The Vatican and Homosexuality -- Which doctrine of Christ

Bloggers Note: Where is the outcry from Liberal Catholics, educated in urban Catholic schools, and taught about Caritas and Social Justice.

Secondly, where is the distinction between Pedophilia, predatory sexual behavior and homosexuality, in the discourse.

Lastly, for a church in decline in the Northern Hemisphere --does it not grasp the real possibilities of "parishioners" deciding to tithe less, as a result of blatantly discriminatory practice? If I were a church going Catholic, I'd certainly vote with my pocket book, seek out other gatherings of people of faith as source of solace and continue with efforts towards a just society.

A critical social institution, the catholic church, behaving like a corporation whose primary interest is itself and devoid of interest in people.

Catholic education, post Vatican 2, advance the new testament teachings of Christ love thy neighbor, do onto others... seemingly hollow words for the Catholic hiearchy.

Attached is a NYTimes article on the Vatican Instruction Letter.

**************************************************************************************************
November 29, 2005

In Strong Terms, Vatican Document Bans Gays as Priest

By REUTERS
Filed at 9:10 a.m. ET

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - In the first major ruling of Pope Benedict's reign, the Vatican on Tuesday imposed restrictions on homosexuals entering the Catholic priesthood, saying men must first overcome any ``transitory'' gay tendencies.

The ruling came in a long-awaited eight-page document that has already sparked controversy after widespread leaks in the past few weeks.

Its strict line on the place of gays in the clergy has won praise from conservatives and condemnation from liberals, and set off heated debate beyond the Catholic Church by confronting an issue that has divided Christian congregations worldwide.

The document says practicing homosexuals should be barred from entering the priesthood along with men with ``deep-seated'' homosexual tendencies and those who support gay culture.

The urgency of the document has been highlighted by a sexual scandal in the United States three years ago, involving mostly abuse of teenage boys by priests.

Gay groups accuse the Church of using homosexuals as scapegoats for the abuse scandals.

The ``instruction'' by the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education makes a distinction between deep-seated homosexual tendencies and ``the expression of a transitory problem.''

It says homosexual tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before admission to the deaconate, a position one step short of the priesthood.

The document, released some seven months after Pope Benedict was elected, reinforces standing policy that many in the Church believe has not been properly enforced.

It does not affect men who are already priests but only those entering seminaries to prepare for the priesthood. The paper also calls on the faithful to show respect for homosexuals.

GAY GROUPS FURIOUS

``Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial,'' it says, repeating a phrase that has angered gays in the past.

``Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided,'' it adds.

Conservative Catholics have welcomed the document as an important step in the reform of the priesthood, particularly in the United States, where they allege some seminaries have become venues for a thriving gay subculture.

Gay groups around the world were furious. The U.S-based Human Rights campaign called on Catholics of all sexual orientations to complain to their local pastors.

``We're speaking to Catholics in the pews and urging them to consider what Jesus would do if he saw his neighbor treated this way,'' the group said in a statement.

South African Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, said the document was not just.

``For me, to make someone suffer penalties because of their sexual orientation is on the same level as making people be penalized for their gender, or race,'' he told Reuters.

Many in the Catholic Church have said the document risks alienating men who would be good priests and would be able to honor their vow of celibacy.

``I have no doubt that God does call homosexuals to the priesthood, and they are among the most dedicated and impressive priests I have met,'' said Father Timothy Radcliffe, former master of the Dominican order.

NAACP on the Supreme Court Justice Nominee

BLOGGER View
Attached is a document I held and now share. The confirmation process, as most of "news worthy" items are less to be found in popular media in the past weeks. In light of the news of Indictments related to intelligence leaks in the White House, the re-opening of discussion on the decision to invade Iraq, and the blame game/diversion on who is more patriotic or who can wear the mantle of patriot. Attached is the NAACP's position on the justice nominee. With requisite call to action and the how to's on contacting Senators.

It is a reasonable call to action, those of us who seek a just society need to articulate what that may look like: in how we govern, who is the ultimate arbiter to the laws of the land, and the role elected officials have in representing the views and interest of ethically driven and moral people.

Kindly review and act.

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888


WASHINGTON BUREAU · NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE 1156 15th Street, NW Suite 915 · Washington, DC 20005 · P (202)463-2940 · F (202)463-2953 E-MAIL:mailto:washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org · WEB ADDRESS http://www.naacp.org/

ACTION ALERT

DATE: November 1, 2005
TO: Concerned Parties
FROM: Bruce Gordon, NAACP President & CEO
Hilary O. Shelton, Director, Washington Bureau

NAACP SERIOUSLY CONCERNED WITH SUPREME COURT NOMINEE SAMUEL ALITO'S RECORD
PAST RULINGS AND WRITINGS ON CIVIL RIGHTS, CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND RACE DISCRIMINATION NEED TO BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED AND REVIEWED

THE ISSUE: On Monday, October 31, President Bush nominated Samuel Alito of New Jersey to serve as Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

This nomination comes after the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination to the seat. Judge Alito currently sits on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, where he has served for the last 15 years. Prior to his time on the court, Judge Alito worked in the Reagan Administration for six years, arguing civil and criminal cases for the Administration.

During his time on the Court of Appeals, Judge Alito has consistently supported efforts to limit civil rights claims of those who have been discriminated against; he has tried to go further than the US Supreme Court in restricting Congress' ability to protect civil rights and liberties; he has attempted to narrow acceptable evidence in gender discrimination lawsuits, and he has provided some very troubling opinions in cases of blatant police misconduct. In short, the NAACP has serious concerns about his ability to take into consideration the impact of race.

Given what we already know of Judge Alito's problematic views and records to date, the NAACP intends to continue to thoroughly review his writings, work and judicial temperament. Likewise, we urge every Senator to diligently follow their Constitutionally mandated role of advice and consent in the process to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court and carefully review this nominee to ensure that he is not an extremist who wishes to legislate from the bench. Specifically, we call on the members of the Senate to get clear answers on where Judge Alito stands on issues such as equal opportunity programs (including Affirmative Action), criminal justice issues, employment discrimination, continuing inequities in public education, racial discrimination, police misconduct, voting rights and the death penalty, especially for the mentally retarded or juvenile offenders. As part of their investigation, the NAACP urges the Senate to demand and thoroughly review all writings by Judge Alito while he worked for the Reagan Administration as well as during his current tenure on the Federal bench.

THE ACTION WE NEED YOU TO TAKE: Contact your Representative and both your Senators and URGE THEM TO THOROUGHLY REVIEW JUDGE ALITO'S RECORD AND HIS POSITION ON ISSUES IMPORTANT TO AFRICAN AMERICANS AND OTHER RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITY AMERICANS . To contact your Senators you may:

o Make a Phone Call: Call your Senators in Washington by dialing the Capitol Switchboard and asking to be transferred to your Senators' offices. The switchboard phone number is (202) 224-3121 (see message section, below).

o Write a Letter: To write letters to your Senators, send them to The Honorable (name of Senator) U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

o Send a Fax: If you would like to send a fax, call your Senators' offices (through the Capitol switchboard) and ask for their fax numbers (you can use either the attached sample letter or the message box, below).

o Send an E-Mail: To send an e-mail to your Senators, simply go to www.senate.gov, and click on "Contacting the Senate"; you can look your Senators up either alphabetically or by state. Unfortunately, not all Members of Congress have e-mail addresses.

REMEMBER TO CONTACT BOTH YOUR SENATORS!!!!!
THE MESSAGE

º Senators must execute the Constitutional duty of advice and consent in the process to fill Supreme Court vacancies to find out as much as possible about Judge Alito prior to voting on his confirmation to the United States Supreme Court.

º Of paramount importance to every Senator should be Judge Alito's position on protecting and promoting the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans.

º Senators must ask direct questions – and receive direct answers – on Judge Alito's position on issues important to African Americans and other racial and ethnic minority Americans, including equal opportunity programs (including Affirmative Action), criminal justice issues, employment discrimination, continuing inequities in public education, racial discrimination, police misconduct, voting rights and the death penalty, especially for the mentally retarded or juvenile offenders.

º The importance of the seat Judge Alito has been nominated for cannot be understated; this is a lifetime position to fill a vacancy created by a judge who is often considered the "swing vote" on many issues important to racial and ethnic minorities.

(Sample Letter)
(date)
The Honorable ___________________________ United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
RE: NOMINATION OF SAMUEL ALITO TO ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ON THE US SUPREME COURT

Dear Senator _______________________________;
I am writing to urge you to do all you can and to fulfill your Constitutional duty to thoroughly assess the ability of Judge Samuel Alito to ensure the continued protection under law of the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, especially those of color. Specifically, I hope that you will demand direct and detailed answers to questions on Judge Alito's position on issues important to African Americans and other racial and ethnic minority Americans, including equal opportunity programs (including Affirmative Action), criminal justice issues, employment discrimination, continuing inequities in public education, racial discrimination, police misconduct, voting rights and the death penalty, especially for the mentally retarded or juvenile offenders.
It is vitally important that the justices of the US Supreme Court be willing to interpret the Constitution in a manner that is fair and respectful of the rights of all Americans. Furthermore, it is your duty as my elected representative and as my voice in the United States Senate to insure that every Supreme Court nominee uphold my basic civil rights and civil liberties.

Thus, I am urging you again to do all you can to see that prior to any final vote that Judge Alito's views on civil rights and civil liberties are well known. Please contact me in the very near future to let me know what you are going to do on this matter and what I can do to help you make certain that the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans are protected.

Sincerely,
(sign and print your name and remember to include your address)



THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS IMPORTANT MATTER!!! If you have any questions, call Hilary Shelton at the Washington Bureau at (202) 463-2940.

Supreme Court Nominee Under Scrutiny (people service)

Blogger Note: As the Senate reviews the nominee for the next Supreme Court Justice, concern for protecting the Civil Rights for all people is portrayed as the "wedge" issue among Conservatives and those who are not. The broader debate is couched under the guise of upholding the Constitution vs ideology, or charaterized as culture war or "tradition." In this article, the tradition of marriage is the benchmark for opining the character and mind of the nominee. As an aside, many would argue the social construct of marriage as it is portrayed in the Western world is a recent phenomena, post industrial revolution, on the other side, church involvement in santifying coupling arguably can state it predates the revolution.

What maybe easily overlooked, marriage is not primarily a moral committment dictated by the church, it includes financial (state law generated) and for some an emotional committment (social convention or choice). It is curious how in the article, the nominee speaks to the responsibilities of a spouse to informing a legal "law" committment for assylum seekers, or to right potential employment discrimination. I am curious as to his reading of equal protection when it comes to marriage that are not sanctioned by church or state.

More armchair observations and op pieces to come.

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

November 2, 2005
Decisions Offer Clues to Court Pick's View of Divisive Issues
By ADAM LIPTAK

One distinct theme emerges from an examination of 15 cases decided by Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. involving abortion: his thinking is shaped by a traditional concept of marriage.

His most famous abortion opinion, a 1991 dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, would have upheld a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to notify their husbands. "Pennsylvania has a legitimate interest in furthering the husband's interest in the fate of the fetus," Judge Alito wrote. The United States Supreme Court rejected his position the next year.

In a series of less noticed cases concerning asylum requests based on claims of forced abortions abroad, Judge Alito ruled that marital status could be the determining factor.

Last year, he ruled that the husbands of women forced to undergo abortions in China had themselves suffered persecution serious enough to warrant granting the men asylum in the United States. But he rejected similar claims from boyfriends or fiancés of women who had been forced to have abortions.

The categorical distinction was warranted, he wrote, because marriage was a central organizing principle in the law. "The marriage relation," he wrote, is important in "so many areas," including "income tax, welfare benefits, property, inheritance, testimonial privilege, etc."

Extending the asylum protection "to nonspouses would create numerous practical difficulties," he wrote.

After abortion, the legal definition of marriage may be the most divisive issue in American law, and Judge Alito will almost certainly hear cases concerning the rights of gay and lesbian couples if he is elevated to the Supreme Court.

While he has clearly given the legal status of marriage a great deal of thought and has seemed to endorse a traditional understanding of it, he has not participated in any significant cases involving gay rights. People on both sides of the gay marriage debate will be reading many of Judge Alito's abortion opinions with intense interest.

The word "abortion" appears in 22 decisions in which Judge Alito participated in his 15 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, according to searches of legal databases. But seven of those references are passing ones. In the remaining 15 cases, questions about abortion played an important role.

The decisions are not easy to categorize. Judge Alito voted in support of the abortion rights side of the argument in three cases, apart from Casey, that most directly presented questions about the legal status of abortion and of restrictions on it.

In 1997, he joined a decision applying the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion, to uphold a New Jersey law that let parents sue on behalf of deceased
children but not stillborn fetuses.

In 2000, he joined a decision applying Stenberg v. Carhart - another 2000 decision that struck down a Nebraska law that banned a procedure its critics call partial-birth abortion - to a similar New Jersey law.
In both cases, though, Judge Alito wrote separate concurrences, carefully calibrating his language and reasoning to set out no more than he wanted to say. In the 1997 decision, for instance, he wrote to fine-tune and limit some of the language in the majority's decision.

"I think that the court's suggestion that there could be 'human beings' who are not 'constitutional persons' is unfortunate," Judge Alito wrote. "I agree with the essential point that the court is making: that the Supreme Court has held that a fetus is not a 'person' within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. However, the reference to constitutional nonpersons, taken out of context, is capable of misuse."

In 1995, he cast the deciding vote in a 2-to-1 decision striking down parts of a Pennsylvania law that restricted abortion. The law, the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, included a provision that required a doctor's certification in cases in which a publicly funded abortion was being performed because the woman's life was said to be in danger.

The certification had to be signed by a doctor other than the one about to perform the abortion and without a financial interest in it. Judge Alito joined the majority decision written by Judge Robert E. Cowen striking down the certification requirement and a second restriction because they conflicted with federal Medicaid regulations.

A dissenting judge, Richard L. Nygaard, said the majority's approach represented "deference run amok."

It is nonetheless Judge Alito's 1991 dissent in Casey that has attracted the most interest, partly because the case went on to become the vehicle for the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade in 1992.

Eight of Judge Alito's abortion decisions arose in immigration cases involving Chinese nationals seeking asylum in the United States.

People who can show that they are unwilling to return to their country because they fear persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group or political opinions are eligible for asylum under a federal law. The law says that someone "who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization" also qualifies.

The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled in 1997 that husbands were eligible for asylum based on their wives' forced abortions. Last year, Judge Alito, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, declined to extend that decision to boyfriends and fiancés.

The petitioner in the case, Cai Luan Chen, argued that he would have married his fiancée but for, as Judge Alito's decision put it, "China's inflated minimum marriage age requirement, which was instituted as part of the country's oppressive population control program." (The minimum age for men to marry in China is 22.)

Judge Alito expressed some sympathy for the argument but concluded that marriage was a categorical status that was easily applied to particular cases and was central to many distinctions made in the law.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco reached a contrary conclusion in an asylum case last year, saying "husbands whose marriages would be legally recognized but for China's coercive family planning policies" could be entitled to asylum.
When two federal appeals courts issue flatly differing decisions on a decisive legal question, the Supreme Court often agrees to hear a case presenting the question to resolve the difference.

Judge Alito has rejected asylum applications involving abortion in other cases as well.

Last month, for instance, he joined an unsigned opinion for a three-judge panel that rejected a Chinese woman's request. She said she had been forced to have an abortion in China and feared she would be sterilized if she returned.

An immigration judge concluded that the woman was not credible. The appeals court panel agreed, reciting some of the contradictory evidence that she had offered about the abortion and her marriage to a man called "her purported husband" by the panel.

In a 2003 decision, Judge Alito affirmed a lower court's decision that a Chinese woman's claim that she had been forcibly sterilized was not credible. The lower court relied in part on "the lack of a statement from her husband about her opposition to her own sterilization," a factor Judge Alito indicated was entitled to some weight.

He went on, however, to say the lower court's decision had not turned on the husband's failure to participate in the case.

In two other cases in which he considered the evidence stronger, Judge Alito, both times writing for a unanimous court, returned asylum cases to a lower court for further fact-finding, with the strong suggestion that the courts had erred in rejecting the asylum cases before them.

Abortion also played a role in an employment discrimination case brought by a nurse against the New Jersey hospital where she worked.
The nurse, Yvonne Shelton, refused to participate in procedures that she considered abortions. The hospital offered her another job, in an intensive care unit for newborns. She declined it, and the hospital fired her.

The panel agreed that Ms. Shelton's decision not to participate in abortions warranted protection on religious grounds. But Judge Anthony J. Scirica, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel that included Judge Alito, found that the hospital had acted appropriately.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company