Cardinal: Catholic Church has no position on gays and lesbians openly serving in military

I wonder if there will be a public reaction or eruption by the fundie fringe, since it has spent a lot of time, energy and money trying to make DADT a moral issue. (AP):

Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl says the Roman Catholic church has no position on whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

On Fox News Sunday, Wuerl was asked if he opposed Congress’s repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” — a repeal that President Barack Obama signed into law last week.

He said, “That’s a question that has to be worked out politically.”

Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  admin

DC Cardinal Says Catholic Church Won’t Evaluate DADT

The archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, made an appearnace on "Fox News Sunday" to discuss "don't ask, don't tell," marriage and the Catholic Church. When asked about the repeal of DADT, he responded that this was something that the Church would not look into.

Dc "That is a question that has to be worked out politically. And there isn't a specific Catholic Church position but whatever happens, it has to be seen in terms of the church's teaching position. And that is, human sexuality is something that is supposed to be exercised responsibly and within the context of marriage."

"What the church is concerned about and what it brings to this debate, this discussion, are two realities. One, the understanding the long, long teaching of the church that every human being is worthy of respect. Then you also have to take the rest of the Gospel message, the rest of Jesus's message that human sexuality has a purpose. And this is not for simply personal satisfaction. Human sexuality has to be seen in the context of the great gift of love, marriage, family."

"We want to be able to work with everybody and to continue to serve as we do, everybody. And so when we are asked to redefine marriage, we can't do that. … If you change that definition and then insist that we now follow a new definition, we're going to be limited.

After marriage equality came to Washington, DC earlier this year, Wuerl decided to end the archdiocese's foster care program rather than issue licenses to same-sex couples.

And what does he think about the way in which the Catholic Church dealt with its continuing sexual abuse scandal?

"I think it's one of the great accomplishments of the church. It recognized there was a serious problem. It dealt with it forthright and then moved on to see that we're in a much, much better place, a much safer place today."

Watch the interview, AFTER THE JUMP.

 


Towleroad News #gay

—  admin

The Roman Catholic Church indulges in moral relativism on civil unions

The opposition of the Roman Catholic Church’s hierarchy to marriage equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people is legendary.  Not only does the Catholic Church lobby for anti-equality constitutional amendments and against marriage equality laws, it has been known to fundraise for those efforts and circulate referendum petitions during Holy Mass while the priest gives a homily on obedience.

Not satisfied with undermining marriage equality, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States also tries to undermine passage of civil union and domestic partnership laws by alleging that those second-class legal constructs somehow erode the “sanctity” of civil marriage for heterosexuals.  Civil unions are “an assault on the sacrament and institution of marriage and the family” is how the Diocese of Bridgeport put it.

In light of all that, it is tempting to assume it was a foregone conclusion that the Illinois Catholic Conference would take a proactive position in opposition to the Illinois civil unions bill and bemoan the bill’s passage after the fact.  But it wasn’t a foregone conclusion at all, because in actuality the Roman Catholic Church indulges in moral relativism where civil unions and domestic partnerships are concerned.
Washington

In 2009 the Washington State Catholic Conference sent one man to a few legislative committees to quietly testify against SB 5688, the Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill of 2009.  The man was not accompanied by supporters or sign-wavers.  

After the law passed, WSCC posted an unsigned statement on their main web page in support of a referendum aimed at repealing it.  The posting was made with no fanfare and beyond these acts the Catholic Church machine remained silent.  Unlike in other states, Catholic parishoners were not rallied at church to sign the referendum petition, donate to the anti-equality campaign or vote a particular way.

Apparently the Catholic Church, like most of its religious-right colleagues in Washington, saw this particular referendum as a non-starter and thus gave it lip service but no solid backing.  Indeed, Chief of Staff Siler of the Yakima Diocese stated that “our resources are limited, and we think the more important issue will be the question of gay marriage”.  (Curious statement, given that the Catholic Church stated that the battle over the domestic partnership law was about marriage.)

Undoubtedly the Catholic Church’s minimal participation in the domestic partnership debate was also with an eye towards keeping people in the pews.  Washington has a small Roman Catholic population, many of whom live in the Puget Sound region which heavily supports LGBT equality and sends pro-equality legislators to the state legislature.

Thus to all appearances the Catholic Church acted in Washington based on political and pragmatic calculations rather than standing on principle and boldly defending heterosexual-only marriage from what they said they considered a true threat.

New Jersey

The Catholic Conference of Illinois’ publication “Promoting Civil Unions to Undermine Marriage” was intended to explain their anti-civil union position but ironically the title can truthfully be read to mean that the Catholic Church in fact promotes civil unions when doing so might undermine marriage equality legislation.

On December 7, 2009 the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act“, a marriage equality bill (S1967).  Committee chair Senator Paul Sarlo and Patrick Brannigan, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference had the following exchange (emphasis added):

SENATOR SARLO:  Thank you, Mr. Brannigan.

I have one question.  Does the Catholic Church support–  We understand there’s some potential — there’s loopholes in the Civil Union law — the current Civil Union law — that prevents same-sex couples from having the same rights as heterosexual couples.  Does the Catholic Church support this Legislature amending the Civil Union law to close up every possible loophole?

MR. BRANNIGAN:  Yes.  The Catholic Church is–  Within a week after the Civil Union Act was passed, I issued a memorandum to all of our institutions.  As a matter of fact, when Seton Hall University then did a global e-mail to all employees notifying them that they should check with their health benefits because now the University was offering benefits to same-sex couples — and the University noted myself as the author of the direction — there was — I received quite a few calls from some individuals who didn’t agree with that position.  But we do support the Civil Union Act.

This is a complete reversal from the New Jersey Catholic Conference’s opposition in 2006 when the New Jersey Legislature was working to pass the civil union law.  By 2009 however the political landscape had changed and the Legislature was considering a marriage equality law.  It seems clear that under those circumstances the Catholic Church chose to cut its losses and say it supported civil unions so it could declare that marriage equality was not necessary.  As happened in Washington state, the Catholic Church in New Jersey walked away from principle after making a political calculation.

Maine

In 2009 the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland lent its public affairs director Mark Mutty to Stand for Marriage Maine to lead the marriage equality law ballot repeal effort.  During a debate on the referendum, Mutty strongly endorsed civil unions:

However, it is totally unnecessary for marriage to be redefined in order for them to have those benefits. There are alternatives, and those alternatives I think we’re all familiar with, enhanced domestic partner legislation, and other like arrangements can be made that do not fundamentally change the definition of marriage but yet provides those same benefits that they seek. And I fail to see how those benefits would not be available through these alternative arrangements as well as they would through marriage and I think that is the ultimate compromise…

…and again, enhanced domestic partnership legislation, a number of other options, civil unions is certainly an option that will provide all those same benefits, yet recognize that the two relationships are fundamentally if nothing else biologically very different.

Of course this was contrary to the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and presumably Mutty’s boss Bishop Richard Malone of the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland: “We strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage – by naming them marriage, civil unions, or by other means.”

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales openly supports civil partnerships despite pointed rebukes from Pope Benedict.  ”Civil partnerships are precisely what they say they are. They’re not gay marriages or lesbian marriages. They’re simply a legal arrangement between two people so that they can pass on property and other rights in which they were discriminated against before,” said Bishop of Nottingham Malcolm McMahon earlier this year.  His view was supported recently by Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the head of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales who said “We did not oppose gay civil partnerships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those.”

Despite many statements to the contrary, the Catholic Church clearly doesn’t believe that civil unions and domestic partnerships are intrinsic threats to heterosexual-only marriages or they would be fighting them hard at every turn rather than quietly ducking the issue (Washington) or outright endorsing civil unions (New Jersey, Maine and United Kingdom).  Call it pragmatism, call it moral relativism, either way the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t always practice what it preaches on the “assault to the sacrament” that allegedly is civil unions.
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  admin

Cardinal says gays persecute and silence; we might shush our Catholic Aunt Bethany at the Thanksgiving table, but that’s about it (*and that’s b/c she’s annoying, not b/c she’s Christian)

Cardinal-BiffiCardinal Giacomo Biffi has updated and republished his memoirs, with new portions focused exclusively on homosexuality. This snippet from the openly anti-gay LifeSite News:

In these “shattered” times, the cardinal said, the new ideologies have resulted in an “intellectual blindness” and in the silencing of Christians who are intimidated by persecution by homosexuals and their ideological accomplices.

But in the end, the cardinal wrote, the Church will not be defeated: “We are with the Lord of History.”



The ideology of homosexuality, he said, as often happens to ideologies when they become aggressive and are politically successful, “becomes a threat to our legitimate autonomy of thought: those who do not share it risk condemnation to a kind of cultural and social marginalization.”

“The attacks on freedom of thought start with language,” he wrote. “Those who do not resign themselves to accept ‘homophilia’ … are charged with ‘homophobia’.”

“Is it still permitted … to be faithful and consistent disciples of the teaching of Christ … or must we prepare ourselves for a new form of persecution, promoted by homosexual activists, by their ideological accomplices, and even by those whose task it should be to defend the intellectual freedom of all, including Christians?”

Aggressive homosexual ideology silencing Christians: senior Cardinal [LifeSite News]

Pretty harsh and dangerous claims, no? Here we have an influential leader of the Roman Catholic Church putting forth messaging that pretty much tells believers that gays who are ‘radical” enough to see themselves as equal citizens of the world (how dare we?) are out to get people of faith, and therefore the church must fight back against the supposed persecution. In this day and age of bullying and other highlighted torments, this is the meme the Cardinal is choosing to drum up. As we said: Dangerous.

And then there’s the element of pure nonsense. The Cardinal paints a portrait of militant gays intimidating and silencing and persecuting and attacking. Then he talks about how the church will ultimately win. All the while, we’re sitting here on the sidelines, wondering why people keep trying to drag us into a fight we never asked for, fostered, or raise a fist within. It’s like junior high all over again, where we just wanna get through the day so we can go home and play Super Mario World, but our friend Mason keeps insisting on running his mouth, getting into arguments, and dragging us into it. Next thing we know, Mason’s coming to blows behind the football field, and we’re forced to sit there feigning interest and wasting crucial Yoshi time, having been drug into the silly melee by unsubstantiated claims, demanded sympathies, and the unfortunate fact that our seventh grade locker proximity led Mason to determine that our geographical closeness should translate to friendship. Yea, it’s kind of like that. Except, you know: With the Cardinal’s reach extending well beyond Mason’s influence at the most popular lunch room table, and the stakes being marked in actual human lives rather than Mario’s digital 1ups.

But who here in America has signed on to this unfortunate, nonsensical, perilous rhetoric as a fan? None other than the Catholic-focused National Organization For Marriage, natch:

Screen Shot 2010-11-24 At 6.59.53 AmCardinal Biffi’s new essay in a book “The Inconvenient Memoirs” points out the ways in which an “aggressive ideology” is shattering the once-Christian west and increasingly silencing the voice of Christians. But to those who argue for the inevitability of the victory of this new ideology, he says, fear not, “We are with the Lord of History.”

“We are With the Lord of History” [NOM Blog]

Makes sense (in nonsensical “culture war” terms) that NOM would get behind this kind of thing. We’ve always said that while “marriage protection” is NOM’s stated goal, their underlying, perhaps more pervasive strategy is script-flipping. They want to change the stakes of this conversation, position this current civil rights conversation as being their own struggle over supposed gay persecution, so that for the first time in history, it will be the rights-strippers who history shines favorably upon. In that sense, Cardinal Biffi’s “with the Lord of History” rhetoric fits like a gay love.

But despite it being non-shocking, we should not neglect the concerns attached to this mindset. It is an outlook that, by design, will more fully enrage like-minded people of faith every time an LGBT person gains a fortuitous new labor-fruit. As that can is more fully cracked open, none of NOM’s carefully parsed language or measured sympathies will be able to control the way the masses receive and act on what pretty much sounds like a Christian call to arms.




Good As You

—  admin

NY Archbishop Timothy Dolan Elected President Of All American Homophobic Catholic Leaders

dolanbw

New York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who's long insisted he's not anti-gay (just anti gay-marriage), and that homosexuality is a compulsion that needs controlling, and that we are born with the knowledge gay relationships are gross, was just elected president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — a surprise move, given vice president Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson was in the running, and the Catholic Church's American leadership body usually chooses the next in line. (Kincanas beat Dolan three years ago for the VP slot by two votes.) Which means Dolan will now lead the way … in the church's political issues, like railing against Obamacare (because it uses taxpayer dollars for abortion!) and branching out from his campaign against legalizing same-sex marriage in New York to every other state.


Permalink | Post a comment | Add to del.icio.us


Tagged: , , , ,

Queerty

—  admin

Catholic School Deletes Pro-Gay Student Op-Eds

SEAN SIMONSON X390A Catholic school in Minnesota decided to delete two student op-eds that generated controversy for criticizing the Catholic Church and supporting the struggle of gay teens.
Advocate.com: Daily News

—  admin

A Requested Catholic Church Annulment On My Mind

It’s been a difficult week for me, this past week. I’ve had writer’s block that hasn’t been because of a lack of ideas to write about, but because my mind has been focused on other things.

The big issue is that my ex-wife is pursuing a Catholic Church annulment of our marriage. We were together for about thirteen years, and separated about six-and-a-half years before our divorce was finalized. We were never Catholic — I actually joined the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints (The Mormons) as a product of our relationship; we were active in the Mormon Church for about a year-and-a-half before giving up on the idea of she and me should have a Mormon Temple Wedding.

After my ex-wife’s and my divorce was finalized, my ex-wife joined the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church by default considers my ex-wife’s and my wedding a valid and binding marriage. Since the Catholic Church doesn’t grant divorces, but instead only annulments…well, to quote from the website AmericanCatholic.org:

The Catholic Church presumes that marriages are valid, binding spouses for life. When couples do separate and divorce, therefore, the Church examines in detail their marriage to determine if, right from the start, some essential element was missing in their relationship. If that fact has been established, it means the spouses did not have the kind of marital link that binds them together for life.

Obviously, the Catholic Church may consider my coming out as a transsexual (after our divorce) as a possible essential element that would explain why I didn’t enter a “marital link that binds [my ex-wife and I] together for life.” The website explains essential elements in a little more detail in a section entitled On what grounds does the Church declare nullity for some failed marriages?:

In technical language, the most common reasons are insufficiency or inadequacy of judgment (also known as lack of due discretion, due to some factor such as young age, pressure to marry in haste, etc.), psychological incapacity, and absence of a proper intention to have children, be faithful, or remain together until death.

These grounds can manifest themselves in various ways. For example, a couple, discovering her pregnancy, decide to marry; only much later do they recognize the lack of wisdom in that decision. Or one spouse carries an addictive problem with alcohol or drugs into the marriage. Perhaps a person, unfaithful during courtship, continues the infidelity after marrying.

In cases like these, the Church judges may decide that something contrary to the nature of marriage or to a full, free human decision prevents this contract from being sound or binding.

Many of us are aware what the Catholic Church thinks about transsexuals. In the same Christmas 2008 Message where Pope Benedict stated (per an audio translation by Australia’s ABC News):

We need something like human ecology, meant in the right way. The Church thinks of human nature as man and woman, and asks that this order is respected. This is not out of date meta physics, but comes from the faith and the creator, and listening to the language of creation.

…Adding that the distinction between male and female gender is blurring, and stating that human beings deserve to be protected from self-destruction:

Rainforests — yes — deserve our protection, but the human being, as a creature which contains a message that is not in contradiction to his freedom, but is the condition of this freedom, does not deserve it less.

The Pope took a more subtle stab at transsexuals in that same Christmas message. According to Time Magazine‘s The Pope’s Christmas Condemnation of Transsexuals:

Without actually using the word, Benedict took a subtle swipe at those who might undergo sex-change operations or otherwise attempt to alter their God-given gender. Defend “the nature of man against its manipulation,” Benedict told the priests, bishops and cardinals gathered Monday in the ornate Clementine hall. “The Church speaks of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this order is respected.” The Pope again denounced the contemporary idea that gender is a malleable definition. That path, he said, leads to a “self-emancipation of man from creation and the Creator.”

Fr. William P. Saunders-Herald took the Pope’s basic statement regarding transsexual people a step farther in a Catholic Herald piece, entitled Straight Answers: The Morality of ‘Sex Change’ Operations, arguing condemnation:

[A] transsexual will never be able to enter validly into the sacrament of Matrimony. A man who undergoes sexual reassignment will never really be a woman, or vice versa; rather, a man will be a man (or a woman will be a woman), except with a mutilated body and profound psychological disordering. Moreover, a transsexual will never be able to consummate the marriage in the fullest expression of love of husband and wife, and never will there be a real openness to life and the creation of children.

To destroy organs purposefully that are healthy and functioning, and to try to create imitation organs which will never have the genuineness and functioning of authentic organs is gross and lacks charity. Such surgery which purposefully destroys the bodily integrity of the person must be condemned.

Need more? Well, the Catholic News Service reported, in a January 16, 2003 news brief entitled Vatican says ‘sex-change’ operation does not change person’s gender:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — After years of study, the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document concluding that “sex-change” procedures do not change a person’s gender in the eyes of the church. Consequently, the document instructs bishops never to alter the sex listed in parish baptismal records and says Catholics who have undergone “sex-change” procedures are not eligible to marry, be ordained to the priesthood or enter religious life, according to a source familiar with the text. The document was completed in 2000 and sent “sub secretum” (under secrecy) to the papal representatives in each country to provide guidance on a case-by-case basis to bishops. But when it became clear that many bishops were still unaware of its existence, in 2002 the congregation sent it to the presidents of bishops’ conferences as well. “The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains female,” said the source.

An Associated Press article from January of 2003 spoke to the Catholic Church’s views on transsexuals as well. From the piece entitled Vatican Denounces Transsexuals (link added to text):

Transsexuals suffer from “mental pathologies,” are ineligible for admission to Roman Catholic religious orders and should be expelled if they have already entered the priesthood or religious life, the Vatican says in new directives.

The Vatican’s orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent the directives to the superiors of religious orders worldwide. The leaders were told to implement the directives or turn cases over to the Congregation for handling, Vatican officials said Friday.

The directives were the latest in a series of Vatican pronouncements on eligibility for the priesthood issued ahead of a long-awaited set of guidelines for seminaries in accepting candidates for the clergy.

…In the new directives, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said transsexuals should be barred as priests, monks, friars, nuns and brothers in religious orders.

“When, from clear external behavior and the testimony of those assigned to formation, there emerges the prudent doubt about the presence of transsexuality, the superior should arrange for a careful medical and psychiatric exam,” said the directive, which was reported Friday by Adista, a liberal Catholic news agency…

So, the Catholic Church considers me to have a mental pathology, as someone who isn’t respecting a divine order of male and female, and considers me to be engaging in “self-emancipation of man from creation and the Creator.” And, of course, this is to be condemned.

My ex-wife is likely expecting the Catholic Church diocese that’s handling the annulment request to give a lot of weight into to previous comments of mine, such as one from a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) My Story piece on the Human Right’s Campaign (HRC) website. In that piece, I stated:

At fourteen a flashbulb seemed to go off in my head, and the reason I had felt “off” for most of my childhood became clear: my body [in puberty] was starting to develop in a way that didn’t match my female gender. The discordant feelings I’d always felt [had,] for a short time[,] became very lucid. However; the mantra at the time was that male-to-female transsexuals needed to be sexually attracted to men to be considered “true” transsexuals, so I was particularly confused that I felt female, but was nominally attracted to women…and not to men at all. Because I wasn’t by the standards then considered a transsexual, I identified myself as a transvestite.

But I said more than that in that accounting of my personal history. I also said:

I graduated high school in 1977 and seemed to drift a few years, identifying myself as an “ex-transvestite,” with most of the trappings that apply these days to “ex-gays.”

I went to some reparative therapy in 1978, which was the foundation of my self-delusion that I was “cured.” I entered into my marriage without trying to evade marital responsibility — I very much loved my now ex-wife, and I wanted (and did have) children with her. I disclosed that I considered myself an ex-transvestite to my ex-wife before we I asked her to marry me.

However, I have to admit that one of the unarticulated, unconscious reasons I entered into marriage was wanting to become the man I subconsciously knew I wasn’t. Although that particular reason was far from the primary reason I wanted to marry my ex-wife, it was among the reasons I married my ex-wife — even though it was at the time it was a subconscious reason. Just because I now consciously understand it was one reason among many reasons of why I wanted to get married, I didn’t understand that as a personal truth then.

As I said, my ex-wife and I had children together. My oldest son was adopted, and the adoption was contested. We first took that son home the day after he was born, but the adoption wasn’t completed until about five-and-a-half years later — there was a long court case involved in the adoption.

I currently have a good relationship with my oldest son.

I also have twin boys though who currently want nothing to do with me. Those sons were conceived through in vitro fertilization as my ex-wife and I both had conditions that contributed to our infertility as a couple. So, it took several years of trying various treatments to reach the point where they were conceived and born.

My ex-wife’s and my children, in other words, weren’t products of sexual intercourse in the marriage bed. These children weren’t accidents, but instead were brought into our then family with great effort and by great expense.

One of the difficulties I’m having with the idea of the Catholic Church annulling my ex-wife’s and my marriage is what I see as secondary effect. That secondary effect would be the Catholic Church functionally declaring the three children of my ex-wife and my marriage to be illegitimate children — at least, that’s my take on what that would mean. From an integrity standpoint, I don’t want the Catholic Church to functionally state that my children are illegitimate children. These three children were all wanted by my ex-wife and me, and these children were outgrowths of a marriage that I know to have been a real marriage — a real marriage in both the spiritual and secular sense.

There is going to be a tribunal taking up my ex-wife’s request to have the Catholic Church annul our marriage, and I’m asking the tribunal to deny my e-wife’s request. It irritates me to realize that if I had not decided to contest my ex-wife’s request for annulment, the Catholic Church would have likely grated her request pro forma, with the assumption that I didn’t honestly intend to enter into a lifetime marital link with my ex-wife. I know I actually intended no such a thing — I know I entered into my past marriage with full intent to have it be a lifetime marriage.

There are things I can point to that indicate my ex-wife believed, and still believes, our marriage was a real marriage, but I don’t plan to make those things public in a Pam’s House Blend article for reasons of privacy — but I will be bringing these up to the tribunal. My ex-wife is aware of the basic arguments that I’ll be bringing to contest the annulment.

Well, even though my ex-wife’s pursuit of a Catholic Church annulment for our past marriage isn’t the only issue that has contributed to the writer’s block I experienced last week, it certainly was the biggest contributor to that writer’s block. Hopefully the writer’s block is over, but if my writings seem a bit infrequent and sparse for a bit into more the future, you’ll have an idea why — This requested Catholic Church annulment is on my mind.

.
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  admin

Catholic University Dumps Gay Staffer Over Wedding Announcement

Laine Tadlock, the education program director at Benedictine University in Springfield, lost her job because she mentioned it in an announcement of her marriage to her partner Kae Helstrom in The State Journal-Register, that newspaper reports:

Tadlock Tadlock left the program Oct. 28. The university says Tadlock resigned. Tadlock says she didn’t.

The wedding announcement, which included Tadlock’s position at Benedictine, a Catholic-sponsored university, appeared in the newspaper July 11.

In a Sept. 30 letter to Tadlock’s attorney, Benedictine President William Carroll wrote, “… By publicizing the marriage ceremony in which she participated in Iowa she has significantly disregarded and flouted core religious beliefs which, as a Catholic institution, it is our mission to uphold.”

*****

According to documents Tadlock furnished to the newspaper, the university offered her an early retirement deal Aug. 27 under which she would have been paid one year’s salary, two-thirds of her salary the second year and one-third the third year. The offer also included a confidentiality clause prohibiting Tadlock from talking publicly about what had happened, as well as a waiver prohibiting her from filing suit against Benedictine.

Tadlock and her attorney, Richard Frazier of Springfield, made a counter-offer. They were told there would be no negotiations, Tadlock said. She refused the university’s early retirement offer.

In a Sept. 7 e-mail and letter to Frazier, Wolf wrote that if Tadlock would not accept early retirement, then “most likely (the university) will decide to terminate your employment due to incompatibility with the University’s essential mission.” The e-mail was also sent to Carroll and Bromberg.

The University knew about the marriage, but forced Tadlock out over the mention of Benedictine in the announcement.


Towleroad News #gay

—  admin

More love from the Catholic church

How long has it been since a really nasty attack from the Catholic church against “the gays?” I guess too long as far as they’re concerned. The head of the Belgian Catholic church claims that AIDS is “justice” for gays.

The head of the Catholic Church in Belgium has said that AIDS is “intrinsic justice” for homosexuality.

Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard also said that elderly priests found to have sexually abused children should not be punished.

His spokesman Juergen Mettepenningen resigned over his boss’ remarks, AFP reports.

Well, at least his spokesman resigned…




AMERICAblog Gay

—  admin

Video: ‘Bill, bill, magazine, bill — ooh look, my anti-civil rights Catholic propaganda DVD has arrived!’

You know those DVDs that the Catholic church is sending around to Minnesota voters? Well the footage is now out on the web. And surprise, surprise — it has the National Organization For Marriage’s fingerprints all over it, prominently featuring both NOM founding chairman Robert George and NOM spokesperson Maggie Gallagher (speaking to a crowd of Catholic figures)!

Without further ado:



Hey Bishop Nienstedt: Saying it’s not a condemnation doesn’t make it so!

Hey NOM: Stop denying your inextricable Catholic ties!

Hey Catholic Church: You. don’t. own. marriage!

***

**Oh, and Damon Owens is also a NOM figure. he seems to have left the org. in an official capacity, but he still works closely with them.




Good As You

—  John Wright