text:
Priests' wives
An op-ed piece in today's Times asks an interesting question: "What will life be like for the wives of Roman Catholic priests?" The article, by historian Sara Ritchey, considers the fate of women married to Episcopal priests who join the Catholic church.But Professor Ritchey gives a very strange answer to her question, considering it solely in terms of what she says happened to the wives of priests up to and around the time the First Lateran Council prohibited clerical marriage in 1123. Quoting Peter Damian, she says that priests' wives should beware a tradition that views them as the clerics charmers, devils choice tidbits, expellers from paradise, virus of minds, sword of soul, wolfbane to drinkers, poison to companions, material of sinning, occasion of death ... the female chambers of the ancient enemy, of hoopoes, of screech owls, of night owls, of she-wolves, of blood suckers.I wouldn't have expected an argument like this from an academic historian; it takes the ascetic Peter Damian's advocacy of clerical celibacy in the 11th century totally out of its historical context, and inserts it without qualification into a vastly different time.The article doesn't take into account that a few things might have changed in the church and in society at large in the last nine centuries.
About the Author
Paul Moses, a professor of journalism at Brooklyn College/CUNY, is the author of The Saint and the Sultan: The Crusades, Islam and Francis of Assisi's Mission of Peace (Doubleday, 2009) and An Unlikely Union: The Love-Hate Story of New York's Irish and Italians (NYU Press, 2015).
87 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Maybe we should chalk it up to a medieval historian trying desperately to be relevant. I just read it and had the same reaction. She says we're a tradition that is suspicious of priest's wives, which is true historically, but that doesn't explain how it is that this new arrangement came about. Peter Damian would not approve, so how did we get from here to there in the last thousand years?At least she noted the multiple causes of the celibacy rule. Gary Wills once claimed in the Boston Globe that it was just a property thing and some misplaced asceticism, which is true, but only part of the story. Often it is claimed that the church didn't want to lose property, but as Ritchie properly notes, it was the laity who didn't want priest's sons running off with their donated lands.
I know it's early, but I think we have a front-runner for Worst Op-Ed of the Year...A couple of things:Ritchey doesn't seem to realize that there have been a couple hundred, at least, married clergy in Latin-rite Catholicism for 30 years, not to mention Eastern-rite Catholic priests. So the experience has already occurred, and in my interactions with married priests and their wives it's been fine. Moreover, Ritchey seems unaware of the experience of wives in Protestant denominations, where they are still often treated as humble help mates and little more. I've spoken with several female clergy who have often remarked how much more congenial they often find Catholic priests to work with than their own male counterparts who view women as wives. A couple suggsted that Catholic priests may be used to working with women religious, who are used to running organizations and institutions. Oh, and Peter Damian should be given some credit for being ahead of his time on calling out the clergy on sex abuse. In any case, Paul's critcisms (and JC's) are bang on.Oh, and give Bill Donohue his due! http://www.catholicleague.org/the-plight-of-priests%E2%80%99-wives/
What will life be like for wives of Roman Catholic priests?Perhaps proud, honored, and deeply spiritual. Proud, honored, and deeply spiritual that they and their spouses are gifted with the sacrament of marriage and ordination, honored that with God they can experience intimacy and divine love in their relationship, deeply spiritual in that where two or more are gathered in God's name, God is with them.Why should the public see them any differently?
Poor op ed.If a significant number of married priests take over parish assignments, will the issue of mandatory celibacy in the Western rite be questioned more?
I liked the piece. As to what has changed in nine centuries? The Church's attitude towards women has not. Ask a priest what he was taught in the seminary about women. (I liked the article on The Heights, too. What about a thread on all the D.C. big shots, like Santorum, whose children attend the Opus Dei school?)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/us/the-heights-a-catholic-school-draws...
In some Protestant churches, the pastor's wife has a significant role as counselor to women, organizer of parish events, etc. They do this without training, of course, and sometimes well and sometimes badly. I'm not suggesting this (heck, I train people for ministry, so I DO think preparation is a good thing!) but it is a role beyond that of standard "wife" for many pastor-partners, often a substantial ministerial role. This becomes an interesting dynamic in our time, when pastors' spouses come in both sexes (in most churches) and are often professionals in other fields themselves, and may not want to be thought of as an adjunct pastor, or a pastoral assistant without pay.
Gerelyn,Santorum went to Rome in 2002 to deliver a speech in honor of Escriva, on the centenary anniversary of Escriva's birth. Thanks for the link to the OD school. I understand Harvard and other Ivy schools have OD residences for students like alums of The Heights.While Prof. Ritchey's op-ed quotes vivid language that no doubt was also part of Protestant thinking that emerged a few centuries later, I believe the underlying attitudes linger surreptitiously. Otherwise, why the need to escape Episcopalian women priests by becoming Catholic clergy? I am heartened to hear that exposure to sisters by Catholic priests supposedly moderates discrimination. Sisters I know find the atmosphere less salutary. It seems progress comes very slowly; two thousand years to get only this far? A hopeful future beckons though because of the male Catholic priest shortage.An Episcopalian husband and wife are both priests, and good friends of ours. See what is possible.
Yes, the place near Harvard is included in this list:http://www.odan.org/foundations.htmI read a novel recently, Vestments, that was pretty good. I found the priests' conversations about women interesting. (And I loved the bits about the great Archbishop Ireland.)http://www.amazon.com/Vestments-John-Reimringer/dp/157131086X/ref=sr_1_1...
I think Paul Moses tries a bit too hard to remove the mote from Sara Ritcheys eye who draws present day lessons for Catholics from history of a millennium ago of the origins of celibacy as Catholics are now asked to embrace a married clergy, refugees from an Anglican community that honors women and gay/lesbian priests.As David Gibson points out, the operative model and comparative experience for a Catholic married priesthood is the one that has already existed for millennia with our Greek Catholic and Orthodox cousins.In Ritcheys defense, it seems to me that the initial critical reaction from some on this blog to her historical deconstruction of a married clergy may be that it originates from an woman in her academic perch who enjoys more than several degrees of freedom in her analysis from the rigid, male-dominated Catholic mythology about priesthood and, in particular, its peculiar central celibate character.From my reading of the NY Times op-ed, its hard to argue that Ritchey doesnt hit all the historical bases in her argument. To complain that she doesnt give 11th-century monk Peter Damian his due for calling out clergy sexual predation essentially amounts to nitpicking. [Dont you think Ritchey nails Damian with the women-married-to-priests as blood suckers quote?]My favorite part of the op-ed is Ritcheys bang on depiction of the wives role of these new Catholic married priest as SACERDOTAL ATTACHE the perfect appellation which evokes Catholicisms desperate eternal struggle to diminish the human dignity of women.Its like saying to women: Mind your place girl, after all you only came from Adams rib.P.S. The best way to give Bill Donohue his due is to ignore him.
As I am wont to do in discussions of this sort, I'll mention that there are thousands of deacons in the US (about 15,000, I believe), and most of them are married. So the contemporary Catholic church's experience with this is quite extensive.Our formation program was very encouraging of wives to serve alongside their husbands. They received all the same formation that we did, including the same certificate in pastoral theology at the end. The official church has a vision, I think, that it is a beautiful expression of the sacrament of marriage that a deacon and his wife minister together.Yet the involvement of deacons' wives in ministry is all over the map. Some have the inclination, time and skills to be very involved, and a number do minister alongside their husbands. Some want absolutely nothing to do with it for whatever reason (often because they don't want to be in the public eye). And a lot end up somewhere in between. FWIW, that's where my wife and I are. I do some things with her and some things without her. She has done the same over the years.Also - my understanding of the "ordinariate" is that these priests and their wives are coming over specifically to minister to Anglicans who have become Catholic, and will continue to worship using Anglican liturgy. It will sort of be Anglicanism within Catholicism. I presume a lot of Episcopalians are already accustomed to priests being married. So I don't think it's going to be a big deal for them.
Perhaps Ritcheys op-ed was an act of reparation on the part of the Times for the balanced piece on the experience of married Catholic priests that was published last Saturday, which you can find here.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-roman-catholic-priests-are-...
Gerolyn, You wrote: "As to what has changed in nine centuries? The Churchs attitude towards women has not. Ask a priest what he was taught in the seminary about women." This priest was not taught in the seminary anything remotely like what Peter Damian wrote. I was taught that women are of equal dignity with men. As for "the Church's attitude towards women," let's not commit Ritchey's mistake of confusing the views of Damian with "the Church's attitude" in the twelfth century, nor with "the tradition." And I don't remember anything like his crazy views in the writings on women of recent popes. Surely something has changed.
The sheer illogic of this op-ed piece, with its reliance on evidence from centuries ago but complete lack of interest in evidence from today,is blatant. Is that illogic as well as exaggeration and distortion justified because the treatment of women in Catholicism remains far from what it should be? To some people, evidently. I am not sure which is more discouraging, the op-ed or this reaction.
Latin Rite Catholics will soon get a dose of what Protestants have experienced for a long time:errant "PKs" - priest's/preacher's kids (a significant problem in Protestant ministerial families)divorceinfidelityrebellious wives who don't want to be treated as a free worker bee (well, we pay for her housing, healthcare, etc., don't we? why shouldn't she work for it?)These experiences will be quite new for Latin Rite Catholics and let's hope that the (un)natural reaction will NOT be: it must be her/their - the kids' - fault.
I missed the "Beliefs" column Fr. Komonchak linked to above, but I'm guessing Richey didn't - I suspect she read that and recognized a timely "hook" on which to hang some research, and the op-ed editors liked the pitch. The silliest thing about this piece, in my view, is how it ignores the fact that these women are already priests' wives. What Peter Damian said in the 11th century is surely just as relevant for contemporary Episcopalians.
Gerolyn, You wrote: As to what has changed in nine centuries? The Churchs attitude towards women has not. Ask a priest what he was taught in the seminary about women. This priest was not taught in the seminary anything remotely like what Peter Damian wrote. I was taught that women are of equal dignity with men. As for the Churchs attitude towards women, lets not commit Ritcheys mistake of confusing the views of Damian with the Churchs attitude in the twelfth century, nor with the tradition. And I dont remember anything like his crazy views in the writings on women of recent popes. Surely something has changed.---------Hi, Joseph,Glad to know priests were/are taught that "women are of equal dignity with men".
Yes--as an academic (and as someone whose parish has a married assistant pastor--a former Methodist minister), I had a similar reaction when I read the piece this morning: I don't know anyone who's so irresponsible as to suggest that the conditions that obtained in their time period are totally true today! Had she acknowledged Oppenheimer's "Beliefs" column and presented her Op-Ed as merely providing some (very limited) historical perspective on priests' wives, it would have been okay--though to be worthwhile, it ought really to have given a fuller survey of attitudes towards priests' wives through the centuries.As it is, it's dumb punditry and dumb scholarship.
An important question, but there seems a chance for a new start on this front, since most Catholics don't have any traditions or (in most cases) preconceived notions about priests' wives. 1. As others have pointed out, this is not totally new in the RCC, since we have had a few married priests for several years in the Roman rite, and a much longer history (though not in the USA) in the Catholic Eastern Churches. 2. It seems to me that the Anglican Ordinariate will face a crisis in a few years when its convert priests (and their wives) start to retire or die. Rome apparently does not envision replacing them with young married priests raised in the same flock. 3. The Melkites (Catholic Syrian Byzantines) recently announced that they will consider ordaining married men to the priesthood in the U.S. That sad prohibition goes back to the aforementioned Archbishop John Ireland of St Paul, who objected (in the late 19th century) to the presence of a widower priest from the then-Austro-Hungarian Empire in his diocese. Many Eastern Catholics became Orthodox as a result; their descendants are mostly part of the Orthodox Church in America. It gave -- and still gives -- the lie to the notion that the Roman Church truly respects the legitimate customs of the various Eastern Churches (and they differ among themselves). 4. To make any of this work, seminaries -- at least some of them -- are going to have to change. We need a way to educate priests' wives as well as the priests themselves. Even without a "cookie cutter" pattern for priests' wives to follow, they are bound to face some unusual challenges. At least one Eastern Catholic jurisdiction sent its seminarians to an Orthodox institution, as one way around the problem. Good for ecumenical relations, too. 5. Perhaps a major obstacle to be faced is the increased cost of married clergy. We need to be sure that they are adequately compensated, have family health insurance, and otherwise implement the social teaching of the Church toward them. The Melkites made a tremendous contribution at Vatican II. It is good to see them once again coming up to bat. Maybe we'll get through the current craziness after all.
Fr KEqual dignity with men!!!! lovely theoretical sweettalk. Can't be Priests. Can't be bishops. And , the church would crumble we should have a red hat. Peter Damian is a saint for the Roman bureaucracy ,
The Times is just having a little fun at the expense of Catholics, whose church has become fair game for journalists in recent years. One of the author's specialties is gender relations in medieval Europe.Both paper and professor are probably enjoying the outrage.http://www.history.louisiana.edu/Ritchey%20page.htmhttp://www.ratemyprof...
Mollie, I suspect Dr. Ritchey may have been driven to some distraction by Mark Oppenheimer's column, as she wrote about it here, and somehow managed to work in Bishop Zavala:http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/5553/catholic_prie...
The point here is that the creation of the Ordinariate is about sex, and resoundingly so. It affirms, not questions or challenges, the Catholic teaching on priestly celibacy and procreative marital sexuality. In fact some outspoken Catholic leaders, like Cardinal Donald Wuerl, have even suggested that the questions posed by the presence of married Catholic priests will disappear within a generation as potential seminary applicants who wish to enter the ordinariate must choose to commit to celibacy.The creation of the Ordinariate has firm historical roots in Catholic doctrine on priestly celibacy. So while members of the Ordinariate may celebrate their homecoming into Catholic fullness of the faith, let them know that their whole reason for being lies in matters of limiting the sphere of permissible human sexuality.Bishop Zavala, after a career of service to 66 churches and advocacy for immigration rights and the conditions of the working poor, still resigned. Catholic teachings on the dignity of human sexuality have hardly been challenged.
I don't think Dr. Ritchey is as [distracted] as some on this blog seem to be when a woman blurts out the obvious, and then anchors it in historical research: After a thousand years, the Catholic Church's misogyny still is wearing no clothes!
Mary Bergan: If you don't see any difference between Peter Damian's views and those of the leaders of the contemporary Church, you should have your eyes examined.
Jim Jenkins, please -- What evidence do you or Ritchey have that priests' wives are subject to the treatment Peter Damian describes, or anything like that? I mean, this argument is a bit absurd, but you, Jim Jenkins, are a layman. So I imagine all you do is "hunt, fish and entertain"? Because that's all Msgr. Talbot said you could do, and over the centuries there have been any number of derogatory things said about lay people by clerics. Ergo...
The point is, Fr. Komonchak, if you look at the church's history of its treatment of women through women's eyes, Ritchey's view would find many sisters and brothers.If I may suggest, the diagnosis of myopia may be an artifact of gender and politics.
David Gibson, please - You know as well as I do that while the church has somewhat cleaned up its act over the last few centuries [At least, I haven't heard of any organized witch burnings recently?], the Catholic Church, especially its hierarchy, goes out of its way week after week to denigrate and demean the humanity of women. Don't you read?Interesting that you mentioned above Gambino Zavala: Didn't you find it curious that Arch. Gomez went out of his way to announce that the mother of Zavala's children would be financially compensated? Is this an example of what Ritchey cited as the church's fear that priests' wives only covet the church's wealth?I have personally witnessed members of the hierarchy in private meetings react with thinly veiled fear and loathing for women. [Most are good enough politicians to not put this side of themselves on public display.] Especially if any woman would dare attempt to hold bishops or clerics to account for their betrayal of the people's trust and confidence. These are the same clinical symptoms associated and consistent with insults to the pathological narcissistic ego. I do entertain whenever possible. I don't hunt or fish. Had to put the tennis racket away - knees no good. Hiking is all I can manage these days - had to give up the team sports, but my teenagers keep me young. I don't consider myself a "laymen" about any part of my life, personal or public or religious. Who is Msgr. Talbot, anyway? Sorry, I don't get your attempt at condescending analogy.
M'arrendo alla Madonna.
Mr. Jenkins: I won't apologize for wanting to make some distinctions in these discussions. Yes, many women are dissatisfied with the situation of women in the Church today, but it helps no one to pretend that the reason for what they think is discrimination are the same ones articulated by Peter Damian.
"As David Gibson points out, the operative model and comparative experience for a Catholic married priesthood is the one that has already existed for millennia with our Greek Catholic and Orthodox cousins."Jim Jenkins ==Hmm. I wonder. I suspect that I'm much closer culturally and perhaps even theologically to a dear high church Anglican lady friend that I would be to an Eastern Catholic. Granted, I haven't known any of the latter well, except for the boyfriend of one of my room-mates. She dated a Ukranian Catholic boy quite seriously. Let's just say I"m glad she didn't marry him. How close to the spirituality of the Orthodox Churches are the Uniate Churches? While the Uniates can have wives, is their spirituality more like that of the Orthodox, e.g., like that of the monks of St. Athos? The latter are so anti-female that women are not allowed anywhere near the islnd, and the monks won't even allow female animals on the island.
Fr. Komonchak -- Many men are dissatisfied with the situation of women in the Church today. The very different meanings of "equal dignity" as said to be taught in the classroom, as demonstrated in practice, and as rationalized post facto drive home the emptiness of the claimed theory. Peter Damian's views on females may have been distorted by the environment in which he spent most of his adult life; it was probably a better school for developing expertise about the state of clerical vice which he documented for Leo IX. Above (7:55pm), it's unclear whether you are dismissing the questionable reasons from Peter Damian or the current phenomenon of discrimination. if the former, what would you suggest as alternative reasons "for what they think is discrimination"?
"For Peter Damian, one's sex did not determine a person's virtue or power."see pp. 761-763 here:http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/65/65.4/65.4.3.pdfThe article also touches on another issue raised by the op-ed. It argues that although Peter's original view was that priestly impurity might invalidate the sacraments he later changed his mind, having read Augustine more closely. Cf. also the interesting letters of Peter to Agnes of Poitiers, former regent of the Holy Roman Empire, who had been accused of favoring abbesses presiding over brothels.http://epistolae.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/woman/23.htmlThere's probably enough material here for several George Stephanopoulos questions and numerous follow-ups in the next debate.
As a priest, I would welcome married priests and their wives--as I have welcomed deacons and their wives. But I do have a thought or two. 1) Catholics will have to learn to give more to support a priest and his family. Over the years I have come to know some Protestant ministers who work for next to nothing. That is not just. My Diocese has a better insurance program and better retirement than most of the Protestants I know, especially the Assembly of God and Foursquare. But, with a family, a priest will need more. 2) The PK thing is real. There must be some way to help kids deal with the fact that their father is a priest. But at the same time, many of the best ministers I have come to know are the sons or daughters of ministers. It always amazes me that the hierarachy in its wisdom dismisses that possibility. 3) I have known some wonderful deacons over the years, and I have known some wonderful deacons' wives. But some of the most outrageous human beings I have ever had to endure have been the wives of deacons. 4) Now I am in my seventies, living by myself, helping out where I can. I am sure the Lord is overjoyed by my loneliness. I try to fill it with prayer, am learning how to make friends in the senior community etc.. But it would be wonderful to have someone by my side. Over the years, when I had to face life with its problems by myself, that would also have been wonderful. They say that the Church is my spouse. Yikes! OK, then. The parish. Well, sometimes. But as often as not such a metaphor is baloney.
I am in my sixties and grew up Protestant, attended Orthodox services for 16 years, and have known so many PKs both as children and adults that they are too numerous for me to number. If anything these PKs were better behaved and "adjusted' than most kids. In my current parish we have two adult PKs and one stepson of a priest who are more devout than most people. Our senior priest has four fine adult children and 12 grandchildren. His grandchildren are no different from those of anyone else. As far as I am concerned this PK concept is a stereotype just like "army brat." In my hometown, the village bad boy was the son of a prominent doctor. Maybe doctors should be celibate and devote their lives to healing our bodies 24/7?
"At least 25,000 Americans have left the priesthood since 1970, Father Sullins says. Many of them expected the church to lift the celibacy rule, but when they realized the rule was staying, they left and got married. Twenty-five thousand former priests in a country with fewer than 40,000 priests today. Celibate or not, all Catholics can do the math." (the last paragraph of the balanced NYT article cited by Fr. Komonchak above)I am one of those 25,000 married priests, barred from priestly ministry because I chose to marry. It's been almost 20 years since I withdrew from active priestly ministry. If the leaders of the Church really believe that one does not cease "being" a priest just because he no longer permitted to actively minister as a priest, they are playing a dangerous game: as the NYT writer concludes, "Catholics can do the math." A fellow married priest commented recently, "They have squandered a generation of priests."Our Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers in the Priesthood provide us an example of married priests in ministry that has worked for many centuries. Their wives, by the way, are respected and honored. In the Greek Orthodox parishes, the priest's wife is referred to as "Presbytera" and she is fondly considered the "Mother" of the parish along with her husband, "Father"; the Russian Orthodox refer to the priest's wife as "Matushka" (Mother).The 25,000 of us who are "married Catholic priests" probably will not live to see a day when we will be recognized and called back to active ministry, because our leaders do not have a vision or imagination big enough to see beyond combining and closing parishes ... bending over backwards to preserve the status quo. The married priests I know are passionate in their love for the Church and continue to serve their fellow parishoners in whatever limited capacities the Church allows. And, by the way, the official line that priests who have married has "scandalized" their fellow Catholics is just not true: we married priests are known in our parish communites, respected by our fellow parishoners, and appreciated for the gifts we are able to offer.What has "scandalized" and deeply wounded our Catholic people -- internationally -- is thecover-up of the devastating and criminal sexual abuse of our youth.
On the lighter side, and anent the question of the role role of the wives of Protestant priests, ministers, etc: go rent a copy of Samuel Goldwyn's 1947 movie, The Bishop's Wife. The bishop is David Niven, the wife is Loretta Young, and when her cares and duties to her husband and her church threaten to overwhelm her, Cary Grant is the obliging angel who comes to earth to help see her through the crowded Christmas season and all that attends it. It is a charming movie, and will offend none save those who believe Bishop Niven should realize he is not a church leader, but only that of an "ecclesial community."I would agree that married priests would bring us new problems, as well as new gifts, but I expect the latter would far outweigh the former. As for scandal, yes, probably there would be the occasional marital breakup. But would any of this make us as ashamed of our church's leadership as we have been in learning of the abuse scandal in all its ramifications?
Now I am in my seventies[...] I am sure the Lord is overjoyed by my loneliness.[...] But it would be wonderful to have someone by my side.The same is true for many formerly married people who are now widowed. In every couple in which the two spouses do not die at the same time, one is going to outlive the other: about half of the people live the end of their life without a spouse.
Your empathy, Claire, is heartwarming. I suspect that this priest has suffered that loneliness most of his life (when he could have shared it with someone else). His age is not the issue. Take it from one who's been there.I cannot help imagining Rome's response if the Archbishop of Canterbury were to create an Ordinariate for disaffected Catholics and married priests, welcoming them into full union and a welcome back to active ministry the Anglican Communion. The Anglicans are far more inclusive than the Romans: they don't need to create an Ordinariate, because they've been other Christians with open arms. I think that the Archbishop of Canterbury responded with extraordinary grace when Rome poached members of his Church right under his nose.I am personally saddened that the only efforts Rome seems to be able to make are toultra-conservatives like the Lefebrists and now the ultra-conservative Anglicans...never an olive branch to those wounded by those suffering from Rome's intransigence and fear of change.
SSorry for the typo: I meant to write in my last line "to those suffering from Rome's intransigence and fear of change."
Ken - I haven't seen anything from Rome that says that it favors unity only with ultra-conservatives. If liberal Anglicans or, say, President Obama's former church in Chicago (which is United Church of Christ, I believe) petitioned Rome en masse to reunify (something, btw, that the Lefebvrists have not done), I would bet that a good-faith effort would be made to accommodate them. Naturally, reunification presumes genuine unity in faith. But if the issues can be worked out - why wouldn't Rome want to do it?
What about the Lefebrists, Jim, who deny the validity of the Second Vatican II outright?My point is that Rome seems so worried about these conservative groups, but there has been no olive branch offered -- at least for dialogue -- to groups that dissent on the progressive side. Can you think of any? There are a lot of sincere, thinking Catholics who dissent on various issues who are walking oiut because they can't see any hope of real change coming from Rome. And Rome couldn't care less. It's going to take a financial jolt, and it's coming, to wake these guys up.
I think Jim P. is being disingenuous as well.One issue that there seems to be perceived as part of the problem is that the policy makers look like an"old boys club" and IMO probably are.
Just read this story yesterday: Many years ago the theologian Charles Davis, OP left the Church saying it is corrupt. His friend Herbert McCabe, OP, replied, "Of course it's corrupt. But that's no reason to leave it".Ah, Fr. McCabe. Shouldda been pope. :-)
Is there really nothing the laity can do about the state of the Church besides pray? Tomorrow is MLK's birthday. What would he do about it? How about an Occupy the Nuncio's Front Yard movement?
William Taylor raises several good practical and poignant thoughts, thank you. Re the practical, I read that the Ordinariate is having a Devil of a time in England coming up with money to support the news priests and their families. Apart from priests' wives and celibacy, this experiment may give Catholics a good sense of what it really takes to support a pastor. As with men and religious in years past, it seems to me Catholics have had it pretty good with the celibate priesthood -- men who are avaiavlable to all, all the time, and cost so little! Just as we are now discovering the real cost of a Catholic education, we may one day discover the real cost of supporting a pastor, and perhaps we'd be less smug about the state of many Protestant congregations -- or we'd learn to donate as much as they do.
My experience with PKs has been that more than a few of them resent the fact that, because one of their parents is a minister, they are expected to be "holier than thou." The errancy/rebelliousness usually sets in during their teen years and the ministerial status of a parent seems to be a significant factor in their rebelling.Congregants tend to hold PKs and ministerial spouses up to a standard that they would like to see emulated, ofttimes higher than they themselves emulate.I am good friends with the son of a Serbian Orthodox priest who is a marvelous man, an excellent father and about to become a deacon in his church. One of his brothers is also a priest and his uncle is a bishop. The mother has achieved the status of priest's helpmate be virtue of her personality and willingness to do the work without the pay. PKs are not all problems, but Latin Rite Catholics have never had to deal with (acknowledged) children and (open) spouses of their priests. But that day is ending.
Charles Davis was not a Dominican, but a diocesan priest.
While following the Mary Winkler case (Tennessee preacher's wife who killed her husband), I noticed many posts on the old Court T.V. message board from preachers' wives who were abused--physically, financially, emotionally, professionally, spiriturally, sexually, by their husbands.Googling "domestic abuse preachers' wives" brings up information on this topic. I hope there are no instances of this among the wives of the new Catholic priests who left the Anglican religion because of its tolerance of women. The wives and children of abusive ordained men face even more pressure to keep it secret than do other victims of domestic violence. Speaking out could cause the wage earner to lose his job. It could cause opprobrium to be heaped on them by those who believe women should submit to their husbands. Etc.
I'd like to add that it's(sad) fuuny to me how this thread at times overlaps the one below:I think the issue of religion vs. Jesus is based on a sense of instutitional lack of credibility and in the Church divided today that same issue colors the way people approach issues like the ordinariate, celibacy, etc.Ken's hopes have no hopes, whatmatters is indoctrinated clergy who wil indoctrinate - that is the prospect and that plays into the breach.I think many answer Ann's question about what to do by indifference to the institution but finding other approaches to spirituality while retaining the Eucharist(with little or no care for the indoctrinated truths.)I can't see major changes coming in support of what's happening.Part of the turnoff will continue to be the question of women in the Church -of course, no longer a hammer of witches approach - but a sense that second class is still the position asigned. Isee Fr. Barron nad the Anchoress have raised a few hackles in their view of the Church and women -clearly party of the breacvh.And the sex abuse issue is still with us (see philly today about undisclosed priest pornographers.)And good old Bill Donahue casting victims and their supporters as "malcontents" -good old Bill, beloved by Cardinal Dolan and Abp. Chaput.The problem to me is that voices of moderation get ittle shrift so why not be indifferent to the continuing approach of BXVI and his more to become Roman curia. his hierachyies chosen to support that ,and their supporters.?
Thanks, JAK. Whatever happened to Davis? Is he still a theologian? Amazon doesn't list one book by him.
First of all the op-ed forgets to mention that Peter Damian was not referring to the legitimate wives of priests, but the one's who should not have been with them in the first place, since they already had their wives.Damian had equally harsh words for the priest's themselves.This context has been missed not just by NYt, but by Commonweal as well.Liberal bias?There is also a lot more to this debate, than they hate women blah, blah.In both Catholicism/Orthodoxy the priesthood stands for something.The priestess movement would change the religion itself.To quote the former Anglican priest, Fr. Scott Newman: "No Catholic, including no Anglo-Catholic, can accept that there only two sacraments, and to dismiss the other fivemost especially the sacramental priesthood of bishops and presbytersis, in effect, to deny the sacramentality of the Eucharist.""For a Catholic, to say that a sacrament was not instituted by Christ is to say that it is not a sacrament of New Covenant. Also for a Catholic, there is no possibility of the Eucharist without the sacramental priesthood. That is why Catholics insist that it is logically impossible to talk about the Eucharist as a sacrament without also talking about the priesthood as a sacrament." The Episcopalians have only permitted priestesses by making changes to theology itself.One should also note that Apostolic tradition does not marry already ordained priest even in Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism. In both Bishops, still have to be celibate.There are many who give up everything to pursue a religious vocation, there are others who come in with a list and then throw a fuss when things don't go their way.They have misunderstood the whole point of a religious vocation.They never stop to think that what needs changing is not 2,000 years of Christian revelation, but themselves.
Ann: Charles Davis died in 1999.Here is an obit written by Adrian Hastings: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-charles-davis-1...
2,000 years of Christian revelation? Revelation! you do jest, don't you. If you expect us to take you at your word that you are "savvy," you need to exhibit more than you did above.
Thanks, JAK and Jimmy Mac. Poor man.
Ken writes (1/14 8:05 am):
Our Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers in the Priesthood provide us an example of married priests in ministry that has worked for many centuries. Their wives, by the way, are respected and honored. In the Greek Orthodox parishes, the priests wife is referred to as Presbytera and she is fondly considered the Mother of the parish along with her husband, Father; the Russian Orthodox refer to the priests wife as Matushka (Mother).Yes, but that's also a different culture, one in which the people apparently are looking up to the priest and his wife, not across, as to a peer, as modern Roman Catholics seem to be doing. If the priest is just another parishioner, distinguished only by his being able to perform the sacraments, the wife would likely be far less than a mother. More likely, she'd be just another parish wife, with almost nothing adhering from her husband's priesthood.And because of that, would parishioners be willing to contribute enough to support both husband and wife and children, from day to day and in retirement? Doubtful, I think.In other words, it's far more than just allowing priests to marry, as "fair" and "logical" as that seems. Sex and companionship are only one part of marriage. Leap if you must, but think first - long and hard - about all those big unintended consequences down the road.
Oops. Sorry about quoting everything. Again:Ken writes (1/14 8:05 am):
Our Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers in the Priesthood provide us an example of married priests in ministry that has worked for many centuries. Their wives, by the way, are respected and honored. In the Greek Orthodox parishes, the priests wife is referred to as Presbytera and she is fondly considered the Mother of the parish along with her husband, Father; the Russian Orthodox refer to the priests wife as Matushka (Mother).
Yes, but thats also a different culture, one in which the people apparently are looking up to the priest and his wife, not across, as to a peer, as modern Roman Catholics seem to be doing. If the priest is just another parishioner, distinguished only by his being able to perform the sacraments, the wife would likely be far less than a mother. More likely, shed be just another parish wife, with almost nothing adhering from her husbands priesthood.And because of that, would parishioners be willing to contribute enough to support both husband and wife and children, from day to day and in retirement? Doubtful, I think.In other words, its far more than just allowing priests to marry, as fair and logical as that seems. Sex and companionship are only one part of marriage. Leap if you must, but think first long and hard about all those big unintended consequences down the road.
Gerelyn, see bishop-accountabiltiy.org for the case of converted Episcopal priest William Winston, age 52, Morris Twp. NJ in 2006. It has already happened.
I am personally saddened that the only efforts Rome seems to be able to make are toultra-conservatives like the Lefebrists and now the ultra-conservative Anglicansnever an olive branch to those wounded by those suffering from Romes intransigence and fear of change.Ken Lovasik 01/14/2012 - 9:58 am subscriberSSorry for the typo: I meant to write in my last line to those suffering from Romes intransigence and fear of change.
Ken, that word "fear" is used too often, I think, to cast aspersions on others' motives: If someone's unwilling to do what we want, it must be because he's trembling in fear of doing the things we do bravely and nobly. There is nothing inherently wrong, disordered, fearful, shameful in not surrendering when attacked, especially when it's a matter of principle and deeply felt belief.
Gerelyn 01/14/2012 - 2:42 pmWhile following the Mary Winkler case (Tennessee preachers wife who killed her husband), I noticed many posts on the old Court T.V. message board from preachers wives who were abusedphysically, financially, emotionally, professionally, spiriturally, sexually, by their husbands.
Couple of caveats, Gerilyn. First, what people write - usually anonymously - on the internet can never be assumed to be true. Second, "abuse" has come to have such an all-encompassing definition that it's practically meaningless. I just abused my cat by not giving him dinner when he asked for it, and he abused me by bothering me about it while I was typing.
David Smith,Thanks for your viewpoints. Yes, a married priesthood is not the magic bullet. Priests in the East are also subject to ritual purity laws, that make clear distinctions between life and death. In the West the priest has become no more than a Protestant pastor.
Jerry Mac,You need better come-back lines. Not impressed.
Former Anglican Priest on his Catholic ministry"From conversations Ive had, most of my fellow married Catholic priests have a tremendous respect for our celibate brothers, and were grateful for the welcoming atmosphere and support they extend to us and our families. We admire the sacrifices they make, and appreciate they can give more of themselves to priestly service than we can."When we answered Gods call to Catholic ministry, we didnt set out to break the mold. None of us, to my knowledge, want to be poster boys for a new paradigm of priesthood.""In our day, debates about celibacy swirl in Catholic circles. This ancient and biblical discipline has both its defenders and critics. Speaking for myself, I feel uncomfortable when circumstances like mine are used to further an argument or make a point."http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Re: William Taylor @ 12:22AM 1/14:Richard McBrien told a VOTF conference some years back that, contrary to popular belief, the impact of celibacy on priests is felt most keenly in old age. Taylor's experience seems to confirm that, and I thank him for generously sharing his thoughts.I go fairly often to a priest's retirement home, where the secretary commented that one priest who often sat in the waiting room, and was thrilled to see my grandson, "should have married and had ten kids." I get that sense for many there.While loneliness in later years is certainly not unique to priests, I find a special sadness attached to the circumstance.
"I just abused my cat by not giving him dinner when he asked for it, and he abused me by bothering me about it while I was typing."Funny, David S. :-) But must you always be so cynical? No, you're not a total cynic, just a semi-cynic. Please note: even cats often accept that what appears to be so, actually is so.
Ann, it's my sense that cats are realists: what is, is. Humans, on the other hand, frequently call spades steam shovels.
The readings at Mass last night were about hearing God's call. I truly believe God calls us all to different vocations and I can certainly see God calling a man to be a priest AND a husband AND a father all at the same time. It's a tragedy not to be able to answer the call, once heard.
Irene -- Not all at the same time. Vicar General Hurd of the new North American Ordinariate reflects warmly in WaPo 1/13 on "My life as a married Catholic priest", which he has been for 11 years. The piece appears to be a diplomatic effort to offer an ingratiating example of the 21st-century paradigm of priestly marriage amid the celibates, who cannot share that particular joy, challenge, honor and blessing which he says he finds from juggling two vocations. A week earlier, he wrote a similarly enthusiastic, short article in the Post on his transition from married Episcopal priest 16 years ago to find God-given authority for church teachings. The relevance to this thread of his brief statements is limited since he displays little awareness to date that another adult (Stephanie) might be intimately affected each day by his juggling. Maybe later if he keeps publishing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/my-life-as-a-marri... http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/rev-r-scott-hurd-draws-on-his-own-fa...
Irene,A calling is individual rather than collective. A person has to spend time in discernment to figure out where if they are being called, and where.
"The piece appears to be a diplomatic effort to offer an ingratiating example of the 21st-century paradigm of priestly marriage amid the celibates, who cannot share that particular joy, challenge, honor and blessing which he says he finds from juggling two vocations."This is looking at the practical aspect. What's forgotten is the spiritual aspect of celibacy for those who are called to marry their divine spouse. Something we all will do someday, if we make it to heaven.
savvy sed: " You need better come-back lines. Not impressed. "First of all, it is not my goal in life to impress you.I'll let Daniel Patrick Moynihan speak to you: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."And you could try this: John 8:32.David said: "Humans, on the other hand, frequently call spades steam shovels." Gee, sounds a wee bit like hope to me.
David Smith, what I wrote about the Eastern Orthodox Churches was what I have learned from Orthodox Churches in THIS culture in the US. And as far as supporting a priest's family is concerned, the Orthodox faithful do not have a problem with that either. In many of the Greek and Antiochian parishes in the US, there is not a rectory next to the Church building. The priest and his family live in a residence away from the Church that they either own or rent. When I hear Catholics say that we could never have a married priesthood because we couldn't support the priests' families, I remember that the number of members in the average Orthodox parish is much smaller than the number of members in the average Catholic parish, yet their collections are much larger. Many of these parishes tithe. I have never heard an Orthodox Christian complain about supporting his priest and his family.
"I have never heard an Orthodox Christian complain about supporting his priest and his family.' I would say the same for Episcopals..
Orthodoxy does not have "we are church movement". A priest whose wife dies cannot re-marry and a priest who gets a divorce even if it's not his fault cannot re-marry. The Orthodox accept this.
I would like to acknowledge how poignant and impressive I found the postings on this blog stream from especially William Taylor, Ken Lovasik, and Carolyn Disco.Their compassion for the loneliness and isolation that many priests endure at the end of a long life of service evokes a more human imperative for why we Catholics have to change the way we do priesthood if our church is to even survive the next few decades.It is my contention that much of the corruption of the priesthood that we have witnessed with priests and bishops sexually exploiting particularly children over especially the last decade is, at least in part, an artifact of the irrelevance and alienation from the lives of people in the church that priest suffer - more often than not, alone.The experience of both the Greek Catholics and Orthodox Christians, as well as Anglicans and Lutherans, [not to mention most Protestant denominations] confirms that a married clergy works well. Catholics today should not be limited by the histories of these Christian cousins, but we should let their experience inform our strategies for the future. Good friends of my wife and me, since before we were married, are a woman and her Episcopal priest husband. Deb and Bruce Smith, while experiencing all the vicissitudes of marriage and parenthood, have made a very happy life for themselves pastoring for almost twenty-five years with their friends in their Walnut Creek, CA parish.For me, it would matter little if a priest or bishop is man or woman, married or celibate, gay/lesbian or straight as long as they were called to ordination and selected as priest or bishop by the very community they serve - not by some distant and remote hierarch.In transitioning to such a new and revolutionary priestly regimen it would require the help and renewed ministry of all those thousands of priests who are now grandpa's and looking for opportunities for service in their retirement years.If we can make room for the disaffected Anglican and Episcopal priests and their wives, then Catholics can very easily welcome home our brother priests and their wives and families.
Jim Jenkins --Hear, hear! I just read the current statistics about priests and "ex-priests". There are 40,000 priests and 25,000 "ex" ones. And the bishops are closing parishes, pastors are cutting back the number of Masses per week, places like nursing homes are not being served at all, and people with problems can't find a priest to talk with them, pastors are vastly over-worked and on and on and on.Madness.
Jim Jenkins,There is a generation missing since most priests left their vocations after V2. The priesthood today is made up of either old or very young people.Why is there a generation missing?The lack of proper catechesis?
"What about the Lefebrists, Jim, who deny the validity of the Second Vatican II outright?"I would say that denying the validity of the Second Vatican Council is a major obstacle to unity. I know of no reason to suppose that the Holy See intends to whitewash all of the disagreements between Lefebvrists and Rome."My point is that Rome seems so worried about these conservative groups, but there has been no olive branch offered at least for dialogue to groups that dissent on the progressive side. Can you think of any?"I don't particularly sort the Christian world into progressive and conservative, but certainly there are a number of instances of ecumenical dialogue that have taken place with groups other than the Lefebvrists. Ecumenism has taken place with Protestant churches and with Orthodox churches. Those are olive branches.
Just a coiple of thoughts:1)Both here parochially and in the broader Church, the sense of ecumenism has diminished.Almost nothing in my parish and the diocesan paper repotys four out of how many parises wil hold "prayer servivces" to celebtarte week of Christian Unity.2)As to the role of both women and civil unions and diminishing numbers of priests, much has changed in the past 50 years particulaly :-the emergence of women into the work force and consequent role of feminization and the drive for equality;-the emergence of GLTG forces against prejudice beginning with Stonewall and the concomitant broad understanding that that is the way God made these folks;-a much stronger sense that lovem,arriage is essentially relational and a diminished sense of the import of procreation;-a consequent broader sense of what family means to many.All of this challenged traditional understandings just as our understanding of the macro and mini world and its dynamics changed.The issues raised in the thread here and about civil unions and several other matters really touches on how we approach modernity and frame the questions we bring.3)ISTM that part of the moving back on eceumenism touches on these lines as well.This I think is unfortunate as, more and more, the world is more (and becoming more aware of) how interrelational it is.
Perhaps, savvy, I don't understand how you have connected "proper catechesis" with a "missing generation."["most priests left their vocations" - that is pretty harsh. Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit: Bidden or not bidden, God is present.]In any case the responsibility of the state of the priesthood must be placed at the feet of those who have been in charge of church leadership really since JP2 became pope. That is really when the boat starting sinking.It's true that the Catholic priesthood is aging fast. I don't see many young men being ordained these days. Just speculating, but I would have to believe that there is a negative replacement rate (i.e., the number of young men being ordained does not match the number of deaths of older priests)?Most of the new ordinations I have observed here in California are men who have embarked upon "second careers" and are mostly in their late thirties to early fifties. Most of the young men being ordained are from first or second generation immigrant families of South Asians or Latinos - they are not enough to sustain the needs of the people.Actually, I don't think it is such a good idea for Catholics to be encouraging their sons, or daughters for that matter, to vocations of service in the church at this time in history. Ultimately, as attrition and death continues its steady erosion of the priesthood, the best lever Catholics have to move the hierarchy and clerics is to deny them our children until the priesthood is reformed from parish to pope. Besides, no loving parent would ever want to encourage their son to a life where he will be isolated, alienated, and lonely, and doesn't have a good chance for happiness - which is our ultimate hope for our children.
In any case the responsibility of the state of the priesthood must be placed at the feet of those who have been in charge of church leadership really since JP2 became pope. That is really when the boat starting sinking.
I think the reason for the sudden departures and the drying up of vocations is the sexual revolution, not much more. Young guys wanted sex and were telling themselves Rome ought to understand that they deserved it. I guess you could blame the pope for not giving in.
@ David Smith:Priests can, and do, have sex whenever they choose to, and have been doing so for millennia - one of the hard lessons Catholics have learned over the last several decades.Sure the church is not immune from cultural evolution such as changes in sexual morays. But it would be the height of reductionist thinking to blame the decline of the priesthood on the so-called sexual revolution.That is like the hierarchs blaming the rape and sodomy of children by priests since the end of WW2 on sex, drugs and rock-n-roll.One could argue, as many social anthropologists do, that with the ever increasing economic and educational empowerment of women, and the introduction and acceptance of easy to use birth control, has had far greater effect on sexual behaviors of both men and women than any other factor(s).My favorite [pet theory] for the decline in priestly vocations is that, especially after Humane Vitae, parents, women in particularly, stopped encouraging their children to vocations and careers in the church. [I realize that there is a whole host of social and economic factors that formed a constellation of influences for this social and cultural change among Catholics. This is just my hypothesis talking ...]I never met a priest that was not encouraged and supported in their vocation by especially their mother. If Mom did say that it was OK to go off to seminary and religious life, I don't think most men would ever have been able to emotionally and psychologically buck their moms. [I'm speaking hypothetically here, I'm sure there are exceptions!]When the church demonstrated disregard and disrespect for women's needs and wants to manage and control the number of births in their families, I believe most women on an unconscious level instinctively knew how to get back at the unfeeling and inconsiderate feudal male celibates: Deny them the one thing that male celibates can't do on their own - reproduce themselves.Face it padres, by design God made women the more powerful of the two genders, the gender that most approximates the creative nature of the divine.It really is the ultimate in gender revenge for the arrogance of the hierarchs. And as I said above in another posting, I believe that not encouraging children to vocations in the church is a corrective strategy for Catholics to try to reign in the abusive corruption of the hierarchs and priests.
Sorry, I messed up proof-reading. The sentence in the sixth paragraph should read:"I dont think most men would NEVER have been able to emotionally and psychologically buck their moms."
On second thought, disregard the correction. Sorry!
My favorite [pet theory] for the decline in priestly vocations is that, especially after Humane Vitae, parents, women in particularly, stopped encouraging their children to vocations and careers in the church.
Interesting, Jim. I'd never thought of that. Yes, that has got to be part of it, certainly. Of course, the withdrawing of the encouragement may not have been specifically, consciously to punish the hierarchical Church. When people are living through periods of particularly intense uncertainty, their own certainties tend to waver, I'd think. Mothers presumably want the best for their children. If the Church seems suddenly to have a very uncertain future, a mother who didn't want her son to suffer might become suddenly aware that the priesthood had ceased to offer either security or prestige.
In one of his books from the '70s-'80s time frame, Rev. Greeley reported that his research has identified two critical influences on a young man's decision to pursue the priesthood: his mother, and the parish priest. In this book, written in the wake of Humanae Vitae, Greeley speculated that many priests of this era had lost their esprit de corps and that a drop in priest candidates was one of the outcomes.Charles Morris, in his outstanding book American Catholic, has a chapter on the boom in vocations taking place at that time (1990s) in the Lincoln, NE diocese. This exceptionally large number of vocations has commonly been attributed by conservative Catholics to the diocese's alleged conservative orthodoxy, personified by its bishop. Morris discovered that there was a particular priest at the University of Nebraska's Newman Center who apparently had an unusual gift for discernment, and this priest was the source for a significant percentage of the diocese's seminarians.
@JIm, Is there an update since then? I understand that a high % of people in ministry drop out within 5 years--I'd love to see stats on retention in very conservative dioceses with all these vocations compared to those being ordained in other dioceses. I'd also want to see number of practicing Catholics (in dioceses and in parishes where these very conservative men go) compared. Getting folks to sign up for seminary and through that to ordination ain't nothing--but it's not the only relevant question.Who was the fellow promoted to a bigger diocese even though the number of Catholics in his previous diocese plummeted on his watch while the population increased substantially?
Hi, Lisa, I know that statistics are put out every year regarding seminarians, but I don't know if the Lincoln diocese is still flourishing in that regard. FWIW, this article from 2005 refers to a study that suggests that the size of the diocese may be an important factor: the dioceses in the US with the most per-capita seminarians are small dioceses (or that was the case in 2003-4). Maybe that's a signal to large metropolitan dioceses that the auxiliary bishops need to have a more visible leadership role?http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/sep2005p7_2045.htmlThe article notes that Chicago is relatively successful among large dioceses in that regard. My own observation of Chicago is that the great majority of our seminarians are from immigrant communities - Mexican, Polish, Filipino. Yet LA, with its huge immigrant population, is not doing well (or wasn't during the time of the study).
Caught the NYT Letters to the Editor this week in response to Ritchey's op-ed: three apologists for the hierarchy's treatment of women - one of them from Jesuit James Martin. I guess that should settle it speaking from the prospective of Catholic establishment groupthink."They have eyes but see not, ears but hear not, nor is there breathe in their mouths." (Ps. 135)


text:
Many who support deportation-only immigration measures want to expand the E-Verify electronic employment verification system. However, doing so would place enormous additional responsibilities on the Social Security Administration (SSA)—an already overburdened agency. If SSA has to spend time and resources verifying Social Security numbers and fixing database errors for work authorization purposes, SSA will have less time and resources to handle its primary function: providing benefits to millions of deserving Americans. That's why the AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and other organizations have voiced their concerns over mandatory E-Verify. In 2007, the president of the National Council of Social Security Management Associations, Inc. testified that mandatory E-Verify could "cripple SSA's service capabilities" and negate any progress in addressing the backlog of applications for disability benefits.
SSA's ability to do its job is critical to millions of Americans.
- Each month, nearly 60 million Americans receive benefits from SSA.
- In Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, SSA served 45.4 million field office visitors, completed over 67 million phone transactions, conducted 325,000 full medical continuing disability reviews, completed 2.5 million Supplemental Security Income (SSI) non-disability redeterminations, completed 738,000 hearings, and much more.
- In the Waterloo, Iowa office alone, SSA receives about 480 visitors a week and 150 phone calls each day. The Waterloo office covers 4,000 square miles—encompassing 50,000 retired and disabled workers and their families, survivors of deceased workers, and more than 4,500 SSI recipients.
SSA is already overburdened.
- Currently, 30 percent of SSA's cases wait more than 270 days. As of February 2011, SSA had 774,000 pending initial disability cases.
- The number of disability applications has increased in recent years. In FY 2010, SSA received nearly 100,000 more hearing requests than in FY 2009. In one month alone, SSA received 82,000 hearing requests.
- Due to funding shortages, SSA discontinued service in over 300 remote service sites throughout the U.S. and may have to consolidate field offices. SSA has had to suspend the mailing of annual earnings and benefits statements to taxpayers.
Baby boomers are already increasing SSA's workload.
- Nearly 80 million baby boomers will soon be eligible for Social Security retirement benefits. Every day for the next 19 years, 10,000 baby boomers will turn 65.
Expansion of E-Verify will put an enormous burden on SSA.
- Currently, only 250,000 of the nation's 7.4 million employers have registered for E-Verify—or 3 percent. A mandatory system would mean millions of employers registering, and millions of additional queries running through the system.
- If E-Verify were made mandatory for new hires, SSA would have to process 50-60 million new queries per year, in addition to the rest of their workload. In 2007, SSA testified that if E-Verify were mandatory, 3.6 million citizens and lawful immigrants would have to go to an SSA office to fix their records or lose their jobs.
- SSA's database has a 4.1 percent error rate amounting to 17.8 million discrepancies; 12.7 million of those discrepancies pertain to native-born U.S. citizens. For example, workers who naturalize, marry, divorce, or have multiple or hyphenated surnames may receive erroneous results from E-Verify. One in 25 new hires could receive an erroneous response from E-Verify due to SSA errors and would have to go to an SSA field office to correct the error.
- An independent evaluation of E-Verify found that approximately 0.8 percent of all E-Verify queries resulted in an erroneous "tentative nonconfirmation" (TNC) notice, which means the databases cannot immediately confirm that the worker is employment-authorized. This means that, for every one million workers queried, 8,000 work-authorized people are told they're not authorized to work.
Published On: Fri, Apr 15, 2011 | Download File [1]

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Mövenpick Classics and Great Deals
40 years Mövenpick Hotels & Resorts. It's time to celebrate.
Chicken Toast Maori, Florida Salad, Smoked salmon and beef tartar, Riz Casimir, Danieli Prawns, Apple Pie...
Do you recognize these dishes from our menu of around 40 years ago? While some of them still remain unchanged on our menu, others have almost been forgotten.
This is about to change. From October 1st until October 13th 2013 we will be serving the most popular Mövenpick dishes of that time at the Mövenpick Hotel Restaurant AzzuR in Istanbul.
Celebrate with us 40 years of success and enjoy our special birthday offer at very attractive prices.
To book a table at our AzzuR Restaurant call +90 212 319 29 29 or e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.com
- Chicken Toast Maori
- Florida Salad
- Smoked salmon and beef tartare
- Riz Casimir
- Danieli Prawns
- Apple Pie
The offer is subject to availability. This special offer cannot be combined with other discounts and/or special offers and does not qualify for airline miles. Mövenpick Hotels & Resorts reserves the right to discontinue this offer at any time without prior notice. All conditions are applicable at the time of publishing and are subject to change without notice.


text:
Gay Boy Scout Denied Eagle Rank
NPR (et al) reported yesterday that 17 year old Ryan Andersen has been denied the rank of Eagle Scout by the Boy Scouts of America. Here's the organization's statement:
"This scout proactively notified his unit leadership and Eagle Scout counselor that he does not agree to scouting's principle of 'Duty to God' and does not meet scouting's membership standard on sexual orientation," Deron Smith, a spokesman for the organization said in a statement. "Agreeing to do one's 'Duty to God' is a part of the scout Oath and Law and a requirement of achieving the Eagle Scout rank."
First, I am not questioning the BSA's legal right to exclude anyone from its ranks, on the basis of whatever criteria they wish. Private organizations can do that.Second, I don't know what the substance is of Andersen's failure to do his "Duty to God," but I suspect that the two objections of Duty to God and sexual orientation are connected. However, I could be wrong on this count. Further, I don't know Andersen's religious faith or denomination. However, I think this would be a fine opportunity for Catholic leadership to speak out in support of kids like Ryan, and urge the BSA to welcome gay Scouts. Here are a couple reasons why:1. Official Catholic teaching, unlike that of many right-wing evangelical churches, draws a distinction between sexual inclination/desire (the official teaching tends not to use the word "orientation,") and sexual acts. Homosexual acts are condemned, while homosexual desire is not. I suspect the BSA does not encourage sexual activity for any of its members, but rather encourages them to remain sexually abstinent, at least until marriage or responsible adulthood. (A quick googling didn't answer this question for me. My searches yielded reports about sex abuse and poor responses to sex abuse within this all-heterosexual group.) Why wouldn't the Catholic Church want to encourage all interested kids to join groups calling for responsible chastity? Not to mention the fact that scouting might help them find the kind of solid friends that Church teaching says is helpful for gays in dealing with homosexual desire? Catholic magisterial teaching says that no unjust discrimination of any kind should be practiced against LGB people--wouldn't involvement in a group that helps form responsible and thoughtful men be a good thing for gay kids? (Since I am talking about a response by Catholic leadership here, I am not calling into question the Church's teaching on same-sex relationships here. There's no need to change Catholic teaching in order for Church leaders to support scouting for gay kids.)2. We've heard a lot about religious liberty from Catholic leadership this year. Many Christian denominations and other religious groups are supportive of LGBT people and (when appropriate) same-sex relationships. It may well be the case for Ryan--and it is undoubtedly the case for many scouts--that Duty to God as they understand God REQUIRES them to be open and affirming of LGBT people. In their own well-formed consciences, such scouts are put in a difficult position of having to decide whether their membership in a group that excludes gays is in conflict with their promise within that very group to be reverent and to serve God. Wouldn't a call for an inclusive stance point to the bishops' sense of the urgency of protecting religious freedom for all and the importance of obeying conscience?So these are two reasons for Catholic leaders to call on the BSA to change their exclusive policy. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that they boot out Boy Scouts from church buildings unless they do so--such strictures are reserved for punishing Girl Scouts because of their association with insidious groups like the Sierra Club. But it is in keeping, istm, both with current magisterial teaching regarding LGB people, and would be a resounding reiteration of our leaders' own call for greater respect for religious freedom in American society.Again, this is not a legal matter, but a moral matter. Shouldn't Catholic leaders support the inclusion of gay kids in scouting?
About the Author
Lisa Fullam is professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley. She is the author of The Virtue of Humility: A Thomistic Apologetic (Edwin Mellen Press).
41 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Since Mr. Andersen has already earned the rank, I see no reason to deny it to him now unless he deliberately lied about his sexual orientation previously and is coming out now to embarrass the BSA.The author is on-point with his explanation of the Catholic teachings regarding the distinction between sexual inclination and sexual acts and the charity due to all, including homosexuals; however, he makes no mention of the potential that overnight camping trips, a common activity for many scouts, pose for the near occasion of grave sin for those with same-sex inclinations. The Catholic Church wouldn't (or shouldn't) endorse heterosexual boys and girls camping together; nor should they endorse those with same-sex inclinations sleeping with those they may be sexually attracted to.This is one case where fostering inclusion in common activities may be far from charitable.
I am willing to bet that more than one gay priest and gay bishop was, at one time, a Boy Scout, and may have even been gay at that time.Goose. Gander.
" -- unless he deliberately lied about his sexual orientation previously ---"Are you encouraging a Don't Ask, Don't Tell program for BSA?Do you really think that an adolescent gay boy scout, most likely very nervous about his orientation being discovered, will actually make a sexual advance under sleeping or any other conditions while camping? BTW, you might want to read the history of Robert Baden Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts.
"However, I think this would be a fine opportunity for Catholic leadership to speak out in support of kids like Ryan, and urge the BSA to welcome gay Scouts."I agree 100%. Many scout troops are affiliated with Catholic school communities. The church must assert strongly here what it teaches: that "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies ... must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC 2358)The BSA's policy is a policy of unjust discrimination.
Maybe the ghost of Lord Baden-Powell (pronounced bay-dun pool), the Hero of Mafeking (haha) posted the introduction to the thread.http://www.forvo.com/word/baden-powell/ (Pronunciation.)Imho, the Church should divorce itself from the Boy Scouts for MANY reasons.Christopher Hitchens' article gives a few bits of information about the founder of the organization. From that:When it came to Germany, B-P was equally boneheaded. He actually upbraided one official of the Scout movement who did not want to be associated with the Hitler Youth. The head of his International Bureau, Hubert Martin, reported that a German scouting leader named Riecke had been dispatched to a camp for the offense of proposing an independent, non-Nazi movement. B-P responded testily that Riecke had been sent there "not for international tendencies, but for homosexual tendencies!" This is the only reference to that dread subject that I know of in his writings; an accusation repudiated with indignation when madeoften unfairlyagainst British scoutmasters was taken at face value when made by Hitlerites. It's pleasant to record, however, that B-P was outvoted on this question, and that the BSM never recognized the Hitler Youth as a model or as a partner.http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2004/06/hitchens.htm
How do Baden-Powell's political beliefs or personal life relate to the character of the organization today? Even when I was in Boy Scouts in the US 40+ years ago, the only mention of B-P I recall was in the history section of the handbook. Is there more focus on him personally in the UK?
@Jim Pauwels -- How do you suggest dealing with the morality issue viz a viz overnight camping, where the homosexual boys are sleeping with other males? In terms of temptation, this is the equivalent of teenaged heterosexual boys and girls sleeping in the same tents. Neither the Church, nor any prudent adult, would condone such activities.For this reason, I do not see the situation as one of unjust discrimination. Unfortunate, yes; but not unjust.
If Ryan Anderson is only 17 years old, how can the BSA possibly know that he has a homosexual orientation? Did they secretly follow him around and find him engaging in homosexual activity?
Homosexual acts are condemned, while homosexual desire is not.Lisa:More to the point, the Church defines homosexual inclination as "intrinsically disordered" . Males with such a disorder, while deserving compassion, ought not to be allowed to disrupt the wholesome spiritual/psychological development that the Boy Scouts organization seeks to instill in it's members.
@Mark Proska - the first line of this article contains a link to a n NPR report fin which the following quote appears:"This scout proactively notified his unit leadership and Eagle Scout counselor that he does not agree to scouting's principle of 'Duty to God' and does not meet scouting's membership standard on sexual orientation," Deron Smith, a spokesman for the organization said in a statement. "Agreeing to do one's 'Duty to God' is a part of the scout Oath and Law and a requirement of achieving the Eagle Scout rank."The NPR report also states the scoutmaster was aware of Mr. Andersen's sexual inclinations.
Jerry: If the BSA and you are fretting about gay boys hitting on other males during the night, there is an obvious equipment solution: don't use two-person tents. But I'll go with Jim McCrea @4:08 pm.
Sometimes in the dark hours, when my too small candle of brotherly love burns low, I wonder about folks who speak so airily of other people being intrinsically disordered. Please don't mistake us, they say, we love homosexuals as God's children. They just need to suppress and crush a central aspect of their humanity. Then they will be deserving of our compassion.So kind, so understanding, so Christlike.
Jerry--Thanks, don't see how I could have missed that. If the young man in question has proactively disavowed a principle of the BSA, why are we even talking about whether the Catholic Church should chastise the BSA for not feting the young man?The Church does not teach and, as far as I know, has never taught that any person is intrinsically disordered. I think she teaches that, since The Fall, we all have intrinsically disordered desires of one form or another. It seems sometimes people misrepresent what the Church teaches so they can play the victim. One wonders if that's a sign of disorder itself.
Are you sure you want to go around claiming the victim pose is a sign of disorder?
@Jim Pauwels How do you suggest dealing with the morality issue viz a viz overnight camping, where the homosexual boys are sleeping with other males? In terms of temptation, this is the equivalent of teenaged heterosexual boys and girls sleeping in the same tents. Neither the Church, nor any prudent adult, would condone such activities.Sounds like the same argument that we couldn't repeal DADT because people would be sleeping and showering in the same barracks. The argument didn't work then, either.
There are gay/bi/uncertain kids in every Catholic and non-Catholic school in the country also sharing locker rooms and showers. It's just not an issue in the real world. And the alternative--a witch-hunt to oust gay kids from schools--is a horrific prospect for many reasons. This is unjust discrimination.
Kids in Scouts are passing through a transient stage of dynamic formation. They are malleable, uncertain, and variable in diverse ways, sometimes from day to day. The BSA knows and understands this and aims to contribute to the good in the young adult that is coming soon. What a kid says should be heard and respected, but to move on to official quasi-certification of an allegedly intrinsic property with the long-term implications and consequences that follow is a gross misapplication of moral certitude. My memories of my Scout days are long gone, but I would hate to have been held for the sixty years since then to whatever properties and convictions may have been deep-seated in me at the time. That includes with respect to the gravely immoral Church-condemned sexual activity which was of high common interest in a bunch of boys stumbling into puberty.
This kid openly and defiantly contradicts the requirements to be an Eagle Scout. Yet Lisa focuses only on his alleged homosexual orientation. Todays readings about human sexuality and marriage provide a pretty definitive answer to that focus.
SFGate reports:
But Ryans mother said hed never said he didnt believe in a higher power. The Boy Scouts of Americas statement that Ryan does not agree to Scoutings principle of Duty to God is inaccurate, she said in a statement released Friday. Ryan has never said that he does not believe in a higher power, and the only reason hes being denied the rank of Eagle is because the Boy Scouts of America has a problem with Ryan being gay.
Nothing has been said, or alleged, about this young man regarding illicit sexual behavior, which would put him at odds with current official Catholic teaching. His exclusion seems to be only about his orientation. Unjust discrimination.
Thank you for your comment at 2:58, John Prior.There's something more than a little stomach-churning about the claim of many of those who continue to designate gay and lesbian persons as intrinsically disordered that they are doing so as an act of love.Just as there's something a little nausea-provoking about the mendacious claim that the Catholic magisterium hasn't designed gay and lesbian persons as intrinsically disordered in their personhood--in their inclinations, as Bob Schwartz helpfully puts it. Or that the Catholic church has always spoken of, well, everyone as intrinsically disordered in their inclinations, so that the magisterial intent in designating gay folks as disordered in their inclinations is not really about fostering particular prejudice against those who are gay.I sometimes think it might be a valuable teaching moment for those who claim that gay folks invent stories of their own victimization in a culture that's, after all, not prejudiced in the least to do what John Howard Griffin dared to do in 1959: live a year or so presenting yourself as an out gay person in a committed, publicly acknowledged gay relationship anywhere in the U.S.And then come back to report at the end of the year what kind of experiences you've had of widespread acceptance and affirmation. (Be sure to include, among your experiences, some experiences of going into a variety of church-oriented settings including Catholic ones, in which you apply for jobs that have been advertised as open, and inform your prospective employer that you're openly gay and in a committed relationship--as you will have to do when asking about partner benefits.And then see what happens.)
A correction of a mistake in the first sentence of the second paragraph of my previous posting:It states, "Just as theres something a little nausea-provoking about the mendacious claim that the Catholic magisterium hasnt designed gay and lesbian persons as intrinsically disordered in their personhood . . . ."And I had intended to write, Just as theres something a little nausea-provoking about the mendacious claim that the Catholic magisterium hasnt DESIGNATED gay and lesbian persons as intrinsically disordered in their personhood . . . ."
So, let me get this straight: the bishops should not oppose the HHS mandate or gay marriage, but should make a point of denouncing the Boy Scouts?
ThorinYou know that you are conflating these issues...Love the scouts... relject their prejudices..."No Merit Badghes for Bias.No Medals for Ignorance."
Let's not forget that the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is clear on this: "[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." This is a clear-cut example of "unjust discrimination," and so Catholics should be opposed to it.
It's interesting that nobody here sees the scout's refusal to include "Duty To God" in his oath as being a central reason for denying him his Eagle award. (I'm not saying it's a legitimate reason, but I think it might be a very real reason). The Girl Scouts, which is an extremely inclusive organization and one which does not discriminate based on sexual orientation (to the dismay of some fundamentalists) includes duty to God as part of the Girl Scout Promise. I was told at a training that girls can substitute some other acceptable (unspecified) word for God when they say the Promise but they must indeed say the Promise to be invested as a Scout. I was further told that, when written, the Promise must always use the word God, it can't be left out or substituted. I think the scout's inability to promise Duty to God might be an actual obstacle.
[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.As far as I can tell, this boy is accepted and belongs to the Boy Scouts. They have simply refused to award him an earned honorific rank - Eagle Scout - because he will not complete two requirements: endorsing a 'Duty to God' and satisfying a membership standard on sexual orientation. Refusing to 'accommodate' this boy by holding him the same standard for an award is not 'unjust discrimination' under the Catechism or otherwise.
This is a clear-cut example of unjust discrimination, and so Catholics should be opposed to it.Fr. Martin,I wish what you say were the case. However, based on various official Catholic statements on "unjust discrimination" (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, and Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons), the Church makes it clear that it is opposed to policies or laws that would specifically protect homosexual persons from discrimination, lest they become a protected class. Also, the Catechism refers to homosexual persons, which is not, it seems to me, a synonym for "gay people." According to the Church, "homosexual persons" are supposed to consider their orientation "intrinsically disordered" and are discouraged from making it known. The Church's position is that if homosexual persons stay in the closet, where they belong, they won't have to worry about discrimination. Gay people, on the other hand, embrace their sexual orientation rather than rejecting it and hiding it. To put it bluntly, whatever the Church may say about "homosexual persons," it never discusses "gay people" because it has no use for them.
Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
"Objectively disordered external conduct," as I understand it, could be living with a same-sex partner, entering into a civil union or a same-sex marriage, or fighting for fair treatment in the Boy Scouts which has a policy excluding gay people. I am grateful that many people try to apply the Catechism's prohibition against unfairly discriminating against homosexual persons to situations like this, but it is clear to me that it is misguided. You can't read the Catechism in isolation, and the Church's other pronouncements about homosexuality rule outor so it seems to meclaiming that statements about unjust discrimination against homosexual persons have anything to do with the rights of self-proclaimed, self-affirming gay people.
Apart from the moral question put to Catholic leaders: Why are the Scouts skittish? Take a look at Patrick Boyle's Scout's Honor: Sexual Abuse in America's Most Trusted Institution.
Another kid who has sadly been led by contrarian eggheads to believe that following the gay lifestyle will be acceptable to the average person, eventually discovers that in general, most people do not think homosexuality is normal or very acceptable. And the same contrarians want to blame the common man for daring to believe in something, for daring to have an opinion - Yawn.
"To put it bluntly, whatever the Church may say about homosexual persons, it never discusses gay people because it has no use for them.""has no use for them"? That is the most unChristian attitude I've ever seen exemplified on this blog. Shame, shame, shame.
has no use for them? That is the most unChristian attitude Ive ever seen exemplified on this blog. Shame, shame, shame.Ann,Apologies for answering in kind, but shame on you for trying to whitewash the position of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not even talk about gay people. It won't even use the word gay. Gay people, to the Church, are people who engage in "acts of grave depravity" . . . "behavior to which no one has any conceivable right." When the Catholic Church talks of refraining from "unjust discrimination" against "homosexual persons," it is not talking about gay people. Reread the passage I quoted above. "Nevertheless, these rights [if homosexual persons] are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct." Being gay is objectively disordered conduct in the eyes of the Church. I am amazed that you accuse me of an un-Christian attitude and say nothing about Ken's odious remarks directly preceding yours.
I should add that if one really does believe that a homosexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered" and is a "more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil," and that two people in a same-sex marriage or other committed relationship are engaged acts of grave depravity and behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, then of course one ought to do whatever is in one's power to see that such people do not gain social acceptance or any but the same most basic human rights that one extends to others who engage in ___________ (fill in your own "grave depravity"). So one cannot "blame" the Church for being consistent. But those who are at all sympathetic to gay people (not "homosexual persons") can't have their cake and eat it too. The Church's attitude toward homosexual behavior is one of utter condemnation and loathing, and a few words taken out of context from the Catechism doesn't change that at all.
Ann,By the way, what precisely do you mean by "un-Christian"? I am not quite sure what to make of the charge. "Uncharitable" or any number of other uns I think I could understand (although not plead guilty to). But what is it exactly that Christians have that "un-Christians" lack? I will grant that it is somewhat un-Catholic to accuse the Catholic Church of being wrong on the matter of homosexuality, but I don't think it is un-Christian.
The sad part is kids like this fellow are routinely led to think (mistakenly) that if they embrace and follow their same-sex tendency, that society will be accepting of that almost unconditionally. This is flatly not true. The fact is that most people think it is better if a child does not turn out to be gay, just like most people realize it better for kids to be raised by a married mother and father rather than two moms or two dads, or by a single parent alone.As for people born that way, that is their struggle, their cross to bear. Sadly, people are born with various abnormalities and/or handicaps, and nobody really knows why. But regarding the person who was born with a tendency to same-sex attraction, as with the born-thirsty alcoholic, one does them no favor by encouraging them to follow their self-destructive instincts. Sure people fail and fall, that is out nature. But as with the boozer who needs to get back on the wagon, or the diabetic who love sweets and sometimes falls off his diet, we should encourage the person with homosexual tendencies to find their balance.People pity the hopeless addict, it is posisble to even admire them for their struggle. But society eternally and correctly dislikes the pusher, the one who constantly whispers to the addict things like Its ok, do as you like, it feels good, it is no problem, the world is wrong and you are right" etc.; the same sort of whispering nonsense that led Eve and Adam astray.
I meant to say "happily married mother and father"; an important qualification -
The sad part is that kids are routinely led to think that if they embrace and follow the fear and smallmindedness of the adults around them, that society will be accepting of that almost unconditionally. Which is still very often true, but not as often as it used to be."You've got to be taught before it's too late,Before you are six or seven or eight.....Oh, you've got to be carefully taught."
David N. --I apologize. I totally misread your post -- the way you expressed it I thought you were expressing your own view. I do not think that the Church's teaching about homosexual unions is true. But I also disagree with you that the Church totally ignores gays as being, in effect, garbage. I think you make too much of te official use of "homosexual person". I don't think it is always limited to the 'non-gay homosexual". As to "unChristian", c'mon. You know what that means.
the way you expressed it I thought you were expressing your own view.Ann,I am delighted to hear that you feel it is not my attitude, but the Church's, that you consider un-Christian! :-)
Where do you get one of those "Intrinsically disordered" stamps? Is there one in the Vatican? If you have one, can you just stamp certain behaviors as "Intrinsically disordered" and bingo they are?Or is there some rationale for it, like that the "unitive" aspect of the "marital act" is not present (e.g., gay people can't make babies)? If that's the rationale, it will hold up as well over time as the ban on contraception has, which is to say, not well at all.
Jeanne --I think that the "intrinsically disordered" label follows from the natural law principle that certain things have one and only one telos/goal but that in individual cases thing is defective and cannot do what it is meant to do, preventing it from reaching its prescribed end. The official Church view is that there is one dominating telos for human sexual relations, the procreation of children, and absent the possibility of procreation that there can be no other right uses for human sex. The trouble is, there is no reason to think that procreation has to be the dominant telos, and even the official Church admits that sterile people (who cannot produce children any more than gays can) can validly marry.Bad logicians, or bonkers. Or both.
Bad logicians, or bonkers. Or both.Ann,Nice alliteration. Let me continue: blinded by its own bull 'bout being the beacon and bastion of belief, blundered into bog and can't backtrack.


text:
AUGI members worldwide write articles, papers, tutorials all the time. Here we host that material on our site in a manner that allows readers to find what they are interested in. We have sections in a number of areas, some related to products and others management and organizational issues.
Software Products Articles
CNC Cut Files with Autodesk Product Design Suites, Part 1Scott Moyse explores methods of producing 2D CNC cut files or tool paths with Inventor.
Quick Tip: Using Layer PreviousMichael Beall demonstrates the use of AutoCAD's Layer Previous feature.
Getting Attached with XREFsAuthor Walt Sparling walks you through the use of XREFs, a powerful AutoCAD tool.
Conflict ResolutionAutodesk Business Analyst Ed Hannabas offers tips for MEP engineers.
Optimum performance: Hardware for Revit
Shocking Family Secrets RevealedAuthor Marcello Sgambelluri shares his secrets for building Revit Architecture families.
Linking a Revit Project for MEPTodd Shackelford offers some proven methods for assembling a fully linked and work-shared Revit project from an MEP perspective.
Game Assets WorkflowAuthor Israel Uriel demonstrates a workflow for creating game assets ready to use in the CryEngine SDK.
Sketching Tips & TricksMike Thomas presents a generous handful of tips for using Sketching in Autodesk Inventor.
Scope Boxes and Plan RegionsPhilip Russo discusses Scope Box and Plan Region, two tools that provide consistency and visibility in Revit Structure models.


text:
You probably didn't read the terms and agreement when you signed up, plus we wanted to add a bit more garble so this is a simplified version of some of the guidelines.
1. The purpose of these forum is primarily to promote and give a better understanding of the Fanotec product line to include Nodal Ninja's.
2. Anyone can view the posts without joining.
3. Anyone wishing to post or answer a thread needs to register - it's quick, easy and free.
4. BE NICE!! This is a small friendly forum that is viewed by many including women and young adults.
5. Don't down play the competition. We are all in the market trying to earn a crust and there are pros and cons to every product manufactured. As noted on our testimonials page whenever negative comments are shared about the competition we delete the name of product being referenced out of professional courtesy. This is a fine line as some will share viewpoints and experiences with other heads and we don't want to over-moderate. We ask that you keep any and all negative emotional tones at bay.
6. Competitors may join as long as your intent is not to downplay our product.
7. No affiliate linking to outside products.
8. This forum will be monitored regularly and any individuals found abusing our stage will be banned and their posts deleted. So please do not waste your time or our time. More often than not foolish behavior only reflects negatively on the perpetrator.
9. Gallery images and attachments are limited to a maximum of 1200x600 pixels in size and approx. 256KB (1/4 MB).
10. Members agree upon registration that they give permission for Nodal Ninja and it's authorized resellers to use any content they submit including text and images. The reason for this is we may want to use portions of threads/posts in our manuals, on the websites or in promotional material. The original author(s) however own the copyright and anyone outside our company wanting to reuse any material must contact the author for permission. So if you are posting an image give strong consideration to adding a watermark on the image itself.
11. Things will change. This forum is new for us so we might change the theme or format stuff as well as add or delete forum features. The forum is in its early development stages so please excuse us if we rearrange the chairs. On that note please don't be afraid to offer up advice or suggestions that you feel will benefit our community.
Thank you for helping us to bring a open and friendly forum.
Bill Bailey
Nodal Ninja Forum Administrator