears in vision after his martyrdom to Sergius in order to strengthen his faith. Bacchus appears "radiantly beautiful" and promises Sergius "I will be your reward in heaven".

Gee, that sounds like a straight guy watching football holding a beer in his hairy paw, doesn't it? I can just hear John Wayne saying that to Humphrey Bogart.

But then again, it would be totally, absolutely and ridiculously impossible for two brave Christian men to actually be in love with each other *and* still give their lives for Christ as martyrs...wouldn't it?

"So I guess Rob and Simon are more knowledgable about this than the Head of the Medieval History Department of Yale University, with access to Vatican files."

Nope, but I've read enough to know that Boswell's scholarship has been trounced from so many quarters (even some sympathetic ones) that his work on this issue is considered highly suspect. Look up the reviews by Camille Paglia, Leon Podles, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Fr. Patrick Viscuso, and many others.

So I guess Rob and Simon are more knowledgable about this than the Head of the Medieval History Department of Yale University, with access to Vatican files.

Since the late Prof. Boswell's patently self-justifying theories have been rejected or dismissed by most other scholars -- as well as by such noted reactionaries as Camille Paglia -- I refuse to take seriously historical "information" for which he is the primary or only source.

I know this won't be good enough for Rod, but ...

Column by Archbishop George H. Niederauer
Catholic San Francisco -- Oct. 19, 2007

A recent event that greatly concerns me needs some additional explanation -- and with it an apology. On Sunday, October 7, 2007, I celebrated Mass at Most Holy Redeemer Parish here in San Francisco, during my first visit there. The congregation was devout and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence. I noticed no demonstration, no protest, no disruption of the Eucharist.

At Communion time, toward the end of the line, two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. As I recall one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland. I did not recognize either of them as wearing mock religious garb.

Afterward it was made clear to me that these two people were members of the organization "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," who have long made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular. My predecessors, Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop John Quinn, have both denounced this group's abuse of sacred things many times in the past. Only last year, I instructed the Administrator of Most Holy Redeemer Parish to cancel the group's use of the hall on the parish grounds, once I became aware of it.

In the year and a half since I arrived in San Francisco, there have been several instances of offensive attacks on Catholic faith and devotional life. Only two weeks ago Catholic San Francisco carried my remarks condemning the derisive use of the image of the Last Supper on a poster printed by another local group.

Although I had often seen photographs of members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, I had never encountered them in person until October 7th. I did not recognize who these people were when they approached me.

After the event, I realized that they were members of this particular organization and that giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake. I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large for doing so.

The manner of dress and public comportment of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is deeply offensive to women religious and to the witness of holiness and Christian service that women religious have offered to the Church and to the world for centuries. The citizens of San Francisco have ample reason to be grateful to women religious for their unfailing support of those most in need, and to be deeply offended when that service is belittled so outrageously and offensively.

Someone who dresses in a mock religious habit to attend Mass does so to make a point. If people dress in a manner clearly intended to mock what we hold sacred, they place themselves in an objective situation in which it is not appropriate for them to receive Holy Communion, much less for a minister of the Church to give the Sacrament to them.

Therefore I conclude that the presence of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at the Mass on October 7th was intended as a provocative gesture. In that moment I failed to recognize it as such, and for that, as I have said, I must apologize.

Sigaliris, even critics sympathetic to Boswell's view faulted the book for the shaky conclusions drawn from its scholarship. I never read the book closely and in full, but I did do a cursory reading when it first came out. My familiarity with Christian history enabled me to see fairly quickly that he was spinning things, and multiple reviewers, all of them far more knowledgeable and educated than me, came to the same conclusion. My argument is not so much with his scholarship per se, but with the conclusions he draws from it. And I certainly wouldn't call all the negative reviews "hatchet jobs."

As for Ms. Paglia (I have no idea who Irshad Manji is) why is it so difficult to believe that she sometimes gets things right? Is it not possible for her to be wrong about, say, the Marquis de Sade but right about Boswell? In this regard why should it matter if she's a lesbian?

"I like the Archbishop's explanation. Seems perfectly reasonable."

I thought so too until I actually looked at the pics, and the other ones on other sites that captured the event. No excuse for this, I'm afraid. The Bishop is at very least a moron, and at worst a wolf in sheep's clothing.

but I also believe that He is powerful enough to "sort things out", as the saying goes, for Himself.

No no, He needs Rob Grano for that. Rob knows best.

"I reverence the Eucharist as truly the Risen Christ, I know we must protect it, but I also believe that He is powerful enough to "sort things out", as the saying goes, for Himself. Even St. Paul suggests that He was doing that in the early Church."

Amen. The priest should not be doing interviewing every person who want to share in the blessing of the Lord's Supper. Christ can make those decisions and doesn't need priests to be playing quizmaster and politician. Whether someone is gay, or writes columns supporting anti-immigrant policies, or sits on the Supreme Court and consistently supports death penalty rulings, it's not the Archbishop's place to be making decisions about whose sins disqualify you for participating in the Eucharist.

"But in the case of one who is flagrantly and publicly persisting in gravely sinful behavior, the bishop has the right and duty to admonish the person and, if necessary to prevent scandal or sacrilege, to refuse to administer communion to such a person."

So then you'd support him withholding the Eucharist from a newspaper columnist who routinely writes anti-immigrant screeds or a Supreme Court justices who votes in favor of the death penalty? Or someone who came to mass in a BMW while passing homeless people on the street?

Because those are arguably more profound examples of "gravely sinful behavior" than being gay, something that was never mentioned by the Lord. Jesus talked endlessly about poverty and murder and lack of hospitality, but never about homosexuality. I realize we live in a tupsy-turvy world where somehow homosexuality--which is barely discussed in the scriptures and they opaquely--is so much more serious than any other sins.

Sig -- when I wrote 'Ridiculous, thoroughly discredited, pro-gay "scholarship"' I did not have Boswell alone in mind, but that whole school of scholarship. The reason I put it in scare quotes is that, to my mind, it has nowhere near the objectivity that true scholarship does, and in that regard is akin to such things as, say, Afro-Centrist history or Christian Theocracy. There are certainly capable, even some excellent, scholars connected with those two movements, yet I reject their programs wholeheartedly. Why? Because the conclusions drawn from their scholarship to me seem faulty, and I don't think you can draw a hard line between the scholarship per se and the conclusions (although as I said above, I do believe that a distinction may be made.)

I don't think Boswell was a liar, but I do think his own commitment to homosexuality colored his conclusions. His work in this area seems to me to have a strong undercurrent of self-justification.