"You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church..."

I have returned from what I call my “Bones and Basilica” tour of Italy and am reflecting upon some of my experiences.  As previously mentioned, I think I was called to join the tour to better understand the church’s current polarity by better understanding the church’s pious yet powerful minority.  Rest assured, the powerful and pious were well-represented on this tour.  The group included ordained clergy, diocesan leaders, business owners, family members of the previously mentioned groups and several staunch Republicans as well as the chaplain for and at least one member of “Legatus”, a 2,000 plus member Catholic business executive organization founded by Tom Monaghan (also founder of uber-orthodox Ave Maria University). 

Though everyone’s reaction to any experience is unique, I found my reactions to the "bones and basilicas" repeatedly differed significantly from those of other group members.  However, never was that difference so pronounced as during the Vatican’s Scavi tour of the ancient Roman necropolis over which St. Peter’s Basilica is built and which many pious Catholics believe contains St. Peter’s mortal remains.  Here is a synopsis of the Scavi tour: 

• A seminarian takes a small group of 10 – 15 people beyond publicly accessible parts of Vatican City and provides some historical information - that a Roman Circus used to be where the Vatican is, and that it is believed St. Peter was crucified upside down at that circus, quickly cut down by severing his feet and immediately buried in a nearby necropolis so that Peter’s body would be protected by Roman law from movement, cremation or desecration.  The part about Peter’s burial and burial location is conjecture. 
• The seminarian also explains that a few hundred years after Peter’s demise, Constantine, the first Christian emperor, built a basilica above the believed resting spot for Peter’s remains.  That basilica stood until the 1500s when construction began on what is now St. Peter’s Basilica at the same site. 
• As the Scavi tour continues, the seminarian describes the modern discovery of the necropolis in the 1930s and the ensuing search for St. Peter’s remains over the next few decades.  We were told the dig occurred in sanctioned secret despite one important monsignor’s opposition.  Because the dig was secretive, all excavation occurred at night.  Though the official secret archaeologists did find some bones where Peter’s remains were believed to be buried, testing in the 1950s indicated they came from 3 different people: two males of the wrong age, and a woman.  But do not despair.  The story continues. 
• Years after reporting the disappointing findings, the official secret archaeologists learned that the monsignor who opposed the dig had his own cadre of non-sanctioned super-secret archaeologists who evidently must have been “secretly” digging in broad daylight since we were told the official secret diggers worked through the night.  The monsignor had the super-secret archaeologists go through the dig site daily after the official secret archaeologists finished their night-time work to extract any partially exposed bones.  Evidently he felt partially exposed bones were not respectful treatment for ancient remains.  These bones were squirreled away in the monsignor’s super-secret ancient bone repository duly labeled as to their original location.  They were discovered years after the disappointing results from the official secret dig were reported. 
• Please do not faint from surprise that the bones supposedly found by the super-secret diggers (not to be confused with the official secret diggers) below the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica matched the gender and age approximation that might have matched St. Peter’s remains.  Eventually these remains were declared Peter’s and re-interred under the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica.  Hollywood soap operas must bow in proper deference to such protracted drama.  To me it is only slightly more believable than if the guide had said St. Peter's relics emerged from someone's holy rectal orifice like pulling a rabbit from a magician's hat.
• After explaining all this, the seminarian reads MT 16:13-19 containing the famous biblical quote where Jesus says, “…you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

At this point the majority of people in my group were in tears.  Yet, my mind was streaming thoughts associated with critical analysis such as, “Any archaeologist worth their salt would notice the absence of partially exposed bones they found the previous day.” 

To me this story that moves so many people, contains numerous gaping holes and is what my father would call “fantastic” as in “filled with fantasy.”  To accept that these are Peter’s bones one must at a minimum accept as truth folklore about Peter’s burial and burial location, that after hundreds of years Constantine correctly placed the first basilica, and that the Vatican employed shoddy archaeologists who wouldn’t notice missing bones or properly record when a bone was found.  By the way, if you’d like some information about how meticulous excavation of human remains is, here is a short instruction paper easy for non-archaeologists to understand.

Do I believe the bones of the Scavi tour are St. Peter’s bones?  I am not even close to convinced.  But beyond all that – whether the bones discovered belong to St. Peter or not, I asked the question, “So what?”  Does it matter and if so, why?  

On this Italy tour I realized how little “bones and basilicas” inspire my spirituality and relationship with God.  What inspired me were the people - whether they were fellow group members, the highly educated Muslim bus driver who speaks 5 languages (4 more than most on the tour yet assumed by many on the tour as having lesser education than them), the person selling me gelato, or the attendant cleaning a public bathroom.

I found it interesting that the same summer  in which Pope Paul VI announced this fantastic story about finding St. Peter’s remains, he promulgated the very controversial encyclical Humanae Vitae upholding the church’s longstanding ban on artificial birth control, an encyclical that expressed the exact opposite of what his own papal commission advised him to do.  The coincidental timing fascinates me.  On June 26, 1968 a month before he published Humanae Vitae on July 25, 1968, he announced something that laid the groundwork for dramatically reinforcing his papal authority, something that likely would be challenged the moment he published his encyclical on human reproduction.

Not surprisingly, not long after the announcement about finding Peter’s remains, Scavi tours began (of course for a fee) and seem aimed at reinforcing papal authority via well-orchestrated emotional manipulation: show people some old stuff, offer a few facts, fill in the rest with conjecture, describe a fantastic tale filled with Hollywood-style intrigue, and end by quoting Jesus saying Peter has keys to the kingdom.  However, I have a few concerns about the Scavi tour’s orchestration:

• Calling Peter the first pope requires accepting revisionist history ignoring all the early diverse Christian communities and pretending they were one organized, united front.
• The Catholic Catechism teaches that “the church” is “the people of God.”  It is not buildings or the hierarchy.  However, the profound effect the Scavi tour hopes to inspire requires people to believe incorrectly that “the church” is the hierarchy and buildings.  Without that there is no reason to be moved that here is a church building for the highest member of the hierarchy built upon Peter.
• Jesus tells Peter in MT 16:19 that he can hold things loosed or bound but he also tells the exact same thing to the disciples (not apostles…just your everyday garden-variety Jesus followers) in MT 18:18 – that they hold things loosed or bound.  But the desired effect of the Scavi tour reinforcing papal authority requires a person to ignore the MT 18:18 passage completely.  It was not mentioned in the tour and when I asked about it shoulders shrugged and the question ignored.

Throughout the 10-day tour of Italy several fellow travelers tried to help me fix problems I didn’t think I had and many assumed I, a daily Mass attendee, was a lapsed Catholic.  But the last time during the trip I was questioned about my status with the church, I had a profound thought.  The scene transpired following a farewell dinner when another group member asked me if I would return to the church after this pilgrimage.  As I replied that I attend daily Mass and never left the church this thought about “the church” being “the people of God” especially struck me and stuck with me. 

The church is the people of God not the hierarchy or buildings.  Yet, many of God’s people, indeed the majority of the church, are so wounded or disgusted that they neither align with the hierarchy nor frequent ecclesial buildings.  When I answered the question I answered correctly that I have never left the church because in addition to frequenting the buildings and interacting with the hierarchy, I remain strongly connected to the true definition of church – the people of God – including and especially the overwhelming majority who disassociate themselves from the Roman Catholic institution. 

However, I found myself wondering how many of the hierarchy and its fans have abandoned the church – the people of God?  It’s ironic that many of those who think they are most tightly connected to the church because of their fusion to the hierarchy and its buildings often are the people least connected to the actual church – God’s people.  Who is really “away from the church?”   

What is our responsibility as members of one body to help reconnect the hierarchy and its fans to the church – the people of God – the majority of whom eschew ecclesial buildings and hierarchy? 

"Don't Surround Yourself with Yourself..."

It is early morning Day Four of my Italy tour.  As mentioned in previous blog articles, I joined a tour group being led by the chancellor of my diocese.  We are in Florence now having already visited Assisi and with Rome yet on our itinerary.

As would be expected of a trip that costs thousands of dollars, the people in the group have incomes which support paying that kind of money for a trip.  That statement can be read as us having precisely zero poor people in the group and having several very wealthy people in the herd.  I am probably amongst the minority in that I have at least experienced poverty, growing up in a very low-income home.  I am definitely in the minority in that I am not a member of America’s Republican Party.

Many people on the tour are huge fans of Cardinal Tim Dolan.  Some have moved beyond admiration of the man to adoration and adulation of him.  These people are stunned and incredulous when they learn I do not or for that matter that anyone might not share their opinions of him.     

A telling conversation came about during Day Two’s lunch with some of Tim’s biggest fans in the group.  Their statement was that “everyone I talk to loves the man.”  Yet my reply was, “I know many people who dislike him.”  We will return to this thought momentarily.

Later that same day I read comments Tim made during the recent U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB’s) Fall Convocation.  When asked if the American bishops and the church needed to do anything differently to align better with Pope Francis’ stated desire to be “a poor church for the poor”, Dolan replied, “Can I think of anything new?  I don't think so. I like to think that this is an affirmation of the good things we are doing."  He went on to highlight that most complaints he hears from the people he interacts with are that the bishops emphasize social justice, government cut backs, and the poor too much.

I sent a link to an article about Dolan’s statements to one of the people participating in our conversation – one of the people who said that everyone he talks to loves Dolan.  I highlighted Dolan’s statements about what he hears from the people with whom he communicates.  The common theme between Dolan’s statements and those of my lunch companions was the concept of confining reality to the sphere of “the people I talk to…” 

With whom do Dolan and the Republican Catholics speak?  The rock group “Yes” has a profound lyric in the song, “I’ve Seen All Good People” which advises, “Don’t surround yourself with yourself.”  If one speaks exclusively to those with whom one agrees, growth becomes difficult if not impossible and there is a grave danger of elevating common opinion to the unwarranted status of “unmitigated fact.”

Quite simply, having a “poor church for the poor” requires understanding poverty and the church. 

Let’s start with the second item first – understanding the church.  One must acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of “the church” does not attend Mass and a near majority no longer even considers themselves Catholic.  So, if Dolan and the people with whom I had lunch earlier this week wish to know what “the church” thinks of either Dolan or the hierarchy’s behavior, they must begin not by understanding the views of the pious but with understanding the viewpoint of the church’s majority – those who do not or rarely darken the threshold of a Catholic Church.  They must seek out those with whom they disagree rather than surround themselves with themselves and declare their shared opinion a universal fact.   

Since the disenfranchised and marginalized are the majority of the church, these voices should be the majority of voices whose opinions we thirst to understand.  Sadly, I’m unsure if this demographic group ranks as high as getting even token slivers of the hierarchy and pious circle's bandwidth.  Also, there is a distinct difference between talking with and listening to people.  So we must ask if we are merely "talking" or sincerely listening to the disenfranchised and marginalized.   

Similarly, to determine if one is doing enough for the poor, the place to begin is by talking with and listening to the poor rather than the wealthy.  Very few wealthy people understand poverty so they are not the best or sometimes even credible spokespeople for it. Also,  I see a disturbing trend where people of economic security believe they actually are the poor and thus believe they already know and represent the poor’s opinions.  My little tour group and the U.S. bishops are only symptomatic of the global pervasive trend wherein the hierarchy allies with the wealthy more than the poor – where it communicates with the wealthy more than with the poor.

Many of my friends and relatives have questioned my sanity for joining this tour group because they knew there would be few if any people with similar spiritual outlook to mine.  Side note of good news: so far I have found two others of similar views to mine.   Anyway, my friends and family are correct in that many things the other group members find exhilarating I find stomach churning…be it the commercialization of St. Francis’ poverty, the opulence of shrines erected in his honor, the distracting opulent ornamentation of cathedrals, etc…  

However, I try to live the legacy of my parents – don’t surround myself with myself. I joined this trip to try to understand better the division in the church.  I can’t understand it by only talking to people who see the world as I do.  I can’t understand it by only listening to people who see the world as I do. 

I have been listening a lot and find it fascinating that people can read the same scripture and theology yet come to such different conclusions.  I find it fascinating that people can declare others' views as "wrong" versus being in disagreement with their opinions yet feel they do not judge.  I find it fascinating that people who want to follow Jesus - a guy who instructs us to "be not afraid" - not only harbor fear themselves, they want others to share their fear.

Unfortunately I have not yet sensed that those having the most different mindset from me have any interest in understanding my viewpoint as much as correcting what they believe are my grievous errors.  Perhaps they emulate their hero Dolan, who surrounds himself with himself, relying upon the views of a small minority of the church and allowing those opinions to bounce around in a confined echo chamber to the point of ultimately declaring those viewpoints as “universally held objective truths.”  Maybe this approach is considered part of the "New Evangelization"...spreading the "good news" of telling other people how wrong they are? 

I do ponder how much the ultra-pious, uber-orthodox crowd listens – really listens – to the poor and marginalized (that would be the majority of the church) versus surrounding themselves with themselves.  But with money comes power and so perhaps they feel they needn’t listen to the majority. 

But, the question I leave you all with is this: do you surround yourself with yourself?  In many respects Jesus advised his disciples against doing that.  

By the way, the clergyman with initials "T.D." that I most admire is Fr. Tom Doyle not Tim Dolan.

Survey says...

Perhaps by now you have heard that the Vatican is soliciting people’s input regarding the church’s teachings on family and sexuality.  In the United Kingdom, you can take the survey online.  Here in the U.S., though, the bishops have not yet figured out how they will obtain people’s input. 

I decided not to wait for the U.S. bishops and took the online survey offered by the U.K. bishops.  Thanks guys!

Whilst taking the survey I copied the questions into a Word document before submitting my responses.  I offer them here so that you can prepare yourself for when your bishop comes seeking your opinion.  Or, you can just take the survey offered by the U.K. because we are after all a catholic (universal) church.

Be forewarned though - this survey is not for the faint of heart.  It involves writing 39 essays in response to the 9 multipart questions.  And the questions are written as though you have a master degree in theology.  Not to worry…after I give the questions as written by the clergy, I provide a simplified version of each.  

Also be forewarned that in the 1960s Popes John XXIII and Paul VI sponsored a pontifical commission and asked its members to give guidance regarding the church’s teachings about birth control.  However, Paul VI completely disregarded their recommendations to lift the church’s ban on artificial birth control and issued Humanae Vitae instead which just re-entrenched the church’s teachings…and consequently led to the largest exodus from the Church to date at that time. 

Thus, do not place too much hope that the Vatican seeking your opinion means the Vatican will actually heed your advice.  It might again just inspire the Vatican to write another really long document in Latin explaining why you are wrong.  The good news is that if that happens, so many people have already left the church in disgust regarding mishandling of clergy child rapists that another mass exodus would be difficult to notice.

But, with those warnings issued, I encourage you to participate.  If nothing else, you will learn the Latin term for “shacking up together.”  

Question 1 – actual text

a) Describe how the Catholic Church's teachings on the value of the family contained in the Bible, Gaudium et Spes, Familiaris Consortio and other documents of the post-conciliar Magisterium is understood by people today? What formation is given to our people on the Church's teaching on family life?

b) In those cases where the Church's teaching is known, is it accepted fully or are there difficulties in putting it into practice? If so, what are they?

c) How widespread is the Church's teaching in pastoral programmes at the national, diocesan and parish levels? What catechesis is done on the family?

d) To what extent — and what aspects in particular — is this teaching actually known, accepted, rejected and/or criticized in areas outside the Church? What are the cultural factors which hinder the full reception of the Church’s teaching on the family?

Question 1 – My simplified version

a) Do any Catholics listen to us when we teach about homosexuals or birth control?

b) Why do people ignore us on these topics?

c) Is it that we haven’t explained ourselves clearly?

d) Do even any non-Catholics listen to us?

Question 2 – actual text

a) What place does the idea of the natural law have in the cultural areas of society: in institutions, education, academic circles and among the people at large? What anthropological ideas underlie the discussion on the natural basis of the family?

b) Is the idea of the natural law in the union between a man and a woman commonly accepted as such by the baptized in general?

c) How is the theory and practice of natural law in the union between man and woman challenged in light of the formation of a family? How is it proposed and developed in civil and Church institutions?

d) In cases where non-practicing Catholics or declared non-believers request the celebration of marriage, describe how this pastoral challenge is dealt with?

Question 2 – My simplified version

a) Are Catholics the only people on the planet still clinging to Aristotle’s incorrect 4^th century B.C. teachings about human biology, reproduction, sexuality and psychology?

b) Oh, wait, do any Catholics besides us in the Vatican still cling to Aristotle’s incorrect 4^th century B.C. teachings about human biology, reproduction, sexuality and psychology?

c) What is the new word on the street about these topics?

d) If lapsed Catholics or non-Catholics want to get married in a Catholic church, how are they treated by the clergy and church staff?

Question 3 – actual text

a) What experiences have emerged in recent decades regarding marriage preparation? What efforts are there to stimulate the task of evangelization of the couple and of the family? How can an awareness of the family as the "domestic Church" be promoted?

b) How successful have you been in proposing a manner of praying within the family which can withstand life’s complexities and today’s culture?

c) In the current generational crisis, how have Christian families been able to fulfil their vocation of transmitting the faith?

d) In what way have the local Churches and movements on family spirituality been able to create ways of acting which are exemplary?

e) What specific contribution can couples and families make to spreading a credible and holistic idea of the couple and the Christian family today?

f) What pastoral care has the Church provided in supporting couples in formation and couples in crisis situations?

Question 3 – My simplified version

a) When people want to get married in the Catholic Church how do you use this opportunity to try to teach them the virtues of Aristotle’s incorrect 4^th century B.C. teachings about human biology, reproduction, sexuality and psychology?

b) Do you pray during difficult times?

c) Since the younger generation seems to be fleeing the church at record pace (and we’re sure it’s not because we allowed priests to rape children and then lied about it, or that we tell them their gay friends and relatives are devil-spawn) what are the families that actually keep their kids coming to church doing differently?

d) How have blindly obedient Catholic elitist groups that give the Vatican shitloads of money like Opus Dei, Familia (Legion of Christ), Communion and Liberation Movement and Neo-Catechumenal Way been good examples to all the other lousy parents who let their kids ask questions and don’t give us nearly as much money?

e) Since we have somehow lost our credibility with kids (and again, we’re sure it has nothing to do with letting priests rape children), what can parents and families do to get kids to join us clinging to Aristotle’s incorrect 4^th century B.C. teachings about human biology, reproduction, sexuality and psychology?

f)What kind of marriage preparation is required before couples can marry in the Catholic Church and what kind of counseling is available when married couples have difficulties?

Question 4 – actual text

a) Is cohabitation ad experimentum a pastoral reality in your particular Church? Can you approximate a percentage?

b) Do unions which are not recognized either religiously or civilly exist? Are reliable statistics available?

c) Are separated couples and those divorced and remarried a pastoral reality in your particular Church? Can you approximate a percentage? How do you deal with this situation in appropriate pastoral programmes?

d) In all the above cases, how do the baptized live in this irregular situation? Are they aware of it? Are they simply indifferent? Do they feel marginalized or suffer from the impossibility of receiving the sacraments?

e) What questions do divorced and remarried people pose to the Church concerning the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Reconciliation? Among those persons who find themselves in these situations, how many ask for these sacraments?

f) Could a simplification of canonical practice in recognizing a declaration of nullity of the marriage bond provide a positive contribution to solving the problems of the persons involved? If yes, what form would it take?

g) Does a ministry exist to attend to these cases? Describe this pastoral ministry? Do such programmes exist on the national and diocesan levels? How is God’s mercy proclaimed to separated couples and those divorced and remarried and how does the Church put into practice her support for them in their journey of faith?

Question 4 – My simplified version

a) Do Catholics in your area shack-up together before getting married?  What percent do this before getting married?

b) Do Catholics in your area get married outside the church or enter into same-sex unions of some sort?

c) Do you have Catholics who are separated, divorced and/or remarried in your area and if so, how are they treated by the clergy and parish staff?

d) Regarding the abominations mentioned above, how on earth can a baptized person do that?  Don’t they know they are doing something that’s an abomination?  Don’t they care about our rules?  Do these losers feel that we don’t want them around or do they suffer because we won’t let them participate in sacraments like marriage, communion or maybe even deny their kids baptism?

e) How many separated, married or divorced people ask if they can go to confession and communion and what other questions do they ask about those two sacraments?

f) If we simplified the annulment process, would that help make things easier for those people?  How so?

g) Do you have ministries that tell these people that God is merciful enough to overlook their colossal sin?

Question 5 – actual text

a) Is there a law in your country recognizing civil unions for people of the same-sex and equating it in some way to marriage?

b) What is the attitude of the local and particular Churches towards both the State as the promoter of civil unions between persons of the same sex and the people involved in this type of union?

c) What pastoral attention can be given to people who have chosen to live in these types of union?

d) In the case of unions of persons of the same sex who have adopted children, what can be done pastorally in light of transmitting the faith?

Question 5 – My simplified version

a) Is gay marriage legal where you live?

b) What do the local clergy and bishop think about the government for allowing gay marriage and what do they think about gays who get married?

c) How the heck are we supposed to act around gays who get married?

d) What are we supposed to do about their kids?

Question 6 – actual text

a) What is the estimated proportion of children and adolescents in these cases, as regards children who are born and raised in regularly constituted families?

b)  How do parents in these situations approach the Church? What do they ask? Do they request the sacraments only or do they also want catechesis and the general teaching of religion?

c) How do the particular Churches attempt to meet the needs of the parents of these children to provide them with a Christian education?

d) What is the sacramental practice in these cases: preparation, administration of the sacrament and the accompaniment?

Question 6 – My simplified version

a) How many kids are raised in abnormal families such as ones with separated, divorced, remarried or gay parents versus in normal families?

b) Do these kids’ parents ever even interact with the Church?  Do they just want us to let their kids receive sacraments or are they willing to send us their kids for religious education so that we can explain to them what an abnormal situation they live in?

c) How are parishes trying to help gay parents so that the kids of gay parents come to religious education or Catholic school?

d) If you do let kids of gay people receive the sacraments, how are you doing that?  Is it in a back alley or in the light of day?  Do you mainstream kids of gay parents or hold special “kids of gay parents” religious education sessions?

Question 7 – actual text

a) What knowledge do Christians have today of the teachings of Humanae vitae on responsible parenthood? Are they aware of how morally to evaluate the different methods of family planning? Could any insights be suggested in this regard pastorally?

b) Is this moral teaching accepted? What aspects pose the most difficulties in a large majority of couple’s accepting this teaching?

c) What natural methods are promoted by the particular Churches to help spouses put into practice the teachings of Humanae vitae?

d) What is your experience on this subject in the practice of the Sacrament of Penance and participation at the Eucharist?

e) What differences are seen in this regard between the Church’s teaching and civic education?

f) How can a more open attitude towards having children be fostered? How can an increase in births be promoted?

Question 7 – My simplified version

a) Have Catholics and other Christians read Humanae Vitae, which bans artificial birth control?  I mean if they read that brilliant piece of translated Latin about marital sex written by unmarried men who aren’t supposed to have sex, wouldn’t they be able to see how sinful using birth control is?  Wouldn’t they be able to see how much better it is to use Natural Family Planning that requires record keeping on a woman’s body which rivals security camera monitoring at an airport?

b) Doesn’t anybody besides us supposedly celibate guys believe that birth control is a sin?  Why don’t people believe this?

c) Are both the rhythm and natural family planning methods taught in your parish?

d) Do people even confess the use of birth control as a sin anymore?  Just look at the size of families…we know they’re using artificial birth control because despite what we say, natural family planning doesn’t work worth a darn.  And if they aren’t confessing it are they still having the audacity to receive communion?

e) How do people view our teachings about birth control that are based upon Aristotle’s flawed 4^th century B.C. understandings of human biology, reproduction, sexuality and psychology versus that scientific stuff being taught in the public schools?

f) How can we get people to have more kids?  We need replacements for the parishioners bleeding from our ranks.

Question 8 – actual text

a) Jesus Christ reveals the mystery and vocation of the human person. How can the family be a privileged place for this to happen?

b) What critical situations in the family today can obstruct a person’s encounter with Christ?

c) To what extent do the many crises of faith which people can experience affect family life?

Question 8 – My simplified version

a) I cannot decipher this…  If you can, send me a note.  If you can’t, don’t answer it in your essay.

b) Since we know it’s nothing we did to make the people flee the Church, what is causing them to leave?

c) When people have a faith crisis, how does this impact the rest of their family?

Question 9 – actual text

What other challenges or proposals related to the topics in the above questions do you consider urgent and useful to treat?

Question 9 – My simplified version

Have we left out any relevant, important or urgent topics pertaining to gay marriage and/or artificial birth control?