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?

Perhaps this is something on which we can all agree.

(source)

I like it.

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?

Freedom Ain't Free

From the American Daily Review (by Warner Todd Huston):

Liberty University, a Christian college situated near Lynchburg, Virginia and founded in 1971 by Jerry Falwell, has this week decertified its college Democratic Party club over the singular fact that the National Democratic Party is a supporter of abortion.

Liberty University, huh? Before we get to the Bible, let's look at Websters' definition of Liberty:

The state of a free person; exemption from subjection to the will of another claiming ownership of the person or services; freedom; -- opposed to slavery, serfdom, bondage, or subjection.

So here we have yet another example of the Christian right modifying the meaning of a word to suit their liking. Apparently, to Jerry Falwell and his kind, "liberty" means the freedom to do what the Christian right says it's OK to do. And if you think that's classy, check out the next sentence after the previously quoted news blurb:

After the debacle of allowing a president that is a supporter of infanticide being invited to speak at the leading Catholic University in the nation, I can only say that Liberty University should be congratulated for standing up for its principles. At least these Baptists actually believe in something unlike the putative Catholics at Notre Dame.

That's pure class, Huston. But I'm sure you don't think much of Catholics anyway, despite your generally similar ideas on abortion. After all, Catholics believe in things like Tradition, infant baptism, and the importance of Good Works. You believe only in Salvation - oh, and that women are second-class citizens who are not entitled to make decisions regarding their own bodies - oh, and that gay people are evil-doers who choose their sexual orientation with the singular purpose of pissing off God. Way to stick it to the "putative Catholics", you putative human being.

Lest you think this whole thing is as offensive as it gets, here's what Mark Hine, the vice-president of student affairs at Liberty University had to say:

“The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)”

The decision had been made that from this point on the students could not use campus meeting rooms and could not use the university’s name in advertising or functions. Hines also warned the students that violations of these new strictures could lead to reprimands that would ultimately end in expulsion.

Now, to the school's (minor) credit, they did amend their decision to allow the students to continue to meet on campus. But that does nothing to change the heart of this issue. What I find particularly amazing is that Hine calls the platform of the Democratic party "contrary to Christian doctrine." How is it, then, that there are so many Christians in the Democratic party? In fact, the majority of the politicians in Washington are Christian. A majority of them (at the moment) are also Democrats. Could it be that Christianity may have different meanings to different people? Is it possible that one particular group of Christians is out of line in claiming ownership of the title? To outsiders it may seem that Christian means "gun-toting medieval backwoods bigoted asshole", but that's because those are the kind of people who are willing to ignore passages like Matthew 6:1-6, which says:

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

In favor of verses like Exodus 21:22, which says:

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

Which, as we've already discussed, doesn't condemn abortion as soundly as the Christian right would have us believe.

Perhaps Hine's issue with the Democrats is that they (in general) believe in the importance of verses like Luke 14:12-14, which 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 . . .

But don't (in general) set too much importance on verses like Leviticus 18:22, which says:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Another major difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, is that Republicans tend to make a big show of their Christianity (See Matthew 6:1-6), using it as a political tool, whereas Democrats tend toward espousing the vital importance of the separation of church and state, and seem to have less difficulty seeing the difference between what is good for a country and what is a matter of personal faith. To ally a religion so closely with a political party is dangerous and (dare I say it?) downright wrong. I can understand how a person who is genuinely pro-life would have problems supporting a pro-choice political candidate, but I cannot see how that same person would have no qualms about supporting a candidate who is pro-war, opposed to national health care (opposition to national health care is, in my opinion, a form of murder), and believes in the vital importance of keeping poor, uneducated people poor and uneducated. Those are not Christian values. I would venture to say that some, if not all, of the ideas in modern socialism have stronger support from the Scripture than free-market capitalism. After all, Jesus helped the poor and healed the sick. Wouldn't a reformed education system, better public housing and transit, and a quality national health care system do the same? And since we're on the subject, does anyone else think it likely that fewer abortions would take place if these things existed (not to mention the positive effect realistic sex-education would have)?

No, it's pretty clear to me that while the Republican party, by and large, is Christian in name, the Democratic party is, by and large, Christian in action. But, of course, it's all a matter of personal faith and politics. Even so, a religious organization has no business playing this kind of politics. Advocate for issues, not parties. WTFWJD?

Thou shalt not bear false witness

Amen.

The Day of Truth?

I just read an article in the Christian Post about a student-run counter-protest to the Day of Silence. Now, I disagree with these students and their views against homosexuality. I'm also not a fan of the way they claim to represent all of Christianity with these views. That said, I think they're going about what they're doing in the right way. The "Day of Truth" is merely a non-violent reaction to a non-violent protest. If only we could all air our grievances in such a mature and dignified way.

Unfortunately, I felt the need to read more than the first few paragraphs of the article, and came upon this little gem:

Christian conservatives ... argue that the event politicizes the classroom
to support the belief that homosexuality is moral and forces propaganda and
acceptance of high-risk behavior into schools with little – if any – room for
opposing views.

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't staging an in-school counter-protest because you're opposed to disrupting classroom time with politics a little counter-intuitive? They say they're only participating in their counter-protest "outside of class hours", but how likely is that to actually be the case? Also, what difference does it really make? And since we're on the subject, isn't it a bit rich for the Christian right to accuse people of politicizing things that shouldn't be politicized? I'm quite certain that the Christian right have politicized their religious views on homosexuality by passing constitutional bans on gay marriage in 29 states. I'm also certain they've politicized their religious views on abortion by continually looking for new ways to attack Roe v. Wade. I'm downright positive that they've politicized Christianity in general by making the repeated claim that "America is a Christian Nation." Not only that, but they've brought their politicization of Christianity into the classroom by attempting to get "intelligent design" (AKA unintelligent creationism) taught alongside evolution in public schools.

Matthew 22:17-21 says:

Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

To me, this passage is about keeping politics out of faith, and faith out of politics. Not everyone may read it that way, but it's important to keep in mind that if you're going to go around bitching about people politicizing the classroom, you probably shouldn't be politicizing your faith. Just sayin'. WTFWJD?

P.S. I'd also like to point out that this article's "expert on sexuality issues" is a man named Dr. Warren Throckmorton. You can read more about him here, here, and here.