The brave Bishop Soto

One woman said, in essence, "We know what the Church says. What we wanted you to talk about is the value of our lived experience as lesbian women and gay men."

I guess B'Nai B'rith would similarly express shock and dismay and offer apologies if the Apostle Paul had been invited to speak, and instead of telling them how wonderful Judaism was, he told them that Jesus is the Messiah.

Except for one big difference:

The "Apostle" Paul would never be invited to a Jewish gathering, since he was no longer a Jew, and therefore, unwelcome.

We don't invite people who abandon us to hang out with us.

www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/orange/andersen/orange_51000405_406_PF_andersen.pdf

This is the letter that "Brave" Bishop Soto has admitted writing in defense of a convicted pedophile. One has to wonder if Bishop Soto's words caused the judge to be lenient on Andersen, which permitted Andersen to abuse another child later on.

Does "Brave" Bishop Soto's conscience ever consider that possibility?

I have a lot of gay self-identified Roman Catholic friends who are frequent mass-goers who are always shocked and outraged and hurt when they hear a homily at mass that calls being gay disordered or hear a prayer during mass for the country not to legitimize the sin of same-sex unions. (I'm gay and no longer RC.)

I really don't understand. Every church gets to define for itself its beliefs, which absolutely is its right. You can not be actively gay and in good standing with the RCC. Period. I have a hard time finding compassion for people who repeatedly stick a fork in an electrical socket and complain about getting a shock. I'm sorry.

No Rod, what's telling is that you can agree with absurd statements like, "Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all." I don't care what "revealed truth" has to say, stupid is stupid.

If you don't care what "revealed truth" has to say, then what skin is it off your nose when a bishop of a church preaches what his church teaches? I mean, what's it to you?

***

The "Apostle" Paul would never be invited to a Jewish gathering, since he was no longer a Jew, and therefore, unwelcome.

IIRC, the whole point of Paul's missionary journeys was first to visit the Jewish communities in the cities where he preached. Of course, in Paul's time, it wasn't at all clear yet that Christianity was (or was becoming) something separate from Judaism.

One last piece about Bishop Soto. Yes, this is an "alternative" blog, and probably will have little credence with many here. But the sentiment expressed in it is echoed by many here, Rod.

www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=602592

For the Catholic church to successfully recover its position as a moral beacon in our nation, Rod, they need to do more than pander to the anti-gay conservatives. They need to pony up some serious penance for decades of enabling evil. Yes, that might mean they have to give up some money, some property, and maybe even disband completely.

But the Bible states it clearly, Rod. What profits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?

Rod, if I can draw an analogy from your own blog. Back when John Edwards was found to have had an affair with one of his campaign workers, you went on a rampage. You rightly cast him as a hypocrite for campaigning with his wife and showing himself to be a good husband while sneaking around and cheating on her.

For many of us, Bishop Soto is pretty much like John Edwards. The Bishop comes out and makes strong statements on Catholic church teachings, and yet there is a long track record of him not living out those teachings in his own life.

Now, if you can no longer value the message that John Edwards presents, even if it has merit and can be shown to be true (which is debatable), simply because Edwards is a flawed vessel...can you understand why many others would view anything that Bishop Soto said in exactly the same light?

If the message is to be evaluated independently of the messenger, should it not be done so in every instance? And if the message is invalidated because of the blatant hypocrisy of the messenger, should it not be done so in every case?

Jesus said a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree can never bear good fruit.

Does that apply in this instance and in the Edwards' instance?

John: For the Catholic church to successfully recover its position as a moral beacon in our nation, Rod, they need to do more than pander to the anti-gay conservatives. They need to pony up some serious penance for decades of enabling evil.

John, I don't know how much you know about my work, but I have written repeatedly that the Catholic bishops have not nearly begun to amend for their role in the Scandal. I was so broken spiritually over it that I lost my Catholic faith. I'm the last person to defend these guys. But none of that takes away from the truth of what Soto did in this case. Is Soto a flawed messenger? No doubt. Perhaps he has no credibility. But that does not take away from the truth of this particular act. I wrote a Wall Street Journal piece a few years ago taking Pope John Paul II to task for speaking out against corruption in the modern world; I agreed with his message, but said his misgovernment of the Church re: the Scandal undermined his credibility. That's no doubt true with Bp Soto -- but a lack of personal credibility does not make what he says untrue, nor does it undermine his personal courage in speaking that truth to a hostile audience.

Anyway, if Bp Soto has so little credibility, why did the gay organization invite him to give an address? If he had told them what they wanted to hear instead of what the Church actually teaches, one doubts we would have heard complaints about Soto's lack of credibility.

Anyway x 2, the people you characterize as "anti-gay conservatives" are people who simply believe that what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality is true.

Anyway x 3, anybody who trolls this thread from the "left" or the "right" will be unpublished. No name-calling or bomb-throwing.

Anglican: I agree that what Bishop Soto said and did here was good and the right thing. But I am frustrated and disappointed to see what others have found. I should positively inclined towards Rome,as far as belief as a beleagured traditional Anglo-Catholic in the Episcopal church thinking of leaving, but one big problem is, I cannot trust the Catholic hierchy in this country. I have read Leon Podles and others and time and again you find this tainting from the sex abuse scandal. So many Anglicans talk about going to Rome as if that is the answer to all their problems, and in my opinion that is simply jumping from the frying pan and into the fire,from one diseased church context,into another.

Well, it's true, and if anybody wishes to go into the Catholic Church, they should go with eyes wide open. I was telling a frustrated Anglican friend that he'll find the same fights he's sick of within TEC smack in the middle of the Roman church, though not necessarily so out in the open, because many bishops and priests feel that they have to at least maintain a veneer of fidelity to Church teaching. But it's there.

There is corruption in the Orthodox Church too. I blogged yesterday about the scandal in my own small Odox communion. It's a scandal that centers on the episcopate, and yes, appears to involve homosexuality as a component (though the main part of the scandal is financial, and possibly criminal). The encouraging thing is that priests and laity in the OCA are speaking out boldly and tirelessly, and aren't willing to let this thing rest for the sake of appearances or false unity.

Uh oh, this is going to be two days in a row where I agree with Rod about something and that means I probably won't need a flashlight after I get into bed tonight because my nose will still be glowing as well as the possibility that the earth may stand still in the heavens causing us all to fly off into space.

It does not matter what the Bishop has done, or not done. What matters is what he said in the place that he said them and agree or disagree, that did take courage. To argue that his behavior in the pedophile scandals somehow detracts from that is to commit the ad hominem falacy.

It does not matter if the person has lived an upright life if what he says is foolish. It is still foolish in spite of that. It does not matter if it was Hitler speaking if what was said was true. The truth of the statement exists independent of the speaker.

An evil man may commit an act of courage, the courage is there no matter what the character of the man may be in other contexts.

"Anyway, if Bp Soto has so little credibility, why did the gay organization invite him to give an address? If he had told them what they wanted to hear instead of what the Church actually teaches, one doubts we would have heard complaints about Soto's lack of credibility."

Actually, Rod, many of the conservatives out here expected him to speak in support of the group, as many comments in this article stated. Even the title, "Birds of a Feather," would indicate that the Bishop was expected to be supportive.

calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=cb2253de-df23-4ffb-b7bd-48fbf498f107

However, after the speech many of these same critics were singing his praises.

Hypocrisy knows no political bounds, as I am sure you know, Rod. I believe that conservatives were given a bone so the Bishop could continue his ministry to illegal immigrants and his peace work with a bit less static from them. I think the evidence supports that if you look at it honestly.

But...each of us has a set of biases when it comes to "truth." Such is human nature.

Demetrio: I really don't understand. Every church gets to define for itself its beliefs, which absolutely is its right. You can not be actively gay and in good standing with the RCC. Period. I have a hard time finding compassion for people who repeatedly stick a fork in an electrical socket and complain about getting a shock. I'm sorry.

Me: Demtrio, while I think you made the wrong choice regarding the RCC vs homosexuality, I agree and appreciate your point. I remember years ago, while still an agnostic, seeing on CNN a large crowd of pro-contraceptive Catholics protesting against the Church's teaching.

I couldn't help but think, "Why do you follow someone or something (i.e. the pope and the Church) when you are so convinced that you know better than they do?"

I'm a Catholic, but not because I LIKE the teachings of sexuality. In many ways I don't, and I'm terrible at meeting that standard.

Nor do I assent to the teachings because Rome says they are what they are.

Rather, I'm a Catholic in part because I see the teachings (all of them) as correct. Indeed, I came to that conclusion (at least regarding moral issues) long before I believed any of Her supernatural claims. The former can be reached by a rational process; the latter by Grace alone.

"John, I don't know how much you know about my work, but I have written repeatedly that the Catholic bishops have not nearly begun to amend for their role in the Scandal. I was so broken spiritually over it that I lost my Catholic faith."

Rod, did you lose that faith because of what a priest made you watch him do to your best friend one Sunday afternoon during the youth meeting? Did you lose that faith because of what a priest said you needed to do as penance for the sins you confessed to him?

If so, we should talk more offline, for we would have a lot in common. If not, then while I truly appreciate the struggle you went through during your crisis of faith, I would respectfully suggest that you just don't get it.

jack: The findings of biology and psychology apparently are concluding that homosexual attraction has a biological, fundamental component and is not just a whimsical hedonistic choice... why would it be a threat for churches to acknowledge that scientific finding, if true?

The Church does not say that homosexuality is a whimsical hedonistic choice. It specifically says that homosexuals do not choose the condition. It says that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, condemns the homosexual "lifestyle", and demands chastity of homosexuals, but it counsels compassion for the individual afflicted with the condition. (CCC 2357ff.)

Parenthetically, I would add that if it is true that there is a biological, i.e. genetic, component to homosexuality, it would seem reasonable that with sufficient research, gene therapy might result in a cure.

John: If so, we should talk more offline, for we would have a lot in common. If not, then while I truly appreciate the struggle you went through during your crisis of faith, I would respectfully suggest that you just don't get it.

I don't understand you. Are you saying that because I wasn't molested or forced to watch molestation, my analysis is flawed? And that because of your experience, your analysis is sound? That makes no sense.

When you call Soto "brave" and refer to his little speech as "Daniel in the Lion's Den," are you not implying that he was in some actual danger? Yes, gays and lesbians are well-known for beating up clergy, and many fine pastors have been imprisoned and executed by spokespersons for a gay God . . . not. Isn't it usually the other way around?

Soto certainly suffered terrible persecution for telling the association off. Two people walked out!! Imagine the indignity! Soto was assured that he could leave if he wanted to. When he elected to stay, he had to listen to EIGHT people disagreeing with him, and only two thanked him for his words. Quelle horreur. I suppose he then went home to dinner. Martyrs' crowns are certainly going very cheap this year.

Someone needs to look up the word "metaphor" and the phrase "literary allusion."

E.g., If I said that Bp Soto "busted their chops," I mean neither that he struck members of his audience, nor that he turned their pork cutlets in to the police.

John: If so, we should talk more offline, for we would have a lot in common. If not, then while I truly appreciate the struggle you went through during your crisis of faith, I would respectfully suggest that you just don't get it.

Rod: I don't understand you. Are you saying that because I wasn't molested or forced to watch molestation, my analysis is flawed? And that because of your experience, your analysis is sound?

No, Rod. That's not quite it. What I'm saying is that for many victims of Catholic clergy abuse (such as myself and the friend I mentioned), to hear people like you salute a Bishop as being "brave" for speaking out on church truth to a group of homosexuals rings very hollow. What he did was no brave thing, Rod. He was invited into a group that had no authority over him, did not control his job, did not sign his paycheck, and he told them what his employers wanted him to say. When he left he still had his job, still had his status in the community, and had the accolades of his employer and parishoners.

Bravery would have been for this same person, back when the pedophile Andersen was being tried, to have written a letter that did not excuse the actions of the pedophile, as his employers wanted him to do, but instead a letter condemning his employers for their actions in enabling pederasty in their midst. He could have done like you, Rod, and left the organization that expected him to cover-up for monsters who abused Christ's precious children. He could have kicked the dust from his feet as he left, leaving them to their debauchery and dishonesty.

That would have been brave, Rod. A Catholic bishop acting like a Catholic bishop should have acted would have condemned his peers for their refusal to stop sinning, not enabled it.

And had he done that, perhaps a few abuse cases might never have happened. Certainly for Andersen, had he received a harsher sentence he might not have had a chance to abuse again.

I'm imagining there was some arm twisting at the Sacramento diocese offices before Soto's very unpastoral speech. You can voice the church's views on homosexuality--or at least the view currently endorsed by the current occupant in Rome--while also being pastoral about the pain and anguish experienced by gay and lesbian people and their parents and families. Soto--who apparently has the reputation of being quite compassionate and pastoral in other settings--forgot that role.

"God Bless this brave Bishop."

Would that he had been this brave back when it counted.

I think the bishop did the right thing. Homosexuals are human beings and need some affirmation but it has to be right affirmation.

There will always be homosexual Catholics and Christians. They are our brothers, sisters, friends.

They have a duty to do the best that they can with their disorder without hurting themselves and others. The statement "love the sin, hate the sinner" does not seem to work in our day because quite frankly we do not hate our sins, especially in the area of sexuality.

So instead of hating the sin we have to fall back on the reality that this is not the vision that Christ had for us, plain and simple.