Michael's Army Not Composed Of Jedi Knights

I was over on the InsideCatholic.com website today reading an article by Fr. Dwight Longenecker on the recent brouhaha over Fr. Jay Scott Newman in South Carolina. Fr. Newman was the priest who wrote the article in his parish bulletin strongly suggesting that those parishioners who voted for Obama should go to confession before receiving communion.

In my own commentary I suggested in the interests of fairness, that Fr. Newman should also have strongly suggested that anyone who voted for McCain should also go to confession because McCain supported embryonic stem cell research, which the bishops have also designated an 'intrinsic evil'. I felt Fr. Newman was being a cafeteria Catholic in his focus on the democratic candidate.

After reading Fr. Longenecker's article and the commentary associated with it, I realize I am totally off base. It isn't about the relative merits of one party versus the other with regards to abortion, it's really about those who have been co opted to Satan's camp and those who are faithful loyal Catholic followers in St. Michael's army.

I also learned from Fr. Longenecker that I am in the 'defiant' camp and my kind will be extinct in the next twenty years or so. I wonder if this code speak for the Vatican II 'boomers' as in most of us will be dead. Nah, can't be.

Here's Fr. Longenecker's description of the defiant Catholic as he determined from the thousands of emails which the parish received from all over the US. The other three categories were the demonic, the lame, and the loyal supporters:

But the "defiant" category makes up the largest number of our respondents, and is the saddest category of all. Statistics show us that these are the Catholics who sealed Obama's victory. They are people who were poorly catechized over the last 40 years in America. They have been nurtured in the Protest Generation and told that it is fine, even noble, to disagree with the Church. They have been taught to act according to their conscience without taking the trouble or time to inform it.

Caught up in the trendy agendas of the day, they have jumped on the bandwagons of feminism, environmentalism, homosexualism, socialism, and sentimentalism -- mistaking their favorite cause for the Catholic Faith. When they are confronted with clear, concise, and consistent Catholicism they are shocked and angry, and their response is (if they haven't done so already) to leave the Church, preferring their own wisdom to the wisdom of God.

But then things get even more interesting:

In the next 20 years, this sort of Catholic will become extinct. As America descends further into decadence and decline, the lines will be drawn between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. People will have to choose whether to serve God and His Church or the dark side.

So it isn't about being democrat or republican it's about being a defiant Darth Vader or a Catholic Jedi Knight. I really wish I could see the world so black and white, but I'm not allowed to, I seem to be cursed with seeing into the depths of things and not their surface presentation.

Shining light into dark places sometimes means you really need to go deep into things to find the real hidden places where darkness is born, and it means starting with yourself. It's not pleasant and as I've written before it means confronting those original events which trigger your fear mechanism and all the defenses which are associated with protecting that defenseless child.

I can remember many times when I was very young calling on Michael to protect me from those things hidden in the darkness of my night time bedroom. Now when I call on Michael I'm more apt to be taken directly into those terrors to see where they originated and why they are still in effect.

Michael's metaphorical sword is one of love and to truly wield the sword means one must be able to love, to see the Christ in others, to see Christ in oneself, to seriously confront one's own shortcomings. Michael's sword is double edged. It's as apt to cut the wielder as it is a perceived enemy. It's not just about saying some rosaries and receiving the sacraments. That's only a start, an apprenticeship if you will. To go beyond the basics means self discipline and the courage to face your own shadow self. To go beyond the basics means to learn to unite oneself with and convert the 'enemy' not to divide and conquer them. This is exactly the kind of spiritual warfare that Jesus was engaged in, and if anyone thinks Michael is engaged in some other kind of warfare, they haven't really met him--yet.

When Fantasy Collides With Reality

Readers may have to bear with me for awhile, but eventually I will have a point to make. I think.

I was reading some of the comments on the National Catholic Reporter website concerning the Fr. Roy Bourgeois situation and came across a comment written by a JPII priest which struck me as something from a fantasy romance novel. Here is a portion of his comment:

The priest is called to be the living image of Jesus Christ, the Spouse of the Church.[49] Of course, he will always remain a member of the community as a believer alongside his other brothers and sisters who have been called by the Spirit, but in virtue of his configuration to Christ, the Head and Shepherd, the priest stands in this spousal relationship with regard to the community.

"Inasmuch as he represents Christ, the Head, Shepherd and Spouse of the Church, the priest is placed not only in the Church but also in the forefront of the Church".[50]

In his spiritual life, therefore, he is called to live out Christ's spousal love towards the Church, his Bride. Therefore, the priest's life ought to radiate this spousal character which demands that he be a witness to Christ's spousal love, and thus be capable of loving people with a heart which is new, generous and pure, with genuine self-detachment, with full, constant and faithful dedication and at the same time with a kind of "divine jealousy" (cf. 2 Cor 11:2), and even with a kind of maternal tenderness, capable of bearing "the pangs of birth" until "Christ be formed" in the faithful (cf. Gal 4:19).(Pastores Dabo Vobis, #22) (All of the above is a direct quote from JPII's Pastores Dabo Vobis)

Furthermore, to admit women to the priesthood would belittle the great dignity of women who hear the invitation to consecrated virginity and so become brides of Christ and an image of our Lady. (I've never understood why Jesus needs dedicated virgin brides, when he didn't seem to need one when he actually walked the earth. Is this the Catholic version of the Islamic male fantasy?)

*********************************************************

When I read the above, I once again found myself banging my head on my desk. This whole thing describes a delusional fantasy world in which the Church is a "bride" composed of submissive and compliant laity, and the priest is the "spouse" who is the living image of God in the form of Jesus Christ.

The divine imaged spouse is even capable of "genuine self detachment, with full constant and faithful dedication and at the same time a kind of "divine jealousy" and even with a kind of maternal tenderness capable of bearing the 'pangs of birth' until Christ be formed in the faithful.

In too many respects this sounds like the ultimate male fantasy. A compliant and submissive wife, the ability to self detach while still exhibiting divine jealousy and the delusion of sharing in the pangs of birth.

I just love the 'pangs of birth' thing. My ex husband once asked me what it was like to go through child birth. I told him, "Imagine defecating a water melon." He never asked again or pretended he shared in my pain. Believe me contractions are not 'pangs'.

But the important thing here, is that this fantasy of priest to church is a romantic male fantasy. It contains lots of delusions concerning the rightful place of women and children vis a vis their relationship to men. I'll admit for eons this fantasy was pretty much reality, but not anymore.

The children are grown and the women are demanding the end of the fantasy.

This fight to hang onto the fantasy can be seen in all the hot button issues of the bishops. Whether it is birth control, abortion, a female clergy or gay marriage, all of these issues threaten the underlying assumption of the fantasy. That underlying assumption is that men have divine right to control both the propagation of the species and the order of society. Control is not just about the present, but extends into the future, and progeny is all about the future.

Birth control and abortion place the progeny decision in the hands of women who actually do have the babies and do experience the 'pangs' of birth. Go back to the water melon analogy and you might begin to see why women just might want some control over whether they get pregnant. Defecating water melons can end in one's death.

But of course, there's more to having babies than that. Someone has to take care of them. All too frequently our male who is indulging in his ultimate fantasy, is no where to be found, being 'self-detached' for some reason or another. And then there is the 'divine jealousy' thing, but most women don't find male jealousy divinely inspired. It's more a case of jealously guarding male prerogative.

Gay marriage is in too many respects the ultimate threat to the ultimate male fantasy. It's the sexual fantasy without the burden of children, an unlicensed and unrestricted male fantasy. It's not fair. Of course that's only true if one ignores the tens of thousands of gay partnerships which are raising children. But hey, this is a fantasy we're protecting here. Reality need not apply.

And that brings us to women priests. In a church which raises the ultimate male fantasy to dizzying theological heights, women priests are way way too much reality. It's not surprising then that the Vatican wields the dogmatic sword of excommunication to stop this notion, while allowing their abusive 'spouses' to go unpunished and heavily protected. It's always been that way when sexual abuse raises it's head within the patriarchal family structure. The fantasy can not be questioned by the reality of it's consequences. Male dominion is sacrosanct. God says so.

The good new is that the fantasy can no longer being sustained. Not by society, not in politics, and not by the planet. There just aren't enough true believers to keep it sustained, and that is especially true in the younger generations. They don't seem to want the burden of the fantasy because they are seeing that ultimately it's deadly--for society, for politics, and for the planet.

At this point it doesn't look like the Roman Catholic Church is willing to give up on the fantasy. They've done pretty well living it for the last 1700 years. The times are changing though, and the hierarchy needs to absorb a serious dose of reality or the Church too will go the way of the empire it replaced. By the time the original Roman Empire died it's leadership was also desperately clinging to the fantasy of it's past and incapable of dealing with the reality of it's present. Fr. Bourgeois isn't a case of "Et tu Brute", he's an unwelcome dose of reality.

An Open Letter To Pope Benedict

Last night I was out and about with my Joe sixpack buddies and was asked how the blog was going. I remarked it had been a frustrating week because tempers were flaring over Obama and abortion and excommunications and women priests and lazy cafeteria catholics and true believers and all in all. It was worse than talking with them. They laughed. We plinked more money in the Keno machines. Then one turned to me and asked an interesting question. Do you really think women priests are going to save the Church?

I had to think about this for a minute. No, I said, I don't think women priests are going to save the church, but I think a woman's point of view would change things enormously. He's a Catholic so I asked him a question. "Would you rather go to confession to your mother or your father?"

"No brainer", he says, "It would be my mom hands down, even though she was the weird disciplinarian, but she also listened." And then he paused. "Now, that I think about it, the weirdness went up with the number of lies in my excuses. Dad just went to screaming and yelling and things would go down hill from there." This then brought up a raucous time where all of us recounted our worst punishment stories, and yes, his mother had some weird punishments.

In the end though, all of us agreed we would rather go to confession to a woman rather than most men. It had to do with perceptions about which sex generally listened better, spouses not included, as marriage can be a long series of confessions.

I was almost shocked this morning to run across a letter to Pope Benedict which mentions this very point about confession. But there's so much more to this letter, and it so shows the difference in approach between men and woman, and it's so much better than anything I could write. I offer the following letter with great respect for the woman who wrote it. It's all about the potential for the feminine voice in the Church. (I especially liked the paragraph about cats. Because it's true. Cats know when your praying and they can't get enough of your energy when you pray. They do have to climb up on you and it does set them to purring.)

Open letter to the Pope - about women ordinations

Dear Brother in Christ, Pope Benedict XVI,

I write to you on behalf of Fr. Roy Bourgeois, who, as you know, is facing excommunication in a few days from now, because he is following his conscience on the issue of women ordinations.

I don't know him personally, but he feels like a dear brother. I've (through the internet), heard his homily at the ordination he attended, and I've read a few articles, and his letter in response to the excommunication letter. And his words are really touching my heart, it's very healing to hear a priest speak openly about the injustice he feels is being done to so many Catholic women with a call to ministry within the Church... I'm grateful to him for his courageous witness - and I wish that all other priests and bishops around the world who believe that God wants to show the Church that this call is indeed genuine, would also dare to speak up for change. A change that would be strongly welcomed by many Catholics in our days, and especially among young people (even priest candidates in Rome, as an anonymous open letter from one of them recently shows, I'm sure you must have seen it). Besides, this is nothing new... Women served in the early Church...

Fr. Roy was ordained the same year as I was born, and he's been serving the Church all this time. Amazing thought! That's more than I've done... But I could have been a priest for many years, as I felt the call already at the age of 14. I love the Church profoundly, and would love to serve as a priest... Like so many other Catholic women. And like several of our woman Saints, among those Thérèse of Lisieux, my patron Saint, who once led me to the Church. I attended the festive ceremony in 1997 at St. Peter's Square, when she was declared a Doctor of the Church. How that must have surprised her, and made her smile in heaven! "Little" Thérèse among all those distinguished old male teachers of the Church...! I'm happy that she now has this position, since the Church must listen carefully to all its theological Doctors.

Thérèse tells us openly about her call to be a priest, a call that didn't leave her even when she felt death approaching. She handled the hosts with lots of love as a sacristan, while she thought about celebrating Mass. She asked her sisters to shave a tonsure on her head, and she united herself in prayer with the young priest missionaries she would have liked to follow. And she said that she was happy to die - so that she didn't need to suffer the pain of not being ordained at the time she would have been ordained - if she had just been a man... There are numerous witnesses who knew her who confirms this. I find it amazing that her writings haven't been censured. And they speak right into our times.

I often think that it's like the body of the Church is jumping ahead on just one leg. While she (!) could be dancing and rejoicing and move much faster and more graciously than now, showing the world who God is (both feminine and masculine), if she would use both her legs, not just the male one. It's as if the Church body has made herself crippled, although she's actually whole. She's strangely refusing to use one half of her body in ministry...

Excommunication is a similarly odd phenomena within our Church body. So odd to see her shutting off her own limbs from the powerful blood flow of the holy Communion!

And not just any limbs. It's the prophetic limbs that are often shut off. Those who were Jesus' own didn't understand him... It seems to be the same today for his followers. But they'll keep speaking until their last breath - prophets can't be silenced... This is their mission: to show the Church what's missing! To speak soft words where they're needed, and sharp words where they're required.

I'd like to humbly ask a few burning questions: Who do you think Jesus would excommunicate?

Would He cut off living branches from the tree?

What is easier: to change a tiny paragraph in the Canon law which doesn't correspond with the Gospel message and Jesus' way of treating women and men equally - or keep hurting the Body of Christ again and again?

Where in the world can you find a mother who would stop giving some of her children food? And what mother would forbid only her girls to prepare food and serve it to their siblings? Shouldn’t the Church Mother act as good as these earthly mothers? (I love this paragraph,)

Excommunications are actually getting the opposite result than they probably are meant to give. Trying to get rid of one after the other will only put this matter (women ordinations) even more on the agenda. It's so much better to communicate than to excommunicate!

I've read the most recent homily by your preacher, Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa. He speaks about women in it, like several times during the passed years, which I actually encouraged him to do when I once met him. I'm happy for this, because it's really needed. But I wish the urgent need for women in the heart of the Church would be as visible and clear. We need to hear the perspectives also of women in homilies. We need them serving at the Eucharistic table, as well as in the confessional. Many (both women and men) say it would be so much easier to confess if the priest was a woman... Both men and women are needed to make the priestly ministry as beautiful and complete as it's meant to be... Both reflect the image of God - together....The wonderful Pope, John XXIII, didn't live long as a Pope, but long enough to initiate revival, inspired by the Holy Spirit. (Nice take on complimentarity,)

I've heard that you attended the Council as one of its most brilliant progressive theologians... You quoted Karl Rahner (who btw has written at depth about the priest-poet, well worth reading), when he said something like: "The dogma is no package, well wrapped and tightly tied up, but an open window."

I wish I could reawaken some of that youthful glow within your heart, bring fresh air through the Vatican doors, and open all the windows widely... (Well, the risen Jesus knew how to walk also through closed doors, behind which frightened apostles were sitting...!)

Now it's time to listen in deep prayer to what the Holy Spirit is repeatedly saying to the Church at present. God is calling so many women to serve... Please, consider to receive and embrace this gift...! It's for the good of the whole Church, ultimately the whole world...And please don't let my brother get excommunicated, or any other of my brothers and sisters who dare to say what they, and so many silent Catholics, actually think! Fr. Roy is just the kind of priest that is most appreciated and needed among the faithful!

As he has spoken courageously - I can't remain silent.

I love my Mother, the Church, and say all this out of love for her...Catholicity is all about Communion and union, so when one limb is suffering - all the others are also suffering (if they're healthy and thus able to feel compassionate). I suffer immensely by the thought of others getting excommunicated. I've spent some sleepless nights now, praying about this, actualized by what Fr. Roy is going through. And led by holy inspiration, I got the idea to ask, like Maximiliam Kolbe, the Saint, who stood right in front of a man who is now in my parish and who witnessed his words: "may I take his place?"

I wish to stand in solidarity with all those who are excluded and marginalized in our society and in the Church, I think that's what being a Christian and following Jesus is about, to rejoice with those who rejoice, and cry with those who cry, to ultimately give up one's life, and everything that one holds most dear... And the Church is my life, my home, my everything... I would never want to be without the Eucharist - that would be to starve spiritually. I imagine it's pretty much the same for Fr. Roy. But if someone has to be sacrificed to keep up the present human rules and regulations, then don't excommunicate someone who is a "father" of many... You may punish me instead...

And by now you may perhaps wonder who I am... Maximiliam Kolbe got the same question. He answered: "I'm a Catholic priest."And I'm just a simple Catholic lay person, an artist and theologian, a priest only at heart and not through ordination. I haven't broken any single Church rule, but I've spoken freely, by inspiration and out of conscience, when asked what I believe. I feel that unity among Christians and within the Catholic Church (in spite of different opinions - we share what is most important after all: our faith, a sacred gift from God), is part of my mission, and thus I find it very hard to stand injustice or prejudices. I wish to see a renewed Church where everyone is welcome, a Church where no one is shut out... And if someone is threatened to be excluded, I must stand up for him or her. (Here's your answer anonymous, and stated far better than I could have.)

To something else - but still connected to this. I've heard that you love cats - we have that in common! As you might have noticed, they're very free and independent creatures. But they stay where they're given food and are treated well. They're also fascinated by prayer, and come and lay down purring in one's lap during silent prayer if one allows them to... A cat I know once ended up sitting and looking intensely at my icons... I wonder what he saw through those heavenly windows...

I've also heard that sheep need no fences, they stay where there's fresh water.

And we Christians, who are drawn to the Source of Life itself, who could draw us away from it? If there's love in the Church - and Love has indeed its dwelling place among us - then there's no need for fences...

God gives us this beautiful call to freedom, and invites us to use all our gifts and talents. The Gospel yesterday speaks about these talents - everyone’s talents need to be recognized and developed. Also those of women with a call to serve. Where else should we go? Which other source should we drink from? Is it really right of the Church to bury our gifts....?

If theology at some point turns out not to correspond with what we know about God - it needs to be reconsidered and eventually rewritten. I’ve studied all the arguments against women ordinations in detail, and I’ve found that none of them is solid enough to build any teachings upon. It’s rather the opposite way - they all fall down like a pile of cards if they’re slightly touched. I thus hope you will welcome and reopen theological discussions about this in the Vatican, through inviting theologians from all over the world who has studied the question at depth - both women and men, and both those who based on their studies are positive to change, and those who aren’t, and they should all have the right to speak and vote…

I'll end this letter by a poem that I dedicated to the previous Archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond Burke when he excommunicated my sister in Christ, Sr. Louise Lears, whom I don't know in person either (but, as you know, lives amazingly touches those of others also at a great distance). It somehow fits also in this sad situation. With all due respect, much love in Christ, and with fervent prayers that you'll intervene to make a good and just decision regarding Fr. Roy...

Your little sister,

Charlotte Thérèse

(in Sweden)

****************************************************************

Thank you Charlotte Therese on behalf of myself and all who read this blog.

Some Hot Angry Tears Of Betrayal

In a speech at Catholic University Cardinal Stafford had this to say about Barack Obama and the United States of America:

His Eminence James Francis Cardinal Stafford criticized President-elect Barack Obama as “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,“ and said he campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform,” Thursday night in Keane Auditorium during his lecture “Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: Being True in Body and Soul.“ (Is Cardinal Stafford actually implying that Obama is some sort of Anti Christ?)

“Because man is a sacred element of secular life,” Stafford remarked, “man should not be held to a supreme power of state, and a person’s life cannot ultimately be controlled by government.” (But you do think a woman's reproductive life should be controlled by government.)

“For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden,” Stafford said, comparing America’s future with Obama as president to Jesus’ agony in the garden. “On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake.” (Yes, we did!)

Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the “hot, angry tears of betrayal” by beginning a new sentiment where one is “with Jesus, sick because of love.” (Wow, Cardinal Stafford doesn't seem to have taken the election results with good grace. I personally could finally stop crying "hot, angry tears of betrayal", and although I didn't presume that my sickness with the Bush administration was shared by Jesus, it wouldn't have surprised me if Jesus was sick too.)

The lecture, hosted by the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, pertained to Humanae Vitae, a papal encyclical written by Pope Paul VI in 1968 and celebrating its 40 anniversary this year.

Stafford also spoke about the decline of a respect for human life and the need for Catholics to return to the original values of marriage and human dignity.

“If 1968 was the year of America’s ‘suicide attempt,’ 2008 is the year of America’s exhaustion,” said Stafford, an American Cardinal and Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary for the Tribunal of the Holy See. “In the intervening 40 years since Humanae Vitae, the United States has been thrown upon ruins.” (This is frightening. I don't think Humanae Vitae figured into the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and I don't think America has been thrown into ruins because of Humanae Vitae. Humanae Vitae wasn't an encyclical about unchecked power and greed.)

This destruction and America’s decline is largely in part due to the Supreme Court’s decisions in the life-issue cases of 1973, specifically Roe v. Wade. Stafford asserted these cases undermined respect for human life in the United States.

“Its scrupulous meanness has had catastrophic effects upon the unity and integrity of the American republic,” said Stafford. (But we're to accept that these comments of yours are not mean, and not divisive.)

****************************************************************

This has been a heck of a week for Catholic democrats. Looking back over some of the Episcopal statements that I have commented on, could make one shed tears of "hot, angry betrayal." Oh well, Catholic progressives have a lot of practice with that phenomenon.

The comments on other websites about Cardinal Stafford's speech have engendered some of the least Christian banter I have read on any other topic. It has served however, to focus the rage of some pro lifers about Obama. It seems they are incapable of separating the man from his party, or from the electorate of the United States. He has somehow become a lightening rod for all things Satanic. Here's an article by Fr. George Rutler, which extensively quotes Cardinal Newman on how Satan co opts weak Christians. Fr. Rutler is certainly implying that the election of Obama was a victory for Satan, principally due to lukewarm cafeteria catholics who seemingly can't tell satan from a box of Granola.

Have I missed something? Weren't the democrats in charge of both houses of congress in 2007 when FOCA couldn't get out of committee in either the senate or the house? Aren't there pro life Catholic democrats, who coupled with republicans of like mind, capable of preventing it from coming out of committee again? Isn't there some constitutional clause that says Obama can't sign into law a bill which didn't come through congress first? Has the election of Barack Obama somehow propelled us into a completely different parallel universe?

Given the 'apocalyptic' rhetoric of Cardinal Stafford, maybe we are in some parallel universe that only he's aware of, but if we're not, his language is way over the line. Obama is not the Anti Christ and to imply such a thing, is ignorant at best, and verbally irresponsible at it's worst. It's hate and fear mongering to the max. Isn't Cardinal Stafford way past retirement age?

In the meantime Pope Benedict is waxing eloquently on how Christians long for the end times, and explaining the need for real Catholic politicians. He even gives a shout out concerning the contribution of women. Which is nice, considering neither he nor Cardinal Stafford would be around without one. What though, is all this fascination with the end times? Catholicism is beginning to sound way too much like the New Apostolic Reformation.

Which brings me to the letter of Richard Malone , the bishop of the diocese of Portland, Maine. In this letter, which he had read at all parishes, he again states the quite common, if totally erroneous notion, that marriage between one man and one woman has always been that way. Well, maybe in his lifetime.

In the body of the letter, in another sort of shout out, he does stress the diocese's support for the opening up of civil 'spousal' benefits such as health insurance and hospital visitation. There is though, this kind of confusing part in which he seems to be saying that when it comes to marriage and the common good, the Catholic sacramental notion of marriage supersedes the civil notion and should be made the law of the land. For the good of the children don't we know.

He ends by telling his flock they can look forward to Maine's version of prop 8. Which I guess means that Maine can look forward to their own version of a Mormon invasion. I understand this can be good for their economy, if not their political atmosphere.

Why is Catholicism working in hand in hand with the Mormon's you might ask---on defending marriage of all things. I suspect it has to do with money. The LDS Church has it, and American Catholicism is still shelling out mind boggling sums to clergy sexual abuse victims. Three billion and still counting, in fact.

Cardinal Stafford, perhaps you shouldn't be speaking about shedding 'hot, angry tears of betrayal'.

English Bishop Blames Educated Pawns For Losing Numbers Game

Educated Catholics have sown dissent and confusion in the Church, claims bishop

The Rt Rev Patrick O'Donoghue, the Bishop of Lancaster, has claimed that graduates are spreading scepticism and sowing dissent.

Instead of following the Church's teaching they are "hedonistic", "selfish" and "egocentric", he said. (Not to mention, inquisitive, discerning, spiritual rather than religious, and equipped with operating bullshit detectors.)

In particular, the bishop complained that influential Catholics in politics and the media were undermining the Church.

While not naming names, he suggested that such people had been compromised by their education, which he said had a "dark side, due to original sin". (And the Church doesn't?)

Bishop O'Donoghue, who has recently published a report on how to renew Catholicism in Britain, argued that mass education has led to "sickness in the Church and wider society".

"What we have witnessed in Western societies since the end of the Second World War is the development of mass education on a scale unprecedented in human history - resulting in economic growth, scientific and technological advances, and the cultural and social enrichment of billions of people's lives," he said.

"However, every human endeavor has a dark side, due to original sin and concupiscence. In the case of education, we can see its distortion through the widespread dissemination of radical scepticism, positivism, utilitarianism and relativism.

"Taken together, these intellectual trends have resulted in a fragmented society that marginalizes God, with many people mistakenly thinking they can live happy and productive lives without him. (Don't you really mean without the Church?)

"It shouldn't surprise us that the shadows cast by the distortion of education, and corresponding societal changes, have also touched members of the Church.

As Pope Benedict XVI puts it, even in the Church we find hedonism, selfishness and egocentric behavior." (And also sexual abuse and it's cover up. Egocentric behavior is a very generous description for pedophilia. Wait a minute..... he's not describing the clerical caste. My bad.)

The bishop said that Catholic graduates had rejected the reforms made in the second council of the Vatican, which introduced fundamental changes in issues such as liturgy and doctrine.
"The Second Vatican Council tends to be misinterpreted most by Catholics who have had a university education -- that is, by those most exposed to the intellectual and moral spirit of the age," he said. (It's not that John Paul II rolled back the reforms like subsidiarity and collegiality, it's really those damn intellectuals.)

"These well-educated Catholics have gone on to occupy influential positions in education, the media, politics, and even the Church, where they have been able to spread their so-called loyal dissent, causing confusion and discord in the whole church." (Just a tad bit of projection going on here.)

The bishop said that influential Catholics had set a bad example and corrupted the faith of those who had not gone to university. (My Six Pack Joe buddies would say that the clerical abuse scandal had far more to do with their disgust, not to mention that little thing about birth control. They don't even listen to me. They just buy me another glass of box merlot to shut me up. It's effective, if not terribly palatable.)

"This failure of leadership has exacerbated the even-greater problem of the mass departure from the Church of the working-class and poor," he said. "For example, the relentless diatribe in the popular media against Christianity has undermined the confidence of the ordinary faithful in the Church." (Not to beat a dead horse, but the media hasn't attacked Christianity. They have exposed the excesses of clericalism.)

Although the influx of immigrants from Catholic countries in Eastern Europe has buoyed Mass attendance in recent years, there has been a significant decline in the number of indigenous, working-class Catholics.

Bishop O'Donoghue has produced a report, Fit for Mission? Church, examining the current problems facing the Church and designed "to enable Catholic men, women and children to resist the pressures to compromise, even abandon, the truths of the Catholic faith". (I bet it has a chapter devoted to the spiritual benefits of illiteracy.)

He says that he supports Catholics receiving a university education, but urges they should be "better-equipped to challenge the erroneous thinking of their contemporaries". (He probably means an approved Opus Dei or Legionnaire university, where they have a Catechism department rather than a theology department.)

Nicholas Lash, the former Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University, called the bishop's comments "extremely grave".

Writing in this week's Tablet - a respected Catholic journal - Prof Lash says: "If he had named a particular university or universities, or particular individuals, he might well have had a series of libel actions on his hands. (Ya think?)

"Quite what constructive purpose could possibly be served by such irresponsible and wholesale scapegoating of the educated, I have simply no idea." (Sarah Palin does.)

***************************************************************

Oh for the good ole days of hordes of illiterate laity. It's the Church's own fault what with all those great parochial schools and all those Catholic colleges and universities. I should know, I'm one of the products of their educational system, and I wouldn't change it for anything. In fact, all that Catholic education has me wondering what the good bishop is really up to with this anti intellectual diatribe.

I can't help but wonder if Bishop O'Donoghue is taking a page from the Republicans and inciting a new class war based on intelligence and education. Is this a sign that they think they may have lost the Culture Wars and are now shoring up their authority by attempting to marginalize a new class of humanity?

How far does he really think he's going to get with this? My buddies may buy into this to some extent, but not when they need their tax accountant, or medical services. They don't actually hate the intelligence of the doctor who does their by pass operations. They may not like a doctor's impatient attitude, but they really like his medical education when it benefits them. I guess this would be an example of utilitarianism.

All joking aside, this is incomprehensible to me unless of course, it is mindless projection of the worst sort. If you can't deal with a particular group, I guess you blame them for your own inadequacies. There's sure been a lot of blame being assigned by Catholic bishops. That's not the sign of a healthy self assured group. Maybe all our clerics should undergo that psychological testing being mandated for seminarians. Lots of other corporations do it.

It sure seems to me that testing the mental fitness of our bishops makes as much sense as testing the mental fitness of our seminarians. In fact, testing of this sort looks way over due.

The Blind Are Still Blind

Catholics in Alliance voter survey of ‘little value,’ Archdiocese of Denver says

Denver, Nov 14, 2008 / 09:40 pm (CNA).- A consortium of left-wing Christian organizations has released a report on the reasons voters gave for how they cast their ballots in the recent election. Although the poll finds that Americans have rejected a “narrow agenda,” the Archdiocese of Denver says the report has “little value” because it is skewed by the preconceptions of the groups that commissioned the survey.

The newly released survey, which questioned 1,277 voters, was conducted November 5-7 by Public Religion Research for the groups Faith in Public Life, Sojourners and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

While noting that only 21 percent of white evangelicals voted for Barack Obama, the consortium pointed to their finding that “nearly double” (39%) say he is friendly to religion and shares their values.

Dr. Robert P. Jones, President of Public Religion Research interpreted the results of his organization’s survey as showing that Americans desire to reclaim a “broader agenda,” a description that closely echoes the post-election theme of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and its political allies.

Katie Paris, Director of Communications Strategy at Faith in Public Life, agreed with Jones’ reading: "People of faith are tired of the culture wars and hungry for common ground. Evangelical and Catholic voters are rejecting a narrow agenda and embracing the conviction that we must all work together – an approach that will enable the faith community to effect real progress on difficult issues in the days to come," she said.

Yet, the same Public Religion Research poll found that the major deciding factor for voters was the economy and not moral issues, with 70 percent of voters listing it as one of the top two issues they considered when they voted.

Democratic political analyst Mark Stricherz explained to CNA that far from the “rebalancing of political alignments” that Dr. Jones depicts as the outcome of the survey, he sees a more complicated picture.

“The country is in a recession. Of course, Americans are most worried about their jobs, homes, taxes, and health insurance. But their focus on the economic issue cuts both ways in terms of the social issue. They don't want more restrictions on abortion; yet they also don't want taxpayers to pay for more abortions and certainly don't want to eliminate all legal protections for unborn infants, as President-elect Obama has vowed to do under the Freedom of Choice Act,” Stricherz told CNA.

The national poll also touched on the issue of abortion, asking respondents to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement:

“Elected leaders on both sides of the abortion debate should work together to find ways to reduce the number of abortions by enacting policies that help prevent unintended pregnancies, expand adoption, and increase economic support for women who wish to carry their pregnancies to term.”

Of those voters surveyed, 83 percent (86 % of white evangelicals and 81% of Catholics) said that they would like to see politicians cooperate to reduce abortions.

This result, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and their partners say, should be interpreted to mean that pro-lifers should focus their efforts on economic and social measures to reduce abortion. Other thinkers who agree with this reasoning, such as Douglas Kmiec and Nicolas Cafardi, assert that the pro-life movement has failed in the legal arena, and that it should redirect its energies.

However, this past Wednesday the U.S. Catholic bishops rejected the notion that the pro-life movement has failed by assailing Roe v. Wade in their joint statement. “A good state protects the lives of all. Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This was bad law.”

Jeanette DeMelo, spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Denver, dismissed the Catholics in Alliance survey and the groups’ conclusions in a statement to CNA on Friday. “This survey has little value, if any, because it is skewed by the preconceptions of the partisan, activist groups that commissioned the survey,” she said. (Unfortunately these results reflect the same numbers of every other post election survey I have read. They can't all be skewed.)

DeMelo also pointed out that “Archbishop Chaput has already said that groups like ‘Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn’.” (It could also be that these same Catholics will save more unborn by their social activism in one year, than in the previous thirty years of legal activism--and isn't that what it's all about, saving lives?)

*************************************************************

The blind still refuse to see the changed reality. That's a shame, because instead of pulling together on really trying a new approach to abortion, the vast majority of laity will be at odds with the hierarchy.

The country is in a recession. Every dime people can still spare on the abortion issue should go to preventing abortion not legal wrangling. Maybe it's time to put money where saving lives really happens.

Here's an update on yesterday's story. and a correction. Saxby Chambliss is running in Georgia and not South Carolina. That's what I get for not drinking enough coffee before I start writing.

When Personal History Collides With Current Reality

I thought I was being a little tongue in cheek when I wrote that the bishops were probably spending time on issuing self excommunication guidelines for those of us who voted for Obama, also known as the 'party of death.' Maybe it wasn't a joke:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil." ( I surely hope our true believers can separate the man Obama, from the notion of intrinsic evil. I'm not sure that's going to be easy to do given the McCain campaign's purposeful attempt to confuse Obama with every other form of evil.)

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein. (Do I detect an attempt to reinforce the notion that Barack Obama, the man, is evil?)

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

(There we are! Self excommunication! The winds of Baltimore are howling in South Carolina. Oh, wait a minute. Isn't this the same state which is about to have a senate runoff race? Will voting for Saxby Chambliss keep one on the good side of Jesus?)

"It was not an attempt to make a partisan point," Newman said in a telephone interview Thursday. "In fact, in this election, for the sake of argument, if the Republican candidate had been pro-abortion, and the Democratic candidate had been pro-life, everything that I wrote would have been exactly the same." (Fr Newman, if you were going to be truly consistent and non partisan, you should have sent Republican voters to the sin bin as well. After all, McCain is a supporter of another 'intrinsic' evil, stem cell research. Non partisan consistency would require you to condemn all Catholic Americans who voted for either major party because both parties supported some form of intrinsic evil. Not to mention that some of us think the methods used by Republicans in the campaign bordered on intrinsically evil.)

****************************************************************

That nasty cynical part of me, which I can only control by slamming my head on my desk, thinks this sermon might just be another electioneering attempt by a Roman Catholic cleric. Saxby Chambliss, that paragon of Republican class, is in a runoff race for his senate seat. Losing it would give the 'party of death' one more seat in their march to that filibuster proof number of 60 seats.

McCain was in South Carolina yesterday, campaigning for Saxby Chambliss. Saxby makes a lot of senators cringe, given the tactics he used to defeat Max Cleland in 2002. In fact, McCain had this to say about those tactics: "I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible."

Correction: McCain used to think it was reprehensible to call into question the patriotism of a man who lost three limbs on a battle field in Viet Nam. Six years later he seems to think backing the same reprehensible senator is OK. I guess I know why I now find McCain's integrity quotient hovering slightly above zero.

The truth is, that's about where I find the integrity quotient of our bishops and priests like Fr. Newman. When one party is defined as the 'party of death' and the other the 'party of life' over one issue, the repeal of one law, this is blatant partisanship, and it's beyond myopic.

I honestly never expected to see the day in the United States, where my church would send me to hell for voting my conscience. That this threat is even uttered, this threat of hell, is very indicative of the level at which our teaching authority is functioning. They are 'teaching' to the education level of 5th graders, just as if they are the authority figures on some big playground attached to some mythical parochial school. This isn't surprising given that most of them probably did learn their attitudes toward Catholicism in parochial schools with authoritarian figures in religious clothing ruling the playgrounds. But the Church isn't a playground and it's laity are no longer in 5th grade. It's time for a reality check. Past time.

How Out Of Touch Are Our Bishops

I just finished reading the USCCB statement on Obama, politics and abortion. Once again our bishops come across as people who are entirely convinced there is no other political issue in America than abortion. They raise the spectre of Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act into law, and they do it very forcefully. The reality is, FOCA has never made it out of committee and probably never will. Obama will never sign a law that can't get out of committee because he can't. It's that simple.

I'm not sure I get what the bishops are trying to do with this focus on FOCA. It's not like this bogeyman wasn't brought up endlessly in election campaigning. It didn't have the desired effect then, so why keep bringing it up? Instead of rehashing ineffective arguments, maybe they should take a good look at the Catholic electorate and their opinions on family planning. Here are some they could check out:

In a poll commissioned by Planned Parenthood last year, Catholic voters were asked to name their largest concerns around the issues of abortion and family planning.

The number-one response was that there are "too many unwanted children in America whose parents can't take care of them."

Second, they said government was too quick to interfere with people's personal lives and private decisions.

And third, government was not doing enough to provide education and resources to help people make responsible decisions about sexual behavior and pregnancy..

In fact, Catholic voters are more likely to support comprehensive sex education in schools (78 percent) than the general public (76 percent). And 86 percent of Catholics favor launching a major effort to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by both increasing the availability of contraception for low-income women and by providing teens with comprehensive sex education.

Put simply, Catholic voters, just like the rest of America, want government to focus on solving problems for American families, such as increasing access to affordable health care and helping children stay healthy and safe and not become parents before they are ready.

First off I understand the poll was issued by Planned Parenthood and I have some questions about how the questions were worded and what options were given. On the other hand, Catholic voting in this election fell in line with these sentiments.

Obama promises to deliver on all of them. The 86 percent is fully in line with the numbers of Catholics who admit to using birth control. Using birth control lowers the rate of abortion, unless, like our Catholic bishops, you insist on seeing some forms of oral contraceptives as abortifacients. For that matter the whole process of pregnancy is an abortifacient in that 25-30% of pregnancies spontaneously abort. Perhaps the solution should be to ban pregnancy.

Then I look at the anti gay marriage initiatives which our bishops put a lot of time, effort, and money into, and I wonder if they really read them. The initiative in Arkansas is a direct attack on all families, not just gay families. In a real sense this initiative mandates marriage in order to adopt or provide foster care for children. In my own circle of acquaintances there are at least four straight grandparents who could not adopt their grandchildren because they are not living in an appropriate marriage situation. They are not at all pleased with this initiative.

If I were to engage in the 'what if'' worse case scenario fear mongering Cardinal George has done with FOCA, I could go on and mention the very real possibility that this Arkansas initiative could be interpreted to mean adopted children can be taken away from their parents unless they marry like good Christians. Take that grandma. Take that grandpa. Who cares about your kids, it's the principle of keeping those gays in their places which is at stake here.

Sometimes I wonder if the bishops actually care about real kids, not the hypothetical unborn kids, but real kids. The kind of kids who come from single homes, the gay kids born to good Catholic families, the kids who wind up on the street, the kids born to teen age mothers, the kids born from gay parents who got into straight marriages and couldn't make it work. Real kids.

Maybe they're just too busy. I mean they have all those real excommunications to work on now and probably new guidelines for determining which Catholic politicians will be denied communion, and new guidelines about self excommunication for all those Catholics who voted for the 'party of death', and new guidelines about excommunicating women priests and their supporters. With all that on their plate, maybe they can be forgiven for dragging on with old losing strategies. They can't have much time to think up any new ones.

Excommunication For Fr. Bourgeois

I can't say I'm surprised that Maryknoll priest Fr. Roy Bourgeios is facing excommunication for not recanting his position on women priests. I've written about Fr. Bourgeios previously in context of both his and Fr. Marek Bozek's pending excommunications. Below is the letter that Fr. Bourgeios wrote to the CDF in response to their informing him of his potential excommunication.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Roy Bourgeois,

M.M.PO Box 3330,

Columbus, GA 31903

November 7, 2008

TO THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, THE VATICAN

I was very saddened by your letter dated October 21, 2008, giving me 30 days to recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church, or I will be excommunicated.

I have been a Catholic priest for 36 years and have a deep love for my Church and ministry.
When I was a young man in the military, I felt God was calling me to the priesthood. I entered Maryknoll and was ordained in 1972.

Over the years I have met a number of women in our Church who, like me, feel called by God to the priesthood. You, our Church leaders at the Vatican, tell us that women cannot be ordained.
With all due respect, I believe our Catholic Church’s teaching on this issue is wrong and does not stand up to scrutiny. A 1976 report by the Pontifical Biblical Commission supports the research of Scripture scholars, canon lawyers and many faithful Catholics who have studied and pondered the Scriptures and have concluded that there is no justification in the Bible for excluding women from the priesthood.

As people of faith, we profess that the invitation to the ministry of priesthood comes from God. We profess that God is the Source of life and created men and women of equal stature and dignity. The current Catholic Church doctrine on the ordination of women implies our loving and all-powerful God, Creator of heaven and earth, somehow cannot empower a woman to be a priest.

Women in our Church are telling us that God is calling them to the priesthood. Who are we, as men, to say to women, “Our call is valid, but yours is not.” Who are we to tamper with God’s call?

Sexism, like racism, is a sin. And no matter how hard or how long we may try to justify discrimination, in the end, it is always immoral.

Hundreds of Catholic churches in the U.S. are closing because of a shortage of priests. Yet there are hundreds of committed and prophetic women telling us that God is calling them to serve our Church as priests.

If we are to have a vibrant, healthy Church rooted in the teachings of our Savior, we need the faith, wisdom, experience, compassion and courage of women in the priesthood.

Conscience is very sacred. Conscience gives us a sense of right and wrong and urges us to do the right thing. Conscience is what compelled Franz Jagerstatter, a humble Austrian farmer, husband and father of four young children, to refuse to join Hitler’s army, which led to his execution. Conscience is what compelled Rosa Parks to say she could no longer sit in the back of the bus.

Conscience is what compels women in our Church to say they cannot be silent and deny their call from God to the priesthood. Conscience is what compelled my dear mother and father, now 95, to always strive to do the right things as faithful Catholics raising four children. And after much prayer, reflection and discernment, it is my conscience that compels me to do the right thing. I cannot recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church.

Working and struggling for peace and justice are an integral part of our faith. For this reason, I speak out against the war in Iraq. And for the last eighteen years, I have been speaking out against the atrocities and suffering caused by the School of the Americas (SOA). Eight years ago, while in Rome for a conference on peace and justice, I was invited to speak about the SOA on Vatican Radio.

During the interview, I stated that I could not address the injustice of the SOA and remain silent about injustice in my Church. I ended the interview by saying, “There will never be justice in the Catholic Church until women can be ordained.” I remain committed to this belief today.

Having an all male clergy implies that men are worthy to be Catholic priests, but women are not.
According to USA TODAY (Feb. 28, 2008) in the United States alone, nearly 5,000 Catholic priests have sexually abused more than 12,000 children. Many bishops, aware of the abuse, remained silent. These priests and bishops were not excommunicated. Yet the women in our Church who are called by God and are ordained to serve God’s people, and the priests and bishops who support them, are excommunicated.

Silence is the voice of complicity. Therefore, I call on all Catholics, fellow priests, bishops, Pope Benedict XVI and all Church leaders at the Vatican, to speak loudly on this grave injustice of excluding women from the priesthood.

Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador was assassinated because of his defense of the oppressed. He said, “Let those who have a voice, speak out for the voiceless.”
Our loving God has given us a voice. Let us speak clearly and boldly and walk in solidarity as Jesus would, with the women in our Church who are being called by God to the priesthood.

In Peace and Justice,

Rev. Roy Bourgeois

******************************************************************

I'm pretty saddened by the CDF's letter as well, but not surprised. They are consistent. I don't get why they choose to be consistent on the issues they choose, but they are consistent. They consistently protect pedophile priests and consistently excommunicate those priests who speak for the inclusion of women in the priesthood, as just one example. I could go on, but it's too depressing.

I reread the piece I wrote for the original posting on Fr. Bourgeios and in it I spoke at length about male fear and how debilitating it is for the Church. I also spoke about how the over all energy of the planet is changing. That it's becoming less 'masculine' and more 'feminine'.

It may be that this past election is part of the proof of that change. It may also be that the majority of Catholics who chose to vote for Obama rather than toe to the abortion line indicates that Catholic laity are coming to the conclusion that it's better to nurture pregnant women than limit their reproductive choices.

This is in reality a more feminine response. Women tend to get to the heart of the problem, which is always the person, rather than stay out on the legal peripheries. Jesus dealt with people too, and didn't seem to think much of his male contemporaries who dealt with problems strictly from the legal peripheries.

If one looks at the statistics of those engaged in the 'people' or 'helping' professions, one finds women and gays are way over represented relative to their numbers in the population. The exception is Christian ministry, in which the numbers are reversed. It used to be gay men had a home in Catholicism, but that's coming to a screeching halt. That would leave the Roman Catholic priesthood a statistical aberration in the helping professions--100% straight and a 100% male.

I like that word aberration. It's got more than one meaning.

Endorsing An Enlightened Catholic Politican

Tom Perriello is our newest Democratic representative. His defeat of Virgil Goode for the 5th district in Virginia, is in many ways the most stunning of all the democratic wins--so far. He is a progressive and a committed Catholic and an all around good guy with a distinctly different attitude towards politics. The following article is from Slate:

The 5th District spreads from Charlottesville (the Tribeca of the South) down to the border of North Carolina. It's been Virgil Goode country since 1997—Goode being the congressman whose re-election campaign was predicated on insulting immigrants, Muslims, the mentally ill, homosexuals, teenagers, Northerners, and, eventually, pretty much everyone, in as many different ways as possible. In August, polls showed Perriello running 30 points behind Goode, who, right up until the night before the election, refused to learn how to pronounce his opponent's name.

"Part of what I've loved about this race," Perriello (it's Perry-ello) says this morning, "was that they just weren't able to make it about 'Charlottesville liberal outsiders.' And that's because we didn't take the bait." So when Goode ran an ad accusing an ominously darkened and anachronistically bearded Perriello of being a "liberal New York lawyer," Perriello hit back with a cheeky spot shot in front of a New York backdrop. "Even if I had been a New York lawyer," he tells me, "if I had had a better plan for the economy, I should have won because voters needed leadership and competence right now. Not fear."

A graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, Perriello worked to end atrocities in Liberia as well as with child soldiers, amputees, and local pro-democracy groups in Sierra Leone. He became special adviser for the international prosecutor during the showdown that forced Liberian dictator Charles Taylor from power. His work as a security analyst has taken him to Afghanistan and Darfur.

Perriello has also been a part of a groundswell of young progressives whose religious faith motivates them to seek social change through public service. One of the most startling aspects of his 2008 campaign was his pledge to tithe 10 percent of his campaign volunteers' time to local charities. Time they could have spent stuffing mailers and phone-banking went to building houses for the poor.

"Ours is a community-service generation," he says. "Our background is in not-for-profits, the netroots, and problem solving. We understand that the big divisions in America are not even about politics; it's a whole new way of thinking that throws traditional politics out the window."

Perriello says he was warned not to talk about Darfur in the rural South but did it anyhow. When the Goode campaign got snarled up in controversy over a gay art film last month, Perriello didn't go there. Why not? "That's old politics. People are smarter and better than the media thinks," he says, promptly apologizing for insulting my profession. "We didn't run ads with Darth Vader voices, and my favorite conversations have been with people who told me they voted for Virgil but still loved the way I campaigned."

Perriello doesn't doubt that the economic crash benefitted him. "That doctored picture of me [in the Goode ad] wasn't half as scary as losing 10,000 jobs in the 5th District," he says. "Hey, ask him about the NASCAR ad," says a coffee shop patron, who ambles up to congratulate him. "That was the turning point, wasn't it?" Perriello describes the ad tweaking Goode for his extensive corporate sponsorships.

"People want to be called to serve," he says. "If after 9/11, President Bush had asked us to work toward energy independence or asked college students to learn Farsi so they could assist State or CIA on the ground, we would have done it. ... But our leaders from both parties were never willing to ask us to do anything. There was no call to service."

With three minutes to go before the announcement of his new gig, it sounds like job security isn't much of a concern to him. Hanging on to a congressional seat is not his first priority. Not at the expense of doing the right thing. Perriello muses that this new generation of leaders seems to feel that if they don't get re-elected, it would be OK. "I love what I did in Afghanistan and Darfur. If I have to go back to that, it wouldn't be the worst thing." That's why he so admires Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. "I think he's a great politician because he's a bad politician in the conventional sense. He says what he believes without any care for polls or messaging. It's about right and wrong."

It's now one minute until the race can be called for Perriello, and the wait for Goode to request a recount—or not—can formally begin. Perriello is racing off to Martinsville, Va., to make the announcement. "Possibly tonight will be my first sleep night," he says, having endured a brutal 72 hours since Election Day. The Perriello ad that had everyone in Virginia chuckling this fall was this one, in which it became clear that even some of his most ardent admirers had no idea how to say his name. As the race over the 5th District winds down today, Perriello's new blend of intelligence, deep faith, humility, humor, and optimism tells me it's a name you may want to remember.

**********************************************************************

Assuming the links work in the above article it really is worth the time to check out his ads. The NASCAR ad is priceless, but then so is the one with ardent supporters who can't pronounce his name.

You would think our hierarchy would be ecstatic that a committed Catholic service oriented politician had beaten a racist homophobic bigoted good ole boy. Well, you'd be wrong. Tom Perriello is also pro choice in that he favors attacking abortion from the social support angle rather than the repeal of Roe v Wade and he is a co founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Here are some comments from some of out Bishops:

Pro-legal abortion Catholic wins hotly contested congressional seat

Roanoke, VA, Nov 7, 2008 / 06:03 pm (CNA).-

Thomas Perriello, a Catholic who is in favor of legalized abortion has defeated Republican incumbent Virgil Goode by 648 votes in the race for Viriginia’s Fifth Congressional District.
On Friday afternoon, the Perriello campaign declared victory, even though Goode will likely demand a recount if the lead remains less than 0.5% of the vote.

Despite claiming to be an ardent Catholic, Perriello ran on an agenda that treats abortion as one of several equally important social issues to be addressed instead of the paramount human rights and social justice violation that Catholics must fight to end.

This theory has been frequently criticized by Catholic leaders, including Archbishop Charles Chaput, who recently described the organization Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good—co-founded by Perriello—as having “done a disservice to the Church.”

Chaput charges that these groups have confused “the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress prolifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.” (Archbishop Chaput seems to be saying that the legal letter of the law is therefor more important than the spirit of approaching abortion in a compassionate and service oriented way. I thought Jesus taught this whole thing the other way around.)

“All of them seek to ‘get beyond’ abortion, or economically reduce the number of abortions, or create a better society where abortion won’t be necessary. All of them involve a misuse of the seamless garment imagery in Catholic social teaching. And all of them, in practice, seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues,” Chaput said at a dinner for the women’s group ENDOW in mid-October. (Better that than misusing the teachings of Jesus.)

The Catholic Diocese of Scranton (Bishop Martino) has also warned about Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, saying that the group tells people “that a Catholic may vote for a candidate who supports abortion . . . (but) they are neither united nor allied with authentic Catholic teaching. Catholics and non-Catholics alike should not be misled by them.” (Bishop Martino actually means that they are not aligned with his understandings of Church teaching, as even the teachings of the entire body of US Catholic Bishops don't hold sway in his diocese. In his diocese he is the church.)

Ignatius Reilly, from “rightpundits.com,” says that “at this early stage in his career, his resume (Ivy League education, community organizing skills, and liberal nonprofit causes) is remarkably similar to President-elect Barack Obama. We should keep an eye on Perriello to see how he moves forward from this stunning upset. Meet our newest liberal member of Congress.” (OOOOHH, Just like Barack Obama! Scary stuff, all this working with the poor and disadvantaged. OOOOHH an Ivy League education! Scary stuff all this working to get a good degree and become literate.)

Perriello, the youngest of four children and single, received his B.A. from Yale University in 1996.

Besides “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good,” he helped to launch FaithfulAmerica.org, an organization described as “dedicated to bringing together faith-based communities to support liberal causes like a higher minimum wage, environmentalism, and peace in Iraq.”
He is also the co-founder of Avaaz.org, an international on-line community “dedicated to building a liberal global response to problems without borders such as climate change.”

*********************************************************************

Obviously Congressman Perriello is not a REAL AMERICAN CATHOLIC, no matter how many times a week he may go to Mass. That there are REAL CATHOLIC BISHOPS who would vastly have preferred his opponent won, (he who insulted every group he possibly could) is mind boggling.

Is changing a legal definition so important that we should allow it to trump the spirit of human decency? Is this a path Roman Catholics really want to follow? Or should we instead trust that the spirit of human decency will transcend the legal definition? Apparently Americans think it's time to try the path of human decency. Maybe that's the enlightened thing to do.

Tom Perriello is one Catholic politician I will keep an eye on, because he seems to be one Catholic politician worth keeping an eye on.