A federal judge has ruled that the Georgia Institute of Technology had materials in its office to support gay students that amounted to unconstitutional support for some religious groups over others. […]
The ruling came in a case involving a range of issues over speech codes and support for religious groups at Georgia Tech — issues that mirror those being raised at other public colleges and many of which were resolved in earlier rulings or agreements between the parties in the case. The new part of the ruling, however, focused on a set of materials used in the “Safe Space” program at Georgia Tech, a part of the institute’s diversity office designed to support gay and lesbian students.
The case was filed on behalf of two Georgia Tech students, assisted by the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal group that has sued many public colleges accusing them of violating the rights of religious students. The portion of the suit about Safe Space argued that materials at the public university were effectively religious in that they endorsed some faiths over others — and that these materials were as a result unconstitutional. Judge J. Owen Forrester agreed.
The materials in question dealt with issues that may be faced by religious gay students, or by gay students challenged about the sexuality by people from different faiths. One passage cited in the ruling says that “historically, Biblical passages taken out of context have been used to justify such things as slavery, the inferior status of women, and the persecution of religious minorities.” Such attitudes have led some religious groups to declare “that homosexuality is immoral,” the group’s materials state, while others “have begun to look at sexual relationships in terms of the love, mutual support, commitments and the responsibility of the partners rather than the sex of the individuals involved.”
In his book, Schecter makes the case for why, although he supported McCain in his run in 2000, McCain no longer deserves support and in fact, his candidacy should be fought actively, without hesitation and on all fronts. Schecter outlines his reasons for these sentiments and fills in those reasons with more details than you may be able to absorb. Schecter draws a portrait of both McCain’s political trajectory and the parallel trajectory of how his political choices since 2001 are a thumbing of his nose at the very people who got him to the presidential precipice in the first place.
A couple of disclosures before I offer you my phone interview with Cliff: I’ve never been a McCain supporter. And I haven’t known of Schecter that long either - here’s the first post I ever wrote about Schecter. However, it was fascinating talking to someone with a seemingly vast knowledge base about someone whom I’ve never really studied.
JMZ: You argue on behalf of former McCain supporters who should be able to realize that McCain isn’t what he once was. Who, then, is the alternative and why?
CS: Well. There’s always, “What we have versus what we’d like to have.” I’m an Obama supporter and he has a lot of appeal to Independents. But he hasn’t done it the way McCain did it – by attacking his own party in big speeches. Obama has done it by standing up, not by splitting. Obama talks about rising above partisanship and reaching out to all people on all sides and getting past the muck where politics has gotten so nasty. Obama says, I’m going to talk to you like an adult. And that’s what McCain had called “straight talk” – but he hasn’t given us much of that [this election cycle.] Read the rest of this entry »
On Wednesday delegates at the United Methodist Church’s General Conference voted that marriage should not include same-sex unions and that homosexual acts are not compatible with Christian teaching.
More than 200 Methodists attended a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony Friday in defiance of a vote to uphold a church law that says gay relationships are “incompatible with Christian teaching.”
The ceremony was at a park across from the Fort Worth Convention Center, where some 3,000 people are meeting for the United Methodist Church’s general conference. It is held every four years to set church policy. […]
No clergy member presided over the commitment ceremony of Julie Bruno and Sue Laurie of Chicago, a couple for 25 years, although about three dozen ministers attended.
Officiating at a same-sex union ceremony violates church rules for clergy and would leave them vulnerable to being charged in Methodist church courts. In 1999, a senior pastor in Omaha, Neb., was defrocked after a church trial for performing a same-sex union.
Participants explain that “the message was less about upsetting people and more about being role models and for people to know that these ceremonies are going on.”
In highlighting the ongoing legal prosecutions at Siemens - the German mega-giant now mired in what some have called the greatest bribery scandal of all time, Klocks writes:
“What German courts were unable to achieve and even the Pope would have failed to accomplish, has now been done by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. … The capitalists themselves insist that the train of greed remain on the tracks - its tracks.”
Kocks then goes on to describe how the Pietists created the first capital markets - which leads him to what created the business powerhouse known as the United States of America: Read the rest of this entry »
Much has been written in the foreign press about the real purpose of Pope Benedict XVI’s unprecedented election-year visit to the United States. Some charge that he came to bolster the only pro-life candidate, John McCain. Others have surmised that the Pope came to make common cause with President Bush to oppose the perceived threat of an expanding Islam.
“As for Catholics in the United States, almost a third of the population has been brought up in that faith, but today only 24 percent of Americans call themselves Catholic, less than a half of those who identify themselves as Protestant/Evangelical - almost 52 percent. The study clearly shows that the strongest adherents of the Catholic Church are amongst recent immigrants. Forty-six percent of U.S. nationals born outside the country are Catholic, while 24 percent of them Protestant.”
“The situation changes when we consider the religious affiliation of those born in the United States: fifty-five percent are Protestant and 21 percent are Catholic. In other words, a significant percentage of those who were Catholic in their infancy, have over the years decided to change their affiliation, switching primarily to Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.”
In other words, the longer immigrants remain in the U.S., the greater the likelihood that they’ll switch to another denomination or religion.
“To the Pope’s misfortune, the dynamics of change are influenced by factors beyond his control.”
By Carlos Martínez García
Translated By Halszka Czarnocka
April 23, 2008
Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)
The results of the trip are more media than real. Benedict the XVI’s visit to the United States ratified a pastoral line that doesn’t confront problems at their root but treats them superficially and postpones their resolution, to the detriment of the millions of Catholics whose disillusionment with the leadership of the Catholic Church continues to deepen.
A good number of commentators and analysts expressed surprise and even praised the papal decision to meet with some victims of clerical pedophilia in the United States. They forget that due to the peculiarity of United States society, both in terms of its religious composition and the vigilance with which it monitors leaders of any kind, Pope Benedict XVI was practically obliged to show some sign that these outrageous abuses will not happen again.
We know of the magnitude of the sexual abuses perpetrated by Catholic priests in that country thanks to the mobilization of those who were assaulted and the solidarity of people who assisted them in disseminating news about the size of the problem and suing the pedophiles in court. It was an organization of citizens and its insistence on documenting and making public the sexual attacks of clergy in that country, which made it possible to make the issue a public one of such national significance.
The various centers of ecclesiastic authority, both in the U.S. and Rome, did everything possible to conceal the scandals. When they failed in the attempt, they imposed damage control measures and tried unsuccessfully to minimize the problem.
It was an entire network of complicity within the U.S. Catholic Church that permitted thousands of cases of sexual abuse, not the isolated behavior of this or that cleric. In this regard there is convincing data:
“A study ordered by the North American Episcopal Conference in 2004 … concluded that the number of children victimized by about 5 000 priests over the past three decades was over 11,000. Since many cases have been resolved according to the culture and civil law of the United States, the relevant statistics include $2 billion that has been paid in out in this regard, which has contributed to bankruptcy of more than a few diocese” (from The Pope and Clerical Pedophilia in Mexico [El Papa y la pederastia clerical en México] by Miguel Ángel Granados Chapa, Proceso).
The Pope pronounced words and promised actions favorable to Latin American immigrants, the majority of whom entered the United States without a visa. The productive apparatus in the United States has benefited on a great scale from these so-called illegals by paying them low wages and providing them with almost no social benefits. For the most part, these people come to that nation as Catholics and are the main factor in the growth of Catholicism there. This reality has another less well-known side, which is creating concern at the Holy See in Rome.
What emerges from watching the endless YouTubing of Jeremiah Wright is not the picture of a religious or political fanatic but a world-class attention-seeker. In those operatic video clips, there is a dashiki-dressed performer playing to the crowd, a soulmate, not of Louis Farrakhan, but of Bill Maher, whose imprudent comments on 9/11 cost him his network gig.
Now Obama’s pastor is back on stage, coming out of his recent retirement, with Bill Moyers on PBS tonight and at the National Press Club in Washington next Monday, flamboyantly defending himself to the possible political detriment of his former congregant:
“I think they wanted to communicate that I am unpatriotic, that I am un-American, that I am filled with hate speech, that I have a cult at Trinity United Church of Christ. And by the way, guess who goes to his church, hint, hint, hint?”
If Hillary Clinton’s campaign were paying him, the Rev. Wright couldn’t being doing more for them than to keep Obama’s embarrassment front and center in the days leading up to the final critical primaries.
But we may be underestimating him. By continuing to call attention to himself, Wright may be deviously trying to show that Obama is not under the Svengali-like influence of a dangerous man, just bedeviled by the antics of a showoff.
If so, that would be too subtle for most voters. All that may register with them is Obama’s unfortunate choice in a spiritual adviser.
April 25th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
This Guest Voice post is by watchingamerica.com translator Dorian de Wind, who is also a retired U.S. Air Force officer. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of TMV and its writers.
I, too, am a Flip-Flopper — And I am in good company
by Dorian de Wind
People change their minds. Some change their entire way of life–sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
In today’s political climate, changing one’s mind, whether for better or for worse, can be considered a cardinal sin. Witness the withering attacks John Kerry endured during the 2004 presidential elections campaign when he tried to explain his votes on a funding measure for the Iraq war. The term “flip-flopping” acquired an entirely new meaning. It became a pejorative and an effective one.
John Kerry’s alleged “flip-flopping,” along with the smear campaign on his Vietnam War record,–the so-called “swift boating”– probably cost him the presidency.
Several years ago, Senator John McCain, now the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, flip-flopped–in my opinion for the better–on his stands on a national holiday commemorating Martin Luther King’s birthday and on the issue of apartheid in South Africa.
Today, during the presidential primaries, we again see accusations of “flip-flopping” flying back and forth between the candidates–even between candidates of the same party.
Earlier in the campaign, McCain called his rival, Romney, a flip-flopper several times. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to trade similar accusations.
There are some new and creative—and even more disparaging– compounds and constructs of the term flip-flopper, such as “serial flip-flopper,” and “Flip-Flopper-in-Chief.”
But, is flip-flopping really so bad? Is it dishonest, disloyal, or disingenuous to change one’s beliefs or loyalties?
I often ask myself those questions–and so have others—because I have flip-flopped, too.
You see, I used to be a gung-ho Republican. Today I am a staunch Democrat. How strong of a Republican was I? Perhaps, recounting an experience of almost 40 years ago will explain.
Every Christmas, as we had done for the previous six or seven years, my sisters and I, along with our families, gathered in laid-back Lakeland, Florida, to celebrate the holidays with our parents.
That particular Christmas morning in 1968 was no different. We had just finished breakfast and were sitting around a weather-beaten redwood picnic table under a large, beautiful grapefruit tree. The conversation was lively and in three languages–Dutch, Spanish and English–reflecting our family’s diverse roots and our relatively recent arrivals in the United States. Although we all spoke English relatively well, we never dwelled upon nor questioned this Babel phenomenon. However, on this day there would be some serious questioning-not of our multi-lingual tradition, but of our beliefs, loyalties and patriotism.
As I was the only member of the military and the only Republican in our immediate family, our conversation eventually turned to the major topic in those days, the war in Vietnam. As a young Air Force captain, I ardently–almost fanatically–supported the war and those who were running the war. I blindly believed in the “Domino Theory.” I was convinced that by fighting in that far-away country we were defending freedom and democracy over there and our own national security over here. I revered President Nixon and admired Henry Kissinger. Ronald Reagan would later become my idol, Ollie North my hero.
I do not remember exactly how the conversation took the turn it did. Perhaps it was my sisters defending those longhaired, unpatriotic anti-war protesters. Perhaps it was my younger sister’s whining about the tens of thousands of casualties in Vietnam and about atrocities allegedly committed by our troops–revelations about the Mylai massacre were just beginning to emerge. I painfully recall words such as “traitor” and “unpatriotic,” that I hurled across the table at my sisters and comments such as “If you hate this country so much, why don’t you go back to Holland or to Ecuador.” I do not remember all the vitriol, but I do vividly remember the tears in my sisters’ and mother’s eyes. Yes, I was a gung-ho Republican back in 1968.
I continued to be a flag-waving war supporter for several more months after that December morning, despite the horrendous human toll the war was taking on both sides. Eventually the horrors of that war and the words I had read by the Roman historian Tacitus, “They made a wasteland and called it peace,” became too poignant for even me to ignore.
Although disillusioned with the war, I continued to be a halfhearted Republican for several more years, while still in the military and for a time while working for a defense contractor. By the time I retired from my second career, however, I had fully flip-flopped.
My disillusionment with the Vietnam War was one reason for my conversion. I also gradually realized that “moral principles,” “family and traditional values,“ and other “values” that my previous party claimed to have exclusive rights on, were quite uniformly shared by all Americans, regardless of political affiliation–and were violated by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Perhaps it was because I saw that Democrats are just as God-fearing as Republicans are.
Perhaps it was because I came to the conclusion that “compassion,” “tolerance,” and “inclusion” are a way of life with Democrats, not just hollow quadrennial campaign slogans.
There were other reasons for my “flip-flopping.” But, the most personal and compelling reason was that so many from my previous party allege that my son is immoral, a biological error, or worse. A person who does not deserve all the rights and privileges other Americans enjoy. You see, my son–the finest young man in the world– happens to be gay.
Finally, it could also have something to do with the tears in my sisters’ and mother’s eyes almost 40 years ago.
I have flip-flopped in my politics, but I find that I have not changed my deeply held beliefs and principles. I do not wear my religion on my sleeve, but I still believe in God. I do not wear an American-flag lapel pin, but I still love my country. And, although I do not blazon my car with yellow ribbon bumper stickers, I do support our troops and grieve their every casualty.
At the end of 2006, after Pope Benedict XVI–referred to as “God’s Rottweiler” when a dogmatic cardinal–returned to Rome from an unprecedented visit to Istanbul’s Islamic Blue Mosque, Time asked the question “Is Benedict Flip-Flopping?” The question referred to the Pope’s possible reconsideration of his views on Islam and on priestly celibacy.
Shanta Premawardhana of the National Council of Churches USA, also commenting on the Pope’s possible flip-flopping, writes: “Many others in the Bible and throughout Christian history – too numerous to mention–flip-flopped. The Bible has a different word for flip-flopping: repentance.”
Well, let’s put it another way: I repented, too. And I am in very good company.
Dorian de Wind is a retired U.S. Air Force Officer, born in Ecuador and educated in The Netherlands. He has a bachelor’s degree from of Texas A&M University and a master’s degree from the University of Southern Mississippi. Dorian has written opinion pieces and travel and other articles for the Austin American-Statesman and for the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. He also translates Dutch press articles for watchingamerica.com.
“Bush sees the world in terms of good and evil, and he considers that only a united front encompassing all 2.2 billion Judeo-Christians will be able to resist Islam. Recent decades have seen increasing religious tension and the spread of theocracies, which now encompass almost all Arab countries.” Read the rest of this entry »
Did the Pope visit the United States in part to influence the U.S. Presidential race in favor of John McCain?
That seems to be the conclusion of a large number of mainland Europeans.
This article from France’s Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien, quoting French journalist V. Jauvert, points out, “Since April 16 - his birthday - Pope Benedict XVI has been in the United States for a rather long trip (for an old person): a week. And he didn’t go there just to blow out the candles on the cake offered by Dubya … The Pope is (subliminally) campaigning for J. McCain … the official visit of a Pope during a very tight election campaign is contrary to tradition. … this trip, beyond the spiritual and political, is a pretext to support the pro life candidate.’
Jauvert goes on to say that in 2004 before his elevation to the papacy, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to American Bishops saying, “it’s not possible to defend the right to abortion and receive communion, and that therefore, those who vote for Kerry, who take communion each Sunday, “would be guilty of formal cooperation with the devil!”
“No one should believe that the Iraq War is really that high on the Pope’s agenda. When it came time for the Holy See to endorse a candidate for the last presidential election, the then chief-inquisitor who became today’s Pope found it more important to support the candidate who opposed the legality of abortion than the one who stood against the war. This meant that Bush garnered the support of about a million votes that otherwise would have gone to Kerry. Bush is President, so to speak, due to Benedict’s grace.”
Etschmayer goes on to say, “As Benedict XVI is a Pope of restoration, when he visits the United States during an election year it symbolizes a policy that is anti-liberal and is a sign of support for the only conservative candidate: John McCain. McCain’s talk of remaining in Iraq for even 10,000 years if need be changes nothing. In the end, the fact is that this Pope by far prefers a Christian theocracy that fights bloody wars over a liberal, non-Christian democracy that avoids conflict.”
By Patrik Etschmayer
Translated By Patrik Etschmayer
April 17, 2008
Switzerland - Nachrichten - Original Article (German)
The headlines looked to be rather promising for opponents of Bush: The Pope would give Bush a few verbal slaps in the face, unambiguously criticize him and perhaps the Pontiff would even administer a real beating. But one should not be deluded: Standing on the same foundation, these are two men that think reason and reality should take a back seat to belief in a world as one wishes it to be.
This unity stood out when George W. Bush integrated a core-belief of the Pope into his speech of welcome by stressing that it is important for the nation to heed “the dictatorship of relativism.” Ultimately, this means that both Bush and the Pope stand for an absolute believe in a God that accepts a diversity of faiths only in the sense that there are people left to convert.
It’s perhaps a little ironic then, that the relativism both of these men fight so passionately against exists between themselves, as Bush is a member of a Methodist Church while the Pope is the world’s top Catholic. As far as the Protestants, the Pope has already made his opinion quite clear: When he declared that the Protestant churches were in fact not real churches at all, it triggered considerable consternation among ecumenical [inter-church] organizations.
In this light, the Pope’s criticism of George W. Bush’s Iraq policy is doubly interesting and curious. It’s probably too simplistic to use oil to explain Bush’s drive to invade Iraq. This was certainly a major motivation but there might as well have been the hope of having his “Christian” army plant a flag of victory over the stylized Islamist fanaticism of Saddam Hussein, whose rhetoric certainly contained a religious component. Recall when Bush initially spoke of a crusade, it looked simply as a clumsy choice of words. But who today uses this expression in a military context? It’s quite possible that he actually meant it in a literal sense. A man that continuously stresses doing the Lord’s work will also be drawn into war for his master.
And no one should believe that the Iraq War is really that high on the Pope’s agenda. When it came time for the Holy See to endorse a candidate for the last presidential election, the then chief-inquisitor who became today’s Pope found it more important to support the candidate who opposed the legality of abortion than the one who stood against the war. This meant that Bush garnered the support of about a million votes that otherwise would have gone to Kerry. Bush is President, so to speak, due to Benedict’s grace.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the Pope’s visit to the United States.
April 19th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
While Pope Benedict’s visit to the US, and the UN, was highlighted in the media with special emphasis on the US priests’ misdemeanours in the US, and the veiled criticism of the military adventures in Iraq and concern about human rights (see here), what I really enjoyed reading was 50 religious insights from George Bush…please click here…
Why is it that Popes don’t usually visit the United States during presidential election years? Lucas Mendez writes for the BBC Brazil, “As neutral as the papal robe is, his messages can and will be used by the candidates … every time Benedict XVI opens his mouth, Democrats and Republicans will interpret and “spin it,” according to their own political ‘gospels’” Read the rest of this entry »
April 18th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
Over 400 children were recently transported by bus away from the isolated Texas commune built by Warren Jeffs (currently in prison for forcing a child to marry an older man) and his brother (currently in charge of all the wives and children back at the ranch)…the brotherly duo being self-acclaimed polygamists and self-anointed heads of their own renegade LDS (Church of the Latter Day Saints– Mormon) temple.
The State of Texas will seek to show, provided one or more of the seeming spellbound and vapid acting women from the renegade group, will testify that the commune is dedicated to bringing children into the world yes, but it appears part of the motive of the commune’s hyper fecundity, is to supply young girls to pedophilic adults, and to supply the Jeffs’ construction companies with free labor of their young boys so the Jeffs can continue to lowball contracts, including contracts with the government.
There may also be misuse of Federal Food Stamp program by the commune to support the high percentage of the commune who appear to live under the poverty line… even though the self-appointed male leaders live in jaw-dropping luxury.
There may be a basis for racketeering charges as well if the Jeffs’ construction company is suspected of kiting and defrauding others in a discernable pattern.
The Two Sides of the Legal Argument Pro and Con, Are Likely to Go Something Like This:
April 16th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
“–Wherever the land is dry and hard, you could be the water …
–or you could be the blade disking the earth open;
–or you could be the acequia, the ditch that carries water from river to fields;
–or you could be the just engineer mapping dams that must be taken down, and those which would serve the venerable all, instead of only the very few;
–or you could be the battered vessel for carrying water by hand;
–or you could be the one who stores the water, protects it, blesses it or pours it;
–or you could be the tired ground that receives it;
–or you could be the scorched seed that drinks it;
–or you could be the vine green-growing overland in all your wild audacity …”
“If there is an ancient secret to caring for and mending the significant lacerations to this “Oh-my-dear-God-beautiful” earth we’ve been given, by soul’s light it might be just a tiny four-word prayer from Creator to humanity:
““Please, just start anywhere.”
”
(from “The Rainmakers: Beer Bottle Old Woman, Tin Can Old Man” by Dr.E, see here)
The Pope, this morning, in response to President Bush’s welcome at the White House sprang up from his ceremonial chair with the vitality of a young man, no ooofs or ehhhs, (the Pope is 81 years old as of today, April 16, 2008).
This morning President Bush ritually asked that the Pope keep the USA in his prayers. But the Pope in response, said with verve, that in addition he would exhort the people of the USA to be in spirit and “even more responsive/responsible to the life of their nation,” the USA.
This does not mean, “There there, nice people, just separate paper from plastic, and you’ll be doing your part.” It means to unleash convenings, meet to ask questions, to plan, to think of how to bring to bear, to implement, in millions of ways, and sustainedly.
The Pope’s heartfelt “God Bless America” at the end of his address at the White House today, held a sincerity and timbre not seen for years in the usual GodblessAmericabyrote at the end of many politicos’ speeches here in the USA.
President Bush noticed, and in one of his best traits when well aimed, which is a very sweet boyish enthusiasm, he leaned toward the Pope and said of the prelate’s speech, “…that was an awesome speech.”
The contrast between predictable official welcomes, and a rather startling vitality in the Pope’s opening volley, is becoming an increasing part of this Pope’s pronouncements publicly. Just as such was when the Pope recently began to describe for the first time… the debt of honor earth’s people have toward caring for the planet.
Recently, in L’Osservatore Romano, an interview entitled “New Forms of Social Sin,” offered Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti’s remarks about “ecological” sin, which undergirded Pope Benedict XVI’s now ongoing public expressions of concern about global Read the rest of this entry »
April 16th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
Probably because the Pope makes little of it, many may not remember that today it’s the Pope’s birthday: Born April 16, 1927. He’s a sharp and strong 81 years old. Age alone is no determinant about a person’s abilities to be a strong… Pope… or a President.
Relationships
Catholics have long had what often seems strange to others, either a kind of an arm’s length, “Touch-him-not,-he’s-like-God” relationship with their prelates, or a deep personal affection for their Church leaders, sometimes including “a talk-and-cup-of-Joe together” kind of relationship.
There are stories about the Pope that are not charming. But, one of the most charming stories I’ve heard was from my German publisher, who told me that when Benedict was elected Pope, one of the German newspapers, in a burst of pride, ran a huge front page headline: “WE ARE POPE!!”
The implication is that some have a sense that the Pope is a real person, knowable, joinable, and that his success is shared.
All grim interpretations of that all aside, I think the headline was sincere and innocent happiness.
BRIEF BIO of Joseph Alois Ratzinger, Pope Benedict the 16th
Here is a bit of the Pope’s biography, including the part many, including many Catholics, are concerned about and often want to hear far more about; his involvement as a young man in Nazi Germany.
There is also inferred here the close family life the Pope had as a child in a relatively small village, and also how he was presented and given opportunity auspiciously time and again to advance in his calling. There is also a small reference to his motto of ‘truth’ as an appointee over the Bavarian archdiocese after the war, which many would like to see a good deal more fleshing out with specifics. This is from the Vatican Library, an official brief bio of Joseph Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI:
…born at Marktl am Inn, Diocese of Passau (Germany) on 16 April 1927 (Holy Saturday) and was baptised on the same day. His father, a policeman, belonged to an old family of farmers from Lower Bavaria of modest economic resources. His mother was the daughter of artisans from Rimsting on the shore of Lake Chiem, and before marrying she worked as a cook in a number of hotels.
He spent his childhood and adolescence in Traunstein, a small village near the Austrian border, thirty kilometres from Salzburg. In this environment, which he himself has defined as “Mozartian”, he received his Christian, cultural and human formation.
His youthful years were not easy. His faith and the education received at home prepared him for the harsh experience of those years during which the Nazi regime pursued a hostile attitude towards the Catholic Church. The young Joseph saw how some Nazis beat the Parish Priest before the celebration of Mass.
It was precisely during that complex situation that he discovered the beauty and truth Read the rest of this entry »
April 15th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
Again, a disclosure: I am a Catholic.
Catholic social teachings
disagree with abuses of power,
disagree with politics that omit and oppress the poor and needy,
disagree with trampling the preciousness of the life force,
disagree with any idea that preemptive war is good,
disagree with any idea that humans are not worthy of justice and dignity… and much more.
These principles are in place to keep the world from going dead black with avarice and sloth and cruelty and the sounds of many mouths banging in scorn like empty pots. They are not always easy to live, but they are to be rooted in the heart and soul, and to be striven toward even though it is hard in the winds that swirl through this world.
Here, one journalist writes about some who present George Bush as having a seemingly ‘Catholic conscience.’ You can read the entire article by Daniel Burke here “A Catholic Wind in the White House,” and you can read my article I filed this morning at The National Catholic Reporter in my weekly column there where, speaking as a Catholic, I felt I had to refute the idea that George Bush is in any way following sacred Catholic social teachings. You can see that article, entitled, “Silencing a Woman: Retrieving Her Voice,” here.
April 13, 2008, in the Washington Post, Daniel Burke, a national correspondent for Religion News Service, writes about how some imagine President George Bush is actually a secret Catholic ‘believer,’ and has met with and surrounded himself by Catholics during his administration… that his policies have directly grown out of Catholic social justice teachings… and that the Pope is coming to see the President and his Catholic appointees specially, as the Pope is his ally… even though the Pope disagrees with President Bush’s Iraq war and torture.
“Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, another evangelical with an affinity for Catholic teaching, says that the key to understanding Bush’s domestic policy is to view it through the lens of Rome. Others go a step further.
“Paul Weyrich, an architect of the religious right, detects in Bush shades of former British prime minister Tony Blair, who converted to Catholicism last year. “I think he is a secret believer,” Weyrich says of Bush. Similarly, John DiIulio, Bush’s first director of faith-based initiatives, has called the president a “closet Catholic.” And he was only half-kidding.”
Mr. Burke’s article goes on to say,
“As the White House prepares to welcome Benedict on Tuesday, many in Bush’s inner circle expect the pontiff to find a kindred spirit in the president… this Protestant president has surrounded himself with Roman Catholic intellectuals, speechwriters, professors, priests, bishops and politicians. These Catholics — and thus Catholic social teaching — have for the past eight years been shaping Bush’s speeches, policies and legacy to a degree perhaps unprecedented in U.S. history….”
But, I must say otherwise:
…At a time when hardworking fathers and mothers are literally piling the children’s toys and bunk beds at the curb, for they are losing their homes in the sub-prime mortgage bunco scheme promoted by the grotesquely avaricious…
…at a time when 25% of older women only have a social security check to live on and nothing more… and they have inherited nothing but a President who wishes to do away with social security… and who admires those who call this hard earned savings account belonging to individuals who worked all their lives long, “an entitlement…”
…during a time when the last small farmers, ranchers, and overland independent truckers are being run out of business from sudden spikes in fuel and government’s one-sided subsidies… and our farmers, ranchers and trucker-heroes are becoming desperate for they not only take care of their own families, but have long taken care of us, their nation’s families at a root level, delivering the food and necessities we need…
…at a time when pharmaceutical companies produce much good, and have some charitable programs, yet still, at the back door, many also hold onto medicine patents that would have expired, thereby allowing the formulas into public domain and bringing down the costs of vital medicines for human beings in need…. but instead, some change the formula in slight and meaningless ways and thereby file to re-patent the medicine again, so they are its only producers, and prices remain high… often out of reach of those in most dire straights… and all this is okay-ed by our government…
To read the rest of both Mr. Burke’s article and mine, please see the links above….
April 14th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
First, a disclosure: I am a Catholic who comes from a long line of deeply ethnic old believers. I’ve had my bewilderments with the Church hierarchy, and my critiques and condemnations of some of the actions of some within the hierarchy as well…. but also hold to the deep social teachings from the heart of the Church which share their core with other philosophies and other faiths’ tenets, especially the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, to attempt, as one can, to take on the repair of the world soul.
Catholic social teachings speak against dictatorial power, do not support politics that omit the poor and needy, disapprove the slighting of the preciousness of the life force, turn from the idea that preemptive war is desirable, refuse the idea that humans are to be exploited and used instead of treated with decency, reject that people are to be put to death… and much more. Catholic social principles are hard to live by sometimes, but without them, the belief is the world would be far more vulnerable to becoming a soul-less wasteland.
My father, a tailor from the old country, used to warn that it was suicide to speak of politics and religion in the same breath, that it brought out the scorn-demons on both sides. But, in our time, it cannot be avoided apparently, for the Pope is about to land in the USA to visit only two cities; New York City and Washington D.C., the USA’s pinnacles of politics and politicos…
Too, the Pope is seemingly avoiding the Boston Archdiocese and Los Angeles and Chicago where live mountains of Catholics, but also where the Church hierarchy markedly looked the other way and literally obstructed child victims from justice as they were being sexually predated upon by certain priests in the last place on earth one would ever imagine a child would be unsafe…
Those scars will never be talked away. Not by popes nor apologists. Never.
But, in another turn, already the media’s guesses and analyses are flying about the Pope’s hidden motives and overt intents to meet with pols and those in power here, and to speak at the UN; some will worship without questions, some will demonize without facts. But, many in media will have space to speculate about what the Pope will, won’t, say, what he meant, didn’t mean, what he will support and what he will condemn, whose campaign he will lean more toward supporting–without meaning to.
Some will imagine how the Pope will interfere, admonish, try to corral the free speech and thought of Catholic Universities some of which have, amongst other structures, gay and lesbian sacral groups, and so on.
I’d suggest to look for the humanity in whatever Pope has to say or do, to rest on that wherever, whenever that might occur. Just my two cents’ worth from meeting tens of thousands of people a year when I teach… Far more than admonishments and punishments, the people of the earth are in need of love without academic précis, and fully worthy of unconditional blessing…
for the rhizome, the living life force underground, ever glows and thrives on warmth and light and water, rather than on opprobrium, exile, and scorn.
The press is already dutifully lining up to report on last night’s “Compassion Forum” in Pennsylvania, where Senators Clinton and Obama allowed themselves to be thrust into a “Dog and Pony Show for Jesus” contest to see who could “out-God” each other. At the end of this column I’ll get to some more specific observations from the event, as promised in my short summary last night, but first I would like to address a broader question. Was this really necessary - or even desirable - in an American election?
While a few important topics in the political arena - such as poverty - were raised last night, let us make no mistake. This was not a forum on compassion. This was a forum on religion, plain and simple. This issue I place before you today is whether or not this is a valid criteria for selecting our leaders and one which the media should be enabling.
While we seem to be constantly discouraged from discussing this inconvenient fact, there is no religious test when qualifying a person to run for President of the United States. This is abundantly clear, far beyond a brief nod in the First Amendment, in both the letter and spirit of the laws of our land. The common response to this runs along these lines: “Wait a minute there, bucko… nobody is saying that you have to be a Christian to run for president. We’re just saying that it’s an important aspect of the candidate’s character which we want to consider when voting.”
True enough. The fact is that every American can use any yardstick to measure candidates when determining who they will support. Unfortunately, this includes the full spectrum of possible “criteria” depending on who you ask. You might say that you will only vote for a black candidate and, if more than one are offered, you would like an on-stage melanin count to make sure you’re voting for the blackest one offered. Are you within your rights to do this? Of course! Would most of us want to base our political choices based on your guidance? Maybe not so much. And should such a “forum” be proposed, the media would fall all over themselves to decry it and never even consider airing the event.
The point is that the media are ready and willing enablers of a process which systematically eliminates any and all possible candidates who don’t pass “the god test” with a high enough score. This is the one area which really should not be a “test” to be president and, in fact, could readily be described as as unfair religious bigotry to which the press and the public are willing to give a wink, a nod and a smile and just let it pass. Mitt Romney seems to have learned the hard way that Main Street America is not about to vote for a Mormon. Should a candidate raise their head who was otherwise qualified in all areas, but was an agnostic, atheist, Muslim or Hindu, it seems that they would quickly be hounded from the stage, and our media would be leading the whip-wielding pack.
The Phelps Family Ghouls (the ‘God Hates Gays’ Baptists who picket funerals) may lose their property to the courts as a consequence of their hateful actions.
A federal judge in Maryland on Thursday ordered liens on the Westboro Baptist Church building and the Phelps-Chartered Law office.
If the case presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett is upheld by an appeals court, the church, at 3701 S.W. 12th, and the office building, at 1414 S.W. Topeka Blvd., could be obtained by the court and sold, with the proceeds being applied toward $5 million in damages Bennett imposed on church members for picketing a military funeral.
A lien is a legal hold on property, making it collateral against money owed to a person or entity. It can keep the owner from selling the property or transferring title to the property.
The $5 million penalty is the result of a lawsuit filed against three of the church’s principals by Albert Snyder, the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, whose funeral was picketed by church members.
The senior Snyder contended the picketing caused emotional distress and invasion of privacy.
Westboro Baptist members regularly picket funerals of members of the U.S. armed forces, contending the deaths are God’s punishment for the country’s support of homosexuals.
![[NZZ am Sonntag, Switzerland]](http://worldmeets.us/images/bushpope_nzzamsonntag.gif)
![[La Tribune, Honduras]](http://worldmeets.us/images/popepedofile_latribunahn.gif)
