Please, Stop It With The Blame The Victim Defense

Some people are getting this message, but others seem incapable of giving up this pathetic strategy.

This article in America magazine is well worth reading because it includes a video of Fort Worth, Texas city councilman Joe Burns and his heart felt plea for gay teens to avoid the temptation of seeing suicide as a solution to the bullying they may experience in school.  Joe Burns is really painful to watch as he describes his own experience growing up gay in a Texas high school, knowing his parents, especially his dad, were not going to deal well with his truth.  He tells his audience that it got better and his dad came to understand loving his son was more important to him than whether or not his son was gay.  I have to admit I got a little choked up watching this very moving testimony, and then I made the mistake of reading the comments.  The following comment sent me through the roof. 

"Isn't there a lot of confusion surrounding this whole issue? The idea of drawing a straight line from, "religious intolerance" to blame religion for a tragic situation could just as well be turned around to show where the plea by an openly "gay" mayor to "gay" youths is exactly what continues to confuse and drive to despair the youth as they develop their bodies, minds, spirits and selves in the context of much sexual impacting upon these same youths. Look at some of the tv shows aimed at the youth and you will see blatant grooming and recruiting towards a homosexual life style; done, of course, in the guise of, "teaching" tolerance towards others. Not that tolerance of others isn't needed, but it is obvious that society and the, "gay party", if you will, has reached way beyond demanding tolerance. (No, what I see is tons and tons of blatant grooming of girls to accept the male heterosexual lifestyle with it's demand that a real girl succumbs to the 'charms' of male attention and does everything in her power to be a magnet for that male attention.)

My understanding is that sexuality develops slowly and in many persons fluctuating thoughts and feelings and desires and experimental actions lead to a natural sort of confusion. Isn't it also true that most young people learn about sexual matters and experience sexual things with the same sex. Young boys with young boys. Young girls with young girls. Cub Scouts with Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts with Girl Scouts. Think about this in regards to your own youth; what you saw, were told, experienced - where and when. (That is true and that is the real problem with chastity only education.  Getting your sexual knowledge from peers who know nothing valid about the consequences of sexual activity is insane.  It's the insane product of the insanity of having a sexual moral theology determined solely by men whose experience is 'officially' non existent.) 

The problem is, to then promote the idea that to have done/seen/felt/heard so makes one a, "gay", or a, "gay" youth, promotes this same confusion in the youth; for a mayor to address, "gay" youth, perpetuates this confusion that exactly does lead to despair. The fact that maybe not, "gayness", but confused/developing/immature sexual identity led to a tragic situation was pointed out earlier in this blog chain in a particular case where a youth had access to pornography which promoted a homosexual style and which in itself led to the tragic effect.  (This is just bizarre thinking. Is this kind of like all a lesbian needs to erase her sexual confusion is a good case of rape?) 

And, so regarding concern for youth, most of whom have not established their sexual identities but are under pressure to do so, there is a sort of bullying by those who pick up the phrase, "gay bullying" and try to cast blame upon others for what they themselves have perpetrated! Perhaps they truly have concern and compassion for youth, but their actions and words can lead to the effects they deplore. (Classic and unapologetic case of blame the victim.)

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

I am at a loss for words with the last paragraph other than to say it is truly Palinesque.  I wish there was some way I could get this man to understand what he deplores in so called 'gay lifestyle' is exactly what the 'heterosexual lifestyle' does with girls in the years in which they are 'establing their sexual identity'.  I suspect this particular man would have very little problem with the fact too many girls are literally bullied into their first sexual encounters.  There is very little in the 'heterosexual lifestyle' that bolsters female self esteem enough to assert her right to say 'no'. 

The 'heterosexual lifestyle' is designed to reward male self esteem which is why the stats show that those teen age boys with the highest self esteem have the most sexual encounters, and it's exactly the opposite with girls.  These statistics describe a situation ripe with opportunities for abuse and exploitation and there is plenty of it in our high schools and colleges.

If the 'heterosexual lifestyle' is designed to generate and reward male self esteem, it stands to reason that the 'homosexual lifestyle' will be seen as it's direct opposite.  Which it most certainly is and so we have NARTH listing sexually transmitted diseases as a fruit of this disordered lifestyle while completely leaving out that same and far more devastating aspect of the 'heterosexual lifestyle'.  NARTH will list suicide as a consequence of the 'homosexual lifestyle' while completely ignoring some similar effects of the 'heterosexual lifestyle' on girls, including the forced abortion of unwanted pregnancies.

I guess I shouldn't be totally surprised that a male true believer would write that kind of comment about the gay agenda being responsible for gay bullying.  Powerful men have historically blamed their victims for bringing on their own victimization.  It began way back when male leadership convinced women they were to blame for their status as property because of Eve's disobedience.  It was as if Adam had done nothing wrong and was there for still entitled to be considered the pinnacle of God's worldly creation. 

The same tripe is now being presented by right wing Catholics all over the blogosphere.  The "perfect society' of the Catholic Church is not responsible in any way shape or form for the fact these disordered inclined to evil youth opt to kill themselves rather than turn to the tender mercies of the love the sinner hate the sin Christian loving church folks.  This is kind of like expecting the French Roma to turn to President Sarkozy for help, or illegal immigrants to turn to Phoenix's Sherrif Arpaio. It's asking people to be pathological in their victimhood, or to come down with a serious case of Stockholm syndrome.  Hmmmm, maybe that explains the seminary system.

About Those Women Saints Of The Middle Ages Benedict Is Fond Of

Pope Benedict has been giving a series of Wednesday audiences on women mystics from the middle ages.  This Wednesday he chose Blessed Angela of Foligno who is pretty typical of the women has has presented.  God may have a thousand ways for making His presence felt, but the one described in the life of Blessed Angela is the Vatican's seemingly preferred path, but there is more to their path than Benedict wants to see.

Pope: We are all in danger of living as if God did not exist

CNA/INTL  10/15/2010

"We are all in danger of living as if God did not exist, but God has a thousand ways, for each one of us he has his own way to make his presence felt in our soul, to show us that he knows us and loves us and wants us to be attentive to those signs with which God touches us", this is what Blessed Angela of Foligno shows us.


On Wednesday Pope Benedict XVI, dedicated his catechesis to the mystic of the thirteenth century, a late convert to the faith who knew "the heights of experience of union with God", the latest in s series of lessons illustrating the great female figures of the medieval Church.

To 40 thousand people in St. Peter's Square, the Pope said that "usually people are fascinated by the heights of her experience of union with God, but few consider just the first part of life."

Angela was born in 1248 into a wealthy family in Foligno. Introduced in worldly circles, she met a man whom she married when she was 20 years old and had children.

At that time her life was “certainly not that of a fervent disciple of the Lord", so much so she despised so-called penitents, as were called those who out of devotion "sold their possessions and lived in prayer, fasting, charity and service to the Church". (Benedict will now go on to show us how she became that which she despised.)

Some events of 1279, such as a violent earthquake, a hurricane, war with Perugia and its dire consequences affect the life of Angela, who "becomes aware of her sins." The decisive moment came: in 1285 she invoked St Francis who appears and urges her to a general confession.

Three years later, there is also the "dissolution of emotional ties," her mother died followed a few months later by her husband and all her children".  (This is an interesting way of saying she lost her entire family--very intellectually and emotionally distant.)

Angela sold all her possessions and joined the Franciscan Third Order. She died in 1309.

"Conversion, penance, humility and tribulations" are collected by her brother confessor in the "Book" in which "Angela’s difficulty in expressing her mystical experience is met with the difficulty of her listeners in understanding her."  (Personal misery will now become the fuel for her mystical experiences.)

"This situation clearly shows how the one true Master, Jesus lives in the heart of every believer and wants to take full ownership of it."

It is a journey of conversion that takes the path of Angela’s fear of hell. "This fear of hell responds to the kind of faith that Angela had at the time of her conversion, a faith still lacking in charity, that love of God. Repentance, fear of hell, repentance open to Angela the prospect of painful way of the cross, from the eighth to the fifteenth station, it will then bring her to the path of love”.

Angela "feels she must give something to God to repair for her sins, but slowly realizes that she had nothing to give, moreover of being nothing before him, she understands that it is not her will that will give her the love of God, because this can only give her nothing, 'non love'. " "As she says: the only true and pure love that comes from God, is in the soul and it makes us recognize our faults and divine goodness”. (This is referencing her faults and God's divine goodness.  According to Benedict, Angela never gets to the point of recognizing anything worthwhile in herself.  Hmmm, this might be just a tad bit self serving.)


"However, Angela's heart always carries the wounds of sin, even after a good confession, she was forgiven and still distraught from sin, free and conditioned by the past, absolved but in need of repentance. The thoughts of hell also accompany her because the more the soul advances on the path of Christian perfection, the more it is convinced of not only of being unworthy, but of being worthy of hell". (This is the Good News we are being told God gave us? Where's the love? Angela found out.) 

Eventually, Angela understands what is the central reality. "What will save her from her unworthiness and being deserving of hell is not her union with God and his truth, but Jesus crucified, He was crucified for me, his love." (Imagine the impact this understanding would have on a woman in the middle ages--not the crucifixion part, but the fact Jesus loves her as an individual and deems her as an individual as worthy of His love.)

The passage from the mystical experience of conversion, "from what can be expressed to what can not be expressed, occurs through the Crucified." All her experience is "to tend to a perfect likeness to him, through purification and ever more profound and radical transformations. In this wonderful enterprise Angela puts her whole self, body and soul, without sparing herself in penance and tribulations from beginning to end, wanting to die with all the pains suffered by the crucified God-man to be transformed completely in Him”. (Angela was passionately in love with Jesus as one individual with another, so this is not surprising that she would want to share His suffering.)


From conversion to mystical union with Christ crucified. An elevated path- explained the Pope - the secret of which is constant prayer: "The more you pray - she says – the more you will be enlightened, the more you are enlightened, the more deeply and intensely you will see the Supreme Good, the supremely good Being, the more deeply and intensely you see Him, the more you love Him, the more you love Him, the more you delight, and the more you delight, the more you will understand and become more able to understand Him. Then you will come to the fullness of light, you will understand that you can not understand”.
*********************************************

I'm not surprised that Benedict emphasises sin, repentance, suffering, loss, and joining with Christ crucified or that Angela herself might have discussed her experiences in such terms.  Angela was a Franciscan tertiary and the founder of the Franciscans,  St Francis,  was a stigmatic who chose to leave his family and wealth.  Angela had begun to actively distance herself from her family three years prior to their deaths, after having a conversion experience which included a vision of St Francis.  At this point she began to divest of her wealth, and undertake Franciscan spiritual practices which apparently included the maintenance of a celibate marriage. The above articles gives a very different view of this period of her life. 

Angela herself was a stigmatic for a short period, and coupled with her vision of St Francis,  helped assure she would be taken seriously enough to attract a Franciscan spiritual advisor, Brother Arnoldo,  who is responsible for the written record we have of her visions.  Angela was unable to write so it is difficult for scholars of the writings attributed to her to determine what exactly is Angela's voice versus that of her scribe. This is a critical point in an era in which women had no official voice. 

It may be that last point that contributed mightily to the numbers of women mystics in the middle ages.  Mysticism was the one area in which women were allowed to have a voice and a true personal identity.  The kind of ego identity that men had as discrete individuals with rights and dignity.  Women on the other hand had no intrinsic rights, were given away as property,  and confined by role definition.  In mysticism they found a discrete personal identity that was theirs alone, and best yet,  confirmed by Jesus Himself.  It's no wonder they considered subsuming this identity with Christ to be the ultimate gift.  It was initially a mind altering, ego expanding precious discovery which made it's loss in the 'mystical death' and subsequent union with Christ so powerful an experience.  In their descriptions of their mystical marriages with Jesus, women like Angela found the only acceptable way to voice the passion and sensuousness of feminine love in a way which men would tolerate.  Any other avenue to express these kind of feelings would be understood as the voice of "Eve" and the abandonment of the female place in the order of things.

Only as a mystic could Angela's scribe pen these words describing Angela's thoughts on love:

In Instruction VI, Angela indicates three ways to reach true love:


The first sign of true love is that the lover submits his will to that of the Beloved. And this most spatial and singular love works in three ways.

First, if the loved one is poor, one strives to be­come poor, and if scorned, to be scorned.

Second, it makes one abandon all other friendship which could be contrary to this love, and leave behind father, mother, sister, brother, and all other affections contrary to the will of the Beloved.

Third, one can keep nothing hidden from the other.

It's not hard to see that these three ideas of love could be held in the mind of a woman who wound up in an arranged marriage under the thumb of her husband's family and attempted to live something of a lie rather than her truth.  I can't help but wonder if she would have written if the loved one is rich, one strives to become rich, and if exalted, to be exalted; if she truly had a passionate love relationship with her husband.

Blessed Angela is an important figure because she is a precursor for the next great female mystic, Catherine of Sienna.  St Catherine is unique because we have her actual writings, and not transcripts from male spiritual mentors.  St. Catherine is a true power house of a woman with real impact in both secular and clerical societies.  In Catherine we have the woman mystic who has taken the freedom and authority her mystical visions have given her to new heights of personal expression. She kept control of her own voice and she accepted no final authority outside her visions.  This stance gave her the freedom to interact with Europe's male movers and shakers.  She did pay a price for her unique role and status.  A therapist might say that price included death from anorexia since Catherine began her first fast in a bid to make herself unattractive to the man of her arranged marriage--a strategy also used by her older sister with this same man. It would seem neither sister was enthralled with repeating the example of their mother who had twenty five children.

This Wednesday was Benedict's final audience on the topic of women saints of the middle ages.  In all of his talks he used their lives to make his points about the spiritual path and union with Jesus.  He attempted to show their growth from fear of hell as an impetus for prayer to an understanding of true love in self abnegation, selfless devotion, charitable giving, and willing submission.  These are all traditional traits of the appropriate role of women in traditional Church teaching.  The irony is that some of Benedict's chosen examples went to great lengths to overcome their traditional gender role and in that process discovered their own self worth as unique human individuals.  It was in that discovery and the defense of it, that they found their voices and became the women western culture now venerates. 

Modern women owe much to these visionaries and their struggles both spiritual and cultural. They gave rise to the notion that women had something to offer society beyond that of wife and mother.  They did this through considering themselves married to Jesus and mothers to all, but this attitude ennobled all women.  It took women from merely Eve's untrustworthy descendants to Temples worthy of marital union with Jesus. That's a huge shift in the perception of the intrinsic worth and equality of women.  Eventually this understanding became universally operative in the secular democracies of the West, if not always in actual practice.  Well, except for one small theocratic monarchy--the Vatican City States.

Detroit's Archbishop Vigneron Warns Laity And Clergy About 2011 American Catholic Council

No matter how decked out the bus, the back seat of the bus is still the back seat.

While getting my daily dose of Redwing hockey from the Detroit Free Press, I came across the following.

Archdiocese of Detroit: Stay away from liberal Catholic conference
By Niraj Warikoo - FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER -10/13/2010

Archdiocese of Detroit is warning Catholics in metro Detroit — including priests and ministers — to stay away from a national conference of liberal Catholics to be held in Detroit next year. And Archbishop of Detroit Allen Vigneron is calling upon organizers of the conference to cancel their plans, saying they are in opposition to the Catholic faith.

The American Catholic Council, which calls for church reforms and greater openness, is set to hold a national gathering in June 2011 featuring progressive Catholic leaders near the 35th anniversary of the ‘Call to Action,’ a Detroit gathering in 1976 that urged reform and was held by the late Cardinal John Dearden of Detroit.

The liberal group claims there is too much secrecy and hierarchy in the Church; it also calls for greater acceptance of gays and lesbians, and women in leadership roles. It wants women and married priests.

“Serious sexual and financial abuses have resulted,” from problems in the Catholic Church, the group says in a newsletter.

Their conference next year is to feature a range of Catholic speakers who have been critical of the Vatican, including controversial Swiss priest Hans Kung. The liberal group says its efforts are done in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, whose 50th anniversary is also next year.

But in a statement released Tuesday, the Archdiocese of Detroit slammed the American Catholic Council, saying “the goals proposed are largely in opposition to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.”

The Archdiocese, which oversees 1.3 million Catholics, says that some of the scheduled speakers at next year’s conference “espouse positions which are clearly contrary to Catholic faith.” (Views contrary to Catholic doctrine is more correct.)

“The Archdiocese of Detroit cautions any Catholic against participating in the American Catholic Council local listening sessions and national gathering in June 2011,” the archdiocese said in its statement. “Catholic parishes, schools, and institutions are not to host any meetings, gatherings, or listening sessions associated with the planning of the June 2011 American Catholic Council. Priests, deacons, and ecclesial lay ministers will want to avoid lending support to such a misguided effort.”

Archbishop Vigneron said “this national gathering…distorts the true Spirit of Vatican II.” ( The non distorted view of Vatican II is to pretend it never happened.)

Vigneron “asks us all to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit so that we may embrace authentic development of faith and morals, and shun efforts which threaten unity,” the statement said. (There is no point in praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit because leadership like Vigneron doesn't believe anything needs updating or reforming or guiding.)

A spokesman for the American Catholic Council was not available to comment Tuesday, but their website says the conference is set for June 10 to 12, Pentecost weekend. The group says on its website it wants to “celebrate the ideas of Vatican II.”

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

I wondered when the assault on this gathering was going to start.  Archbishop Vigneron is the logical choice to lob the first salvo, since it's going to happen in his Archdiocese.  I'm sure he sees it as a potentially large black mark on his otherwise spotless conservative record and the red hat is so close to his hands he can't be having any black marks.  In fact I keep wanting to type 'Cardinal' Vigneron.

Archbishop Vigneron is a bishop in the Raymond Burke, Thomas Olmstead, and Charles Chaput school of pastoral approach.  Don't be shocked if all of these men eventually sport red hats.  This is great if you are a very conservative Catholic who is terrified of Satan, terrified of going to hell for all eternity, and really believe obeying every utterance of the Vatican is paramount to your salvation.  This is not so great if you think love actually has something to do with what Christ taught.  If Jesus had truly believed obedience to authority was paramount for our salvation He would have become a Temple rabbi, a committed Pharisee, and one in love with the size of His phylactery. He would not have become their chief critic and Temple cleanser or taught love in terms of relating to people and not things.  Things like red hats.

One of the attitudes which irritates me no end about these conservative bishops is their constant appeals to the Holy Spirit.  For what are they appealing?  That the Holy Spirit will come down and burn every single non compliant thought out of our heads?  This is not about guidance from the Holy Spirit so much as it is about petitioning God to instill a form of institutional slavery.

I'll be the first to admit this intellectual slavery to the Vatican has resulted in fame and fortune for the above mentioned boyos.  The problem is that they expect me, a woman, to follow their path when their path leads exactly no where for me.  I get to play the Rosa Parks back seat of the bus role in Burke's and Vigneron's Catholicism.  I fully understand that is a very needed role if Vigneron's concept of hierarchical order is to have any meaning. Hierarchy by definition needs people forced to the back of the bus.  It's how the Vigneron's of the world know they have achieved the front seat, right behind Bennedict the bus driver. Vigneron also knows, by following this exact path, Benedict got to be the bus driver. Why not him? 

The one glaring aspect this path fails to compute is how many people this bus runs over and has run over. Those victims are legion in the long history of Catholicism and more are being created now.  I wish the Holy Spirit would enlighten the Vigneron type Catholics about the victims this bus of theirs creates. For instance, the kinds of victims this clerical bus ran over in the mad notion of saving their church from the scandals they created. 

I wish the Holy Spirit would guide all laity to the understanding that the Church Vigneron and his like minded bishops are defending is in these bishops minds, their church, and they are not saving it for the laity.  They are saving it for themselves.  It's their bus.  They get the front seats and elect the driver.  The rest of us are only along for the ride if they permit us and we pay their price.  The American Catholic Conference is being called to directly challenge the validity of the Catholic bus route to heaven being solely owned, operated, routed and driven by the self chosen.  No wonder Archbishop Vigneron is not enthused.

What Is Happening With Cardinal Schonborn And His Fixation On Medjugorge?

Ivan Dragicevic and Maria Pavlovic-Lunetti at Cardinal Schonborn's St Stephens Cathedral in Vienna.  They are having a visionary experience and it's right on time.  Time zones and differences don't appear to matter to Our Lady of Medjugorge.

Whatever is Cardinal Schonborn up to?  His latest affirmation of Medjugorge has the true Catholics up in arms:

Cardinal Schönborn lauds alleged Medjugorje seers

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn lauded alleged Medjugorje seers Ivan Dragicevic and Marija Pavlovic-Lunetti as he welcomed them to St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna on September 23, according to an English translation of his remarks that was recently posted on YouTube.


“Thank you for your service across so many years, for your work, for your service of being messengers of the Gospa [Our Lady],” the cardinal said. “You give us, you bring us children of this world, children of humanity, her love and her presence, and may God pay you back a hundredfold for what you are doing tirelessly.”

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

Hmmm, Cardinal Schonborn got himself in a bit of trouble over Medjugorge at the beginning of this year when he made a private trip to the site that didn't exactly remain private.  It upset the Bishop's conference of Bosnia-Herzogovina and the local ordinary Bishop Peric.  They have forbidden the use of Church property to the visionaries.  The Vatican has banned any official pilgrimages organized at the parish or diocesan level until the results of the fourth investigation into the phenomenon is announced.  This fourth investigation was initiated in March of this year.

The Archdiocese of Vienna is hardly the only diocese in which appearances by the visionaries have occured.  It's just the only one headed by a Cardinal, and the Cardinal who just happened to have written the definitive text on Catholic Catechesis.  I can't help but wonder what Cardinal Schonborn has experienced on his trips to Medjugorge that he feels this strongly about supporting the phenomenon, knowing he is not exactly in collegial step with his fellow bishops and the Vatican. 

Medjugorge is one of those distinctly Catholic phenomenon that is so troubling to notions of clerical order and the 'perfect' society.  Lay people maintaining they are taking their orders from a supernatural being raises all sorts of flags for a clerical caste whose power lies in it's ownership of sacramental authority.  This is especially true since the actual power of either approach is unprovable in any rational sense.  The individual responds on an emotive level and one is either led to believe in the existence of such 'power' or not.  The trouble for the Church is that once a person responds in the affirmative to the emotive experience of Medjugorge they won't deny or turn their back on their personal experience.  At least not easily.

This is tricky ground for the Vatican precisely because Medjugorge is a world wide phenomenon and millions of people visit the area even knowing the Vatican and local authority do not approve of it.  Those millions of pilgrims have lots of friends and family members, representing a lot of other Catholics.  For the Vatican this is not just a matter of a few whack jobs seeing Jesus in a piece of toast, or a spontaneous but limited incidence of folk Catholicism.  Medjugorge is a well established big deal and it's had demonstrable positive effects on a many many pilgrims.

So why not just add it to the list of approved sites like Fatima, Guadalupe, or Lourdes?  The answer to that involves a number of issues.  First is the fact that cherry picking thirty years of messages results in some messages which directly challenge the nature of the Church.  Such as the one in which the Gospa says that all religions are equal in the sight of her son if they lead people to a conversion of faith, love, and repentance.  Then there are the messages which directly question the purity of the motives of the members of the curia.  Not that this particular observation is unique to Medjugorge.  It's been a consistent message in many Marian appearances. 

Then there is the fact the messages haven't stopped and have been ongoing for thirty years.  This in spite of the existence of translations of audio tapes given by the visionaries in the first month of the phenomenon indicating that the Gospa said the appearances were to stop on a given date.  Someone apparently changed their mind about that.  There is also the fact none of the visionaries are in religious vocations which means they can't be controlled or silenced.  This by definition makes Medjugorge a kind of subversive influence, especially since millions of people are not following the directives of the local bishops and the Vatican.  And finally there is all the money and all the politics surrounding all the money.  There is substantial evidence that some of that money went to groups convicted of war crimes during the Bosnian civil war.  But all of these questions beg the real question of what is exactly happening at Medjugorge.

The traditionalist jumps to the disobedience aspect, which makes Cardinal Schonborn exhibit A, and calls it the work of Satan or just pure fraud.  How in the world all the conversions benefit Satan is mind boggling to me.  If Satan is as powerful and all intelligent as the traditionalist seem to want to credit, logic would dictate he'd be far more successful attacking the weak point of the Catholic structure which is it's overly centralized authority and sacramental structure.  Perhaps that's why so many Marian appearances have messages pertaining directly to the 'impurity' of the men in this structure and call for it's reform and conversion.  For me this is one aspect that validates the truth of Medjugorge, not denigrates it.

As to the bilking of the desperate and simple laity of their hard earned money, the only difference I see is that the institutional church itself is not the beneficiary of most of the money, unlike Lourdes and Fatima.  Since no Catholic is under any kind of obedience to credit Lourdes or Fatima, I'm not sure a Vatican seal of approval means much more than who gets what portion of the pilgrim pie.   Perhaps that's just me being cynical.

What I find more interesting is that the seers in a visionary state demonstrate the same kind of neural functioning and brain wave patterns of New Age channellers.  I'm more interested in what this says about human consciousness and it's potential impact on our understanding of reality than what it says about fidelity to Catholic doctrine.  Why is it that mystical/spiritual leaders and psychic channellers are getting the same over all message even though it's coming through different religious paradigms?  It's questions like these I wish a Vatican commission would really study, but then the answers to those questions might not validate a great deal of the basis for Catholic doctrine--as opposed to the teachings of Jesus.

Maybe that's why Cardinal Schonborn occasionally looks like the odd Cardinal out in the curia.  He's had a conversion and that conversion has started him on a path which transcends his enculturated religious world view and maybe even the catechism he co authored.  Imagine that.

 

Gender and Orientation vs Gender roles and Body Type In The Bullying Of Others

Could there be a reason that Bishop Eddie Long performed in front of his congregation in a muscle shirt last Tuesday?

I've been distracted with another writing project which has now finally taken off.  Since this project is a collaborative venture it's taken more time than I thought it would.  But now that it's off and running, I'll hopefully be able to devote more time to the blog.  I should probably warn readers that Enlightened Catholicism might get somewhat influenced by what's happening with the other venture.  In fact, I may test drive some of that writing on this blog.  In the meantime there is a very good conversation in progress on Open Tabernacle in response to this posting by Bill Lyndsey.  Rather than reprint the whole thing here, I encourage readers to take in that post and then comment on this blog.  In the meantime have a peaceful, holy, and joyful Sunday.

What If We Created A World Where The Peace Prize Was Not Needed

Liu Xiaobo was named the 2010 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize

There's a lot of discussion all over the inter net about which direction this country should go and why it's not a good idea for  anonymous rich donors to use religious and charitable PACs as fronts to mask their influence.  The case in Minnesota where Archbishop Neinstedt allowed his office to be used by both an anonymous donor and the very right wing KofC is a particularly egregious example.

I find this situation repulsive for slightly different reasons, although my reasons do include the fact this trend appears to make it look as if the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church is for sale.  At least it is in some dioceses.  My core reason for my objections is that I truly believe we create our own reality.  Our best quantum physicists and our best mystics say this is indeed the case.  This is why free choice is so important in all spiritual systems.  Free choice doesn't just apply on the individual level, it applies on the collective level.  'We' create our collective reality and it seems to me the really rich are trying to buy that collective definition of reality.  Their money accomplishes their objective because it convinces the vast majority of the silent center to stay silent, and it disempowers collective dissent by convincing the rest of us we can't effectively compete.

This morning the Nobel Committee announced that the imprisoned Chinese democracy proponent Liu Xiaobo had won the Nobel Peace Prize.  The Communist Chinese government immediately shut down all media coverage, going so far as to censor the Internet, cell phone text messaging, and tweeting which used the Chinese characters for Xiaobo's name.  If I needed a better example of how entrenched powers understand the dynamics of collective consciousness creating reality, I couldn't have asked for a better one.  The Chinese government knows all it takes to create a completely different cultural and political reality is to allow a dedicated focused group to think and operate unchecked.  Their own rise to power was the result of such a conscious creation.  As they created, so they can be uncreated.  It may happen that in a very short period of time the collective focus of the world, which will be generated by this announcement, will start reweaving the reality of China's future.  We've seen this happen in our very recent past when European communism was woven out of the collective fabric of Europe.

For this reason I have taken great hope in the recent massive coverage given to the problem of gay youth suicide.  When a group like Exodus International decides it's time they disengaged from the overt promotion of a high school program specifically designed to attack gays, I take hope we are creating a different reality for our country, at least on this one issue.  When more and more writers are beginning to question the massive influence of unacknowledged money is this coming election, I take hope that we are beginning to call into question the influence of money on our democracy.  There isn't much difference between a concentrated group of Chinese communists controlling Chinese society, or a concentrated group of global corporations and wealthy individuals controlling Western democracies.  All either group really need do is convince the majority they have no real power and we don't.  All a bully need do is convince a target they have no power, and the target has no power---that is until they reach the conclusion the only power they have left is just enough to take their own life.

Warning:  Here comes a jump shift.

One of the problems I have with the kind of Christology that Benedict favors is that it is very disempowering.  In that vein it's not surprising that the idea of 'victim soul' is being resurrected as the latest paradigm in which Catholicism is to view the gay person.  Essentially this idea states that real power is found in being a powerless self abnegating victim and that God created gays as a special class of humanity whose mission is to be exactly that kind of disempowered person for the collective good of the Church. It's an old idea in Catholicism.  It's a bad old idea.  It's a special gay upgrading of the notion that free choice is bad because we are all intrinsically disordered through original sin.  Humanity is predisposed to choose evil and sin and there for individual humans should relegate their use of free choice to self identified religious leaders.  The best use of free will is to choose to not use it.  It doesn't get much more disempowering especially if it's voluntary.  This is precisely why Catholic cults of personality emphasise obedience to leadership.  The Legionaries are a great example of the ability of one sick man to create a very sick culture because it's creation and maintenance were built into the charter.  The entire group freely chose to cooperate in creating Maciel's reality. It would have been really really difficult for an individual to work against this collective reality without incurring a great deal of psychic and psychological damage.

Catholicism itself has a sick collective reality.  The abuse crisis demonstrates the level of sickness and not just in the clerical system, but in the complete disempowering of a laity who seem unable to wake up to their own Catholic reality--not even when it comes to their own children.  My hope and prayer is that the Minneapolis situation is waking up laity to this whole idea of creating and sustaining our Catholic reality and to an awareness of just how sick the current reality actually is. Laity have to understand that although we didn't create this sick culture, we have been successfully conditioned to sustain it.

We need to believe in the power inherent in the People of God to freely and consciously choose to create a different Catholic reality and from there a different world reality.  This is what Vatican II was essentially trying to teach, if not in quite so direct a way.  My prayer is that this reality is based in love, compassion, and healing.  This is after all, the very reality Jesus taught and freely let His disciples choose to confirm for themselves.  Imagine a billion empowered Catholics who believed it was God's will that they create a new reality focused on peace and love.  It would be creating the Kingdom Jesus talked about.  It would be all about 'Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".  And it wouldn't take money and it wouldn't take armies and it wouldn't take leaders intent on dominating anything.  All it would take is enough people who truly believed it was possible to change this reality, to connect it to the love of Jesus and the will of God.

Cardinal Antonelli's dinner ware.  It's nicely understated and I do like the sage color.  I also wonder if he has any idea how many diapers and how much food this china represents he for some couple who lovingly had children God gifted them and they couldn't afford.

I don't normally pull things off of Lifesitenews because it's mostly all propaganda in the form of news, but this one is just too good to pass up.  The good Cardinal calls IVF a shameful form of commerce and then the article ends with all kinds of commercial reasons to encourage western couples to raise bunches of children. 

Vatican Cardinal: Artificial Procreation A "Shameful Form Of Commerce".
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10100511.html
With evident joy, Cardinal Ennio Antonelli, the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, on Tuesday celebrated the opening Mass for the Human Life International World Prayer Congress for Life in Rome.


The cardinal noted the dire situation of the world with regard to the culture for life: “Today, the hardness of heart that grieves the Lord and the Church, has widely spread around the world: abortion and euthanasia have become socially respectable choices, and are even recognized as human rights, the human embryo is considered testing material, the rampant killing of innocent human lives increases.”

He noted that the “40 million abortions” which occur worldwide each year are “equal to the victims of World War II” being killed each year.

Nevertheless the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family gave the pro-life activists hope, telling them: “It is God that has raised and supports your efforts. Tonight we want to thank Him together because He has chosen you as his friends and collaborators, because He gives you strength, intelligence and perseverance to go against the dominant culture, the political power, the rampant corruption.”

Speaking out against in vitro fertilization, and other forms of artificial procreation, Cardinal Antonelli said, “Today, many people - not just couples but also singles and homosexuals - claim the right to have a child through artificial insemination and do not hesitate to resort to shameful forms of commerce. But there is no right to a child, because a person cannot be produced, acquired and owned as an object for one’s self gratification.” (Parental ownership of children has been the legal norm for millenia, and lots of children have been 'produced' for parental self gratification or economic reasons, which is why they were considered property of the father.)

The cardinal explained the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter by speaking of the “the right of the child to be generated by an act of love objectively expressed in conjugal intercourse.”  (How does a non existent person have rights?  The only way this is true is if we grant acceptance to the notion that our individual selves exist before incarnation.)

Cardinal Antonelli concluded in an appeal “especially” to “rich countries” to be open to children. “It is necessary, especially in rich countries,” he said, “to raise awareness in public opinion and among married couples for a generous and responsible procreation.” ('Responsible' in Catholic speak apparently doesn't pertain to third world countries, or maybe Cardinal Antonelli means something else entirely.)

“In the EU, two thirds of households have no children,” he noted. “We are facing an aging population and the subsequent rapid decrease of the population,” he warned.

The resulting serious problems are easy to foresee he said. They include “decrease of productive forces, the increase in spending on pensions, healthcare and assistance and subsequent huge immigration without integration.” (These are commercial and cultural (one could say 'racial' )reasons for having children, not because they are 'gifts' from God.

After the Mass Cardinal Antonelli exchanged warm greetings in several languages with conference attendees who applauded him enthusiastically.

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

Cardinal Antonelli sure does sound like he's advocating a child birth as a form of commerce in this 'pro life' talk of his.  I wonder why he doesn't see immigration as the solution to the demographic problems he lists for Europe and by inference North America.  I wonder if it has anything to do with keeping Eupope and North America in the hands of white Christians, as opposed to brown Moslems. 

Kind of like in the US where the Tea Party faction is pretty open about their desire to keep the US in the hands of white Christians.  The kind of white Christians who are unwilling to pick lettuce or pay enough for lettuce to make picking lettuce attractive to legal US citizens.  I like lettuce, so I am interested in Tea Party solutions to this very real problem should the Tea Party elect enough white folks to make this a consequence of their idea of immigration reform.  Maybe Walmart will decide to send some of it's massive multi cultural work force out to pick lettuce for it's stores.  Then we'll have yet another reason to shop at Walmart.

I guess the reason this article brings out my snarky side is because the Catholic pro life movement is not really about life at all.  It's about fetal life, and fetal rights.  And now Cardinal Antonelli wants to extend those rights beyond the existence of life itself.  This notion of pre existent rights brings up some serious sin questions.   Does a non existent child's right to be conceived in love mitigate any of the sin if that loving act of conception is engaged in by a non married couple.  Or does the very act of not being married pollute the conceptual waters, trumping the conceptual act of love?  I would guess the answer is the not being married part is the determinant since sin always trumps any notion of love when it comes to Catholic sexual morality. 

I keep looking for verification of that postulate in the New Testament sayings attributed to Jesus.  The postulate that sin trumps love or should determine a Christian's response to another human being. I still haven't found any place where Jesus says sin trumps love. Someone should point that out the Archbishop Neinstedt who denied communion to students who were wearing rainbow pins at Mass the other week.  I'm not sure what sin exactly these students committed, but what ever Neinstedt determined they had committed, it was sinful enough to deny them Communion.  Perhaps this was more of case of his paranoia trumping their baptismal right to the Eucharist.  Which says what about him and his exercise of pastoral ministry?

On the other hand, there a more than a couple of statements of Jesus's in the NT to the effect that love transcends life, which leads me to wonder if it isn't way past time Catholics started a pro love movement.  We might find that in the open presence of love, people don't sin nearly as much as they do in the presence of paranoid condemnation and fear mongering.  I doubt I will ever see this happen because there is no rational with in this paradigm for exploiting others for the sake of commerce.  And Cardinal Antonelli's talk certainly proves that at the end of the day, he really is shamefully all about commerce.

St Francis was one Catholic male who seemed to get the androgynous aspects of Jesus's teachings.  He was not your typical heterosexual male--much to his father's frustration.

Over at America Magazine Father Jim Martin asks "What is a Catholic response to gay suicide?"  The Catholic response, at least as it is espoused by the Magisterium, is to continue to demand that gays stay in the closet, stay silent, and stay celibate.  If gays are willing to do that they are welcome in the Church even as our  Pope continues to maintain that gays are disordered in their very nature.  Catholicism for a gay person is a lose lose situation in that you can't win for losing until you die.  The most hope Catholicism offers is to somehow avoid despair while your priests fill your parish reading table full of KofC literature that refers to you as a sodomite and your straight peers are allowed to bully the crap out of you.

The one aspect I don't get about Catholicism's obsession with correct heterosexual sex and correct gender roles are the actions and teachings of Jesus himself.  I don't think Jesus was teaching precepts that underscored heterosexual male gender traits.  In fact, I think He was teaching just the opposite.  He wasn't teaching dominance. He was teaching connections and cooperation.  He wasn't teaching that rational thought was the end all and be all of humanity's intellectual capacity.  In fact it seems He made many of His parables intentionally difficult to understand via rational logical  thought processes.  They encourage counter intuitive solutions which is one reason they were rejected and/or misunderstood by His male followers.  He didn't teach life as a competitive game, nor bless the pursuit of wealth and political dominance.  In fact He taught that one must work to become a cultural loser in order to become a spiritual winner.  He didn't propagate His own genetics nor demand any woman to take care of His every whim.  In fact, the temptations in the desert were all about rejecting what the dominant male heterosexual culture considered markers of success. 

In Jesus's Church, at least one that more reflected what He actually taught, gay men and all women would have a much higher place in the scheme of things because Jesus's teachings are more faithfully reflected in an androgynous world view.  What the Church has now is a sexually based 'gender complimentarity' which places straight males as the dominant force.  Jesus was teaching a far more androgynous spirituality which called for the blending of both rational and emotional/intuitive approaches and had very little to do with sexuality. 

Not surprisingly current psi research is demonstrating that the most effective practitioners of psi phenomenon are androgynous in terms of gender intelligence.  They are both rational and emotive/intuitive.  Gays are over represented in their ranks, especially amongst males.  This is a fact that also shows up in many religious cultures and spiritual systems.  The so called 'third gender' is over represented in the ranks of healers, shamans, and mystics--just as it is in the Catholic priesthood.  Think there might be a message here?

What do I think would be a good Catholic response to gay suicides?  We might try recognizing the fact that heterosexual males are the least genetically adapted to understand or accept what Jesus was on about.  Then we might ask ourselves why we have placed our souls at the mercy of the very men who are least likely to really understand the teachings they teach us--especially the parts about compassion and non judgment.

A Truce In The Philippine Battle Over Birth Control and Reproductive Health

Palace, Church OK Ceasefire

By LESLIE ANN G. AQUINO- MB.com.ph - 10/04/2010

MANILA, Philippines — The Catholic Church has agreed to the request of Malacañang for a “ceasefire” on the controversial Reproductive Health Bill, deciding not to issue any statement until a bigger dialogue between President Benigno S. Aquino III and the bishops takes place.


“We are acceding to the request of the President not to issue unnecessary statements while the face-to-face dialogue between the bishops and the President has yet to take place,” Fr. Melvin Castro, executive secretary of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, said in a phone interview.

“We are respecting that request and I think it will also be good to the public that in this moment of silence, they’ll be able to study all the issues,” he added.

The CBCP official, however, stressed that the temporary silence does not in any way mean that the Church is compromising its position. 
“It does not mean that the Church is compromising, it simply means that it is good that there is this lull moment to pause, to assess things and to pray and hope for a genuine dialogue,” said Castro.  (Dialogue about what? The Bishops appear to want a one sided monologue.)

When asked regarding the protest actions being planned by the laity against RH, he said, the bishops and priests are in full support of such initiatives.

“The bishops and priests totally support them but as of now there will be no public statements. But they are moving and certainly the leaders are silently but strongly supporting them,” Castro said. (Interesting definition of a cease fire when simultaneous statements like this are issued.)

“I believe the protest actions will not come until after the dialogue. Depending upon the outcome,” he added.  (It's hard to have a meaningful dialogue when threats are issued about the outcome before the dialogue has begun.)
On Monday, Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda called for sobriety amid the growing tension between the Catholic Church and the government by avoiding unnecessary statements.

Meanwhile, former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said that the government should work to curb maternal and infant deaths, as debates on the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill heat up with renewed threats from the Church for civil disobedience if the RH bill would encourage the use of products that in effect are abortive.

“Where we still have a big challenge is in the maternal mortality. And when you talk about girls and maternal mortality, teenage mortality is a concern. We need to address the issue of preparing girls for the world and reducing maternal mortality because many of maternal deaths involve teenage pregnancies,” Mrs. Arroyo said in an interview last week.  (This is sadly true, but Church teaching on women's reproductive health places the well being of the mother secondary to her biological ability to procreate and makes no distinctions between a thirty year old woman and a nine year old girl.)

The decrease in maternal and infant deaths is among the results that proponents of the RH bill claim would be realized if the bill is passed into law.

President Aquino had earlier bared plans to distribute contraceptives to curb population growth, which the Church viewed as an endorsement in favor of the RH bill pending in Congress.

Mrs. Arroyo's spokeswoman Elena Bautista-Horn said the Pampanga solon has not moved to oppose the RH bill, and would push for consultations with groups supporting and opposing the RH bill so both their concerns would be addressed.

“She hasn't moved on the reproductive health bill. She just wants that it should be consultative,” Horn said.

Horn was reacting to reports that Mrs. Arroyo has signified her opposition to the RH bill by co-authoring a bill in Congress that seeks to protect the rights of unborn children.

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

This situation in the Philippines has major consequences for global Catholicism.  In some respects the consequences are more serious than the outcome of any gay marriage initiative in the US or elsewhere.  The Philippines represents a major conflict between the sensus fidelium and the teaching magisterium about a cornerstone in Catholic sexual morality and the gender role of women.  Sixty two percent of Filipino's favor the use of birth control for married couples in order to help enhance a family's capacity to responsibly raise and space their children.  For these Catholics birth control is not a matter of population control.  It is a matter of responsible parenting.

The idea of responsible parenting is one idea which is completely ignored in the Magisterium's blanket opposition to birth control.  Instead they talk about disciplined sexual expression in the context of natural family planning.  Unfortunately NFP is not always a very successful form of birth control, and make no mistake, it is a form of intentional birth control.  In fact, it is the form of birth control which mandates the highest level of intentionality to avoid the procreative intent of marriage.  It fundamentally violates the secondary idea of married sexuality, which is partner bonding.  This is so because to be successful at NFP, sexual expression is tied to external limits, all of which are focused on the biological cycle of the woman. 

What I've always found interesting is that NFP gives women a say in one limited aspect of sexuality which is fundamentally denied her in any other aspect of sexuality.  In other words she is allowed to say no, mandated in fact, at certain times in her menstrual cycle, but expected to say yes at every other point of the reproductive process, even if it kills her.  Even if she's a child and a victim of incest.

NFP is a tough form of birth control to practice in cultures which are predominately patriarchal and do not support the rights of women as opposed to the rights of men--especially in conjugal rights. Many Filipino women have stated the desire for artificial forms of birth control precisely because of the battles with in their marriage over conjugal rights.  Men are not conditioned to accept 'no' when it comes to their conjugal rights.  It would be nice if the Philippine bishops could at least hear that very real concern when they engage in their 'diaologue' with President Aquino.---Actually it would be nice if there was a married couple or two present, since celibate bishops having a dialogue with a confirmed bachelor might not truly represent the concerns of married men, much less married women.

In any event, the debate about this RH bill has already made some important points.  The first is that the birth control teaching is not well received by a significant majority of Filipino lay Catholics.  This is exactly as the situation stands in the rest of the Catholic world.  The percentage may be lower than the 90% who reject the teaching in the West, but the Philippines is considered a bastion of conservative Catholicism.  If 62% reject it in the Philippines this number is more telling than the 90% in the 'secularized and relativistic' West.  Even for Catholics who practice a more traditional liturgical expression, the prohibition against artificial forms of birth control make no sense for parents who feel an obligation to take personal responsibility for the children and number of children they bring into the world. 

In the whole scheme of parenting, conceiving children is the brainless ten second easy part, raising them is the much harder and very long term part.  It no longer makes sense to lay Catholics to have a marriage and sexual morality based almost exclusively on the brainless ten second part, while ignoring the long term part.  It could be the lay Catholics in the Philippines will be the Catholics who finally get this message across to their teaching authorities.

Selective Sexual Teachings Have Become The Big Bully For Attacking Catholic Social Justice

The offending booklet described in this post had a very small advertisment for Planned Parenthood which mentioned contraceptive services.  Guess what happened next. 

This morning I read an in depth piece of reporting on the systemic attack on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.  The article is entitled "On the Left Side of God: How Politics and Religion Mix in the World of Charitable Giving.  It's focus is on the CCHD and the Catholic 'conservative' groups who are vetting every single grant CCHD has given to make sure it adheres to Catholic doctrine.  Based on the groups whose funding has been pulled, Catholic doctrine includes only two issues, women's reproductive health and gay rights.  It doesn't seem to matter how remote a given grantee is actually connected to another group who supports either issue. Even a whiff of smoke is enough to claim a raging fire of anti Catholicism  The following is the introduction and describes the connection with Planned Parenthood that cost one Portland OR grantee their funding:

A 4-inch-square, 96-page booklet once was considered the embodiment of social justice and empowerment of the poor, and for years, its publisher attracted financial backing from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development through the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon.....

That was until this spring, when a call to the office of Justice and Peace of the Archdiocese of Portland pointed out the offense on page 25. There, under the category of health care, was a listing for Planned Parenthood, which in a half-inch space included a description of the various basic services, including contraception, that the organization provides to low- or no-income customers seeking health care.

The message from CCHD managers at the Portland Archdiocese, although supportive of the booklet’s overall mission, was made clear in terms of funding: If Planned Parenthood remained in the booklet, CCHD, in keeping with Catholic teaching, could no longer fund Street Roots, the publisher of the Rose City Resource guide. Street Roots decided to keep the listing.

Since the fall of 2009 over 50 grantees have had their grants pulled with some of them asked to return their grant money.  In some cases this has left programs with no money at all to pay existing bills much less continue their services.  It matters not what the prime service is that these groups engage in, what matters is any whiff of association with an 'anti Catholic' group.  A grantee is especially anti Catholic if it has any association with Planned Parenthood or is judged to be 'marxist' in nature.  ACORN is an example of a marxist group. Community organizing in general seems to be 'marxist' activity and consequently anti Catholic.  In fact, the other two issues may just be the screen behind which the real target, that of community organizing, is hidden. 

Why did this campaign for Catholic orthodoxy start in the fall of 2009?  The conservative watch dogs claim it not about politics and had nothing to do with the fact the health care debate was at it 's hottest and most contentious.  Chris Korzen of Catholics United disagrees:

“These are politically motivated attacks,” says Chris Korzen, executive director of D.C.-based Catholics United, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization doing online advocacy and education programs around the Catholic Social Tradition. “And they fit into this broader narrative that we’re unfortunately seeing in our system now, where social change is limited to charity and not actually fixing social structures that cause poverty and other problems.”


The intent of these attacks, Korzen says, is to demonize community organizing behind the arguments against abortion and same-sex marriage. That’s the end result of what this campaign is doing,” Korzen says. “It’s taking away care from those who need it......

It’s not a new thing, Korzen says. Indeed, CCHD for decades has had its critics. But today it gets the added boost of leveraging political gains with a galvanized voting block, further inflamed by the personalities parading through our ever-expanding media options.


“For sure, we’ve seen a movement to the right in Catholic institutional settings, and I’d even go as far to say there are some elements of the Catholic institutions and some parts of the (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) that have essentially been taken over by the Republican Party. That sounds like a strong statement, but it’s the truth. Over the years, the conservative movement has worked very hard to cultivate support in the Catholic churches.”

Case in point, Korzen says, is the U.S. bishops’ opposition to the health care reform bill, which was singled out as a defundable offense by the reformers, “even though the Catholic Church believes that health care is a human right,” Korzen says. “That never would have happened in the 1980s.”

The cynic in me wonders why, if this is really about adhering to Catholic teaching, these watch dogs aren't going after programs that support and encourage dead beat dads.  Why do they only go after women's reproductive rights and gay marriage?  Abandoning responsibility for one's children seems to be as egregious as any other non procreative act, so why should these men, and the groups that give them any kind of support,  be left out of the equation?  If the USCCB is going to promote the totality of Catholic sexual teaching, it's way past time we dealt with the heterosexual male side of this equation. If it's with in Catholic guidelines to yank funding from a shelter for homeless gay kids because an affiliate of the shelter spoke against an anti gay marriage initiative, why should we support homeless shelters loaded with dead beat dads?  What kind of message does that send about the importance of upholding traditional marriage and traditional gender roles?  For that matter why should we be expected to support male politicians who practice serial monogamy or listen to male journalists who have engaged in sexual assault just because they spout on about abortion and gay marriage?  Why are we supporting the kind of hypocrisy which places the onus for upholding Catholic sexual morality on the backs of women and gays?  

I wonder if it has anything to do with who has control of all the money.  It probably does according to Matt Cato of the Portland Archdiocese Office of Justice and Peace:

“I’m not speaking for these organizations, but I do know that plenty of people are uncomfortable when a group of low-income or poor persons have power,” Cato says. “So you have the power of money, which corporations have, and you have the power of people, which is what community organizing is. The power of people which needs to balance the power of money, and that’s what community organizing is about, and a lot of people are uncomfortable with the poor having the voice.”

I think Matt is probably on to something here.  None of this campaign against CCHD has anything to do with the totality of Catholic sexual doctrine--a doctrine which most assuredly insists men use their sexual apparatus responsibly, take responsibility for their children, and not commit adultery.  Since this witch hunt is based strictly on one gender and one orientation, and it's real target is the 'marxism' of community organizing, one can only conclude none of this is really about upholding Catholic teaching.  It's about who keeps control of the power and the money.  Which is why the USCCB caves in to these right wing groups.  They too are about the power and the money and who gets to stay at the top of the pyramid.  And that is not just anti Catholic, it's anti Christ.