Catholic bishops name lobbyist for Beacon Hill (Massachusetts legislature)

[Zenlitened]

Catholic bishops name lobbyist for Beacon Hill

By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | July 8, 2005

The four Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, seeking to strengthen their presence on Beacon Hill, have hired a veteran lobbyist to represent them as they seek to improve their relationships with lawmakers after a difficult period of scandal and controversy.

The bishops of Boston, Fall River, Springfield, and Worcester have hired Edward F. Saunders Jr. as director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm of the state's four dioceses. Saunders will be charged with representing the church's broad interests at the State House, from opposing capital punishment and abortion to supporting aid to the poor.

(snip)

Over the last several years, the bishops have faced increasing difficulty influencing public policy, with their credibility tarnished by the clergy sexual abuse scandal and their legislative agenda dominated by high-profile failures: the church's unsuccessful efforts to stop passage of the same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research bills.

(snip)

''The church has a responsibility to play an active role in social issues, for the welfare and quality of life not only of members of the Catholic faith, but all the citizens of the Commonwealth," Saunders said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/08/catholic_bishops_name_lobbyist_for_beacon_hill/?page=full

[mom cat]

1. Please DON'T be concerned for my welfare or my quality of life!

Your interference has caused me enough pain already. Take all the money you want to spend on a lobbyist and give it to your victins instead!

[Zenlitened]

2. But but but... if you're not catholic, you have no business criticizing...

... the church, the pope, the priests, et cetera, right?

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zenlitened]

90. Do your own research. Throughout all discussions relating to...

... catholic church policy and personalities, there is a small but vocal band of posters hissing "mind your own business." For starters, try searching the archives for Cuban_Liberal and his little band of followers, some of whome still persist in carrying on his agenda.

As for the rest of your flowery prose... I'm frankly too tired to try to make sense of it. Allegedly? Housewives? Excluding behavior? Picket fences?

Uh, have a super day. :eyes:

[Rich Hunt]

92. "my flowery prose"???

Is that some kind of code or something?

Who gave it to you? It sounds mighty familiar. Strangely enough, my prose isn't all that "flowery". The closest I come to "flowery" is attending a funeral or something.

I think you know what it all means. I am familiar with Cuban Liberal and that poster does not have a "band of followers", nor is he/she an unquestioning apologist for the Catholic church. Just who are these "followers"? You do seem to know a lot about "Cuban Liberal". Been "keeping tabs", have we? I don't search archives for people I simply disagree with.

But thank you for at least "naming names". But next time, you should have the class to argue with Cuban Liberal civilly and directly instead of whispering behind his back.

[Zenlitened]

94. A code? Given to me? Keeping tabs?

It's all a bit too tinged with paranoia for my tastes, thank you.

:tinfoilhat:

But please, tell me more about your familiarity with Cuban_Liberal. :rofl:

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zenlitened]

99. Seriously, you think this all about harassing you?

You're starting to creep me out, you really are.

[Zhade]

115. It's that martyrdom complex again.

I swear, some people really REALLY seem to want to be persecuted. Weird, but there it is.

[Rich Hunt]

136. ahhh...

Projection.

What was this thread about again?

Was it about me and all of the complexes you imagine I have?

Or was it about some bishops hiring a lobbyist?

You're unraveling here. You appear more obsessed with me and my alleged "persecution complex" than you do with the topic at hand. (And I -want- to be persecuted now? Considering my family's history, that's not too funny, but I'm guessing you know that already, or you wouldn't be obsessing on me all over this thread).

Your slander of Cuban Liberal and my compatroit Padraig (what a lie!) is noted. I know for a fact that the latter is not a "freeper" and the first one certainly never wrote like one. Regardless, your calling out other posters as "freepers" and referring to sensitive information such as banning is very much against the rules at DU.

How strange that the two you single out have names that refer to Catholic ethnicities. Is this an ethnic problem that you have, or a Catholic one? And just how do you know about this highly sensitive and off-limits information?

If you can't substantiate any of your slurs against me or any of the others, I would suggest for your own sanity (and for other reasons that might benefit you) that you retract them.

Again, let's try to have a civil, non-personal discussion about the Catholic church. Just for once, I'd like to see one.

Maybe you should check with your lawyer again - I think you need some new loopholes, because you are really skating on thin ice here, with your talk of freeperism.

[Zenlitened]

137. Unfortunately, the more out-there examples of your debate techniques...

... have been deleted by the moderators.

But I am enjoying your history lesson on Cuban_Liberal and Padraig!

:rofl:

[arwalden]

147. Oh My!

<< Your slander of Cuban Liberal and my compatroit Padraig (what a lie!) is noted.>>

Hey Zen... are you scared? A-la-Ari-Fleischer... your comments have been "noted". :rofl:

<< I know for a fact that the latter is not a "freeper" and the first one certainly never wrote like one. >>

Hmmm. Interesting. You certainly know a lot about this subject. Please... Tell us more. :silly:

<< Regardless, your calling out other posters as "freepers" and referring to sensitive information such as banning is very much against the rules at DU.>>

It's against the rules to engage in name-calling against other DUERS. But I'm pretty sure they must actually BE active duers. Once they've been banned, they really aren't protected by the rules of conduct.

The only prohibition that I'm aware of (regarding banned individuals) is one that prohibits public expressions of regret that someone has been banned, or that scold the admins/mods for banning someone, or that publicly question the admins/mods' decision to ban someone, or that publicly petition the admins/mods to reconsider their actions in banning someone.

Can you cite which specific rule you have in mind? To my knowledge, it's perfectly fine to TALK ABOUT banned individuals or to refer to them.

And it's also worth noting that Zen hasn't called ANYONE a freeper. I've seen references to right-wing talking points, or freeper tactics, or freeper arguments (and the like)... but no direct accusations or name-calling as you've suggested.

[Zhade]

150. They were conservative disruptors. Ask the mods if you don't believe me.

They saw the proof, they banned the guy (it was only one guy).

[Zhade]

114. He can't speak with Cuban_Liberal, since that fucker was banned.

He was a freeper.

[Zenlitened]

117. Pssst... I'm a "she." Don't you remember me from the weekly meetings?

:spray:

[Zhade]

119. Oh dear, that's right, my bad.

I'm a he if it helps! :D

[Zhade]

112. Ah yes, Cuban_Liberal THE FREEPER.

Who, along with his other persona, Padraig18, was banned for being a freeper disruptor (extensive proof was given to the mods) and who certain posters in this very thread continue to defend even after he was exposed as a FUCKING FREEPER.

Says a LOT about those who defend him/them.

[iverglas]

120. "housewife-ish"?

Any more of this housewife-ish "whispering behind their back" stuff, and I'm going to start handing out golden "picket fence" awards.

I'd beware. You might find them being returned by a brigade of "housewives" not too careful about where they stuck them.

[Zhade]

121. Yes, that is kind of a sexist statement, isn't it?

NT!

[arwalden]

125. Indeed It Is Sexist!

[iverglas]

123. on a more serious note ...

Next time, be more civil and don't "paraphrase" nameless people.

... When you attribute sentiments to nameless people, you are refusing to engage your alleged "opponents" directly. That is excluding behavior.

I actually agree with all that, as matters of principle and general rules. I object rather frequently to behaviour that does fall within those parameters.

General rules, however, don't always apply to specific cases. There really are instances in which general knowledge comes into play and one's judges in the audience can be expected to take judicial notice of it, and I think this just might be one of them.

[Zenlitened]

127. Once more, for horrified fascination.

I don't know why... it's like I'm drawn to it like a car accident... re-reading your post just now.

And it just blows my mind. The scolding, the demanding tone. The wild spinning. The claimed ignorance of the larger context of the dialog. The tired old excuse that the church is "not the only one." All capped off with a little sexist dig.

Wow! You've set the bar high, for all who follow! :patriot: :crazy:

[Rich Hunt]

138. a "car accident"??

That's really ironic that you used the phrase "car accident" , since I was recently (quite deliberately) rear-ended at more than 90 mph by someone who wanted to kill me. There were witnesses, too.

But go ahead - I dare you to claim I was practically asking for it. You could ask the perpetrator what she thinks about her Catholic "relatives".

[Zenlitened]

139. I wish you would say more, though. Because I don't see the irony at all.

:shrug:

Edited to add: Let me add to my post then, since you've updated yours with more information:

:wtf:

I mean, seriously, :wtf:

You really need a refresher course in Totally Off The Wall Reasoning 101. Now I'm pro-car accident? Or is the irony that you were rear-ended? I really don't know what to make of your posts, I really don't.

:crazy:

[arwalden]

143. Weird...

<< "a "car accident"??" Posted by Rich Hunt -- That's really ironic that you used the phrase "car accident" , since I was recently (quite deliberately) rear-ended at more than 90 mph by someone who wanted to kill me. There were witnesses, too. >>

And this is relevant... HOW?

<< But go ahead - I dare you to claim I was practically asking for it. >>

I dare YOU to explain how or why you think that Zenlitened would have enough knowledge of that "event" to offer comment on it.

Are you being intentionally vague in a clever attempt to skirt DU rules and to insinuate that someone here had something to do with your "car accident" (the scare-quotes are yours, not mine).

<< You could ask the perpetrator what she thinks about her Catholic "relatives". >>

Wow... you really ARE a victim, aren't you? :eyes: Although this might help to explain your behavior... it really doesn't have much to do with THIS topic.

So, once again, I (and others) shake our heads in confusion as we try to figure out WHY you think that these unrelated nonsequitur replies are important (or even necessary).

:wtf: :crazy: :silly: :shrug:

[Zenlitened]

144. Well, I think the effect of the posting style will be to...

... get the entire thread locked, with a note that it has descended into a flame-war. :eyes:

That's unfortunate, because I'd like to see what other offenses I must surely be guilty of. So far, I hate all DUers from the South, I cheer at car accidents, I belong to a "back-channel" of some sorts. (Though that one could conceivably get this locked as a "sex thread"!)

It's only a matter of time before I'm outed as a Saddam-lovin' latte-sippin' baby-eatin' commie. Or possibly a Freeper -- it's all on the table now!

:D :D :D

[stepnw1f]

3. A Church Once Again Interfering with Everyones Life

Boy am I starting to really understand the resentment towards the Catholic Church. First they cover up pedophilia, then they tell everyone else what is moral and what isn't. This illustrates their absolute hypocrisy and total hatred for true Freedom.

[Zenlitened]

4. I love how their wild-eyed anti-gay fanatacism was so downplayed...

... in this article.

The Catholic church in Massachusetts has been at the very forefront of denying civil rights to gay and lesbian citizens.

But this article makes it sound as if that was just a blip. Ugh.

[stepnw1f]

5. My Sister and One Of My Best Friends is Gay

I really can't believe the outright bigotry of this church. It's disgusting and immoral how they use god and the bible as an excuse to hate gays. It's cowardly and counter intuitive. No wonder they are losing people.

[Zhade]

41. They didn't cover up pedophilia.

They covered up CHILD RAPE. That's even more heinous.

[Rich Hunt]

91. yeah, well

Some religious groups are just more 'overt' than others.

Others use gossip and blacklisting to "interfere" with people's lives, because getting overtly involved in politics is just too dirty and low-class for them. They have lawyers and connections and stuff to shield them from their nasty little slandering habit.

Let's be fair - they ALL have something to hide. Some are just more "suburban" in their manner of hiding their dirty little intrusive practices.

[arwalden]

107. Sorry... But The "We're-Not-The-Only-Ones" Excuse Won't Cut It!

The "but-they-started-it" and "but-they-do-it-too" is no excuse.

Nice try though.

[Zhade]

122. And that excuses the RCC how, exactly?

Of course, it doesn't.

[Ian David]

6. Explain to me again why they're tax-exempt? n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

7. It's hypocritical that people here defend anything done by Muslims

but attack anything done by Catholics.

The Massachusetts bishops have every right to hire a lobbyist to help them campaign for Catholic values.

Other religions can, and DO, make use of lobbyists, as do secular groups. It's legal, it doesn't violate separation of church and state, and I've never seen any complaints about the practice before.

Some DUers seem determined to drive Catholics away from the Democratic Party.

[Zenlitened]

8. Who defends 'anything' done by Muslims? Ever heard of burqas?

'Honor' killings? Rape of women as 'punishment' for the deeds of male relatives?

What's really amazing is the lengths some will go to minimize the wrongdoing of an organization that, time and again, shows itself to be an enemy of progressivism.

I think your filters need adjusting, frankly.

Edited add: I'd also argue that no one is doing more to drive catholics away from the Democratic Party than the Vatican itself:

Vatican Criticizes Catholics on Communion

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jul 7, 1:54 PM ET

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican singled out divorcees who remarry and Catholic politicians who support abortion on Thursday in criticizing the faithful who continue to receive Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin.

(snip)

"The faithful frequently receive Holy Communion without even thinking that they might be in a state of mortal sin," the document said. "As a result, the receiving of Holy Communion by those who are divorced and civilly remarried is a common occurrence in various countries."

(snip)

In one section, for example, the document criticized the faithful who support Catholic politicians who themselves back abortion and other policies contrary to church teaching.

Full article:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050707/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_communion_1

[DemBones DemBones]

19. How do you figure the Vatican is driving Catholics away from

the Democratic Party? It's "liberals" like many at DU, people who talk about tolerance, who constantly demonstrate intolerance of anything Catholic.

There are, BTW, inaccuracies in this story, as anyone who's paid close attention would know. We've been over these issues many times at DU.

I've been a registered Democrat since 1968 but reading slams on my faith in these forums for five years has made me realize that I, as a Catholic, am not really welcome at DU or in most party circles. Moreover, party leaders have made "pro-choice" the ONLY position allowed for Democratic candidates at the national level, which is a big "Screw you" to the huge Catholic voting bloc that was one solidly Democratic. I have also been at meetings where local Democrats have spoken in abusive terms about both pro-lifers and the Catholic Church. So I've learned that I MAY be allowed to play with other Democrats at DU or in the local party if I keep my mouth shut while pro-lifers and Catholics are demonized in the crudest terms. In other words, I'm expected to give up some of my beliefs and also listen to abuse whenever someone has a complaint about the Pope. What a deal!

I'll never vote Republican but suppose you tell me why I should continue working for Democratic candidates or even voting Democratic. It's quite clear that the party doesn't need or want Catholics unless they'll go against several Catholic moral teachings.

[Zenlitened]

21. You answer your own question. If your church demands adherence...

... to principles at-odds with progressivism, then IT is the source of any schism with the Democratic party, not the party itself nor any of its members.

And let me say, as many others have said in the course of "going over this issue": You have no right to demand tolerance of intolerance. What you call a "moral teaching" is so repugnant on so many levels that I can hardly begin to describe. Why you insist on equating criticism of virulently anti-gay policies with a hostility toward "anything Catholic" is beyond me, frankly.

[DemBones DemBones]

24. Who's intolerant? The Catholic Catechism

says that homosexuals are as much children of God as heterosexuals are and are to be treated with appropriate respect. It opposes discrimination against homosexuals in employment, housing, etc. How is that virulently anti-gay?

Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church, as is Holy Orders (ordination to the priesthood) so the Church determines who can marry and who can be a priest. The Catholic Church is not the only church that restricts marriage to one man-one woman unions or restricts its priesthood to men only. Churches that perform same-sex marriages are a minority.

I gather from your user name that you practice Zen Buddhism and I have some questions I hope you can answer.

Does Buddhism, either Mahayana, Hinayana, Vajrayana, Zen, or any sect allow women to be priests?

Does Buddhism, either Mahayana, Hinayana, Vajrayana, Zen, or any sect allow same-sex marriages?

And, if either of these practices are now allowed, how long have they been allowed? (Also, are they allowed only in America or other Western nations? I know the practices of Western Buddhists are sometimes far removed from the traditions of Buddhism, having known a few American Buddhists and also an American woman who became a Buddhist nun in Thailand.)

[Zenlitened]

26. "Marriage is a sacrament in the catholic church."

Yes, and when a law is proposed requiring churches to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, I will be right there with you in opposing it.

As for what the church says and what the effects of its actual policies are... I'll stand by my statements, whether you label them as "heated" or not. Any organization that so actively campaigns to deny basic civil rights to citizens in the crucially important area of marriage, effectively undermines their rights in ALL areas. It's not enough to say "treat them with respect," when one has simultaneously embarked on a crusade to deny them the basic dignity accorded others.

As for my practicing Zen Buddhism, you have concluded incorrectly. In any event, I'm not prepared to be impressed by the argument that "other religions are backward, too." To my own sorrow, I'm all too aware of that.

[DemBones DemBones]

33. Ah, so churches shouldn't be forced to

perform same-sex marriages against their beliefs

but churches should be hated for their belief that marriage is to be a union of one man and one woman?

:crazy:


Sorry that I made the mistake of thinking that a person with the user name "Zenlitened" would logically be at least somewhat involved with Buddhism. But I gather that you hate Buddhists, too, unless they agree with you completely so I suppose that would be a problem.

[Zenlitened]

35. No, churches should be "hated," as you phrase it...

... for trying to impose their bigotry on all of society.


P.S. You might want to spin the big wheel a couple more times. There's a "g" and an "h" in "enlightenment."

[TankLV]

69. The catholic church is trying to impose THEIR beliefs on EVERYONE

ELSE.

HATEFUL BIGOTED BELIEFS.

I could care less what any church imposes on IT's members.

But when THEY insist on ENSHRINING those HATEFUL & BIGOTED beliefs - BELIEFS, not SCIENCE, then THEY CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES, along with anyone who supports or apologizes for this practice.

Get it now?

THEY are inserting themselves into POLITICS. Then THEY shouldn't complain if THE WREST OF THE FUCKING WORLD WHO DOESN'T SHARE THEIR BIGOTED HATEFUL BLIEFS opposes them any and every way they can!

[Zhade]

70. Thank you. That's exactly right.

NT!

[LiberalFighter]

37. Are churches forced to performed marriages now?

Are they forced to perform marriages of individuals belonging to a different faith?

Are Catholics forced to perform marriages involving divorced individuals?

Are individuals forced to have a marriage performed by a clergy person?

I don't have a problem with churches deciding who they will marry. I do have a problem with churches dictating who can be married under state or country laws.

[Zenlitened]

38. Totally, totally agree.

"I don't have a problem with churches deciding who they will marry. I do have a problem with churches dictating who can be married under state or country laws."

:thumbsup:

[MountainLaurel]

61. Ditto!

Similarly, I don't have a problem with churches dictating rules on health care for their members (although a bunch of never-married men making rules on pregnancy is just. fucked. up.) However, when they start dictating national legislation that will impact me and millions of others not of their faith, then we have some issues.

[Zhade]

46. Excellent post.

Actually, all of yours in this thread have been solid, logical, accurate, and fair. Kudos!

[Zenlitened]

78. Thanks. It can be exasperating. But it's a fight that needs to be fought.

:hi:

[Zhade]

82. You fight it well.

Now, go to GD and salute a progressive Catholic! :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4065030

[Zhade]

45. Marriage is not solely a religious institution.

In fact, it existed BEFORE the Catholic church. Amazing!

And you DO realize there was a period of time long ago when the RCC blessed some same-sex marriages, right? I'm sure others (who aren't at work like I am) can show you some evidence of that.

The RCC is free to be as bigoted toward GLBT folk as it wants, until it starts getting involved in political attempts to deny rights to us. When that happens, all bets are off, and oh yes we WILL call the church on their bigotry.

If you don't like us pointing out facts about the church's bigotry, too fucking bad.

[arwalden]

49. Notwithstanding The Catholic Church's Political Influence, Its Leaders...

... (with their anti-gay rhetoric) help to establish a climate of hostility and intolerance towards gays and lesbians. From the Pope on down, church leaders continually portray homosexuals as being "evil".

Even though such deliberate and hateful comments are not always directed at any one country or world leader... the comments do not exist in a vacuum. Their words of intolerance do help to shape opinions and create hatred, and violence, towards homosexuals (not to mention how it poisons the minds of young homosexuals and fills them with self-loathing).

<< If you don't like us pointing out facts about the church's bigotry, too fucking bad. >>

Well said!

[trotsky]

64. So, homosexuals are to be treated with "appropriate respect," eh?

Does that mean the church is OK with them continuing to have sexual intercourse with the person they love?

As many others above have stated, this is not about the Catholic church choosing how it wants to define marriage for itself. They are perfectly free to be as bigoted and hateful as they want to with that.

This is about the Catholic church lobbying and influencing secular law in this country so that homosexuals may not marry no matter WHAT their religious stance is.

Maybe you can explain how this shows "appropriate respect" for homosexuals?

[Zhade]

65. Thanks, trotsky.

It's an excellent point that is (willfully) missed by some: anyone is free to be a bigot, until their bigotry starts affecting other people's lives.

I can't stress that enough.

[arwalden]

28. Oh Brother! So Being Intolerant Of Bigotry (uh... Religious "Morality")

... makes someone a bigot?? Give me a fucking break!

Frankly, I'll never, EVER, be "tolerant" of any religious leaders telling me that I'm part of a culture of evil, etc etc etc.

Anti-gay bigotry that's disguised at religious "morality" is STILL BIGOTRY and is still HATE.

<< In other words, I'm expected to give up some of my beliefs and also listen to abuse whenever someone has a complaint about the Pope. What a deal! >>

The POPE is not immune from criticism or scorn simply because of his position. Stop taking it so personally... or learn to cope.

[DemBones DemBones]

34. I have learned to cope,

by telling people quite clearly when they are exhibiting religious bigotry. That's what you don't like, that I'm standing up for myself and my faith.

[arwalden]

39. Actually, That's Defending Bigotry And Hate By Cloaking It In Religion

... there are no two ways about it. It is a despicable and loathsome thing for anyone to do.

There are NO free-passes simply because the church is the *source* of the anti-gay and anti-woman bigotry!

It's NOT a virtue when people try to defend church-sanctioned hatred and bigotry by calling those who oppose it "religious bigots". :eyes: The church and its apologists are not the victims of "religious persecution" when the TRUE victims of their hatred stand up and fight back. -- Give me a fucking break!

People who behave that way when someone criticizes their religion or scorns their church leaders are not "coping". Instead, they are clearly in denial. Apparently, rather than facing the truth and admitting that their religion--and its leaders--have shortcomings, (and maybe DOING something about it) they would rather lash out and attack those who speak the TRUTH. -- How sad.

That's one way of RESPONDING to the imagined threat... but it's certainly not what any reasonable person would consider to be a way of actually COPING.

[Zhade]

50. You were more diplomatic than me.

:)

[Rich Hunt]

97. hysterical straw man here...

Anyone who quibbles with your (overly emotional) argument is therefore a Catholic bigot.

Just love that witch-hunting....I love how you shift from casting your opponents as those you merely disagree with to oppressors and "supporters of hatred". Are you this ignorant of anti-Catholic (anti-immigrant, actually - especially Irish and Italian immigrants) bigotry in America? Those old hatreds never died...they just became a lot more cowardly and disingenuous.

What say you about poverty and exploitation of the lower classes?

I guess that's not the sort of "bigotry" people care about.

[arwalden]

103. What Are You Whining About?

Enough with the absurd "shifting" accusations! Oh... I forgot... it's really all Catholics who are the "victims", eh? :eyes:

<< Are you this ignorant of anti-Catholic (anti-immigrant, actually - especially Irish and Italian immigrants) bigotry in America? Those old hatreds never died...they just became a lot more cowardly and disingenuous. >>

Wow... talk about absurd "shifting"!! :rofl: (Well, what's your answer? How come you don't care about the poor and homeless? What's your position on the price of tea in China? And unwed mothers! What about them? And crack-whores! Don't you care about global warming?)

<< What say you about poverty and exploitation of the lower classes? >>

You're gonna strip your gears!

<< I guess that's not the sort of "bigotry" people care about.>>

I'm sure that many people care about that. But that really seems to be an entirely different topic that's suited for another thread. Why don't you start a thread of your OWN with that topic.

[Zhade]

116. Oh, there it is again, the old nativist lie.

Can't you ever come up with something new for your persecution complex?

Here's a hint: no one CARES enough about you to actually persecute you. We do care about the church whose pope calls a loving committed relationship between two members of the same sex "an intrinsic evil".

You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO not persecuted, and you really need to get on with your life. You'll be a lot happier when you wake up to the fact that you're not being oppressed.

Well, at least, not by us. The feds, the corporatists, and the liars in power, yeah, but not those of us who point out the hateful bigotry of the church toward GLBT folk.

[Rich Hunt]

142. making it personal again

Here's a hint: no one CARES enough about you to actually persecute you. We do care about the church whose pope calls a loving committed relationship between two members of the same sex "an intrinsic evil".

You're making it personal again. I disagree with the pope. I no longer go to church. However, I am also aware of the vindictive, backstabbing attitudes that some Protestants (most of whom support Republican or conservative Democrat types) hold against Catholics. Why? Because these tactics were used to hunt my own family like dogs. You can falsely claim that me and my family were never persecuted. That is at best an unsubstantiated claim that undermines your credibility as a disinterested and civil participant in these Catholic threads. Again, substantiate or retract - but please don't let me ever catch you invoking the concept of logic in your so-called "arguments".

Nor is nativism a "lie". Care to draw from your undoubtedly vast educational background and show me some proof that it's a lie? Because that's a documented historical fact. And some people would like to have the crimes committed in nativism's name buried forever.

I am suspicious of those who deny that these Catholic threads are often a staging point for something else entirely. This thread is supposed to be about some bishops hiring a "lobbyist". A pity I've read precious little about that here.

Disingenousness is easy to spot, I'm afraid.

[Zenlitened]

148. Um, the lie is that nativism has anything to do with the topic...

... of church leaders singling out gays and lesbians for discrimination in the year 2005.

The lie is that your family's history of persecution somehow absolves you of condoning the persecution of gays and lesbians.

If anything, if that is indeed your family history, you should know better. You should know -- better than most -- how ugly, hurtful and evil it is to single out a group of people to denigrate them and deny them the rights other citizens enjoy.

The logic is simple, when one puts aside paranoia and the impulse to view every criticism of the church as a personal attack.

[Zhade]

151. I never said your FAMILY was never persecuted.

I said here, on DU, you are not persecuted. It's a simple fact.

Since you cannot even bother to read what I wrote before distorting it to play the victim, we're done talking.

[Zhade]

48. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You really love that persecution complex, don't you?

Here's a hint: intolerance of BIGOTRY is not bigotry itself. Your statement is one of the most intellectually dishonest ones I've ever heard - it ranks right up there with the kinds of things out of b*s*'s mouth.

"Wah! They don't like that I support bigotry in my church! They're the bigots, because they can't accept intolerance and my church's attempts to make GLBTers into second-class citizens!"

Get the fuck over yourself already. You're hardly being persecuted, and what you laughably describe as "religious bigotry" is actually a simple unwillingness to allow those like you to enshrine church-driven bigotry as public policy.

We're not going to stop pointing out the church's bigotry. To their credit, quite a few Catholic DUers agree with us and completely disagree with you. If exposing the facts about the church's bigotry drives you away...well, no big loss, it seems.

[Zhade]

47. DAMN STRAIGHT.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Intolerance of bigotry is not "hate", nor it is not "bashing believers".

I really marvel at how one can be a Democrat and support bigotry and the attempts to make us second-class citizens at the same time.

But then, I suppose anyone can call themselves a Dem on these boards.

[Zhade]

44. Bigotry against GLBT folk is a "moral value"?

Hiding child rapists is a "moral value"?

Lying about AIDS passing through condoms is a "moral value"?

Wanting the state to be able to control a woman's body is a "moral value"?

Frankly, if those are the kinds of things you consider moral, I doubt you actually belong in the Democratic party.

And please, give up the martyr game. You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO not persecuted.

[saskatoon]

52. It's your call brother

do as you see fit!

[converted_democrat]

66. The Vatican is driving Catholics away, in droves........

My sister law and her entire family left the church, due to views they found to be too conservative. They also rabidly disapprove of the new pope, too. Her churches attendance has gone down by a third over the last two years alone.

[Zhade]

68. Your family sounds like they know what's what.

Good for them!

[TankLV]

71. It certainly drove ME and MY SISTER and her family away because

of the INTOLERANCE AND BIGOTRY enshrined as some holy writ!

Calling a bigot on their hatred and bigotry is bigotry? That's rich.

And as uusual, we've come to expect such drivel from you.

And you CHOOSE not to see our points.

[arwalden]

79. Did You Ask For Your Names To Be Removed From The Membership Directory?

... and tell someone precisely why? -- I've heard that even if you stop attending, and stop tithing, they'll just figure that you're preoccupied with other things or that you've strayed for no apparent reason.

From their perspective, unless they see the membership drop in addition to a drop in attendance and tithing, they won't have any concrete evidence that their regressive and backward ways are driving people away.

[TankLV]

80. Actually, no, no I haven't!

But that's a good idea!

But they know about my sister because - horror - she married a - a- a methodist! - who's a minister to boot! - ohmygod!

She wanted to have a priest and a minister officiate at their wedding, and our priest waited till a WEEK before the wedding to tell them that he wouldn't do it! They told him they would have the wedding in our church, with or without him, and he eventually relented - all because he wanted my sister to guarantee that any children would be brought up catholic! She told them in no uncertain terms to essentially fuck off, which they did.

Thanks!

[Zhade]

84. Your sister ROCKS.

Good for her!

[Zhade]

83. There are none so blind as those who will not see...

...especially when they know we're right and they're wrong.

[Iowa]

9. Good point DemBones...

Also, for those here who aren't Catholic, there's an important point that's sometimes overlooked: The bishops are NOT the Catholic church any more than GW Bush is the United States. A great many Catholics react to bishops the way Dorothy reacted to the Wizard of Oz - "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!". Many of these bishops are clueless about the real world and have zero influence on average Catholics. There are a great many progressive Catholics who post here, who fight the good fight, and who vote Democrat year after year.

[Zenlitened]

10. "There are a great many progressive Catholics who post here..."

I'm certain that's true. What mystifies me is the small but vocal contingent of posters who lash out at anyone who criticizes the pope or church officials. For those people, it seems the bishopes are indeed the church. And as long as they align themselves so unfailingly to people who have made it their life's work to, for example, deny civil rights to gay and lesbian Americans... well, I don't consider those handful of posters progressive at all.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. The thing is that those of you who repeatedly criticize

everything Catholic don't say "Bishop X is wrong to say Y because Z." You go global with it and characterize all of Catholicism as "wrong." It's a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater; you reject a couple of Catholic teachings so you ignore all the good the Church has done over the centuries and continues to do today.

Thus, I, and other progressive Catholics, defend our Catholic faith, and part of that defense is defending our bishops against unfair criticism. We don't agree with our bishops all the time but It is the job of our priests and bishops to remind us of what the Church teaches about right and wrong. These are beliefs that are quite ancient, going back to the very early Christian teachings. That's all they're doing in this document, discussing what they need to remind the faithful of; what some problem areas are.

[Zenlitened]

23. Then why are you so quick to defend your bishops against FAIR criticism?

The antiquity of beliefs is not of interest to me. The role of the bishops in instructing right and wrong is exactly the element I protest, when what they teach is poison, so toxic that it obscures any good that may or may not occur elsewhere.

Babies and bathwater? It becomes increasingly difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. The situation is not helped when deserved criticism is met by cries of "bashing" from people who ought to know better. From people who should reject the "reminders" of priests and bishops when their teachings so rabidly contradict progressive ideals.

You defend your faith, you say, but perhaps it is you who have failed to distinguish between baby and bathwater, blindly embracing the whole when in fact aspects of it are designed -- knowingly, willingly -- to destroy lives.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. Show me some fair criticism then -- here you

are saying that you think my beliefs "rabidly contradict progressive ideals" and that my Church "knowingly, willingly" "destroy(s) lives." You think that is fair criticism? It's heated rhetoric that suggests your mind is made up against me and all Catholics. As I said in another post, many Democrats want me and other Catholics to give up some of our beliefs, allow you to continue criticizing the existence of those beliefs anywhere in the world, make crude anti-Catholic remarks and, one gathers, we are to be thankful that you haven't kicked us out of the party. Some deal!

See if you can post a fair criticism, not too full of polemics, OK?

I won't be able to respond tonight, though, need to get to bed so I can make it to early Mass tomorrow.

Please see my other reply to you with the questions re: Buddhism.

[Zenlitened]

27. Well, now you've personalized it in terms of 'your' beliefs.

Do you personally believe that gay and lesbian citizens do not deserve the right to marry the partner of their choosing? If so, then yes I do feel that your beliefs contradict progressive ideals, rabidly so if that's a platform on which you intend to rally.

Yes, I do feel that your church, by mounting one campaign after another to deny civil rights to a whole segment of our fellow citizens... yes, it does indeed knowingly and willingly destroy lives. Perhaps it's not 'polemics' or 'heated rhetoric' that makes you uncomfortable, but a painful, painful truth.

And if my mind has been made up against against catholics, it is entirely the doing of the catholic church. I didn't become an enemy of the church until the church declared me its enemy, me and those whose right to Liberty and Justice I support. I've watched in horror over the past decade and more as the catholic church has slandered, demonized and lobbied against fellow citizens who seek nothing more than the freedoms and responsibilities enjoyed by the rest of America.

You declare over and over again that I, and others who stand for civil rights for all, are not welcome to discuss our views nor air our grievances, because you've made it clear that any criticism will be interpreted as a broad-brush attack. Yet you have the gall to claim victimhood, that you are being pushed out of the party. Shall I give up my beliefs regarding civil rights in order to mollify you? Shall I betray my own ideals and stand silent in the face of a grave injustice simply because you cannot tolerate any criticism of a church that has so openly embraced cruelty?

Is it a matter of you-go-or-I-go? If that's your ultimatum, I can say only that I intend to stay, and to stay vocal in fighting for what I believe. Your choice, you alone can make.

[DemBones DemBones]

31. I should have realized from the start that

anyone with a sig line that reads in part "Punch a Republican in the nose" would be unable to consider any opinion other than their own. No point in wasting my time in further attempts at discussion with someone whose mind is so closed.

[Zenlitened]

36. Yes, I disagree with you. Therefore my mind is closed.

What you call discussion is more like a game of dodge-ball. :eyes:

Care to answer the question, now that you've made this a discussion of you and your beliefs:

Do you personally believe that gay and lesbian citizens do not deserve the right to marry the partner of their choosing?

[Zhade]

55. Answer the question, if you can.

To quote Zenlightened: "Do you personally believe that gay and lesbian citizens do not deserve the right to marry the partner of their choosing?"

Waiting.

[arwalden]

58. ((Crickets Chirping))

[Zhade]

60. Well, to be fair, DBDB may be away from DU.

I'll just ask again tomorrow, if I haven't gotten an answer by then.

I'm not expecting one, though.

[TankLV]

73. Yes - the silence is DEAFENING!

Still waiting!

And it's just THIS ONE POINT!

Not to mention that you consider us "sinners". Or don't you?

[arwalden]

88. (( Frogs Croaking))

[arwalden]

113. ((Flies Buzzing))

[arwalden]

131. ((Buzzards Circling))

[Zenlitened]

132. You have to remember the dynamic at work here.

It happens a lot when people have been backed into a corner, or -- as is the case here -- have backed themselves into a corner.

They have to walk away in a huff.

They have to dismiss their critics as "close-minded," for example, or unwilling to engage in serious debate. (Ironically, it's also a case of projecting their own shortcomings on their opponents.)

In any event, the only exit strategy left for them, as some point, is to declare "this discussion is ended." As if that settles it.

Whether or not we get an answer from the poster in question here, I don't think it matters. I think readers of the thread have heard both sides make their case, and realize that one side is critical of a specific church practice (promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians) while the other side uses one right-wing technique after another to try to silence all criticism:

Claiming all catholics, everywhere, are being smeared with a broad brush. Deflecting the discussion to matters of style. Tossing out obvious strawman arguments. Feigning ignorance of the history of what has been an ongoing discussion on DU. Accusing progressives of violating their own ideals of tolerance. Playing the "I'll-leave-the-party" card. The list goes on and on.

It's pretty transparent. Tiresome, yes. At times amusing, in an "I-can't-believe-what-I'm-seeing!" sort of way. But ultimately a failure. And, despite the noise generated by a small number of DUers, I think it remains clear that excusing or outright sanctioning discrimination is not a progressive value.

:hi:

[arwalden]

135. Interesting Observations. Especially When You Say...

<< while the other side uses one right-wing technique after another to try to silence all criticism >>

and

<< Claiming all catholics, everywhere, are being smeared with a broad brush. >>

and

<< Deflecting the discussion to matters of style. Tossing out obvious strawman arguments. >>

Well... actually... the whole damn thing is an excellent post, but those three statements stood out in my mind.

Even though it's unlikely that the apologists and defenders of RCC bigotry aren't likely to return to this thread, I have very little doubt that this is the last we've heard from them.

:hi:

[sonicx]

152. I don't think we're getting an answer

oh well.

[sonicx]

67. i'm waiting too...

Considering her posting history, I wouldn't be surprise at all if she said yes.

[Zhade]

111. We're still waiting for an answer...

Do you personally believe that gay and lesbian citizens do not deserve the right to marry the partner of their choosing?

Be honest. If you do, say so, and we will know where you stand. If you don't, say so and we won't unfairly judge you to be a bigot.

I'm sure you're back on DU by now, and we would all appreciate an answer, so there will be no confusion on your stance on our rights.

[Zhade]

54. Fantastic post.

I salute your commitment to truth and justice FOR ALL.

:yourock:

[Zhade]

53. You are free to believe what you wish.

If you wish to support bigotry, it's your call.

What you can't do is then pretend you're a progressive Catholic, or push for changes in the law to make us second-class citizens.

Lying about AIDS passing through condoms - destroys lives, yes?

Wanting the state to be able to control a woman's body instead of her - against progressive ideals, yes?

You defend the indefensible.

[TankLV]

72. Yeah, we want you to give up your bigoted and hateful beliefs.

Not all of them - just the hateful and bigoted ones.

But you refuse to do that.

We don't negate the charity and other good works.

But the silence from catholic apologists whenever we criticize THOSE PARTICULAR HATEFUL AND BIGOTED BLIEFS is deafening!

[Zhade]

51. "You go global with it and characterize all of Catholicism as "wrong.""

Prove it. Back up your assertion. I'll wait.

No, on second thought, I won't wait, because you can't back it up.

You are NOT a progressive Catholic. Sorry, we're not stupid. Anyone who defends the attempts of their church to demonize GLBTers and rob them of their inherent rights - such as marriage - are not progressive.

I've met progressive Catholic DUers. You are not one of them.

[Rich Hunt]

100. smear attempt

Straw man. Generalization.

Noted.

Proof where she "defended bigotry", or retract.

Are you just so eager to get your claws on an enemy that you project one where there is none?

It's called "civil discourse". Could we show some class and tone the volume down a bit? We can start by treating people like human beings, not categories, and not judging people we've never met.

[arwalden]

105. What Straw Man? Where?

<< Could we show some class and tone the volume down a bit? >>

:spray:

<< We can start by treating people like human beings, not categories, and not judging people we've never met. >>

Especially those who come from a "CULTURE OF EVIL", right?

[Zhade]

110. Rich, considering you once attacked people who criticized the pope...

...as 'nativists' in a laughable attempt to claim they were bigoted against Catholics for being Catholic (which was of course not the case), you can probably guess that I couldn't possibly care one iota less about your opinion.

But heck, just for the record: she supports the new pope and defends him whenever the topic of his bigotry against gays comes up. So yeah, she's defended bigotry on a number of occasions, including within this very thread. If you can't see it when it's right in front of your eyes, I'd suggest you look a little harder.

Accepting the RCC's attempt to influence public policy to make us second-class citizens based on the church's bigotry against GLBT folk and defending the church when it does so is supporting bigotry. It's pretty basic logic, which I'm sure you understand and just set aside in yet another attempt to claim victimhood.

You guys aren't persecuted. Get over it already.

[Iowa]

76. Yep...

As a Catholic, I probably criticize church officials more than most who aren't Catholic. Many of these guys (especially the bishops) do more harm than good. And I agree with you about their efforts to deny civil rights to gay and lesbian Americans. The rationale they provide is senseless. It's just flat wrong, IMO.

[Zenlitened]

77. What's the smiley for :intense wave of gratitude: ?

THANK YOU for saying, clearly and unequivocally, what so desperately needs to be said.

:hi:

[Zhade]

85. Thank you, Iowa. You are truly a progressive Catholic.

I applaud you for following your beliefs in justice and equality for all - even us queers! :D

[cap]

11. Dem Bones, maybe we should highlight the Catholic Left

like Pax Christi, Catholic Worker and the priests and nuns who do make outreach to the gay commmunity.

There are a lot of great people in the Church today whose stories arent being told. We have a lot of morons in the hierarchy and it will get much worse before it gets better. Some in the hierarchy are hurting a lot of people like the gays. But I think if we concentrate on the good news and the good works of the Righteous, we can start to close the gap between us Catholic Democrats and non-Catholic Democrats.

[DemBones DemBones]

32. Yes, we should highlight their work BUT

if you read some of the hateful posts here, you know that the anti-Catholic DUers pay no attention to anything positive about Catholicism.

[arwalden]

40. That Is Untrue.

So if the KKK opened up a soup-kitchen and helped to feed and clothe the homeless, would that excuse all of their racist and anti-Semite bigotry, hatred, and violence?

<< if you read some of the hateful posts here, you know that the anti-Catholic DUers pay no attention to anything positive about Catholicism. >>

Good deeds are all well and good... but they certainly do not excuse the hatred and bigotry coming from the church and its leaders. How can that ever make up for the church's contributions to the climate of intolerance and violence against gays and lesbians? Have they no shame for what they are doing?

NO FREE PASSES!!

I'm having difficulty in spotting the "hateful" posts. Perhaps your definition of "hate" and mine are two different things.

[Zhade]

56. Find a hateful post here. Just one.

Back up yet another of your baseless allegations.

Criticism of bigotry IS NOT HATE. Sorry you can't see that.

I have Catholic DUer friends. They rock - and part of why they rock is, unlike you, they don't support bigotry from their church.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

133. Yo Dembones

[brentspeak]

12. That might be by design

The left-wing on these boards have also made red state DUers extremely uncomfortable - so much so that a lot of them just don't visit here anymore. Conclusion: DU no longer represents the average Democrat.

[Zenlitened]

15. Conclusion: Anti-gay bigotry is incompatible with progressivism...

... no matter what sort of robes it's dressed up in.

Edited to add:

Archdiocese of Boston—Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield, and Worcester
MASSACHUSETTS CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
WEST END PLACE
150 Staniford Street, Suite 5, Boston, MA 02114-2511
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]

BISHOPS’ STATEMENT ON MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
DATE: June 16, 2005
We support the citizen-led effort to gather signatures for a new initiative petition that would add the following
language to the Massachusetts Constitution:
When recognizing marriages entered after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the
Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage as only the union of one man
and one woman.
This proposed amendment restores to our laws the traditional definition of marriage. To remain
effective as society’s primary institution for ensuring the well-being of children, marriage must be
understood by government as a commitment involving one man and one woman.
The amendment addresses only the meaning of marriage itself and affects only future marriages. It
takes no position on how the legislature should assign legal rights and economic benefits. Thus, if
placed on the statewide ballot in 2008, it gives the people a clear choice on marriage.
We oppose another amendment, initially approved by the legislature in 2004, which combines the issues
of marriage and same-sex civil unions. This proposal fails to provide a clear choice—it dictates that
civil unions shall be treated as marriage in all but name. Protecting marriage is more than preserving a
name. The people deserve the opportunity to vote on marriage as a stand-alone issue.
Thus, we encourage all Catholics to exercise their civil right to participate in the signature drive for the
new initiative petition. When the time comes in the fall, signatures may be gathered outside Catholic
churches with the cooperation of pastors. We remind supporters to conduct their campaign in a spirit of
respect for all persons.

Most Rev. Seán P. O’Malley Most Rev. George W. Coleman
Archbishop, Archdiocese of Boston Bishop, Diocese of Fall River
Most Rev. Timothy A. McDonnell Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Bishop , Diocese of Springfield Bishop, Diocese of Worcester

http://www.macathconf.org/05-Bishops%20Statement%20Supporting%20Marriage%20Petition%20FINAL.pdf

Massachusetts Catholic Bishops' Joint Statement on the Definition of Marriage

To Be Read May 31-June 1, 2003, in all parishes

Dear Catholic Faithful in Massachusetts:

Our public officials are debating the definition of marriage. As the Bishops of the four Catholic Dioceses in Massachusetts, we wish to offer some reflections on this debate. We want also to ask for your help. This is a critical time in our Commonwealth!

First, we will describe what is happening in the state courts and at the State House in Boston. Second, we will share an overview of Church teaching on marriage. Third, we will urge you to contact your state legislators to support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment.

Let’s start with the marriage debate in our courts and legislature. The state Supreme Judicial Court has a case before it asking the judges to change the legal definition of marriage. The case is called Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. The court may issue its decision sometime this summer.

Under present state policy, only a man and a woman can apply for a marriage license. The plaintiffs want the court to declare that this policy violates the state constitution. They want this policy struck down so that any two adults, regardless of gender, can get married.

Many experts on both sides of the debate think the odds are high that the plaintiffs will get what they want, a ruling redefining marriage. Such an outcome will have devastating consequences here and nationally.

In response to the Goodridge case, state lawmakers in Boston have filed the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment. This proposal would amend the state constitution. It would reaffirm the legal definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. It would reverse any decision in Goodridge that changes this definition. We strongly support this amendment.

The Church’s teaching on marriage remains constant and clear. We would like to share with you a summary of our teaching, as issued on behalf of all the Catholic Bishops in the United States in a “Statement on Same-Sex Marriage”. The Statement, issued in 1996, reads as follows:

“The Roman Catholic Church believes that marriage is a faithful, exclusive, and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love. This union was established by God with its own proper laws. By reason of its very nature, therefore, marriage exists for the mutual love and support of the spouses and for the procreation and education of children. These two purposes, the unitive and the procreative, are equal and inseparable. The institution of marriage has a very important relationship to the continuation of the human race, to the total development of the human person, and to the dignity, stability, peace, and prosperity of the family and of society.

”Furthermore, we believe the natural institution of marriage has been blessed and elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. This means that Christian marriage is more than a contract. Because they are married in the Lord, the spouses acquire a special relationship to each other and to society. Their love becomes a living image of the manner in which the Lord personally loves his people and is united with them. Living a Christian sacramental marriage becomes their fundamental way of attaining salvation.

”Because the marital relationship offers benefits, unlike any other, to persons, to society, and to the church, we wish to make it clear that the institution of marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, must be preserved, protected, and promoted in both private and public realms. At a time when family life is under significant stress, the principled defense of marriage is an urgent necessity for the wellbeing of children and families, and for the common good of society.

”Thus, we oppose attempts to grant the legal status of marriage to a relationship between persons of the same sex. No same-sex union can realize the unique and full potential which the marital relationship expresses. For this reason, our opposition to "same-sex marriage" is not an instance of unjust discrimination or animosity toward homosexual persons. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches emphatically that individuals and society must respect the basic human dignity of all persons, including those with a homosexual orientation. Homosexual persons have a right to and deserve our respect, compassion, understanding, and defense against prejudice, attacks and abuse.

”We therefore urge Catholics and all our fellow citizens to commit themselves both to upholding the human dignity of every person and to upholding the distinct and irreplaceable community of marriage.”

That is the end of the Statement. In light of this teaching, we are very concerned about what the court may do this summer in the Goodridge case. If legal marriage is redefined in Massachusetts so that any two people regardless of gender can be married, then the state will no longer be able to promote the union of a man and a woman as uniquely beneficial to society. The Catholic Church and other private institutions with moral objections will be forced to change their employment and other policies to recognize other relationships as marriage, or face discrimination lawsuits.

The stakes are very high. Marriage as we know it will be irreparably harmed if we don’t respond quickly. We face a critical moment in Massachusetts, requiring our urgent attention. How can you help?

We ask everyone in the church to write, call or e-mail your State Senator and State Representative, and to get your friends to do the same. Letters are especially effective. Urge your legislators to support House Bill 3190, the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment. The House and Senate must meet together in joint session to approve the amendment twice before 2006. Getting the first favorable legislative vote in 2003 would send a strong signal to the courts—to let the people decide! Time is of the essence, so please act quickly, and pray for success!

Our public policy office, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, has launched a legislative alert for the marriage amendment through MCC-Net, our Catholic legislative action network. Be sure to look in your parish bulletin to find more details on how to reach your legislators, how to join MCC-Net for email updates, and how to access the Catholic Conference website for even more information on the marriage issue. Again, please act soon, before it is too late.

Bishop Richard G. Lennon, Apostolic Administrator, Archdiocese of Boston

Bishop Daniel P. Reilly, Diocese of Worcester

Bishop Thomas L. Dupre, Diocese of Springfield

Bishop-Elect George W. Coleman, Diocese of Fall River

Massachusetts Catholic Conference
West End Place, Suite 5
150 Staniford Street, Boston MA 02114-2511
(p) 617-367-6060 (f) 617-367-2767 (e) [e-mail]
www.macathconf.org

http://www.macathconf.org/03bishops_define_marriage_stat.htm

[brentspeak]

16. So you're saying the red state Democrats and DUers

are "anti-gay bigots"? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Zenlitened]

17. And you came to this conclusion how? Or is this just another...

... deceptive rhetorical device of the sort so in fashion these days?

Seriously, it hardly makes your case if you employ the very devices of the right wing.

Edited to add: Feel free to research that whole "not bearing false witness" thing before responding. :rofl:

[Zhade]

57. self-delete

I misread.

[Bill McBlueState]

62. states

I don't think anyone posted anything in this thread about caring what state anyone's from.

This has nothing to do with geography: "Anti-gay bigotry is incompatible with progressivism no matter what sort of robes it's dressed up in."

Unless you're trying to say that people should get a pass on homophobia if they're from a particular state. Is that what you're trying to say?

[Zhade]

63. You're correct, no one did. It's a strawman argument.

I, of course, fully concur that homophobia and bigotry are incompatible with progressive ideals.

And NO ONE gets a pass on either of those repugnant stances.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. That's very true! I not only

am Catholic but live in a red state in the South so I'm a non-person to some people here. It amazes me that people can think they're enlightened yet attack all members of any large group like Catholics or Southerners.

[arwalden]

29. So When Someone Attacks "Religious" Anti-Gay Bigotory...

... they are also personally attacking ALL people who belong to that faith? If someone scorns a religious leader's words, they are also personally snubbing everyone who belongs to that religion?

<< It amazes me that people can think they're enlightened yet attack all members of any large group like Catholics or Southerners.>>

It amazes ME that people can think that their religion and religious leaders are somehow EXEMPT from criticism simply because it's a religion. Wow.

Face it! Bigotry spawned from religion or disguised a religious "morality" is STILL BIGOTRY. Stop trying to defend it! Stop making excuses for it! Stop pretending to be personally affronted whenever anyone criticizes the Pope or speaks of him in unflattering terms. Learn to cope.

[Zhade]

59. Of course, NO ONE attacked CATHOLICS.

We criticized those Catholics like yourself who support the RCC's bigotry against GLBTers.

Thankfully, you are not representative of all Catholics, or all Catholic DUers. So, that being the case, I fail to see how criticizing your support of the church's bigotry can be an attack on Catholics in general, since even here your views are in the minority.

And no one even MENTIONED southerners until your ally brought it up as a strawman. Plus, seeing as how I'm from the south and still have beloved family there, I wouldn't attack southerners for being southerners - just like I NEVER attack Catholics FOR BEING Catholic.

Keep trying, it's hilarious to watch your feigned persecution.

[Zhade]

42. Of course, your post is bullshit, since no one does this.

There is not a single DUer who does what you allege, but have fun playing the victim while the real victims - like those children raped by leaders in your church - wait for justice.

[IntiRaymi]

43. What are they going to lobby for?

TORT REFORM?

[Rich Hunt]

93. oh, you would not believe the things they do

Typically they keep it "below the radar" because they're "nice", mild-mannered middle-class people who use "nice" tactics like slander and blacklisting, and those are milder of their habits.

You see, some religious fanatics just do their business in private and think we can't see what is going on here.

By the way, I'm not a Catholic. Just a person of Irish descent who knows this garbage all too well.

Normally, when one of the little left-wing "Catholic" troublemakers bothers them, they flood the DU "breaking news" with stories about the Church and let the fur fly. Then they disingenously claim that they're just "making an honest criticism". But they never engage or make any sort of complicated, thoughtful argument. They just turn back to their neighbor at the picket fence and gossip away.

[arwalden]

126. How "Complicated" Do You Need It To Be?

<<But they never engage or make any sort of complicated, thoughtful argument. >>

Pointing out the RCC's bigotry and hate really isn't a complicated thing to do. It's simply a matter of point out what was said or what was done, and calling it what it is.

It's just as easy to see which "progressive" Catholics defend the bigotry and hate as it is to see which Catholics are repulsed by it.

Except for the purpose of trying to convince the most dense among us, no "thoughtful argument" needs to be made to explain THAT this the RCC is wrong or WHY they are wrong. There's no need for anyone to indulge your vanity requests and demands.

This matter is cut-and-dried. The leaders of the RCC do what they do, and it is what it is. There are no two ways about it. Bigotry is bigotry and hate is hate. Attempts by some folks around here to deny the obvious are laughable. That pig that y'all keep putting lipstick on is STILL a pig.

What's so hard to grasp about that? Why do so many apologists have such a hard time admitting this?

[VegasWolf]

13. So people's tithes are going to fat-cat lobbyists in an attempt to head

off bad publicity, and perhaps cival actions! I'm so glad
I bailed out of that Church when I was 13 years old. The
brainwashing doesn't take on everyone.

[arwalden]

30. Tithes Are Used To Pay BIG Settlements In The Priest Abuse Cases...

... and I'll bet that the folks thought their donation would have been put to some more charitable uses.

[VegasWolf]

14. So people's tithes are going to fat-cat lobbyists in an attempt to head

off bad publicity, and perhaps civil actions! I'm so glad
I bailed out of that Church when I was 13 years old. The
brainwashing doesn't take on everyone.

[JVS]

18. Oh fabulous!

I don't mind them picking on their own members via threats of excommunication etc. But churches shouldn't need to hire lobbyists.

[Solly Mack]

74. I don't need you,I have never needed you, and I will never need you

to be concerned about me.

Fuck anyone and everyone in the Catholic Church that entertains the notion that they get any say in my life.(or any religious group for that matter)

While they are welcome to play daddy to their own members - they are never going to be welcome playing patriarch to a secular society.....

If their flock wants a Daddy figure telling them how to behave - that's their flocks business....but they need to keep it their business and stay out of government and everyone elses business.

[noamnety]

75. Can someone explain the logic here?

"legislation proposed ... would require religious denominations to file annual financial reports, including a complete list of real estate holdings, with the attorney general's office. ... The Catholic bishops will also oppose the legislation, which O'Malley spokesman Terrence C. Donilon called ''threateningly intrusive to the work of the church."

What work of the church is threatened by supplying a list of assets to the government? I'm trying to think of some examples where that would threaten their work, and I'm at a loss.

[Zhade]

86. You know, the holy strip malls. Can't threaten the sanctity of those!

NT!

[trotsky]

87. What's "threateningly intrusive"

is that the church would have a LOT of explainin' to do regarding just how much wealth they're sitting on.

[TankLV]

81. Boy, that was quick!

But I suppose it's JUST TOO HARD to do something even half an effort to get to the bottom of and root out the pedophiles in their midst? Easier to buy them a plane ticket to Vatican City to hide out, huh?

And, no, for the ususal suspects and "persecuted catholics" here, that was NOT a cheep shot, but just a well deserved and long overdue observation!

[Rich Hunt]

95. who are these people?

Tell me - who are these "usual suspects"? Are you tracking people and labeling them as "suspects" now?

Is there some backchannel on DU in which you confer about these "suspects" and "persecuted people"? Boy, do I want in on THAT gossip line!

All I've seen is some people (who haven't claimed to be Catholic, either) ask questions and demand that you refine their points and engage them.

Another picket fence is handed out....

[TankLV]

108. I'm sure you can figure that out by yourself.

You're a big boy now.

[Zenlitened]

109. Dude, yer harshin' the meme.

No one ever has specific criticisms of church policy, remember? No one ever attempts to state their case in a linear way, nor tries to communicate a logical point of view in a discussion. It's all about per-see-cutin' !

:sarcasm:

I mean, what have you been doing? Actually READING what people have to say? Cut it out, and get back here in the "back-channel," which is of course the only way one can form impressions of DU posters over time. :D

[Rich Hunt]

140. that's funny

I have no idea who you are - I don't preoccupy myself with individual posters.

However some of you claim to know an awful lot about Cuban Liberal and Padraig18 (whom I know because I believe he was a Dean person). Tell me how that is?

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rich Hunt]

101. ha ha

Very funny. Case closed.

;)

[Zenlitened]

104. Plays right into your hands, doesn't it?

Does that make you feel better? Now that one person has made an inappropriate post, you can crow about how you're being persecuted, right?

[arwalden]

106. It's Easier For Folks To Cherry-Pick...

... ONE post like that and then make BROAD BRUSH generalizations about how "everyone" is "persecuting" "all" Catholics.

Astounding... isn't it?

[Zhade]

118. Kinda like what a lot of believers do with their holy books, actually.

But to their credit, there are many who don't.

[arwalden]

124. Indeed... Not All Do. But It's The Ones Who DO Do That...

... who whine the loudest at the most slight and imagined insult.

-- Allen

Heh-heh-heh... I said do-do.

[Zhade]

128. That's because they're the most insecure in their faith, it seems.

Real progressive believers of any stripe can take whatever criticism comes along and be fair about it. They're not so afraid that they're wrong that they put up an ultrasensitive defense shield.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

134. Cherries, like almost every edible vegetable, are CULTIVATED, aren't they?

eom

[Zenlitened]

102. That's a bit over the top, to say the least. :(

Only plays into the "we're being persecuted" rant that some still cling to.

[Horse with no Name]

129. Let's get this straight

Our taxes pay our lawmakers who make our laws.
The church pays no taxes, therefore, should not have ANY say on law.
That being said--of course if they do it individually that is fine--but to take church money to assert their opinion is insane.
I think it is time to take away the tax exemption status for the churches. Too many want a political voice, so let them pay their taxes and give them a voice.
That's the solution.

[arwalden]

130. Absolutely! Tax The Income... Tax The Property!

[Rich Hunt]

141. I don't

It's unconstitutional and positively loony to boot.

We already have this lovely thing called separation of church and state. Perhaps you have heard of it?

Also, I am an agnostic civil libertarian. Those who like to "keep tabs" on me know that.

[arwalden]

145. Why, Rich! That's No Way To "Engage" Or Make A "Thoughtful Argument"...

... what kind of example is that to set when you've already made it very clear that this is what you want, expect, and deserve? It's hypocritical to demand one thing... but then to post the very same type of snarky message that you scold others for doing. :eyes:

<< We already have this lovely thing called separation of church and state. Perhaps you have heard of it? >>

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

What about that prohibits taxation of churches? When churches and religious organizations want to enter the political arena, then that is THEIR choice. If they want to play, they have to pay. If they want to act like a PAC, then they need to pay like one.

<< Also, I am an agnostic civil libertarian. Those who like to "keep tabs" on me know that. >>

Do you really believe that people "keep tabs" on you? Wow.

[Horse with no Name]

149. Is it more constitutional that they be allowed to dictate

mandates of their faith into law that affects me?
Where is the sacred separation of church and state there?
People that want to live by their doctrine have the venue to do so.
They just go to a Catholic church.
However, I choose not to be a Catholic and don't want their mandates forced upon me.
Why does the church feel the need to force their idealogy down anyone else's throat? They have a captive audience.
BTW, I've never seen ya before, therefore, I find no need to "keep tabs" on you.

[TankLV]

146. Tax the bastards. This is ENGAGING IN MATTERS OF STATE

you RCC apologists know - POLITICING - which BREAKS THE WALL OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

This couldn't be any more blatant!

THIS IS IMPOSING THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON THE REST OF US!

Maybe this will finally get the serious discussion going on why such things are FORBIDDEN according to tax law!

HELLO?

IRS?

HELLO?