Box Turtle Bulletin

Dowd’s Vatican II Lunacy

Maureen Dowd decided to be the meek, obedient Catholic girl and let her devout brother analyze the Church’s sexual abuse problems. He diagnoses the problem from personal experience just fine:

When I was in the 7th grade, one of the new priests took four of us to the drive-in restaurant and suggested a game of ‘pink belly’ on the way back; we pulled up a boy’s shirt and slapped his belly until it was pink. When the new priest joined in, it seemed like more groping than slapping. But we thought it was inadvertent. And my parents never would have believed a priest did anything inappropriate anyway. A boy in my class told me much later that the same priest climbed into bed with him in 1958 at a rectory sleepover, but my friend threw him to the floor. The priest protested he was sleepwalking. Three days later, the archbishop sent the priest to a rehab place in New Mexico; he ended up as a Notre Dame professor.

But then in the very next sentence, he blamed Vatican II, whose “liberalized rules set up a takeover of seminaries by homosexuals.”  But that ecumenical council didn’t start until October 11, 1962, and ended November 21, 1966. For those keeping score, that’s four to seven years after that future Notre Dame professor was kicked to the floor.

She might as well have invited Bill Donahue to write her column.

Papa Ratzi has a problem

Pope Benedict XVI has a problem.

The molestation of children in their charge by priests is a scandal across all of Christendom. And the Church-wide cover-up of sexual assault by priests has now been traced to include the Pope (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger).

But that is not Il Papa’s problem.

Benedict’s problem isn’t that his buddy and ally used to beat orphan girls. Nor that an abuse hotline set up by Ratzinger’s Catholic Church in Germany crashed because more than 4,000 victims called on the first day. His problem is not even prostitution in the Vatican.

Nor is the Pope’s problem the increasingly bizarre statements of his defenders. It’s not when Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, seeks to change the subject to “a homosexual problem”, nor when Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, speaking at St. Peter’s, compares the criticism received to the holocaust. It’s not even the shockingly casual way in which Easter Sunday’s speech was preceded by a declaration that the whole issue is just “petty gossip of the moment“.

No, the Pope’s problem is the press.

On Saturday, the Vatican’s newspaper kept up its campaign against the media for reports on alleged cover-ups of sexual abuse of children by priests, saying the pope had become the target of a “despicable campaign of defamation.”

Yes, Benedict XVI has properly identified the one thing that could bring down his Papacy and threaten the position and power of the Roman Catholic Church. For perhaps the first time ever, the world’s media is unwilling to be complicit in the cover-up of a centuries-long habit of abuse, self-pampering, and internal preservation of politicians masquerading as men of God.

All of the scandal, the abuse, the hypocrisy, the greed and avarice and gluttony and self-righteousness of the world’s dominant religious institution could be overlooked. All of the cover-ups and shuffling about and secret deals could be kept in the dark. All of it would be unknown and unknowable were it not for newspapers, television, and even bloggers who refuse to let evil call itself good.

Yes, Papa Ratzi has a problem with the press.

Exactly Like a Holocaust

So let’s recap a bit. Thousands of children in the United States and Europe have been molested by their pastors, who, when their crimes were found out, were shuffled from parish to parish by their bishops who hoped the whole problem would somehow magically disappear without anyone noticing. But not all the bishops — some of them (Archbishop Weakland in Milwaukee, and now we learn also about the late Bishop Moreno in Tucson) begged the Vatican office headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (today’s Pope Benedict XVI) to have those monster priests defrocked, except now we discover that Ratzinger either dragged his feet or refused outright to allow the canonical trials against the priests to proceed. And those revelations come on the heals of other credible allegations of Ratzinger having covered up similarly abominations when he was bishop of Munich.

So let’s take a moment and just try to imagine the spiritual carnage wrecked for thousands — maybe millions? — of young boys throughout the world. Imagine the devastating effect that massive abuse had on the psychological, spiritual, moral, and even physical foundations of these young boys just as they were preparing to mature into young adulthood. Imagine the general fucked-upness they must have felt as they tried to make sense of themselves (Am I to blame? Am I really that screwed up? Why me?) as their self-worth, their sense of right and wrong, their personhood, their humanity, their dignity, even their sexuality — the most private of spheres in human relations — all of this and more had been stolen from them by their spiritual “father.”

It’s a lot like a holocaust of sorts, isn’t it?  Maybe? Sure, not a genocidal Holocaust, not a wipe-a-people-off-the-face-of-the-earth Holocaust that we write with a capital “H.” I’m speaking of a spiritual and moral holocaust, using a word that we derive from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston), which means wholly burnt. Does that not describe the interior devastation that so many of these victims experience? We talk about having been burned by a bad experience, but rape and sexual molestation doesn’t leave one just burned. It leaves them wholly burnt. It leaves them “holocausted,” to coin an adjective.

While I think that the generic word holocaust is a good one to use here, I’m firmly against making direct comparisons to the capital “H” Holocaust. (Update: Anytime we’re not talking about a network of rail lines and concentration camps and a policy calling for the literal incineration of more than ten million people who were deemed to be subhuman, comparisons to that big “H” Holocaust simply don’t apply.) But a Vatican priest delivering a homily before Pope Benedict XVI at a Good Friday service today, reflecting on the unspeakable horrors of the unfolding worldwide scandal, was moved to draw comparisons between today’s unfolding horror and anti-Semitic persecutions of the past century:

Speaking in St. Peter’s Basilica, the priest, the Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, took note that Easter and Passover fell during the same week this year, and said he was led to think of the Jews.

“They know from experience what it means to be victims of collective violence, and also because of this they are quick to recognize the recurring symptoms,” said Father Cantalamessa, who serves under the title of preacher of the papal household. Then he quoted from what he said was a letter from a Jewish friend he did not identify.

“I am following the violent and concentric attacks against the church, the pope and all the faithful by the whole world,” he said the friend wrote. “The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt, remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.”

That’s right. Seeking to hold powerful religious leaders accountable for the rape of untold multitudes of children entrusted to their spiritual and moral care is exactly like the “more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.” How could I have missed that?

Catholic Exorcist Blames Satan for “Attacks on Pope”

Just when you thought it was just all of those pesky whiney altar boys complaining about being molested who were responsible for the worldwide outrage against the Catholic Church. Italian exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth is here to tell you who’s really responsible for the media’s “recent attacks on Pope Benedict XVI regarding some pedophilia cases” — while channelling the Church Lady. Let’s see now. Who could it be……???

NY Times: Pope Benedict Shielded Priest Accused of Molesting 200 Deaf Boys

Lawrence C. Murphy, at St. John's School for the Deaf in Wisconsin in 1960.

This leaves me speechless:

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit. The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

…The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.

While the documents obtained by the New York Times do not include responses from Ratzinger, the Times did find that all efforts to defrock Murphy came to a halt after Murphy wrote to Ratzinger asking for leniency. Murphy died four months later and was buried in his priestly vestments.

Matt Barber adds names to Hate Group list

As we told you, Peter Labarbera’s amusingly misnamed website, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, has been named a hate website by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And while I see this as a reasonable classification for a man whose “religious objection to homosexuality” always seems to be expressed in the vilest terms of contempt for gay individuals, fellow anti-gay activist Matt Barber (who sits on AFTAH’s board) has leapt to the Peter’s defense.

Writing in third person, he declares that this addition to the hate list entirely discredits the SPLC. And besides, AFTAH is no different from a number of other groups.

“It’s a ‘hate group,’ mudslinging good time!” joked Barber. ” Let’s try it on for size. In exercise of the SPLC’s trademark ‘I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I’ criteria for determining ‘hate group’ status, I hereby declare the Southern Pov Law Center an officeal ‘anti-Christian, anti-conservative hate group.’ Try it, it’s fun.

“But seriously,” continued Barber, “If AFTAH is a ‘hate group,’ then so is Liberty Counsel, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, American Family Association, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church.”

Well now, Matt, those are interesting nominations. You’ve given us something to think about.

Vengeance Is Mine, Says the Bishop of Portland

I guess the only cheek the Catholic Church in Maine is interested in turning is… well…

Today’s Portland Press Herald reports that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine and the Washington-based Catholic Campaign for Human Development have yanked a $17,400 grant to Portland-based Preble Street’s Homeless Voices for Justice program, and promise to deny an expected $33,000 for next year. The two organizations say that Preble Street violated its grant agreement by supporting Maine’s “No on 1” campaign last fall.

Maine voters passed Question 1 and banned same-sex marriage by a 53%-47% margin. But despite that victory, the Catholic Church is still looking backwards to punish its “enemies.”

Homeless Voices for Justice is a statewide advocacy group led by people who had been homeless themselves. Preble Street runs several housing programs and other services for the homeless and poor. They also provide staff support for Homeless Voices for Justice.

Two thoughts on the Pope’s Pastoral Letter

Pope Benedict XVI has sent a Pastoral Letter to Irish Catholics in response to the Church’s crisis over child-molesting priests. It has been fairly universally condemned as inadequate and uncaring. Personally, I find it to be one of the most arrogant and self-serving of all possible responses the Pope could have given. But perhaps I’m biased.

I did, however, note two things I want to note.

First, the Pope writes as though this were a letter to the Southern Baptists, rather than to part of the Catholic family. All condemnations are directed at “you” and “the Church in your country”. It seems to me that this Pope wishes to make clear that he holds neither himself, the Vatican, the hierarchy, nor the political, legal, or pastoral policies of the Church as a whole to have any share in the failings.

It seems that he wishes to portray this tragedy as a singular incident, a failing of the Irish, rather than as a part of what is rapidly becoming a global epidemic.

Second, the Pope seems to want parents to take their share in the blame. He writes:

8. To parents

You have been deeply shocked to learn of the terrible things that took place in what ought to be the safest and most secure environment of all. In today’s world it is not easy to build a home and to bring up children. They deserve to grow up in security, loved and cherished, with a strong sense of their identity and worth. They have a right to be educated in authentic moral values rooted in the dignity of the human person, to be inspired by the truth of our Catholic faith and to learn ways of behaving and acting that lead to healthy self-esteem and lasting happiness. This noble but demanding task is entrusted in the first place to you, their parents. I urge you to play your part in ensuring the best possible care of children, both at home and in society as a whole, while the Church, for her part, continues to implement the measures adopted in recent years to protect young people in parish and school environments. As you carry out your vital responsibilities, be assured that I remain close to you and I offer you the support of my prayers.

While this, on the surface, appears as sage counsel to live up to our duty to our children, I wonder if His Holiness has considered the meaning of this advice.

The Pope has said that it is the duty of parents to ensure the best possible care for children. Taking this in the context of priest abuse it means, in effect, that parents failed by trusting the Church and her officers.

When the Church said, “bring your children to us for altar duty”, parents failed by listening. When the Church said, “send your children to Catholic boarding school”, parents failed by agreeing. When the Church said, “teach your children to trust God and trust the Church as His representative”, the parents failed by doing precisely that. When the Church said, “you can trust us”, the parents failed by believing.

This Pope seems to be arguing the con-man’s defense: “I may have deceived you, but it’s your fault for believing me”.

Perhaps he’s right.

Catholic Church continues to have predatory priest problems

Surely, surely, there are Catholic priests who haven’t molested children. And there simply must be a Cardinal or Archbishop somewhere who didn’t cover up abuse. However, now the Catholic Church is beginning to appear as though abuse and cover ups were the norm rather than the exception.

With newly reported cases in the growing scandal in Germany, along with bizarre developments in Brazil, the ten people dedicated to inspecting cases and paying settlements are beginning to feel overwhelmed. (NY Times)

In a rare interview, by telephone on Tuesday, Monsignor Scicluna acknowledged the concern. Asked if he wanted reinforcements, he said with a laugh: “I would hope we have less work. That’s my hope. Not more people, less work.”

He added that if the number of cases averaged 300 a year, “We can continue doing our job well with 10 people. The problem is: Are these numbers going to settle?”
…
Despite the small number of people in the Vatican working on such cases, he stressed that his office was the last step in a long process for the cases, after they have been investigated by “hundreds of canon lawyers” in dioceses worldwide.

“It’s not that these people are doing every case from A to Z, otherwise we’d really be bonkers,” he said.

The investigative arm is bonkers, but the PR division must be going crazy. Because the Brazilian scandal was televised (AP).

The case came to light after the SBT network aired a video purportedly showing an 82-year-old priest having sex with a 19-year-old altar boy who worked for him for four years. Other young men appeared on the report saying that they, too, had been abused by Monsignor Luiz Marques Barbosa.

ick

Pope said to have facilitated child molestation

Pope Benedict XVI is quick to condemn the “intrinsic evil” that comes from committed same-sex partners pledging devotion and care for each other. He finds same-sex attracted persons to be such a threat that he purged them from the seminaries.

Oh, yes. This Pope truly can be said to find gay people to be an enemy of all that is right and decent.

But pedophiles? Not such a problem for him.

The Times Online is reporting

The Pope was drawn directly into the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal last night as news emerged of his part in a decision to send a paedophile priest for therapy. The cleric went on to reoffend and was convicted of child abuse but continues to work as a priest in Upper Bavaria.

To recap, while Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict’s former name) was in charge of the church in Germany Archdiocese of Munich & Freising, Priest H (whose identity is being kept secret) molested an 11 year old boy. The church didn’t report him but instead “rehabilitated” him and sent him to another parish. Where he sexually abused more minors. That would be, AFTER his rehabilitation.

Now the Pope is saying, “Who me?” and laying all the blame on an underling.

The Vatican said that Mgr Gruber had taken “full responsibility” for the priest’s move back into pastoral work but did not comment further.

Mgr Gruber said that the Pope, who was made a cardinal in 1977, had not been not aware of his decision because there were 1,000 priests in the diocese at the time and he had left many decisions to lower-level officials. “The cardinal could not deal with everything,” he said. “The repeated employment of H in pastoral duties was a serious mistake … I deeply regret that this decision led to offences against youths. I apologise to all those who were harmed.” He did not indicate whether the convicted paedophile would be allowed to continue working in the church.

Deal with everything? Everything?

What on Earth is of more importance than, “OH MY GOD, we have a priest molesting children!!”

Was the German Catholic Church so full of pedophiles that this was an every-day mundane unimportant administrative matter to be shuffled off? Really? Is that what you want us to believe?

Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, the head of Germany’s Catholic bishops, apologised yesterday to the victims of clerical sex abuse after meeting Pope Benedict. He said that the German-born Pope had expressed “great dismay” over the scandals and had encouraged him to take “decisive and courageous steps” to tackle the problem.

Oh no doubt the scandals caused Il Papa great dismay. It’s a pity the molested children never did.

Coalition of Ugandan Catholic, Anglican, Muslim, Other Leaders Unite Against Anti-Gay Bill

Not only is this major news, but it was carried exclusively in Uganda’s state-owned New Vision, which is the largest daily newspaper in Uganda. The statement was released on Tuesday, but with the non-descriptive headline of “Position of ICRCU” [sic], I didn’t notice its importance. (GayUganda also missed the statement when it came out.)

The Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU) is a coalition composed of the supreme heads of Uganda’s largest officially-recognized religions: Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Christian Orthodox and Seventh-Day Adventists. Among the Council’s goals are to “promote non-violence, peaceful coexistence and respect for human rights.” But with respect to the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before Parliament, the IRCU’s position had been in direct conflict with their stated goal. Shortly after the anti-gay bill was introduced into Parliament last fall, the IRCU met with a Parliament committee and strongly supported for the bill, although some of the individual council members expressed reservations over the death penalty. This became the official position of the Ugandan Anglican Church, while the head of Uganda’s Roman Catholics called for the bill to be rejected altogether.

Now, with this latest statement from the IRCU, it appears that the Council’s position has evolved toward a position which is closer to rejecting the bill. It’s unclear that they reject the bill entirely — they throw in the caveat that “we recognize the need to improve on the Penal Code as it has gaps which can be addressed by some provisions contained in the proposed Bill” — this statement may well be interpreted politically as a rejection. Despite the strong prejudices and vitriol expressed in the statement (they openly call for another vigilante campaign in point #7), it is nevertheless a notable criticism of the proposed legislation. Here’s the statement:

IRCU is an initiative that brings together different religious institutions to address issues of common concern.

Its membership comprises of the Roman Catholic Church in Uganda, the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council, the Church of Uganda, the Uganda Orthodox Church and the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

Vision: A divinely Peaceful, prosperous and HIV/AIDS free Uganda

We the Council of Presidents of the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU) gathered this 10th day of February, 2010, at IRCU Secretariat;

Having read and considered carefully the provisions in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill yet to be debated by Parliament;

Aware of our mandate to nurture and protect the moral fibre of our society, guided by the Holy Scriptures of the religions we subscribe to;

Hereby state that:

1. The Bible, the Quran and other Holy Teachings treat homosexuality as a sin. Both the Bible and Qur’an are categorical in their objection to same sex relationships (Lev. 18:22; Surah Ash’shura 26:165-166). Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural divine law, and under no circumstance can be approved.

2. The IRCU Council of Presidents, therefore, condemns homosexuality as an undesirable evil that should not be allowed in our society.

3. Our religious teachings promote respect, compassion and sensitivity. We, therefore, condemn the sin but welcome the sinners to confess, repent and seek a new beginning. This is based on the belief that all people are called by God to fulfill His will in their lives; IRCU, therefore, decries the proposed death penalty and life imprisonment in the proposed Bill as unwarranted. We believe homosexuals need conversion, repentance, support, and understanding and love in order to abandon their practices and return to God fully.

4. Since the proposed death penalty and life imprisonment do not provide the sinner an opportunity to repent, hence falling short of compassion to those who need conversion, repentance, support and hope, they are unnecessary.

5. Even the proposal to prosecute those who fail to disclose information regarding homosexual acts is inconsistent with the trust, confidentiality and professional ethics of persons such as parents, priests, counselors, teachers, doctors and leaders, to whom the sick, troubled and repentant sinners turn in search of support and advice for rehabilitation. The proposed law does not provide for the rehabilitation of repentant homosexuals. Yet as Religious Leaders, we are mandated to reach out to all people of God in a show of love and compassion (Mt. 9:10-13). The proposed Bill also has the potential to destroy the family as it is likely to undermine the important role of parents in providing guidance to their children.

6. Additionally, in our view the proposed Bill may not be called for considering that acts of sodomy are already condemned under section 145 of the Penal Code. However, we recognize the need to improve on the Penal Code as it has gaps which can be addressed by some provisions contained in the proposed Bill.

7. We the Council of Presidents of the Inter – Religious Council of Uganda, therefore, advise government, and all well-meaning groups and individuals to take remedial measures against this evil that has crept into our society by:

a. Exposing the people and organizations funding homosexuality in the country;
b. Providing enough information on recruitment and funding to the public in the interest of transparency and accountability;
c. Establishing facts on homosexuality and gay activities in Uganda and publishing a brochure which IRCU can distribute through its structures;
d. Emphasizing our core cultural and religious values and undertaking moral education in schools; and
e. Counteracting the distortion and misrepresentation of the debate on homosexuality by the media.

His Eminence Metropolitan Jonah Lwanga: Archbishop of the Uganda Orthodox Church; Chairperson, IRCU Council of Presidents

His Grace the Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi: Archbishop of the Church of the Province of Uganda/Member IRCU Council of Presidents

Pr. Dr. John Kakembo
President, Seventh-day Adventist Uganda; Union/ Member IRCU Council of Presidents

His Eminence Sheikh Shaban R. Mubaje: Mufti of Uganda/ Member IRCU Council of Presidents

His Grace Dr. Cyprian Kizito Lwanga
Archbishop of Kampala Archdiocese
Member IRCU Council of Presidents

As I said, it’s difficult to get to the bottom line in this message, but there are some encouraging elements to this. First, while this is still a deeply homophobic and ill-informed document, it represents the strongest criticism yet of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill by Uganda’s mainline religious leaders. Catholics, Anglicans and Muslims together make up almost 90% of Uganda’s religious adherents.

It is also significant that this statement was published in full in the state-owned New Vision newspaper. Not only is it Uganda’s largest newspaper, but it can be reasonably assumed that New Vision’s content is closely monitored by the government. While Uganda has the trappings of a democracy, it is effectively a one-party state which has been ruled continuously for twenty-four years by President Yoweri Museveni and his New Resistance Movement (NRM). One reflection of New Vision’s short leash with the government is the fact that despite the tremendous controversy the bill has drawn both inside and outside of Uganda, New Vision has been almost completely silent on the controversy. In fact, their reporting has been so scant that if one were to rely solely on New Vision for information about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, one might be left with the impression that there is no such bill before Parliament. New Vision, despite being Uganda’s largest mass-circulation newspaper, has been almost completely missing in action on this story.

[Update: Another significant point to notices is that this statement repeats a line others have put forward as possible justification for dropping the bill. “In our view the proposed Bill may not be called for considering that acts of sodomy are already condemned under section 145 of the Penal Code,” they say in point #6. This has been put forward by other less prominent critics as a face-saving way out of the mess by pointing out that Ugandan law already criminalizes homosexuality, and it also criminalizes child sexual abuse and rape in gender-neutral terms. While this line of objection comes across as very weak to western ears (slanderously equating, as it does, homosexuality with pedophilia and other sex crimes), when raised in the context of how the debate surrounding the proposed legislation has been framed in Uganda until now, it would be a serious mistake to overlook its importance. The IRCU is now the most prominent body to raise this particular objection.]

These two three factors are encouraging signs, which may help to explain something else I’ve noticed but haven’t publicly asked until now: Where is the bill itself? When Parliament returned from recess in February, it was expected to be near the top of Parliament’s business in the Legal Affairs and Presidential Affairs committees. Some six weeks have passed, and we still have heard of no action on this supposedly urgent, high-priority bill from either committee.

One possible explanation for this inaction may well be the massive landslides that Uganda has been grappling with in the Bubuda district in eastern Uganda on March 3. While we’ve been hearing a lot about the Haitian and Chilean earthquakes in the west, Uganda’s media has been consumed with their own natural disaster at Mt. Elgon near the Kenyan border which has claimed at least 300 lives.

But that doesn’t explain the delay through February. There is now some speculation that there may well be a conscious slow-down on the measure, as “suggested” by President Museveni at January’s meeting of the ruling party’s Executive Council at State House Entebbe.

If the bill is not passed into law, the next more likely scenario would be for the bill to die a quiet, unannounced death. It is inconceivable that Parliament would vote to defeat the measure, and making an official announcement of its withdrawal would likely inspire political unrest ahead of the 2011 elections. Even though Uganda’s Electoral Commission is packed with Museveni’s supporters and the fairness of the upcoming elections is very much in doubt, such unrest would only serve to further stain Museveni’s rather shaky reputation as a reformer. Museveni is expected to run for another five year term as president. If the 66-year-old President completes that term, the “democratic reformer” will have ruled Uganda for an unprecedented thirty uninterrupted years.

It’s difficult and perhaps foolhardy to try to read the tea leaves in Uganda politics — especially by a foreigner some 9,5000 miles and ten time zones away — but I don’t believe that we will ever see this bill officially “killed.” It also appears that Museveni doesn’t have the stomach to incur worldwide condemnation by passing this law, not now when his government is already under heightened scrutiny in advance of its upcoming elections. Instead, after observing what is going on in Uganda’s state-owned media, coupled now with this statement by Uganda’s most influential religious leaders, it appears increasingly possible that this bill may remain in the two committees (most notably, in the Presidential Affairs committee)  to be “studied” and “revised” for a very, very long time.

[Hat tip: GayUganda]

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Linda Harvey takes purer-than-pure to a whole new level

Most social conservatives are not wild eyed hate-filled bigots who would like nothing more than to see gay folks burnt at the stake. Most folks who don’t support civil equality for their gay fellow-citizens really don’t know much about gay folk and don’t actually wish us individual harm. It’s more of a “them liberals” kind of thing.

And over the past decade Americans – including many folks who think of themselves as conservative – have began the process of seeing gay folk as human. We are neighbors, friends, coworkers, and family. We no longer are “confirmed bachelors” and “maiden aunts” living with “lifelong friends” who are a shameful secret, but instead are respected and acknowledged parts of our community.

And, as such, it is no longer socially acceptable to just oppose anything and everything to do with our lives. Yes, polls suggest that the nation isn’t quite ready to joyously celebrate marriage equality, but blatant discrimination is frowned on, even in right-wing circles. Especially if it sounds too hateful.

Ah, but not everyone is on board with the “treat ’em like human” idea. As we saw with the recent brouhaha at CPAC, some folks can’t even be in the same room with gay folk – even those who agree with most of their agenda. The uber-conservative CPAC crowd got a taste of excitement when the purer-than-pure conservatives attacked their brethren for not being adequately anti-gay.

But no one has ever accused Linda Harvey of noting being adequately anti-gay. In fact, few can live up to her standard. And now Linda is letting conservatives know just how pure she is, in the offensive over-the-top inflammatory language she’s know for.

Linda has decided that some people aren’t really conservative because they “support homosexuality”. And by “support homosexuality”, Linda means pretty much anything other than venom-spewing declarations of disgust and intolerance. Anything short of piling up the firewood and calling for the torches is seen by Linda as selling out.

And the list of “Conservatives who aren’t” is pretty impressive. Folks who just aren’t as pure as Lina include:

• CPAC, for allowing GOPride to be there
• “Bill O’Reilly and his feebly-informed culture warrior, Margaret Hoover” because they ” endorse repealing the ban on homosexuality in the military”
• Charles Krauthammer, who thinks that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is discriminatory
• Dick Cheney, for “listening to a self-declared ‘born-that-way’ homosexual relative”
• “Cindy McCain and her silly daughter” for backing same-sex unions
• Mitt Romney, because ” in 2004, ordered reluctant clerks to issue marriage licenses to Party A and Party B. A genuine conservative might have held off until forced.”
• Ted Olson, for the obvious
• Stand for Marriage Maine, for saying “we want to be tolerant of gays”
• Maggie Gallagher, because she can’t be depended on to “always articulate clear objections to homosexual behavior. Sometimes, she bows the knee to the vaunted ‘identity'”
• The Catholic Church, because it says that it “respects and accepts gays”

Oh yes, when it comes to being a real conservative, Linda is purer-than-purer-than-pure.

It’s behavior, it can be changed and it’s always wrong.

Teach kids to “respect” this behavior? No! Respect for others, yes, but people are born with the anatomy for heterosexuality, not homosexuality. Genuine respect involves telling the truth, and citing the risks, limitations and sinfulness of this perversion.

Ah, but lovely Linda has an extra-special place in her contempt for one fellow who is worse than anyone: Warren Throckmorton. Ya see, Warren actually thinks that you should treat gay people the way you want to be treated. Such heresy!!

And Warren has gone so far as to suggest that instead of storming out of school on the Day of Silence, conservative Christian kids should observe the Golden Rule and hand out the following message.

This is what I’m doing:

I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.

Will you join me in this pledge?

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31).

But not Linda. She’s having none of that.

If I were a parent who discovered my minor child had been counseled in this way, I’d bring the largest and most aggressive medical malpractice suit I could launch against this counselor at Grove City.

Golden Rule? Not on your life.

And so now Warren is the pet project for Linda and her buddy Peter LaBarbera. LaBarbera has run a series of denunciations of “heretical” Dr. Throckmorton and has asked his readers to

TAKE ACTION: Contact Grove City College (President Richard Jewell: 724-458-2500; rgjewell@gcc.edu) and ask them if GCC professor Warren Throckmorton’s unorthodox views on homosexuality represent “authentically Christian” teachings on this issue. (GCC advertises itself as a solid, “authentically Christian” institution.) Request a written response as to whether Throckmorton’s writings on and approach toward homosexuality honor Grove City’s Christian charter “rejecting relativism and secularism.”

Yes, it looks like Warren should be fired; he just can’t be counted on to be a hater. Nor Bill O’Reilly. Nor even the Catholic Church. Or at least not up to Linda’s and Pete’s standards. It’s a sad sad world.

But at least Linda and Pete have each other. And Pete’s porn collection.

Catholic Charities and Discrimination

[I’m proud to have Jason Cianciotto as a friend and now, perhaps, an occasional contributor to BTB. Jason was previously the Director of the Policy Institute at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and later the Executive Director of the Wingspan Community Center in Tucson. He is now free as a bird, traveling around the country with his husband, Courter. — Jim B.]

Now that marriage equality has reached Washington, DC, faith-based social service providers that receive city funding are no longer able to discriminate against married gay and lesbian clients and employees. As a result, in mid-February DC Catholic charities transferred its foster-care and adoption program to the National Center for Children and Families in order to avoid having to offer services to married same-sex couples. On March 1^st the organization also announced that it would stop offering health insurance to the spouses of all new employees, gay or straight, a move enabling them to “remain faithful to the church’s teachings” by not having to provide insurance to the same-sex spouses of employees.

DC Catholic charities would rather you not see this as an issue of discrimination. Instead they cast themselves as “victims,” losing freedom of religion every time a same-sex couple slips on a pair of wedding rings. Additionally, coverage in the Washington Post characterized these changes as “fallout,” as if same-sex marriage was akin to a nuclear explosion. However, this is a distraction from the real issue at hand: While faith-based organizations should be able to provide services consistent with their beliefs and traditions, when those services are funded by tax dollars, discrimination based on any characteristic should not be allowed. Period.

This scenario already played out in Massachusetts. In 2006 the Archdiocese there also suspended foster care and adoption support services provided through Catholic charities rather than comply with that state’s anti-discrimination laws. As was the case in DC, these services were picked up by other secular agencies. This is a positive outcome for children in need of care based on scientifically supported best practices, rather than on any particular religious tradition.

The distribution of tax dollars to organizations that act in the best interest of children who need a good home, regardless of the sexual orientation of prospective parents, is scientifically supported. For example, in January the Journal of Marriage and Family published a comprehensive analysis of 81 studies of one- and two-parent families, including gay and lesbian couples and individuals. On established measures of self-esteem, social adjustment, and other key indicators, children raised by same-sex parents were indistinguishable from those raised by married men and women. This further strengthens the position of every major medical and mental health professional association in support of the estimated 65,500 adopted children in the U.S. living with a gay or lesbian parent.

As more states legalize same-sex marriage, Catholic charities and other faith-based social service providers will be forced to change discriminatory policies or lose public funding. As was the case in Massachusetts and DC, it is likely that a shift in service provision to secular agencies will continue. This is a positive outcome for all children and families in need, who should not be caught in the cross-fire of the religious rights’ culture war against equality for all Americans.

Cardinal: Politicians Who Support Marriage Equality Are No Longer Catholic

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna

An Italian Cardinal has warned that politicians supporting same-sex marriage are committing “a publicly and gravely immoral act“:

“It’s impossible to consider oneself a Catholic if that person in one way or another recognizes same-sex marriage as a right,” said Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna.

The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, reprinted a portion of a doctrinal note the cardinal released Feb. 14 concerning “Marriage and Homosexual Unions.” The note, which appeared in full on the archdiocese’s Web site, was aimed at helping enlighten Catholics in public office so that “they would not make choices that would publicly contradict their affiliation with the church,” he wrote.

His restriction would extend even to those who are called to enforce or follow such a law:

If a Catholic official were to ever implement or enforce such a law, “God forbid, we will, at the proper moment, give the necessary directives,” he wrote.

The Cardinal’s statements do not constitute official church teaching, but there has been a growing chorus of voices calling for the excommunication of Catholic politicians over a number of social issues.

Washington Archdiocese: No Foster Family For You!

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., has ended its foster-care program in response to the District’s move toward marriage equality. Catholic Charities turned their 80-year-old foster care program over to the National Center for Children and Families on February 1. Catholic Charities CEO Edward Orzechowski said that he believes the other social service programs run by the group will continue to operate as long as they don’t recognize the validity of same-sec relationships:

Asked if that meant looking at ways to avoid paying benefits to same-sex partners or ways to write benefits plans so as not to characterize same-sex couples as “married,” Orzechowski said “both, and.”

“Now we’re in a position where we need to scrutinize everything,” he said. “From our point of view, it’s important that we don’t in any way compromise our religious teaching.”