I gave up going on Facebook for Lent, and I have to say that not being there has given me a kind of peace that I didn’t think would be there!

Today, I went back briefly, and found this image posted in a group that is meant for 2SLGBTQIAP+ people who have experienced trauma in religion. I need to preface that this group was created by an individual who sets themselves as a therapist who deals with this specific form of trauma.

As someone who experienced trauma, is trained in trauma informed support, I’d like to contribute to the discussion; however, before doing so, I want to make some points that aren’t clear here.

• Not all religions are theistic; Buddhism is not theistic. Not all religions are monotheistic. Hinduism is not monotheistic, paganism is not monotheistic in all it’s forms, nor are may Indigenous traditional ceremonial practices.
• I have to, therefore, assume that these statements are meant for monotheistic traditions such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Bahai faith (which actually is anti 2SLGBTQIAP+).
• This image is attempting to create a definition/distinction between the terms religion and spirituality. I’d like to offer a definition for each term after unpacking the statements in this image.
• Full disclosure: I identify as an out, openly Queer man who has been with my partner for almost 8 years and married for six months. I am also a Catholic priest in an openly affirming 2SLGBTQIAP+ Autocephalous Catholic denomination founded on the principles of openness and acceptance for all–we are ALL created in the image of God, we are ALL reflections of Christ’s divinity, and it is ALL of our human limitations that get in the way of believing these tenants to be true.

Religion worships God, while spirituality encourages oneness with God.

Does religion discourage oneness with God? I think that the Christian mystics like St. Anthony, St. Bernard, and others might disagree. In my own experience, the entire reason for worship through liturgy is to encourage oneness with God. Sadly, the experience of many within churched settings can often diminish the real presence of the Divine because they may not meet the cut out they are needed to fit through; enter the trauma of many who in the Church have been turned away because other people are uncomfortable with their difference.

Religion presents God outside of you, while spirituality presents God within you.

Both are true. Both can be true at the same time. One of the reasons I find the Eucharist so invaluable is it actively demonstrates this: God is outside of us, God is within us, God is within every person we encounter, especially those who we may be repulsed by! The story of St. Francis and the leper is a terrific example of this. Francis, having recognized his preconceptions of the presence of God, knew that he was going to have to overcome his absolute dread of lepers. The story recounts that as he was riding his horse down a road, a leper approached. Francis took the leap of faith, got off his horse, crossed the road, put a coin into the leper’s hands and kissed them. He went on to serve the lepers for many years after as part of his vocational call.

To say that God is only outside of ourselves, or that God is only within us, is narcissisms wearing a different hat.

While religion separates people who have different beliefs, spirituality unites people regardless of their beliefs.

Separation of people based on belief isn’t solely the realm of religion, or spirituality. And I would contest that separation of people occurs in spirituality as much as it does religion: those that are spiritual, and those that are religious (see what I did there?).

If spirituality unites people regardless of their beliefs, then it stands to reason that political figures and believers who would wish for the limitation or destruction of 2SLGBTQIAP+ peoples were just as welcome as spiritual beings as those of us who disagree with them.

I’m a queer man who is married to a wonderful man. I’m a Catholic priest who administers the Sacraments every Sunday to Queer people and allies. I don’t question anyone who comes to receive the Eucharist: I trust that they are in the right place with God to receive, and I administer. I don’t separate those who come and desire Christ in the real presence; I trust. But am I religious, or spiritual? Where does that separation happen, and who is doing the separating?

This entire meme separates people! When you read it, did you see yourself on one side rather than the other?

Congratulations. You’ve fallen for a con.

Religion teaches people to be afraid of hell, while spirituality teaches people to create heaven on earth.

People teach people to be afraid of hell, while people teach people to create heaven on earth.

If heaven is something that can be created on earth, it stands to reason (and is evident) that hell on earth can be created as well. Is that a religious experience, or a spiritual experience, or an experience of power and manipulation and control?

The concept of hell and the demonic can be manipulated to create a desired result as much as the concept of socialism, evangelism, and capitalism, or the concept of creating heaven on earth. I could write reams on this:

The selfishness and greed of people will use any methodology to achieve its ends, and will wear what appears to be a white hat to some, and a black hat to others.

Religion is based on fear and restriction, while spirituality is based on love and freedom.

I’d argue Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, Judaism are based on love and freedom.

Religion feels like a single drop in the ocean, while spirituality feels like the entire ocean in a single drop.

I’ve met some spiritually arid people. I’ve met some religiously arid people. How do you quantify religious or spiritual experience? How can you know anyone else’s experience of the divine, or judge how they reach that experience?

Religion is based on the experience of others, while spirituality is based on your personal experience.

In this sense, no one can know the experience of others because they are personal, encapsulated in the mind of others. You can’t know any experience except for your own.

But, you can draw on other’s experiences to help you in life. Anyone ever had a mother who said, “Don’t touch that stove, you’ll get burned?” Or, “Trust me, this curry is way too hot for you.”

Your name is based on other’s experiences. Your existence creates the personal experience of who you are. You can’t really exist without your own personal experiences, but without the experiences of others we wouldn’t be able to exist the way we do today. Science and the scientific theory are DEPENDENT on the experiences of others!

These last three statements really push the reality of the post: if you define religion from a colonial stand point, if you accept that religion is nothing more than a means of control, then no religion profits any good to the human soul. None of them. Every religion and every religious practice is damaging to the human psyche. All or nothing.

I’d argue this is a way of looking at the world that is brought on by trauma caused by interactions in organized religion. The entire point of acknowledging trauma is not to dwell within it, but to transcend it. In doing so, some of us may find that religious practices bring about spiritual experiences both directly and indirectly. Take the attitude of a Zen practitioner who may have after years of practicing meditation reach their Samadhi experience, or experience of enlightenment, while folding laundry.

But I don’t think this is calling out all religions And that’s dangerous because the reality is some individuals who have experienced religious trauma find themselves and their healing encouraged by validating religious practices.

If one wants to call out those who have taken part in trauma, call it out.

Christendom has caused extensive cultural and individual trauma, even genocide. Part of my vocation as a priest is to be the object of anger and frustration, of hurt, when someone needs that. How I ended up a priest even after everything I went through is a miracle. And, as I’ve said before, I don’t find what I do devoid of spirituality at all. Just because it doesn’t fit the view of an outside set of criteria doesn’t give it less meaning. I simply refuse to accept the binary of individuals who make statements like these.

I refuse to be limited by my trauma, and I pray that you won’t allow yourself to be limited by yours.

God love you.

This past week marked the release of the Vatican bulletin titled Dignitas Infinita, or “Infinite Dignity”.  Our worship community is more like a small family currently, so when one brings to attention the nature of this document, as a priest in the community it falls on me to address with a statement.

The bulletin talks about dignity.  Specifically, it outlines types of dignity being manifestations of the innate type of dignity granted to us by God, included in the nature of who we are as created beings in the image of God.  It goes on to point out the dangers of certain trains of thought to the definition of dignity.

With regard to surrogacy:

49. First and foremost, the practice of surrogacy violates the dignity of the child. Indeed, every child possesses an intangible dignity that is clearly expressed—albeit in a unique and differentiated way—at every stage of his or her life: from the moment of conception, at birth, growing up as a boy or girl, and becoming an adult. Because of this unalienable dignity, the child has the right to have a fully human (and not artificially induced) origin and to receive the gift of a life that manifests both the dignity of the giver and that of the receiver. Moreover, acknowledging the dignity of the human person also entails recognizing every dimension of the dignity of the conjugal union and of human procreation. Considering this, the legitimate desire to have a child cannot be transformed into a “right to a child” that fails to respect the dignity of that child as the recipient of the gift of life.

Was not Joseph a surrogate father?  In deed, could it not be argued that the Blessed Lord was not conceived in the most conventional of ways?  Which is not to compare IVF to the Immaculate Conception certainly!  But rather, should we not accept that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself was not conceived in the “natural way”?

Then, with regard to gender theory:

55. The Church wishes, first of all, “to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence.”^[101] For this reason, it should be denounced as contrary to human dignity the fact that, in some places, not a few people are imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation.

The bulletin goes on to explain that, while the Vatican accepts the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights (the bulletin, by the way, was released on the 75^th anniversary of the Declaration), it also sees that certain principle theories, such as gender theory,  have twisted the essence of the document, claiming rights in a way that the UN Declaration never intended:

56…. Regrettably, in recent decades, attempts have been made to introduce new rights that are neither fully consistent with those originally defined nor always acceptable. They have led to instances of ideological colonization, in which gender theory plays a central role; the latter is extremely dangerous since it cancels differences in its claim to make everyone equal.”

The Church, referencing “ideological colonization”, in this sense, is something philosophers refer to as “self-referentially absurd”.  Or, in layman’s terms, “pot calling the kettle black”, further enforced by a claim of cancel culture. 

The bulletin goes on:

58. Another prominent aspect of gender theory is that it intends to deny the greatest possible difference that exists between living beings: sexual difference. This foundational difference is not only the greatest imaginable difference but is also the most beautiful and most powerful of them. In the male-female couple, this difference achieves the most marvelous of reciprocities. It thus becomes the source of that miracle that never ceases to surprise us: the arrival of new human beings in the world.

59. In this sense, respect for both one’s own body and that of others is crucial in light of the proliferation of claims to new rights advanced by gender theory. This ideology “envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family.”^[103] It thus becomes unacceptable that “some ideologies of this sort, which seek to respond to what are at times understandable aspirations, manage to assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised. It needs to be emphasized that ‘biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated.’”^[104] Therefore, all attempts to obscure reference to the ineliminable sexual difference between man and woman are to be rejected: “We cannot separate the masculine and the feminine from God’s work of creation, which is prior to all our decisions and experiences, and where biological elements exist which are impossible to ignore.”^[105] Only by acknowledging and accepting this difference in reciprocity can each person fully discover themselves, their dignity, and their identity.

My understanding of gender theory is that it doesn’t intent to deny sexual differences, but affirm and celebrate them.  It doesn’t in any way invalidate heterosexuality; rather, gender theory instead challenges us to accept that there is more diversity than we expected.  I agree that biological sex and gender can’t be separated, that these are works of God’s creation.  Where I disagree is when the bulletin says “Only by acknowledging and accepting this difference in reciprocity can each person fully discover themselves, their dignity, and their identity” it stops short of pointing out that we may, in fact, as trans people be called to bring forth the fullness of our identity in the same way Michelangelo claimed that he revealed the beauty of the sculpture within a piece of marble by removing the stone around it.  This is not a denying of God’s creation:  rather, it is God asking us:  how far will you go to be your true self, your true reflection of He Who Created  you?

60. The dignity of the body cannot be considered inferior to that of the person as such. The Catechism of the Catholic Church expressly invites us to recognize that “the human body shares in the dignity of ‘the image of God.’”^[106] Such a truth deserves to be remembered, especially when it comes to sex change, for humans are inseparably composed of both body and soul. In this, the body serves as the living context in which the interiority of the soul unfolds and manifests itself, as it does also through the network of human relationships. Constituting the person’s being, the soul and the body both participate in the dignity that characterizes every human.^[107] Moreover, the body participates in that dignity as it is endowed with personal meanings, particularly in its sexed condition.^[108] It is in the body that each person recognizes himself or herself as generated by others, and it is through their bodies that men and women can establish a loving relationship capable of generating other persons. Teaching about the need to respect the natural order of the human person, Pope Francis affirmed that “creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift. At the same time, we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created.”^[109] It follows that any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception.

Before we receive the sacrament of baptism, we are called to learn about the faith we wish to enter into.  We are asked questions before receiving the baptismal waters, and once we do, we are transformed.

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.⁶⁶ In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

The sacrament itself calls us to recall the waters of the flood, where God re-created the world with waters of the flood.

The people were transformed at Pentecost by the Holy Spirit, speaking in languages they knew not that others might know and understand the Word.

Our church, the Eucharistic Catholic Church, has always maintained that the views in the bulletin, written by Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández, and Msgr. Armando Matteo, prefect and secretary for the Doctrinal Section respectively.

How are we then to regard Pope Francis, who in the prayers of our Mass is included weekly?

I have noticed over the years that Francis has been Pope that the church has in many ways become more open to the L, G, and B.  When speaking of doctrinal attitudes and teachings, the L, G, and B are always referenced prominently.  The T however is not included.

And by the way, this is a description of what I suspect, not an endorsement.

Francis, I suspect, is far more liberal in his thinking than the Roman curia will allow.  I suspect Francis is, in fact, more in line with those who decried the publication of this bulletin.  As Pontiff of the Roman Church, he must endorse documents like “Dignitas Infinita” as the pressure of the curia dictates.

Regardless, this document sheds a poor light on how the church views Trans people.  Our church, while Catholic in nature, and Roman in expression, does not endorse these views.

In the years of the Queer Liberation movement, the eagerness to fight for the rights and dignities of our communities often moved forward while ignoring the needs, rights, tears, and shouts from our most vulnerable, most valuable, and most marginalized communities within the greater Queer world.  As I have asked in the past, I ask now for the forgiveness of our Trans siblings.  We have wronged you by our omission and we have made ourselves weaker because of it.  When we fail to embrace you, we fail to embrace the fullness of our struggle.  But more importantly, we fail to embrace Christ in you.

The church we are a part off doesn’t have government.  It doesn’t have cardinals.  It has clerics, bishops, monastics, hermits, deacons:  all of us, congregants, act in consensus as I hope the earlies of churches did, to recognize where we are needed to act, to advocate, to embrace, or to remain silent.  Dignity belongs to us all, regardless of who we are, where we are, or how our lives express the Divine Nature of God.  God constantly creates, and as scripture has shown, re-creates when needed.

We are the church who embraces Sts. Bacchus and Sergius, Sts. Felicity and Perpetua.  We are the community who embraces Our Lady of Guadalupe, who transformed herself that the world might better know the Word of God, the redemption of Christ. 

We will continue to include Francis, and all future pontiffs, in our prayers as we, in exile, hope that one day the fullness of Christ will once again enter the heart of the throne of St. Peter.

Yesterday was Palm Sunday, the first day in the holiest week of the Christian faith. During this week, the Passion of the Lord will be read repeatedly; the liturgy will at times be longer, and more in depth. Yesterday before the beginning of Mass, I spoke about how at times the liturgy may trigger certain feelings or emotions, and that I wanted people attending to pay attention to what those feelings and emotions might be, why they were coming up.

Its also good to consider these feelings in the context of the Passion. In the story of the time from the Last Supper to the end of Our Lord’s life, there are moments where we have opportunity to see ourselves.

We all begin at the table, asking “Who will be the one to betray you, Lord? Is it I?”

What have we done in our lives we may regret? Have we treated a person as an object to derive use from them? Have we allowed ourselves to be used? Have we bent a rule, presented something as the truth without including the whole story?

We are the disciples in the garden, sleeping while Jesus desperately prays in anguish for His life?

Are we Judas, selling out, only to recognize the depth of what we have done and trying to repent? Have we struggled with issues of the deepest of despair?

Are we an accuser? Do we point a finger and assign blame because it somehow allows us the illusion of protecting ourselves from our own guilt?

Have we ever been in the position of Mary, watching her Child in anguish and pain, knowing there was nothing we could do?

Are we Simon, forced to carry a cross for another, bitter with resentment for being chosen to do a task we don’t feel is ours to carry? Do we recognize the opportunity for transformation in such situations?

Are we Pilot, unable to say what he knows to be true because the mob stands against him?

Are we a centurion, attacking the faith with the nails of rage, grief, and hate, rather than those who have manipulated the faith for their gain? Do you throw taunts, or test, or unable to stand in faith?

In that moment, can you see your pain from the Cross, looking down on those bellow you?

When Mary the Mother of Jesus had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. But Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wishing to expose her to reproach, was minded to put her away privately. But while he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.

-Matthew 1:18-21