After I read this aloud to him:
And expressed my opinion that this, clearly, is NOT what Glenn Beck wants, Rand replied:
“sure he does. he wants us scared shitless, and willing to do whatever the republicans tell us.”
Dear Catholic Church,
Please consider this my official resignation. I am done with you.
I’ve long disagreed with your views on a lot of issues, not the least of which are your silly rules regarding the priesthood (boys only, no marriage allowed). But this, this was absolutely the last straw.
No gay priests, you say? Good luck with that.
Argh. I find this offensive on many levels…but I’ll stick with what I find most offensive based on what I thought was the Church’s position on homosexuality. Homosexuality, they say, is not a sin unless it is acted upon. Since ALL priests are supposed to be celibate, how is a homosexual priest a problem? If it is a problem (and clearly it is for them), they’re either negating that idea that it is the action, and not the tendency toward it that is the sin, or saying that it’s impossible for a homosexual person to remain celibate. I have a problem with both.
Or perhaps they’re still trying to crawl out from under that rubble of the sex abuse scandal, thus (again) equating homosexuality with pedophilia. And we all know what I think about that.
Not that I think this will work, anyway…because it just means that seminaries will maintain a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Because really, how would you prove it? Will they keep people out on suspicion of homosexuality? I can’t wait to see them crying about the vocations crisis they have if this happens.
So my paper publishes this column by George Weigel that regularly gets me all riled up. I happened to be correcting the page with this column today. Here are some of my favorite bits:
Judging from the post-election reaction of his more fervent journalistic and academic supporters, the Kerry candidacy was attractive because it represented the Europeanization, which is to say “secularization,” of American public life. A Kerry presidency would keep the great unwashed hordes of evangelicals at bay; a Kerry presidency would put assertive Catholic bishops in their place, leaving the field to the more “understanding” staffers at the bishops’ conference and their episcopal allies; a Kerry presidency would regulate biotechnology in utilitarian terms (what works, we’ll do); a Kerry presidency would support the federal courts’ efforts to legislate social policy, thus nailing down “choice” as the supreme value involved in the “social issues;” a Kerry presidency would insist that the right to life of the unborn and the traditional understanding of marriage are matters of “doctrine” that “cannot be imposed on a pluralistic society;” above all, a Kerry presidency would secure a virtually unlimited abortion license, the key to sustaining the “gains” (as these folks understand them) of the sexual revolution and the women’s movement.
First of all, ‘secularization’ of American public life? This is a bad thing? America is not Catholic. America is not Christian. I don’t understand. As I’ve said before, one of the things I liked about Kerry was his determination to keep private faith out of public office. Some people don’t seem to notice that we do, in fact, HAVE a pluralistic society. I personally believe that it IS wrong for a government to impose its morals/values onto the society at large, onto people who don’t agree or believe as they do.
Religious faith, in a European-style Kerry presidency, would be thoroughly privatized: a matter of what Americans do with their solitude, to paraphrase William James. Publicly assertive Catholics, and the even more rambunctious evangelicals, would be dealt a crushing blow.
A crushing blow? Again, I don’t get it. If someone running for president was dead-set on taking away the freedom to worship as one chooses, I would understand. If someone were telling “publicly assertive Catholics” and evangelicals that they would have to shut up and *abandon* their faith instead of simply saying that we (as a country) should acknowledge that not everyone here shares the same faith, well…that would be a different story.
What Kerry’s secularist supporters can’t seem to understand is that the evangelicals, the John Paul II Catholics, and the observant Jews don’t need explaining; what needs explaining is the Harvard faculty club, Michael Moore, and most of the op-ed regulars at the New York Times–people who’ve persuaded themselves that a profound belief in the God of the Bible, expressed in a commitment to live by the Ten Commandments, is the fast track to fascism. They’re the anomaly, not the believers.
First of all, how does 48 percent of the country become defined as “the anomaly”? Second of all, does anyone actually believe this? The problem is not, as Weigel says, “a profound belief in the God of the Bible.” The problem is the possibility of the government forcing that belief (or at least the outward manifestations of that belief, ie gay marriage) onto the American public.
I’m not even gonna touch the abortion/stem cell research stuff.
My head hurts.
I just got one of those Catholic email forwards, this one a call to action to block Sen. Arlen Specter from becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Soon, the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee must select a chairman to replace the term-limited Sen. Orin Hatch, who generally has voted pro-life. Ordinarily, this job would go to the most-senior Republican committee member who does not chair some other major committee. However, in this case, that senior committee member is Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Specter would be a disaster as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has a strongly pro-abortion record, and he is one of the leading champions of human cloning. In 1987, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, Specter played a key role in defeating President Reagan’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Robert Bork, an opponent of Roe.
On Nov. 3, the day after the election, Specter said he considers Roe v. Wade “inviolate,” and indicated that nominees who do not support abortion cannot be confirmed.
The term “pro-abortion” is what I find most irksome. I’ve said this before, I know, but I’ll say it again. I would be shocked to speak to someone who *likes* the idea of abortion. This terminology was so ingrained into my consciousness that it wasn’t until I went to college that I realized one could be pro-choice AND be personally opposed to the idea of abortion. That’s, like, what pro-choice means. The notion of being “pro-abortion” is completely ludicrous to me.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that what Specter said is that he doesn’t believe Roe should be oveturned, and that he would not be in favor of confirming nominees who do. Which is not quite what this email says.
Bad, bad Republican Arlen Specter, for not falling in with the super-conservative party line. You are eeeeeeevil.
Sometimes you read something and think, “Damn. I wish I had written that.”
This is one of those times.
Please hop over to Tequila Mockingbird and read this post about the presidential election.
Apart from the bit about once being a registered Republican, I’m with her all the way.
I’m scared, too.
The one thing that I will add is that, it seems to me, the country has become more divided in these past few years, not less so. It makes me sad. It makes me even sadder that I do not have one ounce of faith in President Bush’s willingness or ability to put us back together.
It makes me sad to know that so many of my fellow Americans’ “morals” hinge on hate and intolerance.
Yesterday, while I was in my editor’s office, I spotted a letter to the editor written in response to a local Catholic college’s participation in National Coming Out Day. This woman was outraged and sickened by the display. I wish I had a copy of the letter in front of me. It sickened me. I don’t understand how so many people can spew such venom in the name of God. If your God tells you such hatred is good, just and holy, I don’t want any part of it.
How can these people call themselves Christians? I will never understand.
BRIELLE, New Jersey (AP) — An 8-year-old girl who suffers from a digestive disorder and cannot eat wheat has had her first Holy Communion declared invalid because the wafer contained no wheat, violating Roman Catholic doctrine.
Jen and I caught this article on Sunday (or maybe it was Saturday? not important) and I meant to make mention of it, but it slipped my mind until today.
I believe my exact words were “You have GOT to be kidding me.”
“This is not an issue to be determined at the diocesan or parish level, but has already been decided for the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world by Vatican authority,” Trenton Bishop John M. Smith said in a statement last week.
“This is a church rule, not God’s will, and it can easily be adjusted to meet the needs of the people, while staying true to the traditions of our faith,” Pelly-Waldman wrote in the letter.
This is exactly the sort of thing that is going to send people fleeing from the Catholic church. It’s ludicrous.
I did this interview a couple of weeks ago with a staunch pro-life couple for a story in our upcoming “Respect Life” supplement.
These are the days when I realize that I cannot do this job for long. Every fiber of my being cries out against it.
They were nice people, really. They invited me into their home for the interview and ordered pizza. They were nothing but kind and courteous.
But seriously, these folks are more Catholic than the freakin’ Pope.
Upon my first few moments with them, I learned that the wife home schools their 3 school-age boys while also caring for an infant. Of course she does. Send them to (gasp!) school?
The angle on this story is that these two make a monthly pilgrimage to the big city for a novena at one of the local churches…they pray the rosary, then process down to the women’s clinic for some quiet protest.
I brought the photos to our photographer for scanning. He looked at them, and said “Ah, the Main Street Crazies.”
The one thing I can say in their favor is that at least they are quiet protestors. These aren’t the people screaming obscenities, or holding up giant fetus signs, or shooting doctors. They’re quietly loony.
Before we began the interview, they handed me two typed sheets of their “thoughts.” I started reading, and just wanted to scream. Here’s a sample”
It is interesting how the prophesy of Fatima is becoming a reality. It was foretold that the evils of Russia would spread throughout the world. In fact, Russia was the first country to legalize abortion. Lenin directed many of his attacks toward family life…Lenin hated religion…it looks very much like the liberal agenda in our country today. Unfortunately, the majority of Catholics are sleeping and do not see the evil of the ultra-liberal politicians, who are getting a free ride from liberal media.
(yep. that nasty liberal media again…)
It is very critical that we elect pro-life and pro-family politicians to the office so that we can protect not only traditional marriage and the lives of the most innocent, but also elect God-fearing judges. Otherwise OUR FREEDOMS WILL BE TAKEN AWAY by rulings like Massachusetts made recently on gay marriages.
(emphasis mine. I fail to see how anyone’s freedoms are infringed upon by allowing gay couples the same rights as straight ones…but that’s just me.)
Contraception closes the door to God and hardens hearts. We need to acknowledge this important fact. Priests should not be afraid to preach on this subject.
(Hi there. My name’s Erin, and I’m on birth control. Pleased to meet you.)
There’s not enough orthodoxy preached in the pulpit. The priests are afraid.
I wonder where the whole of the Catholic church (the body of the Church, that is…not the controlling entities) stand on these issues. Do most people believe as this couple believes, or are there more people who feel as I do? Will the American Catholic church remain intact, or is there a split on the horizon? Or, will the disillusioned Catholics end up dropping off, leaving the Church in search of something else…something more progressive, less tied to the past? And if that happens, I wonder who will be left…I suspect it will be a lot of rosary-clutching old women and a smattering of people like this couple.
Just because I got this email in my inbox this afternoon, I think I’m going to call my senators and tell them I’m opposed.
Your Calls are Impacting the Federal Marriage Amendment VoteWe have been encouraging you to call your Senators and ask them to vote to preserve traditional marriage by passing the Federal Marriage Amendment. As of today, 37 Senators support the FMA, 46 oppose it and 17 are uncommitted. Within the last few days, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has decided to support the FMA. It is reported that calls to Florida Senator Bill Nelson’s office are running 1000 to 1 in favor of the FMA, yet he still opposes the FMA.
Some Senators have received so many calls that they have installed automated message lines in their Washington, D.C. office. If you cannot reach their Washington office, then call one of their district offices. We have a list of all the Senators and their telephone numbers at www.lc.org/marriage. It is important that you continue to call until the vote is over. A number of Senators are listed as “uncommitted” but frankly, an “uncommitted” position is a vote for same-sex marriage.
I am in Washington, D.C. today in meetings with Senators and others on the FMA and I will be attending the hearings tomorrow. We have just learned that, due to some last minute maneuvering, there may be only a procedural vote or a filibuster to stop debate on the FMA. Even if you have called your senators, it is important to call them again today. Ask them to resist the procedural vote and threats of a filibuster and vote on the FMA itself. The Senators should not try to hide their position on the issue. You deserve to know whether your Senators really support the FMA or not. The only way to know for sure is to see how they vote. Please continue to pray for our nation and its leaders. This is truly a historic moment.
I can’t believe I work here. And, though I am well aware that this is not an original thought, I think Britney Spears does more to singlehandedly threaten the “sanctity of the institution of marriage” than a million homosexual couples ever could.
And to think, having just visited with and interviewed with our fair city’s very own answer to Mother Teresa, I was feeling all warm and fuzzy about Catholicism…
Catholic Bishops Strongly Urge The U.S. Senate To Support The Federal Marriage Amendment WASHINGTON (July 6, 2004) -Saying the institution of marriage is”under serious attack,” the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) strongly urged the Senate to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment after turning back any attempt to prevent consideration of the measure.
“Recent actions in various state courts and courthouses have placed the institution of marriage under serious attack and in grave danger,” (Grave Danger? Is there any other kind?) said Bishop Wilton D. Gregory in a letter to the Senate urging support for S.J. Res. 30, the Federal Marriage Amendment. “The Catholic Bishops of the United States strongly believe that marriage is a basic human institution and that, though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Accordingly, the Bishops believe that neither church nor the state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.”
S.J. Res. 30 would amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman. The Senate Majority leader has announced his intention to bring it before the Senate in mid-July. Bishop Gregory noted, however, that opponents may mount a filibuster that could prevent consideration of the measure.
“The Catholic Bishops of the United States strongly urge you to vote against any effort that would prevent the Senate from voting on this important measure, as well as to vote for the measure once the Senate takes it up,” said Bishop Gregory in the July 6 letter.
“Our concern for preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman is not simply a Catholic concern,” the Bishop said. “We share it with believers and non-believers, Christians and non-Christians alike, simply because this understanding is part of the common moral heritage of humanity.”
“It is precisely this moral heritage that must be protected today from a small but vocal minority that would alter the definition of marriage by making same-sex unions the legal equivalent of marriage,” Bishop Gregory stated. “A same-sex union is not equivalent to marriage. It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; it cannot be a true conjugal union.”
“Marriage, as properly understood, is more than a lifestyle choice,” Bishop Gregory said. “It is an interpersonal relationship with public significance,” he continued. “It makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society when it fulfills its natural, God-given purposes, namely, to bring children into the world and care
for them and to provide a way for a man and a woman to seek each other’s good in a committed, lifetime relationship.”
“The institution of marriage has been weakened and eroded by many forces,” Bishop Gregory told the Senate. “The social cost is already too high. The Catholic Bishops of the United States urge your support for amending the United States Constitution to preserve and protect this vital institution that undergirds the well-being of spouses, children, families, communities and society itself.”
The USCCB has longed worked on the marriage issue, supporting efforts at the state level to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Last September, its Administrative Committee called for efforts at all levels of government, including support for a federal constitutional amendment. Since then, the Bishops’ Conference has been engaged in educational activities across the country, and has submitted testimony to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
On June 24, Bishop Gregory wrote to all Catholic Bishops asking them to personally urge their Senators to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, as well as to generate additional support through pastors from the larger Catholic community. He also directed Conference staff to send out this appeal through their diocesan counterparts.
The Conference statement Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers about Marriage and Same-sex Unions can be found on the Conference Web site at www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexunions.htm.
I propose an amendment to prevent skanky pop stars from marrying. We can no longer afford to do nothing.
Oh, boy. This has to be among the most ridiculous things I’ve read lately:
Heresy? Heresy? Good Lord, let’s just bring back the inquisition.
Thanks to all things jen(nifer) for bringing this one to my attention.
And since I’ve brought up a presidential candidate, allow me to wax philosophical on politics for a moment. (I don’t do this too often…) I don’t think of myself as a very “political” person. I have a good idea of where I stand on most issues. I slant liberal on a good many issues, including education, health care, and most social issues (ie, gay marriage). I am woefully underinformed on economic issues and foreign policy.
In general, I dislike politics. This is why…because people tend to be so blinded by partisanship that they can’t even listen to each other. All that seems to matter is being right, and making the other side wrong. The fact that it was such a big deal in the press that Kerry and McCain are (gasp!) friends was a great source of irritation for me. Why is it such a big deal to be friends with someone in the opposing party? Those in office are often so corrupted by the special interests that got them there that they lose sight of what they’re there for…to represent the people who elected them. Once elected, all that matters is reelection.
I know what I believe, but I like to think that I’m open minded enough to listen to other opinions without calling anyone names. Is it so hard to say “I disagree with you, but you make some good points”? We attack people for “flip flopping” or being “wishy washy,” but I think I would prefer to have someone in office who is reasonable enough to listen to arguments on either side of an issue and be open minded than to have someone who is so dead set in his opinions and beliefs that he cannot be budged, even if he’s wrong. Sometimes, you have to be willing to meet in the middle in order to accomplish anything.
On the other hand, some convictions need to be stuck to.
As far as the upcoming election goes, I’ll definitely be voting for Kerry…but for once in my life, I’d like to be inspired by a candidate. I’d like to vote for someone, instead of against the other guy.
Is that too much to ask?