The following comes from a joint statement by Archbishop José H. Gomez, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and Bishop Charles E. Blake, Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ and Pastor of West Angeles Church of God in Christ. It was published August 2 by the Angelus.
This week the California Assembly begins final deliberations on Sen. Ricardo Lara’s “Equity in Higher Education Act” (SB 1146).
The bill, which passed the Senate in late May, has a salutary purpose — to ensure against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at California campuses.
Unfortunately this legislation goes far beyond that.
As it is written today, SB 1146 would violate the religious freedom of faith-based colleges and could jeopardize higher educational opportunities for the tens of thousands of Californians they serve, including many who are black, Latino, Asian and low-income.
Here is the problem, as we see it.
Current California law exempts religious schools from nondiscrimination laws in cases where applying these laws “would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.”
This is sensible and reflects our nation’s founding principles of religious freedom. For years now, this policy has worked well, enabling church-run colleges and universities to hire personel and establish policies and expectations regarding religious practice and personal conduct that reflect their beliefs and values.
SB 1146 proposes to drastically narrow that historic exemption so that it would only protect seminaries or other schools that train clergy and ministers.
Any other faith-based school that receives state monies or enrolls students who depend on the Cal Grants financial aid program would be forced to change their policies to accommodate practices that in some cases would be contrary to their beliefs and teachings.
Detailed provisions in the legislation include rules for bathroom use and sleeping arrangements in dormitories. The bill even has the government setting guidelines for what “religious practices” and “rules for moral conduct” will be acceptable on these campuses.
If passed as written today, this bill would force faith-based institutions to choose between compromising their deeply held beliefs or risking an endless wave of costly litigation to defend themselves.
This is a choice that no individual or institution should face in our state or in our country. In fact, the First Amendment and Bill of Rights were enacted to prevent precisely the kind of government interference reflected by SB 1146. Title IX of federal law also respects the rights of faith-based colleges and universities to operate free from government meddling.
But those who would truly be punished by this bill are California’s low-income and minority families — including millions served by our respective faith communities here in Los Angeles.
Historically, faith-based institutions have been a refuge for blacks, Asians and other minorities seeking a college education in the face of economic hardship and racial discrimination. That was true in the days before the Civil Rights Act and it is still true today.
Christian and other private nonprofit colleges in California serve a diverse student body — nearly 60 percent are minorities and nearly 90 percent need financial aid.
Many of the schools that would be effected by this legislation participate in the federal government’s Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) initiative to expand Latino access to higher education — schools such as California Lutheran, Azuza Pacific, Fresno Pacific, Notre Dame de Namur, among others.
To qualify for HIS status means these schools have student populations that are at least 25 percent Hispanic. Many of these students are children of immigrants and the first in their families to attend college.
We question why lawmakers would want to make it harder for Latinos and other minorities to receive an education by potentially denying their schools the opportunity to redeem Cal Grants. This is not fair to those students and it contradicts the state’s noble tradition of seeking to expand educational and economic opportunities for all Californians.
And all of this is unnecessary to achieve the goals of protecting the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender students.
The simple solution is to require that faith-based schools clearly state — on their websites and in written materials — what they believe, what accommodations they intend to provide to students, and what will be expected of students in terms of religious practice and personal conduct.
Most faith-based colleges and universities already do this. Sen. Lara’s bill proposes some helpful requirements that would further strengthen transparency and public disclosure at these institutions. But his legislation should stop there.
It is important to remember that no one is compelled to attend a private religious college or university. Those who do so make a deliberate decision because they are seeking an academic environment and community in which they can live, learn and serve with others who share their beliefs, values and aspirations.
We respectfully urge lawmakers to amend SB 1146 so that California continues to protect the freedom and integrity of faith-based higher education and continues to afford poor and minority students the freedom to attend the college or university of their choice, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Archbishop José H. Gomez is head of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the nation’s largest Catholic community. Bishop Charles E. Blake is pastor of West Angeles Church of God in Christ and Presiding Bishop of the worldwide Church of God in Christ, a 6 million-member Pentecost-Holiness denomination.
All right – Time We Stop taking Caesar’s Coin and find an alternate way of funding Catholic Education – As Catholic Education.
Take Our money from the bigoted Misandrists at UCSF, Santa Clara, LMU… and De-Fund their expensive Anti Catholic Hate groups (like the legal ‘education’ division’ with its high paid Male Bashing Bigots) and use it to Help Catholics cope with an incredibly hostile world.
Colleges were necessary when Library Books a and Lecturers were Scarce – NO Longer True & NO Need to pay those who hate the Church to Infest such places.
Pope Francis has denounced the pretense of ‘Gender Change’ – but Santa Clara holds is as a ‘sacrament’ of Misandry.
Render Unto Caesar – Yeah, Where Caesar Pays for it – and…
Render Unto Caesar – Yeah, Where Caesar Pays for it – and Not in Catholic Schools.
Incorrect analysis when the Bishops say “this bill would force faith-based institutions to choose between compromising their deeply held beliefs or risking an endless wave of costly litigation to defend themselves”.
Why is it incorrect analysis? All the Bishops have to do, if they want to continue their discriminatory practices, is to forgo state aid. Simple as that. Every contract has terms, and the state has a right to set those terms. If you don’t like the terms of the contract, walk away. It’s just that simple.
At one level your analysis is correct: the state is not telling private religious schools what to do but it is making state college grant funds ineligible to be used at schools that don’t meet with government approval.
Your implication that bishops are wrong to discriminate is flawed. Discrimination is good and just when differences are relevant; discrimination is reprehensible when differences are irrelevant. Discriminating against immoral behavior and unnatural, pathological, disordered unions and self-identities falls into the former category, for LGBT-ism is sufficiently divergent from normative sexuality to make a relevant difference. Discrimination against LGBTs in some (not all) ways is necessary and good and wise.
Thank you YFC for making it so simple. Why didn’t any of us see this before? I guess it’s because we thought the state had overreached and arrogated to itself the right to decide Christian ethics, especially as those ethics run counter to , well, Christian ethics. You see so clearly because you too, YFC, oppose those Christian ethics under attack by the state. And this is a great cause for concern for those of us who read your posts.
The state does not have the right to discriminate against religious institutions nor does it secure the right to use taxpayer money for the purpose of forwarding agendas on behalf of its favored special interest groups.
Take the State’s money, play by the State’s rules. You cannot serve both God and mammon–but these guys clearly realize how their bread gets buttered.
If the anti-God secular humanist forces pushing this draconian bill do not get their way they will eventually in the very near future use force. That’s where this spiritual war will eventually go. Brothers and sisters in Christ pray each day like your life depended on it. Once a country like America ends freedom of religious express a totalitarian tyranny is not far behind. Please America pray, pray, pray because our Lord Jesus Christ True Man and True God Lord of Lords and King of Kings is just waiting to hear the word from Almighty God to come soon like a thief in the night. The day and hour of his coming only God the Father knows.
Dear Bishops, It is way past time to STOP TAKING their grants. Take a stand & Cal Grant EXIT! Start a trend. Praise God and don’t let God be mocked over money. Be bold & start acting like God’s family. Do not be afraid! Put everything in God’s hands. Praying for you.
The roots of this sort of thing go back to the erroneous decision decades ago to stop considering homosexuality a pathology. Now that homosexuality has begun to be considered acceptable, normal and good by the government, it is inevitable that anything that attempts to treat homosexuality as the pathology that it is will be the object of the state’s wrath.
Yes, that one false premise, carried through to its logical ramifications decades later, has produced the whole mess we now live in. The only way to fix the mess is to return to the normative understanding of human sexuality in which homosexuality is considered pathological, but fat chance of that happening in America during our lifetimes.
Much suffering for observant Christians…
It is not the Church’s teaching that her use of the word “disordered” should mean a pathological clinical psychiatric or mental illness. IT IS NOT! It is a moral and philosophical judgment. It has always been so, in spite of the efforts of some of you to infer that false meaning to the Church’s teaching. Note the comment you wrote above where you coupled the words, “pathological, disordered unions.” This is disingenuous.
It is a biological disorder, pure and simple.
What does homosexuality contribute toward the survival and propagation of a species, man or beast?
You must have failed biology 101 otherwise you would have recognized the fact that the colon is not a birth canal.
jon likes to deliberately misinterpret what people state. Even though I don’t claim that the Church teaches homosexuality is a mental disorder, jon insists that I do. I indeed claim that it is a mental disorder but I don’t ascribe that stance to the Magisterium.
I think that truth can be known both as a deduction from what the Magisterium teaches and as a result of independent investigation.
You are right that it is obviously a biological disorder. It is a disorder on so many levels.
If you hang around here much you’ll get used to jon being jon and displaying his ignorance while self-righteously claiming he is the Great Merciful One for telling people they are wrong about things when they are actually right.
It is totally incorrect to misuse the Church’s phrase in a way she does not intend because it DOES NOT at all complement her teaching. It fact it undermines it! The CDF Letter from 1986 On the Pastoral Care For Homosexual Person teaches that the tendency is “ORDERED toward” something, namely a moral evil. It is NOT a psychological nor a psychiatric diagnosis, but a moral judgment. For you to insist upon this IS WRONG! I therefore because of your misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching on this, I reiterate what i pronounced in a different article that you have lost your credibility here. Sorry.
…there is required pastoral care for common sense, jon.
It is wrong and disordered of you to pretend that a reproductive system that is ordered toward sterility is not dysfunctional. No amount of capital letters, etc, is going to change reality.
S, good comments, thank you. Did they decided it was no longer a pathology because they got sick & tired of dealing with ‘gay’ people that didn’t want to change? (Which proves it is a mental illness as the truly mentally ill never admit it do they?) So essentially ‘they gave up & gave in” on the SSA folks. Why bother? They stick together usually socially & don’t really hurt anyone but themselves? So more of that rational, at the time, made it sound like a good move. Now years later, along comes the ultra thought control PC culture foisted on us by the ultra liberal agenda & BINGO, another minority they can ‘HELP’ = the mess today. It is so simple…..God does not make mistakes, He is perfect.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Homosexual activists hailed the decision, which was entirely a capitulation to those activists and not a decision made on the basis of scientific or medical evidence.
Clear thinking people know, and courageous people will continue to affirm despite pressure from society and government to capitulate, that homosexuality is a mental disorder. It is a disorder from a philosophical standpoint as well. It is a disorder in both senses.
Homosexuals have something wrong with them. What is wrong with them is their attraction to the same sex. Deny that premise, and social damage ensues eventually.
The manner with which you used the word “disordered” in an earlier comment on August 5, 2016 at 6:18 pm was very erroneous because it wrongly implies that the Church’s use of the phrase is psychiatric/psychological. This is very plain from reading your post. AND THIS IS WRONG on so many levels.
The message of the Church for those with same-sex attraction is not served well, in fact it is undermined, by your continued misrepresentation of her teaching. You are advised to use the proper language of the Church when speaking about sin, concupiscence, temptation, man’s fallen nature, redemption, forgiveness and the like, rather than erroneously employing terminology from the clinical sciences.
The result of your and others’…
continued misuse of the phrase is not negligible. A false use of the phrase has resulted in the berating, bashing, belittling, hammering unjustly those with same-sex attraction. This has resulted in people in some corners of the Church to say that she must amend, change, her language pertaining to homosexuals. And all that comes from people like YOU misusing the word, when there’s perfectly NOTHING WRONG WITH IT, if used rightly and faithfully.
Whatever your intention is for continuing to grossly misrepresent the Church’s teaching on this only God only knows. But for the sake of the Church’s message, you must stop your erroneous use of the word “disordered.”
Cardinal Sarah decries “attempt to make homosexuality the cornerstone of a new global ethic” – LifeSite News
Senator Ricardo Lara’s parents immigrated to Los Angeles illegally and for their troubles they got an homosexual son. There is no escaping the corruption of Cultural Marxism.
Once again (and again and again), Community Organizer Gomez, immigrant and cultural/linguistic marginal, simply can’t resist playing the race card and displaying his boundless ignorance of, and hostility to, American history.
The curt appropriate response understandably cannot pass muster here (lest I be sorely tempted), so let’s go for the next best thing: Gomez, Go Home!
Blake? Standard issue.
These religious educational institutions should no long seek funding from the state if they are not going to adhere to the nondiscriminatory practices. Asking for funds from public coffers, which include persons from the lgbt community, is not something these institutions should expect to given in their present climate.
Homosexuality is a disorder. The Church teaches that homosexuality is an objectively disordered tendency. The APA used to affirm that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and all clear thinking people know that it still is. There is so much wrong with homosexuality, on so many different levels.
The Church indeed teaches that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, but not in a clinical way psychiatrically nor psychologically. The clinical sciences are not the Church’s competence and therefore she cannot mean the phrase to be used clinically. The phrase is a moral judgment on the inclination and the act. HOWEVER, the question begs to be asked in light of repeated corrections: why are you insistent that the Church’s phrase “intrinsically disordered’ be erroneously associated with the clinical sciences?
I don’t use the term that way when speaking strictly about the Church’s teaching. But the fact that the Church does not use the term in that sense does not mean that it is incorrect to use the term in that sense.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder, as the APA used to affirm prior to 1973, even if the Church doesn’t teach that it is.
There are many truths that can be affirmed aside from what the Church states about faith and morals, and homosexuality being a mental disorder is one of them.
As often as you attempt to discourage people from affirming that it is a mental disorder by using the red herring that the Church doesn’t teach that, I will repeat that truth, which complements her teaching.
Again, Sawyer, you speak about matters in which you have no competence either. The Church has not competence to teach on the clinical sciences, as Jon points out, and NEITHER DO YOU. In fact, those WITH competence in the clinical sciences vehemently disagree with you. Who should we trust, the competent ones, or the incompetent ones?
Disconnecting the clinical “sciences” from reality and basing them on research that is funded in an attempt to normalize that which is against nature is similarly unfounded, YFC.
Theories are not facts. And sadly, the infection of following the money has overtaken the integrity of even “scientists” YFC. Everyone must pay their bills, after all.
YFC, is a paid troll, who promotes the diabolical homosexual agenda on a faithful Catholic website.
“If you consulted your business experiences instead of your ugly individualistic philosophy, you would know that believing in himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter.”
― G.K. Chesterton, on self-delusion – Orthodoxy
Ann Malley – I NEVER disconnected the clinical sciences from reality. Perhaps you did?
As to theories: It is Sawyer who comes here with a theory that homosexuality is a mental illness, not me. Besides which, when you allege that clinicians are behaving unethically, you provide no evidence at all, AND you forget that there is no big fund out there to cause unethical behavior.
Catherine, you have been told at least three times that I am not paid to be here. Yet you continue to spread lies. Is bearing false witness part of what you consider orthodoxy?
YFC, you’re negating the reality that much of what drives “science” is popular desire and having the money to fund research. That’s a sad reality.
So too is your trolling here. If you’re not being paid, then more’s the pity for you.
The church “not competent in clinical sciences” (I think he means “behavioral sciences”, but consider the source): but IS competent and in fact infallible, especially P. Francis, in climate-science (“Laudato Si”)?
Again, wrong is Campion: clinical science is a proper term (as is behavioral). For instance the University of Michigan refers to is psychology program/department as its program in “Clinical Science. Plus, the Academy of Psychological CLINICAL Science evidently uses the term as well.
So, (typically employing one of his favored techniques—subject-change when caught), jon the pious by default admits the Church is not “competent” to judge climate-sciences (ex. in Laudato Si) neither, just as it is not competent to do so in behavioral sciences.
The moral implications of a lack of stewardship and respect for the environment is the gist of Laudatio Si’, Campion. It might do you good to actually read it. Pope Francis actually draws from statements from previous pontiffs and from Patricarch Batholomew to situate the Church’s concern for our stewardship of our home. No where in the document does the Holy Father say that the Church is competent in meteorology. No where!
The moral implications of the lack of stewardship with regards to teaching souls about virtue and sin in light of such a specious encyclical is disturbing to serious folks. Catholics, too.
Translation: if the competency isn’t there, the Holy Father should stick to writing letters about Faith and Morals, not writing, let’s say, essays on chemistry, astronomy, etc.
Kind of like a priest who spends his time away from his parish to feed orphans in Tibet. It’s a good work, just not his duty. For if we don’t do our actual job, who will? Nobody.
Your beloved SSPX AMalley doesn’t actually lead souls to virtue, but lead them to sin and disobedience! The Holy Father, this one and the past ones, have all written amply about faith and morals. The problem is that those who have drunk the Kool Aid of the SSPX give those writings short shrift.
This is an outright falsehood. You DID use the term in an erroneous way from your comment on August 5, 2016 at 6:18 pm. You were describing how the bishops were right to “discriminate” on certain issue, and then in a subsequent sentence from the same paragraph you coupled the phrase “pathological, disordered union.” This is truly and grossly disingenuous.
Your misuse of the term “intrisically disordered” does not complement the teaching of the Church, but undermines it. Because of your pathological insistence on the misuse of the Church’s phrase, I must therefore repeat what I had said in a previous article that you have lost your credibility.
Sawyer’s point that using the Church’s phrase “intrinsically disordered” in a mental/psychiatric way complements the teachings of the Church IS TOTALLY WRONG. Why?
1) The Church does not use “disordered” exclusively for homosexuality. The Church uses the term for sin and any sinful tendency in general. For instance, in Catechism 2352, the Church judges that MASTURBATION (since we’re on the topic of sex anyway) as “an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” Therefore, no one can use the term exclusively for homosexuality or even to say that “Homosexuals have something wrong with them” (which Sawyer indeed wrote above) as if “intrinsically disordered” pertains to the homosexual tendency alone!
2) Sawyer’s misuse of the…
phrase “intrinsically disordered” to mean something mental and psychiatric DOES NOT complement the teachings of the Church. In Catechism 2358, the Church calls us to RESPECT those for whom this inclination is a trial: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Misusing the Church’s phrase to mean something clinical or using it to apply to the person, not to the tendency, is a SIGN OF DISRESPECT, insensitivity, and a lack of compassion. It has been use to ridicule, berate, discriminate unjustly. Therefore, the misuse of this phrase DOES NOT complement the fullness of the Church’s message to men and women with same-sex attraction. It does…
It does not: instead the Church’s message is undermined.
Because of Sawyer’s insistence of this misuse after repeated patient corrections, I have no choice but to declare that he has lost credibility.
jon, you presume to imply that clearly stating that a person is afflicted with a psychiatric disorder is offensive. Shame on you. It is just such a pretense that precludes proper diagnosis.
Should someone with cancer be shamed because the “c” word has been used to accurately diagnose their condition? No. But conditioning people to fear speaking accurately about what ails poor souls is to aid and abet the disorder that would kill them – body and soul. (An excess of manners can kill.)
The truth shall set you free, jon, not a perpetuated mincing of words to parlay with that evil whose intention is to destroy.
Stop disrespecting the intellect of those afflicted with same-sex attraction. They are more than what tempts/torments…
Ann Malley- It’s not an accurate diagnosis. It’s a made up diagnosis, made up by you and Sawyer. If Sawyer diagnosed your sister with breast cancer, after hearing she has a swollen ankle, and without ever having met her, would you believe him? No, you’d call him out for unethical behavior. When Sawyer makes grand proclamations about the mental health of people he has never met, and never studied, he is not making a “proper diagnosis”. He’s practicing medicine without a license.
FALSE again AMalley: to actually imply a FALSE MEANING TO THE TERM ITSELF, in a way the Church does not intend, and then ascribe that meaning to the Church IS GROSSLY OFFENSIVE. Plus Saywer denied it, when it is clear he in fact misrepresented the Church’s teaching. This is offensive.
Plus, the Church calls all sinful tendencies as intrinsically disordered not just homosexuality. Read up on point #1 from my comment above. To use this term exclusively for those with SSA effectively singles them out (“Homosexuals have something wrong with them” —very offensive). This is discriminatory, unjust. You have lost credibility too AMalley. Sorry to say.
The diagnosis of homosexuality as a psychological disorder was used to justify lobotomizing, castrating, and nearly killing gay patients who were committed against their will by their own families.
Ann, it seems that jon and YFC mistakenly believe that to say homosexuality is a mental illness is to claim that a homosexual is certifiably crazy. You know, of course, that isn’t the case
Someone can suffer from the mental disorder of homosexuality and be perfectly normal in most areas of mental functioning.
It’s like obsessive-compulsive disorder. Someone with that has a mental illness but isn’t totally crazy.
But not being totally crazy doesn’t mean you don’t have some mental problems. And homosexuals have mental problems, which is their same-sex desire. Sexual desire is in the mind, to desire the same sex is a mental illness. It’s so obvious and simple.
Sawyer, your words that “homosexuals have mental problems” is unsupported by the Church and by science.
Sawyer, I will venture that YFC and jon understand that to call a disorder is in no way uncharitable. (Much like ADHD is a disorder not to be desired, but coped with and managed.) It is highly convenient to the promotion of the normalization of that which is against nature, however, to feign indignity, shock, hurt feelings, misunderstanding and, of course, putting word into the mouths of others.
As in, “Surely, you are not saying that “we” are blind, too!!!!” said to the Lord. Well, if you’re not blind, the sin is there and remains. If you are blind, truly blind, then there is an out of forgiveness there, much like a child who knows only what he/she is told.
Admitting to same sex attraction and being diagnosed as having a disordered sexual attraction is not the same as equating a swollen ankle to cancer. A swollen ankle could be caused by cancer, but it is not always so. Not at all.
I’m personally done with your games, YFC.
As for the misuse of a proper diagnosis to engage in cruelty, that doesn’t make the diagnosis wrong. It means that people need to act charitably. Pretending that there is no problem is an over reaction born out of fear, not truth. The fear of being cruel.
But Christ spoke the truth, even hard truth.
AMalley: The truth is that if you have no attraction to the same sex, and if you have not been the recipient of the words: “You have a disorder” then you have NO MORAL GROUND to say that the word is not offensive, that it is not uncharitable. YOU’RE WRONG! The fact is that the word has caused hurt to those with same-sex attraction: in fact, you might want to speak to one of them and ask them if the word will cause them hurt. Who are YOU to say that it doesn’t? You’re speaking out-of-line.
Recent HISTORY: WHY are we at this GAY tipping point in this (once) great country? Our POTUS before last election, “Marriage is between one man & one woman”. Then he got elected again (sigh). Shortly afterward he said, after much thought (?), he has CHANGED his mind about marriage. BO OPENED the flood gates of Sodom & Gomorrah to SWAMP America’s Christian Values! The SUPREME COURT did their part when they overturned state laws supporting traditional marriage. Least we forget, THANKS TO ALL THE CONFUSED CATHOLICS who voted BO in AGAIN = All Christians suffer but the WORST is yet to come if Hillary gets in & continues this WAR on religious freedoms. Wake UP & VOTE THEM OUT! God deliver us.