Leave them nuns alone, part 2

Today, while completing my daily ritual of scouring the Huffington Post, I came across two articles about nuns. I found this odd, since there are approximately six nuns left in existence, but that's neither here nor there. Here's what the first one said:

Garbed in her nun's habit and black wool tunic over a white shirt and skirt, Sister Mary Beth Lloyd did not appear to be dressed for exercise. But her running shoes hinted that "something big" was afoot.

Lloyd, 62, of the Religious Teachers Filippini order, launched a charity event with her longtime friend and former colleague, Lisa Smith Batchen, in a bid to raise $1 million for orphans by having the pair run and walk 50 miles in each of the 50 states, for a total of 2,500 miles, within 62 days.

Dubbed "Running Hope Through America," (http://www.runhope.com), the event kicked off Monday in New Jersey, where Smith Batchen, 49, an "ultramarathoner" ran a loop in a local park all day long until achieving 50 miles.

The duo were set to resume the event Tuesday in New York's Central Park and continue Wednesday in Connecticut, and so on across the nation, until finishing after 62 days--a time frame chosen because 62 miles in ultramarathons equals 100 kilometers, a race standard.

There's that social justice bit that the Catholic Church is so proud of. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Catholic nuns are, more than the Vatican, doing the work of Christ. Anyway, here's what the second one said:

A Roman Catholic bishop in Pennsylvania has barred local nuns from promoting their order in his diocese because they supported the health care bill Congress passed last month.

The Sisters of St. Joseph of Baden, Pa., "publicly repudiated" the U.S. bishops by supporting the bill, the Diocese of Greensburg said in a statement. Therefore, Bishop Lawrence Brandt has ordered diocesan newspapers, offices, and parishes not to promote the sisters' upcoming recruiting drive.

The Sisters of St. Joseph, who specialize in health care and social services, was one of nearly 60 Catholic women's congregations that signed a March 17 letter supporting a version of the health care bill that was denounced by the U.S. bishops.

After minor revisions and a promise from President Obama not to expand federal funding of abortion, that bill became law on March 23. . . .

Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, the Catholic social-justice lobby that organized the March 17 letter, said she is saddened by Brandt's actions.

The bishops and the nuns "share one faith and one commitment," Campbell said. "We have a difference of opinion on how that commitment is carried out in legislation. And the fact that we can't have a difference of opinion really saddens me."

I wish there was a way for me to translate the audible sigh I gave when I read this into writing. I've known for a long time that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is more a right-wing political organization than an expression of faith, but this action on the part of one of their members really upsets me, and here's why: the health care bill that passed congress did not give any federal funding to abortions. While it is woefully inadequate (in my humble, Canadian opinion), what it did do was increase health coverage for poor, and elderly people, as well as children. This, again, falls in line with the Catholic Church's mission of social justice, which, I assume, is why the nuns supported it. It does not, however, fall in line with modern American conservative politics, which is why, I assume, the Bishop Limbaugh didn't.

Matthew 4:23 says:

Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Matthew 9:35 says:

Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.

Matthew 10:8 says:

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

Matthew 12:15 says:

Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. Many followed him, and he healed all their sick

Matthew 14:14 says:

When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

I think you get the picture. There is no question in my mind that universal health care, unlike many issues in the Bible that can be unclear, falls in line with the teachings of Christ. To that end, I see no justifiable reason that a Catholic Bishop could ostracize a group of smart, awesome nuns for supporting legislation that brings the United States closer to that ideal, particularly when the legislation in question does NOT fall out of line with any direct Church teachings. Except, you know, that he's a republican.

So, Bishop Limbaugh, WTF would Jesus do?

Whatever happened to the Catholic Church?

Perhaps that's a stupid question. After all, the Church's history is marked with atrocities more frequent than its great works of charity. That said, there was a period following Vatican II where the Church finally started to look like something the Christ I know would have endorsed, except for one little problem, which they tried tirelessly to hide (but not correct)...

I'm not happy about this. I'd say I'm more not happy about this than most recovering Catholics (I like the sound of "recovering" better than "lapsed," don't you?). The more I hear about the pedophilia and cover-ups within the Church, the efforts of Church leaders to blame everyone but themselves, and the efforts of Pope Nazipants to play this off as a smear campaign against him, the more I don't want to hear about it anymore. I want it to stop.

But, of course, it's not going to stop. What this miserable failure of a pope fails to realize is that whether or not he was directly (or indirectly) involved in any of these scandals, he is responsible for them. As the head of the Church, it is his responsibility to ensure that it adheres to its own moral code and does right by its members. We can quibble about specifics, like abstinence and homophobia, but this problem is greater than either of those things. Adults who want to have premarital sex, whether gay or straight, have options. They can find a way to reconcile their non-adherence to Church dogma and remain Catholic (which many of them do), they can leave and find another denomination that is more accepting (which many of them do), or they can leave the faith community all together (which many of them do... I wonder why the Church's numbers are dwindling...). Children who are being abused, however, don't have the same options. They cannot defend themselves, and the Vatican has chosen not to defend them either. This is a big, big problem.

Look, I can quote Bible verses to you explaining why this is wrong, but nobody really needs the Bible to explain something this simple. You know it's wrong. I know it's wrong. The Vatican knows it's wrong. Hell, even Pope Nazipants knows it's wrong. What he is more concerned with than righteousness, however, is the sanctity of the priesthood. No, not in God's eyes, but in his own. Pope Ratzi the Pedophilia-Endorsing Nazi has his own interests, and what he believes are the interests of the Church (structurally, not spiritually), at heart. He is not a man of faith, but a man of power. In short, he's a stodgy old douchebag who doesn't give two shits about anybody but himself.

As most of you probably know, the Bible as we know it today was canonized in the 4th century. There were many other Christian texts and Gospels circulating before that time, some of which became part of the apocrypha, and others of which were deemed heretical. One of the Gospels NOT endorsed by the early Church was the Gospel of Thomas. Here's a little bit of it, taken from The Essential Gnostic Gospels, translated by Alan Jacobs:

These are the secret words of Almighty God,
which Lord Jesus Christ uttered
and were scribed by his disciple Thomas.

He said, "He who comprehends the inner meaning
of these words will be immortal.

Permit whoever seeks never to cease
from seeking until he finds.

When he succeeds he will be turned around;
when he's so turned he'll be amazed
and shall rule over the All.

If those who lead you say 'God's Kindgom's in Heaven,'
then birds will fly there first.
If they say 'It's in the sea,'
the fish will swim there first.

For God's Kingdom dwells in your heart and all around you;
when you know your Self you too shall be known!

. . .

Make the two into One
and the inner as the outer and the outer as the inner,
the above as below, the male and female into a single One.

So the male isn't male and the female isn't female any more.
When you make two eyes into a single eye,
and a hand into a hand, a foot into a foot,
a picture into a picture, then you'll enter the Kingdom.

. . .

Show me the stone that the builders have rejected;
that one shall be my corner stone.

He who understands all but lacks Self Knowledge lacks all.

. . .

I am the Light above them all; I am the All;
the All issues from me and reaches me.

Cut wood, I am there; lift stone, I am there

. . .

He who knows the real Mother* and Father,
can he be called the son of a whore?
When you make two into One you'll be sons of Man,
and if you command a mountain to movie, it will move. . . .

You can probably see why this wasn't included in the Bible. Beyond the concept of gender equality and the possible reference to sex as a means to salvation, the biggest issue with the Gospel of Thomas is that it doesn't endorse anything that resembles organized religion (aside from a one-sentence recommendation to keep the Sabbath holy). No, the ideas espoused in the Gospel of Thomas are about self-discovery as a way to reach the divine. This concept must have been very threatening to a political body operating under the pretense of religious authority (aka the early Catholic Church).

I feel like there's something to this concept of salvation through self-discovery. It crops up again and again in countless religions throughout history and geography. Aside from the spiritual argument for humanism, though, let's examine the practical benefits: without an organized Church, there'd be no priests to molest little kids (or youth pastors to rape teenage girls, as happens in many evangelical sects); without an organized Church, there'd be no laws of priestly celibacy, which arguably contribute to priestly pedophilia (but even if they don't, they're still pretty dumb); without an organized Church, there'd have been no cruisades, no near-universal condemnation of homosexuality, no Pope Nazipants to tell Africa that condoms will give them AIDS, no evangelical, right-wing blowhards to try to argue with science...

If I wanted to get really tacky, here, I'd quote John Lennon. Instead, however, I'm going to move this argument back into the realm of pragmatism. Organized religion isn't going anywhere anytime soon. And really, organized religion is also responsible for a lot of good. The Catholics are great about pulling out all the stops when tragedies strike. There were a lot of priests and nuns and lay people helping to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina. I'd imagine there are a lot of them helping to rebuild Haiti right now as well. There are church groups fighting for the rights of gays to marry even as there are church groups fighting against them. Religion is not uniformly bad, nor is the Catholic Church.

No, what the Catholic Church needs, rather than dissolution, is more reform. I'm sure you've heard it elsewhere in recent weeks, but you'll hear it here again: it's time for Vatican III. And since we know Pope Horrendous Failure the ∞th isn't going to do it, nor is he going to resign, let's just keep our fingers crossed that his age will catch up with him and that the College of Cardinals will have enough sense to elect someone with equal parts morality and pragmatic vision for the next Holy Father.

Lets hope the next pope is someone who gives a rat's ass about WTF Jesus would do.

*If the other Gnostic Gospels are any indication, the "Mother" mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas refers to the Holy Spirit, which was apparently female in many early Christian traditions. Good thing they got rid of that idea, or we'd have a Trinity that makes sense, not to mention a bunch of women running around thinking they're worth something.

How Do You Say 'Gay' in Dutch?

From the BBC:

Hundreds of Dutch activists have walked out of a Mass in protest at a Roman Catholic policy of denying communion to practicing homosexuals.

...

This dispute began during Dutch carnival celebrations earlier in February, when the man chosen to be carnival prince in nearby Reusel was refused communion because of his open homosexuality.

The refusal offended many in the local community.

The Sint-Jan church in the city of 's-Hertogenbosch, also known as Den Bosch, was prepared for the protest and so decided not to give out Holy Communion during Sunday Mass.

Several hundred demonstrators, dressed in pink wigs and clothes, left the church in protest.

Well, I have to admit that this is pretty funny - particularly when you see the photograph:

But I also have to admit that I take issue with the protesters. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It's certainly not the political body it once was. Really, it holds very little power except in its massive membership, so why bother protesting a basic aspect of their faith (to which they are entitled) instead of finding a more accepting church? At least, that was my argument until I got to the last sentence of the article:

The man at the centre of the row has said he just wants equal treatment - if he is regarded as a sinner, he wants the priest to refuse communion to all other sinners too.

Man at the center of the row, that is a very good point. I forgot, in my rush to defend a church's right to define sin (even if I don't agree with their definition), that sin also comes with a hierarchy. There are mortal sins and there are normal sins. Guess which one being gay is: yeah, not mortal. So why, then, are gay people being denied communion when we're not looking into the medical and criminal history of the rest of the congregation? After all, getting an abortion should not only mean that you don't get communion, but it warrants automatic excommunication from the Church, right? So how many closeted abortionists are taking communion? And what about murderers and other criminals? How can we make sure none of them get communion? What about fornicators and drug addicts? This is Holland for Christ's sake! The country is full of them! Do they get communion?

The answer, of course, is that these other kinds of sinners are less easily identifiable, which leads us to the real problem here: homosexuals are a visible minority. And, as gay sex is something that makes a lot of people uncomfortable and/or grossed out, it's been demonized within many branches of Christianity and other religions. And, because it's been demonized by religion, it's more socially acceptable to behave in an actively discriminatory way toward the gays than it is to behave that way with other minorities. It's not a question of morality or sin; it's a question of homophobia and hatred. Whatever your definition of sin is, everybody does it.

Matthew 9:10-13 says:

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

I think the Catholic Church needs to ask itself whether the greater sin is being just as sexually active as the rest of the damn planet, but with members of the same sex, or being a bigoted douche. After all, if Jesus shared his meal with sinners, why can't the Church? WTFWJD?

This is really hard to watch

Because I want to love the Catholic Church, and I know that certain groups within it are doing some really great work, but it just makes me super mad that I had to grow up with this bullshit. Needless to say, Stephen Fry cleans their clock.

The Intelligence² Debate - Stephen Fry (Unedited)
Uploaded by Xrunner17. - Full seasons and entire episodes online.

(Thanks to Dafydd, who I can't help but imagine spelled his name that way on purpose)

What? Politics? ME? Neverrrr...

From Fox News:

The bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., says he's a man of God, not a lobbyist. But state officials say he's both.

According to the Connecticut Office of State Ethics, the diocese acted as a lobbying organization in March when it rented buses to transport people to a rally in Hartford — the state capital — to protest a bill that would have granted more power to parishioners regarding church finances.

Officials also are investigating whether the church acted as a lobbying organization on its Web site when it urged parishioners to contact lawmakers about the bill, which eventually was withdrawn amid public outcry, and about a another bill to legalize same-sex marriage, which was signed into law in April.

Now the ethics office is "evaluating" whether the diocese failed to register as a lobbyist — an investigation that Bishop William Lori says violates the diocese's First Amendment right to free speech and assembly.

"I don't know what the motive of the Office of State Ethics was or is, but I do know that their actions stem directly from our attempts to defend ourselves in the face of two pieces of legislation that were unfriendly to the day-to-day mission of the church," Lori told FOXNews.com on Thursday.

According to this article, if an organization spends more than $2000 a year directly contacting (or asking people to directly contact) people in public office and the like, they are a lobby, and must register or pay fines up to $10,000. This Diocese did indeed spend more than $2000 directly contacting (or asking people to directly contact) people in public office. According to Bishop Lori, that doesn't make the Diocese a lobby. They were merely standing up against legislation that directly affected them.

Except, of course, that legalizing gay marriage has no direct effect on the Catholic Church, as they are by no means obligated to provide, or even condone gay marriages, or homosexuality in general. So that, once again, is a clear case of an organization attempting to force their personal values on a larger group of people (sounds like a lobby to me). Then there's the amazing fact that the Bishop actually managed to get his parishioners to protest "a bill that would have granted more power to parishioners regarding church finances." I realize that's not really how the Catholic Church does things, but I still can't believe a group of Catholic lay people really sat there and went "that's OUTRAGEOUS. We'll go put a stop to that right away."

The Connecticut Office of State Ethics needs to have some balls on this one and declare the Diocese a lobby. It's high time that churches learned to draw the line between God and Politics. I realize that the Church ruled the West for a very long time. But under their rule an unbelievable amount of suffering occurred (and not too much progress). They fell from power because they should never have had it to begin with, nor should they have it now. Religious organizations do not belong in politics. They belong in Churches and, more importantly, in soup kitchens, and homeless shelters, and food banks...

Matthew 19:16-21 says:

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Luke 14:12-14 says:

Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Imagine what that Diocese could have done if they'd devoted their time and energy to helping others. And the funny thing is, I couldn't find anything in the Bible about political lobbying. Bishop Lori, WTF would Jesus do?

Catholics to Episcopals: WE ARE IN A FIGHT! I'M TELLING GOD ON YOU!!!

From the American Spectator:

A tabloid exposé of a celebrity (now former) Catholic priest's cavorting with his bikini-clad consort on the sands of a Florida beach has ignited an ecumenical brouhaha between the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida.

"This truly is a serious setback for ecumenical relations and cooperation between us," observed Archbishop of Miami John Favalora about a May 28 press conference featuring the smooching priest and his new supervising prelate, Episcopal Bishop of Southeast Florida Leo Frade. "The Archdiocese of Miami has never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination. In fact, to do so would violate the principles of the Catholic Church governing ecumenical relations. I regret that Bishop Frade has not afforded me or the Catholic community the same courtesy and respect."

Guess what else came up in my news feed today (from the Omaha World-Herald):

Among the three men new to the Roman Catholic priesthood in Nebraska is one with a wife, four children and several grandchildren.

Bishop William Dendinger says the Rev. Sidney Bruggeman is believed to be the first married Nebraska man to join the priesthood.

Bruggeman, 52, was ordained Friday with two other men, the first ordinations in the diocese in five years.

. . . .

He had been a minister for the Disciples of Christ Christian Church before he and his family converted to Catholicism about 15 years ago. His children are adults.

This is actually unusual - not that this story came up in my news feed today, but that it wasn't about a priest who was originally Episcopalian. I get Google news alerts every day for a bunch of Christianity-related words, including "priest." I usually see a news headline at least once a month about a married Catholic priest who was Episcopalian. Unless these conversions happen with far greater frequency than I see in the news (which I highly doubt), the Catholic Church makes no effort whatsoever to keep these things from the press out of respect for the Episcopalians.

And what does that whole respect thing mean, anyway? It's not exactly a contest. The Catholic Church calls for priestly celibacy. This guy was not only not being celibate, but was caught. The Church gave him the choice to leave them or leave her. Is anyone really surprised that this is what he chose?

Also, as far as I'm concerned, any Episcopal who converts to Catholicism is taking a serious step down. The Episcopals, out of all the major denominations of Christianity in the United States, are totally the coolest. Their priests can get married, be women, or be totally gay and it's all cool. Catholic priests, however, can only get away with getting laid if they do it with a little boy. That's not really something that's going to appeal to most people.

Matthew 7:3-5 says:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Catholics, you guys have got a serious eye-plank happening here. WTFWJD?

Why Catholics aren't as Catholic as the Catholic Church thinks they are

Random, possibly unfounded theory: Catholics often have views on morality, society, and God that are unsupported by the Church itself because they are taught from a young age how the Church has taken liberties with the meaning of the scripture, so they feel they can do the same.

T/F?

Who would Jesus torture?

The other day, some disturbing information came to my attention. The Pew Forum, an organization that studies the relationship between religion and public policy, conducted a study that examined individuals' comfort level with torture vs. the regularity with which they attend church, and the type of church they attend. While not particularly surprising, the results are unsettling, to say the least:


What this poll makes clear to me is that evangelical Protestants, who are the most likely group to believe that torture can sometimes or often be justified, are not as Bible-savvy as they might think. I cannot for the life of me, however, figure out why 19% of Catholics think that torture "can often be justified." Here is a religion that, for all its flaws, prides itself on education (both spiritual and otherwise). We were never taught anything in Catholic school that would lead us to believe that torture was ever OK. I'd imagine the kids in Sunday school were taught similar things. Where, then, does this rationale come from? I can only conclude that this whole thing has more to do with party alliance than religion (though the two are inextricably and disturbingly linked).

This is not the way we are supposed to treat one another. There is nothing in the New Testament that justifies torture of anyone. In fact, Jesus speaks pretty plainly about the ways we should behave not just to our friends, but to our enemies, in his sermon on the mount.

Matthew 5:38-39 says:

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:43-48 says:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

We are called, not just as Christians, but as human beings, to treat each other in a dignified and loving way. It's not always easy, and it doesn't always happen, but it's very important for us to try. And as for torture, it should be a no-brainer. A "Christian Nation", as the crazies like to call it, would not engage in such an act. I think it's pretty clear WTF Jesus would do.

UPDATE: My friend Dave made me this:


It's a priest waterboarding a prisoner! Yay!

Pope Nazipants is at it again

From the Catholic News Agency:

Pope Benedict addressed representatives of the Pontifical Biblical Commission following their plenary assembly and said that a correct understanding of Scripture does not come from "the individualistic illusion that biblical texts can be better understood outside the community of believers" but rather rises from the Tradition of the Church.

"The individualistic illusion." That's really something, isn't it? By 'something', I, of course, mean 'something out of 1984.' Or, perhaps, 'something out of the more frightening chapters of the history of the Church.'


There was a time when the Church hierarchy, as leaders of what can most accurately be called an 'oppressive theocracy', felt it pertinent to ban reading of the scripture under the guise of preventing heresy. This made sense, of course, because the Bible contains little support for things like the death penalty, holy wars, or even the idea of purgatory (which was, in my opinion, little more than an excuse for the Church to make money selling indulgences). So, in her infinite wisdom, the Church made possession or translation of the Bible by lay people illegal.

From The Church Council of Toulouse in 1229 AD:

We prohibit also that the laity should
not be permitted to have the books of the Old or
New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having
any translation of these books.

From The Church Council of Tarragona in 1234 AD:

No one may possess the books of the Old
and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses
them he must turn them over to the local bishop
within eight days, so that they may be burned...

This is history. This is what the Church used to be.

I believe quite vehemently that the Catholic Church has, ultimately, benefited from the advent of protestantism. As opposing views on Christianity moved from heretical to commonplace, and as the Church's political power waned, they were forced to re-asses their roll. No longer did they run the western world. As such, it became time for them to actually become a religion. Granted, this took longer than would seem reasonable, but change is slow. That said, the Catholic Church now is undoubtedly an entirely different entity than she was in the thirteenth century... but not if Pope Nazipants has anything to say about it.

Before Nazipants, the Church's opinion on birth control had gotten to a point where it was almost never stated. It became an unspoken issue of personal morality, and was no longer perceived as dogmatic. When Nazipants gained power, however, he made sure the world knew that God hates condoms. Because sperm is magical. Not that there's any scriptural precedent for that, but only the Church knows how to interpret the Bible, so I guess they must have read something I missed.

Before Nazipants, the Church reformed the structure of Sunday worship into something that could be understood by the Masses. No more minimally-participatory Latin droning for us Catholics, oh no. Now we have minimally-participatory droning in our native tongues (I mock it, but it was a big step for the Church from irrelevant medieval political institution to an actual viable religion). When Nazipants gained power, however, he decided to play buddy-buddy with the Society of Pope Pius X, who are known not only for their opposition to Vatican II, but their antisemitism. Now, there's nothing in the Bible that says anything about Latin Mass, nor is there anything in there that justifies racism (not in the New Testament, anyway), but only the Church knows how to interpret the Bible, so I guess they must have read something I missed.

Before Nazipants, the Church condemned all kinds of murder, from abortion* to genocide. Gone were the days of Church-sanctioned executions, replaced by letters from the Pope written to world leaders, asking them to abolish the death penalty. When Nazipants gained power, however, he elevated abortion to the level of "worst kind of murder ever" (in a clear attempt to attack the position of women in western society), and declared the death penalty a political matter, not to be interfered with by the Church. Now, the Bible says not to kill pretty clearly, but nowhere in there does it define a hierarchy of the worst kinds of killing, but only the Church knows how to interpret the Bible, so I guess they must have read something I missed.

(I might also add that a religion who prays to a man who died becuase of the death penalty should probably think about universally opposing it. Just sayin'.)

I realize the Bible is a challenging document. So much of what's in there is downright morally repugnant; the God portrayed in the Old Testament is a psychopathic, murderous, insecure, angry monster, whereas the God portrayed in the New Testament is kind, loving, and forgiving; there are verses in there that directly contradict each other, with no indication as to which is correct; the translations will always be questionable, as modern language is a very different entity from the ancient languages of these texts. All of this makes the Bible a difficult thing to interpret, and I believe that asking for help in reading the text is often quite necessary and important. It's also important to remember, however, that every single possible interpretation of the Bible comes with an agenda, including and especially the Catholic Church's (which, I've noticed, is also not uniform).

So, is the Bible a document that can only be understood through the ancient, slowly-changing teachings of the Catholic Church? Absolutely not. Every single person, Catholic or not, has a right to read whatever they want from the Scripture. And we all have a right not to have dogma shoved down our throats by a Pope who wants nothing more to command the Holy Roman Empire. Sorry, Benedict, but you were born a few centuries too late.

Matthew 23:1-15 says:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Woe to you, Pope Nazipants, you hypocrite! WTFWJD?

*I just want to specify that while the Catholic Church considers abortion to be murder, and I am technically a Catholic, I do not consider the kind of abortions that are carried out by responsible medical practitioners to be murder. I've written a letter to my Archbishop, but apparently this is not enough to get me excommunicated.

What it means to be Christian

Antisemitism is NOT Catholic

(From JTA):

A Catholic archbishop in Brazil minimized the Holocaust and declared that Jews dominate the world media.

Dadeus Grings, the archbishop of Porto Alegre, declared that "more Catholics than Jews have died in the Holocaust, but this is not usually told because Jews own the world's propaganda."

. . . .

"It's not the first time Mr. Grings refers to the Holocaust in a twisted way," said Henry Chmelnitsky, president of the Rio Grande do Sul Jewish Federation. "Fewer Jews died in World War II because there were and there still are fewer Jews in the world. Proportionally, the extermination minimized by the archbishop meant the slaughter of most of a people that was already small. By reproducing stereotypes created by the Nazis, Grings positions himself on the wrong side of history."

Grings is the second Catholic bishop in recent months to publicly minimize the Holocaust.

The other night, I went out to see the incredible Bob Wiseman perform. I'd been a bit of a fan of his music for some time, but I'd never seen him live before. Turns out he was nothing short of amazing. I could go on for hours about his show, but this is not the place. There was one song of his, however, that I will talk about. It's called "How Round the Earth" and these are the lyrics:

I was 12 years old
I was walking home
From a soccer game

He was an older kid
I seen him cross the street
He pulled a knife out on me

I said I got no money
He said I don't believe that's true
I know your last name
I know the house you live
Everyone knows that you're a Jew

He stabbed me in the arm
He punched me in the face
He tripped me as I tried to run
The cars drove by
His girlfriend was laughing
Finally they let me crawl away

My father said 'what happened?'
I told him nothing happened at all
'Cause he knew my last name
He knew the house where I lived
I never ever felt so small

Now it's been years since then
Ice Cube's got a new record out
I read about his press conference

He talked about history
About the Jewish conspiracy
And it occurred to me to say

Ice Cube, I live at 848 oak street
You should come over and have tea
I'll show you my bank account
I'll show you the car i drive
And then maybe you'll decide
The earth isn't flat

I was pretty upset about this song, and I'd venture to say that it's fate this news story came out so quickly after I'd heard it for the first time, because I really want to say something: fuck antisemitism. Seriously, fuck it. Saying "Jews control the media", aside from being a stupid fucking thing to say, makes violent idiots think they can go out and stab little Jewish kids while they're walking home from soccer practice. My mom's dad is Jewish (a fact I discovered on the way to my first Passover when I was seven). He's unbelievably lapsed, of course, or I imagine he wouldn't have allowed his children to be raised Catholic, but he loves his gefilte fish and still speaks some Hebrew and likes to call my sister and me "meshugganas." So, you know, he's culturally Jewish (kind of like how I'm culturally Catholic).

I never got a sense from him of a fear of antisemitism, which is probably because the man is fearless. But this fear is something I've seen in every other Jewish person I've ever known. In high school, my friend Lisa would pretend not to be Jewish around the Muslim kids because she was afraid of what they'd say (personally, I think that as all this took place in the wake of September 11th, I would have been more afraid to be the Muslim kids. Some asshole burnt down their mosque. Fuck that shit too). My friend David told me that when he first went to college, he was militantly Jewish and would wear t-shirts to that effect, but his mother would beg him not to because she was afraid somebody would do something to him.

I can't imagine living with that kind of fear, which is so culturally ingrained from centuries of antisemitism. In this day and age, do we really want to continue that bullshit? I mean, haven't we learned anything from South Park? Eric Cartman is the (hilarious) embodiment of cartoon evil. Don't people realize that diatribes about the "Jewish conspiracy" just make them sound like him? Do you really want to sound like Eric Cartman, Archbishop Grings? WTF is with the Brazilian Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church may have fucked up the Holocaust, but in 1965, Pope Paul VI made it very clear that "in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." So your position, Archbishop Asshole is inherently un-Catholic, and inherently un-Christlike.

Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). Christ himself never, ever preached violence against the Jews. He took issue with a corrupt church body, much like he would probably take issue with much of the Christian church of today. He did not, however, preach hatred against his own people because, well, they were his own people. Antisemitism has no place in Christianity. Hate in general has no place in Christianity. Get your head out of your ass, Archbishop. WTFWJD?

Catholics vs. Obama vs. Notre Dame vs. My Sanity

OK, Catholics, I will give you $10 to stop pissing me off. I can't tell you how much I want to bitch about OTHER Christian denominations. But it's always you these days. What the fuck is your problem? I CAN'T BELIEVE I AM ONE OF YOU.

Moving on... Notre Dame has asked President Obama to speak at their commencement ceremony, and will be presenting him with an honorary law degree. True to form, the Catholic wackos take umbrage with this, and have started a petition to the president of the university in the hope of preventing it.

(From notredamescandal.com)

Dear Father Jenkins:

It has come to our attention that the University of Notre Dame will honor President Barack Obama as its commencement speaker on May 17.

It is an outrage and a scandal that “Our Lady’s University,” one of the premier Catholic universities in the United States, would bestow such an honor on President Obama given his clear support for policies and laws that directly contradict fundamental Catholic teachings on life and marriage.

This nation has many thousands of accomplished leaders in the Catholic Church, in business, in law, in education, in politics, in medicine, in social services, and in many other fields who would be far more appropriate choices to receive such an honor from the University of Notre Dame.

Instead Notre Dame has chosen prestige over principles, popularity over morality. Whatever may be President Obama’s admirable qualities, this honor comes on the heels of some of the most anti-life actions of any American president, including expanding federal funding for abortions and inviting taxpayer-funded research on stem cells from human embryos.

The honor also comes amid great concern among Catholics nationwide about President Obama’s future impact on American society, the family, and the Catholic Church on issues such as traditional marriage, conscience protections for Catholic doctors and nurses, and expansion of abortion “rights.”

This honor is clearly a direct violation of the U.S. bishops’ 2004 mandate in “Catholics in Political Life”: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

We prayerfully implore you to halt this travesty immediately. We do so with the hope that Catholics nationwide will likewise call on you to uphold the sacred mission of your Catholic university. May God grant you the courage and wisdom to do what is right.

Jenkins, in his announcement of the decision to have President Obama speak, made it very clear that "the invitation of President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research." That's apparently irrelevant though, as people are still pissed. The hypocrisy here is pretty amazing, but has already been laid out more eloquently than I could probably do it. Check it (from The Observer):

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2004 statement, "Catholics and Political Life," states that Catholic institutions, like Notre Dame, "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental and moral principles," and that those who do "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

On May 17, I will be honored with a Bachelor's Degree from Notre Dame. In my four years attending this university I have been awarded with over $100,000 in scholarships and financial aid from Notre Dame, and have always been offered a platform to speak my mind, as I would in any credible University. On the day that I graduate, President Obama will be presented with an honorary law degree from Notre Dame and have the privilege to be the Class of 2009's Commencement speaker. Both Barack Obama and I have acted in defiance of the Church's fundamental and moral principles in the past, but no one is protesting me receiving my degree.

The idea that by inviting President Obama to deliver the commencement address, Notre Dame is in any way supporting his position on abortion is ludicrous. In presenting him this honor, Notre Dame is rewarding him for his achievements, just as Notre Dame will be rewarding me for mine. There is no Catholic litmus test to decide whether you are fit for this honor. Notre Dame has a long history of presenting this honor to people who have in opposition to the Catholic Church, from General Sherman in 1865, whose total war strategies in his "March to the Sea" clearly violate the Catholic standards of jus in bello, to President George W. Bush, who as governor of Texas presided over 155 executions. I'm willing to bet that the pro-life activists who are turning this event into a scandal were silent when President George W. Bush delivered the commencement speech eight years ago. Which leads to me to believe that this protest movement has nothing to do with "protecting Notre Dame's Catholic identity" and everything to do with politics.

I have no problem with staging a political protest. It's our right as Americans to do so. What I do have a problem with is hypocrisy. If you disagree with Obama's politics, you have the right to stage a political protest, but don't turn it into something it's not. Don't hide behind the Church unless you plan to protest every speaker we have in the future that does not conform to Catholic principles. You are staging a political protest, nothing more.

The American Catholic Church, which is one of the most conservative wings of the Catholic Church (though obviously not as bad as Brazil), really needs to stop seeing abortion as the only issue ever. The Church believes abortion is murder. Fine, whatever. Then they need to treat all murder equally. The problem is, of course, that Pope Nazipants has made it very clear that he believes abortion to be the worst kind of murder, and will allow all sorts of injustices on the part of the Church in support of that crazy claim. It will be interesting to see if the Vatican will have anything to say on this situation, although I think it likely they'll be keeping their mouths shut until everyone forgets how mad they are at them for all the other shit they've already said.

This goes beyond the commonly-made claim that the Catholic Church only cares about you until you are born. The fact is that the Catholic Church as an institution does not value women. Birth control, access to abortion - these things are good for women, and these things are banned within the Church. Furthermore, the Vatican all too recently proclaimed that anyone involved in the ordination of a female priest would be excommunicated. So female ordination = excommunication, abortion = excommunication. Mark my words, friends, it won't be long before going on the pill = excommunication. This is not about the Bible. It is not about Christ. It's not about dogma or the sacraments or Tradition with a capital 'T'. This is about women and a bunch of old, sexually frustrated men's effort to keep us from being relevant as anything but chalices into which for that oh-so-sacred sperm can be poured.

John 20:10-18 says:

Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"

"They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."

Jesus said to her, "Mary."
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

Could women really be so insignificant if Jesus chose to reveal Himself to one upon His return from the dead? Are we really so naive that we do not count Mary Magdalene among the Apostles? This is the 21st century. Patriarchy is dead in the west. It's about time the Catholic Church caught up. WTFWJD?

Fan-fucking-tastic

For all two of you who don't read SLOG:

I got a response to the email I wrote to my Archbishop

My original letter was as follows:

My name is Jocelyn. I was baptized at St. Michael's Catholic Church. I received my First Communion at St. Joseph Catholic Church. I was Confirmed at St. Philip Catholic Church. In short, I am Catholic.

I have not always agreed with the Vatican on every issue, but I have always been proud to be Catholic. I have always been proud of my Church, the work that we do, and the members we claim. I have always believed us to be a strong and good-hearted group of people.

It is for this reason that I am so hurt by what has happened over the last few days in Brazil. As you are undoubtedly aware, a nine-year-old girl became pregnant by her step-father, who admitted that he had been sexually abusing her since she was six years old. Her doctors determined that continuing with the pregnancy would be very dangerous for an 80 pound 9-year-old, and so she got an abortion. The Catholic Church in Brazil then proceeded to raise all hell and excommunicated the girl's mother and the doctors who performed the abortion. As far as I know, the step-father is still a member of the Church.

I want to make it very clear that I believe giving this girl an abortion was absolutely the right thing to do. I believe it is morally reprehensible to ask a child that age to give birth, particularly when her health would be at risk in doing so. I believe the Catholic Church is absolutely wrong to deny membership to these Doctors, who all took an oath vowing to "do no harm." Therefore, I believe it stands to reason that I should be excommunicated as well. If these people are murderers for saving this child's life, then I am a murderer for agreeing with them.

Thank you for your time. God bless you.

-Jocelyn

Here's the response I got. You'll notice that it is not from the Archbishop:

Jocelyn:

Archbishop J. Michael Miller, CSB, has asked me to respond to your email of Friday, March 20, 2009, sent to him via the Holy Rosary Cathedral.

I would like to begin by saying that I hear and feel the enormous sense of pain that you are experiencing as a result of the tragic story of the nine-year girl in Brazil who underwent an abortion.

As I am not aware of all of the factors that led to the excommunication of the girl's mother, I am not able to offer an opinion from a canonical perspective on this case.

However, I might point out that according to Canon 1318, the censure of excommunication is only to be imposed with the greatest moderation and only for graver delicts. Abortion is considered to be a grave delict. However, the penalty must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed in part due to a number of factors that are outlined in Canon 1324. One of these factors is a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave.

The fact that you do not agree with the decision about the excommunication of the girl's mother would not be grounds for your excommunication.

I have found that sometimes we are all confronted with situations in which we feel a deep sense of abandonment. Even our Lord prayed on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me." Pope Benedict XV1 has written in Deus Caritas, that Jesus was praying in the deepest sense to the Father during this horrific moment. We too sometimes find ourselves in situations in which prayer is the best and only realistic response to the situations we encounter. I would urge you to remain faithful in prayer for the Church, the little girl and her mother, and all who find themselves in moments of anguish. I believe this will help to build up the Body of Christ.

Sincerely in Christ,

Father Bruce McAllister
Chancellor

Discuss.

Sad sad sad

This letter (from Mlive.com) is important, and as such I have decided to post it in its entirety:

Reinstated bishop who denies Holocaust is sign of church changes
by Harry Vischer Jr.

The current controversy regarding the Holocaust in Germany during World War II, was it fact or fiction? It is being led by persons such as Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson who was first excommunicated, then reinstated, then placed into limbo and lay persons such as movie actor Mel Gibson and his father Hutton Gibson. They each claim that it never happened even though there is solid evidence that it did.

Auschwitz-Birkenau is a camp that comes to mind. The commandant, Rudolph Hess, even bragged that he could gas 2,000 Jews in one half hour but complained that the ovens slowed the process down. Sadly, professing Christians stood silently by during that period and it is professing Christians who are in denial now.

I have German blood, I profess Christ, I cannot accept the claim of these, but I can understand it.

Born and raised in a German settlement in the United States, not once did I hear condemnation of what was being done by the Hitler group. What was heard was that Jews killed Jesus and the Bible said that they are forever to carry that guilt.

It was about that time when I began to question the accuracy of the Bible, whether in its entirety it was as God might wish or if man's interpretation had, on occasion, been substituted.

Not possible, say those claiming only through a belief in Christ Jesus could eternal life be achieved.

That meant that Jews, Muslims and all other faiths that did not accept that would be condemned to hell, something that just does not make sense to me.

At the age of 36, I chose the Roman Catholic faith as my way to reach a Christian ideal. At the time I was told that the church advocated tolerance and professed that life after death was possible for non-Christ believers.

At the time, Pope John XXlll had recently died but his dream of change was in progress. It was a joyful time for me. Not only did I like Catholic people but a love of Christ could exist without a feeling of guilt when living life to its fullest.

Liberation theology was the norm among the many religious people I came to know. It felt good to touch the poor rather than just preach to them.

But then, in the 1980's something changed. For me, it began when Pope John Paul condemned liberation theology in South America. Then, quietly, the laity was more restricted and I felt that there was a movement afoot to return the church to the days of pre-Vatican 2.

The death of John Paul and the elevation of Benedict XVI revealed that the church I loved was being replaced with the type of church that I had left so many years ago.

In 2000 and 2004, my bishops backed George W. Bush for president. Even though I disagreed, to remain in good standing, I decided to go along to get along, which I deeply regret now.

In 2008, it was too much when a Michigan bishop pronounced all who voted for a candidate who was pro-choice were to be considered intrinsically evil. I had to object and did.

I wrote a Viewpoint, printed in this newspaper. What I feared became reality. I was informed that I would no longer be able to receive the Holy Eucharist, so I left.

Has this caused anger? No, just a sadness, a sadness for all who are being led backward to a time that our prophet, John the XXlll wished to lead us away from.

John, the common man who became the common man's pope, who proclaimed that it was not enough to just preach to the poor, they must be touched as well.

He eased relations with Jews. He acknowledged that yes, they could receive eternal life without believing in Christ Jesus, but today the concept that only acceptance of Christ as the true son of God is being instituted.

This has opened the door for persons like Williamson to claim that the Holocaust is a sham.

There are enough fundamentalists in the world, Pope Nazipants. Why don't you join one of their churches and leave Catholicism alone?

...I want Pope John XXIII back.

Note to self: not even all of the Vatican sucks!

Finally, someone in the Vatican has some goddamn sense (from the Associated Press):

An influential prelate said Brazilian doctors didn't deserve excommunication for aborting the twin fetuses of a 9-year-old child who was allegedly raped by her stepfather because the doctors were saving her life.

The statement by Archbishop Rino Fisichella in the Vatican newspaper Sunday was highly unusual because church law mandates automatic excommunication for abortion. Fisichella, who heads the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, also upheld the church's ban on abortion and any implications of his criticism of excommunicating the doctors and the girl's mother weren't clear.

. . . Fisichella criticized the archbishop's public denunciation, writing that the girl "should have been above all defended, embraced, treated with sweetness to make her feel that we were all on her side, all of us, without distinction."

Fisichella stressed that abortion is always "bad." But he said the quick proclamation of excommunication "unfortunately hurts the credibility of our teaching, which appears in the eyes of many as insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking mercy."

That's very Christ-like of you, Archbishop Fisichella. Nice work.

Seriously?

(From AHN)

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jewish officials in New York are opposed to approval of the Child Victims Act pending before the state legislature. The proposal aims to temporarily remove the statute of limitations for lawsuits concerning sexual abuse of children.

Jeremiah 22:3 says:

This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Catholics, WTFWJD? Jews, WTF?

Ugh, Vatican. SHUT UP!

(From Reuters)

"Bankers should assume moral responsibility and ask God for forgiveness for these complex sins," said Stafford, former archbishop of Denver and one of the highest-ranking Americans in the Vatican.

OK, Vatican, listen up. YES, the douche-bags responsible for the economic meltdown should be held responsible. YES, they have a lot for which to apologize. But when you tell them they need to ask forgiveness, it just sounds stupid. Especially since you guys keep pulling the assholiest shit. I think maybe you should look inside and maybe ask forgiveness for your own assholery. OR, better yet, just stop being assholes (there's a thought). Then maybe you can tell other people what to do.

John 8:1-11 says:

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Just sayin'. WTFWJD?

Note to self: not all Catholics suck

Obviously, this is the case, since my family are mostly really nice people, and also mostly really Catholic people. Anyway, just in case some of you needed re-assuring, here it is (from UPI):

The dissident pastor of a dissident Roman Catholic church in St. Louis has been laicized, or stripped of his priestly functions, officials said.

The Rev. Marek Bozek told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he plans to carry on at St. Stanislaus. He said that he and the church board will ignore Pope Benedict XVI's action.

"We don't recognize this unjust action, the same way we don't recognize the excommunications," Bozek said.

...At St. Stanislaus, Bozek advocates the ordination of women, an end to clerical celibacy and the recognition of gay relationships. While this has upset some members of the parish, the church has acquired scores of new members who welcome the change, the Post-Dispatch said.

Bravo, Bozek. I think it's pretty clear that the Vatican can't keep kicking everyone out and expect Catholicism to continue to exist. If shit like this keeps happening, they will eventually have to adapt or die. I think, in the end, they will choose adaptation over disintegration.

The beginning of the end?

(From Oregonlive.com)

Oregon has found itself at the center of an international story after a federal appellate court ruled that a former Portland man can sue the Vatican in a U.S. court over his alleged molestation as a teenager by a parish priest.

It is the first time in history that a victim has won this right. The decision also means that top Catholic officials may be deposed for Rome's role in the case.

Victims have long argued that in a rigid hierarchy such as the Catholic Church, decisions come from the Vatican and, therefore, Rome should be held responsible for ongoing coverups of clergy sex crimes.

Read the whole thing here.

Is it wrong to be delighted about this? In a religion where children are supposedly considered sacred and precious, it seems atrocious to me not only the extent of the child abuse on the part of the clergy, but the cover-ups as well. I really can't help but feel overjoyed that the people at the top are going to have to answer for this, even if it does mean the fall of Catholicism (which, in all likelihood, it won't). Now if only someone would take George W. Bush to court for war crimes...

Matthew 18:5-6 says:

And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Matthew 23:25 says:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

Serves you right, Vatican officials. Perhaps you should have read the Bible a little more closely. WTFWJD?