Rant (short)

[ProSense]

Well, it is shorter than the last one.

The Big picture

Blm started a thread about Opus Dei, and someone responded that it was anti-Catholic Church. I posted a couple of articles about Abramoff ties to terrorist activities and someone deemed the post anti-Semitic. And all this left me thinking about the big picture.

Yesterday Lynn Swann decided to run for governor of PA because the Democratic Party has "taken the African-American vote for granted." Yeah, the GOP is the party of civil rights (sarcasm). Did he miss the last presidential election? I bring this up because it easy to overlook the big picture. The Republicans know this and push these buttons all the time. They keep people who aren’t paying close attention focused on the small stupid s***.

And in that realm phobias and spin keep people from veering too far from conventional wisdom---what the media tells them. I seriously believe people are extremely terrified of looking at the big picture of most situations for fear of being labeled loony. But does anyone really think the Bush family and the fundies could have infiltrated the entire political, business and social structure of America with small-time spin and dirty politics? Intelligent design?

What’s is so different about weighing the facts to dispel the propaganda fed to us by the MSM and weighing the facts to determine the validity of certain claims? Knowing what we know about Bush, there are those who would still say it’s all bogus because no one like that would be allowed to get that far and become president. Ignorance of the facts is proof that weighing everything doesn’t sap intelligence. One of the only reasons I fear spin and misinformation is that people don’t pay attention. Spin and misinformation often are loaded with discrepancies or holes---watch how Bush and the Republicans operate: Information being redacted from reports, withheld and manipulated to distort the facts.

Are the Republicans going down and taking Bush with them?

Not looking at the big picture, IMO, is exactly why Bush is where he is.

I said to my brother after the 2004 election: trust me, within the next couple of years Bush’s impeachment will be a part of the discussion. I mentioned all the names in play in Ohio and my own theory about the interconnection of all these events: the election, the money scandals, the power tripping and suspicious meetings members of Congress were having with local and government officials (I’m still waiting for the DeLay/Feeney/NASA connection to be exposed). Anyway, my brother and I have gone through these goings on at every stage. Initially, he didn’t buy that the all powerful Republican crooks could be brought down by anyone. But power shifts, toes get stepped on, mutiny happens and next thing you know dynasties crumble. That is what I believe is happening now. But there is a sinister side still: the uncertainty that still lingers because some key things have not happened. For example, where are the independent investigators in all of this? Democrats in Congress are still being stonewalled. Good news, there will be elections in 2006.

Anyway, my brother and I had another conversation last night, and he’s coming around. Abramoff’s indictment and guilty plea brought him around, somewhat. He’s still iffy about the final sentencing. He doesn’t believe they’ll be taken out of play for good (which equates to many years behind bars). So, he’s taking a wait and see approach.

But getting back to my original point about the big picture, maybe it’s too big a picture for people to comprehend or accept. Denial, by ignorance or stupidity as the wingnuts display, is a terrible thing. I wonder what kind of experience a person who isn’t all that politically aware would have browsing DU, or any politically driven forum?

What we see unfolding is part of the big picture, and, IMO, the bigger picture may never see the light of day. So, I don’t understand not opening one’s mind to the possibility that anything can happen, especially when signs start to point to these occurrences. The thing is, it doesn’t hurt and one might actually learn something. Look at the stolen election. In some people’s mind that’s as crazy a notion as any.

Interestingly enough, after I spoke to my brother, I came back online and the first thing I discovered was an article linking Tyco CEO Koslowski to Abramoff (thread link below). I waiting for the connection Qwest (maybe in the NSA/telecomm link, who knows?).


The Catholic Church (disclaimer: I’m not Catholic and my knowledge here is based on limited personal experience)

The Catholic Church has its issues, and the dichotomy within was brought to light in the presidential campaign. Can someone be Catholic and have an open mind? Is it the Church’s doctrine to stifle free thinking?

Some of the things I witnessed during the 2004 campaign is scary. So I want to know more. I welcome blm’s insights. I will read anything, some I’ll take with a grain of salt until I begin to see a pattern that makes sense. Sometimes the first paragraph or two turns me off, gives me the feeling I’m reading the writings of a loony (Ann Coulter). People can spin facts into fiction, but I really believe that as more information come out, the facts can be sorted out. If the holes linger too long, one can resign and accept the conventional wisdom, even when doubts persist, or keep searching for the truth. The other option is to chock it up to we’ll never know, it’s a great position when the full story isn’t known and the evidence trail goes cold.



I came across this today (one very minor reference to Kerry):

The ‘state of the archdiocese’

Last summer, in a survey conducted by The Catholic Telegraph, a number of readers suggested that Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk offer area Catholics an annual update on both the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Accordingly, he sat down recently with editor Tricia Hempel to discuss such matters.

Some readers have suggested that the archbishop offer a "state of the union" report. It seemed as though January is the usual time for such things. So if you were to deliver a state of the union address today, what would you tell the people of the archdiocese?

I would say that we have learned that people’s faith is very important to them, and that, of course, is a central reality I’m very grateful for – we learned that from the survey done by the communications office last year.

We’re still hurting from the sex abuse, in terms of money and esprit de corps. We will continue to offer whatever psychological help is needed by victims. I continue to be dreadfully sorry and ashamed of all that happened to the victims; I wish I could undo it all.

The financial problems we are facing are not terminal problems; they can be dealt with, and we are taking steps to deal with them. For example, we are making new efforts to collect $28 million in unpaid debts from our parishes.
We’ve hired a consulting firm to help us get a handle on what more we can do.

We’ve been hurt by fact that the Archbishop’s Annual Fund Drive was off by 20 percent. I found that very discouraging.


snip...


You’ve been a priest for 46 years, a bishop for 31 years, and Archbishop of Cincinnati for 23 years. How has the archdiocese changed in that time?

I think that like the rest of the country, the archdiocese is probably more secularized than it was when I became archbishop in 1982, partially because of some of the church experiences we’ve had and also because of the media conditioning we all experience, partially because of the rise of computers and internet. It gives people access to worlds they would never have known about, cared about or dared to enter (e.g. on-line pornography). Likewise, in movies – I don’t go to a lot of movies, but I read a lot of reviews. Movies present not only pictures and philosophies, but whole lifestyles in a way that was not appropriate in 1982.

We’ve been through some economic ups and downs – difficult economic times are often difficult for the church. There has been a decreasing sense of consensus in the church, e.g. the John Kerry situation last year during the election.

I think lay people (many of them, at least) seem to see themselves as more sophisticated in their general life than they used to, including their faith. I am not sure they really are. Many people have a very strong sense that "It’s my right to determine what I’m going to believe, say what I’m going to say," but do they know what they’re talking about? It’s very hard to come by a thoughtful, serious, educated, friendly discussion-cum-disagreement.

Our society, the U.S., and western Europe in general, puts a very high value in thinking for yourself, speaking one’s mind, the right to disagree, but it does not put a corresponding obligation on people to provide oneself with the equipment needed in order to do that.


http://www.catholiccincinnati.org/tct/jan0606/010606state.html

Kozlowski
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2351670&mesg_id=2351670


Abramoff and al-Arian: Lobbyist's "Charity" a Front for Terrorism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2352126


Lynn Swann
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15875278&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6




Your thoughts?

[kerrygoddess]

1. Opus Dei

Opus Dei is a personal prelature of the Catholic Church. It was founded in 1928, by St. Josemaría Escrivá. http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&s=307

[globalvillage]

2. I was going to respond, but let me ask you first...

Is this a serious question?

"Can someone be Catholic and have an open mind?"

[ProSense]

3. Yes!

Based on statements about a vote for "evil." I guess as such a vote relates to the Democrats' pro-choice stance, among other things.

[rox63]

9. Some folks also think

homosexuals are evil, and they condemn anyone who supports equal rights. The official stance of the Catholic Church condemns homosexuality as sinful. But there are plenty of Catholics (including a particular tall, handsome Senator) who are supportive of equal rights. Does that mean he's evil in the eyes of the Church? Some might say yes. But I suspect most would not.

The Catholic Church also forbids its members from using birth control. But about 80% of Catholics use birth control. Does that make them evil? I don't think so. And I don't think they believe they are evil either.

Can someone be Catholic and have an open mind? Of course! Although I am no longer a practicing Catholic, I am the product of 12 years of Catholic school. I had an open mind when I was growing up, and I still do.

[rox63]

5. Considering who we all support here

I would hope that's not a serious question.

[ProSense]

10. It's a serious question in the context

this statement: "The Catholic Church has its issues, and the dichotomy within was brought to light in the presidential campaign. Can someone be Catholic and have an open mind? Is it the Church’s doctrine to stifle free thinking?"

It has noting to do with JK supporters. Some in the Church made it an issue in voting for Kerry or any Democrat, and IMO, that meant that they believed members of the Catholic Church were predisposes to voting one way.

[rox63]

4. There are some places where the big picture doesn't fit together well

For instance, many fundie churches are virulently anti-Catholic. And although fundies are generally supportive of Israel, it's only because they believe Israel must exist for the rapture to happen. Since Katrina, many African-Americans have become even more negative about Republicans. So Lynn Swann running as a Republican may not get a whole lot of support from the black community.

[politicasista]

6. I also hear that most AA voters in PA usually vote Democratic

So I agree that he may not get a lot of support from the AA community.

[ProSense]

7. True.

Then do you think he truly believes the GOP is more supportive of the African-American community? If he does, that's pretty delusional. If he's running as a Republican and using the "Democrats use African-Americans" as an excuse, that's pretty disingenuous. And, like you said, at this point, neither stance is likely to garner him more support.

[globalvillage]

8. Lynn is a ballet dancer, too.

So I guess he has that demographic wrapped up.

Seriously, Lynn is much revered in Pittsburgh as an exceptional football player. He was amazing to watch. But just because he can run a football, most Pennsylvanians are not stupid enough to think he can run the state.
Besides, the Eagles have more fans.


Oh, and I'm a Catholic. My mind is pretty open, same and John's and Teresa's and at least half the Dem Catholics I know.
We may have pretty strict tenents, but most of us can think for ourselves.

[ProSense]

11. Excellent!

How do you reconcile your positions with the Church's or do you just ignore it or consider it out of touch with most Catholics?

I guess because of the Catholic church's prominence and the way religion was injected into this campaign these issues were forced out into the open. I wonder though how many people were affected by this choose the church (any religion I guess) or sin. Anyway, it's time for true separation of church and state.

[globalvillage]

12. Here's the thing...

Catholics should look at a political candidate based on their overall position, not just single issues. So, if a candidate is a good person, AS SEN KERRY IS, there is no issue.
The core values of the Catholic Church are love, compassion, tolerance. What we heard during the campaign were the very loud voices of the few, not the voice of the Church.
As a Catholic, I can vote for a candidate even if he has different beliefs on an issue than those of the Church, provided I don't vote for him BECAUSE he has different beliefs. Of course, if I voted for someone because he was anti-Catholic, I wouldn't be a very good Catholic, now would I?
What it comes down to is that the Catholic Church is made of people. We are pretty diverse.

Catholics can vote for Kerry

"...When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

That was not written by some radical liberal Catholic theologian. It comes from the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (once the Holy Office of the Inquisition), Joseph Ratzinger.

http://www.nydailynews.com/08-10-2004/news/politics/sto...

[ProSense]

13. Thanks GV.

This is the stuff I want to know and can reference.

[TayTay]

14. Are you sensing this division within the American Catholic community?

Conservative Republicans began a campaign to peel the Catholic vote from the Democratic Party years ago. They correctly identified issues that the Church hierachy opposed and that the Dems were for, such as the highly divisive issue of abortion. There has been a great deal of money and effort put into the effort to divorce Catholics from their traditional allegiance to the Dems based on social issues, like gay marriage.

As a reference, I ask you to read this Boston Globe article from last summer. It dealth with Boston College and its recent problems with gay students and the doctrine of the Church and how the Church runs it's own colleges and under what rules: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/28/groups_church_role_questioned?mode=PF

Board member L. Brent Bozell III runs the Media Research Center, a self-described watchdog for liberal bias. Bozell's website says he is the executive director of the Conservative Victory Fund, a political action committee that has raised money for congressional candidates. He did not answer two messages seeking comment. Another board member, Connaught Marshner, was an executive with the Free Congress Foundation, run by conservative activist Paul Weyrich.

In an issue of Crisis magazine, which focuses on Catholic issues, Reilly wrote an article stating that professors and staff at 10 top Catholic colleges gave disproportionately to the presidential campaign of Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat. The January 2005 article said personnel at Boston College donated $17,000 to Kerry, who is Catholic and supports abortion rights, but gave nothing to President Bush, who is Methodist and opposes abortion rights.

A fourth Boston College professor, the Rev. James Keenan, is targeted in a separate fund-raising letter, which alludes to ''heretics and dissidents" teaching at Catholic colleges and accuses him of testifying against a Massachusetts initiative that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

In an e-mail interview, Keenan said he ''explicitly upheld church teachings on chastity and on social justice, and I never supported gay marriage." He said he testified against a proposal that would have taken away social benefits from same-sex partners.

''There is something terribly indicative here of the degree of contentiousness in the United States Roman Catholic Church today," Keenan said about the Cardinal Newman Society. ''Hopefully, someday our bishops will call us to end this awful conduct, which hurts not only those of us targeted, but more importantly, the unity of the church itself."

There is an opposite tradtion in the Catholic Church in America that strongly stresses the need to help the disadvantaged and to be a moral voice to help the poor of the world. The Catholic Church is vehemently opposed to Capital Punishment, strongly recommends things like observing Jubilee Years in which debts of the poor are forgiven by the rich and the new issue of environmental justice for people. For rather obvious reasons, these things are not stressed by the conservatives who are trying to co-opt the Catholic vote.

See these links for some info:

Catholics for Social Justice, http://www.maryknoll.org/GLOBAL/OFFICE/linklist.htm

Catholic Democrats: http://www.catholicdemocrats.net/ (I met the founder of this group at the Mass Dem Convention last May. Besides being a gorgeous pediatrician (Sigh) he is also extremely interested in living all the parts of his faith and that includes the parts that compel him to seek health care for all, better education for all and so forth. These are traditional Catholic issues in the US that the conservatives want to bury by making abortion the only Catholic issue.

Catholic Association for Racial Justice: http://www.carj.org.uk/blackhistorymnth/blkhismnth.html
Again, conservatives don't want this to be stressed.

I have about 5,000 more of these. (It's a pet peeve.) Who benefits from making the Catholic vote become monolithically about abortion? Who benefits if the rest of the Catholic social agenda gets ignored? There is and always will be dissent in the Catholic Church. There wouldn't be any saints if there were never any dissent. (Who was Joan of Arc? Wasn't she a dissenter from doctrine?

[ProSense]

15. That's it. Thank you.

Around the time of the election, there was a program on TV exploring that very issue. I caught it by chance, and not from the beginning. I don't even remember the title. I just watched. I know there are those who are conflicted by this. Excellent article on Boston College.

The links are great.

[TayTay]

16. This is a very big deal, btw

Dr. Whelan, who founded Catholics for Kerry in '04 and has turned the organization into an ongoing effort to dispel the RW talking points about Catholics, is a very interesting guy. (And so gorgeous. My mother told me there were Catholics out there like this, but I didn't listen. I told my sister-in-law about this great Doc from Children's Hospital in Boston who was involved in a Catholics for Kerry movement. She asked me his name then chuckled. Apparently, half the nurses at Children's are in love with the wonderful and talented and looks good in glasses Dr. Whelan. Sigh!)

BTW, this is an active and painful nerve with me. Dr. Whelan presented at this conference last May: http://www.catholicdemocrats.net/Convention%20program.php

I posted on it and it is in the group archives. Suffice it to say that we have work to do. John Kerry carried the Catholic vote in the state he has represented in the Senate for 20+ years in '04 by 2 percentage points. (51 - 49%) (String of profanity from TayTay too awful to reproduce here.) If anyone ever says 'John Kerry is a bad Catholic' to me again, they better have medical insurance. (Like I said, it's a nerve with me, a raw, active, burning, pulsing nerve. I try not to go there unless I have to.)

Dr. Whelan also went over the ever interesting evolution of the Rethug strategy of how to sell their sucky candidates to the public. Basically they all learned how the Phillip Morris Company sold cigarettes to the public using the image of 'The Marlboro Man.' The basically took everything that was negative about cigarettes and used it in their ads. They adapted this successful campaign to sell Rethugs. We need to know this, but, extreme yuckiness is still a factor. (On the other hand, the good Doctor had a powerpoint and he put his glasses on and read to us. Sigh! Just Sigh! What is it about certain men and glasses?) Ahm, my husband attended the break-out sessions on Local Aid. He kept asking me after the sessions why I was smiling and sighing so much. Whole new meaning to the phrase, "Catholic guilt', I guess.

[ProSense]

17. It's fascinating.

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out in the upcoming election and certainly in the next presidential election. I know what you mean though, some of this stuff gets to me and I wouldn't have brought it up except that I think about it a lot. The PMC stuff: Yuck! A cute doctor (even with glasses) is always a good way to end a story.

Thanks for indulging me.

[globalvillage]

18. You two can read all you want.

I'll never give up the secret handshake.

Honestly, IMO, this is really a propaganda issue, same as all the others. It's the religious version of swift-boating. Take something about the Senator (or other political candidate) that is positive, and twist it into a negative.

Sen Kerry is a good Catholic with good Catholic values. The spin is just coming at you from the pulpit. Doesn't change what it is or how it should be approached.

Cool that you're studying this, though.

[ProSense]

19. It's spin in a sense, but

unlike the SBVT or even the Republican Party, the Church's internal struggle is having an impact on people in their day-to-day lives, in the workplace and at home. Like I said the struggle in the Catholic Church is most prominent, but it is not the only religions are dealing with these issues. Here is a story that was a big deal here in NJ:

Seminary president ousted over gay wedding
February 11, 2005

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. -- The New Brunswick Theological Seminary has ousted its president and reprimanded him for officiating at his gay daughter's wedding.

The Rev. Norman Kansfield, 64, performed the ceremony in Massachusetts, which last year became the first state to sanction same-sex marriage. He could face a church trial later this year.

In a letter sent shortly before the June 19 wedding, Kansfield informed the board of his decision to officiate, and said he wasn't seeking its permission. His daughter, Anne, married her partner, Jennifer Aull.

The board voted Jan. 28 not to renew Kansfield's contract.

"We decided that the president had put the seminary in an awkward position by performing that ceremony without giving us the benefit of offering sufficient counsel," the Rev. Larry Williams Sr., a board member, told The Star-Ledger of Newark in a story published Friday.

"It could have hurt the school if it divided people in our student body, if it divided our faculty, if it divided other people who support us," Williams said.

Kansfield said he had not done anything to hurt his denomination, the Reformed Church of America.

"People presume I have been on a crusade," he said. "In point of fact, I'm a conservative theologian. I would not do anything that goes against the church."

The Reformed Church's roots date to Dutch settlers who arrived in America 400 years ago. It is one of the more conservative denominations in the National Council of Churches.

Unlike its fellow Protestant churches -- such as Episcopalians and Methodists -- the church has not had high-profile controversies over gay rights.

But the denomination's national office in Grand Rapids, Mich., said formal complaints have been filed against Kansfield, who expects to be brought up on charges in June at the church's General Synod.

He said on Friday the most likely punishment would be losing his designation as professor of theology, one of only 12 in the nation. But he also could be stripped of his pastoral ministry, or be removed from the church altogether, possibilities he deemed remote.

Kansfield said a trial would be the highest-profile proceeding in the church since 1962, when a seminary professor questioned whether the first parts of Genesis should be taken literally.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/02/11/seminary_president_ousted_over_gay_wedding/

[TayTay]

20. Wow! That is fascinating.

Did he lose his posting? This is the 'cutlure wars' with a vengeance.

[ProSense]

21. In June.

Norman Kansfield
National Catholic Reporter, July 1, 2005

Ministers and elders of the Reformed Church in America voted June 17 to defrock the Rev. Norman Kansfield, a former seminary president, for presiding at the wedding of his lesbian daughter a year ago. The church's general secretary, the Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, urged delegates at the church's General Synod not to allow a fight over homosexual issues to steal time and energy from more important issues, such as accomplishing a 10-year goal of starting 400 new churches.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_33_41/ai_n14789100

[ProSense]

22. Another article for the RCA site

Synod Upholds Charges against Kansfield

On Friday, June 17, in judicial session, the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America heard arguments regarding three charges brought against the Rev. Dr. Norman Kansfield, 65, former president of New Brunswick Theological Seminary, an RCA educational institution in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Last June, Kansfield presided over the marriage of his daughter to another woman, and the charges brought against Kansfield by a group of RCA pastors and elders alleged that his action were contrary to RCA beliefs, contradicted his ordination vows, and violated his promises made when installed into the office of professor of theology. The synod found that all three charges were "proven to a high degree of probability."

Lawyers for the accusers and for the accused were allowed 90 minutes each to present their cases. Visitors and staff were then excused from the plenary room to allow delegates to discuss the issue. Delegates voted by ballot on the three charges, all of which were found to be proven to a high degree of probability.

Synod then moved into executive session to discuss what discipline should be imposed against Kansfield. The delegates decided to exercise discipline by deposing him from the office of General Synod Professor of Theology and suspending him from the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament.

The General Synod of the Reformed Church in America will continue through June 22. Other business before the delegates will include church growth and revitalization as outlined in Our Call (the denomination's ten-year goal that emphasizes church multiplication, revitalization, leadership, discipleship and mission) as well as issues of stewardship and social action.

"Because of denomination-wide focus on Our Call, we've been drawn to a place where we can begin to have meaningful, genuine dialogue around this and other important and sometimes painful issues," said RCA general secretary Wesley Granberg-Michaelson. "Through it all we listened and showed respect for each other and all the parties involved."

http://rca.org/news/archives/20050618.html

[globalvillage]

23. Is your issue regarding the Catholic Church

or with organized religion in general?

There are absolutes in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Most organizations have rules. But if you only look at what the Church leadership is putting out and think it's what Catholics believe, it doesn't really give you a good picture.
It's like reading the DLC website and coming to a conclusion about Democrats.
It's tough to stick us in a box. Most Catholics are moderates. Some left, some right.
Now, if you're talking doctrine, that's a different matter.

Honestly, I have no problem reconciling my beliefs to those of the Church. I am a Dem and a Catholic. The core values are really pretty similar when you remove the wedge issues. Do I have a conflict regarding choice? Sure I do. I think all Catholic Democrats do to some extent if they're honest. Gay marriage? Nope. I don't even know why we have rules around it, to tell the truth. And I think I can say that without being excommunicated.

In the big picture, if I am a Catholic, I should be a Democrat. The Repugs are the ones who will have some real explaining to do.

The Catholic Church is a living thing. And it changes. The absolutes are few. The core beliefs are how we live our faith, and they are easily summed up in the greatest commandment, which is to love God and love your fellow man.

To me, it's like the Pirate's Code. Not so much rules, more like 'guidelines'.

[ProSense]

24. Well,

it's not so much a problem with organized religion as it is with some of the hypocrites trumpeting values.

This isn't really about that though. There is a real conflict within the church, and the Catholic church's prominence, not only because of its size and influence, but because some of its leaders have taken a very outspoken and aggressive stance regarding the church's doctrine. And yes people can say and do whatever they want to, but as the RCA article shows, there are consequences. The point is the consequences put people in very awkward situations. Should he have stayed away and not presided over his daughter's wedding? Would attending the wedding have been OK?

This is the president of a seminary and yes organizations have rules. But when the organizations rules don't reflect the beliefs of a majority of the employees or when a significant minority of the workforce beliefs run counter to the those rule, does that mean they should live in anticipation that the organizations views and their own views will eventually clash?

(An aside: I remember reading an article about common law marriages being illegal in a few states, and someone getting fired for that reason. Could you imagine if these states actually enforced that law?)

I guess one could expect in the face of a clear conflict of interest the organization would be expected to weigh in. My point is that in these situations, a person can say anything he/she wants to, but doing so can and does lead to be being excommunicated, fired, etc.


GV, I was tired last night so that's why I'm just responding to you. :hi:

[ProSense]

25. Too late to edit, but

The aside should read: I remember reading an article about co-habitation outside of marriage being illegal in a few states, and someone getting fired for that reason.

[globalvillage]

26. You talk about the Church like it's a democracy.

It's not.
But America is, and we can not stop individuals from expressing a viewpoint. And we shouldn't. It's when those individuals use their influence to misrepresent the Church as a whole that we have a problem.
I hear what you're saying, but we are not going to change the absolutes of the Catholic Church any time soon. The issue you present is not conflict of interest for the Church. There is no weighing in. It is what it is, regardless of anyone's individual opinion of right or wrong. When I say that the Church is a living thing and that it changes, I need to add that some things in the Church do not. The Church is not a democracy. We don't get to vote. We can, however, choose to agree or disagree as individuals. Are there consequences for breaking the rules of the Church. Sure there are. Shouldn't there be? I choose to believe that when I'm judged, it will be on my life as a whole, not one or two issues where I disagree with the Church.
IMO, the way to win the hearts and minds and votes of Catholics is not by questioning doctrine. That's our own internal struggle. If you're looking for the Pope to change the official Church position on abortion or gay marriage, I say give up now. We can not win that argument. And we are not going to take back the Catholic vote by telling Catholics they are wrong, even when we are. We will lose more votes than we will win. The key is to counter the lies, as Greeley did when he said it's OK for Catholics to vote for Sen Kerry. And to point to the fact that separation of Church and state is the right thing for both. I remember the Sunday before the election. The campaigning that was done in the churches was outrageous and should never have been permitted. But we didn't do enough to counter it, and that was very frustrating. It was not the Church that we were fighting, though. The Church did not have an official position on the election. Too much money at stake, for one thing. It was a large and vocal group of individuals who abused their power and influence.
I agree there are problems with leaders in the Church opposing or supporting candidates. It's a huge concern and it should be addressed. The individual priests who encouraged voting for one or the other candidate should have been stopped by the Church and rejected by the parishioners. We didn't do that.
IMO, and this is said with all due respect, your argument's premise is flawed in the sense that I think you are looking at the Catholic Church the way we look at a democracy. It isn't and it never will be. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to correct the Church's positions on issues we disagree with, but really, that's a long, internal struggle.
Now, Protestants, that may be a different story.

Does that help? It might explain the whole shepard/sheep analogy.
:-)

edit to add

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute - where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote - where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference - and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."
-John F Kennedy

[ProSense]

27. The Church isn’t a democracy,

but the church’s influence isn’t limited to the church. And it’s influences are powerful, and those influences create an almost surreal existence.

You’re right the Church is a living thing, and the conflict within is real. There are members within the Church who would like to see change, and that’s where the dichotomy exists. That influence doesn’t have to be wielded from the Vatican. The Archdioceses have a lot of influence.

I agree with a lot of what you say. It’s a long struggle and I’m not even certain it will ever end. What I do thing is weird is the organizational structure where the Church’s doctrine is at the pinnacle and at almost every tier (maybe not the top one or two) you find a lot of people who don’t share the same views or just don’t see life in such black and white terms. Again the RCA story is a good example of that. I would bet that many people who work at the seminary are not RCA members.