The Mind-Boggling Standards of Modern Catholicism

Steav Bates-Congdon was hired the St. Gabriel Catholic Church of Charlotte, NC in 2004 as music director. Everyone knew he was gay, including the parish. More importantly, they all knew that he had been in a 23 year relationship with his partner Bill, who was also active in the church in upaid positions.

No one in the church was under the illusion that Steav and Bill were anything but a long-term, committed couple. For eight years he served on staff.

After 23 years together Bill and Steav decided to go to New York and get married, and they went to Mexico for honeymoon. When they returned to Charlotte Steav stopped by the church and was given a note by the pastor, Frank O'Rourke. It read: "Employees of St. Garbriel... are expected to live with in the moral tradition of the Church. ...Your civil marriage stands in direct opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church, therefore ending your employement with us."

Look at the situation more closely. The Catholic Church, which pretends they invented marriage, knew Steav and Bill were a couple in a long-term relationship. That was also contrary to the teachings of the church. They ignored it. Only when the men made a deep commitment to one another did the church act. Steav and Bill apparently were free to fornicate homosexually all they wanted and were in good standing with the church, but the moment they made a marriage commitment they were chucked out. Apparently the sex and such was alright, what offends Catholicism is commitment and love.

I am also baffled that this music director was so easily fired while priests, many of whom were rapists in the literal sense of the word, continued to operate as employees of the church. Not only that, but this church did its best to hide said priests from the law and to cover-up their crimes. That, apparently was not in "direct opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church" since very such priests were fired. The tactic of the church was to move them to another parish so they could start all over again.

If this O'Rourke fellow only discovered that Steav was gay at this time, I could understand him being consistent and firing the man. But he actually knew quite well that Steav and Bill were a couple for some years.

More bizarrely, O'Rourke was informed of the marriage months before it took place. He was told last June and told Steav "Congratulations, I'm very happy for you. But I can't you give you my blessing." Steav said he didn't expect him to do so. At no time did the priest indicate that Steav would lose his job if he married. Steav says had them been told this would imperil his employment the ceremoney would have been postponed until he retired. But the priest apparently didn't have the decency to tell him that a loving commitment would be enough to get him fired. And, why would Steav assume it would get him fired? After all, the church knew of the relationship and they knew Bill.

The only reason for the firing was the marriage, not the relationship. Of course, this is a sect that thinks no one in the "Holy Family" had sex their entire lives. Yes, Mary, Joseph and Jesus were all supposed to be virgins. This is the ideal family. It is a sect that long thought virgins were more moral than others, that marriage with normal sexual relations was morally inferior to chastity. In their pantheon of womanly virtue chaste nuns come first, widows who have ceased having sex are second, in a distant third are married women who have normal, healthy sexual relations with their husbands. At the bottom are women who have any other kind of sex. This is really screwed up thinking.

The Catholic view of sex is literally perverse and unnatural. It goes against actual human nature. Yet they promote the unnatural state of life-long chastity as the moral ideal. That really has to warp people.

This is Called a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Cardinal Francis George Warns That Chicago Gay Pride Parade Might 'Morph Into Ku Klux Klan': MyFoxCHICAGO.com

The controversy is simple. The gay parade in Chicago is too big for the old route. So the city had it extended and moved slightly to make it easier for floats to turn some corners along the way.

The change in the route has a Catholic priest upset because his church is on the route and he doesn't want gays around.

So the Archbishop (a totally unbiblical position) weighs in and then arbitrarily compares gays to the Ku Klux Klan and says he doesn't want gays protesting the church. Well, maybe if he didn't compare them to the Klan such demonstrations would be far less likely. I can't see how he couldn't think that such comments would encourage the very thing he claims he doesn't want.

Bishop Reminds God what God is Supposed to Believe

I am always amazed that any human being pretends to speak for God. I am most amazed when those that have covered-up child abuse for decades pretend to do so. And, to make it worse, pretend they have some moral authority to do it. Anyone who claims to be a "man of God" is a fraud, a liar, and probably after your wallet or your obedience. Certainly, many who have claimed it within Catholicism were also after your kids.

John Nienstedt plays at being an "archbishop," a rank within Christianity unobtained by Jesus during his life time which, I guess, makes Nienstedt his superior.

Nienstedt, who wears the funny little outfits that the Vatican thinks makes them look pretty, has issued a "marriage prayer" for Catholics. His whole purpose of the prayer is not as a prayer at all but to push his own political agenda on Catholics, most of whom actually know the Church has no moral capital left to spend.

Prayers, in my opinion, are not actually meant for some god. They are meant for the person praying. They give the supplicant a false sense of being in control, it is an assurance they are "doing something," even when they are just talking. None of it makes sense to me, even if I were to accept the premise that there is a magic man in the sky. The Christian concept of prayer contradicts basic Christian theology.

First, the supplicant can not, according to the nonsense theologians vomit out, tell God anything he doesn't already know. You can't tell God what you need, or what terrible thing needs righting. He already knows. And, you sure as hell can't manipulate God and force him to act in ways that he doesn't want. So, you can't tell him anything he allegedly doesn't know, and you can't get him to do anything he doesn't already want to do.

And since he knows all this before you get down on your knees (Please note I do not recommend allowing children to be on their knees in front of priests or even archbishops), and since he already knows what he's going to do, then your entire prayer is an exercise in futility.

Of course, it does appear that a lot of believers actually do think that they can use prayer to manipulate God into acting in new ways. They can get him to change his mind by harassing him with whinny supplications, especially if they throw the right combination of words at him. In the Nienstedt's "prayer" the right combination is "We make our prayer through Jesus Christ, who is Lord forever and ever. Amen."

The problem with that is that a god who is all-knowing would already know his final decision. And since he would know instantly, you can't even call this a decision. There is no process of mulling things over. He doesn't have to say: "Let me research that and get back to you." He already knows all the relevant facts and has made a decision instantly. And he did that an eternity ago, already setting the course of action as to what would happen.

In fact, I pity the Christian God. He can't learn anything. He can't discover new ideas or even change his mind. Everything is now an eternity old for him. He's already made all the decisions he will ever make and set into motion all the actions he decided upon. He makes no effort to do anything. There can be no sense of accomplishment as it takes no effort for him. Spewing out universes, for him, is like stepping on an ant—something we do with little thought and no effort. His entire existence is a pretty boring one. Me, I'd be thrilled with exploring the universe, but I don't pretend to know everything already. I would be learning new things constantly. He just has the same old stale information, knows the answers to every riddle, can't find something new and can't change his mind. God goes for eternity without the wonder of surprise. That's the drawback of perfect knowledge.

If God could change his mind, then what he previously "knew" regarding his action would be wrong. He would lack perfect knowledge. And if he lacks perfect knowledge, then like us, he could make mistakes. Which, might explain Nienstedt and the Vatican—big mistakes made by an imperfect God who didn't know what was the right way to go.

Nienstadt's entire prayer is directed against the right of gay couples to have legal marriage contracts. In Nienstadt's prayer there are "holy marriages and holy families," that would be anyone who fucks to have babies and for no other reason. And that excludes gay couples because they don't procreate together and the ONLY justification for an orgasm, in Catholic theology, is to make babies. Otherwise sex is evil and disgusting. And if there are "holy marriages and holy families" then there are unholy marriages and unholy families—and if you think Catholic theology ONLY means gay couples in that "unholy" category, you are in for a surprise.

In the so-called New Testament, Paul told the Corinthians that he wished they were all celibate. In truth, the Vatican has never given up the idea that a sexual, loving relationships is second best. Celibacy, like what priests are supposed to obtain, is superior. Paul said that marrying was only preferable to burning. To quote the book, From Sacrament to Contract, "Augustine regarded marriage as less virtuous than virginity and chastity and sexual intercourse as per se sinful. But marriage, as a creation of God, had its own inherited goods, which at least mitigated the sinfulness of sex." Marriage was a suboptimal choice left for those who couldn't resist the temptations of sex. So, Vatican, how did that work out for you?

In the ideal Catholic world everyone would be celibate, which would sort of bring about the end of the world. But before the last celibate Catholic died a lonely death, we would all be sexless, souless people. Imagine that the perfect world is one where all men are like priests and all women are like nuns: angry, drunken, frustrated, hateful, dried-out hypocrites. At least in this world the "children" would be safe because their wouldn't be any. No kids for nuns to smack around, none for priests to offer a little extra communion wine to, in exchange for a quicky in the confessional. What an awful world it would be. Now, I happen to favor celibacy for Christians. I can't think of a faster way for their religion to die out.

The so-called Shakers tried this model. They relied on other people having children that they could adopt, in order to stay in existence. But since adoption by religious groups was banned they have dwindled down to three celibate members in one location. Otherwise the religion has totally died out.

But, back to this Nienstedt fellow. His prayer includes the supplicant saying: "Grant to us all the gift of courage to proclaim and defend your plan for marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman in a lifelong, exclusive relationship of loving trust, compassion, and generosity, open to the conception of children." (See, that last bit about conception is necessary since any sex without it is from the pits of hell, demonic and evil.)

But, what gets me is that the supplicants are telling God what his "plan for marriage" is, as if God didn't already know what he planned, and know it before Nienstedt even started running around in red dresses.

If they want to play dress-up, chant, swing stinking incense around, and pretend to manipulate the creator of the universe, that is their right. They can even imagine that they are doing so on behalf of magic men in the sky. But they are insisting that their religious delusions be the foundation of secular law. Now, given that I can't think of an institution with more sexual pathologies and problems than the Catholic Church, I really think they should mind their own fucking business. Before they start interfering in the loving relationships between adult same-sex couples, maybe they ought to stop lying about their priests raping kids. Maybe they should tell their frustrated nuns to ratchet things down a bit, put the rulers down, and leave the kid's knuckles alone. Maybe they should worry about the beam in their own eye before bitching about the splinters in the eyes of others.

Catholic Priests and Nun Steal Babies

The story is shocking. Even now as the Catholic Church is pouring money into a campaign against marriage equality in Minnesota new revelations look at the the Church in Spain literally stole babies and sold them for cash.

The BBC says that the story broke when one of the babies, now an adult, was told by his dying father that he was not actually the biological son of the man and his wife, but that he had been purchased from a Catholic priest. The man, Luis Moreno, discovered that the same thing had happened to a friend of his, Antonio Barroso.

They sought out an adoption lawyer to try and explain what happened. The attorney told them he had run into similar cases. And then the men went to the media with their story and the floodgates opened.

The Spanish government says that their investigations shows that nuns and priests did steal babies. Angel Nunez of the justice ministry said they don't how many, "But from the volume of official investigations I dare say that there were many."

The practice began under the fascist rule of Francisco Franco but continued after his death. At first, the children stolen were taken for political reasons and handed over the supporters of the regime. But soon the clergy and nuns were taking children because they considered the parents morally unfit.

Children would be taken for exams and then the mothers were told the infant died suddenly. Parents were sometimes told that they were not allowed to see the infant. One magazine report claims that one clinic kept a dead baby in a freezer and would bring it out to show grieving mothers as proof.

One doctor who was implicated threatened a journalist with a metal crucifix telling him, "I have always acted in his name. Always for the good of the children."

DNA tests have been used to find missing children, now adults, and introduce them to their real parents.

What is so truly shocking is that the Catholic Church continues to misuse its tax exempt status to mount political campaigns to attack the rights of others, in the name of preserving the family. Yet this sect has covered abuse of children by priests and engaged in child stealing in Spain. What moral authority does the Vatican actually believe it has?

Catholics, Protestants, Hispanics and Gays

First I wish to cover some poll numbers that are not surprising. Next I will follow with how a major Religious Right leader takes those numbers and makes an incredibly silly statement because of it, even by fundamentalist standards.

A survey of Californians was taken which showed that the Latino community was divided on the topic of marriage equality, with a small plurality of Latinos being supportive. But, it was found that Catholic Latinos were far more supportive of marriage rights than were Protestant Latinos. Among Catholics, 57% said they supported marriage equality while only 22% of Latino Protestants held that view.

I suspect the reason for this stark divide is that Latino Protestants tend to be fundamentalists, often Pentecostals. It is fundamentalist Protestantism that has most strongly infiltrated the Hispanic community. Non-fundamentalist Protestants tend to be Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, both extremely antigay religions. According to the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, 85% of Latino Protestants are members of fundamentalist sects.

That Hispanic Catholics tend to be supportive of marriage rights for everyone upsets the Religious Right loon Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association. (Note that fundamentalists use "family" much the way the Klan uses "race," as code for hate.) Fisher notes that a Baptist leader, Richard Land, has said he wants a way for immigrants (without permission slips) to become citizens.

Is this Southern Baptist mellowing and recognizing the common humanity of others as the source of all rights? No, not at all. His reasoning is that Hispanic values are conservative.

"Hispanics are hard-wired to be like us on sanctity of life, marriage and issues of faith," Land told CNN recently, describing political similarities between Hispanics and white Southern Baptists. "I'm concerned about being perceived as being unwelcoming to them."

Fischer says that Land thinks Hispanics "will be the natural allies of the conservative movement." In other words, Land isn't concerned about the rights of these people, just hoping to enlist them in a movement to deny other people rights and as a way of imposing "biblical" values on the country through coercive government.

But Fischer is aware of the polls showing Catholic Latinos are supportive of the rights of gay people while Protestant Latinos are the only safe enclave of bigotry that conservatives can count upon. So Fischer suggests that "perhaps Dr. Land can be persuaded to amend his recommendation and give preference to Protestant illegal aliens." But Fischer says that illegitimacy rates may show that Hispanic "pro-family values" are not "as strong... as Dr. Land wants to believe."

The idea that only Protestant immigrants should be given a path to citizenship is astounding if you think about it but consistent with the historic values of American fundamentalism. It is no accident that the virulently anti-immigration Ku Klux Klan was heavily fundamentalist in religious make up. If there has been one trend among fundamentalists over the last century is their unique ability to always hate some identifiable group. Over the years different groups have jockeyed for their attention and often the emphasis has changed but favorite targets of organized hate campaigns have been blacks, Jews, immigrants, Mexican immigrants in particular, gays, Catholics, "liberals," and feminists.

The error that Fischer and his fellow fundies make is that they equate "pro-family" with a fundamentalist morality system. Prof. Joseph Palacios, of the Center for Latin American Studies at Georgetown University said that the pro-family attitudes of Latino Catholics is precisely the reason so many support rights for gay people.

Latino Catholics orient their social lives around the family and extended family even in the context of high Latino single-parent households (estimated 33% of all U.S. Latino households; 36% of all Latino Children in California live in single-parent households). Family solidarity is strong and even though children may not follow "traditional family values" as projected by the church and the U.S. society, parents want to keep their children within the family. It is not surprising that Catholics in general and Latino Catholics in particular, as the Public Religion Research study shows, see that parents learn about gay issues from their children. Their moral and ethical judgments are primarily made through this social reality rather than abstract pronouncements from their church leaders.

While the Vatican wouldn't approve, these Catholics see marriage as a way of binding families and they want their gay relatives bound to the family as much as their straight relatives. In truth marriage equality is the pro-family position. It is fundamentalism that pushes people to reject family members and splinter families in the name of morality. Parents in fundamentalist sects are encourage to reject and cast out family members for a variety of sins including being Catholic.

One of the great ironies of modern politics is that the pro-family movement is made up of sects that are inherently anti-family. Fundamentalism puts adherence to the faith ahead of family unity. The "you're no son of mine" mentality is rampant in such circles. Daughters who get pregnant are often pushed out to fend on their own, sons who are gay are rejected and told to leave the family. Over and over high profile fundamentalists have rejected their own children because of their perceived moral shortcomings.

Fundamentalism is not pro-family at all. It is a force that rips families apart. Latino Catholics don't necessarily follow the fundamentalist moral code but they do embrace their families. And their families include homosexuals. One indication is that Catholics are more likely to listen to the views of family members regarding this issue than are fundamentalists, who are more likely to take their views from a church leader. The family, especially for Latino Catholics tends to be source for moral values, while for Protestant Latinos (read fundamentalists for the most part) tend to take religious dogma over family.

Prof. Palacios also has an observation that is of interest to my readers in particular.

It is important to note that modern Latin Catholicism has a dual nature: it is "conservative" in the sense of family communalism and tradition that the church offers, yet it is classically "liberal" in the sense of not wanting the Catholic Church to have power in political life-- particularly after the long historical experience of the Latin American Church "meddling in politics." As Mexicans put it: "No meta en la política." A sizeable majority of U.S. Latino Catholics shares these attitudes with them. Increasingly they are joining their Latin counterparts in accepting gays and lesbians as part of the social family that is both Catholic and liberal.

This is a simple truth that fundamentalists have trouble understanding. One can be supportive of basic moral values without wanting to a church/state alliance forcing people to be moral. One can be personally conservative and classically liberal politically. Just because a moral principle is a good one to follow doesn't mean that it must be imposed at the point of the gun.

Note: For the record, Argentina has now legalized gay marriage, joining Spain and Portugal and parts of Mexico, with Uruguay next most likely to include gays in marriage laws. The photo is from Argentina.

Is Catholicism a Force for Good: A debate

This is an interesting debate and I will leave comments to a minimum. First, Catholic Archbishop john Onaiyekan pretty much ignores the topic under discussion. Next Christopher Hitchens rips into Catholicism and rips into it well and good. Next a Right-wing, exMP, Ann Widdecombe, comes on to try to defend Catholicism. I must confess she has the most grating, irritating voice I've heard in a long time. This woman could torture kittens merely by speaking. She pretty much ignores what Hitchens noted and points to minor incidents contrary to what Hitchens said. So while Hitchens speaks of centuries of church approved anti-Semitism, which helped create the Holocaust, Widdecombe ignores the millions killed and mentions a few thousand who Catholics helped saved. Fine, but add up the numbers. Widdecombe pretends that the attacks on children, by priests of her faith, were ignored by everyone. Not so. In fact when these cases were being investigated the Catholic church actually tried to hide the rapists and protect them from those attempting to stop the rapes. Finally, Stephen Fry makes his case in defense of the Enlightenment and in opposition to theology and he doesn't leave the Catholics much weasel room either. I'm biased but the quality of the debate was clearly on just one side. Enjoy it. The Catholic church deserves the debate. This is about one hour, five videos.

The audience was polled in advance and 678 people said the church was a force for good, prior to the debate while 1102 said it was not a force for good and 346 were undecided. Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought Hitchens and Fry mopped up the floor with the Catholic apologists. The vote afterwards was 1862 against the motion and 268 in favor. About two-thirds of those defending Catholicism abandoned that defense. For the record my grandmother, to whom I was very close, was a devout Catholic. So I'm not against Catholics per se, but very much opposed to Catholicism and the Church.

How deep is their hate.

My experience, as a former Christian, is that no one can hate another person so thoroughly and nastily as a committed Christian. I am not saying that every Christian is that way, just that I'd be hard pressed to find anyone as hateful in the United States, who doesn't considered himself or herself to be a strong Christian. I am fairly confident that any survey asking people to rate their level of religiousity would show that as they became more fervent in their faith they also became more intolerant and bigoted.

Consider the actions of Catholics of late, by which I mean committed Catholics. Most American Catholics are not "committed" and are pretty decent people. The more in-tune with the church they are the less pleasant they are. We saw the Catholic sect pouring millions into Maine to take away marriage rights for gay couples there. Almost all the funds, to destroy marriage equality in Maine, came from outside the state and much of it was clearly handed over by the Catholic Church. I don't mean members of the church, but the church itself. Personally I think they should lose their tax exemption if they are going to pour millions into political campaigns. Other political bodies don't have the tax exemption that they have and they consume vast amounts of government resources.

Two recent incidents show the depth of hatred that strong Catholics are capable of feeling toward gay people.

Let us start with the Republican Governor of Rhode Island, Don Carcieri, a rather rabid Catholic. The state legislature passed a law to allow the surviving partner of a gay person the right to plan their partner's funeral. That is the entire piece of legislation—letting a gay person plan the funeral for the person he/she loved, who has died. Carcieri vetoed that legislation. His view is that gay people in relationships should NOT have the right to plan their partner's funeral.

Carcieri said that allowing this is part of a "disturbing trend" and that the voters of the state should have the right to make the decision. Understand what he is saying: if a same-sex couple have been together for decades, and one partner dies, the other partner is to be excluded by law from being able to plan the funeral simply because Catholic Carcieri thinks God hates homosexuals.

The law was passed when a gay man was unable to legally claim the body of his deceased partner. The body remained in state custody for weeks instead. These people hate gays so much that they won't let a gay man or woman plan their partner's funeral. The governor's veto will probably be overridden by the state legislature, thankfully. Exactly why should the right to plan a funeral for one's partner be determined by majority vote?

And for those conservatives pretending to be libertarians, who say this matter can be "privately" decided by contract, that simply was not the case. When Mark Goldberg tried to claim the body of his partner of 17 years so he could be cremated, according to his wishes, he was denied that right. "Gold said he tried to show the police and state medical examiner's office 'our wills, living wills, power of attorney and marriage certificate' from Connecticut, but 'no one was willing to see these documents." He was only allowed to handle the arrangements after several weeks and then after the state placed an ad in the paper seeking "next of kin" of the deceased, It took over a month's worth of bureaucratic fighting before he allowed to have the funeral for his partner. Imagine being forced to fight for a month just to have a funeral for your partner.

It is a fraud when these people say that they only want to "reserve" marriage to straight couples and do not wish to deny gay couples other rights. They wish to deny all rights to gays for the same reason the Nazis wanted to deny all rights to Jews. (Hating Jews was another thing the Catholic Church did so extremely well for centuries.)

Historically the Catholic Church has no right to preach about morality, having justified repressive regimes like Franco and Hitler, and having engaged in such monstrous practices as the Inquisition and the execution of heretics, "witches," and dissenters. Denied the power to actually kill people in recent decades the church instead has worked hard to help cover up for the bevy of child rapists that fill their priesthood. Of course, to divert attention from their own utterly corrupt and immoral view of the world they have focused on such "moral" issues as forbidden condoms to stop the spread of AIDS, and legislatively bashing gays.

Another example comes from Catholic Bishop Janusz Kaleta who has something to do with tourism for a city in Kazakhstan. The Bishop was asked about groups of gay tourists and their visits to the city and to the local churches. After saying it was important to encourage people from "all" walks of life to visit he explicitly indicated that gay people should not be included in any tours. He said, "such demonstrations are just not ethical." The person who was speaking to the Bishop, Juergen Steinmetz, assumed the Bishop misunderstood. He claified that these tourists were not conducting "demostrations" they were simple visitors to the city who wanted to see the sights. The Bishop replied that just being gay itself is a "provocation" to the church and an insult to the Vatican.

The Bishop said: "I consider if someone is homosexual, it is a provocation and an abuse of this place. Try to go to a mosque if you are not Muslim. It is an abuse of our building and an abuse of this place." Strange he is worried about "abuse" that exists merely from the presence of a gay person after the church has done so much to cover up real abuse of children by their own clergy.

This is how deeply the antigay hatred of the religionists goes. One Bishop of the church says that even gay people as tourists is offensive while an antigay Catholic, Republican Governor says that gay people shouldn't be allowed to plan their partner's burial without a public vote approving it.

No person's right should be subjected to majority approval. If Catholicism needed the approval of the majority to open a church, in the American South, it would never have opened a church. The rights of black people should be subjected to the votes of white majorities. The rights of Mormons should not be subjected to the vote of a Christian majority. Majorities simply ought not have the power to approve whether minorities are allowed equal rights before the law. The very idea that it should be this way is inherently authoritarian.

I find it particularly odd, or perhaps telling, that the two sects most vitriolic in their hatred of gays, the Mormons and the Catholics, have their own sexual secrets that they want so much to hide. The first was founded by anti-monogamy activists who had dozens of wives and the second group has actively worked to hide child rapists from the consequence of their actions. I suggest they are so vitriolic because they have such pasts, not in spite of them.

Theologians shouldn't tresspass on economics.

If an economist used his position to pontificate on theology the world would laugh. But when a theologian uses his credentials, in an imaginary field, to lecture on economics we are expected to pay attention.

As this blogger sees things the one institution that has no right anymore to lecture on morality is the Roman Catholic establishment. But the Vatican has been sticking its nose into the affairs of the world for centuries and won’t stop now. Consider some of the uninformed statements made by the current Vatican leader, Joseph Ratzinger, who uses the name Benedict when pretending to speak for God.

In a new encyclical on economics Ratzinger continues the Catholic tradition of opposing depoliticized, free markets. Like his predecessors he misstates what depoliticized markets are. He writes that “profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end” but if profit “is produced... without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.”

Ratzinger has been concerned with imaginary “truth” for so long that he doesn’t understand how this world works or why. Profit is a motivating factor. Each of us acts to promote our self interest—even the Catholic hierarchy. That motivation can lead to good and to bad but seeking “the common good” is more likely to lead to bad results than good. Let me explain something that the Vatican, always besotted with power, has never understood.

When profit-making is politicized it leads to bad results. When profit-making is depoliticized it leads to good results. First, consider the depoliticized market. A depoliticized market is one where individual entrepreneurs are unable to impose their will on unwilling consumers. To a large extent the local grocery store is a depoliticized market (though even here politics can distort things). This store must entice you to buy there because it has no ability to force you to purchase there.

The result is that they have to make an effort to serve your good if they wish to make a profit. Because they lack the ability to use force they need your voluntary co-operation in order to make a profit. Like them, you too are looking out for your own self-interest. You will trade with them provided you believe that you are better off making this exchange than any other trade you might make. Your decision, like theirs, is based entirely on your self-interest.

You are not attempting to increase their profits. If they profit, or not, is of no concern to you. You are merely making an exchange that you believe will benefit yourself. Similarly the store is doing the same thing. By seeking their own self-interest both are acting in ways that makes the other better off. Yet neither is seeking to improve the life of the other.

The danger comes in when concepts like the “common good” are allowed to dominate. This concept is used to politicize the market. The argument is that an unregulated market is not one where the common good dominates so individuals act in bad ways. But how? Without the ability to force other traders into unwilling exchanges there is no ability to create exchanges where one party loses.

The only way to systematically destroy the mutual benefits of free exchange is to politicize the market. Politicization means that the state will forcibly intervene into the exchanges. But what can government intervention accomplish?

It might require two individuals to exchange, who would have done so anyway. But since they would have exchanged without the intervention then government has, in fact, accomplished nothing.

It might force an exchange where neither of the parties would have made the exchange. Why didn’t they make the exchange voluntarily, in this case? The answer is: because each considered the exchange a net loss. Intervention here makes each trader worse off, not better off.

What the advocates of politicized markets really want is to force exchanges where one partner benefits and the other one loses. Ratzinger, totally ignorant of economics, believes that the political classes will use state power to force exchanges that benefit the poor and powerless. The Vatican, one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, is quite willing to use the wealth of other people to “benefit” the poor but rather unwilling to use their own wealth in that manner. They are willing to use funds donated from their members for such things but the vast holdings of the Vatican itself are not sacrificed for the “good” of the poor.

Politicized markets attract predatory individuals who use state power for their own benefit, or for the benefit of their favored friends or supporters. The poor and powerless never control the politicized power structures no matter what Ratzinger or Marx or anyone else may think. Power attracts the powerful, not the powerless. Concentrated political power, established under the pretence of the “common good” always ends up in the hands of private interests. More importantly these private interests are able to impose exchanges on individuals that they otherwise would not make.

The reality is that politicized markets can never serve the common good since they can only impose exchanges which are not wanted, not exchanges that are wanted.

What Ratzinger wants is political control over markets. He fantasizes that political power will be used according to the values he espouses. In truth, that power will be used in ways quite different from what he wants.

Ratzinger wants a state system of redistribution of wealth. How ignorant can this man be? When power is in the hands of the powerful there is real wealth redistribution. But it comes at the expense of the poor and the powerless. One of the great myths of redistributive state is that it redistributes wealth toward the needy. While there may be some show-programs which appear to help the poor and powerless, for the most part redistribution will go up the economic ladder not down.

Ratzinger continues what has been church tradition for centuries: opposition to depoliticized markets and a belief in centralized control of markets based on Catholic teaching. The Vatican has never been happy promoting their own morality on matters such as sex or economics. What they have always yearned for, and still yearn for, is for state power to coercively force Catholic moral values on others. Ratzinger wants the forced redistribution of wealth, not charity. The Vatican has consistently been unable to envision their moral agenda without the use of state power. This sort of fascistic tendency is not one the Vatican is about to give up, no matter what some “libertarian” apologists for Catholicism say.

Politician and priest, you know that's bad news.

Fernando Lugo is the president of Paraguay. He also recently fathered a child with his long-term mistress, Viviana Carrillo. When I say long-term, I mean 10 years. Ms. Carrillo is now just 26. You do the math.

In addition to Mr. Lugo having had this affair with a teen-age girl it should be noted that when the relationship started he was a Catholic bishop.

Since I never take moral guidance from priests or politicians I can't say I'm disappointed. And since I know too much about both classes of individuals I can't say I'm surprised either.

Pope Benedict IX was known to have sex with women, men and animals and filled the Vatican with prostitutes. He organized bisexual orgies. Pope Alexander VI was said to have had prostitutes dance naked for him and engage in sex acts in front of him. Pope John XII was murdered by a jealous husband who caught him in bed with his wife. Pope Innocent VIII had eight illegitimate sons but Pople Pius II allegedly had 12 such children. Pople Sixtus IV only had six illegitimate sons himself but one was with his sister. Pope Clement VII had a fondness for young boys. as did Pope Julius II. Julius III had a fondness for boys. He picked up a good-looking 14-year-old boy, Innocenzo Del Monte, on the streets as his companion and made the boy a cardinal three years later. Pope Paul II had a similar fondness and was rumored to have died while having sex with a boy. Pope Sergius III, however, preferred underaged girls while Pope Anacletus supposedly preferred his sister. Pope Paul III had a relationship with his daughter.

The moral perversion of Roman Catholicism.

I hadn’t intended to comment on the situation in Fresno, California where a priest denounced Proposition 8, the antigay initiative the Catholics and Mormons are pushing. While I thought Father Geoffrey Farrow was brave in standing up to the Bishops, who the Catholic version of the Mafia (which may be redundant).

Farrow said that he thought the church was wrong and told his congregation that he was gay. There was no indication that Farrow had violated his vow of celibacy (though I hope he does-- he could use the relief). Farrow did it because the Bishops were using their tax-exempt empire as a political recruiting ground for their campaign on Prop. 8. Farrow had received a letter ordering him to speak out against gay marriage in church. He couldn’t do that.

The forgiving, loving Church immediately took action. Farrow lost his parish, he was denied any salary and benefits and ordered to stay away from any parish where he had been a priest -- lest he influence the people who know him best. He was also ordered by the Church to have no Internet connection with anyone from the congregations. So basically they threw him out on ears.

I ignored all of that because they have a right to be assholes -- a right they indulge in frequently. They have the right to deny the priesthood to gay men (though they actually practice a policy of don’t ask, don’t tell). They have the right to decide who shall be a priest in their little ritual games and who can’t be. And while I have nothing but contempt for this Bishops and their Papa in Rome, I acknowledge their right to do what they have done.

I do think that they have no right to act as a political campaign using tax-exempt funds. If campaigning is going to be tax exempt then it should be tax exempt for everyone. Any group that engages in politics should have the same tax privileges that this Church enjoys. But that is a different matter.

What really got to me was the utter hypocrisy of the Catholic Church in this matter. The local Catholic hierarchy issued a letter attacking Farrows and said he had to be removed because he “had contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church and had brought scandal to the parish, as well as the Catholic Church.”

Get that! He brought scandal to the Church by advocate legal equality for gay people. This is the same Church that has actively covered-up for child rapists for decades, probably centuries. In parish after parish there were priests who sexually assaulted young children, using Church authority to force children into acts they did not wish to commit. That’s rape! And when these incidents came to light, in hundreds of cases, the Catholic Church merely hid these priests in other parishes allowing them to do it all over again.

We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of priests, in virtually every parish, in dozens of countries. We are talking about tens of thousands of rape victims. And we can’t find a handful of cases where the Church thought this “brought scandal” to the parish and took action. No, they covered up and left the priest in good standing. If things got hot they simply moved him to a new batch of kiddies to prey upon. They didn’t find such actions scandalous at all. They made virtually no moves to stop it for decades. But they moved damn fast when a priest opposed them on the bigoted campaign against gay couples.

Adolph Hitler died a Catholic and the Church never took action against him for anything he did. He was never excommunicated. He was never chastised publicly for bringing scandal to the Church to which he belonged. But then old Adolph only killed people who weren’t Christians, and that is something the Church had been doing for centuries. He was never disciplined but Father Farrows has been.

Once again the Catholic Church has shown the world what it’s moral priorities are. If there is anything around this campaign that is perverted it is the Catholic Church’s sense of morality. They are truly, deeply, madly perverted. And what is amazing is that they act this way with such a moral superiority to the rest of us. One could say they have balls -- and I don’t just mean those of altar boys either.

Why listen to the Bishops?

Catholic bishops in California are getting on their high horse and preaching about why gay couples should be denied marriage. They are using their unique tax-free pulpits to urge church-goers to vote for Proposition 8 which will strip gay couples of marriage rights. One might wonder if the bishops would have felt as strongly had the law legalized marriage to altar boys.

The bishops are also fund raising from the pulpit for the anti-marriage groups trying to pass the law. One has to wonder why it is that they are allowed to do this tax free? Other groups lobbying for legislation do not have that luxury. Since the Catholic Church has clearly become a political lobby then it should be treated like one. Few people, including most American Catholics, actually take the bishops seriously when it comes to moral issues. And even fewer take them seriously when it comes to political issues. Catholics are more likely to be pro-gay marriage than you typical backwoods fundamentalist.

The bishops are also going to print up literature for priests to use to attack gay marriage. So apparently the church is also in the business of printing campaign flyers. This is a full-fledged political campaign by an organization that is using a tax-exempt status that gives it an advantage over its political opponents.

At the same time, these very bishops are working insidiously to protect the massive tax-free assets of the church, so that tens of thousands of victims of abuse by these self-same protectors of morality, won't be paid the damages that courts have ruled are owed them. These bishops, and those higher in the church fiefdom, protected child rapists from prosecution. And I mean the bishops and cardinals in California in particular. And I mean rapists who forced themselves on children unable and/or unwilling to consent.

These bishops did their level best to make sure that the criminal priests involved were hidden from prosecution. Then they did their best to hide all evidence of the crimes and their role in covering up the crimes. And then they did their best to make it impossible for the victims of those crimes to collect the compensation awarded to them by the courts. And these these bloody hypocrites turn around and claim their anti-gay campaign exist because they want to "protect children" from having gay parents. They didn't give a damn about those children when they were being raped by priests but now they want to protect them from having married parents.

The Catholic Church in general, and the bishops in California in particular, have absolutely no moral standing anymore.

Let's state a few facts for these bishops since they are pretty much out of touch with it for theological reasons. Gay couples exist and will exist no matter what you think. Those couples, for various reasons and through various circumstances, will have children in their families whether you like it or not. If having married parents is good for kids then stripping these kids of the opportunity to have married parents is harming those kids. But really guys, since when did hurting kids bother you?