The Mysterious Ways Of The Holy Spirit

New York City's Speaker of the Council Christine Quinn with Mayor Bloomberg and members of the band U2 during a ceremony to name a street after the band. Speaker Quinn, a democrat and out lesbian, has a cause in common with Bill Donahue, and no it's not U2.

There are times when irony and/or hubris are just so blatant one has to smile. Following are two such examples. One involves Deal Hudson in a major case of the pot calling the kettle black, and one involves Bill Donahue in a case of Enemy Mine. (Enemy Mine is one of my all time favorite movies.)

Deal Hudson warns of future ‘anti-Catholic storm’ in U.S.

Washington D.C., Jun 10, 2010 / 03:04 am (CNA).-

An “anti-Catholic storm” is looming in the United States, Deal Hudson has claimed, because of the Church’s stance against “postmodern ideologies” and because well-funded Catholic supporters of President Obama provide cover for Catholic politicians who dissent from Catholic teaching. (Deal, you should be flattered. Your entire successful political strategy for co opting the Catholic right is being copied by the left. Maybe too successfully for your tastes.)

Hudson, who has served as an advisor to Republican leaders on Catholic issues, wrote at InsideCatholic.com that a “relentless barrage” of reporting in the mainstream media is intended to force changes demanded by dissenting Catholic groups. (It's a shame. That used to be space the right wing religious faction mostly controlled.)

Revelations of clerical sexual abuse in Europe have provided “Catholic bashers” the opportunity to attack Church teachings about abortion and same-sex “marriage,” he added. A call to arrest Pope Benedict XVI in the United Kingdom should have been regarded as “a crank call” but has led to speculation about whether the papal trip to Britain should be canceled. (There we go, abortionsamesexmarriage.)

While Iraqi Christians are being expelled from their homelands, this only receives “occasional mention” in the New York Times, whose reporters “dig through Vatican documents” hoping to link the Pope with clerical sexual abuse, Hudson objected.

“The use of courts and commissions to harass and threaten Catholics and other Christians has already been auditioned in Canada. And the expansion of hate-speech laws signed by President Barack Obama last October sets the stage for similar tussles here when a minister, priest, or voluble layperson too heatedly denounces homosexual sex.” (Imagine the tussles if ministers denounced illicit heterosexual sex as the intrinsically evil expression of objectively disordered heterosexuals. If that were the case, Deal Hudson, for instance, might appreciate those hate-speech laws.)

While the Church is not the only institution insisting on universal moral standards, it is the largest and therefore stands in the way of “postmodern ideologies achieving complete dominance in the West.”

Those who hold the “postmodern” belief that all truth is power “don't hesitate to use the power of the media, government, and the courts to attack any institution thwarting their influence.” (Maybe they learned that from observing the activities of the abortionsamesexmarriage crowd.)

According to Hudson, political donors have combined resources with labor unions, which once had a “vital” relationship with the Church, to support “faux Catholic groups that provide cover for politicians who don’t vote Catholic.” He suggested that it is these groups’ fault that the majority of candidates who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage are Republican. (Hmmm, and here I thought the Republican party purposely sought out cultural conservatives because they were the party of cultural values. I guess the truth is they were only the default party.)

“The coming anti-Catholic storm will be linked, sadly, to the reelection campaign of President Barack Obama,” he predicted. Though the president is out of favor at the moment, his supporters will “quickly recover” enthusiasm in the face of a Republican opponent.

“There will be a furious and well-funded effort by Catholic Obama supporters to keep Obama in office. By 2010, the storm will be felt throughout the Church, and those who blithely claim that the Church and politics are not connected will be as helpless as a fallen leaf caught in a tornado,” Hudson’s commentary concluded. (This is too funny. I hope the bishops in his pocket read this one as they are the one's who keep saying the Church and politics are not connected.---as if anyone or anything connected to Deal Hudson isn't all about politics.)

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

The above comments from Deal Hudson are worthy of Keith Olberman's "Worst person in the world" designation. Deal must truly believe his ardent followers are blind and deaf or have poor memories. Either that or he is really scared the Republicans truly are about to self destruct and he and his fellow manipulators have been out manipulated by the Tea party faction---the faction he helped create. Perhaps Deal should meditate on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

In the meantime his fellow Catholic neocon, Bill Donahue has had enough sense to stir up ardor without seemingly resorting to politics. He and his Catholic League cronies have created the Empire State Building vs Mother Theresa controversy. What's funny to me about the current status of this 'dispute' is one of their most vocal and politically placed proponents is the Democratic Speaker of the NY City Council, Christine Quinn. Who just also happens to be an out lesbian. Hmm, what to do, what to do. I'm guessing Bill will be in a moral quandary all the way to the bank.

I do think it's telling that even Bill Donahue is politically astute enough to create some other controversy rather than to continuously recycle abortionsamesexmarriage. The general trend in American Catholicism is moving beyond abortionsamesexmarriage. The inherent conflicts between absolute adherence to religious dogma and Christ like pastoral compassion are becoming very evident. I like to think it really is the rare Catholic who prefers slavish obedience to rules over humane compassion. Christ certainly modeled in His life that humane compassion trumped slavish obedience to rules.

Maybe this is the lesson that clerics like Olmstead and Burke, and political operatives like Deal Hudson are teaching American Catholics. As far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, it doesn't matter what you think you are teaching. What matters is the lesson your audience gets. So I say keep it up boys. You really are doing the work of the Holy Spirit.

Using Patients And Catholic Hospitals For The New Evangelization

In the Catholic Health Care System the ethical decisions of the beginning of life and the end of life are the Bishops, not yours, not an ethics committee.

Reproductive Crisis? Do Not Proceed to a Catholic Hospital

Angela Bonavoglia - Hffington Post - 6/702010

So many things are galling about Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted's excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride, a member of St. Joseph's Hospital Ethics Committee, for approving the termination of the life-threatening, 11-week-old pregnancy of a 27-year-old mother of four that it's hard to know where to begin. But surely one of the most urgent issues this case raises is the danger faced by any woman who sets foot in a Catholic hospital in the midst of a reproductive crisis.

Just to recap, late last year a critically-ill pregnant woman was brought into St. Joseph's suffering from pulmonary hypertension. Her pregnancy posed such a burden to her heart and lungs that carrying it to term almost certainly would have killed her. Sister Margaret approved the decision of the physicians, the patient, and her family to terminate the pregnancy.
When Olmsted learned that this procedure had taken place, all hell broke loose. Without a scintilla of empathy or sympathy for the dying woman and her family, Olmsted said: "The direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances." Since the abortion was not "indirect" (i.e., the byproduct of another procedure necessary to save the mother's life, such as removing a cancerous uterus), the correct moral action, according to Olmsted and the Phoenix diocese, was this: Let the mother and the fetus die.

We do not know how often such decisions come up in Catholic hospitals. Nor do we know if any go the other way -- that is, the beliefs of the Olmsteds of the Church prevail and discharge is followed by a funeral. What we do know is that Catholic hospitals, charged with abiding by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, pose a real danger to women's health and lives.

"One of the most troubling areas is in the treatment of reproductive emergencies," says Lois Uttley, director of the MergerWatch Project, which works with communities facing Catholic-non-Catholic hospital mergers to preserve reproductive health services. A miscarriage in progress is an example of the emergencies Uttley is referencing. When it happens so early in pregnancy that the fetus cannot survive, the pregnancy has to be terminated quickly. Unfortunately, explains Uttley, in some Catholic hospitals, this isn't what happens; the fetal heartbeat has to stop before doctors can do the procedure.

The disturbing findings of a report published in late 2008 in the American Journal of Public Health bear this out. The researchers set out to explore the impact of residency abortion training on the medical practices of a sample of ob-gyns. In the course of conducting their interviews, they got an unexpected glimpse into the conflicts posed by the Directives for physicians attempting to manage miscarriages.

One doctor working at a Catholic hospital reported receiving a woman whose pregnancy "was very early, 14 weeks," with "a hand sticking out of the cervix," indicating that "clearly the membranes had ruptured and she was trying to deliver." Because there was still a fetal heart rate, the ethics committee refused to approve the abortion; they sent the woman to another institution 90 miles away. (This scenario could easily happen in large Western States where Catholic hospitals are frequently the only source of medical care in smaller communities and the next hospital really is ninety miles away. It's one thing when this happens because a hospital doesn't have the expertise or equipment, but refusing an emergency procedure any doctor could do is a different story.)

Another doctor, at an academic medical center, reported that a Catholic-owned hospital called to ask her to accept a pregnant miscarrying patient who was already septic and hemorrhaging. She urged them to do the uterine aspiration themselves, but they refused. That doctor accepted the patient and did the procedure, but saw this case as a form of "patient dumping." She reported the hospital for an Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act violation. (As well she should have.)

Obviously and fundamentally, the question is this: Why does a woman lying at death's door have to worry about whether a procedure that will save her life violates the so-called "ethical" Directives of a religion she doesn't belong to or long ago abandoned, Directives that treat women as disposable delivery systems for new humans, while flying in the face of standard, approved medical practice?

One answer is that the original conscience clauses, approved by Congress after the passage of Roe v. Wade, have been bastardized. They now apply not only to people -- physicians and nurses who oppose abortion -- but to institutions whose "consciences" trump not only the patient's own conscience, but also violate her right to informed consent and to medically indicated care. (If Catholic hospitals can't in their 'conscience' provide basic emergency care they should close their doors to all but like minded Catholics.)

We need more research into how often and in what ways physicians compromise patient care as a result of the Catholic Directives. But for now, the experience of the nameless, faceless, pregnant woman who Bishop Olmstead would have sentenced to death (rather than having her live "the rest of her existence having had her child killed," which is how the diocesan statement put it) is a cautionary tale.

Unless you are a deeply devoted Catholic and want your local bishop to make your most intimate medical decisions, when the ambulance pulls up, be ready. Have your own ethical and moral directive saying: Do Not Take Me to a Catholic Hospital. If for no other reason than this: there may not be a Sister Margaret in the house. (This decision coupled with the recent Directive 58 on palliative care, which also ignores patient desires irrespective of religious affiliation, is more than reason enough to carry such a card.)

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

The medical ramifications for Catholic hospitals and their patients has actually been a bigger deal to me than the excommunication of Sr. McBride. Decisions made which place the conscience of an institution over the direct wishes of patients may not matter much on the East Coast but it is a big deal in larger states with few communities that are big enough to support multiple hospitals. In many cases the first medical hospital opened under the auspices of a Catholic missionary group and it is still the only hospital. The idea of a ninety mile transport of a critical patient under these guidelines is all too real.

Out in the West we all come to terms with the fact these situations may very well happen to us and that we may in fact die in transit. But I don't think too many of us women are prepared to die in transit because the local Catholic hospital places fidelity to the dictates of the USCCB over the reality of their ability to save our lives.

I still maintain that this was a dictatorial political move on the part of Olmstead and had nothing to do with pastoral concern. Why else fail to mention that Canon Law also calls for the excommunication of the parents who must have made the final decision? Why single out McBride if this was not strictly for the purposes of reigning in Catholic hospitals, to force them to comply to USCCB directives. I also wouldn't be surprised if Olmstead and his pro life absolutist saw this situation as another potential legal battle in restricting access to legal abortion.

In general the abortion debate centers around the availability of legal abortion as a means of birth control. The debate rarely gets into the 'life of the mother' end of things. This is the loophole that absolutists see as the beginning of the slope that leads to full legalization. If a legal case can be made for Catholic hospitals which closes this loophole, it's another legal victory in the war to make abortion legal in the abstract but impossible in reality. This is exactly the kind of case which pro lifer's would love to take before this current Supreme Court. It would hardly shock me if this Court decided an institutional conscience trumped a woman's right to life.

The USCCB and the Vatican have been using the US Catholic medical system to leverage the American political system. It started first in the Terry Schiavo case and resulted in Directive 58, which was based on the personal opinion of John Paul II. Olmstead has taken this one step further in Phoenix. Not surprising that a bishop would assert his canonical authority over Catholic hospitals shortly after the Catholic Health Association took the opposite position from the USCCB on health care reform and it's supposed promotion of abortion. The CHA stand undercut this use of the Catholic health care system for the USCCB's 'evangelization' program.

This is a story that won't die because it shouldn't die. There are more agendas at work here than just whether or not Sr McBride deserved excommunication. In the meantime what's the life of one poor mother or the religious life of one poor sister when it comes to jamming USCCB ethical directives on the rest of us. So what if we die, or have to live on tubes until it bankrupts our family, it's for the good of our souls. In the meantime I have a directive which precludes Catholic hospitals for end of life care--for the good of my life.

According to some elements of the right the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are galloping to a neighborhood near you. According to some elements of the left, BP's oil slick will beat them to it.

The following is an excerpt from an article by Chris Hedges on the rise of Christian fascism. It has generated as much comment for his critique of the left as it has his critique of the right. I happen to think it's a pretty good synopsis of some of the more disturbing trends in the Christian right. I also think his take on the left is legitimate and deserves discussion.

The rise of this Christian fascism, a rise we ignore at our peril, is being fueled by an ineffectual and bankrupt liberal class that has proved to be unable to roll back surging unemployment, protect us from speculators on Wall Street, or save our dispossessed working class from foreclosures, bankruptcies and misery. The liberal class has proved useless in combating the largest environmental disaster in our history, ending costly and futile imperial wars or stopping the corporate plundering of the nation. And the gutlessness of the liberal class has left it, and the values it represents, reviled and hated. (The underlying assumption here is that those who called themselves liberal and promoted liberal causes in order to get elected were actually liberal. That's not an assumption I'm prepared to accept.)

The Democrats have refused to repeal the gross violations of international and domestic law codified by the Bush administration. This means that Christian fascists who achieve power will have the “legal” tools to spy on, arrest, deny habeas corpus to, and torture or assassinate American citizens—as does the Obama administration. (It could be the Obama administration doesn't want to give up these tools. Or if they do give them up it won't be until the very end of the Obama administration.)

Those who remain in a reality-based world often dismiss these malcontents as buffoons and simpletons. They do not take seriously those, like Beck, who pander to the primitive yearnings for vengeance, new glory and moral renewal. Critics of the movement continue to employ the tools of reason, research and fact to challenge the absurdities propagated by creationists who think they will float naked into the heavens when Jesus returns to Earth. The magical thinking, the flagrant distortion in interpreting the Bible, the contradictions that abound within the movement’s belief system and the laughable pseudoscience, however, are impervious to reason. (Reason only operates when emotion is in a more or less neutral state. That's why people who may have totally differing political views can and do dialogue in non threatening settings like bars or around office water coolers. This won't happen in the middle of Tea Party rally and that is exactly why orators focus on arguments which appeal to emotional centers.)

We cannot convince those in the movement to wake up. It is we who are asleep. (Or in denial.)
Those who embrace this movement see life as an epic battle against forces of evil and Satanism. The world is black and white. They need to feel, even if they are not, that they are victims surrounded by dark and sinister groups bent on their destruction. They need to believe they know the will of God and can fulfill it, especially through violence. They need to sanctify their rage, a rage that lies at the core of the ideology. (It doesn't help that this ideology of fear is what many of us who call ourselves Christian or Catholic were raised in, and is why fear works for the left as well as the right.)

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

I actually disagree with the last statement. It doesn't seem to me that the dominionist right has any need to sanctify their rage because the process it's based on and the theology it espouses assumes it's inherent sanctity. The need is to force culture to conform, not necessarily to the current expression of the ideology, but to enslavement in the paradigm of fear and control. Religious expression of this paradigm has historically been the most potent cultural institution through which to insure the propagation of the fear paradigm. I don't find it the least bit surprising that the theology of Christianity began to change enormously after it had been assimilated by the Roman governing structure. It became less a philosophy of living life in relationship and more a theology of our sin and it's sole redemptive power to counter that sin.

That's really not any different than what Glen Beck espouses when he maintains his politics offer the sole redemptive power for the sins of the rest of us and our immoral culture. Pope Benedict is continuing the same line in a faith/theological sense. Hitchens offers atheism as the redemptive solution to the irrational emotional fear of the theists. Current psychology/psychiatry is attempting to transcend the boundaries of specific cultural factors by discovering the neurophysiological mechanisms, and then targeting those mechanisms with redemptive drugs.

Fear it seems is a good thing for the prevailing power structures if it can be used, channeled, and controlled. But a very bad thing if it can't be. And a very bad thing indeed, if it's choked down too much, or stoked up too much, and it explodes. A certain oil well comes to mind here.

Redemption is not about controlling fear or denying fear, it's about personally transcending fear. There are many legitimate ways to accomplish transcending one's personal fears. All of those ways all tend to start with the same realization. I am not alone in my fear. I may not have the same exact trigger for my fear my neighbor does, but we both share fear, and it sucks.

If we could just start there, admitting we all share fear, we might realize that sometimes we share the same fears. Once a burden is shared it becomes lighter. It becomes more manageable. It's not just easier to see a common solution, or hear someones wisdom, it's easier to imagine a brighter day. The truth is fear magnifies differences, needs to silence opposition, and kills imagination. Not too mention it's presence precludes our ability to manufacture any neural peptides which emotionally express it's opposite. That would be the many variations of love.

Any Christian theology which exploits fear is not participating in the redemptive action of Christ. It's essentially a religious enterprise designed to support the existing cultural status quo and it's power structures because it has chosen to survive not on the message of love of the Founder, but on the 'traditional' methods of power.

In order to insure it's own cultural survival the existing power structure will co opt any philosophy for it's own ends. I wrote a long time ago that if the Obama administration proved to be nothing more than the same thing in different stripes it would only fuel more division. That has come to pass. Partly because Obama brought it on with his own rhetoric and partly because other people decided to ramp up the fear factors swirling around Obama for their own gain. Can anyone say Saran Palin?

If progressives have made mistakes it's because of a kind of blind hope that anything was better than Bush and a belief that changing the rhetoric was enough to change the strategy of the power brokers behind the reality. It's not. Progressives need to follow through on changing the rules as well as the rhetoric and to elect public officials who intend to walk the talk.

The real players know it's not what a person says which counts. It's what a person can be paid to do. In this paradigm fear is much more useful than integrity or love. That's what has to to change. Honesty, integrity, and love are not solely the property of one side and neither is acting irrationally from fear. Maybe if we can at least admit that we can begin to find some real solutions for our collective problems.

Benedict's Shock Troops Sent To Ireland To War On Liberals, Not Heal Clerical Abuse

Undoubtedly Archbishop Dolan will get his coveted promotion to Cardinal now that he has agreed to be a member of the visitation team who will beat--I mean sermonize-- the Irish Catholic Church back into submission to Rome and it's theology of the priesthood.

New Vatican campaign to clamp down on 'liberal opinion'
By John Cooney - Irish Independent - Monday June 07, 2010

VATICAN investigators to Ireland appointed by Pope Benedict XVI are to clamp down on liberal secular opinion in an intensive drive to re-impose traditional respect for clergy, according to informed sources in the Catholic Church.

The nine-member team led by two cardinals will be instructed by the Vatican to restore a traditional sense of reverence among ordinary Catholics for their priests, the Irish Independent has learned.

Priests will be told not to question in public official church teaching on controversial issues such as the papal ban on birth control or the admission of divorced Catholics living with new partners to the sacraments -- especially Holy Communion.

Theologians will be expected to teach traditional doctrine by constantly preaching to lay Catholics of attendance at Mass and to return to the practice of regular confession, which has been largely abandoned by adults since the 1960s.

An emphasis will be placed on an evangelisation campaign to overcome the alienation of young people scandalised by the spate of sexual abuse of children and by later cover-ups of paedophile clerics by leaders of the institutional church. (This will be a trick and a half since Benedict is bound and determined to shove the whole problem back down our throats as the solution.)

A major thrust of the Vatican investigation will be to counteract materialistic and secularist attitudes, which Pope Benedict believes have led many Irish Catholics to ignore church disciplines and become lax in following devotional practices such as going on pilgrimages and doing penance.

Bishops and priests will be instructed to preach to their congregations the unchanging central message of Jesus Christ about love, healing and repentance. (As meted out by the magical celibate all powerful priesthood.)

While the restoration of church discipline and pious practices such as praying to Our Lady and the saints will be welcomed by regular church-goers, the Vatican investigation is likely to face a backlash from liberal Catholics who want more accountability and democracy in church decision-making. (The backlash will come from MATURE Catholics who may or may not be liberal and could very well be conservatives who understand religious authority without accountability is tyrany, not salvation.)

Visitation

Vatican officials are finalising the precise terms of the instructions for the investigators named last week by Pope Benedict, who initiated an 'Apostolic Visitation' last March in his pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland.

The investigators are clearing their diaries to visit Ireland's four principal archdioceses, the national seminaries and study centres run by religious orders in the autumn.

In the wake of the shocking Murphy report into clerical child abuse, the conservative Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, will examine the study courses conducted for trainee priests at the national seminaries in St Patrick's College, Maynooth, and the Pontifical Irish College in Rome.
At a meeting held in Maynooth last month, Archbishop Dolan told a gathering of priests "to return to basics" and to ground their ministry in "prayer, humility and a rediscovery of identity".

Archbishop Dolan's address, titled "God is the only treasure people desire to find in a priest", was the high point of the Irish church's celebration of The Year of the Priest, a campaign to encourage vocations to the priesthood.

The hardline address was enthusiastically endorsed by Cardinal Sean Brady, the Primate of All Ireland and Archbishop of Armagh.

This week, as part of the Vatican's rigorous restoration policy, a widely promoted rally will be staged in Rome to cap what Pope Benedict has called "The Year of the Priest".

Thousands of priests from across the world, including from Ireland, are expected to attend the showcase event which is planned as a major spectacle trumpeting the special status of the priesthood.

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

If this wasn't so incredibly sad it would be funny. This amounts to Benedict declaring a civil war with in the Irish Church itself. The shrink in me see this as one man acting out his own internal war through his external position. Unfortunately Benedict has the power to do this. If for no other reason than this one, the power structure in the Church has to change.

This visitation is not about the love, healing and repentance which would actually be healing. It's about blaming the laity for the sins of the father's. It's about demanding the laity bow down before the very clerical system which abused them and piously beg for more. This is truly pathological.

I have one last observation. It's no accident that Ireland has been chosen as the place to wage this war. Ireland has a history of tolerating an abusive hierarchy and an abusive Church for the good of their souls. Rome is betting Irish Catholics are willing to undergo another round of abuse for the sake of this 'marriage'. Somehow I think Rome has misread Ireland exactly the way an abusive spouse misreads the anger of the abused spouse. There is a limit. There is a time when the abused finally says no more, not ever again, I have had enough. I don't care what you say. I can no longer trust or believe anything you say because in the final analysis it's always and forever more all about you.

I think Ireland has reached this point with Rome. I think a lot of us are reaching this point with Rome. It's just too bad there is no mechanism in place through which Benedict can be sent off to enact the drama his own internal conflicts in the solitude of his own soul. Perhaps Irish Catholics can send him that message.

Shaikh Abdul Mohsin Al Abaican issued a fatwa which is not going over well with his faithful or fellow Islamic scholars. It does seem in the upper Islamic ranks, lock step thinking is not part of the brotherhood--unlike in Catholicism.

Sometimes it's good to get another perspective on religious fundamentalism and the solutions that mind set can generate. Keep in mind while reading this, that other Saudi clerics are having apoplexy over this fatwa. It would be really nice if some of our Catholic bishops would have a similar kind of apoplexy over pronouncements from some of their colleagues.

Saudi Clerics Advocate Adult Breast-Feeding
Dana Kennedy - AOLNews - 6/5/2010

Women in Saudi Arabia should give their breast milk to male colleagues and acquaintances in order to avoid breaking strict Islamic law forbidding mixing between the sexes, two powerful Saudi clerics have said. They are at odds, however, over precisely how the milk should be conveyed.

A fatwa issued recently about adult breast-feeding to establish "maternal relations" and preclude the possibility of sexual contact has resulted in a week's worth of newspaper headlines in Saudi Arabia. Some have found the debate so bizarre that they're calling for stricter regulations about how and when fatwas should be issued. Sheikh Al Obeikan, an adviser to the royal court and consultant to the Ministry of Justice, set off a firestorm of controversy recently when he said on TV that women who come into regular contact with men who aren't related to them ought to give them their breast milk so they will be considered relatives.

"The man should take the milk, but not directly from the breast of the woman," Al Obeikan said, according to Gulf News. "He should drink it and then becomes a relative of the family, a fact that allows him to come in contact with the women without breaking Islam's rules about mixing."

Obeikan said the fatwa applied to men who live in the same house or come into contact with women on a regular basis, except for drivers.

Al Obeikan, who made the statement after being asked on TV about a 2007 fatwa issued by an Egyptian scholar about adult breast-feeding, said that the breast milk ought to be pumped out and given to men in a glass. But his remarks were followed by an announcement by another high-profile sheik, Abi Ishaq Al Huwaini, who said that men should suckle the breast milk directly from a woman's breast. (Oh fer sure, why let a cup get in the way of a good thing.)

Shortly after the two sheiks weighed in on the matter, a bus driver in the country's Eastern Region reportedly told one of the female teachers whom he drives regularly that he wanted to suckle milk from her breast. The teacher has threaten to file a lawsuit against him. (The bus driver must not have read the fatwa because it doesn't apply to drivers. I'm sure there will be a clarification.)

The fatwa stems from the tenets of the strict Wahhabi version of Islam that governs modern Saudi Arabia and forbids women from mixing with men who are not relatives. They are also not allowed to vote, drive or even leave the country without the consent of a male "guardian."

Under Islamic law, women are encouraged to breast-feed their children until the age of 2. It is not uncommon for sisters, for example, to breast-feed their nephews so they and their daughters will not have to cover their faces in front of them later in life. The custom is called being a "breast milk sibling."

But under Islamic law, breast milk siblings have to be breastfed before the age of 2 in five "fulfilling" sessions. Islam prohibits sexual relations between a man and any woman who breastfed him in infancy. They are then allowed to be alone together when the man is an adult because he is not considered a potential mate.

"The whole issue just shows how clueless men are," blogger Eman Al Nafjan wrote on her website. "All this back and forth between sheiks and not one bothers to ask a woman if it's logical, let alone possible to breastfeed a grown man five fulfilling breast milk meals." (How does one breast feed if one is not producing milk? Oh well what are these little biological details when it comes to fulfilling God's Will.)

Moreover, the thought of a huge hairy face at a woman's breast does not evoke motherly or even brotherly feelings. It could go from the grotesque to the erotic but definitely not maternal."

Al Nafjan said many in the country were appalled by the fatwa."We have many important issues that need discussing," Al Nafjan told AOL News Friday. "It's ridiculous to spend time talking about adult breast-feeding." (But it's a nice strategy to avoid any discussion about the important things.)

Unlawful mixing between the sexes is taken very seriously in Saudi Arabia. In March 2009, a 75-year-old Syrian widow, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, living in the city of Al-Chamil, was given 40 lashes and sentenced to six months in prison after the religious police learned that two men who were not related to her were in her house, delivering bread to her. One of the two men found in her house, Fahd, told the police that Sawadi breast-fed him as a baby so he was considered a son and had a right to be there. But in a later court ruling, a judge said it could not be proved that Fahd was her "breast milk son." Fahd was sentenced to four months in prison and 40 lashes, and the man who accompanied him got six months and 60 lashes. (That proof thing is a problem, but what's the unprovablity of a ritual act when it comes to enforcing God's Will. Guess they'll just have to use instant replay in the future--as long as it's not considered pornography.)

The original adult breast-feeding fatwa was issued three years ago by an Egyptian scholar at Egypt's al-Azhar University, considered Sunni Islam's top university. Ezzat Attiya was expelled from the university after advocating breast-feeding of men as a way to circumnavigate segregation of the sexes in Egypt. A year ago, Attiya was reinstated to his post.

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

It's good to see Catholicism is not the only religion whose teaching authorities are leading their faithful into some really interesting solutions to theological cul de sacs. Why is it that these solutions never involve the underlying assumptions. Especially if those assumptions are about gender and sex and completely demean women under the guise of 'honoring' them.

The good thing about this is God continues to shine light on some seriously defective theological abuses, propelling lots of people of all religions to move beyond the idiocy of their leadership.

God does seem to be moving all His people to think for themselves, make their own choices about their relationship to Him and others, and leave the power drunk middle men out of the equation. Breast milk indeed.

The Fantasy And The Reality Of DADT

DADT doesn't just remove gays from the military. It's used to remove women and minorities at a staggering rate relative to their actual numbers. No wonder Archbishop Broglio is not surrounded by any women or minorities.

Military archbishop urges Congress not to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Washington D.C., Jun 3, 2010 / 08:04 pm (CNA/EWTN News).-

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy barring open homosexuals from serving in the military should not be changed, the Archbishop of the Archdiocese for the Military Services said on Tuesday. Noting the need for strong rules against immoral activity, he said moral beliefs should not be sacrificed for “merely political considerations.” (This caveat only applies to gays, not straights, not nuclear weapons, not military incursions to support the oil industry.)

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, writing in a June 1 statement, reported that “a number” of chaplains and commanding officers have expressed concerns about the effects of a policy change. He said he also responded to a request from the Chiefs of Chaplains of the Armed Forces, voicing his “considerations and concerns” about proposed changes to legislation regarding servicemen and women with a homosexual orientation.

“Catholic chaplains must show compassion for persons with a homosexual orientation, but can never condone—even silently—homosexual behavior,” he wrote, voicing concern that a change in policy might negatively affect the role of the chaplain in the pulpit, the classroom, the barracks and the office. (Maybe we need to get chaplains out of the military.)

He noted that Catholic chaplains cannot accept or bless same-sex unions and no restrictions on the teaching of Catholic morality can be accepted. (So, what's your point? You can't marry divorced straights either.)

The archbishop questioned whether the change would mean that homosexuals are authorized to engage in activities considered immoral by the Catholic Church and many other religious groups. He pointed out that morality has an effect on unit cohesion and overall morale.

“This Archdiocese exists to serve those who serve and it assists them by advocating moral behavior. The military must find ways to promote that behavior and develop strong prohibitions against any immoral activity that would jeopardize morale, good morals, unit cohesion and every other factor that weakens the mission.” (Has it ever dawned on the good Archbishop that some of us actually think Catholic priests participating as commissioned officers in a military organization compromises the Catholic mission?)

He also advised a “firm effort” to avoid any inadvertent injustices resulting because individuals or groups are “put in living situations that are an affront to good common sense.” (See below.)

“Those with a homosexual orientation can expect respect and treatment worthy of their human dignity,” Archbishop Broglio wrote. “The prohibitions regarding sexual harassment and intimidation refer just as much to homosexuals as to anyone else.” (Not women.)

The prelate then quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says Sacred Scripture and Catholic tradition recognize homosexual acts to be “of grave depravity,” intrinsically disordered, and under no circumstances to be approved. (So is the use of condoms, but I never hear any Catholic chaplain speak out about the military providing condoms to soldiers.)

His quotation continued, recognizing both the respect, compassion and sensitivity due to those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies and the need to avoid unjust discrimination against them.

Changes to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are potentially “enormous and overwhelming,” he added. “Nothing should be changed until there is certainty that morale will not suffer. Sacrificing the moral beliefs of individuals or their living conditions to respond to merely political considerations is neither just nor prudent especially for the armed forces at a time of war.”

“The Archdiocese for the Military Services… urges the Congress not to repeal the current policy for the Armed Forces,” Archbishop Broglio’s statement concluded.

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

Now some truth about how DADT really functions in the military:

'Don't Ask Don't Tell' Tougher on Minorities, Women
Bonnie Erbe' Politics Daily - 6/2/2010

Here's one thing you probably know about "don't ask, don't tell," the Pentagon policy on gays and lesbians in the military. As my colleague Patricia Murphy reports, a bill to dismantle this outdated policy is wending its way through Congress.

Here's one thing you probably don't know about the 17-year-old law that says, essentially, gays and lesbians can remain in the military as long as no one knows they are gay:

The ban has disproportionately affected minorities and women. The latest data, compiled by the gay rights group Servicemembers United from Defense Department numbers, show that in 2008, minorities made up 45 percent of troops discharged under "don't ask, don't tell," while minorities were 30 percent of the service. Women accounted for 34 percent of the discharges but comprised 14 percent of the military. (I didn't know minorities and women were that much more gay than white men like the Archbishop.)

USA Today, reporting the study, contacted Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith who said the military does not know why there is a disproportionate number of discharges for minorities and women and, under the ban, can't look into the question. (Apparently DADT means the military can't ask but straight white male soldiers can "tell".)

Nonetheless, I was shocked to find out that service women are more than twice as likely to be discharged under DADT, based on the Servicemembers United's numbers crunching. And for persons of color, the rate is 1.5 percent. Our armed services are not yet gender-blind or color-blind, although it is a goal the services are working hard to meet. But I am still curious as to why the discharge rate is so disproportionately high for women. I posed the question to Servicemembers United Executive Director J. Alexander Nicholson III, and he responded this way:

"Ultimately we do not know exactly why women are disproportionately impacted by the 'don't ask, don't tell' law, but we do know that this law is often used as a tool for sexual harassment against women and sometimes even a tool to enable sexual assault. Often times women are accused of being lesbians if they do not succumb to the sexual advances or the romantic interests of others, and this sometimes leads to unfair targeting of women under 'don't ask, don't tell.' It should also be noted that racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately discharged under 'don't ask, don't tell.' All of these facts fly in the face of the claims that this law is working. A law that impacts women, and especially women of color, at twice the rate of their presence in the military is clearly not working." (Must be working for somebody.)

So let me get this, er, straight -- servicemen threaten servicewomen with "outing" them as lesbians unless they succumb to the men's sexual advances? What kind of "Through the Looking Glass" parallel universe have the Armed Forces become under DADT? And why is our volunteer, body-strapped military firing otherwise perfectly credentialed soldiers because they happen to be gay or lesbian?

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

Essentially what the good Archbishop is asking for is the continuation of a law which is effectively used to target women unwilling to be used for sexual pleasure, and to harrass minorities of color. DADT is just another club to beat down women and minorities in the military. The US doesn't need to enshrine this law, they need to get rid of it. Period.

Here's a suggestion Archbishop Broglio. Why don't you advocate for the entirety of Catholic sexual morality and extend DADT to all single service people, insisting on their maintaining celibacy in the interests of unit cohesion and morale? It might leave us with very little in the way of a military, but at least it would be a military that conformed to Catholic sexual morality.

The Institution Of Fatherhood And RHIP

In Cardinal Sodano's case, not only does 'Father Sodano' have privileges, he's so far up the ranks he has no accountability.

Bill Lyndsey wrote a fascinating piece yesterday which left me pondering the question he attributes to Walt Whitman. At the time of this quote, Whitman was functioning as a nurse/aide in military hospitals during the Civil War.

Whitman told O’Connor that many of the young men to whom he was ministering—some as young as 17—had run away from home and joined the army to escape the severity of their fathers. On the basis of what he was hearing from these soldiers, he told O’Connor that he was inclined to think that, while mothers often succeed in being loving and sympathetic, “the institution of the father [is] a failure” (as cited, p. 130).

"The institution of the father is a failure." What I found thought provoking is Whitman's calling fatherhood a failed institution, as in a failed cultural concept. Whatever cultural goal the institution of 'fatherhood' was supposed to accomplish, in Whitman's mind it failed. On the surface, one would think that any institution which drives it's own flesh and blood into the bloody jaws of a gruesome war is a failure---unless, when it comes to sons, that's one of the unexamined unstated goals of the institution of fatherhood.

That would mean a successful father is expected to pass on a masculine definition based in a hierarchical martial mentality, even if doing that means driving your sons from your home. If that's the goal, then institutional fatherhood was pretty successful during the Civil war, and a whole lot of other wars. It's been pretty successful in assuring the hierarchical martial structure has been adopted in virtually every male dominated enterprise. Very often ruthlessly adopted.

When I worked in the mining industry it took about a nano second to determine that one's corporate status could be seen in the type of company vehicle one had. Mid level guys had generic pickups in standard colors, but as one went up the corporate ladder, one got to pick different colors, and when one hit the equivalent of command rank, one got a custom SUV.

At one point I was ordered to buy a used truck for our exploration team and I decided to play with the system. I bought a used Dodge Power Wagon that had all the bells and whistles and a custom paint job. It was powder blue. I knew the color alone would cause angst in any male who might be tempted to grab the truck, and so by my devious design, it became mine by default. It was however, a Power Wagon, and it put the Ford's to shame. It went places no Ford truck dared to go. My possession of it caused great jealousy. Eventually word came down that it was to be retired and put up for auction. It didn't fit the fleet, not being a Ford. Ahem...... Oh well, point made. RHIP and I didn't have enough R and certainly no P.

I've always been somewhat befuddled by this whole rank and privilege thing in male thinking. On the ranch my father and brothers would get into huge battles over who drove what piece of equipment or what truck. Combines and swathers were the pinnacle, plows the dregs. Guess what I got to do? I really never understood why what piece of equipment one drove in endless circles at three miles an hour was such a big deal. To me it was all boring, but to them it was really really important.

It seemed none of this hierarchical stuff was ever really goal oriented as far as the actual mission. If anything, the mission came after everyone's rank and status had been fully established. It was based on this pecking order that assignments were given. Competence didn't seem to have much to do with it. All it accomplished was to reinforce the importance of ego over mission.

Give this guy a shiny new pickup and he'll do anything he's told in order to keep it, because that's exactly how he's been raised. That's what real men do who want to advance and keep their assigned toys. Even if it kills them or they kill others.

Whitman's observation about the failed institution of fatherhood is correct, especially in a twenty first century milieu. We can no longer afford to base our institutions on enculturated martial notions of RHIP which do not address reality. I guarantee this played out in the BP disaster. Rank and file on site guys who knew BP was taking way too many risks, caved into the driver of the shiney SUV whose understanding of the situation was colored by keeping his place in the pecking order. We are all paying the price for that. Eleven employees paid with their lives.

And then there is Catholicism, where this whole notion of fatherhood and RHIP is taken to infallible divine levels. It's amazing to think that even though Jesus turned RHIP on it's head, RHIP is still the foundation of His church. Whitman then is ultimately wrong. Institutional fatherhood with it's martial notions of RHIP has been so successful even Jesus couldn't over turn it.

Three Lessons From The Perfect Game That Wasn't

The Tiger's Armando Gallaraga was in perfect form on his way to a pitching a perfect game until the very last out when someone else's imperfection ruined his perfection.

Last night I watched a major league baseball game. As my daughter could verify, this is not unusual for me. Last night was different though. She got summarily cut off on her nightly phone call because I was watching Armando Gallaraga of the Detroit Tigers pitch a perfect game. This happened at the end of the sixth inning. I told her I would call her back at the end of the game. In the ninth inning I was a basket case. By the end of the game I was stunned. It was a sad phone call.

Gallaraga did pitch his perfect game. He just won't get credit for it because Jim Joyce, the first base umpire, blew a call on the final out. This is not me being a homer. He just flat blew the call. He also had the guts to admit it, to the Tigers and to Gallaraga, in person with tears in eyes.

"It was the biggest call of my career," Joyce conceded as he reportedly paced in his dressing room, "and I kicked the [stuff] out of it. I just cost that kid a perfect game."

Gallaraga was unbelievably gracious and forgiving, telling reporters that he knew he had pitched a perfect game, and that Joyce was truly sorry. He could tell by Joyce's body language. Anyway he would get the CD of the game and no matter that his game wouldn't be in the history books, it would be there on the CD and he could show, not tell, his children he really did pitch a perfect game in the major leagues.

Lesson number one. It's easier to be forgiving and gracious when you're view of reality understands official reality is not always the truth. The reality of baseball is bigger than it's rule book. Joyce's mistake only changes the paper reality of Gallaraga's game, not it's core truth.

Jim Joyce's behavior demonstrates lesson number two. Ultimately it's not about rules, it's about relationships. Players and managers respect umpires who understand their authority is based in their relationship with the players even more so than it is the accuracy of their calls. All players know umpires will occasionally make mistakes, but the umpires who can freely admit to those mistakes are very much liked and their authority respected by the players. Jim Joyce is an umpire who is universally respected by players and managers. Gallaraga himself stated that he knew Joyce would feel much worse about this call than he would and that he felt bad for him. This was the view of all the Tigers. To a man they respect and like Jim Joyce and wish this hadn't happened. Relationships can take mistakes when they are based in mutual respect and honesty--even relationships based in the illusion of 'absolute' authority.

Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, has the authority to change the outcome and heal this situation. He could validate Joyce's own assessment of his own call, restore Gallaraga's game to the history books, and take a huge amount of pressure off Jim Joyce. In doing so Selig would transgress a lot of baseball tradition, especially the prime rule about an umpires authority. Most specifically the rule that says all umpire decisions stand as called.

The trouble with absolutes, as we Catholics certainly know, is both the utter lack of compassion and the fact they serve to reinforce a reality which is arbitrary and not actually real. They force human behavior to conform to an illusion of reality and do not forgive when human behavior exposes the illusion. (Which happens with some frequency with instant replay)

Bud Selig, like Pope Benedict, is both the keeper of baseball's tradition and it's ultimate authority. This is his call. Does he support the illusion of the tradition, or the reality as it played out on the field? If he fails to act and supports the illusion, he will not have reinforced the trust the players have in umpires or the system. If he acts in favor of Gallaraga and seemingly against his umpires, he will have accomplished precisely what absolute authority intuitively thinks such a decision won't accomplish. He will have restored trust and respect for the system.

This is one lesson Pope Benedict and most of his bishops still haven't learned. Any system is strongest and most trusted when it most closely conforms to reality. Sometimes that means admitting mistakes and deciding in favor of justice, not preserving an illusion of absolute infallible authority. Lesson number three is sometimes one needs to act counter intuitively. Jesus did this all the time which is why the Apostles had trouble with some of His teachings.

I hope Bud Selig decides to uphold justice rather than mindlessly uphold the tradition of absolute authority in umpires. On field chaos will not ensue. Jim Joyce would breathe a huge sigh of relief and Armando Gallaraga could show his children his name in the record books as well as his CD of the game. Since Cleveland loses either way, this doesn't impinge on the integrity of the game, just the integrity of the whole system.

In any event I can finally say after fifty some years of watching the Tigers that I saw a Tiger pitcher throw a perfect game--no matter what Selig decides. As my daughter's generation says: "I see you Armando."

A True Jaw Dropper About The Phoenix Fiasco From Fr. Doyle

Bishop Olmstead conferring medical degree on priestly aspirant. Apparently, at least in his mind, it worked for him.

THE BISHOPS LOVE YOU UNTIL YOU’RE BORN

Thomas P. Doyle, J.C.D. - May 20, 2010 RichardSipe.com

I recall seeing a bumper sticker somewhere on one of my travels that said: Bishops love you…Until you’re born. The recent debacle in the Diocese of Phoenix echoes this statement, especially if you put it into the wider context of the hierarchy’s consistent response to the clergy sexual abuse scandal.

The twenty-seven year old of mother of four was, no doubt, a devout Catholic who dutifully followed the official policy on birth control. According to the fact sheet published by Catholic Healthcare West, she was afflicted with a very serious, but at the time controlled, heart condition called pulmonary hypertension. By November, when she was eleven weeks pregnant, her risk of death was close to 100% if she continued the pregnancy. The person at the center of this soul-twisting drama, a Sister of Mercy, led the woman’s predicament and the possible courses of action through a thorough process of consultation that included several physicians, nurses and medical ethicists . Their frame of reference was number 47 of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.

The mother concurred with the decision of the consultation team and the procedure was performed. One of the attending nurses revealed what had happened to an outsider, which was a clear violation of the HIPAA provisions which protect the confidentiality of patients. It wasn’t long before the local bishop got wind of this and went into action. He summoned the sister and the hospital CEO to a meeting which they mistakenly thought would be their opportunity to explain what had happened. Instead the bishop hit them with “you did an abortion.” The sister asked him what he would have done under the circumstances and he responded that the proper course was an induction of labor. (At eleven weeks this is just another abortion technique. Either Olmstead did not understand what he was saying, or he thought he was advocating a form of miscarriage. Either way this had to leave the medical personnel stunned.)

Keep in mind that this bishop neither is a physician or a nurse nor is he a credentialed canonist, moral theologian or medical ethicist. He is however, a bishop which apparently gives him the authority to pronounce on issues about which he has no expertise. An induction of labor for an eleven week old fetus is medical lunacy and would have spelled certain death for the fetus. Continuation of the pregnancy would have ended with the nearly 100% chance of the death of the fetus and the mother. The end result: by following the rules as they are interpreted by the Bishop of Phoenix, an unborn life would have been protected but only while still in the mother’s womb. Her impending death would have ended the Church’s responsibility for protecting the unborn life of the fetus. It also would have left a good man a widower and most tragic, four pre-teen children motherless. On balance the Church’s official sex rules would have ended up killing the mother and the baby in the womb and robbing the other half of the marriage and four young children of the chance for a happy and healthy family life.

There frame of reference was number 47 of the Ethical and Religious Directives For Catholic Health Care Services , published by the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Conference. This directive seems to be pretty clear even to those of us not schooled in either medicine or ethics: Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

The bishop, in his zeal to protect the sanctity of life, declared that the religious sister in question had been automatically excommunicated in keeping with the norm of Canon Law. Although he didn’t mention anyone else, according to the canonical rules, every other Catholic involved in the termination was also excommunicated, including the mother. What about the sanctity of the lives of the husband and the other children? No matter how you look at it the protection of the sanctity of life in this case would have left two people dead and five others without a wife and mother. So much for the sanctity of life, especially life outside the womb.

There are plenty of reasons to objectively question whether or not the sister or anyone else qualified for automatic excommunication. From all the information disseminated about the case it appears that the only ones who took a long, serious and deep look at all aspects of the case were the hospital personnel…and the mother. If the Q & A statement issued by the diocese is any indication, it appears that all the bishop did was concern himself with punishing everyone in range without considering if the punishment was even justified.

This very sad case and the bishop’s harsh, insensitive and probably incorrect (at least from a canonical viewpoint) response could not have come at a worse time for the credibility of the Bishop of Phoenix and the Catholic hierarchy in general. The gross inequity of the canonical provision itself is scandalous. Abortion, deemed murder according to official Church teaching, is so serious that it justifies automatic excommunication for all directly involved and not just the mother and the person performing the procedure. On the other hand, murder, though a crime in canon law, results in automatic excommunication only when the victim is a pope or a bishop. Termination of the life of anyone else, no matter what the circumstances, results in the possibility of any number of punishments but not excommunication.

What of clerics who rape or otherwise sexually molest little children, adolescents or even adults? According to the canonical rules they are subject to a number of penalties including dismissal from the clerical state, but not excommunication. The real cause of the fury of many however is the historically proven fact that most such clerics got away with their crimes with nothing more than an admonition, followed by a quiet transfer, usually to greener pastures. The widespread rage following the Boston Revelations of January, 2002, has prompted the official Church to do something other than try to defend the indefensible. They have been secretly putting accused clerics through lengthy and sometimes interminable canonical trials, but no one has been kicked out of the Church and what’s more inexplicable, every bishop himself credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor has faced nothing more drastic than resignation and a guaranteed comfortable retirement.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, “There’s something rotten in the State of Denmark (or at least there was in his play) and there’s definitely something rotten in the State of the Vatican” especially when it comes to its lopsided value system on the sanctity of human life.

Do Catholic Bishops love you until you’re born? It certainly seems so! (Unless you are a fellow bishop or a pope.)

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

I wish I could have been a fly on the wall when Olmstead suggested the appropriate course of action was to induce labor. Honest to God had I been in that meeting I might have fallen on the floor. How do you deal with this kind of outright stupidity from a man who is supposed to be a credible moral leader? The fact is his stupidity has cost Sr McBride her position, her right to participate in the religious tradition she dedicated her life too, and added even more misery to a grieving family. For what? To placate the squeaky pro life wheels in Arizona? To give them a bone so he can quietly work behind their backs for his immigrant population?

Personally I'm glad Fr Doyle published this article. I learned a lot. Like maybe I had better read Canon Law so I can get even more evidence as to just how skewed Catholicism's understanding of the Gospels actually is. I didn't know that the only excommunicable murders were for fetuses, bishops and the pope. This equivalence can't be based on their mutual innocence that's for sure. It's also not based in reason or logic, no matter what Pope Benedict says. I am tempted to think the equivalence is based in computational ability.

The cynic in me actually thinks Olmstead stuck his nose in this for two major reasons. The first is the previously mentioned bone to the uber conservative pro life crowd, the second is for ladder climbing purposes. Olmstead is not the first bishop who has singled out members of LCWR medical orders to get a modicum of revenge for the USCCB loss of face over the health care bill. Might just as well keep kicking members of the LCWR orders while the Vatican has them down, especially when those same orders have more credibility than the self appointed spiritually special class of bishops, cardinals, and the pope.

In the meantime one wonders if Olmstead is extending the compassionate arm of the Church towards the family who has been devastated by this tragedy and his compounding of their misery. Or does the fact they too have incurred automatic excommunication preclude any compassion until the family comes crawling to kiss his shiny ring?

This situation really offends me in case you couldn't tell. On this beautiful morning I am very glad I live in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe and not the Diocese of Phoenix. It would be really nice if I could believe Archbishop Sheehan, who is Olmstead's titular head, could silence Olmstead before more damage is done. Honestly, given Olmstead's track record I don't think it's possible.

I have sympathy for the people of Phoenix. They've had some interesting characters as shepherds recently. First there was James Rausch who was implicated in the Fr. Trupia scandal. Trupia tried to use their sexual relationship to blackmail his way out of laicization for sexual abuse charges. Rausch was followed by Thomas O'Brien--a bishop who did not incur excommunication nor laicization for his drunken hit and run murder of a pedestrian. He did however exchange his knowledge about priest abusers with the DA's office to avoid prison time. Now Phoenix has Olmstead the omniscient one. If Phoenix is really lucky maybe Olmstead has finally earned his promotion to Rome. The Diocese of Phoenix could use a break.

What If We Had A Code Of Canon Love?

Is war the male version of the demand that mother's die for the sake of their fetus?

Fr Tom Doyle has written an article for the National Catholic Reporter explaining the fine points of Canon Law as they apply to the Arizona medical situation for which Bishop Thomas Olmstead publicly announced the latae sententiae excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride. It is worth reading for Tom's clear explanation of the fine points of Canon Law which directly apply to this situation. The comments section is also worth reading. A couple of conservative posters get into some very murky ground in their attempts to justify Olmstead's decision and refute Fr. Doyle's analysis.

In reading through the article I kept having this stray thought run through my head. Why does a Church which professes to follow Jesus Christ even have such a thicket of Canon Laws? Jesus basically asked us to follow two laws, both involving the primacy of love. He asked us to pursuit relationships based in love, not relationships based in law. In this context it would make more sense to have a Code of Canon Love, not law. Lest one think I'm being all felt bannered hippy sixties let me explain myself.

If we had a Code of Canon Love, the emphasis in Catholicism might be radically different. Imagine if you even can, a theory of just war in a Code of Canon Love. Since one of the major Canons would be learning to forgive one's enemies, justifying war in any circumstances would be very very difficult. One would seriously have to consider the very direct rebuke of Peter by Jesus when Peter cuts off the ear of a soldier as Jesus is captured in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus even heals the ear of the soldier. He reconciles the situation in terms of His own world view about the preeminence of love. Love does no harm no matter the provocation. Love heals, love matures, love gives witness to a higher order of organization. It does not enshrine the imbalances of the status quo.

I often forget in my frequent writing on the status of women in Church teaching that lay men have not historically had their lives valued either. Nor have they as fathers been given the respect for their relationship in their families. Certainly not when it comes to war. I thought about that yesterday watching Memorial Day ceremonies. It appears war is the sacred process for men that child birth is for women. Just as women must sacrifice their own lives for the sake of their fetus, men have been legally bound to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of war. It is a woman's duty to die in creating, it is a man's duty to die in destroying. In both cases we're told this is in the interest of the common good and that this relationship with the common good takes precedence over any other relationship. Even one's existing children. Even one's conscience. Both sexes are treated as canon fodder for the common good, and neither lay men nor lay women have a voice in determining the Canon Law which has historically relegated their primary love relationships and responsibilities a secondary status. A Code of Canon Love might actually reverse this thinking.

If the Church was really pro life and pro family it's code of Canon Law would be rewritten to suggest a father's primary responsibility was to his wife and children, not to the political and economic interests of the ruling state. In my mind the connection between demanding the sacrifice of a mother's life for the life of her child is directly tied to the demand that a father sacrifice his life for the sake of the culture. Neither demand is ultimately pro life or pro family, and both demean the importance of the marital and parental relationship.

I guess that's why we have public displays of affection for our soldiers who have died in our wars--just or not--and public humiliation for Sister McBride.