Sins of the Fathers

The Republican Rally Catholic Prayer Breakfast

Today at the Hilton where Reagan was shot the new Archbishop of Saint Louis who currently resides in Rome as head of the Cannon Law adjudicative body (sort of a cannon law Supreme Court Justice) there all but put a political hit on anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the strategy and tactics of the Republican mantras and mandates prohibiting pro-choice legislation of any kind and same sex marriage. Not slightly ironic is the fact that these are two areas of moral law that (a) Jesus never once directly addressed anywhere in scripture and (b) Priests are the least existentially experienced or qualified to render authentic opinions on.

If there were ever a doubt that this is how they will rally the troops in future elections it was
dispelled here as the shouts of hurrah pervaded the room as Republican congressmen and a
Senator or two cheered and clapped, especially when he made the pronouncement that one can not call oneself a "catholic" if they do not adhere to his narrow views. So call me a "Jesuit" or a "Christian" then. If you keep pushing it- call me "Presbyterian."

Completely absent was any responsible discussion of the fact that during the years 2005-2007 when Bush ran the country into the ground as evidenced by the dire economic melt-down, abortions rose by FIVE percent- a significant statistic for the most "pro-life President" we have had, isn't it. So apparently legislative strategy matters. Who do you know when asked if they are "pro-life" says "no, actually I am pro-death." The only people I have met touching on this is a priest with a twisted martyr complex who hasn't figured out yet that Christ died to give us life in abundance. When he said immitate me, he didn't mean sign up for senseless flogging and sadistically dish it out.

The fact that these are the two eclipsing political issues that this Archbiship argued should trump absolutely everything else of political debate signalled that God was completely not interested or concerned with anyone alive who was single and straight. If you are Gay, God is apparently deeply concerned that you never commit to the sinful lifestyle in a "marriage" and if you are already alive there is nothing about any part of your life that is more relevant than legislation to stop a woman from having the ability to determine whether she will have or abort a child.

The fact that 17 percent of all American children under the age of 5 face chronic hunger IN AMERICA is of no import apparently. The fact that over 5,000 servicepeople in the armed forces lost their lives for a lie to service the oil and war profiteers is of no import. The fact that tens of thousands of service people came back with serious brain traumatic injuries without a few limbs for a lie to serve the oil and war profiteers and are now unemployable or suicidal is of no import. The fact that entire towns are bankrupt, entire communities thrust into poverty, bailouts in the billions, bankrupcies and foreclosures in the millions is of no import, apparently. Torture-big deal. Unjust war? So what's a little Mass Murder. Genocide in Darfur? Where's Darfur? Poverty? Let them eat muffin caps. Health-care, schmelth care. Let them die for undiagnosed breast cancer because they can't afford the biopsy...
The only questions aparently on a politician's moral horizon should be-did you vote against same sex marriage and what have you done to overturn Roe v. Wade?


I agree with Tom Reese's perspective below on why the lecturing from the top has lost it's appeal. Moreover, I submit that the issue is aggravated by the fact that the speakers are inauthentic in their moral pronouncements because they do not have the experiential "foundation" from which to speak to issues of abortion and gay marriage, for different reasons, and thus they appear hypocritical and/or inauthentic. They lack "foundation" to lay the testimony- as we lawyers are cautioned.

The church has had a historic problem in its respect for women. Take for example the issue of the priest recently "scandalized" by frolicking with a woman in Miami. Either the priest lied to her and did not tell her he was a priest or she was led to believe by this priest that he was genuine in his affections and so she ventured into the emotionally trecherous territory of becoming "involved" with a priest. Then like a hot potato she is dumped and denounced so he can suck up to his superiors and this girl is never even given a name on the news. The question "How Must She Feel" is never asked. Women's feelings are deemed irrelevant to the higher political purpose. Because it is a hierarchy entirely of men. Men without natural children. She is just branded a tramp- next. I have met a Priest or two I would like to
call "Father Bastard" if I ever run into him again (not by far the majority, just one or two). There is absolutely no accountability for the disrespect that some priests show women in the name of God. This factors into the loss of authenticity of the moral voice of the church. A lot. We think you are often times just plainly speaking, full of it.

Instead the church houses male priests with Men, in a "same sex" housing situation called a Rectory from which there is no escape, in a "same sex" union of purpose in becoming a "family" to the parishioners. The fact there are men of the cloth co-domiciling with each other who want to commit to each other like a marriage is little different than what I witness in some Rectories. In light of the recent homosexual and/or pedofiliac sex abuse scandals the pun "That's Why They Call It A Rectory" seems almost funny- Almost.

The only way the Church can possibly regain its authentic voice in addressing the Moral Law order of "true marriage" is if they have one; if they have the first clue from the inside, not gazing like peeping Toms through confessionals what it is like to live in one. The Church ABSOLUTELY should recover what was lost in providing a venue for a marriage option within the priesthood. It is in fact a Timothy 4 biblical MANDATE. Once again, when the "spirit of the church" contradicts and disobeys the dictates of Christ, the Church not Christ is off the rails.

Also, it is clear that the Republican platform committee just wants to preserve this as another hot button wedge issue when there is an obvious simple solution; the church could call it "holy matrimony" and that gives it the sacramental meaning that the civil approval never can- "marriage" then becomes just a term like "civil union." The thing Adam and Eve did in the garden didn't have to be called anything- it was clear what it was from the action. If the church sacramental blessing is given, then it can use the words "holy" and other terms nowhere present in any civil legislation. Easy.

Not only will a marriage option provide a variety of socially healthier more mature priests, (who can't get away with being Father Bastards) it will allow the church to speak from an authentic voice that it currently lacks.

Then and only then can we really get about the hard business of solving real problems rather than printing and declaring clerical bumper sticker condemnations to get the guys elected that pay the best. This is a far more "Pro-Life" perspective -a far more integrous perspective, and one that will build bridges of peace rather than inspire petty perverse hatreds.

A church with a married priest option would be a more loving church, a more responsible church, one with a moral voice that is listened to more, one that wouldn't be condemned so readily as hypocritical, one that would vet out the wheat from the chaff, and one that understood Jesus better. Now, that dim glass we are looking through needs a rinse through the spin cycle.

CHRIST DID NOT COME INTO THE WORLD TO CONDEMN THE WORLD BUT THAT ALL SHOULD BE SAVED THROUGH HIM.

If you are coming from a place of condemnation, punishment and persecution, Jesus isn't walking with you. God is Love. So simple it confounds the wise-even the clerically wise in their own conceits.