He goes further to say
This event underscores the great need we have for immigration reform in the United States. In many areas of the country, we do not have enough workers to perform certain types of labor. Our economy is dependent upon immigrants. It is, therefore, important that people be allowed to immigrate in an orderly and legal way so that they will have the protections that all workers have. In that way, their human rights and dignity will be safeguarded.
In the past there has been too much exploitation of workers who are allowed to be in the country when it is convenient for us and then are often exploited or expelled when it becomes inconvenient. That is not a way to treat people. We are hoping that the United States Congress will approve comprehensive and fair legislation that will take into account the needs for security and the protection of workers’ rights.
Can you imagine the nerve of that guy? I mean, come on, hes got a blog and even now a podcast, so hes got to be pretty hip to whats going on. He must know from reading BMG that his place is in the Cathedral and not in the Statehouse. Can you imagine that he even now has the audacity to call on Congress – Congress! – to pass some legislation?
Feel free to respond to this post with your outrage, but better yet let him hear it directly! Post a comment on his blog and tell him directly about what you think of him meddling in state affairs!
so i see nothing amiss here. the only trouble would be if he expected special consideration, or was given special consideration by lawmakers as a representative of his employer, not as an individual citizen.
<
p>
btw you mentioned his blog. i checked it out fairly frequently in its first few months, especially during a big to-do he was attending in rome. what was kinda ironic to me was here is this “humble” monk caught in all these highly picturesque “action shots” (striding across stone bridges, preaching with apparent ardent conviction etc) by an apparently highly skilled photographer whose work was NEVER acknowledged. doubtless his blog is also administered by invisible hands not his own (tho i do not doubt he writes his own entries). yes, the “humble monk” has an entorage. great eye-rolling stuff.
between this and gay marriage? Why should he be allowed to weigh in on one, and not the other?
he can express his opinion on any subject he wants to.
<
p>
as for throwing around the weight of his employer to strip citizens of civil rights, you know how i feel about that already: it is hellworthy. i will not re-enter that discussion with you.
using his official blog to articulate a political position. It is the same thing, if different only in scope. I’m willing to bet he has talked about gay marriage on the blog before and the last post I read on it was about his trip to DC for the March for Life.
<
p>
It shouldn’t matter what your politics are, either getting involved politically as the Cardinal Archbishop is right, or it is wrong. It can’t be OK for him to stake out a position against the immigration raid, or our immigration policy in general, but not OK for him to speak out against gay marriage.
the ethics and legality of an archbishop taking political stands of any sort, on any subject, on a blog is an interesting question. i guess my first questions would be
* is it his personal blog (not supported in any way by his employer), and
* does he speak on the blog as “Sean, a citizen” or as “Archbishop O’Mally”
<
p>
even once you have the answers, i sure don’t know the legalities nor have i puzzled out the ethics thoroughly. i have better things to do than contemplate humble monks with entorages. i’ll sit back and enjoy watching the ideas roll in from other posters.
<
p>
Kai, one point you ignore repeatedly is that any public figure will be generally appreciated for helping people and increasing the scope of their peaceful lives. likewise, they will be reviled for working to marginalize people. Think that over, please.
As a Capuchin, I don’t think he would have the personal resources to host the blog. It would have to be supported by the Archdiocese, much like the newspaper is.
<
p>
To answer the second question, I think just like the Governor has learned, you are always the Archbishop. He doesn’t get to make personal statements separate from his job duties. In addition, I have found most of his posts have been about his job duties – visiting parishes, etc. He also signs the end of each post with “Yours in Christ, Cardinal Seán” and his profile is entitled “Seán Patrick Cardinal O’Malley, O.F.M. Cap.”
<
p>
I have no doubts that this action will generally raise people’s opinions of him (though the small group of people who know about it – I doubt we will see any coverage of it in the MSM) but I am sure thats not why he is doing it. I don’t think he does the things he does to make himself popular.
Come on. The continued baiting? Don’t over do it…
There is no restriction on any tax exempt organization on taking a stand on political issues. The Catholic Church takes a public stance on what it views to be the moral questions of the day, as it should. What it cannot do is take a partisan position. That is: The Church views SSM and abortion as morally unacceptable, and Catholics should vote accordingly. OK. Catholics should vote for Candidate X. Not OK. The Catholic Church has been more srupulous about this distinction than some of the Protestant churches.
<
p>
Disagreement with these views, as well as criticism for failure to adhere to them, is fair enough, as well. It strikes me, however, that with the exception of SSM, abortion, and the other “sex” issues, the Catholic Church may be the largest institutional advocate for the remainder of the “progressive” agenda: Peace. Poverty. Social Justice. Labor rights. Capital punishment.
<
p>
When the platform of the Democratic Party consists of nothing except for gay rights and abortion, then the Catholic Church will be the enemy. Until then, it shouldn’t be, at leass if the party has aspirations to appeal to voters who vote.
revolve around two things: Authority, and sex.
<
p>
They are terrible on both issues, and worst where they overlap, as in the abuse scandals. I cannot shake the picture of the apostolic administrator who replaced Law disrespecting the brother of an abuse victim as “a sad little man,” on camera.
<
p>
On a huge swathe of other issues, the Catholic Church is on the right side of history. You won’t see the Church trying to bring back the Middle Ages by attacking evolution, for instance; I was taught evolution by a monk with a degree in biology, and the church condemns the refusal to use reason as a sin. Nor does the Church have much truck with fundamentalist interpreters of the Bible, nor with polluters, nor with warmongers nor the more irresponsible pacificsts.
<
p>
In the public eye, of course, sex and authority overshadows all else; but, really, the Church has no one else to blame for that.
Seeking to impose his own religious rules on people of other faiths and take away their rights with absolutely no rational argument other than “God told me so” is exactly the same as protesting a widely acknowledged violation of civil rights codified in law.
<
p>
Sadly, real life isn’t all about intellectual masturbation.
…tax excempt properties and a tax exempt institution to push his political position.
<
p>
The rest of us don’t have that luxury.
<
p>
/sarcasm.
<
p>
Eliminate their tax exemptions, and you might have a point. Otherwise, you don’t.
Raj – I haven’t heard that slur since I was in grade school. Did you really need to write that? Where are the PC police now, or the other memo-toting folks who insist that “Islamofascist” is woefully unPC, but it’s fine to call a Cardinal a “mackeral snapper.” C’mon – this can’t be a case where if “one of our own” offends – it’s perfectly dandy, but if someone else does it, you’re offended to breathe the same air….
…and I’m 57 yrs old. But apparently you are unable to understand sarcasm when it is written.
<
p>
It is not only a sarcasm directed to RCCi, but also to Protestants who don’t like the Harlot Vatican, the Whore of Babylon (two other references that I learned about in the last decade).
The comment is racking up the zeroes, although I have no idea what the term even means, and prefer to keep it that way.
<
p>
This, I could not let pass:
<
p>
<
p>
My God, I haven’t seen anybody lean on a strawman so much since Dorothy O.D.’d on poppies.
<
p>
Please do link to comments that protest the use of the term “Islamofascist” because it might offend the delicate sensibilities of Muhammed Atta.
<
p>
The problem with “Islamofascist” is not that it’s un-PC, but that it’s utter bullshit. It’s a completely fabricated concept cut by neocons from whole cloth to suggest a false parallel between Bush and FDR. Nobody who is not huffing Rite Guard believes that Al Qaeda is part of an organized, Islam-wide movement to create a brownshirt Islamic Republic run by and for international corporate interests.
<
p>
And that’s what fascism is.
<
p>
So, unless you think a combination of factual inaccuracy and utter confusion is our best recipe for success, you might want to stick to terms with some credibility, like “Islamist.”
Actually, I don’t agree with your narrow view of fascism…it’s way too convenient to explain away the very organized terror groups that have lined up under their allegedly peaceful religion. They may be fragmented, but they are organized.
<
p>
As for using “islamofascist” – I think it was lightiris that had a canary over that one. Maybe one other…it’s all on the post about light’s class.
<
p>
While I am getting used to your regular sneer, Steverino, so I’m not rising to the bait. This is what you do. But, you dodged on “mackeral snapper” friend. Evidently, you have rules for credibility for one wing of the party….and different rules for others. I don’t think that’s lost on anyone else.
given the comment a zero. But I wouldn’t be surprised if you knew that before you posted, hoping others would not check.
<
p>
<
p>
Who cares? I try to listen to people who actually know something about the current situation in the Muslim world–or about the history and practice of fascism.
<
p>
<
p>
Your words, not mine. You have more arguments with yourself than Sybil.
<
p>
Most religions have done some nice things. Most religions have killed lots of people. They seem to take turns playing each role, as when Muslim Spain was the most religiously tolerant and advanced country in Europe while the Catholics were busy pulling Abelard’s testicles off with hot tongs.
<
p>
As you have already established in a long debate with Laurel, you like to reason from your gut. I’m more interested in positions that come from a bit higher up in the anatomy.
It’s all good, Steve. I’m getting used to you. Actually, it wasn’t Laurel – it was KB, but that’s fine. I recognize that I don’t fit with your definition of thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable, or Democrat. Viva la difference.
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: ?fa-?shi-z?m also ?fa-?si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
– fas·cist -shist also -sist noun or adjective often capitalized
– fas·cis·tic fa-?shis-tik also -?sis- adjective often capitalized
– fas·cis·ti·cal·ly -ti-k(?-)l? adverb often capitalized
<
p>
Stevarino – This is Merriam Webster, not Wiki. If you haven’t hear that these guys want the world to be Islamic…then you’ve missed a very important piece of data. Note that I didn’t say you were huffing or any of the like.
crosses both racial and national boundaries.
<
p>
But thanks for whipping out the dictionary, and dropping it on your own foot.
Again, Steve, you want a narrow definition to prove your point. God bless you.
that the slur door opens both ways, faggot.
<
p>
Show respect and respect will be shown to you.
It’s a word I rarely use, and I’m fine with him bashing the Church and whatnot, but using a slur and expecting that the double standard will apply is foolish. I’m proving a point, and I’ll be glad to see my comment get a ton of zeroes and disappear as long as his follows it.
<
p>
I wrote that in a moment where I didn’t have my cool on my religious zeal, so I apologize. I honestly hope to see both posts get zeroed out. I’ll give Raj his, and I look forward to him rating mine the same.
I had never heard term the mackerel slapper before and just read over it. Now that its been pointed out to me what it means you both got zeros.
<
p>
I appreciate that you recognize the mistake and appologized, JoeTS, but you would have had an excellent comment if you simply left that single word out.
…it’s “mackeral snapper.”
<
p>
Before you all get into a hissy fit, I’ll let you know that the reason that I left organized religion was precisely because my American Baptist paster in a relatively upscale northern suburb of Cincinnati O-hi-O, while walking with me from the Sunday School building to the chapel, let out what could only be considered an anti-Catholic slur. This was during the 1960 presidential election cycle–the one involving JFK. The anti-catholic bogotry was evident to me even then.
<
p>
I was horrified, and that’s the reason why I not only left organized religion, at the ripe old age of 10 years, but also reject all organized religion.
<
p>
That was my point. It was a sarcastic one. It’s unfortunate that y’all cannot recognize sarcasm.
<
p>
I guess that, among y’all, sarcasm is a lost aht.
It’s a term that the Brahmin use to hurl at the Irish kids playing in the street. It’s intended to be anti-Catholic and it’s intended to offend.
…that’s why its sarcasm.
<
p>
It was meant to be offensive against O’Malley and the rest of the RCCi. That was they about whom the remark was referenced, right?
is a reference to the fish we used to eat every Friday, and now on Fridays during Lent. The poorer Catholic families could only afford mackeral, back in the day. Hence – “mackeral snapper.” It’s about religion and class. A twofer, if you will.
I’m not sure. I hope so. Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, I’d say it’s about bloody time Sean stopped playing three-card monte with child molesters or attacked the gays, and stood up for the message he purports to preach.
<
p>
I welcome Sean’s sadly late arrival to social justice. Hope he sticks around a while.
From his Wikipedia page:
<
p>
<
p>
He’s been around for a while.
but apparently suffered some lapses…
it interest in Latin America. That continent more so than africa can provide the population that catholicism needs to grow its religion. Russia, China, India and muslim countries are off the table as potential wellsprings of new catholics. Western Europe and US are declining souces of catholics.
<
p>
In the 1950’s the growth of protestanism in Latin America caused grave concern both in the US and the Vatican. The Catholic church has been in a struggle to win back the protestants and grow catholicism. In fact, the St James Society in Boston was started by Cardinal Cushing to send priests to latin America for missionary work. The Church worked ( and works) very closely with the in the geopolitics of Latin America.
<
p>
Comes now this golden opportunity to get back in the game and win back large sections of Latin America with immigration advocacy. Viola! The cardinals have spoken so much about immigration reform you would think they were on the payroll for american corporations who exploit the hispanic workers.
<
p>
The US to return the favor, keeps the political focus on abortion and away from birth control in order to discourage reproductive freedom among a poorer population. The US has done, of course, many other favors for the Catholc church and the church for the US.
<
p>
…the RCCi in South America is fighting a rear-guard battle against evangelical Protestants, and in Africa (along with the Anglicans) a battle against Muslims. It’s a battle for market share. Those are marketing issues, pure and simple.
<
p>
The turd world–sorry, third world–is determining the “morality” espoused by the first world pharisees. It really is as simple as that.
The church — largely under the current Pope when he had a different position years ago — also made some rather extraordinary efforts to quash liberation theology as it grew in Latin America. He was instrumental in forbidding a number of liberation theologians from publishing anything.
<
p>
It’s a pretty sad history — I think the direct refusal of the current Pope to provide security to the late Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero shortly before his assassination even as he warned them of the death threats he was facing was beyond appalling.
why would anyone have a problem with the archbishop advocating for immgration fairness and expanding civil rights? the implication seems to be that his involvement in any issue is wrong, but i think the actual issue is if he’s advocating for the wrong side of an issue. or in the case of same-sex marriage, advocating against people’s civil rights.
but apparently I’m no good at it. The point I was trying to get across is that most people were ready to run the Cardinal out of town on a rail because he got involved in the debate over gay marriage, but as you point out people only care when it suits their politics.
The fact that you were able to elicite that response proves that it was pretty good satire!
but i didn’t get what is was based on. people didn’t like the cardinal getting involved with opposing equal marriage because they disagreed with him. if anyone asserted that religous leaders shouldn’t get involved in political debates, they are being absurd as those who say “shut up and sing” to Hollywood.
i agree with your general point that his advocating for immigrant rights is good, and important to helping the people of the commonwealth, the country, the world, but I don’t think the strawmen you’re attacking is going to read this blog.
I dig the strawmen. I was laughing all the way through. You made a very good and thorough point. I half expected the masses to light the torches and march on your computer. Fabulous work, Kai. Thank you.
that we force all nuns into prostitution. That’s just wrong.
<
p>
See? You’re not the only one who can make up nonsensical strawman arguments, and pretend that other people are making them.
<
p>
That’s one little unfortunate drawback to the technique.
Very well done indeed.
…it is among the poor that the RCCi (Roman Catholic Church, Inc.) has its greatest influence.
too cynical of you, raj. Take it back. Or not. Spades are spades, oh yes they are.
And here I thought Democrats weren’t biased against any race or creed….
…the RCCi (the hierarchy) and the laity.
<
p>
The hierarchy is repulsive. The laity, at least in the US and in Western Europe, definitely not. The “anti-Catholic” industry (William Donohue, for example) wishes to conflate the two, but, sorry, it doesn’t work.
<
p>
It’s unfortunate that the RCCi chose a Nazi Feigling for its current pope. The laity had no choice in the matter.
I’ve been blessed to know some wonderful men and women of the Church. While I disagree with the “hierachy” plenty, I am all too aware of the work that the above referenced people do – it’s the work of angels.
…the people you are referring to could have done similar work outside of the confines of the RCCi.
<
p>
Let’s understand something. The RCCi is a political organization with an entertainment adjunct. Nothing more. Nothing less. Why they and their properties and their income should be tax exempt is a mystery.
You want to be p’o’d at the Church – be my guest – you’re in plenty of company. The Scandal is a global disgrace. But, good sir, you are not the last word on a Church that is thousands of years old. In that time, there have been any number of angels doing the work that no one else wanted to do, working with lepers, administering to the poor, building housing, feeding the hungy, ministering to those in prision – in short, engaging in social justice issues long before it became fashionable. It’s been going on for centuries.
<
p>
So, the soundbites don’t cut it for me. I’ve been in the trenches with them for far too long.
<
p>
…The RCCi can do whatever it wants. I really wouldn’t care. As long as they pay the same taxes that I pay.
<
p>
As it stands now, the RCCi is tax advantaged. They pay no taxes, despite their fag-basing-mongering. I pay taxes. The taxes that I pay subsidizez their fag-bashing.
<
p>
Do you understand the difference?
are accessories after the fact to child rape?
<
p>
How many bishops?
<
p>
You might want to refine your panegyric a little.
is paved with Bishops’ skulls. I don’t think anyone here is justifying the horrific abuse scandal. However, just because a couple mailmen went postal I don’t duck and cover every time someone approaches my mailbox. Likewise, there are many good priests and bishops out there. There are far more angels than demons in the hierarchy.
Always ready for a mudfight.
a reality check.
<
p>
You’re not seriously saying “only a few bad apples” among the bishops were responsible for transferring pedophiles over the past 40 years?
<
p>
You’re not seriously saying that, are you?
THAT’S why Sean is pulling for gentleness in the immigration issue. We’re importing RC clergy into the realm of angelwork. See, angels don’t come cheap, being scarce, and all (supply-demand, you know). But clergy, they’re plentiful and will work for a pittance in relative terms. Celestial outsourcing. Whoda thunk NAFTA had that kinda reach?
n/t
watching people refer to the queer-bashing policy of the RCC as a simple “issue”, as if it is no more important than the color of the pew cushions, is just a bit tiresome.
The Church’s offical policy is that non-documented migrants should be allowed to stay and the whole Church, not just the Cardinal share in this view. The Chruch went as far as developing a Justice for Immigrants web site and are very active in this issue. I support them in this effort, after all with so many xenophobic hate speech comming from the right (and some from the left) its great to see the Church finally on the correct side of a debate.
…a political, not just rhetorical, but a political fag bashing operation.
<
p>
Understand?
<
p>
They oppose equal political rights for gay people. And they have made no bones about it.
<
p>
And they are doing so from their tax exempt boudoirs.
So because the Church doesn’t agree with you on gay marriage – everything they do is colored by that?
<
p>
That’s life, Raj. Not everyone agrees.
<
p>
I disagree profoundly that that RCC is a “political bashing” operation. They oppose political rights? Is marriage a political right? Do they oppose voting rights for gay people? Do they oppose free speech for gay people? Do they oppose the right to assemble? What political rights are you referring to?
<
p>
I think the hyperbole has gotten the best of your argument. No, we don’t “understand” why when the Church is doing what it can to support the people in the New Bedford raid, you insist on viewing it through the gay marriage lens.
is ignorance of the issue. Leaving aside such minor matters as assault and battery by a lay Catholic leader on an equality supporter–witnessed by a newspaper reporter–the Catholic Church in Massachusetts is a major funder of Vote On Marriage and in bed with such paragons of civility as James Dobson.
<
p>
Here’s a quote from Vote on Marriage’s chairman, Roberto Miranda:
<
p>
<
p>
The Church has also used its tax-free status to attack civil unions, not just marriage equality, in letters read in every church.
as parishioners getting pelted with condoms by an organization as they entered the cathedral to witness the ordainment of priests….don’t you think civility is a major problem on both sides?
<
p>
I do. And as I mentioned in an earlier post – I don’t necessarily agree with the Church on all things, but I think it just doesn’t help the discussion if you’re going to view everything through the lens of gay marriage.
<
p>
The Church is working to support the NB families and that’s a good thing. Trashing that effort because they don’t agree with you on gay marriage or civil unions isn’t reasonable.
…as parishioners getting pelted with condoms by an organization as they entered the cathedral to witness the ordainment of priests
<
p>
The incident–if it occurred at all (there is some dispute as to that)–would have been carried out by ACT-UP, an HIV/AIDS activist operation, to object to the RCCi’s stance against public condom distribution. In other words, in response to the RCCi inserting itself into the political sphere.
<
p>
When the RCCi inserts itself into the political sphere, it is not immune from criticizm. If it wants to demand fealty among its members to its inane doctrines, it is certainly free to do so. If it wants to demand fealty among the rest of us, no. A difference that people like you apparently fail to recognize.
and whether you agree with the RCC’s policies or not, pelting the laity, some of them quite elderly, is bad behavior. It only inflamed people further, which is the point that I am trying to make. Inflaming people doesn’t help.
<
p>
No one is demanding fealty of you or anyone else. The choice to belong to the RCC is entirely voluntary.
<
p>
While we’re on the topic of the lack of civility on both sides of the aisle, how about the viciousness displayed to people who signed the DOMA petition in P-town. Come on, a lot of these folks are older people and life-long P-town inhabitants….and they were eviscerated for having a life-long, spiritual beliefs. This is just bad behavior.
<
p>
This is the kind of “in-your-face” stuff that won’t change the minds of the people who signed the petition, but it will certainly raise questions about the civility of people who engaged in that manner. It doesn’t make observers feel sypathetic to the cause when older people are accosted. I don’t give my dad a hard time about what he believes in, and I certainly don’t want someone else abusing him, either.
…but they don’t.
<
p>
If they paid the same taxes the rest of us do, they can bray at the moon, for all I care.
I’mn good with it. Because I see non-profits of all stripes using their tax-exempt status to further political goals. For one – I don’t think non-citizens should vote, but there are a number of tax-exempt organizations supporting that very political issue. In fact, in my corner of the world, I saw tax-exempt organizations supporting candidates and providing “in-kind” contributions in the form of phonebanking and administrative support. So, if that’s the benchmark, then I hope you make sure that it’s a benchmark for everyone.
n/t
So because the Church doesn’t agree with you on gay marriage – everything they do is colored by that?
<
p>
It is because the RCCi gets itself entangled with the political sphere on this issue that I get incensed with the RCCi on this issue. Otherwise, I wouldn’t particularly give a tinker’s damn what the RCCi does.
<
p>
If the RCCi does not want to conduct marriages of same-sex couples, I wouldn’t particularly care, since such marriages can be conducted by others. It is the fact that the RCCi wants to prevent others from conducting them is the issue.
<
p>
If the RCCi wants to not allow chapters of Dignity (an organization of Catholic laypeople) to meet on their property, I don’t particularly care. They can control usage of their property. I might note the discrimination, but that’s about it.
<
p>
If the RCCi wants to refuse communion to gay people, I don’t particularly care. I’m not really sure why anyone would want to engage in what is essentially a vertual cannibalistic ritual (cracker=flesh, wine=blood), but that’s another matter. I might note the discrimination, but that’s about it.
<
p>
I refer to RCCi as the “Harlot Vatican, Whore of Babylon” because I think it’s funny, in a silly kind of way. I first learned of it over the Internet less than a decade ago on a far right-wing web site. Unfortunately, the current administrator of the RCCi, the Nazi Feigling Herr Ratzinger, is making sure that that’s exactly what it is.
its offensive. Just like it would be offensive for me to so slinging around racial or sexual slurs. I might think it is funny to use a couple choice terms to describe your sexual orientation, but I’m sure you wouldn’t feel the same way.
Didn’t most of us vote for the guy who said “We don’t have to agree on everything before we can agree on anything”?
That someone no doubt put up referring to my ilk. It said “your hate becomes you”. I’d say your hate of the RCC has certainly become you, which is a very sad fact.
Bush is in Mexico, pretending to be concerned about
slaveunderpaid labor from that quarter. It’s well known that Bush is for doing whatever it takes to keep that labor coming. Will Humanitarian Sean stand by the President and push for a guest worker program and amnesty for those already here?Who can read the below quote form the Cardinal without
a deep despair for catholicism under the control of such men.
<
p>
This is what he wrote:
<
p>
“I have appealed to Sen. Edward Kennedy and the head of immigration services to see what can be done on behalf of the workers so that those families will not be separated. They were very receptive to my appeals, and both of them assured me that they would do whatever they could.
This event underscores the great need we have for immigration reform in the United States.
<
p>
In many areas of the country, we do not have enough workers to perform certain types of labor. Our economy is dependent upon immigrants. It is, therefore, important that people be allowed to immigrate in an orderly and legal way so that they will have the protections that all workers have. In that way, their human rights and dignity will be safeguarded.”
<
p>
As everyone will recall from the childhood story the wolf dressed in granma’s clothes to fool Goldilocks.
O’malley wants you to accept the immutable laws of the ‘economy’ so he dresses up his message in words to make you believe he is compassionate.
<
p>
The is analogous to the churhes support of pregnant women and orphanges and aids care but their opposition to condoms to prevent the spread of aids and birth control to allow women reproductive freedom. Some virtue.
<
p>
The Hierarchy has once again shown why they deserve a special ring in hell. O’malley wants us to believe in his assertion that ‘its the economy’ and the RCC has absolutely nothing to say about that nor can it do anything about it! ( read will not do anything) They are quite willing to have poor immigrants work for low wages in sweatshops, so that they can come to their rescue with their peculiar idea of virtue: allow the conditions that enslave people to exist and then minister to the wounds it causes. Some compassion.
<
p>
For those who don’t know, the Dr Hddad, former head of Caritas Health system was recruited by O’malley. But what was not mentioned was Haddad’s effectiveness is squashing the emerging doctor’s union and others at the Pennsylvania hospital he left. Helen Drinan blew the whistle on Haddad for sexually harrassing employees. I would not rank O’malley up there with John Lewis et al.
The Church has never said anything about the working class, or the rights of labor, or a just economy.
<
p>
Thats a pretty Marxian view you have there, Publicola. Opium of the people and all that.
Really. If you can’t take the fact that other people have opinions different from kai get off blogs.
<
p>
Cheap comment from you given your comments is a complete joke.
<
p>
Maybe you should get an education so you can read for comprehension. Omalley did opine about the ecomony in his post, did you read that? hmm? hmm
And if you click on the links in her post, you would see how “tongue in cheek” her response was.
<
p>
Really, we’ve had Raj call Cardinal O’Malley a “mackeral snapper”…we had the intelligence, reading comprehension, education, and understanding denigrated by a number of posters here.
<
p>
It’s been fairly destructive. More heat than light, as they say.
and these posters by its agenda.
<
p>
I am at a loss, as are others given the few posters on this blog, at its clearly non progressive and very undemocratic agenda.
<
p>
The collective opinions expressed and the content used to express these opinions is right out of republican opposition politics. With that said, there is a core group of DINO interests groups, lawyers being a prominent one in Boston, who lend their particular flavor to republican politics of destruction wrapped in the mantle of your notion of democratic politics ofo massachusetts.
<
p>
Publicola – I respectfully disagree. The Democratic party includes Dems of all colors and spots, from one end of the liberal spectrum to the other. There was a time, when “liberal” meant “live and let live” and “progressive” meant “forward thinking. Now for some, it means “if you don’t agree with me on every position, you are not liberal, you are not progressive, and you should just leave the party.” And people have, in droves. It’s like there’s a liberal progressive checklist, and if you don’t have one of the checks, they want you to hit the bricks.
<
p>
Personally, I think the politics of destruction includes firebombing our own members. Bridges to understanding have been burned down regularly – and it’s not helping. We can agree to disagree at times. That’s life. That’s compromise. I think we need to be careful how we speak/write to other people. I think a good rule of thumb is “would you speak to a colleague at work” like that. If you wouldn’t – then rewrite it. It’s all about self-discipline.
<
p>
I read an article by Peggy Noonan over the weekend, and vowed that I would change the way I interact. I don’t want to add to the destruction of my party. If the big tent is still up, then there’s room for all of us.
Labor, the economy and a just economy that the RCC has written.
<
p>
YOu wrote:
“The Church has never said anything about the working class, or the rights of labor, or a just economy.
Thats a pretty Marxian view you have there, Publicola. Opium of the people and all that.”
<
p>
Your comment is completely false and given your attitude I would characterize it as either deliberate lie or arraogant ignorance.
Weren’t you that lady on TV that used to complain about presidential erections?
with all that egg on your face?
That ring ain’t being donated to charity, that’s for sure. And how ’bout those brown robes?
<
p>
The sad fact is I no longer care about the Catholic Church’s position on anything. They’ve long since lost credibility on any issue. Every core catholic principal is ignored by the leadership of the church in favor of hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage. When the church creates all the implications in the world that they support Republicans (bush’s meetings with the vatican, chruches banning kerry from communion, etc.), they are therefore being complete and utter hypocrites as these are the very same people who are using latinos as a device to win elections instead of create immigration reform. These are the same people who give tax cuts to the rich, the same people who are killing 10,000s in Iraq. But, on noes, The Gays are marrying!
that ring: http://graphics.bost…
<
p>
those brown robes: http://upload.wikime…
Ryan,
<
p>
As for the ring, its not something he chose to wear. It is a symbol, one I could do without, but not one he took on freely. Its not like he went downtown and picked it out for himself. As for the picture you show with him supposedly abandoning the brown robes, if you look clearly you will see the hood of his brown robe beneath the white outer garment. What you see him wearing there are liturgical vestments. It was a picture of him taken at Mass – you would see any other priest, bishop, deacon, cardinal, monk, abbot, etc, wearing the same thing in that context.
<
p>
Also, lets not forget that Clinton visited the Vatican, too.
Kai & Purple,
Instead of running in circles of arguement with people who have “disagreements” with the RCC, maybe you should step back and just take in the fact that these serious disagreements exist. It isn’t important so much whether you agree or disagree on all the points. WHat is important is that you register that something must be wrong for the RCC to have generated so much vitriol from people who otherwise are hardly even aware of the church. My suggestion requires an open mind though, and an ability or take constructive criticism. That;s a position some folks can’t tolerate when it comes to church doctrine, I realize. But honestly, you’ll do yourself and your church a big favor by registering the existence of external criticism, and asking honestly “why”.
I appreciate the sentiments and your point of view. I do recognize that not everyone is going to like my Church; what I find shocking is the lack of tolerance and sensitivity for those who are RC on this blog. Some of the comments, Laurel, were not “constructive” – they were hateful. I’d like some acknowledgement of that.
<
p>
I accept the challenge to be “open minded,” and am quite willing to “take constructive criticism” – as long as it’s a two-way, respectful street. I can certainly understand “why” some people feel the way they do; what I can’t understand is why they feel the need to vent their spleen on every Catholic who happens to object to some of less than constructive comments. I know I wonder if some other faith had been substituted for RCC, whether people would feel quite so free about hurling the vitriol. I kind of doubt it. Open season on Catholics is practically acceptable.
<
p>
Like I said – as long as it’s a two-way, respectful street, I’m all good. Thanks again, Laurel.
Thank you for CMP. May I suggest that we start with fresh slates another time, in a fresh thread? I’m happy to try that, but not so interested in doing so here and now, considering that I learned a bit late that this thread was constructed to fan the flames of anti-Cathokic sentiment. I hope to not be so dense next time. I try to learn…
and vow to listen to my better angels. I’ve gotten in a few verbal pillow fights, myself. 🙂 Thanks for your time today.
<
p>
Pax
the parent comment was directed to I would like to echo CMP’s comments. I agree entirely, and pledge to do the same.
but I was pretty into it.
<
p>
Until I realized that they were shuffling around and covering up child molesters by the hundreds and selling off churches that had schools before people could even finish off the year. Then, they went ahead and grabbed themselves an even more conservative Pope and have been openly hostile to my homosexuality: something I’ve been as long as I can remember.
<
p>
If I’ve been openly hostile towards the Roman Catholic Church, it’s only because of what they’ve done. It’s only because I see it as an organization that could do good, but has done a lot of bad instead. If they were to have an about face, I’d sponsir a celebration and probably rejoin the church… but until then, they’ve driven me away.
theater and comeraderie about it. That’s all that we lil’ gay boys like. And that’s why they do it. The theatricality of it all.
<
p>
And then the truth descends on you that they hate you. The RCCi, that is, not, necessarily, the laity, although some laypeople, such as supposed layman Ray Flynn and supposed layman William Donohue, are a good reflections of the RCCi.
<
p>
If you don’t understand what I’m referring to, go rent Boys in the Band It is a pretty good exposition of what I’m describing.
<
p>
The sad fact is that the Anglican church is going the same way as the RCCi. Unable to fill their pews in the first world (Europe) or the second world (USofA), the Anglicans are staking out for the turd–sorry–third world, the impoverished, for market share.
I struggle with them daily. I thought long and hard about whether to even raise my own children in my faith. On many culture war issues, I believe that the official position of the Church is at odds with the message of the gospels.
<
p>
I chose to remain, largely because of the postive impact of the Church in other areas, such as education or health care.
<
p>
When rational criticism spills over into “makerel snapper” and “whore of Babylon” BS, or when the purported critic assumes that Catholics are monolithic in their beliefs, it ceases being criticism and is simple hateful invective. Of course there has been hateful invective delivered on these culture war issues by the Church and its members. That doesn’t justify this type of response, or make it even remotely productive.
<
p>
In response to your post above, SSM is an “issue”. Not “just an issue.” (I’m not sure why you perceive the word issue to be pejoritive. What other word would you choose?) It is an issue, among many issues.
<
p>
The sad thing is that, not too long ago, Catholics were a core of the Democratic constituency– a crucial part of the New Deal coalition. They remain committed to many other parts of the self-described “progressive” agenda: Anti-capital punishment. Improved health care and other assistamce for the poor. Opposition to the war in Iraq, along with many other military actions. More rights and better working conditions for immigrants, regardless of the status of their documentation. The rights of Labor. Economic and social justice.
<
p>
So, what is your goal? Is it, like the sign holding protesters on either side, to feel satisfaction in provoking someone? Or is it to advance a political agenda? If it is the latter, it is my opinion that telling vast swaths of people that they are evil, stupid bigots is not the highway to success.
I was not the one using the schoolyard perjoratives. In fact I clarified one of my posts with another stating clearly that I don’t see catholics (or non-catholics, or LGBT people, or republicans, or whoever, for that matter) as a monolith.
<
p>
Perhaps I’ll take you up on you other points in another thread. Thank you for weighing in.
I apologize if I implied you did.
<
p>
I had one or two specific posters in mind, whom, if we had an “ignore” function, I could ignore, along with Eabo guy and the Rock Radio guy, and this would be an improved site.
can you tell me where?
This may fix the problem provoking all of the hand wringing. How about it?
(Note that I did not use ‘splain. Yes that was intentional. I intend to be formal here. I am oftentimes not formal elsewhere.)
<
p>
One, it was the RCCi* that declared the culture war. Recall the speech of their culture warrior Pat Buchanan at the 1992 Republican National Convention? If the RCCi did not inject themselves into the political sphere, I would have no problem with them. They have chosen to do so–indeed, they did so for a millenium, and apparently resent the fact that they have been rebuffed in more than a few of their redoubts, especially western Europe and South America. Since the RCCi has itself chosen to insert itself into the political sphere in the USofA, it is itself subject to criticizm and, indeed mockery. Hence “Harlot Vatican, Hure aus Babylon.”
<
p>
*RCCi is a term I use intentionally to refer to the hierarchy, the self appointed pharisees who are supposed to be supplying us with all the information regarding morality. Yes, I’m being sarcastic. I, for one, don’t need self appointed pharisees to instruct me as to what is moral and what is not. Especially self-appointed pharisees now headed by a Nazi Feigling.
<
p>
Two, do you not find it strange that the RCCi is willing to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars to impose anti-gay discrimination in the MA state constitution? I do. It strikes me that the RCCI could use the funds to do things like, for example, help for the poor, medical attention, etc. Why don’t they use the money for those purposes instead of bashing gay people?
<
p>
Three, apparently, you are unaware of the fact that the RCCi is not a “gospel” church, it is a mixture of a Mary cult with a Pauline add-on. From what I have been able to figure, RCCi doctrine has little to do with the gospels (same with Protestants, by the way). They give lip service to the gospels, but it is primarily Pauline, with a smattering of the “goddess” Mary.
<
p>
Four, I believe I understand your affinity for the RCCi, but it is a bit misplaced. What you are probably interested in is the social aspects of the ritual. I’ve noted that in comments on many other web sites. “I did this (good thing) because I’m a christan.” “I did this other (good thing) because I’m a catholic.” I’m sorry, but I reject that notion. They did this, that and the other because they were good people, not because they were christian.
<
p>
There is a social aspect to the particular establishment of religion to which you chose to adhere and that’s what appeals to you. But that is no excuse for your chosen establishment of religion to extend its bigotry to the political sphere. If the RCCi doesn’t want to minister to non-celibate gay people, that’s its business. But that’s no excuse for it to extend its bigotry to state law.
from someone who is otherwise very sharp.
<
p>
Foremost, what core Catholic principles (assuming such a core exists and is agreed upon by everyone?) are being ignored for the sake of abortion and gay marriage? ::crickets chirping::
<
p>
Fact: the Church makes no secret that people who have abortions, perform abortions, or have involvement in abortions are excommunicated.
Fact: The Vatican was one of the first and continues to be a strong objector to U.S. involvement in Iraq.
Fact: the majority of Catholics are Democrats.
<
p>
If you honestly think that gay marriage is the primary work the Church is conducting, you’re being ignorant. There’s thousand of food pantries, thousand of missionaries, thousands of lay people going to Central America to improve people’s lives. My Church sponsored dances for teenagers, participated heavily in the Catholic Youth Organization Basketball league, planned Ski Trips every Winter. We had something called {Perpetual Adoration http://en.wikipedia….], we had a community that was so involved in our Parish that when the Pastor’s dog went missing, that even local Police were on the lookout for it (creepy: the dog was found in the only Catholic cemetery in town, about 2 miles from the Rectory).
<
p>
Also: don’t forget! Theres about 77 million Catholics in the U.S. There are over 1 billion in the world. To say that the Catholic Church supports Republicans is ludicrous. How many American Popes have there been?
<
p>
pleaaase Ryan, I know you’re smarter than this! Don’t just give in to the Anti-RCC kool-aid just because all the other “progressives” have.