Category Archives: Current Events

Archbishop Dolan’s Letter Recognizes US Bishops Don’t Speak for US Catholics

Posted on by

I just re-read the letter which Archbishop Timothy Dolan, current president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, sent to President Obama last month expressing concerns that the Obama Administration is no longer defending legal challenges to the constitutionality of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

Dolan repeatedly notes that he is writing on behalf of the “Catholic Bishops of the United States,” and that the views he is expressing are shared by “millions of citizens who stand with us on this issue.”

What the good archbishop does not say, however, is that these citizens are necessarily Catholic; nor that he is writing on behalf of Catholics in the United States.  Perhaps this is because, given whatever limitations the logic of his arguments might have, Archbishop Dolan at least is able to read opinion polls and he knows that the views he and his brother bishops are espousing are not the views of most American Catholics when it comes to recognizing that even gays and lesbians are God’s children, with all the rights and responsibilities this brings.

Who is Joe Sacerdo?

Posted on by

The Boston Globe reports that the Mass “marking gay pride” is back on.  A special liturgy with the theme “All are Welcome” was originally scheduled to be held at St. Cecilia’s in Boston on Sunday, June 19.  Pressure from conservatives — including a blogger under the pseudonym “Joe Sacerdo” — apparently lead to the Mass being canceled by officials of the Archdiocese of Boston just days before it was scheduled to take place. Now the Mass has been re-scheduled for July 10.  This is, indeed, good news!

When I saw the references to blogger “Joe Sacerdo” in the Globe stories announcing the Mass cancellation, I was surprised that an pseudonymous source was given such weight by a such a major news publication. Though I’m no journalist, it’s my understanding that media of a certain caliber have very strict guidelines on the use of “anonymous sources.” Globe reporters David Abel (see Canceled Mass outrages gays) and Mark Arsenault (see For one priest, the choice is clear) both admitted that they did not know “Sacerdo” was a pseudonym and that they would not have cited him as a source had they known this.

So the question is:  Who is ‘Joe Sacerdo’?

Possibly a priest (the Latin word for priest is “sacerdos”), one wonders why this person, whether priest or not, feels compelled to hide behind the veil of a made-up name. If you are a priest, what are you afraid of Fr. Joe? While there are many reasons for choosing to write under a pseudonym, it’s hard to understand what such a reason might be in this case.  The blog that Joe authors (Bryan Hehir Exposed) is “focused on sharing and exposing the actions and words of Fr. J. Bryan Hehir, Cabinet Secretary of Social Services for the Archdiocese of Boston and a key aide to Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, O.F.M. Cap.” [Apparently Joe thinks that Fr. Hehir, a well-respected priest in Boston and throughout the country, is simply too liberal and needs to be “exposed”!]

Come to think of it, it’s rather ironic that Joe authors a blog about exposing someone else, while he himself remains pointedly unexposed.

Are All Truly Welcome in the Church?

Posted on by

The Archdiocese of Boston has apparently decided to intervene in the liturgical life of St. Cecilia’s, a vibrant inner-city parish in the heart of Boston. As part of its outreach ministry committed to spreading the Gospel of Jesus, St. Cecilia’s had scheduled a liturgy for next weekend with the radical theme, “All Are Welcome.” Perhaps seeing this theme (which the parish bulletin did announce in conjunction with the celebration of Boston Pride 2011) as somehow contrary to that Gospel message, the archdiocesan powers-that-be forced the Mass to be cancelled.

Two ironies come to mind.

First, there’s the timing of it all.  By that I’m not referring to the cancelled liturgy having been scheduled during this season of Gay Pride celebrations around the country, but rather the fact that the institutional church decided to cancel an “All Are Welcome” celebration during this Season of Pentecost.  After all, Pentecost is when we celebrate the “birth of the Church” and are reminded in no uncertain terms that the Gospel message is intended not just for a few, but for all.

Second, there are the forces behind this action.  I don’t claim to have any inside knowledge and know only what I’ve read in the media. However, the Boston Globe’s coverage seems to rely, in part, on the writings of a blogger using the pseudonym “Joe Sacerdo,” author of the blog, “Bryan Hehir Exposed.”  It’s ironic that “Joe” (perhaps a priest, as “sacerdo” comes from the Latin meaning “priest”?) writes about “exposing” when he himself remains decidedly unexposed. To what can this be attributed other than cowardice, a mean spirit, or simply ill will? Veiling himself in secrecy, Joe seems to have no qualms casting aspersions on the good names of men like Fr. J. Bryan Hehir, one of the most well-respected priests in the country, and Fr. John Unni, the well-loved pastor of St. Cecilia’s.

I hope and pray that the Archdiocese will stand firmly with Fr. Unni, the Rainbow Ministry of St. Cecilia’s, and announce to the good people of the parish and the wider community that all, indeed, are welcome.

______________

Here’s what the parish bulletin said in announcing the liturgy:

“Liturgy to commemorate Boston Pride 2011
The Rainbow Ministry of Saint Cecilia Parish invites all friends and supporters of the LGBT community to a Mass in celebration of Boston’s Pride Month. The liturgy will take place on Sunday evening, June 19, at six o’clock, with a reception following. The theme of the liturgy, “All Are Welcome,” honors Christ’s message of hope and salvation to all people. We will also celebrate the diverse community that finds its home at Saint Cecilia and acknowledge, in a special way, the generous and warm welcome extended to the members of the Jesuit Urban Center in 2007. The Mass will be celebrated by Father John Unni and concelebrated by several of the priests who faithfully ministered at the Jesuit Urban Center for so many years. Please plan to attend this special liturgy and support the diversity that makes Saint Cecilia such a special place.”

Are Lay Catholics Less “Catholic” than Church Leaders?

Posted on by

From today’s Washington Post about Maryland’s movement to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry:  “But the presence of three Catholics at the helm in Annapolis hasn’t stopped a same-sex marriage bill from wending its way through the legislature, triggering deep disappointment among church leaders as it suggests a waning of Catholic influence in this heavily Catholic state,” (emphasis added).

Some see the role of Catholic politicians in advancing Maryland’s soon-to-be enacted (hopefully!) legislation recognizing same-sex marriage as indicative of decreased “Catholic influence.” Such a conclusion would be justified if only bishops and other “official” Church leaders were seen as the bearers of that influence.  But Catholics know that the Church is more than the pope, more than bishops, more than those who hold a particular office or position. The Church is — as the Second Vatican Council taught so clearly — the People of God. From this perspective, the roles played by Catholic leaders in advancing the rights of God’s gay and lesbian children — especially when the positions those leaders take are rooted in Catholic ideas on human dignity and justice — can be seen not as a diminution but rather an expansion of influence of true Catholicism in the public square.

Stop Blaming “Washington”

Posted on by

“‘Earmarks are a symptom of wasteful Washington spending that the American people have said they want reformed,’ [Texas Republican Sen. John] Cornyn told reporters,” reports today’s Washington Post (Republican senators say they’ll vote against their own earmarks).

I know that when it’s used in this sense, “Washington” means so much more than the 68 square mile piece of land along the Potomac River and its 600,000 inhabitants. But as one of those inhabitants for over seventeen years, it irks me to no end that “Washington” as a word so often becomes politicians’ shorthand way of doing just what Sen. Cornyn did to describe all that is bad with federal government and politics.  The truth is, it’s not Washington that spends money or that imposes taxes or that sneaks earmarks into legislation.  No, it’s the very politicians from Texas and Florida and Kansas and South Dakota and every other state in the nation that sends Texans and Floridians and Kansans and South Dakotans to do these things. Instead of blaming “Washington” — whose citizens don’t even have the full representation that the citizens of these other states enjoy — why don’t these senators and representatives take responsibility for their own actions and simply replace “Washington” with “we” or “senators and representatives.” More honestly, Cornyn should have said, “Earmarks are a symptom of wasteful spending by me and my fellow senators…”

That would certainly be more accurate, though perhaps, like earmarks themselves, just a little too close to home.

A Catholic Family Conversation on LGBTQ Issues at Georgetown University

Posted on by

Last evening I attended A Catholic Family Conversation on LGBTQ Issues with speakers Andrew Sullivan and Maggie Gallagher, moderated by EJ Dionne. The event was held at Georgetown University, sponsored by the school’s Democrat and Republican clubs.

Sullivan was thoughtful and articulate in his presentation as he told his own story and shared with the audience why it’s important for LGBT people to have the same civil rights as all other people. Saying that the first person he came out to was God, at an early age he understood that “this thing” (i.e. his experience of same-sex attraction, only later to be labeled as homosexuality or being gay) was part of his very nature, his very core; part of who God made him to be. I can identify!

While Sullivan’s starting point in the discussion was his own lived-experience, Gallagher’s starting point was an abstraction.  This, I think, exemplifies the fundamental flaw in the arguments of those who seek to deny God’s gay and lesbian children their rights and rightful place in society. Gallagher’s argument goes essentially like this:

Because there is something unique and special in the way humans procreate; and because this involves the coming together of a man and a woman in the act of sexual intercourse; and because the child produced from such intercourse deserves to be raised by the mother and father who created him/her; the social bond which we call “marriage” is unique and limited to those couples who can procreate. Thus, because same-sex couples cannot produce and raise children in the same way as heterosexual couples, they therefore should not be afforded the same social recognition of their relationships in the institution which societies throughout history and across cultures have called “marriage.”

So what’s the problem? Well, the many self-evident holes in that argument notwithstanding, the problem is that she’s barking up the wrong tree; she’s arguing the wrong issue.  No one who seeks to advance the rights of gay people within society at large or within the Church is in any way “attacking” heterosexual marriage or seeking to change the way children are produced and raised.  The starting point for advocates of LGBT rights is the lived experience of those of us whom God created gay. That’s what this is about — simply recognizing that there is now, always has been, and probably always will be a significant part of the human family whom God creates gay or lesbian. Given this unavoidable fact, we’re faced with the question of how God’s gay and lesbian children can and should live within society.

Gallagher may well have legitimate concerns about the “breakdown of [heterosexual] marriage” or “what’s best for children” or any other social issue that warrants its own discussion.  But many of us who hope for change in church and society regarding gay people are concerned less with issues and more with people.  In fact, I have to wonder if the evening would have unfolded differently if that distinction had been recognized from the beginning.  If this had been a “Catholic Family Conversation about LGBTQ People,” would that have made a difference?

Choice in cellphone plans? Not really!

Posted on by

Isn’t the rallying cry of uncontrolled capitalism that markets will respond to what consumers demand? Isn’t that how supply and demand is supposed to work? Don’t the loudest voices from the pro-business-keep-government-out-of-my-life world unabashedly proclaim that businesses and entrepreneurs simply need unregulated freedom to give the customer what he wants, and all will be well with the world?

Today’s Washington Post story about our increasingly complex cellphone bills, made more complicated by the speed and size of various data plans, notes the following:

“In a recent survey, the research arm of investment house Sanford C. Bernstein found that consumers were not happy with the idea of usage-based pricing plans. ‘They’re generally ill-equipped for any estimation of their usage and they are ill-equipped to judge its implications,’ Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett wrote. ‘Given the option, the vast majority of respondents would stay with their unlimited plans.'”

So, wireless providers are just jumping at the bit to beef up their competition by providing unlimited plans that are more competitive, more responsive to what consumers want, right?

Not so fast (literally!).  Wireless companies, it seems, will do what they will do, focusing more on how to collectively increase the costs their customers are forced to pay.  They’ll do this not only by offering plans that they want to offer, but also by ignoring their customers’ wishes, even moving away from providing  the one option — unlimited usage plans — that the “vast majority” of consumers seem to want.

“Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile are moving toward tiered pricing packages based on how much data a customer uses. All-you-can-eat plans are no longer available to AT&T’s new customers, who must choose from a menu of data services.”

“‘What we’re trying to do is offer choice, and there will always be those that then say choices are too many. So you’re darned if you do and darned if you don’t,’ said John Walls, a spokesman for wireless industry trade group CTIA.”

Well, Mr. Walls, if the list of “choices” doesn’t include the one option you really want, what good is that?

Vatican Condemns Proposed “Koran Burning Day”

Posted on by

It’s not often that some small, fringe pastor and his version of Christianity receive papal attention.  Fortunately, the Vatican has stepped up to the plate and clearly condemned the planned “Koran Burning Day” being sponsored by Terry Moran and his Dove World Outreach Center (Gainesville, FL), which proudly proclaims the reasons for burning the sacred text of the world’s 1.5 billion followers of Islam.