Punditry

Six years ago Ciril Berther was forced to leave his Zurich flock and lose a chunk of his pension at the age of 62 when he revealed that he was in a relationship with his partner, Elisabeth.

Berther co-founded Priests in Relationships in June 2005, after discovering many more people in a similar situation, in addition to practising priests who are currently living with the guilt of hiding a sexual relationship.

"The celibacy law is not the law of God but of the Church," he told swissinfo. "It is a myth that a celibate priest can give more to the community."

Berther says there are other professions, such as social worker and doctor, who can deal with being married while serving the community, so why not a priest?

"The Church law says that a priest is not allowed to marry or have children. The question is: how do you live this law? A person’s inner feelings are not considered by this rule."

The organisation has 16 members, all former priests. It aims to put pressure on the Roman Catholic Church to change the celibacy law and supports working priests who are in relationships. Around 20 priests have been in contact with the group.

Funny how a priest who had violated his vows and was apparently fornicating could talk about the fact that priestly celibacy is a discipline. Last I checked fornication is a grave sin and not a discipline.

Berther kept his relationship secret for five years, but decided to come out when the guilt became too great for Elisabeth. But he has no regrets about breaking the celibacy rules.

"Morally it was not a problem for me because I saw celibacy as a Church law and nothing to do with being a priest.

"When I started as a priest, I did not promise word-for-word that I would stay celibate so I did not make an official promise. I was happy for a long time living as a priest on my own, but suddenly I realised there was more to life." [Source]

First off how can you have guilt over something that you don’t see as a moral problem?

I guess he is also pro-torture since he has no problem with tortured reason. Did he cross his fingers behind his back during ordination? Just because celibacy is a discipline does not mean there is no problem in breaking it. Peter has the power to bind and loose and these decisions are ratified in Heaven. I wonder if he fasted in Lent considering that is "only" a discipline. I guess we can just violate any law of the Church we want to as long as they are not dogmatic.

And what about the generic "Priests in Relationships"? This sound more than just championing married priests, but also fornication and those in same-sex relationship. The relationships priests should be in is with God and working to guide his flock into heaven. As is usual in this cases is that you don’t find someone that agrees with everything the Church teaches, but thinks that the the discipline of celibacy should be changed. It almost always goes much deeper than that.

For over 9 months the Long Island Samhain Witch festival has been scheduled to take place on Saturday October 29, 2005 at the Knights of Columbus in Lindenhurst, NY. ( phone: (631) 226-3240, fax: (631) 226-7837 ). Just a 2 weeks before the event was to take place, the Knights of Columbus breached their contract with the us, Crescent Moon Goddess, and decided to lock the doors on the festival. They contend that they have received many complaints and threats from Catholic organizations saying they would picket, protest and riot at the event. In addition, Knights of Columbus claimed that they did not like that the advertisements using the words Pagan, Samhain, and Witch. Samhain (pronounced Sah-ween) is a pre-Christian Celtic holiday celebrating the end of Summer as well as a time to honor and remember those that have passed before us.

The Long Island Samhain Witch festival was to have speakers, workshops, entertainers and over 45 vendors. Not willing to cancel the entire event, we at Crescent Moon Goddess worked diligently to find another venue which is Sheraton Hotel in Smithtown, NY. The original date was not available and is rescheduled for Saturday November 12, 2005.

We whole heartedly believe we were Discriminated againist based on our religious beliefs and backgrounds, by what was expressed to us by the Knights of Columbus, and we will not conceed to religious intolerance by anyone.

We are very sorry for the inconvience and disapointment that this may have caused. We hope to see you all on November 12, 2005 at the Sheraton Hotel to show your support and spend a enjoyable day together in harmony. [Source]

First off, I guess this witch did not cast a spellchecker spell on her writings before posting.

I doubt the threat of rioters, but what in the world ever made this council of the Knights of Columbus ever enter into a contract with Crescent Moon Goddess in the first place? Talk about a lack of prudence and then only correcting the mistake after numerous complaints. You would think that "Our Lady of Perpetual Help Council # 794" would brook no Pagan competition for Our Lady and her Son. Especially to an organization that would be selling spells, charms and forms of divination.

Ironically I found this at the Knights of Columbus easily searchable catechism.

2138 Superstition is a departure from the worship that we give to the true God. It is manifested in idolatry, as well as in various forms of divination and magic.

Hat tip to Dawn Eden for forwarding me this story.

BRIDGEPORT — A teacher at Kolbe-Cathedral High School has been dismissed for reportedly refusing to display the U.S. flag in his classroom. Stephen Vincent Kobasa, an English teacher at the Catholic high school since 1999, was fired Thursday after he refused to follow what he called a "policy which has no official documentation" that requires the flag to be displayed in classrooms of all parochial schools of the Diocese of Bridgeport. Kobasa said Friday that his career long personal policy has been not to display the flag of any nation in his classroom. Such displays violate a deeply held religious conviction, he said.

When a new diocesan policy was enacted at the beginning of the academic year requiring the Pledge of Allegiance be recited in classrooms every morning, Kobasa said he reached a compromise with school and diocese officials. "I went to the principal [Jo-Anne Jakab] with a compromise that they could have a flag in the classroom for that period of time," Kobasa said. But, according to the New Haven resident, on Sept. 30 he was called to meet with diocesan Supt. of Schools Margaret A. Dames and issued "a mandate" that he fly the flag or be fired. On Thursday, Kobasa said he was "told to turn in his key" since he refused to comply with the directive. Kobasa said Jakab told him that an unidentified colleague had registered a complaint about his refusal to observe the flag policy.

… He said in the e-mail that his beliefs on the issue are based on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, which states that nationality and gender are not a prerequisite for faith. Although he filed a grievance with the diocesan school district, Kobasa said he has no plans to file a lawsuit. [Source]

You can just bet his antipathy to both the Pledge of Allegiance and the flag goes deeper than the pretext of St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. A flag in the classroom certainly does not mean that nationality is a prerequisite towards faith. A pretty silly argument to make considering the universality of the Catholic Church.

As for the Harriet Miers nomination goes I decided to take a "wait and seethe" attitude. Not much else I can do since barring unforeseen circumstances she will be on the court and we will just have to wait to see how she actually rules. Those who say that we should hold our fire until the confirmation hearings must not have followed Judge Roberts’ confirmation hearing. While we learned was that his favorite films are "Doctor Zhivago" and "North by Northwest." and how he was asked "how he feels" about certain circumstances and we didn’t get much more. Besides is a nominee ever going to say they are not going to follow the Constitution and that they will rule as they please? The problem with the Miers nomination is not that she might not turn out to be a fine judge who follows the original intent of the laws, but that considering the issues of the day like abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage etc there should have been a lot more certainty on this. There is no such thing as 100 percent certainty in this regard, but there certainly are varying degrees of risk. Considering the issues of the day her nomination does not appear to take these issues seriously enough. Especially since it appears that the President limited candidates to only women and that some of them demurred from entering the process. No wonder Harriet Miers is pro-affirmative action. Her days or rising through merit only have been supplanted by filling a gender seat only after others backed down. I guess she patched up those glass ceilings that got broken.

Fr. Egan responded to one of my readers and so I updated the post below.

HERO: (Helping Educate Regarding Orientation: A Gay/Straight Alliance) As an integral part of the Gonzaga University, HERO members are motivated by the humanistic, Catholic, and Jesuit traditions to which this university belongs. They seek to encourage the development of self-knowledge, self-acceptance, a restless curiosity, a desire for truth, a mature concern for others, and a thirst for justice within the context of faith development and human transformation. In October, HERO hosts an annual "Coming Out Day" BBQ. [Source]

Advisor: Fr. Bob Egan S.J. Contact #: (509) 323-6018

egan@gonzaga.edu

You can also Meet the Jesuits.

Update: One of my readers had an email exchange with Fr. Egan that included this:

I think there is an effort by many people to give comfort and encouragement to all gay people who have, after all, suffered taunts, bullying, torture, and even capital punishment for a sexual orientation that the Church teaches is not a sin because it is not a matter a choice. Of course some of them do act on their desires — but then most people act on their sexual desires — and the Vatican teaches that when these acts involve genital arousal they are sinful.

But there is and always has been a variety of views within the Church about how to judge these acts from a pastoral perspective. It would be prudent to keep in mind that life-long celibacy is considered a very demanding obligation. The Church has never taught that hell is the only possible destiny for gay people who do not choose celibacy. In addition, there is controversy within the Church about the meaning of homosexual affection and the way moral judgments should be made about sexual behavior. These discussions include thoughtful, learned, and devout men and women who have in conscience come to different conclusions. Then there is the fact that many people, even at Catholic universities, are not Catholics, and few non-Catholics in American life find our official teachings about human sexuality plausible or convincing. There are many people, intelligent and morally outstanding people, who believe that same-sex love-making is natural and good for gay persons and that the official Catholic teaching is erroneous and harmful, and that teaching it is oppressive and objectively sinful. One must get used to a pluralism of views and voices at a university. You seem persuaded that many gay people are going to hell. I am less certain. The Church teaches that none of us can be certain that we will be saved. That gives each one of us more than enough to worry about!

His perspective on Church teaching has been nuanced into nonsense. So I guess by this definition heterosexuals can now lust after those of the opposite sex, just as long a it does not cause genital arousal. "But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully and has genital arousal has already committed adultery with her in his heart." It is ironic that those who usually ignore what the Church actually teaches will always throw in such phrases as "the Vatican teaches" and of course this is always done without a reference. Then we always get to the argument about plurality at a Catholic school. So I guess they would have no problem with a pygmy cannibal attending their school from taking a nice lunch snack out of their arm or leg. I also read the whole email exchange between my reader and Fr. Egan and not once did my reader make any such charge as that many homosexuals are going to Hell or in fact even bringing Hell up once. This is typical obfuscation where you move from a specific charge that yo are not following Church teaching to calling the other judgmental.

Infer that people who voted for you and are less than enthused by the Miers pick as elitists because because she’s from outside what he calls the "judicial monastery." Excuse me? Why is it that the Democrats can use every delaying tactic and the most extreme rhetoric with no response from the President, yet some of the base disagree with a judicial nominee and they are just snobs and elitists.

No surprise here that the National Catholic Reporter has an article against following your conscience. After all it relates to conscience clauses for abortion and contraception. If your conscience tells you that contraception is moral – fine and dandy. If your conscience tells you that homosexual activity is moral – keep on truckin’. If your conscience tells you that you can dissent from Church teaching – hey, Conscience is king! If your conscience tells you that prescribing the pill is wrong – what in the world do you think you are doing? How dare you appeal to conscience!

Yes the magazine the has used conscience like a trump card to negate the truth of Church teaching now wants to have it both ways. Just because they have published statements like "…authority that denies the authority of conscience makes itself an oppressor as well" doesn’t mean they actually believe it. You can dissent all you want just as long as your dissent lines up with theirs. Follow your conscience just as long as it doesn’t match up with Church teaching. If you are a theologian that loses their teaching faculties for dissenting on contraception you are a victim of a witch hunt , a martyr, a hero to emulate. If you are a pharmacist who believes that contraception and abortion are morally wrong you are an oppressor, a denier of others rights, a traumatizer of young women.

If your someone like Sen. Santorum and invoke a slippery slope argument you will be attacked and slippery slope will be put into scare quotes. If your the NCReporter it is then okay to say that the results of conscience clauses in relation to abortion and contraception will result in a denial to read a Harry Potter novel. Oh the horror.

They will only accept a conscience clause as long as they are the ones that have the claws into your conscience. Conscience is king except when it isn’t.

[Via Speculative Catholic (one of my favorite new blogs)]

Ed Morrisey of Captain Quarters has a good editorial in the Washington Post on the analysis of the conservative reaction to the Harriet Miers nomination. He divides the camps into the Loyalist Army and the Rebel Alliance and places himself between the two.

The Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces. Those of us who find ourselves torn between the unconvincing, unrelenting positivism of the Loyalists and the potentially destructive Rebel Alliance occupy a no-man’s land of political tiptoeing. We spend our blogging time raising our heads out of the foxholes to note the inbound missiles coming from both sides, and wishing the war would stop — really soon.

Despite our normal support for the president, we Dogfaces fail to recognize George Bush’s supposed brilliance in naming his personal lawyer to the bench, whatever Hugh Hewitt says. Even if Miers obviously has earned Bush’s trust, she just as obviously has done nothing remarkable to earn the trust of conservatives; being a mover and shaker in the American Bar Association doesn’t lend her much credibility among those who have watched that group get more and more politically activist in what we view as the wrong direction. Most of us have tired of the "trust me" approach. In short, we find ourselves with some sympathy for the Rebel Alliance.

One thing this nomination has highlighted is some inconsistencies or outright hypocrisy in some of the arguments conservatives have advanced before in defense of judicial nominees. We have argued previously that elections have consequences and that the President deserves to have his pick. We have put up in defense that Republican Senators had overwhelmingly voted for the confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on this principle. Yet now some are urging that senators not vote to confirm Edith Miers or that the President withdraw the nomination. As poor a choice as I think Edith Miers is she does not fall into the same category as Justice Abe Fortas whose nomination had to be withdrawn for Chief Justice. There is no personal scandal associated with Edith Miers and so the only rational the President currently has to withdraw the nomination is to admit that it was a poor choice. Which is very unlikely considering that he affirmed that is she is the "best-qualified candidate."

There is also the question as to whether the President picked her to appeal to the Evangelical base. Considering that it seems her nomination was somewhat vetted by some key Evangelical leaders ahead of time and that they were the first to up-to-bat on her behalf this seems to be a real possibility. Do we now have a religious test for Supreme Court nominees or as Mark Shea put it "an Affirmative Action seat for Evangelicals on the Bench, never mind their competence" If this was a factor in her consideration than it just makes a mockery of conservative’s arguments about not questioning the religious beliefs of justices and that they will act only on the law.

The President in this circumstance does not seem to have played base ball. That is playing ball with the base. His prominent and in no way ancillary pledge to give us more justices like Scalia and Thomas is in reality a "Read my lips, no more Souters" pledge. This nominationseems more like a bait-and-switch then being in keeping with his pledge. The whole "Trust me" thing sticks in the craw of most of us. This coming from a politician you mostly like is still not comfortable. Especially since he had appointed Norman Mineta as head of the US Department of Transportation and Christie Whitman as head of the EPA, his heart-reading abilities are surely in question. Surely he could easily have read the heart of Sen. Ted Kennedy ahead of time and realized that reaching across the aisle with the No Child Left Behind plan would yield no fruit of kindness in return only another bloated government program. The Reganeque trust but verify is more to my liking. Unfortunately there is not much to verify if anything as far a judicial temperament goes.

I have also now heard the argument that the President couldn’t pick one of the A-list nominees that were on the short list because they couldn’t get confirmed. That if we were to blame anybody is was the gang of 14 and the mushy Republicans on the Senate. There is a couple problems with this analysis. One is that it this argument has been offered by some of the same people who had rooted for somebody like at Mike Luttig or Mike McConnel. If there was no way a more conservative justice could get through than why was this analysis not offered up before hand? Now of course there are some pretty squishy conservatives in the Senate, but I think when push comes to shove that they would vote with the President. What good is having a leader if they don’t ever act like a leader. A military commander that acted only on the will of the troops would not be a good commander. A great leader shapes the will of those around them and persuades them to follow them.

So I find myself firmly agreeing with Captain Ed’s "Those of us who find ourselves torn between the unconvincing, unrelenting positivism of the Loyalists and the potentially destructive Rebel Alliance occupy a no-man’s land of political tiptoeing." I can easily hear the loyalists saying exactly the same things offered by the Loyalists if David Souter had been just nominated. The scorched-earth political tendency in the Rebel Alliance also leaves me unsettled. Maybe good will come out of this split. That is if the President gets the message that he shouldn’t try to pull off a similar pick again if given the opportunity.

I heard Scott McClellan say today regarding the press’s attention on the conservative spit that they should not focus on the one or two conservative voices against the nomination. Talk about spin and it is a sad day when I can agree with something that Chuck Shumer says.

"The idea that Americans shouldn’t know what the judicial philosophy of the nominee to this powerful, powerful position is, is wearing thin with the American people, whether they be liberal, conservative or moderate," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Br. Seraphim Beshoner, TOR posts about a recent interview with y the Vice President of PETA Dan Mathews, and Sir Paul McCartney.

D[an]: There is some exciting news: The last Pope was the first to say that animals have souls, and now Pope Benedict has come out against factory farming, saying it makes a mockery of God’s creatures. As someone who was raised a Catholic, do you have a message for him?

P[aul]: God bless him! I think it would be fantastic if someone in his position who’s able to reach so many people took a strong stance on that, because one of PETA’s strongest points, and one of mine, is compassion. That certainly is a basic tenet of the Catholic religion. I think it would be terrific if he took a strong stance and urged people to come out against that kind of thing.

and then points out the obvious correction.

First, a correction – the Catholic Church has always believed that animals have souls, just not human/rational souls. They have animal souls.

Now of course not only does the Church teach that animals have animal souls, but also that plants have plant souls. So if they want to use Church teaching in this regard and to say that killing animals for food is immoral, then it also follows that vegetarians are are also guilty of vegi-genoside. Where is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Vegetables when you need them. We should not turnip our noses at this problem since no justice no peas.