In this book they seek to make a biblical case for same-sex relationships and marriage.

Ending the conservative Christian love affair

"We advocate for full inclusion of believers with differing sexual orientations not because we reject the authority of the Bible," the pair write.

"Far from it: We have come to advocate their inclusion precisely because we affirm the force and authority of the Bible's ongoing story of God's mercy."

Two respected Christian thinkers making a biblical argument for LGBTQ+ relationships and inclusion would have been newsworthy just a decade or two ago; in recent years, many scholars, pastors and lay thinkers have published books drawing similar conclusions.

So while the Hayses add their voices to the chorus and strike some new notes, they are a bit late to the concert.

But the most remarkable thing about this book is not its arguments, interesting and important as they are, but rather Richard Hays' name on its cover.

For the last quarter-century, conservative Christians have been citing Hays to argue against same-sex relationships and marriage.

His 1996 book "The Moral Vision of the New Testament" argued that the Bible explicitly prohibits LGBTQ+ marriage. Homosexuality, he wrote, "is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God's loving purpose."

Since news of the current book broke, the conservative Christian love affair with Hays has ended.

The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has lamented Hays' change of mind as "a cause of grief and sadness."

The Gospel Coalition has declared that the Hayses are "deceiving people when it comes to God's offer" of salvation, and Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary called the book "heresy…. A full doctrinal revolt."

Repentance

One might wonder why Hays, 76-years-old and battling pancreatic cancer, would choose to publish a provocative book years after retiring from Duke Divinity School.

Hays' answer is simple: This book is an effort to engage in an ancient Christian practice that he has taught about in classrooms for years: repentance.

In a video interview, Hays described the book to me as a metanoia, an ancient Greek word meaning "change of mind" and translated as "repentance" in English versions of the New Testament, where it appears 20 times; the verb "repent" appears an additional 27 times.

A recurrent theme in the teachings of Jesus, it's also a fixture in the prophetic cries of John the Baptiser and a main message of the Apostle Paul, who taught that living according to God's will means to be "transformed by the renewing of your mind."

Hays says metanoia denotes more than feeling or saying you are sorry; it means taking action to demonstrate one's new perspective. "The Widening of God's Mercy" is his effort to do just that.

"The present book is, for me, an effort to offer contrition and to set the record straight on where I now stand … I am deeply sorry. The present book can't undo past damage, but I pray that it may be of some help," Hays told me.

Those harmed by Hays' previous work may reply that even the most magisterial volume of repentance won't undo the damage caused by his previous work.

It's impossible to repay the generation that has been psychologically tortured by conservative pastors and parents armed with Hays' "moral vision" for their lives.

However impactful his new book, Hays can't make up for the years of sanity lost to depression, the sense of rejection by one's creator, countless prayers pleading to be changed that went unanswered. No book can pay such a debt.

At the same time, repentance requires us to attempt to seek forgiveness and make repair, no matter how delayed. It takes uncommon courage to make amends for past mistakes in the twilight of one's life, and it's a step that Hays frankly did not have to take.

It has already cost him the respect and accolades of an influential swath of Christianity.

If Christians are nothing else, they are people who know how to change their minds.

Today, however, some types of Christians have come to regard changing one's mind as a sign of spiritual weakness, as if it can only be the fruit of cultural capitulation or compromise.

I've heard pastors and theologians like Mohler brag about believing exactly the same things today as they did when they were mere youths.

They may be models of consistency, but they seem to know very little about the practice of repentance beyond the moment of Christian conversion. By definition, consistency and repentance are forces at odds. To repent is literally to forfeit one's consistency.

The late Christian writer Frederick Buechner said, "To repent is to come to your senses." And, Buechner added, it's not so much something you do as it is something that happens to you. For Hays, at least, this is how it began.

Thinking challenged

Hays goes directly at his critics on this point. In the years after the publication of "A Moral Vision of the New Testament," Hays said in our interview, he began to feel "deeply troubled by the way my chapter has been appropriated as ammunition by some individuals and groups taking the uncompromising ‘conservative' position."

When he penned his book in 1996, he said, he considered the chapter on homosexuality to be "proposals about how to best discern the New Testament's relevance for difficult and contested questions in our time" that could "start a conversation rather than end one."

As conservatives seized upon his words and used them "as a cover for exclusionary attitudes and practices wrapped in more ‘compassionate' packaging," Hays realised he had been naïve.

Hays' thinking was also challenged by the spiritual fidelity of the gay and lesbian people in his life.

He describes his Church as "a grace-filled Church community where gay and lesbian Christians participate fully as members and as leaders, without making it into a Church-defining issue."

The more he considered the many LGBTQ+ students in his classroom who were "both excellent students and gracious, compassionate people," the harder it became "to say that they should have the door slammed on them in terms of admittance to the full range of the Church's sacraments."

If these sexual minorities existed outside of God's good graces, then why was Hays witnessing so much undeniable spiritual fruit in their lives?

It all came to a head at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hays had watched with dismay as Christopher's employer, Fuller Theological Seminary, began expelling homosexuals and allies from their community.

"I was not proud of what had happened at this school where I worked," Christopher told me.

"And I had a hunch, too, that my Dad didn't feel comfortable with what had come of what he'd written, and that his heart was in a different place, too, but we had never really talked it out."

Mercy

Father and son entered into a period of intentional conversations as the pandemic went along, and they wrote out what they had come to believe.

The result was a picture of a God who changes his mind in response to human pain and seeking, and who is always expanding the reach of his mercy.

Through this process Richard Hays realised that in his previous work, he had been "more concerned about my own intellectual project than about the pain of gay and lesbian people inside and outside the Church, including those driven out of the Church by unloving condemnation."

He decided, along with Christopher, to write a book arguing for full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people into the life of faith that includes an epilogue written by Richard in which he profusely apologises for the harm his previous work has caused.

"The Widening of God's Mercy" is a prestigious New Testament scholar's attempt to demonstrate that he has come to his senses.

What remains to be seen, but will soon become apparent, is whether those Christians who are still unconvinced about the faithfulness of sexual minorities will join him.

• First published by Religion News Service
• Jonathan Merritt is senior columnist for Religion News Service

The conference, held from 2 - 4 August, brought together LGBTQ Catholics, clergy and many others with a vested interest to discuss faith and inclusivity within the Church.

According to the conference's website, Outreach "gathers LGBTQ laypeople, clergy, scholars, artists, educators, students and family members to build community, share best practices and worship together".

Outreach is a Catholic LGBTQ resource group founded by Jesuit priest and theologian Father James Martin.

In his homily, Cardinal Gregory acknowledged the complexity of LGBTQ issues within the Church and emphasised the necessity of addressing these matters with "sincerity and genuine compassion".

"This gathering is an opportunity for people to listen to one another in love, knowing full well that we might see another's position as difficult to understand and to accept" Gregory stated.

He expressed concern for the state of the Church and nation, decrying an "increase in violence, the forfeiture of civility in public discourse and the disavowal of once well-known hallowed values".

Gregory noted that the Church and the nation are at a critical juncture, requiring open and respectful dialogue.

The cardinal highlighted that unity within the Church does not mean uniformity but rather a shared spiritual connectedness or "communion" that respects diverse perspectives.

Act of synodality

Gregory's participation marked the first time a cardinal had presided over the conference's Mass which he celebrated at Georgetown's Dahlgren Chapel.

His involvement received support from Pope Francis who, in a note to Father Martin, expressed his spiritual closeness to the event and offered his blessings.

The cardinal praised conference attendees for being "dedicated to the pursuit of our becoming a more inclusive family of faith, welcoming others in spite of our differences".

He said that such a pursuit is an "act of synodality" and that "sincerely and openly speaking and listening to one another under the light and guidance of the Holy Spirit is the way that the Church grows in perfection".

Sources

Catholic News Agency

Outreach

CathNews New Zealand

The forum provided an opportunity for 12 students from across the Asia-Pacific region to speak directly to Francis about their ideas and reflections about their shared social concerns.

The Loyola University Chicago-organised "Building Bridges Initiative" has seen similar online forums take place across the globe.

Anti-gay slurs hurt

The Pope heard from one forum member that reports of his disrespectful comments about gay people caused hurt.

Filipino Catholic university student Jack Lorenz Acebedo Rivero (pictured wearing rainbow scarf) confronted the issue straight-on, telling the pontiff to please "stop using offensive language" against LGBTQ people.

Slurs cause "immense pain" he said.

"I myself am outcast and bullied due to my bisexuality, my gayness, my identity and being the son of a single parent."

Rivero says his situation is made worse because the law in the Philippines does not allow divorce.

"Due to this, I developed bipolar disorder and I am stigmatised.

"My mother cannot divorce my father. Please allow divorce in the Philippines" he begged the Pope.

Isolation, mockery and no formation

Among the concerns students spoke of were land injustices, systemic poverty, gender discrimination against Muslim women, fears of terrorists.

Others offered ideas.

One student from Australia spoke of young Catholics' isolation in an increasingly secular culture.

"Many of us feel lonely in our schools and universities. Daily we are bombarded by secular ideologies, mocked for our faith and outnumbered in our mission to be beacons of hope" Elizabeth Fernandez told Francis.

We are committed to serving others and building a "culture of charity" she said.

Another big concern in Australia is faith formation for young people.

"Some religion teachers in Catholic schools use class time to preach their own agendas of abortion, contraception and gender theory."

This could change if all religion teachers were trained catechists and if young people could be incentivised to become catechists themselves.

"We want young people to have greater access to confession and to have Christ integrated into all school subjects, thereby fostering a culture of greater reverence for the Eucharist" she said.

Pope responds

After listening to everyone, Francis responded to their concerns.

Personal identity was a recurring theme many mentioned, he observed.

He urged those being mocked for their faith to love those who mock them in turn, without settling for a "lukewarm" Christianity.

Good faith-based education helps us be "authentic, real Christians" he stressed.

Barely touching on the LGBTQ issue, he said problems caused by discrimination can be resolved with closeness and proximity.

Focusing mostly on discrimination where women are treated as if they are in "a second category", he noted "we see that today in the world women are the best leaders … and are superior to men in their ability to create community.

"The capacity for motherhood gives women a much more effective position of action than men - and this is important" he said.

Source

• You Tube
• You Tube
• CNA
• Catholic Weekly
• BBC

As a gay man, I was shocked and saddened by the Holy Father's reported use of an offensive slur during a discussion with Italian bishops.

While ostensibly justifying a policy of refusing to accept gay men into seminaries, the pope reportedly stated that there was too much "frociaggine" in seminaries.

Let's be clear about the slur that was used so we also understand the controversy.

The word is an offensive term often employed in a pejorative/derogatory manner to refer to gay men, one vulgar enough not to be translated here.

Apology

In response, the Vatican stated that that the pope was aware of these reports.

While not directly confirming that the pontiff used the offensive word, the Vatican stated:

"The pope never intended to offend or express himself in homophobic terms, and he apologises to those who felt offended by the use of a term, as reported by others."

I welcome the pope's apology.

I am relieved that he did not intend any offense.

But any fair observer must conclude that this incident has severely compromised his historic outreach and unprecedented openness to members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community.

Intent vs. impact

To understand the magnitude of the pope's use of the slur, we must make a distinction between the intent and the impact of his words.

Some seek to downplay all of this as only a matter of an unfortunate choice of words or a careless use of colloquial language.

Others view this as nothing more than an elderly man's imprecise grasp of a language that is not his native tongue.

But others point out that the pope has been speaking Italian since his childhood.

All of this may be true.

But regardless of the speaker's intent, such language is dehumanising.

Slurs and offensive names are perhaps too easily dismissed by those who are not their targets.

But make no mistake: Derogatory slurs dehumanise sexual minorities.

They call our humanity into question.

Moreover, the harm goes beyond those who were directly offended by the pope's homophobic slur.

The pope's use of such language gives support to public policies that endanger the lives of sexual minorities around the world.

Those who seek to exclude gay, lesbian and trans people from social life and juridical protection can - and will - take comfort and solace from the Holy Father's words.

Infinite dignity

Yes, I know that Pope Francis has called for the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Yet his use of offensive terminology cannot but undercut his message that all possess an "infinite dignity" that should be respected by all. More than an apology is needed. Read more

• Bryan Massingale is a professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University in New York. He is the author of Racial Justice and the Catholic Church (Orbis, 2010).

"Attention, from here on high levels of faggotry" read one sign on a motorcycle. A man dressed as Pope Francis held a sign stating "There is too much faggotry in this parade".

"Today Rome is a river of faggotry, not only in its seminaries" read another of the many Francis-faggot-themed posters.

The signs were mocking the Pope's recent use of the term "faggotness" during meetings, which led to his apology last month.

"I can't believe he said that word" said one participant. "I think he knows what it means" he added. "It's not the case he did not know."

The Pope had also reaffirmed the Vatican's ban on gay men entering seminaries and being ordained as priests.

Elly Schlein, leader of Italy's main opposition party, joined the parade and danced on a float. Schlein is a vocal supporter of LGBTQ+ rights, contrasting sharply with the stance of Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni.

Meloni's Brothers of Italy party opposes marriage equality, adoption by gay parents and surrogate pregnancies. Her government has also restricted recognition of parental rights to biological parents in same-sex families.

The Rome LGBTQ+ Pride parade featured various satirical signs, including one targeting Gen. Roberto Vannacci, a new parliament member for the right-wing League party. Vannacci was dismissed from his military position after writing a book deemed offensive to women, gays and Blacks.

"If according to Vannacci the LGBTQIA+ is a minority … he has never met the seminarians of Pope Francis" one sign read.

Just days before Rome's Pride parade, US Jesuit Fr James Martin, who founded the Catholic LGBTQ "Outreach" ministry, met Pope Francis. Martin posted on social media that "the Holy Father said he has known many good, holy and celibate seminarians and priests with homosexual tendencies".

"Once again, he confirmed my ministry with LGBTQ people and showed his openness and love for the LGBTQ community" Martin wrote on June 12.

Sources

AP News

National Catholic Reporter

He was contemplating two photos of a young gay female couple kissing and another one of a male gay couple kissing at their wedding ceremony.

"These images make me think the world is coming to an end," he said. "They are things you can't imagine happening, and people blindly support them."

The 55-year-old father of six, who owns a food kiosk in Wakiso, blamed the West for invading his culture and destroying its values.

He believes foreign governments are sponsoring LGBTQ people and their activities in the country.

"The people who call themselves LGBTQ activists are now recruiting many people, including our children," Lubega said.

"They don't know what they are doing, but they are destroying people's lives by engaging them in unethical activities.

"The West want to make our country Sodom and Gomorrah, and we won't accept it."

Illegal and immoral activity

Last year in May, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed into law a measure calling for life imprisonment for anyone convicted of same-sex activity.

The law also calls for the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality," which involves cases of same-sex relations involving people who are HIV positive, children and other vulnerable people.

Lubega, who wants the government to ban LGBTQ rights groups, is a staunch Catholic, and like many of his co-religionists, opposes Pope Francis's recent move to allow priests to administer blessings to same-sex couples.

The organisation of Catholic bishops in Africa and Madagascar stated earlier this month that they will refuse to follow Francis' declaration.

The bishop of Lira Diocese, the Rt. Rev. Sanctus Lino Wanok (pictured), has launched a campaign against all forms of LGBTQ identity or activism in northern Uganda.

He is calling on LGBTQ advocates to repent and seek God's blessings.

"It's shameful to see some people promoting sin and luring people to join in committing sin," Wanok told RNS.

"People must not accept homosexuality because it's a mockery of God, our creator."

Wanok, Lubega and others are among the religious leaders, government officials and some rights group activists who have blamed the West for promoting LGBTQ acceptance in the country.

They say the activities have recently increased with pro-gay activists targeting school-going children.

Praise for Pope

A Catholic LGBTQ activist who asked for anonymity for his safety praised Francis's declaration permitting priests to offer blessings to same-sex couples.

However, he said the Pope's approval has only prompted the Government and citizens to increase attacks on their members.

He said families have disowned LGBTQ members, churches have given strict instructions not to allow them in the church's compounds, landlords have evicted them and some have lost jobs.

"We live in fear because we cannot identify as gay, lesbian or transgender," said the activist.

"Pope Francis should give clear instructions to bishops and priests to allow LGBTQ members to worship God and nourish their spirits."

Cultural divisions

The Western world has for years called on African governments to give LGBTQ people equal rights by decriminalising same-sex sexual acts and protecting their rights.

In June last year, the United States imposed visa restrictions on dozens of Uganda officials in response to the country's anti-gay laws.

"As Africans, we should be very careful and not accept everything white people tell us," warned catechist Charles Kiwuwa from the Archdiocese of Tororo in the eastern region of Uganda, in an interview with RNS.

"They have told us that polygamy is a sin because they know most Africans embrace it and that homosexuality is righteousness because we disagree."

The Catholic leaders have begun a countrywide campaign to fight "agents of homosexuality" in the country who they believe are being supported by foreign governments to spread LGBTQ activism in schools and other institutions.

The church leaders have expressed concern over increasing cases of same-sex attraction among the youth and school-going children.

They are accusing these agents of luring school children with money and other luxurious gifts to recruit them.

"As a church, we have decided to fight homosexuality to save our children and the country from collapsing because the Bible teaches us that homosexuality is evil, as read in Genesis Chapters 18 and 19," the Rev. Richard Nyombi told RNS.

Nyombi, the parish priest of Mapeera Nabulagala in Kampala, said religious leaders had fought same-sex attraction from time immemorial, both in the Bible and today.

They are unwilling to allow foreign culture to influence the country.

"We are preaching against homosexuality during Mass and other gatherings to help our brothers and sisters not fall prey to the vice and for those who have already been lured into the practice to repent and follow God's way," he said.

Church leaders have been meeting with youth, parents, children, elders and government officers in an effort to curb the spread of "immoral" behavior among people, especially children.

The leaders have also been advising parents during Masses and other gatherings to warn their children against same-sex attraction and to urge them to be content with what their parents have given them, so they are not tempted by money.

"We have started to sensitise children in schools and homes against the vice of homosexuality," said the Rev. Fr. Francis Xavier Kikomeko, the parish priest of Kisubi in Kampala. They also offer weekly workshops, he said.

"We want to make children and parents aware that homosexuality is a sin, and pro-gay activists should never influence them to join LGTBQ groups because it's evil and not accepted in the Bible."

• Tonny Onyulo is an author at Religion News Service.
• First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

"These images make me think the world is coming to an end," he said.

"They are things you can't imagine happening, and people blindly support them."

The 55-year-old father of six, who owns a food kiosk in Wakiso, blamed the West for invading his culture and destroying its values.

He believes foreign governments are sponsoring LGBTQ people and their activities in the country.

"The people who call themselves LGBTQ activists are now recruiting many people, including our children," Lubega said.

"They don't know what they are doing, but they are destroying people's lives by engaging them in unethical activities. The West want to make our country Sodom and Gomorrah, and we won't accept it."

Last year in May, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed into law a measure calling for life imprisonment for anyone convicted of same-sex activity.

The law also calls for the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality," which involves cases of same-sex relations involving people who are HIV positive, children and other vulnerable people.

Many LGBTQ Ugandans have since fled to neighbouring countries to escape homophobia.

Lubega, who wants the government to ban LGBTQ rights groups, is a staunch Catholic, and like many of his co-religionists opposes Pope Francis' recent move to allow priests to administer blessings to same-sex couples.

The organisation of Catholic bishops in Africa and Madagascar stated earlier this month that they will refuse to follow Francis' declaration.

The bishop of Lira Diocese, the Rt Rev. Sanctus Lino Wanok, has launched a campaign against all forms of LGBTQ identity or activism in northern Uganda, calling LGBTQ advocates to repent and seek God's blessings.

"It's shameful to see some people promoting sin and luring people to join in committing sin," Wanok told RNS.

"People must not accept homosexuality because it's a mockery of God, our creator."

They are among the religious leaders, government officials and some rights group activists who have blamed the West for promoting LGBTQ acceptance in the country, saying the activities have recently increased with pro-gay activists targeting school-going children.

A Catholic LGBTQ activist who asked for anonymity for his safety praised Francis' declaration permitting priests to offer blessings to same-sex couples.

However, he said the pope approval has only prompted the government and citizens to increase attacks on their members.

He said families have disowned LGBTQ members, churches have given strict instructions not to allow them in the church's compounds, landlords have evicted them and some have lost jobs.

"We live in fear because we cannot identify as gay, lesbian or transgender," said the activist.

"Pope Francis should give clear instructions to bishops and priests to allow LGBTQ members to worship God and nourish their spirits."

The Western world has for years called on African governments to give LGBTQ people equal rights by decriminalizing same-sex sexual acts and protecting their rights.

In June last year, the United States imposed visa restrictions on dozens of Uganda officials in response to the country's anti-gay laws.

"As Africans, we should be very careful and not accept everything white people tell us," warned catechist Charles Kiwuwa from the Archdiocese of Tororo in the eastern region of Uganda in an interview with RNS.

"They have told us that polygamy is a sin because they know most Africans embrace it and that homosexuality is righteousness because we disagree."

The Catholic leaders have begun a countrywide campaign to fight "agents of homosexuality" in the country who they believe are being supported by foreign governments to spread LGBTQ activism in schools and other institutions.

The church leaders have expressed concern over increasing cases of same-sex attraction among the youth and school-going children, accusing these agents of luring school children with money and other luxurious gifts to recruit them.

"As a church, we have decided to fight homosexuality to save our children and the country from collapsing because the Bible teaches us that homosexuality is evil, as read in Genesis Chapters 18 and 19," the Rev Richard Nyombi told RNS.

Nyombi, the parish priest of Mapeera Nabulagala in Kampala, said religious leaders had fought same-sex attraction from time immemorial, both in the Bible and today, and they are unwilling to allow foreign culture to influence the country.

"We are preaching against homosexuality during Mass and other gatherings to help our brothers and sisters not fall prey to the vice and for those who have already been lured into the practice to repent and follow God's way," he said.

Church leaders have been meeting with youth, parents, children, elders and government officers in an effort to curb the spread of "immoral" behaviour among people, especially children.

The leaders have also been advising parents during Masses and other gatherings to warn their children against same-sex attraction and to urge them to be content with what their parents have given them, so they are not tempted by money.

"We have started to sensitize children in schools and homes against the vice of homosexuality," said the Rev. Fr Francis Xavier Kikomeko, the parish priest of Kisubi in Kampala, who also said they offer weekly workshops.

"We want to make children and parents aware that homosexuality is a sin, and pro-gay activists should never influence them to join LGTBQ groups because it's evil and not accepted in the Bible."

Source

• Tonny Onyulo is an author at Religion News Service
• First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

Cupich told O'Connell about his experience of the meeting and the synod's synthesis document, published Oct. 29.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

O'Connell: What is your overall take on the synthesis document?

Cupich: The document is not as important as the experience that we had. I think the document tries to convey that experience. And it does a good job.

But my hope would be that we are able to take that experience back home and share it with our people because that really is what the synod is about. It's a new way of being Church.

At the same time, the document does call for a codification of synods in the future [being] done along these lines, rather than going back to what we did before.

That's a very important statement, made loud and clear in this document.

We were aware that there are people in the life of the Church and in synod hall who had their doubts about synodality itself as a model for Church life.

There were calls to develop [that model], theologically, so that we're clear about this.

But there was no doubt whatsoever that this is not only a new way that the Church is going to function, but, in fact, [that it is] tapping into the roots of our tradition.

The Church has been synodal from the very beginning. What we're doing is recapturing something that can serve us well in this moment.

O'Connell: You participated in past synods. How has the fact that you have non-bishops voting changed things?

Cupich Instead of having bishops say, "This is what our people are saying," in the old synods, which we tried to do our best to do, we actually had people there.

Young people, elderly people, religious men and women, who, in fact, were on the ground in pastoral ministry, who gave voice in ways that were fresh, were challenging, and in ways that maybe a bishop could not say before.

There was an actual paragraph that was passed overwhelmingly about non-bishops being a part of this: Does it in some way take away from the understanding that it's a Synod of Bishops?

And there was a resounding acceptance that non-bishops should be a part of it because it's not a threat.

It allows the bishops to have that immediate interaction with the voice of the whole church.

That's important. It was pointed out to me that if you look at the votes and you strip away all of the non-bishops who were a part of the synod, the propositions still pass by 75 percent.

O'Connell: But even in this document, they talk about the need to clarify whether this is a Synod of Bishops or an assembly of bishops. Some people raised objections.

Cupich: They did, but I think that there were some propositions that said very clearly that non-bishops should be a part of [the process] going forward in the future.

O'Connell: So you see no going back.

Cupich: I don't think there's a need to go back. We have made some real progress here, and the bishops enjoyed having lay people there.

It wasn't [simply] tolerating it. Maybe there were some voices that had difficulties with it because they wanted it to be all bishops [but] very few.

By and large, the bishops interacted really well with lay people at the tables.

O'Connell: One of the big developments in this document is the role of women in the church.

Cupich: We're talking about a real paradigm shift here.

We recognise the fact that women, de facto, carry the life of the Church, on so many levels, to make it operational on a day-to-day basis.

But I think it's more than recognising that; it's dealing also with how you include women in important decision making, how you place them within the life of the community so that their leadership is regarded, respected and protected.

[The document] talks about different ministries that might be created to do that. I know that there was a lot of discussion about women deacons, and that was not resolved here.

But it was very clear that the assembly called for a study and hopefully that we would have the results by the next [synod meeting]. I imagine it's going to be taken up again.

But it's not only about [making] everything about women deacons.

There has to be another way in which we respect that women bring a particular gift to the life of the church, that if absent, impoverishes the church.

How do we take advantage of their gifts and charisms? That's an agenda that's not complete yet. Continue reading

Even so, there were those who hoped for forward motion on married priests, women deacons and LGBTQ issues.

They will be disappointed by the final report issued by the synod.

For Francis it was not about the hot-button topics.

It was always about the synodal process, which he hoped would overcome divisions in the Church and recommit us to the mission of Jesus — of proclaiming the gospel of the Father's love and compassion for all of humanity and the earth.

If anything, movement on LGBTQ issues was reversed, as can be seen by the fact that the synod refused to even use the term LGBTQ in their report, even though the Vatican and the pope now use the term in their documents.

The 40-page report shows that power in the Church, at least in the synod, has moved from the Global North (Europe and the United States) to the Global South (especially Africa).

Africans were able to insert into the report pastoral concern for those in polygamous marriages but fought tooth and nail to keep any reference to LGBTQ Catholics out of the report.

They were joined by Polish bishops and others in opposition to what they termed "LGBTQ ideology." Many of their comments at the synod would be considered homophobic in the Global North.

The patriarch of Syria even stormed out of the synod rather than sit with someone who had opposing views on the matter. You wonder if they ever knowingly had a conversation with a gay person.

The treatment of LGBTQ issues in the synod's working paper, or Instrumentum Laboris, was better than in the final report. The report did not even describe the debate in the synod.

On the other hand, the synod did not close discussion of LGBTQ issues or use language like "intrinsically disordered."

Rather, it says, "Certain issues, such as those relating to matters of identity and sexuality … are controversial not only in society, but also in the Church, because they raise new questions."

One gay advocate responded, "Have they been asleep for the last 50 years to think these are new questions?"

The report continues on a slightly open note: "Sometimes the anthropological categories we have developed are not able to grasp the complexity of the elements emerging from experience or knowledge in the sciences and require greater precision and further study.

"It is important to take the time required for this reflection and to invest our best energies in it, without giving in to simplistic judgements that hurt individuals and the Body of the Church."

Although this leaves the question open for discussion, the general impression given is, "We have the right answers, we just don't know how to communicate them."

"I'm disappointed not only that LGBTQ were excised," Jesuit Father James Martin, who ministers to the LGBTQ+ community and was handpicked as a delegate by Pope Francis, told The Washington Post.

"But also that the discussions we had, which were passionate on both sides, were not reflected in the final document."

The discussion of women deacons neither advanced nor set back the issue. Rather the report describes the state of the question, which was not changed by the synod:

Different positions have been expressed regarding women's access to the diaconal ministry.

For some, this step would be unacceptable because they consider it a discontinuity with Tradition. For others, however, opening access for women to the diaconate would restore the practice of the Early Church.

Others still, discern it as an appropriate and necessary response to the signs of the times, faithful to the Tradition, and one that would find an echo in the hearts of many who seek new energy and vitality in the Church.

Some express concern that the request speaks of a worrying anthropological confusion, which, if granted, would marry the Church to the spirit of the age.

Again the role of the African members was important here.

While the Synod on the Amazon favored women deacons, the African church does not have many deacons at all. Catechists play a much more important role in Africa.

It is no wonder that there is little interest in women deacons in Africa where there are few male deacons. Women in Africa are dealing with patriarchy and clericalism on a larger scale.

Surprisingly, the possibility of having married priests got less attention at the synod than women deacons. One delegate told me that only three interventions discussed optional celibacy. Others said it never came up in their small groups.

Here all the synod could say was: "Different opinions have been expressed about priestly celibacy.

"Its value is appreciated by all as richly prophetic and a profound witness to Christ; some ask, however, whether its appropriateness, theologically, for priestly ministry should necessarily translate into a disciplinary obligation in the Latin Church, above all in ecclesial and cultural contexts that make it more difficult.

"This discussion is not new but requires further consideration."

If after a month that is all they can say, why did they bother?

This brings us back to Pope Francis' view of the synod as a way of overcoming divisions and modeling how decisions should be made in the Church.

For almost all the synod members, the experience was positive. The conversations in the Spirit at roundtables of about 10 members were especially good.

At first, some bishops were not used to being told by a laywoman that their four minutes were up and they had to stop talking.

But most accepted the process and learned how to participate in a setting where bishops, priests, religious and laymen and women were all listened to with respect.

The problem now is how to repeat that experience around the globe in the year of consultation prior to the next session of the synod in October 2024.

Few people are going to read the 40-page document.

Pastors need a simple set of instructions on how to continue the conversation in their parishes. Hopefully, the Synod Secretariat will come up with a simple roadmap for the interim discussions.

In addition, there are lots of interesting and important items in the report about refugees, migrants, human trafficking and poor people.

It recognised the need to foster peace and protect the earth. It stressed the importance of ecumenism and interreligious cooperation.

It argued for the Church to be more synodal, and expressed a desire for better formation of clergy and laity, as well as the "need to make liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures."

Every bishop and pastor should be able to find something in the 40 pages to discuss with his community.

Attempting to write a 40-page document in the last week of the synod was a mistake, especially when dealing with a multicultural international group of 364 members. Over a thousand amendments were offered to the first draft.

The official text was Italian with an interim English translation, which I used in this column.

No other translation was available, which left Spanish speakers out in the cold.

The solution was to read the entire 40 pages to the assembly with simultaneous translations before the report was voted on paragraph by paragraph. No one knows when the official translations will be published.

In his homily at the synod's concluding Mass, Pope Francis acknowledged that the work of the synod is not done.

"Today we do not see the full fruit of this process, but with farsightedness we look to the horizon opening up before us," he said.

"The Lord will guide us and help us to be a more synodal and missional Church, a Church that adores God and serves the women and men of our time, going forth to bring to everyone the consoling joy of the Gospel."

Now that the first session of the synod is over, the ball is in everyone else's court. We are invited to continue the conversation in the Spirit.

Those like me who are impatient for change need to remember the words of Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich who described the Church as "the people of God, walking through history, with Christ in her midst."

"It is only normal that there is a group walking at his right, another at his left, while some run ahead and others lag behind," explained Hollerich.

"When each of these groups looks at Christ our Lord, together with him they cannot help but see the group that is doing the opposite: those walking on the right will see those walking on the left, those running ahead will see those lagging behind.

"In other words, the so-called progressive cannot look at Christ without seeing the so-called conservatives with him and vice versa. Nevertheless, the important thing is not the group to which we seem to belong but walking with Christ within his Church."

Let's keep walking toward the horizon.

• The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit priest, is a Senior Analyst at RNS. Previously he was a columnist at the National Catholic Reporter (2015-17) and an associate editor (1978-85) and editor in chief (1998-2005) at America magazine.
• First published in Religion News Service. Republished with permission.

Even when something positive happens in the Church, they will say, "Not enough!" or "Too little, too late."

In his opening address to the Second Vatican Council, Pope St. John XXIII mentioned "prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disaster."

Of course, it's not surprising that LGBTQ people might feel discouraged — even despairing—from time to time when Church leaders and others put so many stumbling blocks in their way.

But this can also betoken a reflexive focus on the negative, a pattern that can seem hard to break.

Reflecting on the story of the Raising of Lazarus, from John's Gospel (11:1-44), can offer all of us, not just LGBTQ people, some clues in how to move away from the focusing on the negative.

When Jesus asks Martha to remove the stone that covers her brother Lazarus's tomb, a thrilling moment of possibility, she says something odd: "Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead for four days."

Martha, who has already professed her faith in Jesus as the "Messiah," is focused on the negative.

Jesus's reassuring response to Martha's mention of the stench, however, is puzzling: "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"

This comment functions less as a direct response to Martha's question and more as a general reassurance to this troubled sister and to the crowd mourning with her.

His reassurance is reminiscent of the Angel Gabriel's response to the Virgin Mary at the Annunciation.

In Luke's Gospel, Mary, "much perplexed" by the news that she will give birth, asks, "How can this be?" (1:34). Mary is also focused on the practical: she's a virgin.

In response, the angel reassures Mary by reminding her that her cousin Elizabeth, previously thought to be unable to give birth, is pregnant.

"For nothing will be impossible with God," says the angel.

God reassures Mary, as Jesus reassures Martha by Lazarus's tomb.

In moments of confusion, doubt or fear, such reassurance can jolt us out of our focus on the practical, the negative or the seemingly impossible.

This is what Jesus does in both cases for Martha in front of her brother's tomb.

In our own lives, there are several antidotes to a misdirected focus on the obviously negative, the purely personal or the seemingly impossible.

To be clear: I'm not saying that we should never feel sad or discouraged. Sadness, frustration and discouragement are natural reactions to times of loss, pain or a disappointing turn of events.

What I'm talking about here is a frequent, persistent or habitual tendency to focus on the negative to the exclusion of all else.

What can help counteract those tendencies?

First, gratitude. Nothing counters negativity as much as gratitude. As St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, said, ingratitude is the worst, most abominable of sins and the origin of sins.

Ingratitude blinds us to the blessings that God is giving us, even in the middle of tough times. Ongoing ingratitude can make us tetchy, negative, complaining and even despairing.

In those moments of negativity, doing an honest inventory on the blessings in our lives can help restore some balance. Read more

• James J. Martin SJ is an American Jesuit Catholic priest, writer, and editor-at-large of the Jesuit magazine America.
• Article first published in Outreach.

Dawkins is abandoning both to spread anti-transgender rhetoric embraced by religious conservatives.

During a recent episode of his podcast "The Poetry of Reality," Dawkins spoke with author Helen Joyce about the "influence of gender ideology on society."

There was no mention of how Joyce has previously said transgender people who have transitioned are "damaged" and "a huge problem to a sane world."

Nor did Dawkins bring up how she believes "reducing" the number of people who transition is a moral imperative.

Dawkins not only agreed with many of her points, he added that "sex really is binary" and that kids are choosing to be Trans under pressure from both their peers and teachers.

He also insisted that people like him were the real victims of abuse, wondering why "all the bullying (goes) one way."

(In fact, a study from 2021 found that trans people are four times more likely than cisgender people to "experience violent victimisation.")

The podcast episode dropped days after Dawkins wrote an essay for the British magazine The New Statesman answering the question, "What is a woman?"

Dawkins' reductive response boiled down to "A woman is an adult human female, free of Y chromosomes," as if the absence of a single chromosome answers the question.

That flies in the face of what many scientists have said about the subject.

"There are cisgender women who have XY sex chromosomes, and many other exceptions to binary sex.

"Around 1 in 1,000 people are intersex," said Jey McCreight, a science communicator with a Ph.D. in genomics who has consulted on trans inclusivity for biotech companies.

McCreight added in an email: "That's pretty common as far as biology goes.

"A study may treat sex as binary out of practicality, but scientists understand that reality is more nuanced."

Despite acknowledging those exceptions exist, Dawkins casually dismisses them, just as he dismisses the genetic influences many experts believe contribute to the development of trans identities.

Those exceptions and influences are reasons the American Medical Association and other major medical organisations have supported gender-affirming care.

Dawkins also rejects definitions of womanhood that extend beyond chromosomes.

In 2021, he went even further, comparing trans people to Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who famously (and controversially) identified as Black.

Suggesting trans people were making a similar choice, he tweeted, "Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men."

He insisted he wasn't disparaging trans people — most of whom say their gender identity is not a choice at all, but rather just who they are — and said he used their names and pronouns as a "courtesy."

But that didn't smooth things over.

The American Humanist Association, which gave Dawkins its 1996 Humanist of the Year award, rescinded the honour in response.

At a time when 76 percent of atheists accept the existence of trans people, according to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey, while only 38 percent of all American adults feel the same, it's jarring to see the world's most famous atheist use his massive platform to downplay or deny trans identities.

That's especially true when trans people in the U.S. are under attack from conservative media outlets and legislators eager to label them predators or "groomers."

The advocacy group GLAAD said 2023 was "on pace to be a record-setting year for state legislation targeting LGBTQ adults and youth," including laws banning or limiting trans individuals' access to health care and participation in sports.

For decades, the most vocal opponents of LGBTQ rights were religious conservatives making the argument that acceptance violated God's wishes.

Lately, though, as the lines between politics and religion have blurred, conservatives have been citing science, rather than religion, to justify their positions.

In response to a trans-supporting colleague, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene hung a sign outside her office saying "There are TWO genders … Trust The Science!"

A recent anti-trans film by conservative provocateur Matt Walsh attempted to make a scientific rather than religious case against trans people.

And author J.K. Rowling, whom Dawkins called "very brave" in his podcast, has couched her inflammatory rhetoric in biological terms.

What's most frustrating about Dawkins' shift in focus is that his otherwise excellent science writing is being tarnished by his bizarre obsession.

Much as fans of the Harry Potter series are now conflicted about the book and movie franchise and its creator, I can no longer recommend Dawkins' books to people who want to educate themselves about evolution.

It's also maddening because Dawkins remains the go-to atheist for reporters and media outlets.

There are more atheists who are LGBTQ, women and people of colour than ever before, yet it's Dawkins who often takes centre stage whenever there are public conversations about atheism.

That's not his fault, of course: He literally wrote the most popular book on the subject.

But it's irresponsible to use his platforms to spread ignorance on a topic that critics have repeatedly said he doesn't understand and often gets flat-out wrong.

His words also have the effect of further alienating LGBTQ people when they're already marginalised by many powerful religious leaders.

Why would they want to become atheists when supposedly "reasonable" people are spreading the same lies they hear in churches?

Trans people are currently subject to political attacks and dehumanising laws.

Dawkins should spend less time acting like this issue boils down to basic biology and more time advocating for LGBTQ people who have been harmed by religious — and now supposedly scientific — bigotry.

• Hemant Mehta is a writer, podcaster and atheist activist. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.
• First published in Religion News Service. Republished with permission.

Fighting the ban, Mike and Catherine "Kitty" Burke (pictured) turned to liberty group Becket Law who have filed a federal lawsuit on their behalf.

The lawsuit seeks to prohibit Massachusetts from using LGBTQ accommodations to decline issuing foster care licences to religious applicants.

It also asks for the Burkes' application to be granted and for them to receive "nominal and compensatory damages" from the defendants.

Catholic beliefs and the State

The lawsuit specifically claims the State of Massachusetts restricted the Catholic couple from fostering children in the State. This decision was based on the Burkes' adherence to Catholic teachings on gender, sexuality and marriage.

"After months of interviews and training, and after years of heartbreak, we were on the verge of finally becoming parents," the Burkes say.

"We were absolutely devastated to learn that Massachusetts would rather children sleep in the hallways of hospitals than let us welcome children in need into our home."

The lawsuit claims the State listed only one reason for denying the Burkes' foster care application: they "would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA."

The lawsuit goes on to say: "As faithful Catholics, the Burkes believe that all children should be loved and supported, and they would never reject a child placed in their home.

"They also believe that children should not undergo procedures that attempt to change their God-given sex, and they uphold Catholic beliefs about marriage and sexuality."

The lawsuit names several defendants, including the Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary and the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families.

It also includes a copy of the State's letter telling the Catholic couple their application to be foster parents had been denied.

The letter says to be licensed as a foster/adoptive parent, applicants must demonstrate their ability "to the satisfaction of the Department".

Quoting the State regulations for Standards for Licensure as a Foster/Pre-adoptive Parent, the letter reads:

"(d) to promote the physical, mental and emotional well-being of a child placed in his or her care, including supporting and respecting a child's sexual orientation or gender identity

"(e) to respect and make efforts to support the integrity of a child's racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious background"

The CF Foster Child Bill of Rights also says every child "shall be treated with respect by DCF staff, foster parents and providers without regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion and/or disability".

The Massachusetts Health and Human Services and the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families have not responded to requests for comment.

Source

• Fox News

Then a relatively new pontiff, this was his comment in response to a reporter who inquired about a "gay lobby" in the Vatican.

Francis went on to add that L.G.B.T.Q.+ individuals "shouldn't be marginalised. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…they're our brothers."

Given the West's dramatic increase in acceptance of L.G.B.T.Q.+ individuals, revisiting the last 10 years can ensure that the impact of these simple words is not lost to time.

According to Gallup, Americans' view of the moral permissibility of gay and lesbian relationships increased from 55 percent to 71 percent from 2012 to 2022.

Moreover, Obergefell v. Hodges, granting the legal right for all Americans to civil same-sex marriages, would not be decided until 2015.

The recent controversies over special Masses for Pride Month were non-issues because it was unfathomable for any parish to celebrate Pride.

Lastly, Pope Benedict had written in his 2010 book Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs Of The Times that "homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation."

Having contextualised the world of 2013, it is less surprising how these five words featured prominently in the press's coverage of the new pope.

Time Magazine, which named Jorge Bergoglio as the "People's Pope", cites this famous question in its promulgation of Pope Francis as their 2013 Person of the Year.

Some press outlets suggested that Pope Francis might even change official Church teaching on homosexuality.

Meanwhile, other media organisations were quick to parse Francis' statement to demonstrate that he had no intention of changing Church teaching.

What is the significance of these words 10 years later? Indeed, the debate is still ongoing as to what degree L.G.B.T.Q.+ individuals can participate in the life, activities, and sacraments of the Church.

A brief review of the last 10 years of Francis' pontificate will reveal how the Catholic Church's relationship with queer Catholics has evolved.

Certainly, Pope Francis through various statements and actions has continued to invite L.G.B.T.Q.+ Catholics into closer relationships with the Church and broader society.

Most notably, Francis in a 2020 documentary voiced support for civil same-sex unions, saying that "What we have to create is a civil union law. That way [gay people] are legally covered."

More recently, the pope instructed bishops not to support criminalisation laws for homosexuality, stating that a homosexual act is "not a crime. Yes, but it's a sin."

Just a few weeks ago, Francis sent his good wishes and prayers to the Outreach LGBTQ Catholic Ministry Conference.

Earlier in his papacy, he wrote in The Name of God is Mercy that he "prefer[s] that homosexuals come to confession, that they stay close to the Lord, and that we pray all together."

Francis even dined with incarcerated gay and transgender people in 2015.

Beyond the pope, the broader Church has made efforts to minister to LBGTQ+ Catholics.

Following the shooting at Pulse Nightclub, Fr. James Martin, SJ wrote Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity.

Last month, the Vatican released the working draft of the ongoing synod's document which calls for a new pastoral approach to queer Catholics, notably using the L.G.B.T.Q.+ acronym which the Church had long avoided.

A brief review of the last 10 years of Francis' pontificate will reveal how the Catholic Church's relationship with queer Catholics has evolved.

At the same time, the Church's teaching authority has been clear in upholding traditional teachings on marriage and family life.

This article was originally published by The Jesuit Post. Continue reading

• Ty Wahlbrink, S.J., attends Fordham University in the MA in Philosophy and Society programme.

"It was three against one, at least … jumping a guy like that is dishonourable, obviously.

"It's not how white men fight. Yet suddenly, I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they'd hit him harder, kill him.

"I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it." Soon after, "an alarm went off" in his brain, Carlson added, telling his producer he realised he was "becoming something" he didn't "want to be."

It was the casual racism that ended up drawing the most attention.

But the more interesting element was the glimpse into a person's conscience at work.

Carlson wasn't at the fight. He saw it, as so many of us see such things online. He identified with the brawlers, despite misgivings about how those like himself should behave.

As Carlson watched, he found himself rooting for their violence, wanting to hurt their victim—actually tasting it.

"An alarm" in his brain kicked in, warning him that he's becoming something he didn't want to be — a murderer, someone who would participate in a lynching.

How conscience works

Tucker Carlson's admission of self-awareness seems to me a good place from which to talk about conscience.

Conscience kicks in when something we might do could seriously re-write the story of who we are. And everything about both the doing and the being is how we relate to others.

It's about who we have been given to be through our relationships and who we will find ourselves becoming if we allow those relationships to run us in this way rather than that.

Now, of course, who we are is always given to us relationally.

We are utterly dependent on others' treatment of us, from conception onwards, and it is not as though we become independent upon reaching adulthood.

What we become, at least legally, is equal to other adults in navigating our different forms of dependency, owning our decisions and accepting consequences.

My "I," my "self," is the way that this body, born at such a time in such a place, navigates viably in the midst of the "we," the social body, which brought it into being.

Most of the time, we go along with the way that the social body runs us.

We pick up its language, its gestures, its customs and the stability given by its legal system, as part of what sustains us and gives us identity. We learn to desire through what it models to us.

And we may, at certain times, make decisions not to do things suggested to us by some sort of apparent authority, simply because we like other ways of doing things.

(For instance, choosing white wine with meat, or red wine with fish. But we would hardly refer to that as a matter of conscience.)

Issues of conscience arise on relatively rare occasions when we detect that "our a — is on the line" with an issue that presents itself.

If we carry on imitating and being drawn along in the way that we have been, suddenly, a line will have been crossed, and we will become someone else.

That is what Tucker Carlson described: his fully-functioning "mirror neurons" were allowing people like him, of whom he more than half approved, to lead him on.

They started to reproduce in him the same desires, emotions and passions that he saw being enacted, to the point that he was even able to "taste" the thrill of being caught up in the lynching mêlée.

Then his conscience said to him, "I see who I am becoming and, woah, I do not want to be that person."

Conscience and the LGBTQ person

I bring this up in an Outreach article, specifically for LGBTQ readers and their friends and allies, since I suspect that the issue of becoming who we are (and feeling "on the line" in the decisions we make) has been strong since we were very young.

After all, even in the best circumstances of a loving family, we begin to discover that we don't know how to go along with expected behaviours.

We discover that we don't share the expected desires and emotions of the majority around us. And we may discover this at quite a young age before we're able to talk about it.

We may or may not have role models, others like ourselves, who can help us imagine coming to viable adulthood. We may be in places or families where who we are is referred to with contempt.

Eventually, "who we are to be" becomes related to "who we love," and this, at puberty, will have consequences related to sexual acts.

Indeed, many of us, especially those who have grown up in strongly religious households, are taught to doubt our feelings and emotions from a very young age.

We come to agree that those feelings are our enemy and not to be trusted as telling us anything true about ourselves.

And in the midst of all this, Christians know of the strength of Bible verses where Jesus tells us that it is better to lose your life, but save your soul, than it is to save your life but lose your soul (Mt. 16:25).

In other words, the biblical equivalent of being "on the line," the existential issues to do with discerning who we are to be, come at us very forcefully in our youth and take many years to work through.

Here, there is a difference between a certain evangelical culture, such as the one I was brought up in, and Catholicism, which I received the grace of entering many years ago.

Evangelical culture, teaching our radical depravity after the fall, effectively freezes into permanence our inability to trust our feelings, thinking of our body as only a source of lies and inspiring a radical lack of confidence.

It tells us not to trust any natural or scientific claims.

So to claim that we are bearers of a non-pathological minority variant is automatically suspect as "the wisdom of this world," a diabolical illusion. The only thing trustworthy is the written Word of God.

This means that, for LGBTQ people from an evangelical background, the entire battle for survival of the soul is fought over "those passages": the clobber texts.

Catholic theological culture is subtly but significantly different. Everything that is created is good, even after the fall. We may be screwed up, but we are still basically good.

Desire is essentially a good thing, however, distorted by our own and other people's waywardness. Our bodies are essentially truth-tellers, bearers of the glory of God in whose image we are made; however much we may make liars of them.

Our goodness is lived out in ways which are often ignorant and always disordered; with these, we have to wrestle over a lifetime.

And this, our lifelong vulnerability to God's creative forgiveness, is something shared with everyone else so that none of us can be judges of another.

Conscience is focused on what really is

Because of this, the question of conscience in Catholic LGBTQ circles is not so much about the interpretation of "the clobber texts" as it is about what really is.

We understand that there is something about being a human — this body in a process of humanisation — that automatically and intrinsically tends to what is true.

Conscience is inherently related to what is true, and our journey is one of stepping out of rumour and falsehood into the freedom of truth.

So, the question is: Is the thing that I am discovering myself to be real or just a phase?

Then, after a time when it clearly isn't a phase, the question becomes: Is what I am discovering myself to be some sort of defect in who I'm supposed to be, something that should be "straightened out"?

Or is this what I am created and gifted to be, and so to be lived with enthusiasm and gratitude as I come to discover what it's all about?

What is true here?

If it were some sort of "defect," then any loving same-sex relationship that includes sexual acts would tip me over into becoming someone that I'm really not — a gay or lesbian person.

And I would have to hold out against that, alerted by some sort of "brain alarm." If you do "y," you will become "x."

However, at this stage, there is no credible evidence that being gay or lesbian is some sort of defect in a human being who ought to be straight.

From everything we have learned over the last 150 or so years, it seems much truer to say that we are bearers of a regularly occurring, non-pathological minority variant in the human condition.

And this has not been "deduced" by boffins in some sort of closed laboratory.

It took quite specific social and historical changes to enable a traditionally half-hidden group, its members often victims of violence, to be recognized, observed and confirmed as bearers of this non-pathological minority variant.

However, once that started to become clear, it has become ever more obvious to the public that the gay and lesbian people whom they meet, and who can be increasingly open about who we are, are not defective straight people.

LGBTQ people tend to flourish as well as anybody else when treated with the same dignity as everybody else.

Moving towards what is "authentically good"

Why is this so important to conscience, from the Catholic perspective?

Because from the Catholic perspective, there is no specifically Christian moral teaching. There is merely teaching about what is authentically good for humans.

And this means that we would have already fulfilled Catholic teaching in large part by allowing ourselves to be guided by what is true about LGBTQ people: that this is just who we are.

The next step in Catholic conscience formation would be the recognition that in ethical matters, "how we behave flows from who we are" (in Latin, agere sequitur esse).

And this, of course, is linked to the Catholic understanding of grace perfecting nature rather than abolishing it or replacing it with something different.

Our flourishing, which is what the Creator wants for us, is to be worked out by all of us, starting from what we are and not in spite of what we are.

All this is available to the Catholic conscience the moment it becomes clear that we are the bearers of an almost banal thing: a regularly occurring, non-pathological minority variant in the human condition.

Is there anything else? Does the Catholic Church have anything else to say about this variant?

Personally, I would claim that formally speaking, it doesn't. There is nothing in divine revelation concerning sexual relations between unrelated consenting adults of the same sex who also share a certain social equality.

"Nevertheless," you might properly reply, "are there not traditional claims by Roman teaching authorities? Do they not have a couple of things to say to us, one of long-standing and one very recent, which has something to do with homosexuality?"

Why, yes! Funny you should mention them.

Traditional claims of Roman teaching authorities

Going back to the second century, the first is that there is no such thing as a good same-sex sexual act.

This claim is made entirely as a negative deduction from the conviction that the only genuinely good sexual act is one between spouses open to procreation. Anything else is a defect from that good sexual act.

There is no other source than this negative deduction for the claim that a same-sex act is "intrinsically evil."

And it should be pointed out that the word "intrinsically" is not a pointer to the gravity of the act.

It is not adding a factor of increased terribleness, however much we may tend to hear it that way. It is merely saying that there is no occasion when this sort of act might be a good act since, for obvious reasons, there's no possibility that it could lead to procreation.

The second claim, in case we were to say, "But we're not trying to achieve procreation, we're sharing love and friendship," is made in a church document as recently as 1986, which I'm paraphrasing here.

"Well, your bodies are, by their very nature, aiming at procreation, and your deeply disordered desire means that you fail to tend towards your appropriate object, an act with someone of the opposite sex".

In other words: "Your tendency itself is disordered as to its object, not part of who you really are.

"You are an intrinsically heterosexual person who suffers from a grave disorder of desire called ‘same-sex attraction,' which you can fight against. And only fighting against it will make you flourish."

Roman dicasteries give no evidence for this position.

Once again, the only source for this claim about who you are is the presumption that all humans have intrinsically heterosexual bodies, and therefore anything other than heterosexual intercourse open to procreation is wrong.

None of this is taught either by the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus or St. Paul.

Furthermore, those who propose this claim about who you are have notorious difficulty in producing witnesses to the flourishing that supposedly comes from fighting "same-sex attraction."

A number of the early groups proposing "conversion therapy" folded precisely because the opposite became undeniable to them: the flourishing came in those who found themselves in loving partnerships.

Is it too much to suggest that the following is scarcely a lampoon?

"We know more than you do about who you really are. We are confident that what we know is from God, handed on to us through our tradition from the second century and solidified in the 13th.

"It is true that during that period we, along with the rest of humanity, knew little to nothing of the relationship between desire and biology, nothing of how human reproductive organs worked, indeed nothing about sexual orientation at all until the last century or so.

"Nevertheless, we are confident that it is your desire that is leading you astray from our truth."

Learning something new and genuinely true

Now, let us suppose that you have followed a Catholic conscience concerning the possibility of our learning something new and genuinely true about who we are in the midst of fallen reality.

Let us suppose that you have seen that slow, solid learning instantiated in the recognition of the non-pathological minority variant that we bear.

Let us suppose that you have recognized that creation is good, and that there is some ordered-ness toward the Creator in being a bearer of this minority variant.

Let us suppose that you have recognized the principle that grace perfects nature, and that how we act flows from who we are.

If you take on board all those Catholic things, in which you have been obedient to the Magisterium, then perhaps, like me, you will find it odd that some brethren claiming to be "the Magisterium" have an automatic right to be believed, when they behave as if speaking from God, telling you that "you must deduce who you are and how you are to behave from something you are not."

Although our very best available knowledge about Creation tells you that you are not a defective heterosexual, "God, the Creator, demands through us that you so treat yourself."

However, as "Amoris Laetitia" made clear, the Magisterium is only ever alongside and never above the conscience of the faithful. It can only ever be a sibling teaching for us, and never a paternal teaching, for no one on earth is to be called our Father.

The deliverances of the Roman dicasteries in this area are predicated either on untenable claims about who the people involved really are, on bad readings of Scripture, or some mixture of the two.

More seriously, the claims they make seek to oblige a Catholic to suspend a well-formed Catholic conscience in this area, in favour of brethren who claim to know more than we do about who we really are.

Yet, their "knowledge" in this area is only meant to be one of natural learning; it is manifestly less true to reality than what we have appropriately learned from natural sources ourselves. The implied "We know more than you who you really are" is automatically suspect as not an appropriate form of sibling teaching.

Personally, I think it would be disrespectful to church authority to insist that these deliverances are genuinely part of the Magisterium, rather than to recognize them for what they evidently are: theses of venerable antiquity maintained forcibly by Roman dicasteries long after their sell-by date was signalled by the Second Vatican Council.

Maybe it would be better to see them as temporary "instead-of-teachings"— placeholders which "worked" to uphold general norms at a time when human subjectivity, and its own forms of bodily objectivity, were little understood.

Placeholders until we can allow the one Magister, who teaches us all from within our hearts, and can never teach falsehood, time to make available to us what is true about LGBTQ people, and how to live starting from what we know.

Our one Instructor, the Christ, longs to teach us to give ourselves away in love.

And among the things he taught us, in order to make that possible, was how to distinguish between obeying the Word of God, and holding fast to human traditions that make that Word void.

Above all, what Jesus made available for us, and his Spirit still does, was and is how to receive the conscience of sons and daughters of God, heirs to the kingdom, so that we may learn freely how to follow him.

We may learn mercy and generosity starting from where we are. And to do so without being frightened of those who promote hatred and fear of our boldness in discovering what is true and bearing witness to its goodness in our lives.

True Catholicity of conscience

So what is left? Gay and lesbian persons working out for ourselves, alongside and with our pastors, how to follow Christ and what is true and good in our lives, our marriages and so on.

We must draw creatively from the most traditional general sources concerning human flourishing since there is no obvious jurisprudence relating to the newly understood reality we bring to the table.

This confidence inspires an ability to speak about these realities in the first person, unafraid of making mistakes and so learning.

So we may come gradually to un-frighten those who live under the terrible burden that they must sacrifice who they are on the altar of some deity who supposedly demands sacrifice.

Taking up our cross each day and following Jesus does not mean making such a pagan sacrifice.

It means being prepared to live truthfully and lovingly even in the midst of persecution and the threat of persecution.

It means being prepared to lose reputation, livelihood and maybe even life itself in bearing witness to how Jesus detoxifies all our places of shame.

Christ makes possible, and shares love that bears witness to God in places and ways that no sectarian could ever imagine. It is this that allows our shame to be held tenderly in love and gifts us with true catholicity of conscience.

• James Alison is a Catholic priest, theologian and scholar with a particular focus on the philosophy of René Girard. He was educated by the Dominicans at Blackfriars, Oxford and earned his doctorate from the Jesuit School of Philosophy and Theology in Brazil. He is the author of several books, including "Faith Beyond Resentment."
• First published in Outreach. Republished with permission of the author.

In February, the Church's lawmaking body approved blessings for lesbian and gay couples. The approval was limited to couples who were already married or had a civil partnership.

The landmark vote drew ire from both sides of the Church's same-sex blessings debate.

Progressives say it doesn't go far enough to offer full equality. They point out the Anglican Church still prohibits same-sex marriages.

Conservatives claim Holy Matrimony should be between only a man and a woman.

Several details regarding the February decision were supposed to have been ironed out during the Synod in York held on 7-8 July.

These details included deciding the final wording of the prayers and blessings. Pastoral guidance on whether gay priests can now have civil weddings and whether sexually active couples can be blessed were also on the York agenda.

However, the timetable for finalising these details has been delayed because bishops are "dithering" over finalising the approval, The Telegraph reports.

‘Implementation requires further work'.

The Bishop of Lichfield, Rt Rev Michael Ipgrave (pictured), says "given the emerging necessity for well-considered pastoral reassurance to meet a range of needs, the implementation phase has required further work.

"We recognise the frustration felt by those who were hoping to use the prayers sooner, as well as the uncertainty for couples and ordinands.

"However, it is important that the theological, pastoral and liturgical work promised… is conducted thoroughly and responds to the many questions raised by General Synod and others."

Ipgrave's comments followed written questions submitted by Synod members.

He says February's landmark motion "gave no timetable for the completion of the work".

He adds, however, that "it was hoped to complete the majority of the tasks by July 2023". The draft guidance should be ready by November, he says.

Cost of waiting

"There is a cost to the time taken to make sure we get everything lined up," says Nic Tall, a lay Synod member.

"I've had clergy who have had people wanting to get dates in the diary, which then had to be cancelled.

"And there are other people just waiting…

"There will be others for whom being able to effectively declare their love for their partner in church and before God is deeply important. That's why we want to facilitate this, and it is just being put on hold."

Source

• The Telegraph
• This article has been changed to reflect that it is the Church of England that is delaying the plans to bless same-sex couples. Originally the article said it was the Anglican Church.

The pope is publicly backing the Outreach conference, a three-day meeting set to be held June 16-18 at New York's Fordham University that will consider issues ranging from how the Bible speaks of homosexuality, how the church should minister with transgender Catholics and how to raise LGBTQ children in the faith.

In a handwritten letter released on June 14 by Jesuit Fr. James Martin, one of the organizers of the event, Francis asks the priest to send his "best regards" to the participants of the meeting and assures: "In my prayers and good wishes are you and all who work at the Outreach Conference." Continue reading

First Christians, then LGBTQ activists pressured them. The Dodgers changed their minds several times, eventually landing right back where they started.

Some commentators reacted to the re-inclusion of the drag queens with shock. They were nostalgically longing for the days when a night at the ballpark didn't involve an overt political agenda.

But it's time to stop pretending: gender ideology has become a religion. There's no corner of culture it'll leave untouched.

Dodgers Honor Anti-Catholic Drag Queens

It all started with an invitation from the Dodgers to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. They're a group of drag queens who mock the Catholic Church. The invitation was to participate in the baseball team's 10th annual Pride Night. The drag queens would receive a "Community Hero" award at the event.

Pretending to be an order of "trans and queer nuns," the Sisters openly mock Christianity in dozens of ways. They encourage audiences to "go and sin some more,". They host "Hunky Jesus" and "Foxy Mary" contests at Easter. They take fake religious names like "Sister Risqué of the Sissytine Chapel" and "Sister Shalita Corndog," among others.

Sen. Marco Rubio drew attention to the Dodgers' invitation through a May 15 letter to Major League Baseball Commissioner Robert Manfred.

Manfred had previously said the MLB needs to "make decisions that are as inclusive and welcoming to everyone as possible, and keep us as apolitical as possible."

Rubio asked Manfred:

"Do you believe the Dodgers are being "inclusive and welcoming to everyone" by [...awarding that] group of gay and transgender drag performers? Performers that intentionally mock and degrade Christians. Not only Christians, but nuns, who devote their lives to serving others?"

As scrutiny mounted, the Dodgers rescinded their invitation. They published a now-deleted statement apologizing for their plan to award the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence:

"Given the strong feelings of those who have been offended by the sisters' inclusion in our evening, and in an effort not to distract from the great benefits ...of Pride Night, we are [...removing] them from this year's group of honorees."

In the end, the strong feelings of those offended by the Dodger's backtracking prevailed. In solidarity with the Sisters, other LGBTQ groups began to withdraw from the team's Pride Night.

On May 22, the Dodgers changed course again. They had consulted their "diverse communities,". They had apologized to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and members of the LGBTQ community.

They had realized the baseball team will need to "work with our LGBTQ+ partners to better educate ourselves." The Sisters were back in. Read more

• Mary Frances Myler is a postgraduate fellow with the US Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government.

For decades the Catholic right referred to the positions of Popes St John Paul II and Benedict XVI; now the Catholic left points to Pope Francis' pronouncements on everything from climate change to LGBTQ inclusion.

The strategy has been ramping up of late as October's Synod on Synodality, a meeting of the world's bishops on the church's future, approaches.

Critiques about how the synod is being used to push radical change in developed nations are rebuffed as dissent over the Holy Father's synodal process, with virtually no attention paid to how such changes would affect marginalised Catholic communities in the Global South.

But the jockeying ahead of the synod is only part of a broader claim by the left, long accused of picking and choosing among church teachings according to their taste, that the Catholic right are the real cafeteria Catholics.

Call out one of the left's favourite cardinals for his public statements on LGBTQ issues?

You're implicitly defying Francis, who appointed the prelate, and the pope's social justice agenda! Defend the church's ban on contraception by pointing out its harmful health effects on women?

Ugh, can't you see Francis wants to end the church's obsession with pelvic issues?

Most egregiously, these folks tend to invoke Francis when it is convenient and ignore him even when he has strongly and clearly laid out his views contradicting their agenda.

We've seen this political and theological whiplash time and again with Francis' views on abortion, which he calls akin to a white glove Nazi crime or hiring a hitman.

Some on the left genuinely wrestle with the fullness of what the Holy Father is teaching, but the majority refuse to subject themselves to his authority on this issue.

The same is true of the Holy Father's views on gender.

Francis has characteristically made pastoral care of people with gender dysphoria a priority, and he is rightly concerned about their health and well-being.

He has not sacrificed the truth in doing so.

He has called gender ideology "evil" and a contemporary example of colonization.

In his apostolic exhortations Laudato Si' and Amoris Laetitia, he compares it to the error of imagining ourselves as masters of the divinely created and ordered ecological world.

But is anyone taking Pope Francis' teaching on these matters seriously?

Many of those on the Catholic right, who are basically waiting for this papacy to be over, take little he says to heart.

And despite their insistence that their political opponents be bound by his teaching, those on the Catholic left are themselves likely taking a pass on this particular line of thought.

This hasn't stopped a wide range of ideologically diverse bishops from accepting it.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York and Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago — not exactly two peas in a pod — wrote a joint essay in America magazine insisting that Catholic hospitals must be permitted to affirm Francis' views when it comes to caring for persons with gender dysphoria.

"Does objecting to performing gender transition procedures — but welcoming patients who identify as transgender — constitute discrimination?"

The two cardinals spoke with one voice: "Of course not."

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Doctrine, led by Bishop Daniel Flores, pastor of the border city of Brownsville, Texas, recently issued a doctrinal note on "The Moral Limits of Technological Manipulation of the Human Body," in which he defended the fixed male-female binary of the human body.

This relatively brief document invokes Francis' teaching throughout and cites him six times.

Flores is an outspoken advocate of the church's teaching on immigration and is respected across the ideological spectrum.

His doctrinal note would almost certainly not have been published if it didn't have the approval of Rome.

It's difficult to dismiss it as a mere product of a right-wing US bishop — any more than a similar document issued by the Nordic bishops days later.

In it they "declare dissent" from an ideological movement that "puts forward a view of human nature that abstracts from the embodied integrity of personhood, as if physical gender were accidental."

Can the Catholic left honour their stated commitment to the authority of the Holy Father by declaring a similar kind of dissent from the orthodoxy of their political circles?

No one is talking about something other than genuine care for people awash in the evil of gender ideology, especially children.

Getting on the side of a child in this context doesn't mean affirming gender dysphoria but rather loving them through what's called "watchful waiting."

There's more than theology in this approach.

Most kids (around 80%) grow out of childhood-onset gender dysphoria by adulthood.

A non-medical approach is clearly the way to go as we find the best ways to work for the good of our children.

But Catholics who honour the teaching of Pope Francis would go a long way to stopping the whiplash effect by taking all his teachings seriously.

It would reduce the atmosphere of cynicism and mutual distrust as we head into the synod. And that will be good for everyone.

• Charles Camosy, though a native of very rural Wisconsin, has spent more than the last decade as a professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University. He is the author of five books, including, most recently, "Resisting Throwaway Culture." He is the father of four children, three of whom were adopted from the Philippines.
• First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

See what works for you and leave the rest behind.

In his beautiful book Domestic Monastery, the Canadian theologian Ronald Rolheiser, O.M.I., writes: "To be a mother or a father is to let your dreams and agenda be forever altered."

For me, this quotation reflects a fundamental truth that, if not adopted by parents, will significantly decrease any chance for change in the relationship with their LGBTQ child.

The truth is: Our children do not belong to us.

They are free agents and their life journey is theirs alone.

The more a parent tries to dictate to their child what direction their life should take, the more a power struggle will ensue.

This is ultimately self-defeating and counterproductive, as it doesn't allow for the generation of new information and ideas.

It's not about understanding, but acceptance

This is a crucial insight towards fostering reconciliation.

Does anyone ever completely understand another person?

People are complex and complicated. We are paradoxical and contradictory.

We sometimes behave against our better judgment and engage in self-defeating and harmful behaviours.

Most interpretation of human behaviour is speculation anyway.

We strive towards understanding because we have a desire for certainty.

Perhaps we would be better off being more humble if we approached our children with curiosity, not certainty.

As my hero St John of the Cross wisely advised, "Learn to understand more by not understanding, than by understanding."

Parents may often assume they know what their children are thinking without sufficient evidence of their thoughts.

Not knowing what your child is actually thinking can lead to an escalation in miscommunication and conflict.

Instead of assuming, check your hunch with your child by simply asking them if your assumption is correct and, if not, what they are thinking.

Remember, no one is an expert about another person.

By over-focusing on your child, you can easily avoid examining your own issues.

Focus on your child's competencies and good qualities

When you're feeling critical of, or irritated by, your child, remind yourself of what you admire and appreciate about them.

What are their gifts? Their strengths?

This is using an "opposite voice" to your "judgmental voice."

Remember that no one likes being labelled, which suggests limitation and one-dimensionality.

Dial down the criticism

Words matter.

So, try your best and use your brakes.

If you're angry, take a time out and leave the room. Take a walk, excuse yourself and return to the talk once the anger has subsided.

This isn't easy for many of us, but it's critically important if you are committed to seeing a change in your relationship.

Acknowledging your anger and owning it is essential.

Disavowing it may leave you feeling more miserable and regretting things that you may have said in the heat of the moment.

As the late father of a dear friend often admonished, "Less said, sooner mended."

Apologize

This is a biggie.

If reconciliation is to occur, it's essential that an attempt is made to repair any hurt caused by something you said.

Unless you feel remorse and are concerned about an injury you may have caused, change and reparation don't stand much of a chance.

Do your best not to be defensive

Try not to interrupt, give advice or defend or rationalize your position when in conversation with your child.

Grant them the courtesy to speak.

The good news is they're talking to you, although you may disagree with what they are saying.

This is not to suggest, however, that you abandon your boundaries and become a doormat.

The idea is to be flexible, but not at the expense of your own self-esteem and well-being. It's important to know when things your child says are not okay. Continue reading

• Amy Zachary is a former clinical director of The Freedom Institute, NYC drug, alcohol and toxocoloy centre. She is a senior family and couples therapist at Greenwich House NYC and the founder of Bereavement Groups for Stony Brook Southampton Hospital, NY.

It was an upsetting and confusing time, because the same religious mentors who helped her strengthen her beliefs kept saying her sexuality would conflict with her faith.

"That was very frustrating, because I also knew that a lot of other religious people believed that," said Hodak, now a 19-year-old psychology major at Florida International University. In her journal, she kept asking, "Can I please just find someone who's like me — who wants to be religious and is able to embrace their queer identity?"

Hodak found the support she needed by joining Beloved Arise, a Christian nonprofit dedicated to celebrating and empowering LGBTQ youth of faith. It's one of a number of online groups whose members are sharing their stories during Pride Month as part of a campaign aimed at encouraging others who have been shunned by religious communities.

In video and written testimonies, the young advocates' message to their peers also comes at a crucial moment for LGBTQ youth as states like Florida and Texas are adopting legislation or policies that critics say marginalize them.

"I want to show that these identities aren't a contradiction and for younger people to know that there's hope," said Hodak, who in addition to Beloved Arise belongs to another group, Jewish Queer Youth.

Florida's legislation, dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" law by critics, bars instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through the third grade. Supporters say parents, not teachers, should broach these subjects with children; opponents say the law demonizes LGBTQ people by excluding them from classroom lessons and recently sued to block it.

In Texas, meanwhile, the state child welfare agency has been ordered to investigate reports of gender-confirming care for minors as abuse, a directive that opponents say is a first of its kind by any governor amid widespread GOP efforts to restrict transgender rights.

"Texas is definitely one of the hot spots for anti-LGBTQ rights … and that has definitely been really hard, especially given that my faith can also be similar — not the most accepting," said Roswell Grey, a 16-year-old from Sherman, Texas who identifies as queer and nonbinary and was raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Utah-based religion, also known as the Mormon church, has tried in the last decade or so to create a more welcoming environment for LGBTQ members. Still, some church stances remain painful for many LGBTQ members, such as its teaching that while being gay is not a sin, engaging in same-sex relationships is against God's commandments.

"It's really difficult to not act upon who I am and not to be who I am," Grey said.

He was recently named a Beloved Arise youth ambassador and has shared his story as part of the campaign through interviews and social media, in hopes of inspiring other young queer people of faith and remind religions that reject them that they should be welcoming.

"The original church that Christ created on Earth was really diverse. He taught sex workers and he taught disabled people, anyone and everyone," said Grey, who is also a member of the Rainbow Connection, a group that focuses on queer young people in his faith.

Across the U.S., circumstances vary widely for LGBTQ youth seeking religious engagement.

Some major Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention, condemn same-sex unions and say all sexual activity outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is sinful. But thousands of houses of worship, including many mainline Protestant churches and synagogues, have LGBTQ-inclusive policies.

Another who has been telling her story publicly is 21-year-old Lily Clifford, also a youth ambassador for Beloved Arise, who was raised Southern Baptist in Missouri in what she called a "very fundamentalist, very homophobic" environment where she often heard that gay people would end up in hell.

Last year Clifford, who identifies as pansexual, came out while attending Multnomah University in Portland, Oregon, and began a club on campus with other queer youth of faith. Meetings are private because they fear reprisals from other students at the Christian college.

"If you have everyone telling you that God hates you and you're going to hell and your family disowned you, or you get fired from a religious job … it causes a lot of depression and you feel isolated," Clifford said. "So just one person telling you God does love you … listening to you, can make all the difference."

Christine Wehner, 22, grew up in northern Virginia and attended a Presbyterian church with her family until she came out as gay in 2019, during college. As a child she never questioned her church's teachings that homosexuality was a sin, she said.

"Once I realized I was gay, two core identities — my sexuality and my faith — felt like they were in deep conflict. I felt like I had to choose one or the other," she said via email. "But I couldn't; they were both too deeply ingrained in who I am."

The result was feelings of guilt, shame and cognitive dissonance that took years to overcome through prayer, therapy and guidance from mentors that helped her reconcile her queerness. She is not involved with the awareness campaign but spoke to The Associated Press with a similar aim of inspiring others.

"Seeing someone in a happy, healthy, God-honoring queer relationship may help relieve that shame for someone watching," Wehner said. "Similarly, queer people who aren't Christians might be able to have a more positive experience of Christianity."

• Luis Andres Henao is an author at Religion News Service.
• First published in RNS. Republished with permission.