I'm curious to see this document that the rarely honest Nicole Winfield claims was issued by the Diocese of Rome.

Three gay priests were exposed by a conservative paper, Ms. Winfield cites but doesn't identify a church document asking priests to "come out of the closet" ( a phrase we have never heard from the church), and we have the first name, only, of one of the priests.

This is the usual stuff we get from Winfield. The rest of the article goes off on her usual whining and editorializing in pretense of covering a "news" story.

One thing I do believe. They are trying to only make straight guys Bishops. A number the recent appointments of people I knew really were straight. And I bet that is really the reason they were selected. They may be able to find a number of straight guys for that job from minority of straight priests. But as to changing the majority of priests from gay to straight there is no way that will happen. Because that is generally who is going into seminaries. Allowing married priests to marry would change it. Fast. But the fact that after all this they will not do so tells me one further thing. The impression of the priesthood being a grouping of very unhappy celibates who would rather ordain people demented psychologically than healthy gay people is right on. Too creepy for words.

If the Diocese of Rome issued this statement, they are on the right track. It sure stands tall over the decision by the Lutheran church in the article above.

Historically, the Catholic Church has always been a refuge for homosexuals, who could hide in the priesthood without raising eyebrows in an intolerant environment, because they weren't marrying anyone. Now that homosexuals are making other more socially acceptable choices (discounting objections by boneheads like Clay) rather than the cloistered life with other like minded refugees, the Church demands they leave (like they haven't been bailing out for years already). The stink of religion has no bounds and plethora of bigots like Clay to tout the party line.

It seems that the Vicariate of Rome is angry about an article published by the Italian tabloid “Panorama” entitled "The Sly Nights of Gay Priests." Their anger is directed toward the media, not the priesthood, whom they describe as living a life “that is happy and joyous, consistent with their vocation, given to God and to the service of the people, committed to live and witness to the Gospel and a model of morality for everyone."

The communiqué did say that no one was forcing them to remain priests and suggested that the conduct described in the tabloid could taint the honor of the rest, and that it should not be tolerated.

The view that Nicole Winfield portrays, as though it were some sort of blanket demand that gay priests come out and get it is just another one of her dishonest rants. It is nothing of the kind. Their anger, as I said, is with the tabloid press.

Read Church Leaders Decry "Gay Priest" article in Zenit:

http://www.zenit.org/article-29993?l=english

An article by Paddy Agnew in the Irish Times suggests that the “media empire of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, wanted to use the gay issue as a way of attacking the church.”

Aurelio Mancuso, former president of an Italian gay movement, said that “(t)his is a squalid political and cultural operation; in order to attack the Catholic Church you propose a vision of the homosexual community that is stuffed with stereotypes . . .”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0726/1224275466275.html

You need a special grasp on Vatican speech to understand what is being said here, Or at least you need to be like John Allen who is the Supreme Court of Catholic opinion as far as I am concerned. You see,, the personhood of priests is not being attacked. Only their rights are being attacked. And I am quite against considering rights in all these gay matters. I know people think I am cuckooooo. But I have my own special logic. Witness this special piece of reasoning, and if anyone can explain it to me I would appreciate it, even though I wrote it:

"One of my difficulties with the pro-gay marriage movement is that it views marriage through the lens of individual rights. I recall working on a campaign during which a gay marriage advocate spoke to a group of prominent Democratic Party activists. She said, “What is marriage? Marriage is 642 [I don’t recall the actual number] provisions of the federal code that confer benefits.” I turned to the person sitting next to me and observed, “That’s funny. I thought marriage was the old ball and chain.” The point is that the best argument for gay marriage is not one rooted in the legal language of rights but in the lived experiences of gay men and women who do not experience homosexuality the way, for example, the Jewish and early Christian writers of the Bible experienced it. They do not see homosexuality as an aberrant choice made by a straight person. They experience it as constitutional, as a part of their personhood. I wonder how different the debate would be if we all viewed the gay marriage issue through that lens, rather than through the rights-based language of civil law."

Now I am officially called by someone on Wikipedia a fighter against conservatives. That must mean I am not confused!

Michael Sean Wintersmix
Disjunctively Catholic
National Catholic Reportager

Bobbie - Maybe you should concern yourself more with the stink of intolerant narrow mind bullies like yourself unless about what you don't like about others. Even misguided Christians like Clay.

Dear Dana,

Thank you for highlighting that article from the Irish Times. It was excellent. It really helped sharpen a feeling, or worry, which I have long had. That feeling is really about the issue of gay people's lives somehow being used for purposes not their own by others who happen to be against the Roman Catholic Church for one reason or other. My own view of life is that affiliation has to come from deep conviction and bottom- line comfort, if I can put it that way, not Machiavellian calculations. Those calculations, however real they might be, never get beyond the shallow realm of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." In the real- world of course those things "work" to some extent. But I don't think they work for long generally, and for me, specifically, they don't even work in the short-run, because I am existentially allergic to such superficial views.

Where does that leave us? Implicit in these sting operations, which are morally questionable in the abstract first of all, is a more subtle agenda. First, strangely, a weird prudishness. These priests are all adults, and going to parties, and dirty dancing with strippers, and having sex with them is no crime. So for the broader press why is it an issue.? Of course the reason is the massive hypocrisy of the organization which is very real. But, once again, hypocrisy is not a crime. These priests in Rome are just like a lot of people I knew. I am willing to tell the story of that weird situation, because I have first hand knowledge, and also because it was part of my life. . But I would be wary of endorsing sting operations to "get" them. The reason should be clear. Let the press do its real work in the world, which is to go after the crimes that make all of our lives difficult. I am not that familiar with the latest political or cultural scandals in Italy. But the press here allowed a war start in Iraq with nary a grumble, and an economy collapse while they mostly rejoiced in print in their own rising property values. I bet there are comparable elements in Italy.

Of course the press does cover the abuse scandal, but still, to my mind, a little strangely. I know you take a much dimmer view. My criticism is this. The abuse scandal involves crimes. It is not about hypocritical adults dirty dancing with strippers. It is about very destructive actions which are against the law for very good reasons. What is missing in all the coverage is the simple moral statement by the media against the Church. To wit, you, Catholic Church, have by your negligence, forfeited your right to be assumed competent to handle these sorts of problems. The media still dances around this issue reasons perhaps of political correctness. This is strange because they seem willing to "go after" them in many other ways. And the moral umph that would come with the simple statement of the justified assumption I mentioned gets transmuted, I think, into a somewhat frenzied hunt for the latest salacious detail. I think people like you, who are committed Catholics, then feel that their deep faith is gratuitously cheapened by being made mere fodder for salacious details. And I think you have a point there, if I have construed your view correctly. But ironically the whole problem is contingent on the fact, as I said, that the media will not make the more fundamental moral judgment, or pulls back from it, pulls the punch, as it were. I think that is a punch the Roman Catholic Church deserves to receive. They have every right to continue unmolested -- and no sly humor is meant with that word -- in their faith and praxis. But as to their "governance", which by the way has changed absolutely massive over the last five hundred years anyways, well, that needs to change. Again. And society, and the press, has the right to pass over as either crazy or stupid, but at any rate not the least bit serious, their desire to basically continue
qua governance they way they have been. This is an overarching reality so grave that it can remain true EVEN IF the Bishops' recent efforts at reform could be construed as 100% successful (very debatable anyways.) The bottom line point is that such is not the basic issue. They have already lost that issue. In my mind that is a settled matter for people of goodwill. But surely they will never be able to accept that if they fear they will lose everything, which is what the unfortunate Machiavellianism you have highlighted would make them fear.

SNAP Press Statement

Vatican blasts gay priests; sex victims respond

Statement by Barbara Blaine

Priests who are committing sex crimes against children and bishops who enable and conceal the crimes are leading double lives. They should resign. As long as the Vatican continues to focus on other issues children will not be safe.

(SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is the world's oldest and largest support group for clergy abuse victims. We've been around for 22 years and have more than 9,000 members across the globe. Despite the word "priest" in our title, we have members who were molested by religious figures of all denominations, including nuns, rabbis, bishops, and Protestant ministers. Our website is SNAPnetwork.org)

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net
http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Frank Dingle - While agreeing that priests and bishops responsible for committing or concealing sex crimes are leading double lives and should come forward resign as well as face appropriate criminal punishment I'm not sure what the purpose of Ms Blaine statement is other than to paint the false picture that nothing has been or is being done. I would concur with anyone who said much more needs to be done, but this is certainly not the only problem the church has to deal with as well.

Maybe SNAP should try focusing on using the criminal justice system more and encouraging victims to go to the police.

Please Frank, lets not confuse criminality with consensual adult sex. The tabloid article that Ms. Winfield is making such a fuss about is about gay priests involved in perfectly legal behavior. It may be opposed to church teaching, but it is quite lawful.

Ms. Blaine is out of order if she is suggesting that the Church is focusing on it as an issue. It is not. The press is manufacturing a story where there is none.

Friends: I believe we are more in agreement than not. I believe Barbara is saying that the Vatican is using gays to distract the faithful from pedophiles. Recently women’s ordination was the red herring. Now it is gays. Vatican will and have use any excuse to avoid constructive child protection preventive actions.

A USA Today article: “Vatican revises church law on sex abuse” quotes: Dan Bartley VOTF President who called the reforms "timid": Then says: “Even the Vatican's internal prosecutor, Monsignor Charles Scicluna, acknowledges that the new rules alone accomplish nothing. The church's statute of limitations should be eliminated totally for sex abuse of children. There should also be zero tolerance with any matters related to clergy abuse, as provided in the American Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/07/vaticans-rules-on-abuse----the-right-steps-or-baby-steps/1

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net
http://www.snapnetwork.org/

You're wrong Frank. The church would rather not talk about gay priests. The issue came up because of the vulgar tabloid journalism of that rag called “Panorama.” The Vicariate of Rome responded to it by saying that they are proud of their priests and that they were displeased that the behavior of some was dishonoring the rest.

I would hope that the Vicariate would have done the same if priests had been seen in compromising situations with women also.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with the issues of child sex abuse that SNAP addresses. But it is obvious from your responses that Nicole Winfield and her so-called journalism have lured you into her trap. Other than the fact that she brings up those abuses in the article there is nothing in the news involving Panorama and the response from the Vicariate of Rome that has anything to do with SNAP's issues.

She duped you.

Moniker Phobic Anonymous - Are you denying the fact that homosexuality found refuge in the priesthood during the time when homosexuals were routinely shunned, if not murdered, when found out, or do you just gloss over anything said that disagrees with your deeply held misconceptions if it contradicts accepted dogma, by attacking the messenger? It seems that anyone who questions doctrinal myths seems to be labeled as hateful bullies, when the history of your Church is full of hateful bullying (remember The Inquisition, forced conversion and murder of native populations in the New World and the history of the spread of your religion at the point of a sword {see Charlemagne} , not to mention the "witches" hung and burned throughout Europe {also done by Protestants}?)

Robert. How do you make the connection between Charlemagne or the Inquisition to sleazy yellow journalists cruising gay bars in 21st century Rome to snap a picture of a priest dancing?

I have to agree that the connection between these phenomena may seem gratuitous. Though I agree with Mr. Littel's broader point. In addition, one possible connection might be generally through remembering the milieau conjured by gay porn classics like In Hot Pursuit starring Jeff Stryker. In the last scene he goes to a gay bar called The Dungeon. No sign of the Inquisition there, but plenty of (vanilla) sex.

Moniker Phobic Anonymous - If you are going to pull irrational rebuttals out of your butt, at least give them a rinse with a garden hose before posting. I have no idea what you are trying to allege with that last post, except to confuse everyone, including yourself.

Anony, I've toyed with the idea of opening a bar called "The Confessional" somewhere between Mt. Vernon and the Cathedral.

You know how it goes... "What's said in the confessional, stays in the confessional."

In your bar "The Confessional" surely they would serve Vodka. That famous brand of Vodka, which loves to play with its own name, likely won't be able to resist the famous Latin words of absolution. " Ego te absolvo" . In no time we would have bottles and magazine ads sporting : "Ego te Absolut" .

Dana: I respectfully, disagree. Homosexual rhetoric is a deliberate distraction used by the Vatican as part of their blame game, red herring , spin approach, etc., method of handling their clergy child sex abuse and cover-up crisis.

Are the past 3 months of Catholic League, Vatican’s various homosexual statements, and this recent Newsweek article http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/27/the-vatican-s-gay-priests.html yellow journalism or have they fallen into the so called Winfield trap?

I think Peter is right. “The media still dances around this issue reasons perhaps of political correctness.” These UN reports found very little U.S. coverage: UN: Vatican child rights report 13 years overdue -- http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVXpIdqtwNCWrNHwSiMtY3LCMNxAD9GVICLO0
September 2009 they continued their century old blame game reported in this article: Sex abuse rife in other religions, says Vatican -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/sex-abuse-religion-vatican

Children remain in harms way while the Vatican keeps trying to change the subject. Sadly, it is that SIMPLE.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net
http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Robert Littel - The only irrational posts here are your bullying name-calling ones. Post a rational logical response yourself then talk about other peoples.

Frank Dingle - Respectfully I have to say Dana has it right. You seem to feel as though everything is part of some cover-up, spin or other diversion by the Church. Barbara is simply grasping for any excuse she can find to attack the Church reinforcing my view that she is out for vengence not solutions. Your links don't support her opinion rather are an attempt to draw a correlation where there is none. SNAP needs to decide what is more important to it. Protecting and helping those abused or a vendetta against the church. In my opinion your leader and trial lawyers are more interested in the latter.

VATICAN ACCUSED OF HYPOCRISY AFTER SKIMPY CLOTHING BAN http://www.dailyindia.com/show/388955.php

. . . Visitors have said that instead of dealing with the scandals and decades of cover-ups, the Vatican is wasting its time on mundane things like skimpy clothing. . . The guards drew aside men in shorts and women with uncovered shoulders and short skirts to tell them that they were not dressed properly.

. . . "Given all the scandals the Church has been involved in, what possible right can it have to be preaching about the morality of sleeveless dresses?" the Telegraph quoted one woman in her seventies, identified only as Maria, as saying.

The crackdown on inappropriate clothing comes at a time when senior figures at the Vatican, including Pope Benedict XVI, are accused of failing to act against priests who sexually abused children.

CHILDREN remain in harms way while the Vatican keeps trying to change the subject. Sadly, it is that SIMPLE.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net
http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Well we just won't go there then.

As a specialist in Catholic liturgy, I need to comment on this dress code matter. I have been doing research involving the latest polls and surveys of the American public and combining it with Catholic wisdom. In addition I am investigating the insights of the latest forward thinkers like Malcolm Gladwell and applying it to the forceful conservatism advocated by our Holy Father. Many may wonder how I can put the insights that revolve around banning skimpy clothing and forward thinkers and polls, and to top it off centuries of Catholic wisdom. But this is what I specialize in. Who needs comprehensive types like Charles Curran and other heretics, when we can be entertained by the the delightful and improbable melange of fashionable pondering on life's issues and comforting rigidity. That is why Catholic liturgy is so beautiful today. And I am proud to have helped mold the edifice. All of this helps us understand why having bare shoulders around a lot of Baroque paintings in the Vatican with voluptuous nudity is important and troubling. You see the terrible abuse scandal, which has been so brilliantly handled by our Bishops, has no relation to our marvelous liturgical life. There is no problem, and the reason is simple. That is because with the ex opere operato doctrine, combined with the fact that the very porous and absorbent vestments favored after the Second Vatican Council means two things. That there is no doctrinal problem ,and also no dangerous sanitary considerations are present because any bodily fluids on the Celebrant, from whatever "personal" activity he might be engaged in, will be safely and hygienically absorbed by those porous vestments. Whereas, women's shoulders, except if in a Baroque painting involving an antique personage being brutally martyred, are very offensive to the great majority of heterosexuals who inhabit the Catholic priesthood.

yours liturgically,

Monsignor Kevin Irwind
President, The Institute For Orthodox Catholic Liturgical Relevance and Academic Freedom.

Thanks Monsignor, does that mean my jeans shorts are now liturgically relevant since the priests ain't gonna mess with 'em.

I hope so 'cause it just ain't fair. After all, we ain't the ones that baroque them paintings.

LITURGY STUFF is more important than CHILDREN.

Yes, Liturgy is one of the other distractions. 2 examples are below: Orange Mass July 19, 2010 and Church Chat, which reminds me of Cardinal McCarrick, who after 2002 had the same type of spy system described in Church Chat Compliance during his reign of the Archdiocese of Washington. In addition, he had time to suspend 2 whistle blowers and at allow at least 2 abusers to transfer from Washington. Yes, whistle blowers and non-compliant liturgy folks are suspended immediately. When child sex abuse priest are simple transferred out to abuse again. Yes, it is LITURGY first, PREDATORS second, CHILDREN whenever.

BISHOP SUSPENDS PRIEST WHO CONDUCTED ORANGE MASS http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/news?slug=ap-netherlands-orangemass

By MIKE CORDER, Associated Press Writer Jul 16, 9:15 pm EDT

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP)—A Catholic priest who made headlines around the world by holding an orange mass to pray for the Dutch team before its World Cup final against Spain has been suspended by his bishop, a parish official said on Friday.
Bishop Jozef Punt of Haarlem said in a statement issued late Thursday that Rev. Paul Vlaar’s packed service in the village of Obdam north of Amsterdam “did not do justice to the sacred nature of the Eucharist.”
Actually Church Chat would be a fun read if it wasn’t Standard Operating Procedure.

CHURCH CHAT BY TOM SMITH--COMPLIANCE

The other night I was wondering how Bishops monitor parish compliance with liturgical norms, especially with the upcoming implementation of the New Roman Missal. All those parishes, all those celebrants! Must be a tough job! How do they do it?

I was still wondering when I went to bed, and I had a dream about it. As best as I can recall, here is my dream:

The scene: Batbishop and his caped, acolyte boyservant, Robert, are on a mission to ferret out, expose, and condemn illegal liturgical practices throughout the diocese.

Robert: Here we are at St. Wilomena’s, Most Courageous Batbishop. Good thing we took the Bishmobile, so we can sneak in undetected and watch what goes on at this 9:00 Sunday morning Mass.

Batbishop: Yes, Robert, I have heard from usually, mostly, generally reliable sources that Fr. Liberal breaks clearly stated rubrics governing the celebration of the Holy Eucharist.

Robert: That is hard to believe, but I know about Fr. Liberal. My second cousin, once removed, on my mother’s side, was in his previous parish, and she told me that sometimes he even laughs during the Liturgy. She changed parishes.

Batbishop: A wise woman. But get ready. The Mass is beginning. Take notes and I will tell you what to write.

Robert: Yes, Most Holy, Serene, Cardinal-in-waiting. I am ready.

Batbishop: The Opening Hymn. I’m not familiar with it – check later to make sure it is an approved hymn by a legitimate, Church approved, liturgical publisher. It seems too cheery. Today is a solemn feast – we need somber music to set the proper tone for today’s Liturgy.

Robert: Yes, Most Wise, Intelligent, Chief Steward of the Mysteries of God.

Batbishop: Note that the lectors are sitting in the sanctuary, and one of them is a woman. Women can be lectors, Robert, but lectors do not belong in the sanctuary, especially women lectors.

Robert: An astute observation, most Excellent Excellency.

Batbishop: Did you hear that? The people are not uniform in their response to “The Lord be with you.” Some still say the old, inaccurate “And also with you” while some say the correct “And with your spirit.” The confusion is Fr. Liberal’s fault for not training his people properly.

Robert: I will underline my notes on that one, most superb Latin Linguist!

Batbishop: Here comes the homily. He is mixing some psychology in with his scripture references. Very dangerous tendency. There is a theological treatise by St. Thomas Aquinas that he should be using here. It fits nicely with the second reading. Fr. Liberal’s content and tone is too superficial and not based directly on Church teaching. It’s more like that New Age spirituality nonsense. I will write him and tell him to teach Church documents during his homilies. Better yet, I will send him a CD of my preaching so he will know what to say and how to say it.

Robert: Wow! Outstanding idea, Most Learned Theologian-Bishop!

Batbishop: I can’t believe this! They are standing during the Eucharistic Prayer. It is clearly stated that in the United States, everyone must kneel during this most sacred part of the liturgy. It doesn’t matter what they do in Europe or anywhere else, standing is a major violation of approved liturgical norms here. This is outrageous!

Robert: It’s incredible, Most Just Shepherd! Holy Posture - look over there! They don’t even have kneelers in that part of the Church!

Batbishop: That is no excuse, Robert. Fr. Liberal knew about these regulations a long time ago. No matter what, he should have installed kneelers. It’s now a matter of obedience as well as liturgical practice.

Robert: Holy Insubordination! You should stop the Mass right now, condemn Fr. Liberal, and tell everyone they must kneel.

Batbishop: Yes, that would be justified but I prefer to sneak out and write him a letter. We don’t want any public confrontation – it might get into the newspapers or, horrors! television. They might try to turn me into the villain. You know how the media is – always trying to pin something on me.

Robert: Of course, Most Shrewd Leader! You can’t trust Fr. Liberal or the media to obey you.

Batbishop: That’s right, Robert. It is the joyful burden of the Bishop to correct such outrageous behavior. My liturgical police do a fine job, but only I can handle these most serious violations.

Robert: Unquestionable, Most Mighty Inquisitor! God will reward you for your loyal dedication.

Batbishop: I have seen enough. Let’s slip out now before his dreadful, secular announcements, and the liturgically improper recessional hymn. I have a letter to write.

Robert: Yes. Another successful foray into an enemy’s parish. You’ll win this war yet, Most Righteous Champion of Church Conformity.

I woke up in a sweat!
-----------------------------
CHILDREN remain in harms way while the Hierarchy keeps trying to change the subject. Sadly, it is that SIMPLE.
Protect Kids, Not Predators!
snapmd@comcast.net
http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Liturgical abuse is a serious matter Frank. You would not be having nightmares about it if that were not so.

I know this is very hard to do Frank, but I want you start a 'dream journal." Keep it by your bedside and as soon as you awaken try to remember the names of those priests that participated in liturgical abuse. Forward the names to the Office of the Inquisition, to my attention.

Monsignor Irwind, is this your idea of forceful conservatism?

http://www.styleite.com/stylegasm/pope-baseball-hat-photos/

Dear Daisy Duke.

[this is a private message]

We have need of faculty members who don't ask too many questions at the place where I work. Would you consider applying? Also, I need to take you into my confidence. You see, the thing is we need to have some good-looking female teachers. We need to have some the seminarians to be seen as enamored and crushing on someone like you. This will be evidence against those who say that our school is filled with gay flappychaps. You can be assured Miss Duke that our men are real men here. Only we are t the type of real men that love flowing robes and lovely tassles, as well as a very manly lace trim. You would be perfect for us. We set a very high standard, as my very relevant books show.

Finally, Miss Duke, I don't want you to feel under pressure like all our hopes of proving our student body straight is riding, I mean resting on you. In addition we are undertaking a special training regimen in line with the teachings of the Institute for the Psychological Sciences. This includes the requirement that every seminarian watch the film "The Homosexual Menace" at least three times. You may preview this film on Youtube.

Looking forward to your teaching Systematic Theology next year!

Monsignor Kevin Irwind

Well I'd be tickled to help you out Monsignor. I know just what you mean. Them boys is holed up with a bunch of other boys and no wonder they don't know what to do with themselves. We had the same problem on the some of the farms out in Hazzard County. I remember when Bo come home with a sheep under each arm sayin' he was goin' out on a double date.

Those semenarians just need a little coaxing, that's all. I'll treat each and every one of them as though they was my own cousins.

Dear Miss Quelquejeu,

In regard to the lovely photo of our Holy Father which you posted, let me offer this. In my book, Fashionable Models of the Eucharist, p. 22, I assert that liturgy is something that should "fascinate the imagination." Our Holy Father is a very liturgical fellow, and even when he just being a relaxed dandy camper, and wearing a special hat he leaves us all with our imaginations fascinated. It is almost epicletic. Amazing!

Dear Daisy,

Well, you have made my day. Now one small thing, I noticed that you are listed with STD after your name. Naturally, i assume that means a Doctorate in Theology. I thought I should as because Bo seems to have been an adventurous young man in many ways, and I know you two kids were involved. . Also because you mentioned him with the Lamb, which is of course a Christological symbol.

Kevin

I think that it makes sense to "OUT" gay clergy. Does this request from the Vatican recommend that gay Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and Nuns all come out?

I know several Bishops and a few Cardinals that are gay. Should they be "Outed" or encouraged to out themselves?

Mr. Lostanau,

My grandfather, Peter Paul Fuchs, a Federal Judge, who was a "Traeger des Grosses BundesverdienstKreuz" in West Germany, and knew a few things about political power used to say the following. That in the Catholic Church there was one requirement for the Bodenpersonnal des Herrn (The footsoldiers of the Lord) and another for those running the show. That reality is clearly changing now under great pressure. But the vestiges still obtain. And so when they say that people should come out, of course they only mean the Bodenperssonal des Herrn and not the Cardinals, and Bishops.

But if my experience in the seminary is any guide, they are making an effort now to ferret out the very few straight guys in the ranks to make Bishops. That seems to be their criterion.

My grandfather, Peter Paul Fuchs, a Federal Judge, who was a "Traeger des Grosses BundesverdienstKreuz" in West Germany, and knew a few things about political power used to say the following. That in the Catholic Church there was one requirement for the Bodenpersonnal des Herrn (The footsoldiers of the Lord) and another for those running the show. That reality is clearly changing now under great pressure. But the vestiges still obtain. And so when they say that people should come out, of course they only mean the Bodenperssonal des Herrn and not the Cardinals, and Bishops.

But if my experience in the seminary is any guide, they are making an effort now to ferret out the very few straight guys in the ranks to make Bishops. That seems to be their criterion.

First of all I am a Catholic born and raised. I can tell you I was engaged to a young man before meeting my husband and can tell you he was confused about his sexuality because of all the crap the evil one is throwing into the thoughts of young men and women.
Secondly if it started out as Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve then the creator before the dark ages intended us to procreate this way for a reason.
Thirdly we cannot flounce our little officer around the way we want and slap a church ''we're married'' sticker on us just because people state they want the other kind of -ss instead of the opposite of their gender. We are facing something in this country and in this world if our hearts don't change. The priests are not being prayed for in their humanity, we stopped having God in society mentioned at all. We cannot say anything about this one being a sex crazed animal or that one being anyone else for that matter. FAST,PRAY,RECEIVE COMMUNION. Then come back and tell me about it. If there is a priest with these tendencies look at your media and those tempting others as well.

--

leelee,

You are a prime example of an ignorant bigot. Your Catholicism, although relevant to this blog posting, has absolutely no relevance in the context of equal access to CIVIL marriage by same-sex couples, which is what is being sought and won throughout the world. No one is expecting your church to honor our committed relationships by a sacrament (although many Christian denominations are willing to do that). CIVIL marriage is a function of the State, not of the Church; every marriage in this country, whether it is "sanctified" by sacrament or not, is recorded by the Court and every marriage is thereby accorded a myriad of CIVIL benefits. The benefits accrued by the sacrament of Holy Matrimony are ineffable and confined to a particular community of believers. Equal access to civil marriage is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution; denial of that access by religious dogma is prohibited by the Second.

Glad I could shed some light into the dark recesses of your narrow mind this morning.

Oh...and two other things:

- I don't "flounce." Never have.

- Your god created valid attraction and committed, loving relationships between Adam and Steve just as much as she did Adam and Eve. You are simply blind to that reality.

Leelee you seem to mix religious concepts with secular civil law. That’s never a good combination. While the Catholic Church considers the issue of marriage to be between a man and a woman it is not the role of government to enforce that, or any other religions moral values.

Bankstreet while I don’t disagree with your statement on civil marriage, the 14th amendment does not guarantee equal access to civil marriage is guaranteed although the courts may extend it to do so in the future. I thought the second had to do with right to bear arms. Maybe I have it wrong.

Attractions and feelings are quite different from actions. Since I know you don’t believe in God I won’t go into that anymore.

My mistake, anonymous...I meant to refer to the First Amendment.

While the Fourteenth Amendment makes no explicit reference to marriage, its provision, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." seems both relevant and clear.

Anonymous. Judge Walker ruled in opposition to your view that the 14th amendment does not guarantee equal access to civil marriage. So your opinion is far from an established fact.

At one time the equal protection clause was thought not to protect interracial marriages. That faulty notion was overturned I Loving v. Virginia in 1967 when the Supreme Court opined, among other things that:

”Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

The mere accident that lesbian women and gay men have not been specifically named in the law is an accident of history. But not being specifically named does not abrogate their rights. Admittedly rights not named are reserved to the states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has taken individual rights of women and men and surrendered them to the states and the angry mob. But that does not prevent the 14th amendment from flexing its muscles and demanding justice.

But to suggest that the equal Protection clause is no longer safe refuge for the oppressed is incorrect.

Bankstreet my point was that marriage was not explictly mentioned unless you consider it under the umbrella of liberty. If one does then certianly the 14th amendment applies.

Dana - my coment was as to how the amendment was written before any court opinions on the subject. As you acknowldge lesbain women nor gay men were mentioned so it could be argued that you are extending it beyond the courts intent. I'm not a supporter of the DOMA. While I'm personally against same sex marriage and believe same sex acts immoral I don't view them as a threat to public safety so I see no reason for the government to take a position. As long as the rights of faiths who view it as immoral are not forced to perform cerimonies or barred from preaching the messsage of their faith I don't need the government enforcing my faith's teachings.

Anonymous, My acknowledgment that neither lesbian women nor gay men are mentioned in the fourteenth amendment does not suggest that I am extending the amendment (I assume you meant the amendment) beyond its intent. The due process clause was intended for “(a)ll persons born or naturalized in the United States.” So it is pretty clear that LGBT people are included.

The Catholic church will not be compelled to perform same sex marriages just as it is not compelled to marry persons who have had a secular divorce or who refuse to raise their children in the Faith. Nor will Catholic “leaders” be denied the right to preach against equality. If we put up with the Westboro Baptists we can endure Mr. Ratzinger, I suppose.

Dana it is not quite that simple as you make it sound. The due process clause itself was never intended to apply to the issue of marriage. That said since I am neither supportive of or opposed to civil same sex marriage I see no reason to debate legalities of the amendments. In the end I suspect neither of us will convince the other. I do have to tip my hat to you though, You manage to express your views using reason and logic as opposed to ridicule and personal attacks.

Anonymous,

Please forgive me if I have forgotten your response to this question: if/when civil same-sex marriage appears as a ballot question, will you vote "for" or "against"?

By comparison Anonymous the Second Amendment right to bear arms was written in a time of flintlocks and sabers. It was not “intended” to include percussion capped carbines, revolvers, Glocks, or even pepper spray. By the same token the First Amendment freedom of the press was not “intended” to include radio, television, or the internet.

Yeah, it really is as simple as it sounds.

That said, the Fourteenth Amendment is much clearer in its intentions. It specifies that “all” citizens are protected and that no State shall “deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (emphasis mine).

Bankstreet no need to apologize. I don't think you've asked me this before. It's a difficult question. I would either skip voting on it, or vote for it as long as I feel religious fre3edoms aren't compromized.

Dana I don't disagree with regard to second amendment which I feel has been distotred well beyond it;s orginal intent. Sorry to disagree but the amendment was not intended to cover marriage orginally. The courts extended that right beyond the orginal intent. That said if the court wants to extend it to cover marriage it makes no difference to me as long as no religious rights get trampled in the process.

Thanks Anonymous. Personally I have nothing but respect for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, though I rarely agree with him. Scalia never refers to original intent. He doesn't reflect on the endless committee discussions or private papers of the founders. He care only for what is written in the law, a simple, plain language interpretation that was voted on by congress, representing you and me. Scalia is a textualist.

In remarks at Catholic University in 1996 he had this to say, “If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words."

http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/cua10-18-96.asp

Arguments similar to the one in which you and I have discussed have been put before the Supreme Court ever since Marbury v Madison in 1803. The wisest jurists in our country have yet to agree on these issues. I suppose we shall not also.

Still, it's a pleasure to have you share your view.

Dana its actually a pleasure to have a discussion where we exchange views where the discussion doesn’t end up with personal attacks and ridicule being used. Where we respect each other even if we don’t see things the same way. It’s been a pleasure having such a discussion with you and Bankstreet.

Yeah. Rational discussion is truly a pleasure. But when the angrier folks don't post it gets pretty boring around here.