The Blindness of "Liberal" Catholics

I often comment on the many huge failings of the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church and urge Catholics disgusted with the moral cesspool in the leadership to vote with their feet.  Throughout history the ONLY way the Church has experienced major lasting change is when membership plummets and the flow of money to the Vatican is diminished.  Catholics who refuse to accept this harsh reality and who continue to support their local parishes are in fact enablers of the hierarchy.  Yes, it's hard for many to see this reality, but a portion of every single dollar received at the parish level goes to support the local diocese and still another portion goes to Rome.  E.J. Dionne who writes for the Washington Post is one such Catholic who refuses to see his own culpability.  In a column where he tries to justify his continued membership in the Church he cites the Church's social ministry and he cites Pope John XXIII.  My response is that (i) if the Church cleaned house within the hierarchy and cleaned up the sex abuse disaster, there's be more funds for social ministry.  As for Pope John XXIII, yes in ways he was a breath of fresh air.  But Dionne misses one huge blight on his papacy:  John XXIII authorized a 1962 Vatican directive that validated the Church's covering up for and enabling predator priests.  Here's a sampling of Dionne's effort to deny his own culpability:

Recently, a group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) ran a full-page ad in The Washington Post cast as an “open letter to ‘liberal’ and ‘nominal’ Catholics.” Its headline commanded: “It’s Time to Quit the Catholic Church.”

The ad included the usual criticism of Catholicism, but I was most struck by this paragraph: “If you think you can change the church from within — get it to lighten up on birth control, gay rights, marriage equality, embryonic stem-cell research — you’re deluding yourself. By remaining a ‘good Catholic,’ you are doing ‘bad’ to women’s rights. You are an enabler. And it’s got to stop.”

Catholic liberals get used to these kinds of things. Secularists, who never liked Catholicism in the first place, want us to leave the church, but so do Catholic conservatives who want the church all to themselves.
I’m sorry to inform the FFRF that I am declining its invitation to quit. It may not see the Gospel as a liberating document, but I do, and I can’t ignore the good done in the name of Christ by the sisters, priests, brothers and lay people who have devoted their lives to the poor and the marginalized.

I’d like the FFRF to learn more about the good Pope John, but I wish our current bishops would think more about him, too. I wonder if the bishops realize how some in their ranks have strengthened the hands of the church’s adversaries (and disheartened many of the faithful) with public statements — including that odious comparison of President Obama to Hitler by a Peoria prelate last month — that threaten to shrink the church into a narrow, conservative sect.

Do the bishops notice how often those of us who regularly defend the church turn to the work of nuns on behalf of charity and justice to prove Catholicism’s detractors wrong? Why in the world would the Vatican, apparently pushed by right-wing American bishops, think it was a good idea to condemn the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the main organization of nuns in the United States?

Too many bishops seem in the grip of dark suspicions that our culture is moving at breakneck speed toward a demonic end. Pope John XXIII, by contrast, was more optimistic about the signs of the times.  .   .   .   .   The church best answers its critics when it remembers that its mission is to preach hope, not fear.

Dionne misses the point that the bishops and Vatican will not change voluntarily.  And as long as "liberal" Catholics like Dionne keep putting their checks in the collection plate and donating to Catholic institutions, there's no reason to change.  They money flow is continuing proving that the bishops and Nazi Pope can continue doing whatever they want with impunity.  Dionne needs to get his head out of the sand - or somewhere else.

More Sunday Male Beauty

Will Americans Elect a Jerk to the White House?

There was a time when I actually thought that Mitt Romney might be somewhat acceptable as president.  Unfortunately, the more I've learned about him, the more mistaken I realized I was - the guy, in truth is a total unfeeling jerk.  And the stories about his gay bashing and abuse in high school was the final straw.  That's not to say that I'm in love with Barack Obama, but despite his failings, he's not a creep who has not empathy for others and is clueless as to the daily challenges most Americans have to deal with.  And then there's the issues of gay marriage and gay adoption.  Romney basically cannot even accept my common humanity nor can he admit that gays have lives, loves and children just like everyone else.  A column in The Daily Beast looks at Romney's "jerk factor."  Here are excerpts:

Very few votes are going to be cast on the basis of what Mitt Romney did or didn’t do to John Lauber in 1965. So that, per se, isn’t Romney’s problem. But this is: The story lands as another brick on pile of evidence amassing that he’s just a disagreeable human being. A few days ago I wrote about Barack Obama’s biggest problem, which is that despite all the many areas in which Americans rate him higher than Romney, the one on which they give Romney the edge happens to be pretty important: handling the economy. Now we get to Romney’s biggest problem. The likability factor. He ain’t got it. And he ain’t got much of a way to get it.

Historical question: When is the last time the clearly less likeable candidate beat the clearly more likeable one for the White House? The answer is, a long time. I put the question to Gallup, which didn’t have historical numbers at hand. But doing some noodling around on my own suggests that you have to go back to 1968 to find such a result.

This is the biggest washout of modern times, folks. Gallup just this week put the likeability ratings at Obama 60, Romney 31. It’s not that Obama’s number is unusually high.  .  .  .   they Do. Not. Like. Mitt. Romney.  .   .   .  Every time he says something off the cuff he says something obnoxious. Corporations are people, pal. I like firing people. Where on earth did you get those Godforsaken cookies?

He also—and this actually is interesting, because it’s something our normal public discourse does not like to admit or allow for—is way too rich. We’re constantly told that Americans don’t have any class envy, and compared to some European nations they don’t. But even Americans have limits. A few million, even $50 million; okay. But a quarter billion dollars? A house with an elevator . . . for the cars? It also matters to people how the money was made. It’s okay to be worth a gajillion dollars if you’re Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and have made everyone’s lives more interesting and cooler. But what’s Mitt Romney done?

[H]e has no grasp of the one crucial reality of class in America: you can be filthy rich as long as you don’t look or act like it. Gates doesn’t comb his hair, much. Jobs wore sneakers. Romney just looks too pressed.

And this brings us back to the Cranbrook School incident. We might have learned from The Washington Post this week that Romney gallantly interceded on poor Lauber’s behalf. Or even, maybe, that he did the awful deed, but a few years later he got in touch with Lauber to say, “Gee, old scout, went a bit overboard there.” Or even that he acknowledged to one of his confederates that he regretted the incident. In other words, we might have learned something that showed he knows he behaved like an asshole. But all we learned is that he behaved like an asshole and is now pretending to forget it. A jerk is one thing. But a jerk who takes no responsibility for his jerkitude is pretty much the definition of an unlikeable person.

[T]here’s something very reassuring about this country reposing in those numbers, that the black guy with the weird name who’s been called everything under the sun is twice as likeable as the rich white guy. This is the America that drives the wingers crazy, but that the rest of us—the majority—live in, and love.

RNC Chairman Signals GOP's Support for ENDA on Meet the Press

OMG!!!  The heads must have been exploding amongst the professional Christian and professional gay hating crowd today.  The blow back will be amazing to watch.  What am I talking about?  On Meet the Press Republican National Committee Reince Priebus said that gays are entitled to equal rights in regard to, say, discrimination in the workplace.  True, poll after poll has shown that significant majorities of Americans support employment non-discrimination protections for LGBT citizens.  Hell, even when I was on a call in television program in Martinsville, Virgina (about as far as one can get from the center of the gay friendly universe) back when I represented Michael Ware Moore in his lawsuit against the Virginia Museum of Natural History ("VMNH"), every caller supported Moore and thought that VMNH should pay damages to Moore for firing him because he was Gay.  As Pam Spaulding notes, Bryan Fischer and Tony Perkins must be having apoplexy.  Here's a part of the dialogue:

DAVID GREGORY: But do you believe that gays and lesbians in America deserve equal rights?

REINCE PRIEBUS: I think they deserve equal rights in regard to, say, discrimination in the workplace, issues such as, as Mitt Romney has pointed out numerous times, hospital visitations. I mean I think that for the sake of dignity and respect, sure. But if you’re defining marriage as a civil right, then no. I don’t believe that people who are same sex should be able to married under our laws.

On the issue of gay marriage, ,Priebus proved as much of a knuckle dragging Neanderthal and prostitute to the Christianist crowd as is to be expected from the GOP which is now, in my view, a de facto religious party.  Here's a clip from Meet the Press:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Correlation Between Religiosity and Lower Citizen Well-Being

Click image to enlarge

Time and time again I've looked at the link between the lower economic performance of U.S. states deemed "conservative" and where religion is deemed "important."   The more religious and conservative a state's citizenry, the worse off economically the state is and the less competitive it is in recruiting new and lucrative business.  Now some new analysis shows that this tie between the level of religiosity also correlates to lowers societal well being.  The question is which came first? High levels of religiosity that have caused lower social well being or vice versa.  The authors of the studies put the blame on religion.  Just like some of Richard Florida's analysis that indicates the liberal states are winning out over the conservative sister states for increased business development and improved standards of living.  The map above looks at the levels of religiosity by state.  The map below looks at the so-called "Human Development Index" that considers things such as life expectancy, education, and income corruption, income disparity, child mortality, access to medical care, suicide rates, and so on:

Click image to enlarge

The South and the Bible Belt over all score the highest and also score the lowest when it comes to life expectancy, access to health care and over 20 other categories.  Texas, Georgis and North Carolina manage to dodge a dead last finish on the Human Development Index most likely because the large cities in those states counteract the abysmal results for the remainder of the state.  Mississippi and Alabama in contrast have no such major progressive cities and not surprisingly they land in the lowest category.

The author of the piece reaches a kinder conclusion toward religion than I do.  I would argue that the author has it backwards and that religiosity leads to low human development and regressive social well being.  Yes, the Christianists talk a good game about helping other and caring for their "neighbor," but in truth they don't follow through.  Meanwhile the best and brightest flee from the area - as is happening in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia - because of the backwardness of their surroundings and the depressed opportunity for advancement.   Here is the author's wrap up:

As you see, we have the same negative relationship between well-being and religiosity that we saw for different countries of the West. The correlation here is r= – 0.66897, and the probability (“p”) that this correlation would arise by chance is p = 0.00000012. (A value of p less than 0.05 is conventionally used to show a significant relationship.) This relationship, then, is not only striking but very highly significant in a statistical sense. Harry put a least-squares regression line through the data; its slope is also highly significant.

Why the correlation? Again, it could mean—but I am not pushing this interpretation as dogma—that people tend to either become more religious or retain a historical religiosity in areas where they are not very well off. There may also be ethnic differences that contribute to this (the population of blacks in America is concentrated in the south, for instance, and educational attainment is lower in general), but education itself is likely negatively correlated with indices of well being, and poverty is a component of both the HDI and SSS. Although I’m not a Marxist, Marx may have gotten it right when he said, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

The problem, in my view is that until regions throw off religiosity, they are NOT attractive to would be businesses and employers  who want to be able to attract the most able and innovative personnel.  That simply will not happen when regions and states are primary known for the knuckle dragging Christian extremist and bigoted social views.  It's a concept that has yet to be grasp by the Republican Party of Virginia and The Family Foundation.

 

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

Same Sex Marriage - For Obama, It’s About the Children

The far right and the Christofascists blather on and on how same sex marriage "deprives children of a mother and father."  Never mind, of course, that many children already don't have both a mother and father in their lives or that leaving children in foster homes causes incredible damage to children.  And then there are all of the children being raised by same sex couples.  These children likewise are not going to somehow magically disappear if same sex marriage is barred.  Yet from the view of the Christofascists and their political whores in the GOP, it's better to punish these children and leave them without financial security and in many cases health care coverage than allow their parents to have CIVIL law marriage rights.  This contempt for children, of course, is not limited to children of same sex parents since the Christofascists also generally support the draconian GOP budget proposals that would punish the poor and needy, including children, while giving the wealthy huge tax breaks.  It's a bizarre world view for those who claim to be "Christians" but whom utterly ignore most of the Gospels' message.  It's a reason why I increasingly view Christians as best known for their hate and callousness towards others.  The New York Times looks at how the needs of children has played into Barack Obama's endorsement of same sex marriage:

[L]ast week, President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. As he discussed his journey toward that position, the president sounded many familiar themes, like the importance of distinguishing between civil and religious marriage and of living up to American ideals of fairness. At the core of his narrative, however, was a relatively novel element — an affirmation of gay couples as parents.

The president repeatedly attributed his “evolution” to his contact not only with gay couples but also with their children. He described thinking about staff members “who are incredibly committed, in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together.” He discussed meeting same-sex couples and seeing “how caring they are, how much love they have in their hearts — how they’re taking care of their kids.”

Later in the interview, he wondered whether opponents of same-sex marriage had “had the experience that I have had in seeing same-sex couples who are as committed, as monogamous, as responsible — as loving a group of parents as any heterosexual couple that I know. And in some cases, more so.”

The president’s invocation of children as a reason to support same-sex marriage is striking. His position may be controversial among some gay individuals, who, like some straight individuals, do not want their right to marry to be linked in any way to procreation. Yet a strong justification for the president’s stance can be found in the argument it implicitly seeks to rebut. Traditionally, the well-being of children has appeared squarely on the other side of the ledger, functioning as the prime secular argument against same-sex marriage.

The problem with characterizing same-sex marriage as being solely about “companionship and personal fulfillment” is that it suggests that same-sex couples will not become parents. Yet according to the 2010 census, one-quarter of same-sex households are raising children.

The president has asserted that gay parenting is something to be affirmed, rather than denigrated. In doing so, he has used the largest bully pulpit in the nation to assert that concern for children is a reason to support, rather than to oppose, same-sex marriage.

By supporting same sex marriage and showing concern for the children of same sex couples, Obama - in my view - has demonstrated that he's a far better Christian than those who wrap themselves in religiosity and wear their religion on their sleeves and then proceed to make hatred and fear and outright meanness the hallmarks of their supposed religious faith.

Virgil Goode: Romney "Father of Homosexual Marriages"

Once upon a time in the past Virgil Goode, a one time independent,  was considered a semi-rational member of Congress.  Then he "went over to the Dark Side" and joined the GOP and began drinking Kool-Aid by the gallon.  Since being voted out of office, he's apparently continued drinking lots and lots of Kool-Aid.  That said, Goode's lunacy does have a humorous side.  Such as when he describes Mitt Romney as the "father of homosexual marriages."  Goode is running for president on the Constitution Party ticket.  The Augusta Free Press has coverage on Goode's batshitery which makes it very clear that in Goode's mind gays are less than human and undeserving of the rights enjoyed by other citizens.  These are highlights:

Former Fifth District Congressman Virgil Goode blasted presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as “the father of homosexual marriages” in a statement released to the news media on the eve of Romney’s visit to Liberty University this weekend.

Goode, now running for president on the Constitution Party ticket, referred to Romney’s move as Massachusetts governor to issue same-sex marriage licenses in the wake of a state-court ruling.

“Gov. Romney did not stand fast in favor of traditional marriage,” said Goode, who lost his Fifth District seat in 2008 to Democrat Tom Perriello.  Goode said he has been a “consistent supporter of defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.”

At this point in our country’s history, we need a president who will stand firmly behind traditional marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment. I am suspicious that Gov. Romney, if elected president, could waffle again,” Goode said.

The stakes, to Goode: “If homosexual marriages become normal across the country, the impact on states like Virginia, which prohibit gay marriage, will be huge. State taxpayers will have to pay for the expanded health insurance costs and State retirement costs. At the federal level, the impact on the Social Security Trust Fund and the Department of Defense will be significant when homosexual partners are granted the same monetary benefits that heterosexual married couples have under current Social Security law and provisions covering military spouses,” he said.

It is noteworthy that there have been rumors in the past that Goode is a closet case.  Like Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum, Goode might be well advised to read the recent University of Rochester study on homophobes.  The good news is that if gets on the November ballot, he may siphon some of the wacko vote from Romney.

Santorum to Romney: Use Same Sex Marriage Weapon

I wondered how long it would take for Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum -  the in my view likely self-loath closeted gay failed GOP candidate - to begin hyperventilating over Barack Obama's endorsement of same sex marriage last week.  The answer is, not long.  Frothy Mix is apparently beside himself and is urging Mitt "I Bully Gays" Romney to use gays and gay marriage as a weapon in the presidential contest.  As noted before his campaign imploded, Frothy Mix is absolutely obsessed with all things sexual, but gay sex just makes the guy go into apoplexy.  Has anyone suggested to him that he read the recent University of Rochester study on homophobes and that he get some psychiatric intervention?  CNN looks at Frothy Mix's spittle flecked advise to Romney.  Here are highlights:

 

Rick Santorum is urging Mitt Romney to "step up" and weaponize the issue of same-sex marriage.

"This is a very potent weapon, if you will, for Governor Romney if he's willing to step up and take advantage of a president who is very much out of touch with the values of America," Santorum said in an eye-opening live interview with Arkansas TV station KARK, a CNN affiliate.

The former presidential candidate made the remarks before appearing at the Benton County Republican Lincoln Day Dinner in the northwest corner of the state Friday night. Santorum's comments also came the night before Romney's speech before the Christian conservative Liberty University in Virginia on Saturday.

"Hopefully Governor Romney will continue to stand tall for his position on this issue and understand how detrimental it would be for society for it to have this changed," Santorum also told the Arkansas station.

Santorum's remarks also indicate the former Pennsylvania senator is not fully on board Romney's team. After a bitter primary season battle, Santorum endorsed Romney in a lengthy email to his supporters. But Santorum did not actually state his endorsement until the tail end of the message.

When asked whether he would be interested in running as Romney's running mate, Santorum demurred.  "It's one thing you don't campaign for – at least I'm not campaigning for," Santorum said.

I suspect even Romney's not crazy enough to tap Frothy Mix for the VP slot.  Santorum's batshitery would certainly motivate woman and other minorities to vote against the GOP.   As for Santorum, he REALLY needs to hire himself a rent boy and just deal with his sexual demons.

Raul Castro Backs Gay Rights

Mariela Castro leads a Gay Rights march in Havana

Yes, you read the post caption correctly - the leader of Cuba has become more more supportive of equality for LGBT people than the presumptive leader of the Republican Party.  While most of the world marches towards the future, Romney and the GOP march backwards in time.   I guess Mitt longs for the days when he had the "freedom" to bully and terrorize gay students and the Christianist base of the GOP most certainly longs for the days when they could openly and sometimes violently discriminate against all minorities with impunity.  It's a f*cked version of "freedom," but hey, welcome to today's Republican Party.  After speaking at Liberty University yesterday, one has to wonder how soon it will be before Romney speaks before KKK, neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups and gatherings.  Here are highlights from ABC News on events in Cuba: 

Cuban president Raul Castro backs greater gay rights and ending discrimination against homosexuals, his daughter Mariela, a famed sexologist, said during a colourful gay rights march in Havana.  Traditionally stigmatised in Cuba, homosexuality was fiercely repressed for many years by the regime, which interned homosexuals in work camps in the 1960s and ostracized them in the 1970s under the rule of Fidel Castro.

Mariela Castro runs Cuba's National Centre for Sex Education (CENESEX) and is an outspoken advocate for the rights of homosexuals and transsexuals in Communist-ruled Cuba.

Ms Castro is pushing for passage of legislation that would legalize same-sex unions, but stops short of endorsing gay marriage.  She is hopeful that politicians will take up the bill sometime this year.

The president's daughter led a colourful conga line that was part of a march through the streets of Havana attended by about 400 transvestites as part of festivities marking the Fifth Cuban Day Against Homophobia.
 

In January, Cuba's Communist Party Congress resolved "to fight against all forms of discrimination, including against sexual discrimination, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and sexual identity."  "It's a hugely important first step," Ms Castro said earlier this week.

The Washington Post also has coverage on events in Havana and here are excerpts:

The daughter of Cuban President Raul Castro said during a rousing gay rights march Saturday that her father advocated eliminating sexual discrimination, and reiterated her own hope the country would soon legalize same sex marriage.

Mariela Castro, a noted gay rights advocate and head of Cuba’s National Center for Sex Education, also repeated her praise for U.S. President Barack Obama’s public remarks in favor of same sex marriage, saying the American leader’s words “have great value because of the influence they might have” on others.

Somehow I don't think we'll see Ann Romney or any GOP figure supporting the equal humanity of all people any time soon.