Panhandling and human dignity


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Alexii
Saint Alexius

Who among us has never asked for help? Who among us is so self-sufficient that they have never relied on the kindness of strangers? And when we ask for help, or lean on our friends, family or even strangers for support, have we given up our dignity, or are we simply demonstrating our humanity? What, after all, is more human than relying on our greatest strength, each other?

“There is nothing dignified about standing on street corners, or venturing into the middle of the street, dressed in dirty, shabby clothes, in all sorts of weather, with a crude cardboard sign, begging passersby for help,” wrote Bishop Thomas Tobin in a letter to the Providence Journal last week, but he was wrong. Dignity, the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect, is, by Catholic principle, “inherent and inviolable.” Human dignity has been called the “cornerstone of all Catholic social teaching.”

Humanists affirm the dignity of every human being. A cornerstone Humanist document is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 1 states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” No distinction is made in the declaration based on class or property.

I’ll avoid the sexist term “brotherhood” (the Declaration was written in 1948 after all) and call it our “spirit of kinship.” This idea, that we are one large human family, reminds us to rely on each other when things go wrong in our lives. Our kinship is a fundamental part of what makes us human, and without it, our society and our lives fracture.

Through this fracturing, people end up on the street, homeless, hungry and alone with their demons. The truth of human dignity means that it should not be the responsibility of the downtrodden to ask for our help. Our own human dignity requires us to offer it.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also affirms the human right to expression, the human right to freely move within our cities and as a consequence, affirms our right to ask for assistance.

“The problems [associated with panhandling] have spread since Mayor Jorge Elorza, responding to the threat of action from the American Civil Liberties Union and others, directed that the police should no longer enforce ordinances dealing with panhandling and loitering,” said Tobin in his letter. “The ACLU, while presumably well-intentioned, has done no one a favor.”

In defending the human and constitutional rights of panhandlers, the ACLU respected human dignity in a way Bishop Tobin seems unprepared to do. The “favor” the ACLU did was to remind us that rather than sweeping people in need out of sight, it is far better to provide the things they need to live their lives comfortably.

Some religious leaders understand this, but many others don’t get it, even as they wonder why their moral authority is crumbling.

Tobin’s tactics move Catholics backwards


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

tobinWhen Bishop Thomas Tobin cracks his whip on Catholic politicians, it doesn’t serve his cause well. Remember when he manged to make a martyr out of even Congressman Patrick Kennedy?

Tobin hasn’t denied Democratic nominee Gina Raimondo communion, but the Republican bishop did offer a passive rebuke to the Catholic candidate for governor after she won the endorsement of Planned Parenthood. He didn’t mention her by name, but the timing left little doubt.

The very reason Catholics were distrusted in this country in the 1800s and the early 1900s is because Catholics were presumed to be anti-democratic in their allegiance to a foreign king (the Pope) and it was assumed that they would attempt to impose their Catholic values on everyone in the event that they achieved political power. As a result, Catholic politicians invariably hit a ceiling in their careers a few steps before the presidency, unable to convince a majority of Americans nation wide that they could be trusted.

It was John Kennedy who broke this trend, when he gave his famous speech to a meeting of Texas Baptists in which he said that his allegiance was to America, and that the wall of separation between church and state must be high and strong. In bucking the tradition established by JFK, Tobin seeks to take Catholicism back to a time when it was politically irrelevant.

We do not live in a Catholic theocratic state. Most Rhode Islanders, by a factor of 8 to 1, support a woman’s right to make her own decisions regarding her reproductive health care, including abortion. Many religious traditions are not in agreement with the Catholic Church on reproductive rights issues. It would be unconstitutional for government to favor the Catholic heirarchy’s position on this issue, and foolish of us to pay Tobin’s declarations much mind when we can’t be sure if he is expressing himself religiously or politically.

Most of us are better than our religion


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Father "Rocky" Hoffman
Father “Rocky” Hoffman

Adherents and non-adherents alike manage to ignore a major contradiction at the heart of modern Catholicism: The church functions as a patriarchal medieval organization within and alongside our secular social democracy. Unlike protestant churches that democratically decide on organizational structure and call or dismiss pastors as needed, Catholics have their leaders thrust upon them without their say or consent. Certainly the laity have a voice within the church, but that voice is only consul, and the final word rests always and exclusively with the hierarchy.

For the most part people politely ignore the odder aspects of modern Catholicism. We tend to put out of our minds the images we have seen of powerful community and business leaders, as well as elected Senators and Representatives, genuflecting before robed bishops and cardinals to deferentially kiss their rings. We dismiss this submissive medievalism as simply an expression of cultural identity, like the Scottish kilt or Canadian politeness. Only occasionally are we confronted with the full force of the true anti-democratic, anti-Enlightenment values espoused by the Catholic hierarchy, and even then we only seem to really get it when there are kids involved.

When Father Rocky Hoffman took the stage at Prout School as part of a Relevant Radio program to answer kid’s questions about Catholic doctrine, medievalism clashed with our modern values as regards our children’s wellbeing. Catholic teachings around divorce, adoption and LGBTQ issues openly clashed with the real world sensibilities of Catholic parents who do not agree with the totality of the Church’s teachings. Perhaps even more put out by Father Hoffman’s appearance were those non-Catholic parents who send their kids to Catholic schools for reasons that are not religious. Catholic teachings, it turns out, are not as innocuous as they were lead to believe.

Hoffman explained the current church teachings on such things as divorce and homosexuality. It turns out, surprise! that the conservative Catholic Church is against these things. They are also opposed to woman being ordained as priests, birth control, abortion under any circumstance, and masturbation.

A lot is being made of the fact that Hoffman is a member of Opus Dei, the secretive ultra-conservative branch of the Church featured as villains in Dan Brown potboilers, complete with Albino assassins and personal torture devices. Though it would be convenient to say that Hoffman is an extremist and that his views are far to the right of what the church believes, the truth is that Hoffman’s views are only extreme when compared to those of modern Americans. His answers to students seem doctrinally correct. As one Catholic blogger noted, “Another ‘c’atholic High School blows up when they hear the truth about Catholic teaching.”

The real truth, however, is that most Catholics are better than the teachings of their church and better than the views that are expressed by the Catholic hierarchy. Most Catholics are accepting of their LGBTQ brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. They know that prejudice and ignorance have destroyed families and ruined lives. Most Catholics not only believe that birth control should be legal and available, well over 95% of Catholics have used it. Most Catholics also believe that abortion is a decision best left to the woman dealing with pregnancy.

I understand when Catholics with more traditional mindsets dispute the validity of Catholics who deviate from the church’s official teachings. I sometimes hear such people referred to as CINOs (Catholics in Name Only). I prefer to call such people Cultural Catholics. They usually have deep family histories in and appreciation for the trappings of the Catholic Church. They attend mass every Easter, and mark important life events, such as birth through baptism, coming of age through confirmation, the beginning of a family through weddings, and the end of life through funerals via the traditions and liturgy of the church.

Cultural Catholics might openly dispute the entire mythology of the church. They may doubt the divinity or even the existence of Jesus, and they may well be atheists. It might be difficult for those who, like me, left Catholicism long ago to understand why those who dispute the church’s teachings and reason for existence continue to support their local Catholic Church financially and socially. Likely, there is no one reason, but a stew of the following by no means exhaustive list: the concerns of immediate and extended family, a sense of tradition, a sense of hewing to public perceptions and shared community and experience.

On the other side are the more traditional and conservative Catholics who have no problem with the church’s teachings and would prefer those who only attend mass sporadically and do not really agree with some of Catholicism’s social teachings to either get with the program or get out.

Caught in the middle of these two extremes are the cafeteria Catholics who muddle through, picking and choosing what they want and leaving the rest. This works for some, but for others this situation becomes impossible when it involves children. Few parents want to raise their children as anti-LGBTQ bigots. Few people want to throw away a lifelong friendship because a friend or family member is engaged in an LGBTQ relationship or lifestyle. Few of us want our children to be bullied, or become bullies.

So when Rocky Hoffman brought his doctrinally sound message that LGBTQ people are sinful and that divorce destroys not only a family but the love of a parent for a child, he is attacking a set of values that run deeper than those the church wants to represent. These are the values that link us to our family and friends in ways that are deeper than any relationship to some distant God. These values are humanistic: the love of a parent for a child, the bond between friends that cannot be broken based on how we pursue our sexual attractions, and our commitment to having the right amount of children for our family, properly spacing pregnancies and limiting the total number of children we seek to have.

Deep down, when it really counts, the vast majority of us are better than our church, better than our faith and better than our Gods. It sometimes takes an event like the one at Prout to make us realize that.

Distributism and the riddle of libertarian Catholicism


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Dorothy Day
Dorothy Day

Dorothy Day is a woman on her way to sainthood in the Roman Catholic Church, a title she never desired. “Don’t call me a saint. I don’t want to be dismissed so easily,” she said, and many believe that “she would rather have any money spent on her canonization given to the poor.”

Whatever Dorothy Day was, she was not a tool of the rich and powerful. She advocated for the economic idea of distributism, an economic theory in opposition to both capitalism and socialism based on principles of Catholic social teachings. Pope Francis touched on distributism in his recent statements on what he called the “economy of exclusion and inequality” in his Evangelii Gaudium, taking to task those who avoid paying their fair share in taxes.

Given the historical, rhetorical and theological power of Catholics in opposition, why do some Catholics so strongly identify with libertarian ideas such as unfettered free markets and small government?

Catholic author John Zmirak provides interesting insight into this question. It has to do with the Catholic Church’s inability to overcome the protections of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state:

In an American context, given our constitutional heritage and the large body of legal decisions solidifying its interpretation, on nearly any issue, Christians of any denomination should reject the assistance of the State. [italics in original] Our efforts to capture it, the courts have made it clear, will always fail. Any attempt to infuse the activity of the government with the moral content of a revealed religion will be rejected, in the end.

If libertarian leaning Catholics cannot control the government, then Zmirak wants to minimize state power to negligible levels.

It seems clear that the public sphere in America is irretrievably secular. So the only logical response of Christians must be to try to shrink it. Instead of attempting to baptize a Leviathan which turned on us long ago, we’d do much better to cage and starve the beast. We should favor low taxes—period, regardless of the “good” use to which politicians promise to put it. We should oppose nearly every government program intended to achieve any aim whatsoever.

Perhaps this provides an insight into why Justin Katz can say “on the issue of legalizing marijuana I personally don’t have an issue with it” yet then argue against legalization. Money made through taxing marijuana will help to fund the government, not starve it. Remember that Christians, according to Zmirak, “…should oppose nearly every government program intended to achieve any aim whatsoever.”

What should be worrisome is the anti-American, anti-Constitutional at the core of this argument. Zmirak ends his piece with, “In many cultural contexts, the State can fruitfully employ its power to promote the faith and morals held in common by a community. But that can’t happen here. Not in America. Several of our Founders, and generations of our lawyers, have seen to that.”

A secular state that protects the right of conscience, freedom of (and from) religion and  separation of church and state does not serve those who seek to impose their theocratic ideas on others. Those in opposition to such freed seek to diminish the government, and in turn weaken the protections such a government provides.

Bishop Tobin was wrong to critique Nelson Mandela


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

TobinBishopThomasEven the staunchest atheists know that upon our deaths a being possessed with absolute moral certitude will stand in judgement over us, and no matter how honorably we serve the best urges of our conscience, we know that unless we align ourselves absolutely with the values of the judge, we will be found wanting, and damned. Fortunately, the judge I am referring to is Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Providence Diocese in Rhode Island, a man with doubtful supernatural and ever waning temporal influence.

In his December 5th “Statement of Bishop Tobin on the Death of Nelson Mandela” Tobin showered the great human rights leader with false praise before calling the deceased leader to task for “his shameful promotion of abortion in South Africa.” Mandela earned Tobin’s admonishment by promoting and signing into law a bill that “replaced one of the world’s toughest abortion laws with one of the most liberal.”

It has long been known that Tobin’s anti-abortion ideology has blinded him to the fact that good and decent people can come to different conclusions as to the morality of abortion. That is why most Americans see the issue as a decision best made by the pregnant woman, in consultation with her doctor, and want to live in a society where abortion and birth control are safe, legal and available.

Further, most Americans recognize that if we as a society really want to decrease the number of abortions performed in this country, then we ought to be working to promote the economic well being of women and investing resources into women’s health initiatives. Instead of championing these common sense ideas, Bishop Tobin and his RI Right to Life puppet show work on reducing the public’s ability to access health care by attempting to tear down HealthsourceRI or engaging in silly and unconstitutional theatrics involving license plates.

A while back, the monomaniacal Christian attitude towards issues like abortion was diagnosed as an “illness.”

The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances… the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?

The person making this diagnosis was Pope Francis, talking about the extremes of right wing religious ideology. Francis opined that such attitudes are worse “when this Christian is a priest, a bishop or a Pope.”

Not that the Pope is above reproach. His recent statements on economic inequality, as welcome as they are in many ways, still ignore one of the greatest obstacles towards the elimination of poverty in the developing world, which is women’s inability to access decent reproductive healthcare, including abortion. As long as women are shackled to the demands of unwanted childbirth, they are less free to pursue economic wellbeing for themselves and their families. Francis might want to take some of his own advice, and reevaluate the Church’s stand on important reproductive rights issues. Even a softening of the rules on condoms and other forms of birth control would have amazing and positive repercussions world wide.

No human is perfect, even a person as universally revered as Nelson Mandela has faults, failings, misdeeds and wrongs easily attached to their legacy. But Mandela’s support for abortion rights in South Africa is not one of them. Guaranteeing South African women access to reproductive healthcare has freed countless families from the kind of crushing poverty large families might face and saved the lives of thousands of women who might have died accessing illegal abortions.

The South African law, according to the NY Times, assures that, “women and girls will be entitled to a state-financed abortion on demand during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy if they have no private medical insurance, and, subject to widely defined conditions, for a further eight weeks.” Even minors are allowed to access abortion under this law, without being mandated to gain consent from their families or, as is the case in Rhode Island, from a judge.

In South Africa, because of Nelson Mandela’s forward thinking respect for the rights of all persons, the decision as to whether or not to have an abortion lies solely with the pregnant woman (or girl).

This is as it should be.

Thoughts concerning bishops and bears


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

TobinBishopThomasBishop Tobin has politically positioned himself as a Republican and a Catholic, and his recent criticisms of Pope Francis, though mild to my ears, continue to provoke discussion among the faithful across the nation. Most of the discussion seems to revolve around Tobin’s politicization of his position as the Bishop of Providence Diocese.  I originally covered the National Catholic Reporter’s take on the issue here, along with Tobin’s comments.

Todd Flowerday, writing on the blog Catholic Sensibility, thinks that Tobin might be thinking locally while the Pope thinks globally:

Perhaps Bishop Tobin, recent Republican convert, is thinking too much in terms of American politics. US Catholics make up a single-digit percentage of the flock Francis now pastors. Is it realistic to expect that the man will conform to the American values of the political pro-life movement: confrontation, contention, fundraising, deception, and the striving to yell louder than the other side?

Supporting Tobin, Fr. Z’s Blog goes after the National Catholic Reporter writer Michael Sean Winters saying that “you don’t have to protect Popes from criticism” and “were the Michael Sean Winters types in charge, the college of bishops around Pope Francis would look like a meeting of North Korea’s Communist Party.”

David Cruz-Uribe, writing for Vox Nova, runs down some of this and also notes that some conservative Catholic blogs are seeing Tobin’s statements as a sort of conservative backlash against the current Pope.  However, the main point of the Vox Nova piece is that Tobin has essentially opened the floodgates for sending criticism up the Catholic hierarchy. Cruz-Uribe thinks this is an unintentional and positive development of Tobin’s comments, noting that not inviting open, constructive and respectful criticism smacks of obsequiousness, saying “we can criticize someone even if we love and respect him/her.”

The Vox Nova piece ends with “Let us pray that all bishops have both the courage to speak openly and respectfully, and that they have the humility and openness to listen and reflect when they are on the receiving end of similar critiques.”

Will Tobin be open to such criticism from the priests under his leadership? Tobin, in some way, seems to consider himself a prophet, and prophets historically are good at giving criticism, not taking it. Responding to a question about the heat he took in the aftermath of the passage of marriage equality on the opening episode of Dan Yorke’s State of Mind Tobin said,

Yeah, I did take a lot of heat but that’s part of the challenge of being a prophet. In some ways that is the prophetic role of the church to challenge evil where we find it, where we see it, to challenge those in positions of political leadership. The church has a long history even going back to the Old testament where prophets challenge the kings of Israel, and John the Baptist and Thomas More and many of the great apostles and prophets and saints throughout history have played that role of challenging evil where we think it exists.

I’m reminded of Second Kings, 2:23-24, when the Prophet Elisha was insulted by some children for being bald.

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

The lesson? Watch what you say about prophets or you might be targeted by wild bears.

Tobin interviewed by Catholic press on party switch


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

tobinThe National Catholic Register has a new interview with Bishop Thomas Tobin regarding his recent change of party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. In the interview Tobin downplays the importance of his political affiliation pointing out “I made a point of saying that, as a Catholic, my baptismal certificate was more important than party affiliation” while conceding that “the state Republican Party caucus also unanimously approved same-sex ‘marriage.'”

On the apparent softening of the Roman Catholic Church’s message regarding LGBTQ issues due to recent statements by Pope Francis, Tobin said, “The message hasn’t changed, but the messenger has.” In other words, according to Tobin it’s the same old church with a shiny new boss.

There’s nothing explosive or game changing in the interview, but it does manage to provide a peek into the carefully worded worldview of one of Rhode Island’s most powerful and outspoken religious leaders.

Costa crossed line when she asked church to punish pols


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

doreen-costaRep. Art Handy is “stunned” that Rep. Doreen Costa thinks Bishop Thomas Tobin should look for ways to punish Catholic politicians who support marriage equality, according to a press release sent out by the Democratic Party this afternoon.

“I am appalled that she is asking the Church to punish so many good Catholic people who support the civil rights of the gay community,” Handy, a Cranston Democrat, said in the release. “Unfortunately, her feelings are very symbolic of the Tea Party and right-wing thinking that is so prevalent within the state’s Republican Party Leadership.

“Although I obviously disagree, I respected the Church’s right to oppose my legislation,” Handy said. “However, it crosses the line for a party leader to call for active involvement of the Church in partisan politics.”

“Representative Costa needs to be reminded that her own Minority Leader, Brian Newberry, whom she supports, voted for marriage equality, as did the entire five-member Senate Republican delegation,” Handy said. “Is she looking for the Catholic Church to punish her own party members who voted in favor of this legislation?”

UPDATE: According to a story in the Providence Journal, Costa said her comments had nothing to do with marriage equality.

 

Sistare says he didn’t deny Pryeor communion


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Father Brian Sistare, the priest at Sacred Heart Parish in Woonsocket, responded during mass on Sunday to allegations that he told gay married congregants they could not receive communion unless they ended their marriages and that he is using his position with the church to campaign against proponents of same sex marriage.

You can listen to him here:

After the service, I asked Sistare if he wanted to talk more about it. He declined, but said he felt it was inaccurate to suggest that he had denied gay married parishioners communion when he had simply told them they could not get communion until they were no longer married.

 

Gay Catholics in Woonsocket denied communion

Pierre Laveillee, left, and Lew Pryeor are legally married gay Catholics who were told they could no longer receive communion.
Pierre Laveillee, left, and Lew Pryeor are legally married gay Catholics who were told they could no longer receive communion.

While many gay Rhode Islanders gained a new right last week, Lew Pryeor and Pierre Leveillee lost one yesterday.

The Catholic couple from Woonsocket was told by their priest, Rev. Brian Sistare of Sacred Heart, that he would  no longer give them communion at Sunday service.

“I have been a Catholic all my life,” Pryeor told me yesterday after he was informed of Sistare’s decision to deny them the sacrament. “I like to go to church and light a candle for my family. Now, I feel like I can’t do that anymore.”

Pryeor and Leveillee have been together for 34 years and were married in 2007. The couple moved to Woonsocket two years ago. He said they were always accepted at the other local Catholic churches they have attended in Warwick and West Warwick over the years.

His new church in Woonsocket, Pryor said, “is pushing people away when they should be reaching out. They may not agree with me, but they shouldn’t throw rocks at me.”

The couple will leave Sacred Heart and look for a more accepting Catholic church in Woonsocket.

Pryeor went to Sacred Heart on Monday to talk to Sistare about his politically conservative sermons. After suggesting that Sistare not alienate parishioners with the priest’s personal politics,  Pryeor said Sistare informed him that he would not give him communion anymore because his marriage to Leveillee is not recognized by the church.

Pryor said the priest told him he would give him communion if he ended his marriage to Laveilee.

Sistare, who could not immediately be reached for comment, is new at Sacred Heart, said Pryeor, who has been taking issue with his new priest’s politically-charged sermons.

Pryeor been posting on Facebook about Sistare’s sermons. From Sunday, July 28:

ok pierre and i went to church today .. new young priest at the Sacred heart church . Instead of saying how we all should follow the ways of the Pope, reaching out to everyone , He talked about the Governor again.. All right already not everyone likes Chafee but instead of showing negativity towards someone due to their beliefs try to reach out to those that are lost are needing help.

And this from Sunday, August 3:

mass was ok today but What political party was my priest refering to as a party that is wrong for thinking the rich should give up some of there money.

Pryeor and Leveillee have been congregants at Sacred Heart since moving to Woonsocket two years ago. Pryeor organized the annual church festival. They live one block from the church and bring their grandchildren to mass. Pryeor said he and Leveillee have been congregants at Catholic churches in both Warwick and West Warwick before moving to Woonsocket and their relationship and their love has always been accepted by other priests.

Other gay couple who attend Sacred Heart have posted on Pryeor’s Facebook posts that they, too, have been told they would not be offered communion.

Catholics believe that the Sacrament of Communion – eating unleavened bread blessed by a priest – is akin to eating the body of Jesus, who they believe is the son of god born of a virgin birth.  Devout Catholics believe communion should not be given to sinners until they repent.

The church has a legal right to deny anyone any part of their ritual it sees fit. But preaching politics from the pulpit may be another matter. As a tax-exempt organization, church’s have a legal obligation not to use their non-profit status to push its leaders’ personal politics on its parishioners.

Sistare is also a part of the campus ministry at Mount St. Charles Academy in Woonsocket. He’s also on Twitter, where he follows many conservative politicians and FOX News personalities. In January,  tweeted this to Gov. Chaffee:

@LincolnChafee Do RI a favor & go take a job w/ Abomination adm. in DC. Will have to answer to God w/ your support of abortion and sodomy!

Secular reasoning applied to Catholic culture


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

tobinOn Saturday evening Bishop Tobin delivered an address at the Portsmouth Institute’s Catholicism and the American Experience seminar entitled, “Evangelization in a Secular Age.” The piece is an interesting look at the evangelization strategies of a church facing declining membership, but I want to concentrate on part three of Tobin’s talk, “The Context of Evangelization.” Tobin here attempts to answer the question of “What is the context in which we evangelize today?”

It is interesting that Tobin uses the word “context,” which he seems to define as “culture,” that is, American culture in general, which Tobin sees as rather uniform and undifferentiated. I think America is better understood as many different cultures unified and balanced by a series of ideas, laws and mores. Catholics represent just one of many, specifically religious cultures, and a single individual could conceivably be a member of several different cultures at the same time. For instance, a person might be a Catholic, a veteran, a banker and a member of the PTA, and each of these affiliations carries cultural pressures and significance.

Tobin eschews this understanding for something more universal and much less accurate, saying, “I don’t think there’s any doubt that our culture… is becoming more obviously and proudly more secular and atheistic than in the past.”

I would counter that the trouble is that less and less people are identifying themselves as members of Tobin’s preferred culture, just as there are less and less people identifying themselves as members of any religious group, but to say American culture is more or less secular is wrong.

America is just as secular as it has always been.

You see, all the different cultures I talked about above, and hundreds if not thousands more besides, interact in our country without too much violence or mayhem because they are all contained within a larger secular framework. To call this framework “culture” is like calling a large building empty of people and equipment a “hospital.” Tobin sees the secular framework that binds our cultures together and establishes the rules for peaceful coexistence as our culture, but this is inaccurate. Tobin mistakes the cardboard box for the cereal.

I would posit that Tobin intuitively understands this and uses the word “context” precisely because the word “culture” is ill-suited to label the larger secular framework when he says things such as, “…there’s little doubt that the context in which we seek to proclaim the Gospel and share the faith of the Church is as secular and atheistic, and therefore as apathetic, as ever.” (Emphasis mine)

Tobin’s use of the word atheistic is accurate, strictly speaking. The secular framework of American society takes no position on supernatural claims and is “a-” or “without” a position on “-theos,” or gods. It is silent on the issue, because room needs to be made for all sorts of different cultural interpretations regarding supernatural beliefs. The alternative is to construct a non-secular framework, a container for our various cultures that preferences one set of cultures and beliefs over another. The Bishop makes no secret over the fact that he would prefer a framework that favors his beliefs and culture, but surely he must realize that such a system would be deeply unfair to anyone of a different culture, with different beliefs.

Tobin routinely slips between the words “secular” and “atheistic” in describing the present state of what he defines as American culture. The two terms are in some ways related but are not synonymous. Many deeply religious people, including Catholics, consider secularism to be an important guarantor of our individual rights of conscience. The Rhode Island Council of Churches, representing a broad collation of Christian and non-Christian beliefs, overwhelmingly voted to support marriage equality.  I know for a fact that many who voted to support the legislation personally believe that acting upon sexual attraction between same-sex persons is sinful and wrong. But these individuals understand the importance of secularism, even if they reject atheism. For Tobin to routinely equate the two terms is disingenuous.

In the third section of Tobin’s talk the bishop also fall prey to his habit of insulting atheists. Tobin’s relates the following parable:

A number of years ago, while still in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, I was invited to attend a picnic, a surprise 30th birthday party for one of our former seminarians. When I arrived at the picnic site I got out of my car, and was greeted by a beautiful little girl, about 7 years old I’d say, with blond hair and sparkling blue eyes. When I stepped out of the car she ran to me, looked at me straight in the eye and said, “I don’t know you… I don’t like you… and who invited you anyway?”

Obviously those words have scarred me; have left a permanent mark on my psyche.

But if you think about it, isn’t that what the secular world, the culture says to us whenever we, as people have faith, try to engage in the popular discussion and share our faith and values with others. They say to us: “I don’t know you… I don’t like you… and who invited you to this discussion anyway?”

Note what Tobin does here. Those who oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church and insist on a secular framework do not do so for any kind of valid reasons or with any kind of deep reflection or thought. These secularists and atheists, Tobin says, are like ignorant and selfish seven year olds, lacking in wisdom, maturity, courtesy, and knowledge. They jump to instant conclusions based on instinct and first impressions, and immaturely believe that they have the right to vocalize their narcissistic opinions to their cultural, privileged superiors.

Earlier in his piece, Tobin wondered if the growing irreligiosity of our culture might be due to “the failure of the leaders of the Church to adequately preach and teach.” Tobin should understand that if the preaching and the teaching is couched in disingenuous wordplay, misapplications of facts and insults towards your target audience, then failure is assured.

How the right pushes for exemptions to equality


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

marriage equality RallyMarriage equality advocates took lot of hope from April 8th’s front page ProJo article in which Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed anticipated “a full Senate vote on whether to legalize same-sex marriage by the end of April.”  Good news indeed, but one needs to continue reading for the unpleasant bit.

Paiva Weed is concerned that the bill’s religious exemptions may be inadequate, and would like to see more comprehensive exemptions. But if marriage equality is the goal, and so-called conscience clauses allow same-sex couples to be discriminated against by wedding photographers, bakeries, flower shops and rental halls, then in what sense will gay marriage be equal?

A sense can be formed of Paiva Weed’s thoughts on this issue. The ProJo reports that Paiva Weed feels that one of the “better explanations” she’s read regarding exemptions was an op-ed piece by Robin Fretwell Wilson, a Washington & Lee University law professor. Fretwell Wilson criticized the Rhode Island House bill for providing only “fake protections,” arguing that “religious liberty and same-sex marriage share an inseparable fate.”

Reading Fretwell Wilson’s piece one might come to the conclusion that the marriage equality legislation under consideration does nothing to protect organized religion. Fretwell Wilson completely ignores the fact that Rhode Island has a robust set of laws already on the books that provide some of the strongest religious liberty and conscience protections in the United States.

Janson Woo, and attorney with GLAD, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, in his testimony before the Senate, explained that “Senate Bill 38 and current Rhode Island Law provide broader exemptions for religious organizations than any other state in this country that allows gay couples to marry.” How is this possible? “Current Rhode Island law already has a complete exemption for religious organizations in our sexual orientation and discrimination law.”

Woo continued, “That is an incredibly broad exemption. It is one of the broadest in our country, and even if that were not ample or broad enough for the protection of religious organizations and the protection of religious liberty, Rhode Island also has the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, or RFRA, which provides additional protections and greater protections than the Federal Constitution [for religious freedoms].”

So why would Fretwell Wilson, who certainly seems to know a thing or two about the law, mis-characterize both the Senate bill and Rhode Island’s long standing commitment to conscience and religious freedom? Perhaps it is because she is part of the “mainstream academic presence” aligned with “Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C., and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).”

A March, 2013 report entitled “Redefining Religious Liberty: The Covert Campaign Against Civil Rights” by Jay Michaelson for the Political Research Associates describes “A highly active, well-funded network of conservative Roman Catholic intellectuals and evangelicals” that “are waging a vigorous challenge to LGBTQ and reproductive rights by charging that both threaten their right-wing definition of “religious liberty.”

The report is comprehensive, well-sourced, and names names. It specifically identifies Robin Fretwell Wilson as being part of a “regular consortium” of scholars who “make highly conservative political arguments, send letters to state legislators, and take direct roles in the drafting of legislation. These academics may well believe that religious liberty is threatened, but their work has been enlisted by a mass movement of seeking to end access to reproductive health care and restrict the civil rights of sexual and gender minorities.” (emphasis mine)

Paiva Weed may also truly believe that she is advocating for religious liberty when she buys into the arguments of the religious right, but she is mistaken. These new calls for “religious liberty” are really calls for the right to discriminate based on gender identity and sexual preference.

In yesterday’s ProJo Bernard Healey, chief lobbyist for the Providence Catholic Diocese, regurgitated these fallacious arguments in an attempt to twist the meaning of religious liberty into its exact opposite.

Schools, health-care facilities and a hospital that are operated by the diocese and “employ thousands of people” would be subject to new rules, some of which violate the diocese’s long-held beliefs, he said. [Healey] pointed to a case in New York, which approved same-sex marriage in 2011, in which a lesbian employee of a Catholic hospital is suing for family benefits.

“If you look in the civil code of Rhode Island, how many times is marriage listed,” Healey said. “It’s not just in the marriage section, it’s in business law, it’s in rental law, it’s in employment law, it’s everywhere. … If that bill that passed in the House is put into law, we would be subject to all types of harassments, lawsuits, litigations.”

Healey makes the extraordinary claim that denying lesbian employees of Catholic hospitals family health benefits is “a long held religious belief.” Healey further claims that his right to discriminate against certain families is being threatened by the marriage equality law. Healey wants the right to open a business, and then discriminate against those his religion deems unworthy of his goods and services. In Healey’s case, this means that LGBTQ citizens need not apply, but other religions might have other ideas, and if their religion demanded different forms of discrimination, the exemptions to the law Healey demands should apply to them as well.

Judge Leon Bazile, in ruling on the Loving v. Virginia case, wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on different continents… The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.” Surely this is a “long held religious belief” and under Healey’s logic should be protected by law. Why should we favor Healey’s desire to discriminate over Bazile’s?

Are not both views equally obscene?

As Michaelson explains:

…there should be no mistake: the Right’s “religious liberty” campaign is a key front in the broader culture war designed to fight the same social battles on new-sounding terms, and is part of a movement with old roots in Christian Dominionism (a form of theocracy) and ties to conservative Catholics who launched the antichoice movement. Its deliberate inversion of victim-oppressor dynamic has led to limits on women’s and LGBTQ people’s real freedoms in the name of defending chimerical ones. Proponents may sincerely believe that they are defending religious freedom, but the campaign’s endgame is a “Christian nation” defined in exclusively conservative terms.

And it is thus far inadequately opposed.

Tobin Urges State To Wait For Marriage Equality


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Marriage Equality in Rhode Island is going to happen.

The forces fighting against the rising tide of love and equality are starting to realize this. Yesterday election forecasting wunderkind Nate Silver had a piece in the New York Times that crunched the numbers and came to a conclusion that should give pause to opponents: marriage equality is almost certain to be the law of the land in the United States by 2020.

Knowing that this battle cannot be won leaves opponents of marriage equality with nothing but tactics that will delay the inevitable. Hence today’s press release from Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Providence Diocese. Tobin knows that society is moving past his medieval views on the subject one way or the other. Nate Silver demonstrates that merely the turnover in population is enough to make the acceptance of gay marriage inevitable as the older generation is replaced with its younger, more tolerant descendants. No one needs to change their minds on the issue for marriage equality to eventually dominate public opinion.

Tobin said:

In light of the historic deliberations of the U.S. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage, it would be appropriate for the General Assembly of Rhode Island to defer any action on this critical issue for the time being. Any legislative action that is taken now could very well be rendered completely null and void by the decision of the Supreme Court expected this June. It is likely that the Supreme Court will decide this matter for us, one way or another. Let’s wait to see what the highest court of the land says about this issue which is so very important to many Rhode Islanders.

Asking the General Assembly to put the issue off until the Supreme Court decides the case this summer essentially scuttles the bill. If the Supreme Court were to issue a wide ruling making marriage equality the law nationwide, perhaps little would be lost. But the Court might decide to narrowly rule on Prop 8, limiting the decision to California, which effectively delays marriage equality in Rhode Island for another year.

That’s right, another year of State House rallies, all night House and Senate Judiciary Committee meetings rehashing the same arguments from both sides of the issue, and more division and hostility in our state.

Here is the response from Rev. Gene Dyszlewski, chair of the Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality:

With all due respect to His Excellency, neither case before the Supreme Court has any bearing on the decision of the General Assembly to make marriage available to all loving, committed couples in Rhode Island,” said Rev. Dyszlewski. “This is another in a long string of delay tactics — seeking to stall the strong momentum of marriage equality legislation — by those who oppose allowing all families to access the dignity and respect of marriage. The fact is, no decision issued by the Court will render ‘null and void’ any state legislature’s ability to grant the freedom to marry to all its citizens.

“We respect the Senate process, and are appreciative the Judiciary Committee is continuing to consider the testimony from last week’s unprecedented 12-hour long hearing. We are still engaging in thoughtful and productive conversations with all members of the Senate.
“This is a holy week for many Rhode Islanders, as we gather around Seder tables and paschal candles. I, for one, will pray for our elected leaders in the General Assembly, that they may hear God’s call to love one another, as He loves us.”

Tobin made some news a couple of weeks ago when he came out in favor of Senator Ciccone’s bill that would put the issue on the ballot. Once again, Tobin seeks only to delay the inevitable. The bill could not be placed on the ballot until the next election, and even if the bill were to pass, Tobin promises to “vigorously oppose efforts to redefine the institution of marriage in Rhode Island.”

Let’s face it, Tobin won’t change his mind on this issue by popular vote. The vigorous opposition may come in the form of judicial challenges that might delay the implementation of marriage quality for many more years, or with the endless introduction of bills that might seek to impose limits on same-sex marriage.

An honest player in public debate presents his or her case earnestly and forcibly, depending on the process to arrive at the best possible outcome. Gaming the system with last minute bills to place the issue on the ballot or suggesting the issue be tabled pending a Supreme Court decision is simply political theater calculated to stymie and delay the process to the detriment of everyone.

This issue demands a clean up or down vote from the Senate.

Catholics Should Focus on Christ, Not Holiday Decorations


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Image courtesy of Turnto10.com

Christmas tree, holiday tree … whatever you want to call it, it has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity and the religious connections to the season. So why is Bishop Tobin so eager to weigh in on this media-fueled dust up?

I would think the leader of the Catholic Church would use his ever-shrinking pool of political capital during the holidays to advocate for keeping Christ in Christmas, not symbols of the solstice that secular celebrations took from pagans.

Did anyone hear Bishop Tobin mention the baby Jesus on his media tour de force yesterday?

For that matter, does anyone think Jesus – if he were alive and a political pundit today – would be siding with Bill O’Reilly, John DePetro and Bishop Tobin over Linc Chafee on this one? Like it or not, conservative Christians, but Jesus was a progressive and he’d likely think the governor’s efforts to be as inclusive as possible are pretty righteous.

Here’s Bishop Tobin talking about the tree, and me countering his points, on WJAR 10 last night:

“It has it’s own religious significance but more than that it’s become a very important part of our American culture, our traditions, the fabric of our American culture,” Tobin told Bill Rappleye.

He’ll have to do a better job of explaining what, exactly, is the “religious significance” of a decorated dead tree in December. I think he is incorrect to suggest that one exists.

“Christmas tree does have some spiritual and religious significance,” he continued. “It’s a symbol of eternal life, that we believe we have from Jesus Christ.” According to more traditional Catholic theology, Jesus’s thing was absolving our sins and community organizing. Judea-Christian faiths believed in eternal life, or heaven, long before Jesus hit the scene. Not that this matters, but I think it goes to show that the Bishop is, at best, making a stretch here.

It’s important to note that Tobin has been respectful and even complimentary of the secular point of view on the State House tree. And he’s spot on to note that holiday accoutrements, and what we call them, are indeed part of “the fabric of our American culture.”

But a government that strives to be free and independent from any and all religions as well as one that is as inclusive and open as possible, is a far more important thread in the fabric of our culture. Or at least it very much should be.

Catholic Church Avoids Domin Ave., KKK Issue


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Exalted Cyclops John Algernon Domin

The Catholic Diocese of Providence, under the guidance of Bishop Thomas Tobin, is not afraid to voice its opinion about a wide range of topics.

The church or the bishop has stated its position on everything from marriage equality and women’s reproductive rights to issues as trivial as the holiday/Christmas tree non-controversy and the cross on public land in Woonsocket. The Bishop went on the John DePetro Show to call President Obama’s thoughts concerning gay marriage “creepy and disturbing” and to call the entire RI Congressional Delegation “immoral.”

Given this record of impassioned moral outrage at issues great and small, why is the church silent on the issue of Domin Avenue in Smithfield, Rhode Island?

Domin Avenue, for those new to the story, is named for John Algernon Domin, the Exalted Cyclops of the RI Ku Klux Klan in 1928. Domin was not just some rank and file member of the terrorist organization, he was a leader and spokesman and owned the property where rallies were held and crosses were burned. Under his leadership the Klan attempted to take over 3 armed militias of the National Guard, in expectation of a coming war between Protestants and Catholics.

You see, back then there weren’t so many black people living in Rhode Island, so the Klan vented its hatred on Catholics and immigrants (Not that it neglected the few black people it could find. The Klan was held responsible for “torching an African American school in Scituate, Rhode Island.“) At this point in history the Irish and the Italians and other immigrants were mostly Catholic and just like today, immigrants bear the brunt of the blame for whatever ills the society faces.

Retired Colonel Roger Schenck, the man responsible for discovering the Domin Ave connection to the KKK, wondered why Bishop Tobin and the Providence Diocese, known for its outspoken opinion on a wide range of subjects, (Tobin recently weighed in on the replacement refs in the NFL, for instance) would remain silent on the issue of a street named for an anti-Catholic terrorist hate monger. He wrote a letter to the Bishop and received a short, non-specific reply from the Diocese Director of Communication Michael K. Guilfoyle:

Thank you for writing to Bishop Tobin relative to the matter before the Town Council in Smithfield, Rhode Island. As you know, this particular issue has received a great deal of attention before Smithfield residents and the Town Council. I understand that those on both sides of the matter relative to changing the name of the street in question have stated their concerns before the Council.

Puzzled by the non-response response he received, Schenck wrote:

Thanks for your email. I assume by your answer that the Diocese does not intend to take a stand to support changing the name of a street memorializing John Algernon Domin who headed an evil organization that focused much of its hate against Catholics. The Diocese should be leading the charge to change the name but instead has chosen to remain neutral. I wonder who the Diocese is trying not to offend.

If possible the response from Guilfoyle was even more curt:

Mr. Schenck – Thank you for your reply.  Please know that the diocese does not condone the actions of such organizations.  We are monitoring the matter.

Colonel Schenck’s final email to the Providence Diocese reveals frustration and puzzlement. I will let the Colonel have the last word on the matter:

I don’t get it.  The Catholic Church takes a firm stance on many issues, some of which are very controversial, including abortion, contraception, homosexuality, gay marriage, euthanasia, and the death penalty, but the diocese will not take a stance against the name of a street memorializing Ku Klux Klan Grand Cyclops John Algernon Domin who led an evil organization that focused much of its hatred against Rhode Island’s Catholics.  The Diocese may not condone the actions of such organizations, but remaining silent in this instance, as the Diocese has chosen to do, says the diocese is ambivalent, complacent or just does not care if the Domin Avenue name changes or remains.  You say you are monitoring the matter.  That may sound good to some people, but what good will it do?  It will not matter how many people you have monitoring the matter as it works its way to the town council meeting, if, at that meeting, the council votes to retain the Domin Avenue name.  It will be too late at that point to do anything, but I suppose Rhode Island Catholics will have some consolation in knowing that the diocese monitored the matter.

Michael Guilfoyle was contacted for this post but did not respond.