Ministro Alfano: stop alle trascrizioni nozze gay fatte all' estero.

« Older   Newer »
  Share  
Hola Pé
icon7  view post Posted on 9/10/2014, 00:15




L'articolo pubblicato ieri su La Repubblica
la dice chiara: il ministro (LOL) Alfano ha inviato una circolare affinche i prefetti ritirino le registrazioni di matrimoni tra persone dello stesso sesso, contratti all'estero.
La rabbia è tantissima, vedere pochi che tentano di costruire qualcosa di positivo, in una nazione ancora cosi maschilista, bigotta, retrograda, e governata da buffoni che giocano ogni giorno con vite di milioni di persone, senza curarsi delle conseguenze.
I sindaci delle regioni in cui si era dato il via alle trascrizioni, si ribellano e si rifiutano di obbedire.
Il ministro degli interni, e tutta quella porzione di cittadini/pecore che della vita non ne hanno ancora capito il senso, ribadisce di aver solo applicato la legge.
In italia il matrimonio tra persone dello stesso sesso non è permesso, quindi le trascrizioni sono illegali.
mi faccio una domanda..: sarebbe stato lo stesso se le trascrizione riguardavano persone eterosessuali?
mi do una risposta: NO.
 
Top
Ava G
view post Posted on 9/10/2014, 19:29




Thanks for posting this, Pe. Pardon me for saying so, but it seems that unmitigated stupidity indeed knows no bounds, nor borders! This is very sad and also infuriating, how people, governments can be so bassakwardly ignorant and fear filled! With all the statistics showing the stabilizing influence on individuals and societies that marriage brings falling apart at unprecedented levels (latest polling showing 52% of all marriages ending in divorce) one would think that governments would want to bolster the institution, not discourage it. It is vitally important to continue to show that love is love, homosexuals and heterosexuals are human beings alike in every respect other than their sexuality and are deserving of equal respect and protection under the law.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Italian law recognize foreign marriages according to the laws where the marriage takes place? If so, how does Alfano have authority to do this???? Is this similar to issues of states rights vs. Federal law/ violation of Constitutional rights as here in the U.S.? Do you think the issue of same-sex marriage will ultimately be decided in parliament or by the courts?

(Please excuse my ignorance of Italian law....as well as my as my slowness in understanding the Italian language.). :wacko:
 
Top
mongolfiera
view post Posted on 9/10/2014, 21:27




Per farla breve e con poca retorica, sono un branco di cretini e basta.
Siamo il paese del Bunga - Bunga e questo va bene
Siamo il paese delle prostitute bambine e questo va bene
Siamo il paese degli schiavi che raccolgono pomodori e frutta e questo va bene
A questo proposito vi posto un link su una inchiesta de L'Espresso che fa davvero piangere:
http://espresso.repubblica.it/inchieste/20...bilita-1.183497

........ ma guai se 2 persone dello stesso sesso si amano e vogliono sposarsi, è peccato!!
Ma che andassero una volta per tutte a c....re
 
Top
Hola Pé
view post Posted on 9/10/2014, 23:33




yeap, that's correct Ava.
An italian citizen that wants to get married with another or with somebody from another country, can do that and the marriage are fully recognized by law.
I am not too sure that the òaw, though, says specifically that it's got to be a woman and a man..the law says "citizen". The point is that italian law does not approve same sex marriage, therefore, even if it is not specified, a marriage btw two people same sex will not be valid in italy.
I honestly think that until the day that italian people will act like blindfold dumb sheep there wont be any changing, aux contaire, situation will get worse and worse.

Mongo ho letto l'articolo dell' Espresso.
quella degli schiavi nei campi purtroppo è una realta che non appartiene solo a ragusa, ma a molti altri posti del sud ( non mi pronuncio su nord perche non lo so.) avendo lavorato li, so come vanno queste cose, e credimi non è solo una questione di straniero=debole.. lo fanno con tutti quelli di cui credono di potersi approfittare, che sia sessualmente o non pagando o facendo dei torti sul lavoro.
Il problema è sempre quello, antico come il mondo, tutti sono ciechi,sordi e muti ;)
 
Top
Ava G
view post Posted on 9/10/2014, 23:35




Brava! Well said, Mongo. I confess the issues you brought up,.unfortunately, also can be said of U.S. With all that is so horribly wrong in this messed up world, one would think that politicians would have more pressing issues to resolve than the non-issue of same-sex relationships/marriage!

In regards to the attitide of same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general being a sin, I read an interesting article from, ironically enough, Bishop Geoffrey Robinson , the main speaker at the Ways of Love conference, sponsored by New Ways Ministries as part of the synod of marriage and family that is now taking place in Rome. While I'm not so naive to think that church hierarchy will change its views on homosexuality anytime soon, Bishop Robinson, I believe basically has it right. The church (in this instance the Catholic church, but is also true of the Church universal) has caused great harm to many. Whatever your beliefs, religion does influence society, which is made up of people, a category of which contrary to popular belief, a few of our politicians still belong. ;-). It gives one hope that there are those working within our religious institutions who are genuinely seeking out truth and reconciliation, rather than in maintaining their own power through continuation of the status quo and "towing the party line". At any rate, I found the article Interesting, and relevant to the issue of viewing homosexuality as mortal sin. I've included the article below in it's entirety. It's well worth taking the time to read.


Menu

ENGLISH

Crea un sito o un blog gratuitamente presso WordPress.com. | The Sight Theme.

Bishop Geoffrey Robinson: “Towards a new understanding of lgbt lives and love”

Pubblicato su 3 ottobre 2014 da GIONATA

Presentation by Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, retired Roman Catholic auxiliary bishop of Sydney (Australia), for “The ways of Love”, an International Conference towards pastoral care with homosexual and trans people (Rome, Italy, October 3, 2014)

. The thesis of this paper is in three parts:

1. There is no possibility of a change in the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexual acts unless and until there is first a change in its teaching on heterosexual acts; 2. There is a serious need for radical change in the Church’s teaching on heterosexual acts; 3. If and when this change occurs, it will inevitably have its effect on teaching on homosexual acts.

.

PART ONE

There is no possibility of a change in the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexual acts unless and until there is first a change in its teaching on heterosexual acts. The constantly repeated argument of the Catholic Church is that God created human sex for two reasons: as the means by which new human life is brought into being (the procreative aspect) and as a means of expressing and fostering love between a couple (the unitive aspect). The argument then says that the use of sex is “according to nature” only when it serves both of these God-given purposes, and that both are truly present only within marriage, and even then only when intercourse is open to new life, so that all other use of the sexual faculties is morally wrong [1]. If this is the starting point, there is no possibility of approval of homosexual acts [2]. It is futile to look for change within this teaching.

. PART TWO

There is a serious need for radical change in the Church’s teaching on heterosexual acts. As long as we understand ‘procreation’ to mean the production of adult children rather than simply the production of babies, I have no problem with the idea that marriage as an institution of the human race has both a procreative and a unitive aspect. But I have five serious difficulties with the teaching that every single act of intercourse must contain both of these aspects.

. The First Difficulty: A Sin Against God

The first difficulty is that through this teaching the Church is saying that all use of sex that is not both procreative and unitive is a direct offence against God because it is a violation of what is claimed to be the divine and natural order that God established. This raises two serious questions, one concerning nature and the other concerning God.

. The Question concerning Nature

If this divine and natural order exists in relation to our sexual faculties, should it not exist in many other areas of human life as well? So should not the Church’s arguments concerning sex point to many other fields where God has given a divine purpose to some created thing, such that it would be a sin against God to use that thing in any other way? Why is it that it is only in relation to sex that this claim is made? I remember reading years ago the mocking argument that the natural God-given purpose of human eyes is to look forwards (that is why they are on the front of our heads), so rear vision mirrors in cars are against nature and hence immoral. Granted that this is a mocking argument, does it not raise questions about what we mean by “nature” and how difficult it is to draw moral conclusions from a claim to a divinely established nature?

.

The Question concerning God

Striking a king or president has always been considered a more serious offence than striking an ordinary citizen. In line with this, it was said, the greatest king by far is God, so an offence against God is far more serious than an offence against a mere human being. Because all sexual sins were seen as direct offences against God, they were, therefore, all seen as most serious sins. Sexual sins were seen as on the same level as the other sin that is directly against God, blasphemy, and this helps to explain why, in the Catholic Church, sexual morality has long been given a quite exaggerated importance. For centuries the Church has taught that every sexual sin is a mortal sin [3]. In this field, it was held, there are no venial sins. According to this teaching, even deliberately deriving pleasure from thinking about sex with anyone other than one’s spouse, no matter how briefly, is a mortal sin. The teaching may not be proclaimed aloud today as much as before, but it was proclaimed by many popes [4], it has never been retracted and it has affected countless people. This teaching fostered belief in an incredibly angry God, for this God would condemn a person to an eternity in hell for a single unrepented moment of deliberate pleasure arising from sexual desire. This idea of God is totally contrary to the entire idea of God that Jesus presented to us, and I cannot accept it. My first rebellion against Church teaching on sex came, therefore, not directly from a rejection of what the Church said about sex, but a rejection of the false god that this teaching presented.

. The Second Difficulty: A Teaching Based on Assertions

The second reason for change is that the statements of the Church appear to be assertions rather than arguments. Both the unitive and procreative elements are foundational aspects of marriage as an institution of the whole human race, but does it follow: – that they are essential elements of each individual marriage, no matter what the circumstances? – that they are essential elements of every single act of sexual intercourse? On what basis?

For example, a particular couple might be told by medical experts that any child they had would suffer from a serious and crippling hereditary illness, and so decide to adopt rather than have children of their own. Are they acting against God’s will? Another couple might decide that they already have several children and that they are both financially and psychologically unable to add to their family. On what basis is it claimed that they would be acting against God’s will? There are always problems when human beings claim that they know the mind of God. So is the statement that it is God’s will, and indeed order, that both the unitive and procreative aspects must necessarily be present in each act of sexual intercourse a proven fact or a simple assertion? If it is a proven fact, what are the proofs? Why do Church documents not present such proofs? [5] Would not any proofs have to include the experience of millions of people in the very human endeavour of seeking to combine sex, love and the procreation of new life in the midst of the turbulence of human sexuality and the complexities of human life? Is an ideal being confused with a reality? If it is only an assertion, is there any reason why we should not apply the principle of logic: What is freely asserted may be freely denied? If it is no more than an assertion, does it really matter who it is who makes the assertion or how often it is made? Where are the arguments in favour of the assertion that would convince an open and honest conscience?

. The Third Difficulty: A Morality of Physical Acts

The third argument is that the teaching of the Church is based on a consideration of what is seen as the God-given nature of the physical acts in themselves, rather than on these acts as actions of human beings. And it continues to do this at a time when the whole trend in moral theology is in the opposite direction. As a result it gets into impossible difficulties in analysing physical acts without a context of human relations. For example, some married couples find that there is a blockage preventing the sperm from reaching the ovum, but that in a simple procedure a doctor can take the husband’s sperm and insert it into the wife in such a way that is passes the blockage and enables conception. But the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith condemned this action because the physical act was not considered “integral”, even though the entire reason for this intervention was precisely that the couple wanted their marriage to be both unitive and procreative. The Church’s arguments concerning sex are based solely on the physical act in itself rather than on the physical act as an action affecting persons and relationships.

. The Fourth Difficulty: The Idea of “Natural”

It was God who created a world in which there are both heterosexuals and homosexuals. This was not a mistake on God’s part that human beings are meant to repair; it is simply an undeniable part of God’s creation. The only sexual acts that are natural to homosexuals are homosexual acts. This is not a free choice they have made between two things that are equally attractive to them, but something that is deeply embedded in their nature, something they cannot simply cast aside. Homosexual acts come naturally to them, heterosexual acts do not. They cannot perform what the Church would call “natural” acts in a way that is natural to them. Why should we turn to some abstraction in determining what is natural rather than to the actual lived experience of human beings? Why should we say that homosexuals are acting against nature when they are acting in accordance with the only nature they have ever experienced? The Church claims that it is basing itself on “natural law”, but a natural law based on abstractions is a false natural law. Indeed, it brings the whole concept of natural law into disrepute.

. The Fifth Difficulty: Not Based on the Teaching of Jesus

The fifth difficulty is that the entire idea of the necessity for both the unitive and procreative element in each act of intercourse is not based on anything Jesus said or implied, but comes from ideas outside the bible concerning acts that are said to be natural and acts that are said to be against nature. In seeking to understand the moral nature of sexuality as a most powerful and important force in human life, why would the Church not turn to anything Jesus said or did, and instead rely solely on ideas from other sources?

. The Dilemma

In the light of these five difficulties we are left with the fact that the Catholic Church is propounding a teaching that, on logical grounds, has never appealed to people, even those most favourably disposed. Even within the Church most people no longer accept it, especially among the young. Western society as a whole has rejected this teaching and gone to a position that is in many ways an opposite extreme. Few people would today attempt a rational defence of the Church’s teaching, and it is not easy even to put forward a middle ground between the two extremes. It is this middle ground that I now wish to explore.

. The Middle Ground

If we decide to leave behind an ethic that sees sex in terms of a direct offence against God, that emphasises physical acts rather than persons and relationships, that does not come from the gospels, and that is based on an assertion rather than a logical argument, where should we go? I suggest that the answer is that we should move to an ethic that: 1. sees any offence against God as being brought about, not by the sexual act in and of itself, but by the harm caused to human beings; 2. speaks in terms of persons and relationships rather than physical acts; 3. draws its ideas of what is natural from reality rather than abstractions; 4. draws consciously and directly on the gospels, 5. and then builds an argument on these foundations rather than on unproven assertions.

. From God’s Point of View

If it is impossible to sustain an entire sexual ethic on the basis of direct offences against God, all the evidence tells us that God cares greatly about human beings and takes a very serious view of any harm done to them, through sexual desire or any other cause. “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea” (Mk.9:42). “Then they will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’” (Mt.25:44-45) In these two quotations Jesus identifies with the weakest persons in the community, and tells us that any harm done to them is a harm done to himself. I suggest that this harm done to people is the real sin in matters of sex, the only sin that angers God. I suggest, therefore, that we should look at sexual morality in terms of the good or harm done to persons and the relationships between them rather than in terms of a direct offence against God. Following from this, may we say that sexual pleasure, like all other pleasure, is in itself morally neutral, neither good nor bad? Is it rather the circumstances affecting persons and relationships that make this pleasure good or bad, e.g. a good pleasure for a married couple seeking reconciliation after a disagreement, a bad pleasure for a man committing rape?

. The Church v Modern Society

To take this further, if we go beneath the particular teachings of the Catholic Church on sex and come to its most foundational beliefs, I suggest that there is a fundamental point on which the Church and modern Western society appear to be moving in opposite directions. In its simplest terms, the Church is saying that, because love is all-important in human life and because sex is so vital a way of expressing love, sex is serious, while modern society has become more and more accepting of the most casual sexual activity, even when in no way related to love or relationship. On this basic point I find myself instinctively more in sympathy with the views of the Church than with those of modern society. Paradoxically, it was the effects of sexual abuse on minors more than anything else that convinced me that sex is serious.

. Do not Harm v Love your Neighbour

Precisely because I see sex as serious, I cannot simply conclude that all sex is good as long as it does not harm anyone. I would never want to put the matter in those simple terms, for I have seen far too much harm caused by this attitude. It is expressed in negative terms (“Do not harm”) and inevitably contains within itself the serious risk of brinkmanship, that is, that, with little thought for the good of the other person involved, one may seek one’s own pleasure and, in doing so, go right up to the very brink of causing harm to another. In a field as turbulent as this, countless people basing themselves on such a principle will go over that brink. If we turn to the gospels, Jesus said “Love your neighbour” rather than “Do not harm your neighbour”, and love implies more than the negative fact of not harming. It implies a genuine respect for the other and positively wanting and seeking the good of the other. The essential difference between the two is that an attitude of “Do no harm” can put oneself first, while “Love your neighbour” must put the neighbour first. In applying this principle of Jesus, we must take the harm that can be caused by sexual desire very seriously, and look carefully at the circumstances that can make morally bad the seeking of sexual pleasure because they involve harm to others, to oneself or to the community. Some of these factors are: violence, physical or psychological, deceit and self-deceit, harming a third person (e.g. a spouse), treating people as sexual objects rather than as persons, trivialising sex so that it loses its seriousness, failing to respect the connection that exists between sex and new life, failing to respect the need to build a relationship patiently and carefully, failing to respect the common good of the whole community. It will be seen from all of this that, even though I see sexual pleasure as in itself morally neutral, I have most serious difficulties with the idea that “anything goes”. In reacting against one extreme, there is always the danger of going to the opposite extreme. I believe that this is what modern society has done in relation to sex.

. A Christian Ethic

I suggest that the central questions concerning sexual morality are: Are we moving towards a genuinely Christian ethic if we base our sexual actions on a profound respect for the relationships that give meaning, purpose and direction to human life, and on loving our neighbour as we would want our neighbour to love us? Within this context, may we ask whether a sexual act is morally right when, positively, it is based on a genuine love of neighbour, that is, a genuine desire for what is good for the other person, rather than solely on self-interest, and, negatively, contains no damaging elements such as harm to a third person, any form of coercion or deceit, or any harm to the ability of sex to express love? Is the question of when these circumstances might apply, and whether and to what extent they might apply outside marriage, one for discussion and debate by both the church community and the wider community, and for decision and responsibility before God, other people and one’s own deeper self by each individual? Many would object that what I have proposed would not give a clear and simple rule to people. But God never promised us that everything in the moral life would be clear and simple. Morality is not just about doing right things; it is also about struggling to know what is the right thing to do. It is not just about doing what everyone else around us is doing; it is about taking a genuine personal responsibility for everything we do. And it is about being profoundly sensitive to the needs and vulnerabilities of the people with whom we interact. I believe that there is normally a far better chance of a sexual act meeting the requirements I have suggested within a permanent vowed relationship than outside such a relationship. But I could not draw the simple conclusion that: inside a vowed relationship everything is good, outside everything is bad. The complexities of human nature and the turbulence of sexuality do not allow for such simple answers.

. PART THREE

If and when this change (in the teaching concerning heterosexual acts) occurs, it will have its effect on teaching on homosexual acts. If we apply what I have just said about heterosexual acts to homosexual acts, several things follow. Negatively, I could not accept for homosexual acts, any more than I can for heterosexual acts, that “anything goes”, or that morality can be based on self-interest or on nothing more than the brinkmanship involved in the idea of “not harming” another person. I would ask that homosexual persons be as conscious as heterosexual persons of how easily thoughts about sex can be directed solely towards self-interest and lead to harm. I could not applaud a deliberate lifestyle of many transient sexual partners, any more than I could applaud this in heterosexuals, for I cannot see how this could be reconciled with everything I have said in this paper. Positively, it would follow that sexual acts, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are not, in and of themselves alone, offensive to God. It would mean that sexual acts are pleasing to God when they help to build persons and relationships, displeasing to God when they harm persons and relationships. Since I seek a specifically Christian ethic, I would always hope that they be based on a genuine loving or willing the good of the other rather than solely on self-interest or self-gratification. If Church teaching were based on persons and relationships rather than on what is considered “according to nature” in the physical act, consideration of homosexual acts would exist in a whole new world and would have to be rethought from the very beginning. In short, if you wish to change the Church’s teaching concerning homosexual acts, then work to bring about change in its teaching on all sexual acts.

. Scripture

There are statements in the Scriptures that appear to condemn homosexual acts. There are five in particular, two in the First Testament (Genesis 19 and Leviticus 18:22) and three in the Second (Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9, and I Timothy 1:10). While there are difficulties in interpreting all five, they cannot simply be brushed aside. Despite this, there are four points to keep in mind. Leviticus calls homosexuality an “abomination”, but the word is used 138 times in that Testament, and it apples even to things that we would take for granted today, e.g. eating shrimp. The prevailing attitude in ancient times was that all people were in fact heterosexual, and it was on this basis that it was thought that homosexual acts were wrong. In the culture of ancient Israel there was a sexual hierarchy in which men were dominant and women submissive. Under this understanding, in a homosexual act a dominant man was treated as a submissive woman, and this was considered wrong. The law concerning homosexuality in Leviticus is part of the purity laws, and the early Church accepted that Jesus had abolished these laws. The statements on homosexuality in the Second Testament do not give convincing reasons for their prohibitions, leaving us with the feeling that they are a relic from the purity laws. In short, it is hard to build too great an edifice on these texts. It remains true that the entire field of sexual morality is in urgent need of being studied again from the foundations up.

__________________

[1] The most important papal document on sexual morality of the last century, the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, expressed the argument thus: “Such teaching, many times set forth by the teaching office of the church, is founded on the unbreakable connection, which God established and which men and women may not break of their own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, in its intimate nature, the conjugal act, while it unites the spouses in a most profound bond, also places them in a position (idoneos facit) to generate new life, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and woman. By protecting both of these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in an integral manner the sense of mutual and true love and its ordering to the exalted vocation of human beings to parenthood.” Pope Paul VI, encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, 26th July 1968, no.12.

[2] The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with the question with quite extraordinary brevity: “(Homosexual acts) are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.”

[3] See Noldin-Schmitt, Summa Theologiae Moralis, Feliciani Rauch, Innsbruck, 1960 Vol.I, Supplement De Castitate, p.17, no.2; Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, Marietti, Rome, 1956, vol.1, no.599, p.575. The technical term constantly repeated was mortale ex toto genere suo. The sin of taking pleasure from thinking about sex was called delectatio morosa.

[4] For example, Clement VII (1592-1605) and Paul V (1605-1621) said that those who denied this teaching should be denounced to the Inquisition.

[5] In recent years there has been an appeal to anthropology, but I have not seen a clear statement of how anthropology demands that every act of intercourse include both the unitive and procreative purpose.

Condividi:

Twitter Facebook 23 Google

Mi piace

Di' per primo che ti piace.

Articoli collegati

Bishop Geoffrey James Robinson: “Towards a new understanding of LGBT lives and love"

Geoffrey James Robinson: “Hacia una nueva comprensión de la vida y del amor de las personas LGBT”

Mgr Geoffrey James Robinson: “Vers une nouvelle compréhension de la vie et de l’amour des LGBT”

In "ENGLISH" In "ESPANOL"

In "FRANÇAIS"

Tag: ENGLISH. Aggiungi il permalink ai segnalibri.

Previous post James Alison “Verso un’inclusione globale delle persone LGBT nelle comunità cattoliche: un nuovo approccio teologico” (Primaparte) Next post Geoffrey James Robinson: “Verso una nuova comprensione delle vite e dell’amore omosessuale”

TESTI / TEXTS / TEXTOS / TEXTES

ENGLISH (26) ESPANOL (17) FRANÇAIS (7) ITALIANO (48) STAMPA/PRESS/PRENSA (9)

Le strade dell’Amore. Conferenza internazionale

Le strade dell’Amore. Conferenza internazionale piace a 360 persone.

Mi piace
 
Top
Ava G
view post Posted on 10/10/2014, 00:06




Thanks for the clarification, Pe. Perhaps I am just being stupid here, (admittedly, a distinct possibility!) :D The situation does indeed bare much resemblance to that here in the States; since the gender of those seeking marriage is not specified by law, the issue would have to be settled through amending the law/Constitution. It is all quite ridiculous and maddening. I think the hope, for both Italy and U.S. is continuing the campaign of changing hearts and minds through visibility until people realize the truth of ' Diverso da chi?' (Personally, I'm of the opinion that drag queen parades are a detriment to that end). People need to see ordinary people, couples, families going about their everyday lives to see we are essentially all the same. Of,course in a lot of places, to live authentic life could me loosing ones livelihood, physical beatings, jail, or loosing ones life.
There's much that needs changing, so we must carry on, one heart/life at a time.
 
Top
Ava G
view post Posted on 10/10/2014, 18:17




I wanted to include this article from Joseanne Peregrine (founder of Drachma, a support group for parents of LGBT children). The article chronicles her own coming out story, which led to the founding of the support group. I post the article for those who may be struggling with their own issues of religion and homosexuality, and for the wider community in general, as the most vocal opponents of gay and lesbian people are oftentimes those who hold strict religiously held views.

The author makes a wonderful statement, within the article and through the example of how she lives her life, of the power and responsibility of individuals to be a bridge of inclusion, restoration, and healing, a voice of reasoned and compassionate dialogue, which is perhaps the most powerful pathway to changing perspectives, hearts, minds, lives....and, eventually, our laws....to make this business of day-to-day living more equitable for all.

Menu

Joseanne Peregin: “Fears and hopes as a Catholic mother of a gay son – a parent’s perspective”

Pubblicato su 3 ottobre 2014 da GIONATA

Presentation by Joseanne Peregin (President of Christian Life Community, Malta – “LGBT children’s parents’s fears and expectations”) for “The ways of Love”, an International Conference towards pastoral care with homosexual and trans people (Rome, Italy, October 3, 2014)

Never in my wildest dreams would I have ever imagined I would be giving a speech to theologians. But then again, never would I have ever dreamt that one day, I would be the mother of a gay son either. I come from the tiny island of Malta, where everybody knows everyone and most of us are traditional Catholics. I have been happily married for nearly 30 years, and am a proud mother of three children all in their 20s. I have been an active member of the Christian Life Community for over 35 years, 6 of them as president of CLC Malta. More recently, however my service in the church has evolved as the helpline for parents struggling with their child’s ‘coming out’. In 2008 the DrachmaLGBT group which was established in 2004, had invited St Jeannine Grammick to Malta. After listening to her talk, a handful of us parents decided to meet again and we still meet every month. The Drachma Parents’ Group offers a SAFE SPACE for parents to come to terms with their own process of acceptance. But although it is a SAFE SPACE, it is not a closed space so I am delighted to share this experience with you, although I am certainly no theologian. I will start from how I dealt with my son’s ‘coming out’ –driven by the Ignatian phrase: ‘God is in all things’. Then, I will explain some difficulties with the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. And finally, I will say something about my own ‘coming out’, as a parent. (Probably, my participation at this Conference is like my final stage along this process).

Dealing with my child’s ‘coming out’

So how did my 17- year old son ‘come out’ to me? Well, quite typical of his generation – by sending an SMS! It happened while I was driving him home one evening. We were in the car together so I stopped to read my incoming message and it said: ‘Ma, I’m gay’– isn’t that crazy? ) So anyway, I began with the typical denial remarks: like ‘it’s probably just a phase….’ But he stopped me in my words and explained that he had been sure for a long time and he had just told all of his friends. Then he told me he had written ‘the famous letter’ some weeks before, which would explain everything I needed to know, once we got home. Anyway, thankfully when we arrived, my husband (who I thought may react negatively) was fast asleep on the sofa in front of the TV. So as I read through the letter (my son always wrote very clearly, in fact he became a journalist later in his career)– I felt I could fully understand the whole painful journey he had been through – and like St Paul, I felt the scales came down from in front of my eyes, and I was able to see it all so clearly: why he refused to come to Sunday Mass with us; why all the headaches; why the loss of weight; and why the many tissues inside his dustbin from nights of crying etc. Deep down I felt guilty that he had to go through all that uncertainty on his own – it was not easy for him. Yet on the other hand, I felt a great sigh of relief since I had imagined many worse things like: drugs, terrible sickness, trouble with police, getting someone

I knew something was wrong, but I never suspected this. So when it was clear that he was gay, I said to myself, “Aaahh! Ok, this I can do, cos all that is needed is love! So I hugged him and assured him of my love. I felt privileged to have such a wonderful relationship with my son – one where he could trust me with something so intimate and special. It was a boost to my motherhood. But then he commanded, ‘I am telling you but I will not tell dad myself, cos I don’t want to have it on my conscience if he drops dead with a heart attack. So if you think he should know, you can tell him yourself, not me’. So that night was the longest night of my life and I didn’t sleep a wink. I had to process all the implications of this new reality that had just landed onto my lap. I had to choose whether to stand by my 17 year old son or protect my marriage and my reputation in the Church. So I prayed for strength …. and by the morning I chose to stick with my son and be open about it, even if the whole world would turn against us. But it was a difficult decision to take. But I wanted to stand by my son, at such a vulnerable point in his life. So early that morning, I told my husband and the journey slowly unfolded….. and you would be pleased to know, that thankfully after this initial shock, my husband and I are both

It seems almost all parents feel this initial shock. Confusion and fear paralyze most parents. But for us Roman Catholics, an added concern is what the Church says about homosexuality. I realized that, when it comes to the LGBT reality, there are many misconceptions and myths that enwrap people in doubt and fear. Although we may have some laws in place that protect the rights of homosexuals, there is still a long way to go until we see the change in culture and mentality that is needed. One of the very first challenges parents of gay children must face is: “What will people say?” but then in Catholic Malta, the second one is: “What does the Catholic Church say?” Unfortunately, this is where many parents get confused and this is where pastoral care is felt

For instance, one of the members of our group is a separated mother of a 35 year old gay son. She tells her sad story of being rejected by her own brothers and sisters who before, were very close and supportive while she was going through her separation. But ever since her son ‘came out’ years ago, she and her son were no longer welcome to family weddings or Christmas reunions – they had been excluded by the whole extended family. This resulted in the son taking the blame upon himself and as a consequence, he is often suicidal. And these are people who go to Mass every day and receive the Eucharist – yet find it so easy to judge and to exclude.

I listen to many of these painful stories. To me, pastoral care is about meeting people where they stand and building a friendship with those who feel isolated, distant or cut-off from the Church or even their families – with those who are on the periphery of society – focusing therefore on emotional support

As Christians we must stand by the side of the poor and rejected, even if it causes us discomfort and humiliation. But there is still a lot of hostility and judgment out there. Our Christian communities need to build bridges and dialogue with those who are at the periphery of society. We need to offer them a SAFE SPACE where they can continue their faith journey. A SAFE SPACE where they can share their

So the more I was open about having a gay son, the more I became a magnet for people to approach me and these pastoral friendships began to unfold. In some ways I could offer emotional support and spiritual accompaniment to parents, who like me have experienced, overnight, that we have now become ‘the outsiders’, ‘the others’ who are under society’s critical gaze – ‘the talk of the town among friends and colleagues’, the misfits in society and the outcasts in our own church communities. This is something I experienced myself. I suddenly realised that ‘I too am being judged’ and ‘I too am being excluded’ but I would cling to the words from Isaiah: ‘You are precious in my eyes, you are honoured and I

Anyway, I started to read many articles (eg: ‘Always our Children’) and books (some authors are here today ) and to learn more about what the Church has to say about homosexuality. I felt however, that there were a number of contradictions in what my church said and what I know about

I wanted to unite the two things I love most: my family and my Church. But while my Church refers to my son’s sexuality as ‘intrinsically disordered’, my son refers to my church as ‘judgmental and irrational’. And this interior dilemma is common among many Catholic parents who like me, feel somewhat let down by our own church. So since there was nothing being offered in the Parishes, the Drachma Parents Group offered some pastoral accompaniment and helped parents deal with their trauma:

• denial: ‘It’s just a phase’, • blame: ‘who’s fault is it?, • guilt: ‘what should I have not/done?’, • anger: ‘why did God permit this?’, • loss/grief: ‘we can’t become grandparents and must give up

• fear: ‘being excluded and judged’, ‘will my son die of HIV

• rejection: ‘should we risk telling family and friends?’, • loneliness: ‘feeling abandoned even by the church’, • and shame: ‘have I failed as a parent?’,

With regular bursts of tears and honest sharing in our meetings, we have moved toward a process of acceptance and reconciliation. Drachma takes its name from Luke 15 the parable of the lost coin – I think deep down we all want to be known, appreciated and ‘found’, and when our gay children are no longer hidden but ‘come out’ in the open, then it is our turn to make our own journey of ‘coming out’, as parents.

Dealing with the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality

Despite my years of commitment and service in CLC Malta, I still tasted the stigma that LGBTIs experience. Whenever I put to question the harsh language used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church such as: intrinsically disordered – oh, how I wish the Bishops would begin this Synod by changing that hurtful phrase!! – I felt I too was being stigmatized. I experienced rejection and exclusion from persons and institutions who knew me well.

For instance: When I attended my first Gay Pride March as a guest speaker of the Family Group LISTAG in Turkey, some people in my community took it against me. I was misunderstood. And when I attended the ILGA Conference in Turin some years ago, I had the chance to know how it feels to be in the minority, (myself among over 200 LGBTIs) – I must have been the only Catholic heterosexual mother over there! It was not an easy experience for me. But this propelled me to appreciate diversity and to continue to act as a bridge.

Church statements lacking in understanding and compassion towards the LGBT situation have pushed away many young people and the church is sadly ‘bleeding’. Priests and Popes have told our homosexual sons and daughters that they cannot express their sexuality in an intimate relationship, in a manner that would naturally lead towards a lifelong commitment. Their life is merely looked upon as an offering of oneself to God only by remaining celibate. These contradictions cause much pain and confusion for parents.

Pastoral care means that our Christian communities must go out of their way to make another feel cared for, to give the opportunity for people to feel special – more accepted, more loved as s/he is. We ‘are sent’ to the periphery to show hospitality and embrace diversity and in doing this, we should be radiating the merciful love of Jesus that goes beyond any family discord, any personal weakness, any community division and any human expectation. We ‘are sent’ – we do not go out of our own accord. It is all about ‘being open’ to the greatest needs around us and then, ‘being sent’ to places where we may be afraid to go. After His Resurrection, Jesus assured his apostles (and us) of His promise: “I will go before you into Galilee” ….. yes, I believe He is ALWAYS ahead of us, ready to accompany us in our pastoral journey.

Dealing with my ‘coming out’ as a parent.

Like I said before, I too experienced being judged and felt the stigma LGBTs feel. The moment my son had ‘come out’ to me, I automatically started my own journey towards my own ‘coming out’ as a parent. This is also a very long and painful journey for us parents as much as it was for our children. While our children would have struggled interiorly for several years, the day we are told or find out our child is gay, we parents somehow have to be ready with the right answers and show the right attitude – but this is not always the case. In my encounters with parents having gay children, I note that for some parents this news would come to them as the final blow, after a series of several disappointments in life. They shut down or crumble, sometimes having to go on anti-depressants for several months. There is a deep sense of failure which leaves parents feeling paralyzed. These past six-and-a-half years, as a co-founder of the Drachma Parents Support Group, I have met many such parents who feel sorrow and regret about their initial response but they tell me that their child never really ever forgave them for the harsh words exchanged that first day.

In Malta, something that appears to be helping in this healing process is Drachma’s monthly meetings. As I mentioned, we offer a ‘SAFE SPACE’ that welcomes parents who would be struggling with their child’s ‘coming out’. In the beginning, parents are typically quite lost and so we offer some leaflets with information in Maltese since very little exists. We offer encouragement so they can strengthen the bonds in their own family relationships. Sometimes the spouses take opposite positions and argue for months without any progress. But when they come to Drachma they realise they are not alone, and this fills them with hope. They begin to explore new and positive approaches and to understand better this reality and understand their children too.

We learn from each other, we accompany one another during life’s difficult and also happy circumstances. We offer safety, understanding, support and compassion. We pray together, we share experiences, we cry, we pass on good articles and books but we don’t judge, we don’t exclude and we don’t give answers. We provide a vehicle where people are free to come and go, but after a number of meetings, they start to find themselves again and gain deeper perspective – they feel more ready to continue their faith journey in hope. Even if they choose to stop attending, they are still assured that we would still meet every third Thursday of every month! This stability is important in pastoral care.

Something else that works is sending emails to the Bishop. Whenever I listened to a priest’s homily that was delivered with a prejudice tone against gays or whenever the Drachma Community celebrated a wonderful Christmas or Easter Mass, I would write to my Bishop to inform him and give him a most vivid description of the event. Like me, other members of Drachma took different initiatives. Eventually, this led to building enough interest in the pastoral work of Drachma and some important follow-up meetings were held with the Bishops. Last February the Drachma Parents Group wrote a letter to the Bishop with specific recommendations for the upcoming Synod. And on May 17th IDAHO Mass was celebrated by the Bishop and was made public in the media. This was an important pastoral gesture by our Bishop which also helped to heal some wounds (especially after the Civil Union Law). Recently, I was also invited to give my input during a consultation meeting with the Bishop representing Malta at the Synod and I was one of 20 such advisors – so these humble initiatives are helping to build bridges, gain credibility and strengthen dialogue in the

Much of my time these days is spent meeting parents or answering their phone calls, listening and offering friendship. This is pastoral care. Although I feel I have little to offer them, yet there is little else where they feel they can turn to, to share their dilemma about linking ‘gay and catholic’. I usually meet them alone first and they pour out their painful stories. This releases some of their anxiety and they are able to see some hope in that they are not alone in their journey towards acceptance. When they attend their first monthly group meeting they often find solace in ‘letting it all out’ with parents who understand them since they share a common reality. It is God’s active presence among us that begins the healing process of many, as we listen to one another’s experiences. It is a joy to hear a husband express his gratitude and relief after finally seeing his wife smile for the first time in 12 years by the end of their first meeting. It was wonderful to watch the elderly couple go home with some renewed hope in their hearts saying, ‘We were afraid you would judge us and scold us for being bad parents, but you’re ok …. you people are nice people’

And so, from my own ‘coming out’ process I began to realize: That it’s ok to be identified as a parent of a gay child, it’s ok to talk about it with others, it’s ok to stand up in their defense during a casual conversation at a wedding, it’s ok to stop people from passing unfair remarks or jokes

it’s ok to write something that shows what side of the fence I

it’s ok to confront a priest about a homily or a Bishop about the words he used in his Pastoral letter in regard to gays. Yes, it is a gradual but liberating process of becoming a

St Ignatius of Loyola reminds us to ask: what is the most urgent and universal need? In my view, taking the hostility experienced by LGBTIs upon ourselves, and choosing to defend them instead of judge them, is perhaps the need I see most urgent and universal right now in the life of the church. We need to help stop the bullying that goes on in schools. We need to help persuade countries to change their laws starting with those countries that still consider homosexuality to be a crime. The Church can lead by example. It needs to address this phenomenon by first showing it is on the side of gays and ready to defend them, with the same determination as when we defend the unborn child. It is important that we reduce the number of attempted suicides by educating people, so as to respect diversity. Immediately following the Bishops’ Synod, the Catholic Church would do well to implement better ways of expressing its support in a concrete and outward way. We should insist on this. If we

Yes, our church is tired of pompous judgmental statements –it is tired of clashing symbols and empty words – people want to see real people, real testimonies of hope and love, people who listen, who make themselves available and who are ready to offer their time and their friendship. So whoever feels lost, hidden or forgotten in the church would be pleased to find us busy right now, (like the woman in the Drachma parable) sweeping up the whole house of God and causing a household stir. They would be happy to know that we value and celebrate their worth and are doing whatever we can to build an inclusive Church. And hopefully, we will REJOICE with our friends, including the Bishops and the Pope!

Facebook 644

Di' per primo che ti piace.

Joseanne Peregin: “I timori e le speranze di una madre cattolica di

Tag: ENGLISH. Aggiungi il permalink ai segnalibri.

Previous post Sinodo: le attese dei gay cattolici

Joseanne Peregin: “I timori e le speranze di una madre cattolicadi un ragazzo Gay. Il punto di vista

TESTI / TEXTS / TEXTOS / TEXTES

STAMPA/PRESS/PRENSA (9)

Le strade dell’Amore. Conferenza internazionaleMi piace Mi piace

Anyone interested in learning more about these issues, or to read the above posted articles in Italian, Spanish or French may do so by accessing the articles by going to the website below.

http://waysoflove.wordpress.com.
 
Top
6 replies since 9/10/2014, 00:15   114 views
  Share