Today I’m “officially” launching Men Praying, an Advent program of prayer for men in our Roman Catholic Community in Norwich, New York.  We’ll be gathering tonight to begin praying the Liturgy of the Hours, the sacred prayer of the Church offered every minute, of every hour, everyday 24/7 by ordained ministers, religious and laity worldwide.

As I build resources for the program, please visit A Country Deacon, where the resources I’ve gathered are located.  Join us in “building up the Kingdom” through the spiritual discipline and praise of the Divine Office!

Ross Douthat half admits to the intellectual bankruptcy of his opposition of to same-sex marriage and then tacitly demonstrates it with his pathetic reply when pushed to address the topic last month at the New School:

“I am someone opposed to gay marriage who is deeply uncomfortable arguing the issue in public.”

Mr. Douthat indicated that he opposes gay marriage because of his religious beliefs, but that he does not like debating the issue in those terms. At one point he said that, sometimes, he feels like he should either change his mind, or simply resolve never to address the question in public.

He added that the conservative opposition to gay marriage is “a losing argument,” and asked rhetorically if committed homosexual relationships ought to be denied the legal recognition accorded without hesitation to the fleeting enthusiasms of Britney Spears and Newt Gingrich.

After the panel, Mr. Douthat told the Observer: “If I were putting money on the future of gay marriage, I would bet on it.”

He added: “The secular arguments against gay marriage, when they aren’t just based on bigotry or custom, tend to be abstract in ways that don’t find purchase in American political discourse. I say, ‘Institutional support for reproduction,’ you say, ‘I love my boyfriend and I want to marry him.’ Who wins that debate? You win that debate.”

So let’s recap all of what Douthat, who is generally taken to in some way represent the intellectual vanguard of the conservative movement concedes:

(1) Because of his religion he uncomfortably and embarrassedly holds beliefs for which he has almost no independent intellectual warrant and as a result of this he does not even want to bother trying to defend them on rational or moral grounds.

You know that his religion must really give him the truth about things if what it makes him believe is something that he cannot even pretend to stand up for with intellectual, emotional, or moral credibility.  His religion must be a source of good beliefs since he cannot with a clear conscience recommend its teachings to other people of honest thought, feeling, and moral sentiment by appealing to their intellects and their powers of moral judgment.  I mean, beliefs which only are acceptable to those who accept the same dogmatic pronouncements based on shoddy abuse of the concept of moral teleology to rationalize outdated barbaric prejudices must be intellectually and morally justified even if they cannot stand up to independent investigation by non-dogmatic, rational, moral people.

(2) Arguments based on bigotry and custom are not adequate secular reasons for opposing gay marriage.

Yet, I’m sure this concession is compatible with Douthat’s commitment to the authority of Church tradition.  That’s clearly distinct from mere “custom” or Douthat wouldn’t defer to it to the point where he held positions which were indefensible based on common reason and morality in the public sphere.   Plus, I’m sure there is just no way that either the book of Leviticus or the pope could possibly make that “secular” mistake of simply opposing homosexuality from bigotry.  After all, the religious arguments provide so many non-bigoted, non-custom-based reasons that stand up so well to intellectual and moral test that Douthat is embarrassed to try to explain them publicly for all rational and moral people to independently assess them.

(3) His best example of a non-religious argument against same-sex marriage is the desire to give institutional support for reproduction and even that argument is indisputably ineffective.

On this concession though Douthat does not go far enough and admit that this argument fails because it is simply more stupid, empty rationalization of custom, bigotry, and religious custom and religious bigotry.  Instead he blames the argument’s failure on its “abstractness.”  Apparently it just goes above the heads of all of us gay marriage supporters.  I admit that if this argument has any credibility whatsoever it must be too abstract for me. I mean, I do not see how heterosexual marriage will stop giving institutional support for reproduction just because in addition to heterosexual marriages there will also be homosexual ones.  I guess I don’t see how exactly, the institution of gay marriage would replace, rather than merely complement, the institution of heterosexual marriage.   I guess I don’t know how to abstract hard enough to see how society is forced with a choice between only heterosexual marriages on the one hand and only gay marriages on the other hand.  That kind of abstraction to a simple either/or scenario really does go beyond my mental powers.

My superficial, surface level mind keeps thinking that it’s possible to let gay people marry without stopping any single heterosexual couple from marrying or reproducing.  I feel so embarrassed that I cannot think smarter about this.  I feel like Douthat is doing calculus and I cannot even master simple addition and subtraction here.  His level of abstraction to a world of such clear black and white either/or is something I cannot comprehend, stuck as I am on the facts of the world in which heterosexual people don’t stop reproducing just because gay people have sex.

I admit the other time I felt my powers of abstraction to be ridiculously enfeebled was when another opponent of same-sex marriage, Heather MacDonald, offered her own subtle “secular” argument against it.  Her argument was that those irresponsible, marriage averse, homophobic black men that plague our society would be turned off to marriage altogether because it would be a “gay thing to do.”

It’s clear my powers of abstraction are inferior to Douthat’s simply from the fact that I cannot pull off his amazing trick of holding positions so intellectually, morally, and emotionally indefensible that I am embarrassed to support them publicly.  I cannot abstract myself from my conscience so thoroughly that I can advocate positions for which I do not have supporting reasons, just so that I can be obedient to regressive, ancient institutions which stubbornly refuse to rethink their positions in light of increased modern moral understanding.  I do not have such gifts of abstraction that let me feel it is okay to vote in secular elections based on religious beliefs which do not admit of secular justification.

Alas, I really wish I had such abilities with abstraction since apparently they can get you an awesome job as a columnist for The New York Times!

Your Thoughts?

An Italian parish priest performed a marriage ceremony for a couple where one of the partners was transsexual, despite being asked not to by his bishop, and Cardinal Martino calling the marriage “against nature.”

Un prêtre italien célèbre un mariage jugé «contre nature» par l’Eglise

Le père Alessandro Santoro a uni religieusement Sandra, devenue femme il y a plus de trente ans, et son compagnon Fortunato, dimanche dans la banlieue de Florence. «Un acte de fidélité envers les gens que j’aime» a déclaré le prêtre.

Un prêtre d’une paroisse de Florence a célébré dimanche le mariage de Sandra Alvino, 64 ans, transsexuel male devenu female il y a plus de 30 ans, et son compagnon Fortunato Talotta, 58 ans, évidemment contre l’avis de la hiérarchie catholique.

Les deux époux, déjà mariés civilement depuis 25 ans, n’ont pas prononcé le classique «oui je le veux» après les formules consacrées, mais ils ont procédé à l’échange des anneaux et ont été bénis par le père Alessandro Santoro à Piagge, dans la banlieue industrielle de la capitale de la Toscane.

«Acte de fidélité»
Un bon nombre des 200 invités à la cérémonie ont pleuré pendant la longue homélie du prêtre. Celui-ci a souligné que sa décision n’était «pas un acte de rébellion» envers l’Eglise: c’est «un acte de fidélité à l’égard de mes fidèles, de l’Evangile et envers les gens que j’aime». «C’était mon devoir», a-t-il ajouté.

Il y a deux ans, ce mariage religieux avait été stoppé par l’archevêque de Florence de l’époque, le cardinal Ennio Antonelli, et le titulaire actuel du poste, l’évêque Giuseppe Betori, aurait demandé au père Santoro de ne pas le célébrer. Selon l’Eglise, ce mariage n’est de toute façon pas valable car le droit canonique exige l’hétérosexualité des époux.

«Contre nature»
Avant la bénédiction finale, le père Santoro s’est dit conscient comme les deux époux que «le sacrement célébré aujourd’hui sera annulé quand l’acte arrivera au diocèse». «Mais il ne sera pas annulé pour nous, pour cette communauté, ni aux yeux de Dieu», a-t-il dit. «J’ai obéi jusqu’au bout à cette communauté comme j’obéirai à partir de demain à toute décision qui sera prise», a-t-il ajouté, dans une allusion à la réaction de sa hiérarchie.

Le cardinal Renato R. Martino qui occupait jusqu’à samedi le poste important de président du conseil pontifical Justice et Paix et avait été interrogé alors qu’il se trouvait à Florence, avait critiqué fortement la décision du père Santoro. «Je ne comprends pas comment on peut faire une chose de ce genre. C’est contre nature et cela ne mènera à rien à l’intérieur de l’Eglise», avait-il estimé. «La biologie, ce que Dieu a fait homme et femme, ne peut pas être changé par des subterfuges», avait-il dénoncé.

Avec AFP. Photos: Repubblica et Fotolia.

From the Roman Catholic Church in Malta’s Mass attendance census, 2005

Significant Findings

1995 and 2005 in the Maltese islands. The rate of change is slightly higher

than in the previous decades. In 2005 the percent Sunday Mass attendance

was 51.0% in Malta, 72.7% in Gozo and 52.6% for Malta & Gozo together.

Peter Robinson must think all unionists are educationally disadvantaged. Otherwise he would have thought through his proposal to allow decisions of the Executive, such as on education, to be taken by any three parties. S(election) at 14 has been once again floated by the educationalists including the DENI’s favourite, Professor Tony Gallagher and all the main churches. Since the Catholic Church have found themselves, once again, unable to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the sexual abuse of young people by their clerics it must have crossed the minds of those, aware enough to appreciate that they have a virtual monopoly on the education of Catholic children, that there may be a link.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/catholic-church-supporting-15-priests-accused-of-child-sexual-abuse-14579407.html

 If this is Peter Robinson and the DUP’s idea of getting out of jail free on the academic selection at 11 problem they have little concept of the pending backlash. Be careful what you wish for is the best advice PACE can give their educationally and strategy disadvantaged politicians.

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504

Powerful and disturbing reading

• Down in the desert: Dubai, whose potential sovereign-debt default is in today’s news, is messed up, economically and in other ways. Zero Hedge’s Marla Singer, who has spent time there, offers a pretty readable summary. Key takeaway: Dubai’s travails say a lot less about the pitfalls of capitalism than meets the eye.
• Housing-market update: I’m not smart enough to know what to do about this, but more U.S. homes are in delinquency or foreclosure than are for sale.
• The “deadbeat stimulus”: At least $160 billion a year.
• Tim F. observes how the health-care reform bill is being set up to fail.
• Martyrs: The people trying desperately to help Sarah Palin run her life are getting no help at all from the boss. I’m shocked.
• The Obama-Bush Administration: The Obama Justice Department’s arguments against exoneration for former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman are being prepared by the very same people involved in the original frame-up — the one in which Karl Rove was involved up to his eyeballs. So spare me all this talk about how much better things are in government now that Obama has replaced Bush.
• So if we fire all the execs who ran the banking system into the ground, the banking system will crash and burn? Well, pardon me for agreeing with a former public official who barebacked a whore, but I’m thinking we should test that hypothesis.
• Apologies are fine, but the Roman Catholic Church needs to take some of the time it’s spending on apologies and spend it on turning the guilty over to police. Also? Any institution with this kind of problem needs to get itself fixed before presuming to comment upon moral issues.
• Relatedly, not only does a 2007 court filing by Bishop Thomas J. Tobin, last seen denying communion to Rep. Patrick Kennedy because Kennedy won’t oppose abortion, admit the existence of more than twice as many accused priests as the diocese had admitted just three years earlier, it also cites that high number (~125) as a reason why court-ordered disclosure of documents would be excessively “burdensome.” Awwwww …
• Unproductive speculation: If anyone has any ideas about how to end it other than by taxing financial transactions — an idea devised in 1972 by a Nobel winner, by the way — I’m all ears. But it needs to end.

MANHATTAN DECLARATION

By Rev. Michael Bresciani  Thursday, November 26, 2009

News shows across America showed clips of American Idol star Adam Lambert’s overt sexual behavior at the recent American Music Awards. Almost all the clips were preceded with advisories and warnings. When discussed it was a single comment made on the Fox News outlet that beat all.

When questioned by news commentator Bill O’Reilly on the Factor Nov 24, 2009 about the propriety of the act, Lis Wiehl said that she thought it was all OK as long as it was done between the hours of 10:pm and 6:am. She explained that this was the time for anything that was indecent or profane on public television. She made the distinction that it should not be allowed during that time if it was deemed “obscene.”

If you are convinced that no underage children are awake and watching TV after 10:pm and that the rest of America has the savvy to weigh the semantic differences between “indecent” and “obscene” then all that’s left is to ask is, does it have any morally redemptive quality for the rest of us?

Even the meek and lowly Jesus was not naïve about the fact that evil would have its day. Christ said “.it must needs be that offences come” and then he appendaged this overtly negative proclamation with the following “but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Mt 18:7)

A day of “evil” is prophesied to sweep the entire world before Christ sets his feet on this old terrestrial ball again but that in no way indicates that it is either welcome or necessary. The inevitability of offences was covered by the Ancient Son of King David in the book of Ecclesiastes where Solomon said “To every thing there is a season.” (Ec 3:1)

There is also a time and a season for the faithful to stand and be counted, to act on their faith and to proclaim the everlasting gospel in spite of resistance, ridicule or rejection. Perhaps among the news coming out of Christendom of late the Manhattan Declaration can be added to the war cry of the faithful even as other ministries around the world are taken on new initiatives to resist the spread of spiritual anarchy and wickedness in high places.

The document is the result of major Catholic and Evangelical leaders getting together to reaffirm what is considered to be just and Godly in America. It speaks for the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage in a union of one man and one woman and the right to have and retain one of America’s most fundamental liberties, the right to religious freedom.

About 40 of the most well known religious figures in the country have signed the document and others have begun to join suit with 126,863 signatures to date. A notable dissenter is John MacArthur of Grace to You ministries who explains his reason for not signing the declaration.

What MacArthur said in Shepherds’ Fellowship posted Nov 24, 2009 was “Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”- and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.”  Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.”

I can offer no argument for MacArthur’s dissent and in fact I agree with him. Perhaps I along with others think the declaration was not meant to be an instrument of evangelism but only a declaration of the position of those already evangelized. Although it is not irrefutable proof when the positions the declaration proclaims are examined in the light of Christ’s warning that Christians will be known by the fruit they produce (Mt 7:16) it becomes difficult to think of anyone standing up for what is outlined in the document if they were not “born again.” In fact only a bit of polling is needed to see that just about the only people left in America who are holding to these beliefs are people who have understood and responded to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Manhattan Declaration is in some ways a declaration of war. It may be a peaceable war fought by peace loving people but it is war nevertheless.

Many young Bible Students and seminarians have wrestled with the question put forth by their professors’, “If you are supposed to turn the other cheek as Christ said, then, what should you do if they slap the other cheek?” Do you recoil, run away or stand up and proclaim your rights? In this nation we still have rights and religious freedom is one of them. The indiscriminate Christian bashing and attacks, the flagrant disregard for human life and immorality unleashed like a torrent of filthy waste water must be answered and those who do answer and condemn it are well within their rights.

We must never forget that one day the gospel and the Bible in its entirety will no longer be proclaimed at all. After that there is only one thing left and that is called judgment. It too has a time and a season and it is nearer than you think.

Solomon who so poetically described the endless ebb and flow of all things in their respective time and place also warned, “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. Proverbs 29:1, 2

CFP

‘All I got was lies and deceit, I was bullied and threatened’

Church admits it ’stole childhoods of hundreds’

30 years of church and State cover-up of child sex abuse

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern (left) with Minister of State for Children and Youth Affairs Barry Andrews speaking at Government Buildings following the publication of the Commission of Investigation Report into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.
Photograph: Brenda Fitzsimons

PAUL CULLEN

CHILD SEXUAL abuse was covered up by the Dublin archdiocese and other church authorities for almost 30 years, according to the report of the commission of investigation.

State authorities facilitated this cover-up by not fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that the law was applied equally to all, and by allowing church institutions to be beyond the law, it says.

The welfare of children was disregarded for many years, when the focus was on the avoidance of scandal and the preservation of the good name, status and assets of the church and its priests.

“The abuse of children in Dublin was a scandal. The failure of the archdiocesan authorities to penalise the perpetrators is also a scandal,” it notes.

The report says it is abundantly clear that child sexual abuse by clerics was widespread throughout the 30-year period it examined. It says there was no doubt the reason for covering up information was to ensure as few people as possible knew of priests’ problems.

“There was little or no concern for the welfare of the abused child or for the welfare of other children who might come into contact with the priest. Complainants were often met with denial, arrogance and cover-up and with incompetence and incomprehension in some areas. Suspicions were rarely acted on.”

The report, published yesterday by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern, notes it found no evidence of a paedophile ring among priests in the Dublin archdiocese but adds there were some “worrying connections”.

It details a number of “inappropriate” contacts between the Garda and the archdiocese and says some senior members of the Garda clearly regarded priests as being “outside their remit”. In some cases, gardaí reported complaints to the archdiocese instead of investigating them.

Garda investigations into complaints ranged from comprehensive to cursory, it says. A section on the investigation of abuse claims against one, unnamed priest describes as shocking the “connivance” of gardaí in stifling one complaint and failing to investigate another.

The report says all four archbishops in the period – McQuaid, Ryan, McNamara and Connell – handled complaints badly.

“Not one of them reported his knowledge of child sexual abuse to the gardaí throughout the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. It was not until November 1995 that Archbishop Connell allowed the names of 17 priests about whom the archdiocese had received complaints to be given to the gardaí.”

This figure was not complete; at the time, there was knowledge within the archdiocese of at least 28 priests about whom complaints had been made.

According to the report, Archbishop McQuaid failed to apply canon law fully, Archbishop Ryan failed to investigate complaints properly, Archbishop McNamara restored priestly faculties to a confessed child abuser and Archbishop Connell, while stunned by the extent of abuse, was slow to recognise the seriousness of the situation.

The report emphatically rejects claims that the church was surprised by or on “a learning curve” in relation to revelations of sexual abuse. Such claims “ring hollow” when it was clear that cases were being dealt with in the 1950s and 1960s. The taking out of insurance in 1987 was an act proving knowledge of child sexual abuse as a potential major cost and was inconsistent with the view that officials were on a learning curve, the report states.

The report hails a “courageous” few priests who brought complaints to the attention of their superiors but says “the vast majority chose to turn a blind eye”. Church authorities failed to implement most of their own canon law rules on dealing with abuse and for many years offenders were neither prosecuted nor made accountable within the church.

The report summarises the attitude of the archdiocese to abuse with the expressions “don’t ask, don’t tell” and “gain his knowledge, tell him nothing”. People who complained were told as little as possible and there was an obsessive concern with secrecy and the avoidance of scandal, which resulted in a failure by successive archbishops and bishops to report claims to the Garda before 1996.

The report says that while priests were directly responsible for their actions, their superiors were responsible for ensuring they were not protected by their status and did not get special treatment.

Criticising the “extraordinary delay” in introducing child protection legislation, it says the primary responsibility for the area must rest with the State.

The report, covering 1975 to 2004, comes in two parts. Part 1 examines the handling of sexual abuse complaints in the archdiocese, while Part 2 details the cases of 46 individual priests against whom allegations were made.

The commission received information about 172 named priests and 11 unnamed priests, of which 102 fell within its remit. The levels of alleged abuse varied greatly – one priest admitted to sexually abusing more than 100 children, while another said he had abused on a fortnightly basis over 25 years. The complaints against the 46 priests involved over 320 children, most of them boys.

The commission says it is satisfied that effective procedures for dealing with clerical sexual abuse are now in place and all complaints made to the church authorities are reported to the Garda.

However, it says procedures are heavily dependent on the commitment and effectiveness of the archbishop and the director of the child protection service.

“The current archbishop and director are clearly committed and effective but institutional structures need to be sufficiently embedded to ensure that they survive uncommitted or ineffective personnel.”

The commission was appointed in 2006 and is chaired by Circuit Court Judge Yvonne Murphy.

It has cost €3.6 million up to last April, not including third-party costs.