King Charles III Greets LGBTQ+ Catholics; And More News

Martin Pendergast of LGBT+ Catholics Westminster with King Charles III

The following items may be of interest:

1. King Charles III of the United Kingdom attended an Advent prayer service at Farm Street Church in London last week. After the service, the king greeted parishioners, including members of LGBT+ Catholics Westminster, the diocesan ministry which meets at the Jesuit parish, reported Independent Catholic News. The king visited the church for a service highlighting the suffering of Christians in the Middle East. In a statement, LGBT+ Catholics Westminster noted of the encounter:

“Martin Pendergast, Secretary of the LGBT+ Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council, introduced members to the King and said, ‘We wonder if this is the first time that the Monarch has been seen to engage with an LGBT+ group quite so publicly? The King was interested to know how long we had been going and remembered the Soho bombing in 1999, just after which we started Masses welcoming LGBT+ Catholics.'”

A video of the encounter between LGBTQ+ Catholics and King Charles is available on YouTube here.

2. When Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral re-opened earlier this month, celebrants at a Mass to mark the occasion wore specially-commissioned vestments—inspired, in part, by the artistry of gay artist and activist Keith Haring. Designer Jean-Charles de Castelbajac included “shard-like patches in red, blue, yellow and green flocking” around a gold-faced cross. The New York Times explained:

“Mr. de Castelbajac said the shards, which he cut and glued to the fabric himself, represented the cathedral’s stained glass windows and were arranged to recall ‘Radiant Baby,’ an image by the pop artist Keith Haring of a crawling infant framed by rays of light. Mr. Haring, who died in 1990 from an AIDS-related illness, was a friend of Mr. de Castelbajac’s.”

3. The Vatican opposed the inclusion of “gender” in the texts for COP29, the United Nations’ annual conference on climate change. According to an op-ed from French scholars published in La Croix International, the Vatican’s “concern was that the term could lead to the inclusion of transgender individuals and lesbian women.” The op-ed continues:

“[L]et us focus on the lengths the Vatican is willing to go to in order to safeguard its conservative doctrine on women’s rights.

“Women are both the first victims of climate change and essential holders of effective solutions to combat its effects. This is a well-documented fact supported by extensive scientific research.

“Yet, the Vatican chose to align itself with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt in opposing the inclusion of terms like gender, intersectionality, and ‘women in all their diversity’ in COP29 working texts. Our church, therefore, prefers to side with countries known for oppressing women rather than adopt a vocabulary outside its tradition.”

Citing Pope Francis’ leadership on ecological concerns, such as his encyclical Laudato Si, the authors wrote, “Pope Francis seems unable to extend that vision to issues related to gender and sexual minorities” and “by refusing to recognize the ‘signs of the times’ on this subject, he turns his back on his own foundational insights.” The op-ed concluded with the hope that Francis will come to understand how his struggle against climate change is intimately tied to gender equality.

4. In early December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a case about Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for trans youth. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had filed an amicus brief supporting Tennessee’s ban. Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter, who has commented negatively in the past on trans equality initiatives, nevertheless criticized the bishops’ sharply for their argument. The bishops’ conference endorses the ban because it preserves Catholics’ religious liberty by preventing more court disputes over LGBTQ+ rights. Winters writes, in part:

“No one likes to pay legal expenses, but is there an alternative? Would it be better for the country if one side or the other simply won the culture wars? Would that constitute freedom? Or justice? The U.S. bishops’ conference brief is asking the court to let it run the table. That wouldn’t be good for the culture and I doubt it would really be good for the church. . .

“The Supreme Court favors religious liberty, but the argument advanced by the U.S. bishops’ conference will prove a bridge too far. Religious liberty is a great thing, a civilizational achievement. It can be threatened from without, but also from spurious, overreaching arguments from within. The U.S. bishops’ brief, if it were adopted, would give religious liberty a black eye.”