ROUGH SECTS

June 30, 2014, Supreme Court Decision Puts Religious Extremists in Charge of Your Health Care

2014-07-07T08:44:00.000-04:00

June 30 2014 - Statement from Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice:

“Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court is a devastating blow to real religious liberty in America,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. “The claim that institutions or corporations have a conscience or religious liberty is disingenuous and offensive. Conscience and religious liberty rights belong properly to individuals. The majority of Catholics use and support contraceptive coverage. The majority of Catholics support real religious liberty for all. The majority of Catholics will be disappointed by this ruling.

“These cases are about far more than birth control or access to healthcare. At stake are the religious liberty rights of all workers in the United States—their right to live their lives according to their own beliefs and consciences, and their freedom from having their employers’ beliefs forced upon them. This ruling is just the tip of the iceberg, with similar lawsuits from nonprofit organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor and the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) in the pipeline. While today’s cases were about providing birth control through health insurance plans, the Supreme Court has shown that it will not protect the religious liberty of employees.

“What’s clear from today’s ruling is that the Obama administration made a terrible misjudgment by bending over backwards to appease the unappeasable. Aggressive lobbying by the Catholic bishops and their ultraconservative allies pressured the administration to cave on the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage rules, creating a loophole exploited by organizations—religious or not—to claim exemptions from the law. But even that was never going to be enough for the bishops and their allies like Hobby Lobby.

“As a result of this decision, organizations involved in reproductive rights and religious freedom need to work together and come up with a legislative solution. Religious extremists will not be placated by negotiation and compromise. Today, the Obama administration has learned this the hard way. Catholics for Choice will be front and center in the fight to ensure that this administration stops throwing women under the bus whenever the going gets tough.

“Women and men across the United States lost today—and not just the tens of thousands of employees working for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties. They and millions of others now face the prospect of a future like that of ‘Sandra,’ a young science teacher at a Catholic school. Sandra took a pay cut to do the type of work she loves, but soon realized that working under the jurisdiction of a local diocese came with a hefty price tag. When she went to fill her usual birth control prescription, she was shocked to discover her new employer did not cover birth control, regardless of medical necessity. Paying out of pocket for the contraceptive method that worked best for her, a nongeneric prescription, posed a significant hardship on the budget she had carefully planned with her husband. But Sandra especially objected to the bishops’ interference in personal, private decisions about her reproductive health. Her story is all too common, and today’s ruling put the healthcare decisions of millions of employees at companies like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties in the hands of their employers rather than their own.

“The truth is that requirements under the Affordable Care Act infringe on no one’s conscience. Under the guise of protecting religious freedom and so-called ‘conscience rights,’ however, employers like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties are now free to trample on the religious liberty of their employees who wish to follow their own consciences when it comes to whether and when to start a family. The majority of Catholics across the United States who stand with these employees and their rights are sorely disappointed. While today’s ruling is a huge loss for workers and families everywhere, Catholics for Choice will continue to advocate for the real religious freedom of every individual and fight to ensure this bad decision is not the end of religious liberty as we know it.”

Notes to editors:

Catholics for Choice joined an amicus brief with 29 other faith-based organizations in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties cases. The Catholic signatories, which reflect the diversity and values of the majority of American Catholics, also include CORPUS, DignityUSA, New Ways Ministry, Women’s Ordination Conference, the National Coalition of American Nuns and Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER).

In addition, 44 members of the Coalition for Liberty and Justice—a diverse cross-section of communities, including faith-based and secular groups as well as those dedicated to women’s rights, LGBT rights, separation of church and state, civil rights and reproductive rights and justice—urged the Supreme Court to support real religious liberty for all.

SOURCE: CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE - JUNE 30, 2014

WHY DOES POPE FRANCIS CONTINUE TO EXTEND SAFE HARBOR TO AN ACCUSED SEXUAL PREDATOR?

2014-07-03T22:46:00.001-04:00

The Vatican has defrocked an archbishop.

Former Archbishop Josef Wesolowski

Photo Credit www.se.pl

The grounds for this relatively rare action have not been made public, so far as I can tell.

A lack of transparency is itself a problem and may become THE problem for the Vatican.

The ongoing scandal is whether Archbishop Josef Wesolowski is to be permitted, still, to enjoy diplomatic immunity in Vatican City, to where he fled, thereby avoiding criminal charges for engaging in serious sexual misconduct in the Dominican Republic.

Archbishop Wesolowski was serving as Papal Nuncio (ambassador) in the Dominican Republic, when he escaped the country (was "recalled").

After Wesolowski retreated to the Vatican, the Dominican Republic requested his extradition.

The Vatican denied the Wesolowski extradition request, claiming he is immune from prosecution in secular courts.

The Vatican appears to be playing a subtle game here, wanted credit for transparent, fair dealing in this matter when nothing of the kind exists, as yet.

In a statement announcing its decision, a Vatican spokesman linked the defrocking of the archbishop, with recent sanctions against the church by first one and then a second United Nations Panel.

Both UN panels have formally expressed severe criticism of the Catholic Church for its failure to protect children from pedophile clerics.

The UN entities also faulted the Vatican for failing to cooperate with secular authorities in enforcing criminal laws, after abuse allegations had been made against a priest.

By no means the first or most notorious accused priest-abuser, Josef Wesolowski brings a certain international caschee to clerical scandal, because of his link directly to the Vatican of Francis I.

With the defrocking of Wesolowski the Vatican is hoping to demonstrate how seriously the Church (now!) is taking allegations of clerical pedophilia.

But the Vatican has yet to demonstrate transparency in the Wesolowski matter.

What did the Vatican learn about this man, which caused his laicisation?

If Wesolowski is no longer a priest, is he still permitted to live within Vatican City?

Wherever Wesolowski is living, who is paying his bills?

If the Church is paying for his continuing maintenance, then how much is the Church paying, and for how long?

Aside from these questions, which go to transparency in the Vatican's handling of the Wesolowski affair, two additional and urgent questions remain to be answered:

Will the Vatican now relent in its refusal to honor a request for Wesolowski to be extradited to the Dominican Republic?

What steps are being taken to protect other vulnerable persons, whether children or adults, from a laicised sexual predator (if this characterization fits the facts which justify the decision to defrock).

Wesolowski has two months to appeal his formal laicisation.

If no appeal is taken, then certainly, by September, 2014, all of the above questions facing the Vatican will have been answered - if transparency and cooperation with secular authorities are important touchstones of this Papacy.

In the interests of the credibility of the pontificate of Pope Francis I:

The Vatican must end its refusal to extradite Josef Wesolowski to the Dominican Republic.

The Vatican must open to the public its files of its own Wesolowski investigation.

Background:

Vatican's UN envoy says bishop's defrocking shows church takes abuse seriously - NCR, July 2, 2014

Vatican Criticized by UN Panel: the Church Fails, Even Now, to Protect Children from Sexual Abuse by Priests - ROUGH SECTS, FEB 5, 2014

"a contrivance that justifies its own carelessness"

2014-05-09T08:50:00.000-04:00

May 9 - Birthday of José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955)

Jose Ortega y Gasset

. . . who, 87 years ago, referred to non-reflective Catholicism as “. . . un comodín que justifica la ignavia” – a contrivance that justifies its own carelessness. (Espiritu de la Letra, 1927, 1967, p. 90).

This is still true and is why the hierarchy today:

- has us praying to non-existent saints, people who never actually lived on earth;
- condemns a book written by a Catholic women scholar, who is given no opportunity to dialogue with the Inquisitor before the ax falls;
- condemns an organization of nuns, who honor the condemned woman scholar
- tells a committee of the UN that the rape of children by priests ought NOT be considered a crime of torture;
- tells the faithful that the hierarchy is on top of the child-rape crime situation, when in in fact, in most dioceses such as here in Baltimore, there is minimal to zero lay involvement or oversight of the priest-abuse reporting process;
- raises $ with minimal accountability about how the funds are spent, with some money - a little? a lot? all of it? who the hell knows?- going to rightwing anti-women crusades that most Catholics would oppose, if asked;
- conducts "religious liberty" campaigns that actually undermine the conscience of individuals who work for "Catholic" institutions
- even under the current public relations champ, Pope Francis, the hierarchy refuses to allow accused priests to be held accountable for crimes they are accused of committing by, e.g., ignoring an extradition request out of the Vatican safe haven, for a prelate to face sex abuse charges in the Dominican Republic.
- actively and successfully campaigns in Mexico, El Salvador, etc. for women to be imprisoned, who suffer miscarriages, when there is no evidence presented of any abortion;
- etc.

Ironic, as Ortega y Gasset suggested in his time, that a hierarchy which boldly professes at every opportunity to adore the God of the Universe, is so fearful of a dialogue with the faithful who pay ALL the bills.

You'd think a supreme, creator-God would merit more honesty and respect from the self-appointed hierarchy than that.

Little of the hypocrisy, conducted weekly and daily by the hierarchy, is reported and called out in "Catholic" media such as diocesan newspapers. The silence is not ironic and is easily explained: the "publisher" of such non-news papers is the resident prelate.

Irony Exceeded by Hypocrisy -The Abandonment of Vulnerable Children & the Condemnation of Gay and Lesbian Couples

2014-04-04T10:08:00.003-04:00

The Vatican is a 1990 signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In an earlier post, I pointed to a committee of child care experts, empaneled by the United Nations.

This committee, operating under a mandate to determine if the Vatican was meeting its formal obligations under the Convention, concluded, no, and issued a report which criticized the Vatican.

The UN committee pointed to the decades-long failure of the Vatican to protect vulnerable children from predatory priests. The committee also found that the Roman Catholic Church was ignoring the best interests of children and cited a recent example in Brazil, of a raped and impregnated pre-adolescent, whose mother as well as the child's physician were shunned, i.e., excommunicated by the Church, for procuring an abortion for the child.

Among its recommendations, the UN Committee proposed that Canon Law be changed, in the interests of better protection for vulnerable children.

The official Church response to the committee report, together with many defensive Catholic pundits, castigated the committee for over-reaching.

Defending the abandonment of a raped and impregnated child, merely on the grounds of upholding current policy is akin to North Korea objecting to criticism of its nuclear weaponizing by commenting: our policies permit this; got a problem with that?

I raised the questions:

(1) would any credible child care professional on the face of the globe defend the Church's position that a raped and impregnated child must to required to carry her pregnancy to term?

(2) is there is any defensible argument against the UN committee's conclusion that the Church's internal policies and procedures, i.e., Canon Law, are harmful to the rights of a child and ought to be amended?

Brian Cahill, writing in the National Catholic Reporter, approaches the Vatican's obligations to vulnerable children from a different perspective. Cahill writes (emphasis added here):

"While the Vatican blew off this U.N. mandate when it came to the sexual abuse of children, it took the agreement very seriously when it came to another matter. In 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issued an updated teaching against gay marriage. The teaching for the first time specifically prohibited same-sex couples from being adoptive parents, and cited the Convention on the Rights of the Child as support for the Roman prohibition. When it came to priests abusing vulnerable children, the agreement was ignored, but when it came to gay and lesbian couples adopting vulnerable children, it was run up the Roman flagpole. The irony is only exceeded by the hypocrisy."

Cahill went on to cite recent instances of one or another US bishop campaigning harshly against the civil rights of Catholic and non-Catholic gay and lesbian couples:

church communication directors are to avoid the term "gay marriage"

state gay marriage laws now on the books, are still made the object of condemnation

legally married gay and lesbian couples should refrain from the Eucharist

companies ought to be able to deny services to gay and lesbian couples

the campaign for marriage equality is not to be seen as civil rights, or even, human rights

Cahill proposes that Pope Francis would do well to follow his humane and generous comments ("Who am I to judge?") with concrete policy changes, such as a formal embrace of the UN committee's report in the interests of better protecting children.

SOURCES:

Who Is Perpetuating Real Harm in the Marriage Equality Debate? - Bondings 2.0, 4/4/14

Irony, hypocrisy and frantic orthodoxy - Brian Cahill, National Catholic Reporter, 3/13/14

Child Care Experts Tell Vatican: a Raped and Impregnated Child, Like Every Child Must be Protected - ROUGH SECTS, 2/13/14

UN Experts Committee Report (PDF)

A Step Forward: “The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors”

2014-03-22T16:59:00.008-04:00

On March 22, 2014, the Vatican announced that the first eight appointees have been made to “The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.”

According to an announcement on Vatican Radio:

“Members of the new Commission announced Saturday by the Holy See’s Press Office, include four men and four women who will be tasked firstly, with drawing up the Statutes of the Commission, defining ‘its tasks and competencies.’

The eight appointees:

Catherine Bonnet, French psychologist

Marie Collins, who was molested at age 13 by a hospital chaplain, who has gone on to found the anti-abuse group, One-in-Four, and who lately has established a Foundation intended to address on-line abuse and exploitation of minors.

Sheila Hollins, a psychiatrist and member of the U.K. House of Lords

Sean O'Malley, Roman Catholic Cardinal of Boston

Claudio Papale, Italian jurist

Hanna Suchocka, former prime minister of Poland and ambassador to the Holy See

Humberto Miguel Yanez, S.J, identified as “a moral theologian and former pupil and collaborator of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Argentina”

Hans Zollner, vice-rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University and Chair of the Centre for Child Protection at the University's Institute of Psychology

The formal announcement stated:

Other members will be added to the Commission in the future, chosen from various geographical areas of the world.

Reacting to her appointment, Ms Collins was quoted in the Wall Street Journal

Marie Collins

Photo Credit - Catholic Ireland

"This came as quite a surprise. This pope has been speaking about change, but this shows real action. It's a huge step forward."

SOURCES, BACKGROUND:

Pontifical Commission established for Protection of Minors includes women, abuse victim - Vatican Radio, Mar 22, 2014

Vatican Appoints Marie Collins to Abuse Panel - Catholic Ireland, Mar 22, 2014

Pope Appoints Former Victim to Sex Abuse Commission - USA Today, Mar 22, 2014

Pope Appoints Abuse Survivor to Commission - Christian Science Monitor, Mar 22 2014

Pope Francis Appoints Commission - Wall Street Journal, Mar 22 2014

Pope Francis I - Fresh Breeze or Spin Doc ?

2014-03-20T20:44:00.000-04:00

ONE STEP BACK

With Pope Francis, maybe we can live with a rhetorical step backward so long as there are two solid steps forward:

The backward step came earlier this month when Francis stated in an interview, when discussing the Catholic Church's response to clergy abuse of children:

“no one else has done more”

This comment will be met with surprise and disappointment by anyone who is hoping for candor from Pope Francis and/or anyone who has tracked the clergy abuse scandal over the past 20+ years and who knows that the Catholic hierarchy across the globe:

has coerced victims into silence;
secretly transferred priest-predators who were able to attack new victims;
delivered misleading public statements, when silence was no longer credible;
established bishop-controlled "boards" with little to no input or guidance from child-safety experts and close to zero participation by parishioners as monitors or even as reporters of conditions in their own parishes.

TWO FORWARD STEPS

The two forward steps by Pope Francis may be more substantive than that platitude about doing 'more' than anyone else. We hope.

These two steps - taken within just this first year of his administrative oversight at the Vatican include:

- revising Vatican law which now (not before!!) specified violence against children a crime;

- establishing a committee ("commission") to offer advice how better to protect children from pedophile priests and also, how better to counsel victims.

If the new commission is no more than a charade, similar to the USCCB-controlled mechanism set up under the "Dallas Charter," we have more backward than forward steps.

We should know soon whether this Pope is the hoped-for fresh breeze or simply a likeable spin doctor.

SOURCE:

Pope Francis Defends Church’s Response To Clergy Sex Abuse - FRONTLINE, Mar 5, 2014

Francis The Fixer - Mar 7 2014

BACKGROUND:

Pope Francis In His Own Words - FRONTLINE, Feb 25, 2014

What’s the State of the Church’s Child Abuse Crisis? FRONTLINE - Feb 25, 2014

Catholic Whistle Blowers - You Can Help

«Benedetto XVI non è una statua Partecipa alla vita della Chiesa» - Interview with the Newspaper Corriere della Sera

Father Marcial Maciel, was my dad, and he sexually abused me - NY Daily News, March 20 2014

Does the Catholic Church See Homosexuals as Criminals or as Persons to be Protected from Criminal Prosecution?

2014-03-11T12:13:00.001-04:00

In 2008, the Vatican's permanent representative to the United Nations, stated:

"The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them."

But . . .

In the wake of anti-homosexual criminal laws recently passed in Nigeria and Uganda, Archbishop Peter Turkson, head of the Pontifical Council on Peace and Justice, said in 2014:

" . . . attempts to recognize those engaging in homosexual behaviour as a specific group to be accorded human rights go beyond the protection to be guaranteed to all people under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Well, which is it?

Is the 2008 Vatican statement condemning "unjust discrimination" and urging nations not to adopt "criminal penalties" against "homosexual persons" the policy of the Roman Catholic Church?

Or:

Is Church policy expressed in the 2014 assertion by another Vatican representative that gay citizens are not entitled to "protection . . . under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?"

We await a clarification from Pope Francis I.

Meanwhile a holocaust for 'homosexuals' is underway in Nigeria, Uganda and elsewhere - and the Vatican equivocates.

SOURCES:

Vatican U.N. delegation calls for end to unjust discrimination against homosexuals - CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, Dec 19 2008

Cardinal Turkson defends religious liberty VATICAN RADIO March 4, 2014

Ugandan tabloid prints list of 'homosexuals' - CNN, Feb 25, 2014

Ugandan President Signs Harsh Anti-Gay Bill, Invites “outsiders” to Stop Financial Aid to Uganda - so, Let’s. - ROUGH SECTS, Feb 25, 2014

U.N. human rights leader to visit anti-gay Nigeria - ERASING 76 CRIMES, March 11, 2014

Feb 26 2014: Catholic Agency for Overseas Development Condemns anti-LGBT Law in Uganda

2014-02-28T15:16:00.000-05:00

The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD) has condemned a new law approved on Monday in Uganda, which will allow those convicted of homosexuality to be imprisoned for life.

In a statement today (Feb 26, 14) CAFOD said:

“Every human person has a fundamental dignity, as created by God, and each person is precious in God’s eyes. CAFOD therefore opposes all forms of discrimination, whether based on race, religion, gender or sexuality.

"As was made clear by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in their 1986 letter to Bishops all over the world:

‘It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.’.”

A spokesperson said parts of Ugandan society was already very hostile to homosexuality and she feared the new law will lead to increased violent attacks on people who are gay, or even suspected of being gay.

Gratuitous attacks on LGBT Ugandans are beginning, already. In a screaming front page headline, with photos alongside, a Ugandan tabloid shouted:

"EXPOSED! Uganda's 200 Top Homos Named"

Can physical attacks be far behind?

Governments and NGO's with ties to Ugandan counterparts and rapport with Ugandan government representatives are urged to tell everyone: the new, inhumane law must be rescinded.

Source:

CAFOD condemns Uganda's anti-homsexuality law - ICN, Feb 26 2014

Ugandan tabloid prints list of 'homosexuals' - CNN Feb 25 14

Newspaper Outs 200 ‘Top’ Gays in Uganda After law enacted outlawing homosexuality | TIME. WORLD 2/15/2014

". . . the child that had been left behind, they didn’t care about her at all"

2014-02-25T23:01:00.000-05:00

OUR "OFFICIAL" CATHOLIC MEDIA OUGHT TO BE PUBLISHING

THESE INTERVIEWS BUT THEY DON'T

INSTEAD

THEY GIVE US THE "DALLAS CHARTER" CHARADE

Monica Barrett: “If You Tell Anybody, Your Parents Will Burn in Hell”

FRONTLINE, February 25, 2014, 8:35 pm ET

Monica Barrett says that she was raped by her parish priest when she was just 8 years old. “It just pulled my entire foundation out from under me,” she told FRONTLINE. In 1993 Barrett filed suit against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. “I retained an attorney, and they used me as an example,” she says. “They used legal tactics to intimidate me and to beat me down.” This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on Sept. 15, 2013.

Go back to the early days when you were a little girl. Tell me how important the Catholic faith was to you and your family.

They were very much a part of our lives. I went to Catholic grade school as a child, and we went to Mass five days a week. We went on weekends. We had priests to our home, Communion, baptisms, confirmation. The Catholic Church was a big part of our family.

Tell me about that terrible experience that changed everything for you.

It was a Saturday, and I was 8 years old. A parish priest was visiting in another parish out in Lake Geneva, [Wis.] My mother was — I think she was going to school that day. She wasn’t home for whatever reason, and my older siblings were off to work. My father took my younger sister and I, and we drove out to Lake Geneva to visit with this priest, William Effinger. Through the day, my dad and this priest spent time drinking together, and my little sister and I played as best we could with limited things there were to play with.

At one point in the day, Father Effinger said he needed help in the church with candles, and my father said, “Go help him.” And I said, “I don’t want to go.” I was a very shy, obedient child, so it was rather unlike me to deny him anything. And he said, “No, you just go and help him.”

I remember as we walked to the walkway from the rectory over to the church, thinking, there’s no masses on Saturday, why do we have to go worry about the candles now? Don’t they have church ladies to do these things? It didn’t make sense to me, and I knew then that there was something wrong. And we went into the church where he assaulted me for a period of time, and ultimately ended up raping me.

When it was over, how did he treat you?

[ . . . ] when he finished he stood up and he looked at me and he said: “If you tell anybody what you did, they won’t believe you. And if you tell anybody, your parents will burn in hell.” And then he gave me penance to do [ . . . ] I remember hearing the door close, and I just sat there because I didn’t know what I should do. I didn’t know if I should get up or if I should just stay there.

Eventually I just — I left. I got up, and I realized that there was blood on my legs, and there was blood on the new purple shorts that my grandma had given to me for my birthday. When I got to the end of the aisle I wiped the blood off with some of the holy water, and I went and sat outside under this big tree [ . . . ]

My little sister — she was two years younger than me — she came out, and she asked me what was wrong, and I couldn’t answer her. She said, “Tell me what’s wrong.” [ . . . ] She sat with me outside under that tree, and she just hugged me, and we rocked and waited until my dad finally took us home.

Sexual abuse of a small child by an adult is dreadful enough. What makes abuse by a priest so much worse?

I think that when you’re abused by a priest, they have such power and authority over you, it shakes the very foundation that your life has been built on, the belief system that adults will take care of you and that adults are authority figures that should be obeyed, and that if you follow the directions, you follow the rules, that everything will be fine.

[ . . . ]

Everything that I had been taught by the Catholic school and in church about respect and about priests and God and us being his children and that he loved us all, and if we followed those Ten Commandments that no harm would come to us — everything was just taken away on that day.

Can you tell us a little bit about what you had to go through in trying to get some compensation for this?

When I came forward with my abuse back in 1991, I went and spoke to Archbishop Weakland and Bishop Sklba [ . . . ] and in that meeting I realized that they didn’t care about what had happened to me other than how it would affect them. But the child that had been left behind, they didn’t care about her at all.

How did that become clear to you?

That became very clear to me at that initial meeting when Archbishop Weakland looked at me and said: “Very well then. Don’t speak to anybody else about this. We’ll take care of it.” [ . . . ] They used legal tactics to intimidate me and to beat me down. [ . . . ]

What would you really like the church to do?

I would want the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to release all the files on all the priests, whether they were diocesan priests or religious-order priests, that they have regarding the sex abuse cases. I would like for them to quit fighting with the survivors in the bankruptcy court, and I would like for them to try to reach within themselves and find some place of compassion and give a heartfelt, sincere apology to the survivors and the survivors’ families and the survivors’ children. We’ve all had to deal with this.

Are you still a practicing Catholic?

No, I am not. I find it very difficult to attend any kind of service in a Catholic church. Generally, the only services I do attend are funerals of close friends or relatives. [ . . . ] I have a hard time believing anything they say, because they have treated me and others with such disrespect and such a lack of compassion and empathy that for them to stand at a podium and preach one thing and to do another is just hypocrisy.

You’ve said a very strong thing — even the mention of God’s name makes you tremble almost. Can you explain why the name of God has become so powerful and so negative for you?

As a child at that time in Catholic school, we went to Mass five days a week, and obviously my parents would take me on Sundays. My abuser was at that school, so after I was abused, he was there. I would have to kneel down in front of him for Communion. I would have to listen to his voice preach the Gospel or give homilies, and whenever I hear the word “God” I know that I emotionally turn away as well as almost physically, because it’s just so painful. [ . . .]

What I find so extraordinary is the way he made you feel guilty for what happened.

Most of these abusers, whether they were rapists or pedophiles or both, or just sexual abusers, they were very smart, manipulative, calculating men. They knew exactly what they were doing. They went for quiet, shy, obedient children. They didn’t go for outspoken, problematic children who might tell on them. When he gave me that penance to do, in my mind is a little 8-year-old girl who had been raised to respect priests and to understand the sacrament of confession. That penance signified to me that this entire event that was beyond my comprehension, that was so physically and emotionally painful for me, was of my doing, that I had somehow been responsible for this.

[ . . . ] on that day when he abused me, one little girl went into that church, a little 8-year-old girl that had trust and faith and curiosity and love and was open, and that changed. That little girl died on that day, and the little girl that came out, she lost her childhood; she lost her innocence; she lost her faith; she lost her trust in other human beings. [ . . . ]

Excerpts from Frontline

IF YOU TELL ANYBODY YOUR PARENTS WILL BURN IN HELL

FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation.

Child Care Experts Tell Vatican: a Raped and Impregnated Child, Like Every Child Must be Protected

2014-02-13T11:15:00.001-05:00

If the Vatican will not on its own protect the child, the U.N. must step in, child care experts have said.

In Brazil a young girl was raped and impregnated by her step-father. The child's mother sought medical attention for her daughter, with the result that twins who were conceived were aborted.

The local archbishop reacted by excommunicating the doctors and the girl's mother - but not the rapist.

The Vatican reacted by endorsing the orders of excommunication by the local Archbishop.

These events were part of the evidence which the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child received, as it considered whether the Vatican's internal rules and applications of the rules are adequate for the protection of the child.

In February, 2014, the committee recommended to the Vatican that Roman Catholic internal policies and procedures (Canon Law) be revised so as to better protect a child confronted with abuse at the hands of an adult.

The Committee's report and recommendations have been subjected to harsh criticism from the Vatican and also from many (most?) commentators in the media.

Paul Vallely, of the Catholic publication, the Tablet, writing in the New York Times on Feb 11, 2014 suggests that the U.N. 'blundered' by extending its critique to basic Catholic doctrine.

Each of the commentators or official critics of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (whom I have read) ignore several important facts:

1. The U. N. Committee on the Rights of the Child is composed of well-regarded child-care and child-protection experts from around the world.

None of the vociferous criticisms from official Catholic sources take note of the composition of the committee.

None of the criticisms directed at the committee's recommendations offer any specific recommendations, which might counter the conclusions the committee reached.

None of the criticisms (I have read) argue that child care experts need not be consulted when internal policies and procedures of a signatory of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are under review or when these rules have been found inadequate for the protection of a child.

2. The Vatican is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and therefore, has bound itself to adopt standards for the protection of the child.

It is late in the day for the Vatican to claim, now, that the Vatican's internal rules are not be subject to change, based on international norms.

If the Vatican was able to flout international child-care standards, it would be possible for any miscreant state to object to UN sanctions on the same grounds - that internal rules are sacrosanct.

If the UN were not to recommend changes in internal policies and procedures, international human rights norms would be empty of meaning and impossible to enforce.

3. A religious group's internal policies and procedures do not trump international child-care standards.

Consider the impact worldwide if the opposite rule were to apply.

Is anyone prepared to suggest that the internal policies and procedures of every religious community may trump generally accepted, internationally recognized child-care standards?

Ought the committee have deferred to Catholic doctrine and practice (Canon Law) rather than examine the actual impact on the child of these doctrines and practices?

Is the Vatican, the US Conference of Bishops or anyone else, prepared to argue that it's OK to require silence from a child victim of sexual violence?

The Committee has noted past Catholic practice which commanded silence from child-victims and which quietly relocated abusing priests - and has recommended changes in the rules (Canon Law) which authorized this horrendous misconduct.

Are the committee's critics prepared to argue that it is in the best interests of a child for schools operated by a religious organization to decree a child be barred from attendance at a religious school because the child's family is composed of two fathers or two mothers?

In the case of the raped and impregnated child in Brazil, ought the Committee on the Rights of the Child have concluded, since the Catholic Church opposes abortion under all circumstances, the child ought to have been forced by civil authorities in Brazil to have carried the fetuses to term?

Is anyone, outside orthodox religious circles, prepared to make this case?

Neither the Vatican nor the US Catholic Conference, or any of the other critics I have read, identified a single child care expert who thinks it is in the best interest of a raped child to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

Nor has anyone argued that a child's best interests is served when the child's mother is shunned by her religious circle for seeking to protect a raped child from becomming a mother at the age of twelve.

Nor has anyone argued that it is good public policy, to be endorsed by the U.N., for health care professionals to be shunned by their religious organization, for following legal civil law in aborting an impregnated, raped child.

4. There is no evidence that the U.N. child-care experts were playing politics.

No one has offered evidence that the committee's recommendations have been unduly influenced by any nation, interested group, or anyone else.

The best next step for everyone: read the committee report (linked below).

SOURCES:

UN Experts Committee Report (PDF)

Doctor who performed abortion on 9-year old rape victim excommunicated - Examiner - 3/10/10

Abortion results in excommunication for mother, doctors in Brazil - Catholic News Service, 3/9/09

Vatican Missteps and U.N. Blunders - Paul Vallely Op Ed NY Times 2/11/14

Vatican hits back at U.N. committee for abuse report

The United Nations: Caring for Children or Caring for Culture Warrior - USCCB MEDIA BLOG, 2/5/14s

Background:

Q&A: Vatican child abuse scandal - from the BBC - 2/5/14

Without Evidence, the Vatican Attempts to Discredit UN Committee of Experts

2014-02-08T17:54:00.004-05:00

Several years ago, the United Nations appointed a committee of experts in child care to determine if the policies and practices of signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child are being implemented.

In the words of UNICEF (United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund):

"The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. In 1989, world leaders decided that children needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not.

"The Convention sets out these rights in 54 articles and two Optional Protocols. It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life. [. . . ] The Convention protects children's rights by setting standards in health care; education; and legal, civil and social services.

The Convention articles are binding on nations and nation-states that have signed the Convention or have formally agreed to be bound by its provisions. The Vatican has signed the Convention and is legally bound to implement it, worldwide.

The United nations has appointed experts, who compose the Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Committee has been commissioned to take testimony and gather evidence whether the Vatican ("the Holy See") has implemented policies which protect children.

On February 5, 2014, the Committee issued its most recent Report in which recommendations were made to the Vatican. The non-binding recommendations are designed to bring the Vatican into compliance with its international obligations to protect children.

Among its many recommendations, the Committee has

asked the Vatican to:

(1) remove all child abusers from its ranks;

(2) report the abusers to law enforcement;

(3) open the church’s archives "so that bishops and other officials who concealed crimes could be held accountable."

Unfortunately the Vatican has not agreed to do anything of the sort. Instead, the Vatican responded to the Committee by attacking it.

Vatican representative, Father Federico Lombardi, speaking February 7, 2014, on Vatican Radio, accused the UN experts of giving more weight to the testimony and evidence of

"well-known NGOs, prejudiced against the Catholic Church and the Holy See."

Father Lombardi added (as reported by USA Today), the UN child care experts had ignored the Vatican's own explanations and data. Lombardi went on to assert that the child care experts must have written their report "before the Vatican made its case at a daylong hearing" in January 2014.

Father Lombardi offered no evidence for his attacks upon the integrity of the child care experts.

Will Father Lombardi or some other Vatican spokesman offer evidence in the future, which support its allegations of bias by the child care experts?

NOTE: in future blog posts we will highlight the specific recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Vatican's record in implementing these recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND SOURCES:

UNICEF home page.

Convention on the Rights of the Child - UNICEF Website

UN Experts Committee Report (PDF)

Vatican hits back at U.N. committee for abuse report - Nicole Winfield of AP, Report on USA Today & Video - 2/7/14

The United Nations: Caring for Children or Caring for Culture Warriors -USCCB Media Blog 2/5/14

Vatican Criticized by UN Panel: the Church Fails, Even Now, to Protect Children from Sexual Abuse by Priests

2014-02-05T22:47:00.001-05:00

Pope Francis, if you are to retain the world's admiration, you must act. Now.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child invited (Feb 5, 2014) the Vatican to take three steps, which the Church has never taken.

(1) remove all child abusers from its ranks;

(2) report the abusers to law enforcement;

(3) open the church’s archives "so that bishops and other officials who concealed crimes could be held accountable."

The Committee, whose recommendations are not binding, stated that the Vatican should establish:

"clear rules, mechanisms and procedures for the mandatory reporting of all suspected cases of abuse to civil law enforcement authorities . . . ."

The UN Committee concluded,

"The Holy See has consistently placed the preservation of the reputation of the Church and the protection of the perpetrators above children's best interests."

The Vatican responded to the committee report, by ignoring the three specific steps proposed (above). Instead of offering the required candor, the Vatican representative, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi lamely suggested that the Church had already taken several of the recommended steps - which is not true.

One such smokescreen here in the US is the cynical, toothless pantomime of a credible, independent oversight committee, the bishop-controlled review board established under the provisions of the so called Dallas Charter.

The history of the past decades instructs that the Vatican, while insisting that it truthfully articulates the intentions of God for all of humanity, neither has or likely ever will protect children from sexual predators in the priestly ranks.

The Church's leadership has failed to protect the most vulnerable in its care. This abject moral collapse casts a shadow over the Church's statements on all subjects.

For decades, the Church has protected priestly abusers. The Church still refuses to permit church employees to report abusers to local police. The Church has never opened the abuse archives.

The hierarchy protects the hierarchs. Two of countless cases make this clear:

In 2002, Cardinal Bernard Francis Law, the first high-level US prelate to be accused of shielding child-molesting priests, was given honorific titles in Rome after he was forced to resign from the archdiocese of Boston - well before reaching retirement age. Law's resignation and removal to the Vatican took place at the same time the Massachusetts Attorney General reported that the Boston Archdiocese under Cardinal Law, "has shown an institutional reluctance to adequately address the problem and, in fact, made choices that allowed the abuse to continue."

In 2013, at the very time the UN Committee was conducting its inquiry, the Vatican's ambassador to the Dominican Republic was credibly accused in that nation of abusing children. The Vatican abruptly recalled the ambassador Archbishop Josef Wesolowski and - Pope Francis' Vatican - has refused to extradite him.

If Pope Francis I is to retain the credibility he has earned before the world, as a caring Christian leader, he must act now, to implement the UN Report.

If Pope Francis does not decree that the church at all levels and in all dioceses shall:

(1) remove all child abusers from the ranks of the clergy;

(2) report the abusers to law enforcement;

(3) open the church’s archives "so that bishops and other officials who concealed crimes could be held accountable."

then the world will draw its own conclusion about the scourge of child abuse within the Church - the bishops are the problem.

The prosecutorial powers inherent in national criminal justice entities should take the UN report seriously and act on it.

Sources:

U.N. Panel Assails Vatican Over Sexual Abuse by Priests - NY TIMES 2/5/14

Kick out those who sexually abuse children, U.N. panel tells Vatican - CNN 2/5/14

UN denounces Vatican over child abuse and demands immediate action - The Guardian 2/5/14

UN report condemns Vatican over child abuse - Jurist 2/5/14

Vatican calls UN child abuse report ‘distorted’ and ‘unfair’ - Euro News - 2/5/14

Holy See responds to UN Committee on Rights of the Child - News.VA - 2/5/14

El Papa debe enviar a curas pederastas a países donde les siguen procesos: Athié - La Jornada 2/6/14

Copy of the UN Committee Report (PDF) entitled Concluding observations on the second periodic report of the Holy See*

Vatican: call 911? No indeed.

2014-01-29T07:39:00.002-05:00

When it comes to allegations of child abuse against priests, Pope Francis is acting to protect the accused, just as did his Vatican predecessors.

A UN committee is looking into the Vatican's past and present responses to allegations. From the New York Times, Here is a bit of January 2014 back & forth between the investigators and Vatican representatives:

The committee questioned the Vatican officials about their ambassador to the Dominican Republic, who is being investigated by Dominican prosecutors about accusations that he sexually abused children. The ambassador, Archbishop Josef Wesolowski, was recalled to the Vatican in August, and last week the Vatican denied a request to extradite him to the Dominican Republic.

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s representative to the United Nations in Geneva, told the panel that the ambassador’s case would be handled by a Vatican tribunal because he is a citizen of the Vatican, and that the case would get “the severity it deserves.”

Sara de Jesús Oviedo Fierro, the United Nations committee’s vice president, asked the Vatican representatives why, if the church had a policy of “zero tolerance” of abusers, there were “efforts to cover up and obscure these types of cases?”

Bishop Scicluna said: “It is not the policy of the Holy See to encourage cover-ups. This is against the truth.”

Under Pope Francis, the Church continues to look the other way when a cleric is accused of molesting a child.

Unless this protect-abuser policy is reversed, what is the point of all the feel-good comments coming from the new top guy?

For More:

U.N. Panel Questions Vatican on Handling of Clergy Sexual Abuse

Video From U.N. Panel Grilling Vatican Officials on Abuse of Children

including, on You Tube:

Church Criticized for Child Abuse at UN Hearing

What is a Catholic Hospital to do When the Bishops Direct that an Abortion is "never permitted" ??

2013-12-03T13:40:00.000-05:00

In Catholic practice, when does never mean never?

We don't know for sure. This is no surprise in the real world of being and doing, which we all occupy.

But in the area of Catholic do's and don'ts, even after all these centuries, there are some nevers which are in fact, maybe-maybe not's.

This is a problem for employees and patients in need of obstetrical and gynecological care at a Catholic hospital.

Here are the questions which have prompted this reflection on never as a sometime thing:

Is a Catholic hospital permitted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to tell a pregnant woman that her fetus is not viable?

Do USCCB health care directives permit a Catholic hospital to advise a patient where to go to receive treatment, i.e., an abortion, not available in the Catholic hospital?

The bishops have said (emphasis added):

"Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted."

So reads directive 45, in the Fifth edition of the document Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Are we clear? Abortion is "never permitted" - according to the USCCB.

Here is the complete text of directive 45 (with more emphasis added)

Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.

But this never-directive does not appear to address the medical circumstance in which the refusal to perform an abortion may occur:

What about counseling the patient that her fetus is not viable?

What if this never-directive conflicts with contemporary standards of care, such as a patient's right to know about the availability of abortion services elsewhere?

A recently filed lawsuit may clarify these issues, since in this case the bishops - not a hospital are being sued - on the grounds the bishops' health care directives fall below minimal standards of patient care.

According to the lawsuit, filed on December 2, 2013, Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, Michigan allegedly:

(1) declined to advise a pregnant patient that her fetus was not viable;

the hospital also

(2) declined to refer this patient to another hospital, when she presented when her water broke at 19 weeks.

Unlike in chess, the bishops' defense is being mounted by someone other than the bishops. Already, an ally of the bishops has come up with something, which might help the USCCB defeat the new lawsuit, but only by throwing Catholic hospitals under the litigation bus.

John M. Hass, of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), suggests that the "never" of directive 45 does not mean never.

Responding to an inquiry from a New York Times reporter , we read (emphasis added):

"John M. Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia and an adviser to the bishops, said he could not speak about the current suit because he was unfamiliar with it. But he said that the bishops’ directives were more nuanced than critics allege, allowing for actions to treat a woman at risk even if that treatment might result in the loss of the fetus."

Mr. Haas, a "more nuanced" answer indicates that never does not mean never. This is what I have thought, since learning from Father Rahner that for every rule there is an exception - so best stay away from never in the first place.

The Times further cites Mr. Hass:

"He said some hospitals might have misinterpreted the bishops’ rules and added that doctors were required to tell patients of potential risks and alternatives, though they may not provide direct abortion referrals.

Apparently Mr. Haas thinks, if a pregnant woman asks her doctor in a Catholic hospital 'can you refer me to someone else?' the doc is supposed to answer, if you mean "alternatives" sure I can talk about that but if you mean "referral" then, nope.

An order denying a physician the opportunity to make a referral is absurd on its face, and unenforceable in practice.

It's as if the bishops are now saying to the hospitals:

follow directive 45 in which we say never means never, but

when we get sued, it's because you said never so

if you follow our never-directives conscientiously, you but hopefully, not us, will need a good lawyer.

The bishops' health care directives contain preliminary material which appear not to be mandatory.

On the other hand, the directives themselves are explicitly stated to be mandatory. Directive 5 reads (emphasis added):

"Catholic health care services must adopt these Directives as policy, require adherence to them within the institution as a condition for medical privileges and employment, and provide appropriate instruction regarding the Directives for administration, medical and nursing staff, and other personnel."

Directive 9 places the burden directly on hospital "employees" to follow the directives, stating (emphasis added):

"Employees of a Catholic health care institution must respect and uphold the religious mission of the institution and adhere to these Directives. They should maintain professional standards and promote the institution’s commitment to human dignity and the common good. "

So when the above cited directive 45 instructs that abortion is "never" permitted, then a patient in a Catholic hospital,who may need an abortion in the case of a nonviable fetus and as a medical necessity to save her life, may very well confront employees who can be fired if they do not uphold "human dignity and "the common good."

Some may say that candid counseling and a timely referral would best uphold human dignity and the common good.

Not according to directive 45, which mandates employees must avoid "material cooperation" in an abortion and also avoid "abortion services."

Does this mandate forbid candor about fetus viability, about where to go where abortion services are available?

Answer wrong and you can get fired.

. . . or excommunicated.

An after-the fact decision that you did wrong can be traumatic for the individual Catholic or hospital employee but also - if the hospital stands its ground against the local bishop - lead to a Catholic hospital, being stripped of its Catholic identity.

As the lawsuit presents the issue: turning away a patient without, it is alleged, either counseling or a referral, conflicts with minimum standards of patient care and amounts to "basic neglect" of patients.

This issue is becoming increasingly pertinent as Catholic hospitals merge with non-Catholic health care institutions.

For now just this:

Health care directives, put in place both as standards of patient care and as employee mandates, ought to be realistic and not rhetorical trap doors, through which patients with life-threatening emergencies can be dropped, along with care givers, who have compassion for their patients, in their hour of need.

For more:

New York Times Dec. 2 2013 - Bishops Sued Over Policies on Abortion at Hospitals

Except in the America of the bishops: 'Every man and woman must be free to profess his or her faith'

2013-10-23T19:57:00.000-04:00

Pope Francis said recently:

"We must promote religious liberty for all people. Every man and woman must be free to profess his or her faith, whatever it may be. Why? Because that man and that woman are children of God."

Which raises the question:

Why does the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops insist that the business practices of corporations or the personal convictions of employers should trump the consciences of individual employees?

Here is a recent official statement:

Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Lori identified the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) preventive services mandate, which requires virtually all employers to include female sterilization and all drugs and devices approved by the FDA as contraceptives in their employee health care plans, as a particular threat. "The mandate includes drugs and devices that can act against a human life after fertilization, implicating our moral teaching on abortion as well as contraception . . ."

This attitude simply tramples on the choice of the individual Catholic and non-Catholic employee to make personal choices.

Why is this happening?

Catholic leaders want secular legislators to do the heavy lifting for them - by forbidding conscience choice to women and men, whether Catholic or no.

If the bishops truly believed in conscience they would simply say, let each Catholic make up her mind about this matter.

On the other hand, if the bishops are serious that

drugs and devices that can act against a human life after fertilization, [run counter to] our moral teaching on abortion as well as contraception . . .

then their choice is a clear one.

The bishops ought to forbid Communion to every parishioner who used or is using contraceptive "drugs and other devices."

This is not going to happen, since such an edict from the bishops would empty the churches. The bishops know that.

Better to issue statements, call for rallies and button-hole a congressman. Better to posture than admit this fact:

- roughly 98 % of Catholic women in the US who have ever had sex have used a form of contraception other than natural family planning.

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

Sources:

CNS STORY: At Pentecost vigil, pope shares personal stories of his faith

Cardinal O’Malley, Archbishop Lori To Congress: Adopt Policy Of Health Care Conscience Rights Act

Guttmacher Statistic on Catholic Women’s Contraceptive Use

Pope Francis - Vatican Shock Jock

2013-10-02T11:07:00.002-04:00

Pope Francis I in an interview with Eugenio Scalfari published in la Repubblica, is quoted as making, the following comments, among many others (see Sources, below):

"The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old. The old need care and companionship; the young need work and hope but have neither one nor the other, and the problem is they don't even look for them any more. They have been crushed by the present. You tell me: can you live crushed under the weight of the present? Without a memory of the past and without the desire to look ahead to the future by building something, a future, a family? Can you go on like this? This, to me, is the most urgent problem that the Church is facing."

"Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good."

"Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good."

"Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

Credit: www.voxxi.com - Aiyana Baida

"Do you know what agape is? It is love of others, as our Lord preached. It is not proselytizing, it is love. Love for one's neighbor, that leavening that serves the common good."

"I don't like the word narcissism. It indicates an excessive love for oneself and this is not good, it can produce serious damage not only to the soul of those affected but also in relationship with others, with the society in which one lives. The real trouble is that those most affected by this - which is actually a kind of mental disorder - are people who have a lot of power. Often bosses are narcissists.

"Heads of the Church have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers. The court is the leprosy of the papacy."

[RBC - I take "court" to mean the collection of "courtiers" who gather around "Heads of the Church"]

". . . there are sometimes courtiers in the curia, but the curia as a whole is another thing. It is what in an army is called the quartermaster's office, it manages the services that serve the Holy See. But it has one defect: it is Vatican-centric. It sees and looks after the interests of the Vatican, which are still, for the most part, temporal interests. This Vatican-centric view neglects the world around us. I do not share this view and I'll do everything I can to change it."

"The Church is or should go back to being a community of God's people, and priests, pastors and bishops who have the care of souls, are at the service of the people of God. The Church is this, a word not surprisingly different from the Holy See, which has its own function, important but at the service of the Church."

"Clericalism should not have anything to do with Christianity. St. Paul, who was the first to speak to the Gentiles, the pagans, to believers in other religions, was the first to teach us that."

". . . the ideal of a missionary, poor Church is still more than valid. This is still the Church that Jesus and his disciples preached about."

"I believe I have already said that our goal is not to proselytize but to listen to needs, desires and disappointments, despair, hope. We must restore hope to young people, help the old, be open to the future, spread love. Be poor among the poor. We need to include the excluded and preach peace.

"Vatican II, inspired by Pope Paul VI and John, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to be open to modern culture. The Council Fathers knew that being open to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. But afterwards very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do something."

"The first thing I decided was to appoint a group of eight cardinals to be my advisers. Not courtiers but wise people who share my own feelings. This is the beginning of a Church with an organization that is not just top-down but also horizontal. When Cardinal Martini talked about focusing on the councils and synods he knew how long and difficult it would be to go in that direction. Gently, but firmly and tenaciously."

"I say that politics is the most important of the civil activities and has its own field of action, which is not that of religion. Political institutions are secular by definition and operate in independent spheres. All my predecessors have said the same thing, for many years at least, albeit with different accents. I believe that Catholics involved in politics carry the values of their religion within them, but have the mature awareness and expertise to implement them. The Church will never go beyond its task of expressing and disseminating its values, at least as long as I'm here."

"Often the Church as an institution has been dominated by temporalism and many members and senior Catholic leaders still feel this way."

"From my point of view, God is the light that illuminates the darkness, even if it does not dissolve it, and a spark of divine light is within each of us. In the letter I wrote to you, you will remember I said that our species will end but the light of God will not end and at that point it will invade all souls and it will all be in everyone."

"Personally I think so-called unrestrained liberalism only makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker and excludes the most excluded. We need great freedom, no discrimination, no demagoguery and a lot of love. We need rules of conduct and also, if necessary, direct intervention from the state to correct the more intolerable inequalities."

"We will also discuss the role of women in the Church. Remember that the Church (la chiesa) is feminine."

Sources:

Repubblica: The Pope: how the Church will change

NY Times, Oct 1, 2013: Pope Assails Bureaucracy of Church as Insular

How the Israel Lobby engineered Islamophobia

2013-09-24T20:28:00.002-04:00

How the Israel Lobby engineered Islamophobia - Chernick, Koch, Saban, Geller, Jacobs, Weiner, Horowitz, Pipes, Foxman... By Max Blumenthal

Vatican City Laws Against Sex Abuse Lag Behind Modernity, Updated Only Under UN Pressure

2013-07-12T18:24:00.001-04:00

The New York Times reported on June 11 that Pope Francis

"has overhauled the laws that govern the Vatican City State, criminalizing leaks of Vatican information and specifically listing sexual violence, prostitution and possession of child pornography as crimes against children."

This is an incomplete report, since the 'overhaul' comes in response to outside pressure, which the Times did not mention.

Unlike much of the pablum so often passed along as solid information, the Catholic News Service, in an item carried (we are pleased to note) by the Baltimore Archdiocese Catholic Review, we discover that the United Nations "Committee on the Rights of the Child" on July 1 2013, asked the Vatican to provide “detailed information on all cases of child sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy, brothers and nuns ”

The Vatican has also been asked to clarify whether ever were investigated by the Vatican itself:

- “complaints of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” of girls in the Magdalene laundries in Ireland

and

- "allegations that young boys, who were part of the Legion of Christ, were being separated from their families."

and also

- whether the Vatican had ever "explicitly defined and criminalized the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography."

These and other long-standing requests for information are subject to this extraordinary UN Committee action because the Vatican, while a signatory to the relevant U.N. Conventions, has been "lagging behind in turning in its mandatory reports."

So loud to denounce the behavior of Catholic and non-Catholic women for their use of contraceptives, so quick to denounce as criminals if not actual killers, Catholic and non-Catholic women and their doctors, who procure abortions when the life of the mother is at risk or when a fetus is not viable . . . we now discover, yet again, how indifferent the Holy See is to helpless, post-uterine life.

So-o busy with its denunciations of others, the Vatican cannot find the time to fulfill its treaty obligations and state publicly whether a finger was ever lifted to protest Irish girls from abuse at the hands of nuns and others or whether young boys were abused when placed under the supervision of the Legion of Christ.

Part of the problem, as reported by CNS, is that "the penal code used by the Vatican is based on Italian laws from the 19th to early 20th centuries, which meant there were no provisions against some things, such as child pornography."

Please . . . Mussolini's law code? Really?

No wonder the USCCB, following in the wake of Vatican neglect to protect kids, has propped up a straw man, the Dallas Charter, as a stand-in for an independent, credible, investigative entity, free from the control of the local bishop.

There simply is no pressure from any quarter for the bishops to act with integrity. So, they don't. Show of hands . . . who still thinks they deserve your $$?

SOURCES:

United Nations asks Vatican to account for all sex abuse allegations - CNS, Catholic Review July 11 2013

Pope Overhauls Vatican Laws - AP, NYT July 11 2013

Archbishop Lori Ably Demonstrates: Catholic Self-Monitoring of Priestly Misconduct is a Pantomime

2013-06-19T09:53:00.001-04:00

According to Joshua McElwee's June 18 2013 article in the National Catholic Reporter:

Capuchin admission puts spotlight on sex abuse reporting for orders

From the article:

The report frankly concludes that since the 1930s, when it says records were first available, the province rarely reported abuse to authorities, spent more money on hiring lawyers than on aid to victims, and routinely moved offenders between positions without divulging complaints against them.

The NCR piece highlights the laxity of the Orders as compared with the annual auditing which exists under procedures established by the "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People."

The so-called "Charter" was approved by the American bishops in 2002.

As reported by the NCR, the Capuchins come in for heavy criticism because of the Order's reflexive (1) looking the other way and then (2) actually facilitating access by child predators to other children. Inexcusable . . . except that it was excused, for decades.

But the bishops' so-called Dallas Charter is itself merely a pantomime of a legitimate inspection process. There is no reason to tout the benefits of the Charter's "audit" since this process depends on self-reporting by church staff.

The two-step problem with the Charter and the audit is this:

1. The audit is conducted with a handful of staff who cannot monitor all the dioceses in the United States;

2. Lay parishioners are excluded from participation in the reporting and auditing process.

Because the audit and the Charter itself depend on self-reporting and self-monitoring by church-paid staff, these procedures are absurd shams.

Remembering that the sexual abuse of a child is a serious crime, there is a simple one-step monitoring process:

CALL 9 1 1

Why don't the bishops endorse this straightforward approach? Why aren't the police called when a church employee realizes that a child has been or is being abused by another church employee?

Reporting does not happen because anyone on the church payroll who reports a priest for sex abuse could be out of a job.

How do we know this will happen?

Ask Archbishop William Lori. (Not his "spokesman," please.)

William Lori is Exhibit A for why the reporting process of priestly misconduct does not work within the Catholic Church.

According to June 2009 testimony given under oath, while he was bishop of Bridgeport, CT, our Archbishop Lori personally threatened a priest under his supervision for reporting ethical and financial misconduct of another priest. Specifically, according to sworn testimony William Lori, our current Archbishop, admonished the whistle-blowing priest, threatening to remove him from parish ministry and post him "with nuns."

Michael Madden testified in June 2009:

". . . the bishop [Lori] was going to pull me out of the parish that day just as I thought and send me to live with nuns."

Asked if this threat was a punishment to be administered against him for hiring a private investigator to gather evidence against another priest, Madden testified: "Yes, it certainly was."

According to the Associated Press:

Madden initially defended his hiring of the investigator at a Mass in 2006, saying he was "sorry and angry that the diocese failed to come to my rescue when there were red flags waving everywhere." Later that day, the diocese issued a letter from Madden in which he wrote that he made "a huge mistake" in hiring the investigator, apologized and defended the diocese's handling of the matter."

According to the AP:

Madden said in the court papers that church officials gave him a letter of apology to sign for hiring the investigator and that he signed it because he felt he had "little choice."

Rather than respond under oath to the former priest's testimony, then-bishop, now Archbishop Lori settled the lawsuit in which he would have been compelled to give testimony.

The lack of transparency is limitless. None of then-bishop Lori's misbehavior in Connecticut was made known to Maryland Catholics before he was sent to us, touted to us as a grand champion of "religious liberty."

Lori's campaign does not extend even to the "liberty" of church employees to report criminal behavior when they know it is going on.

Sources:

Diocese shouldn't settle for less than the truth

"We have every intention of calling the Bishop as a witness in this case,"

Priest Who Exposed Scandal Leaves Parish and the Church
Whistle-blowing priest says Lori threatened to send him to convent

Connecticut Post - A former priest claims that Bishop William Lori of the Roman Catholic Dioicese of Bridgeport, who played a national role in the responding to the church's sex-abuse scandal, threatened to send him to live with nuns after he hired a private investigator to look into his pastor.

Priest: Bishop wanted to send me to the nuns

Capuchin admission puts spotlight on sex abuse reporting for orders

The parish priest and bookkeeper said they went to the private investigator after they reported the thefts to the diocese and Fay was not removed. The whistleblower priest, who was popular in the parish, was demoted and forced to sign an apology. He then quit the priesthood, prompting parish anger against Lori. The bookkeeper quit and filed a suit alleging that diocese officials tried to lay the thefts on her.

In 2008 the Maryland Catholic Conference Successfully Lobbied Against Extending the Statute of Limitations on Child Abuse Accusations

2013-06-07T13:06:00.002-04:00

In 2008 MCC successfully lobbied against extending the statute of limitations on child abuse accusations.

"The MCC won a key victory in defeating legislation that Catholic leaders believe would have crippled church ministries, parishes and schools by lifting the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse civil suits.

[. . .]

Statute of limitations

"The measure would have opened a 16-month window during which suits involving decades-old abuse claims could have been filed, according to Mr. Dowling. Early in the General Assembly, Church leaders pointed out that other dioceses around the country have been bankrupted by similar legislation, resulting in closed parishes and severe limits on outreach ministries.

“The Maryland-serving dioceses manage model child-protection programs and provide exemplary outreach services to victims and their families,” said Mr. Dowling, noting that Maryland has no criminal statute of limitations for child abuse.

“Legislation of this kind does nothing to protect children. It targets the church and would prove harmful to diocesan parishes, school sand service programs.”

Source:

Catholics On Line April 11, 2008

Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa - 'Don't Look to me for Guidance. Please.'

2013-06-05T09:30:00.001-04:00

Responding to the recent decision of the national Boy Scouts organization to open its membership to gay boys, Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa indicated he ought not be looked to by Catholics for any guidance whatsoever:

"I’m going to wait to see how this whole thing pans out," Bishop Slattery told the local paper.

But not before he piled on a bit of homophobic rhetoric:“What do they mean by openly gay? I assume that means they are sexually active.”

Photo Credit: Bishop-accountability-org

This comment means one of two things, both of which reflect poorly on the bishop himself.

Either

1. Bishop Slattery believes everyone who is 'openly' gay or straight is sexually active. This of course would include all male priests, female nuns, and bishops, Cardinals, and Popes, of whatever gender . . .

or

2. Bishop Slattery means to tell us:

'I don't have the slightest idea how to distinguish gender identification from private and personal sexual behavior. I go around imagining the sexual behaviors of literally everyone I see.'

Either way, Bishop Slattery declares he is perfectly willing to "assume" that if anyone is "out" - that is, does not conceal her gender . . . his gender . . . by, say, unisex attire, then the bishop simply 'assumes' you are having sex with . . . oh, any other willing person.

That is what "sexually active" means. I assume (to quote Bishop Slattery).

Boys are all "sexually active" if they are identifiable by gender. That is what Bishop Slattery appears to think of boys.

Nonsense? Of course.

Ignorance? Of course.

Patently disqualified to offer doctrinal guidance on sexual practice? You bet.

Maybe we ought simply to be thankful that Bishop Slattery is willing to clarify, not the issue of sexuality, but his own unpreparedness to offer counsel - self declared as he is to "wait to see how this whole thing pans out."

That's a relief, I suppose, coming from someone who thinks boys are each and all sexually active, one way or another.

One hundred percent of us are "openly" something or other, even though some of us also may be careful not to be all that precisely open, either - thanks to the dangerous homophobia expressed "openly" by many and implied by Bishop Slattery.

The bishop's view is - if someone is "out" then, the rest of us must be afraid.

Maybe the local paper or a university or the Boy Scouts of Tulsa can initiate a questionnaire to the community, clarifying for Bishop Slattery what the rest of us already know:

clothes may make the man or the woman, the boy or the girl, appear to be one thing or another or maybe a mixture of lots of different features and styles, but that does not mean any particular person is getting it on with just anyone.

If we can do the bishop the favor of separating gender self-identification from private sexual behavior, maybe he will be able to stop with the sexual fantasizing and get back to work.

For the sake of context: here is the entirety of that part of the Tulsa World's sad article, which is devoted to Bishop Slattery, with his comments in bold - so you can see for yourself I am not making any of this up.

Bishop Edward J. Slattery said many Catholic Churches in his Diocese of Tulsa have Boy Scout troops, and he doesn’t want to do anything to hurt the organization. “I think the Boy Scouts do wonderful work, and should continue to do so,” he said. But he said he was not happy about the decision to allow openly gay scouts.

"What do they mean by openly gay? I assume that means they are sexually active."

He said the teaching of the Catholic Church is that sex belongs only in marriage, and that marriage is between a man and woman.

“This culture of ours is crazy, no rules,” he said.

Slattery said he did not plan to take any immediate action on the issue. “I’m going to wait to see how this whole thing pans out. This might be an opportunity to change the mind of the culture, as we speak out,” he said.

Source:

A rea churches debate Boy Scouts of America decision on gay Scouts - Tulsa World, June 4, 2013

Thanks to the New Ways Ministry Blog, Bondings 2.0 for calling attention to the predicament of the Catholic faithful of Tulsa OK.

The USCCB Opposes Immigration Reform that Extends to LGBT Partners

2013-05-02T00:46:00.001-04:00

In an earlier post I pointed out that the Catholic Bishops of the United States only pretend to support broad immigration reform.

Why? What keeps the bishops from full-throated support for immigrants?

The sad but unmistakable fact is the Bishops are prepared to see immigration reform entirely fail if immigration benefits extend to same-sex couples.

Such is the hostility of the Bishops toward gay immigrants.

Such also is the Bishops' duplicity.

They proclaim their support for immigrants in broad policy pronouncements served up to parishioners by the official, compliant Catholic press. At the same time, in Washington, D.C., the Bishops lobby hard against the interests of gay immigrants and their US citizen partners. Do 'Catholic' media outlets point this out? Nope.

The reason for the doubletalk from the hierarchy is not hard to discern. Immigrants, and Hispanic immigrants above all, are responsible for the population growth of the Catholic Church in our day.

But the Bishops operate in the immigration arena with a caveat. Only those immigrants who present a traditional heterosexual profile in society are acceptable to the hierarchy and are therefore deserving of benefits such as family reunification.

The cruelty of the Bishops actual posture is sad and ought to be denounced. But don't expect the 'Catholic' media to do that heavy lifting.

If one simply reads what the Bishops have said for years - and still say - there ought to be no confusion: the hierarchy is still hostile to the extension of full civil rights to gay immigrants, and their US citizen spouses.

In June 2009, Bishop John Wester wrote to Representative Mike Honda that the Bishops were withholding their support from a bill in the House of Representatives because the House bill: "would provide marriage-like immigration benefits to same sex relationships, [which] makes it impossible for the bishops to support this year’s version of your bill.”

Bishop Wester added that, same-sex partners ought to be denied immigration benefits because such relationships "erode the institution of marriage and family by according marriage-like immigration benefits to same sex relationships, a position that is contrary to the very nature of marriage which pre-dates the Church and the state."

This wholly discredited position is still the position of the USCCB.

On Feb 12, 2013, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles testified before

the Senate Judiciary Committee On Comprehensive Immigration Reform,

as follows:

“Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to the inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in comprehensive immigration reform legislation. This legislation would erode the unique meaning of marriage by allocating spousal immigration benefits to persons in same-sex relationships.

"The inclusion of this provision would unnecessarily introduce controversy into an already divisive debate. We should not jeopardize the success of comprehensive immigration reform by using it as a vehicle to advance an issue that is already the source of polarizing debate in the states and in the courts.”

Sadly, self-identified Catholic news sources, including the National Catholic Reporter and even Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good co-operate in the Bishops' anti-LGBT slight-of-hand.

On May 1, 2013, both Archbishop Gomez and Bishop John Wester joined Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York in a conference call, taking friendly questions from mostly Catholic media representatives.

Neither NCR representatives or anyone else asked embarrassing questions of the prelates. The subject of gay immigration was not one that interested the 'Catholic' media.

The Bishops were allowed, in turn, to mouthe their affection for immigrants without having to reconcile all this good will with their direct, aggressive, anti-pastoral lobbying activities against gay immigrants.

The group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was so pleased with the Bishops' performance that the entire transcript of the Catholic media love-fest was posted on the Common Good website. The post was breathlessly announced by Common Good in effusive and misleading lingo: "the bishops are pulling out all the stops on behalf of comprehensive immigration reform." Really?

Did the posters even read their own post? - like that part in his introductory remarks, when Cardinal Dolan suggested that reforms apply to "a husband and wife, a mom and dad."

Come on Catholic media guys! If you are going to cover the Bishops, ask the hard questions.

Call the Bishops out on their inconsistent positions.

Ask USCCB spokespersons in D.C. to square the fulsome talk of immigrant rights with the Bishops' lobby against the rights of gay immigrants.

Ask the Bishops if they will continue to support legislation that extends protections to LGBT immigrants - or is that protection a deal-breaker for the Bishops?

We would all like to know.

Nobel Laureate Blesses the Pope. Not.

2013-03-21T15:43:00.001-04:00

According to The New York Times in an article entitled Starting a Papacy, Amid Echoes of a ‘Dirty War’ (Mar 17, 2013), the 1980 Nobel laureate, Adolfo Perez Esquivel has issued a sort-of defense of the new Pope. This goes back to events in the late 1970s, when Father Jorge Bergoglio (now, Pope Francis) was head of the Jesuits in Argentina. The paper quotes Mr. Perez, saying that the new pope:

“. . . is questioned for not having done all he could do. But he was never an ally of the dictatorship.”

This 'defense' is mostly a qualification. Reporting Perez’ remarks in Spanish, INFONews added an important observation, by Perez, which the New York Times did not carry:

"Bergoglio no fue cómplice directo de la dictadura

pero no tuvo el coraje para acompañar nuestra lucha"

Translation:

“Bergoglio was not a direct accomplice of the dictatorship

but he lacked the courage to join our fight.”

During military rule in Argentina, in the late 1970s and early ‘80s, neither Mr. Perez nor anyone else, speaking on behalf of "the disappeared" was appealing for so called secret communications to the military, who had engineered a coup.

As statements of detainees who were released made clear, agents and operatives of the military were arresting people, torturing them and then killing them. Pregnant women who were confined in secret detention centers were permitted to give birth before being killed; their newborn infants were put in the homes of regime supporters.

To confront these horrors, courageous regime opponents in Argentina, like Mr. Perez, were publicly condemning the dictatorship, and appealing to everyone in the world to act publicly - to denounce the brutal, murderous conduct of the Argentine military.

During those awful years, Adolfo Perez acted courageously on behalf of people who were unable any longer to speak for themselves. Perez, himself, was arrested and suffered torture, before being released.

What does it mean to be an accomplice?

One common moral thread can be traced back in time, whether in Argentina, 1976-1983, or in Nazi Germany, 1932-45, or in the racially segregated US, 1865-1964:

when people who are prominent and influential

remain silent in the face of

government attacks against the defenseless,

silence becomes complicity.

Adolfo Perez Esquivel knows this, of course.

Adolfo Perez Esquivel knows that Father Bergoglio - now Pope Francis - was not a bishop during the 1976-83 “Dirty War” in Argentina. He also knows that Father Bergoglio, as Jesuit Provincial in the late '70s, could have acted publicly against the dictatorship but did not.

Asked to comment in the context of his countryman being elected pope, Adolfo Perez Esquivel said this to the BBC:

"Si la Conferencia Episcopal se hubiera unido

y hubiesen tenido una sola voz,

hubieran tenido una gran fuerza para salvar vidas,

pero eso no pasó en Argentina".

Translation:

“If the Conference of Bishops had been united

and had spoken with one voice.

they would have had great life-saving power

but this was not what happened in Argentina.”

Note: in another item, which will be used to whitewash the past of the new Pope, the NY Times has carried a Reuters item, which completely obscures Peres' observation that Jorge Bergoglio "lacked the courage" to resist the dictatorship.

See: NY Times, March 21, 2013: Argentine Nobel Peace Laureate Esquivel Defends Pope

"Mercy Now" - Church Out of Touch

2013-03-11T13:44:00.000-04:00

A recent poll indicates that U.S. Catholics See a Church Out of Touch

Seven of 10 Catholics think Pope Benedict XVI has done "a poor job" of handling the sexual abuse issue within the Church.
A majority think the sex abuse issue has caused them to question Vatican’s authority.
A majority also think the sexual abuse of children by priests is "the largest problem facing the church.
"75% of those polled said they thought Pope Benedict's resignation was "a good idea."
A majority said they wanted the next pope to make the church’s teachings "more liberal."
46% answered "no" to the question whether the pope is infallible when he teaches on matters of morality and faith - 40% said yes; 14% were not sure.
Almost 8 in 10 said they are more likely to follow their conscience on “difficult moral questions” than to follow the pope’s teachings.
Seven of ten Catholics said the next pope should let priests marry.
Seven of ten Catholics said women ought to be allowed to become priests.
Seven of ten Catholics said the Church ought to allow the use of artificial methods of birth control.
Nine of 10 said the pope should not oppose the use of condoms to prevent the spread of H.I.V. and other diseases.

Mary Gautier's song, "Mercy Now" contains the lyrics:
. . .

My church and my country could use a little mercy now

As they sink into a poisoned pit

That's going to take forever to climb out

They carry the weight of the faithful

Who follow them down

I love my church and country, and they could use some mercy now

. . .

"People start out believing in the god and end up believing in the structure." - Terry Prachett, Small Gods (p. 176)

_____________________

For more on the Poll of Catholics:

New York Times, March 5, 2012:

U.S. Catholics in Poll See a Church Out of Touch

Bishops Go Out of Their Way to Oppose Violence Against Women Act

2013-03-08T12:13:00.000-05:00

Congressional reauthorization of the lapsed "Violence Against Women Act" is a cause for celebration. Originally passed in 1994, the law helped protect women from sex traffickers, domestic violence and other forms of violence.

But the hierarchy of the Catholic Church reacted to the passage of the law by opposing its reauthorization.

The bishops acted officially and with hostility to reauthorization only after Congress reauthorized the law in February, 2013.

In a March 6, 2013 statement released by the USCCB, the bishops objected to language in the bill which specifically protected gay and lesbian individuals. The language which the bishops found objectionable are the phrases, "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." The bishops stated,

“These two classifications are unnecessary to establish the just protections due to all persons. They undermine the meaning and importance of sexual difference. They are unjustly exploited for purposes of marriage redefinition, and marriage is the only institution that unites a man and a woman with each other and with any children born from their union,”

Translation: the bishops wanted to go on record, yet again, in opposition to same-sex marriage.

Our bishops' refuse to accept that civil society must act to extend protections to all its members - not just those who follow Catholic doctrine in their most intimate relationships.

But the timing of the bishops' opposition raises a question. Why did the bishops wait to issue the statement in opposition after Congress had already acted?

It appears, the hierarchy wanted to go on record with a policy statement which is not directed to the Catholic laity or to the Congress, which had already passed the bill into law.

Obviously, the bishops are aware that the voters, including a majority of Catholics who voted in November, 2012 have turned the page on same sex marriage by supporting it.

The bishops' letter - issued after the bill passed into law - appears to be a message directed to priests: do not think that because US society now favors same-sex marital companionship, we do too. We still don't.

The bishops also oppose the Violence Against Women Act because it offers assistance to rape victims, which the bishops think ought not be offered: abortion counselling, abortion referrals.

In the words of the USCCB statement: the new law is objectionable,

"because this title omits language to protect the conscience rights of faith-based service providers to victims of human trafficking."

Translation: the bishops want the policies and procedures of service agencies to trump the personal wishes of rape victims.

The bishops argue that the civil law ought to mimic Catholic doctrine, so that women who have been victimized by sex traffickers must agree to carry a forced pregnancy to term - or be turned away from the counseling, referrals and redress that the new law offers.

This, too, is not a message for the whole Church, certainly not for Catholic laity, who practice contraception.

The March 6, 2013 letter is merely a renewal of the bishops's recent redefinition of doctrinal imposition upon non-Catholics as 'conscience protection.'

The bishops hope to continue to use public funding without providing all of the services which are mandated by law.

That is the bishops insist everyone ought to be compelled to conform the most intimate and personal aspects of life to the teachings of the bishops - enforced by criminal prosecution.

The bishops no longer defer to the conscience of the individual but now look to the government as the instrument of doctrinal uniformity.

Welcome to the Middle Ages.

For more:

Catholic Bishops Oppose Violence Against Women Act Because of LGBT Protections