When the Supreme Court announced that it was, after much speculation, and even further musings, announced that it was going to take two marriage equality cases, one of which would strike down the federal law the Defense of Marriage Act, advocates and supporters were delighted.

As I have reported, for over a year, this story, is one that will help hundreds, if not thousands of families across the nation, as they struggle to find legal ways to protect themselves, and their children.

With a certain number of test cases that have come from across the country, most recently that of Edie Windsor, who was awarded damages, after the death of her longtime partner, and also that of a sympathetic,  judge in an appeal court, the die is cast for a federal decision for the low-hanging fruit of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The United States has established a reputation, of sorts, of not simply granting rights to its citizens, be they a racial, or a sexual minority, but also of not having rights, unless expressly granted by the federal government.

So, we are less on a trajectory, and more on a familiar path – one that a generation ago might remember with the case of Loving v. Virginia that made it federal law for blacks and whites to marry, when there actually had been state precedents towards interracial marriage but NOT on the federal level.

On the heels of this news came laws, in several states, Washington state, being the most recent, legalizing same-sex marriage, as one of three states where marriage-rights were established, not by the judiciary, but from the ballot box; thus supporting the assertion that as the country’s attitudes towards gay and lesbian people have changed dramatically; and in a very short time.

While most advocates have been cautiously optimistic, a few causes have been mentioned: younger voter patterns, as in Minnesota where 79 percent of younger voters voted against a proposed ban of same-sex marriage; in Maine, the attribution was for those in the electorate, who were progressive; and in Baltimore, two African American Southern Baptist ministers who courageously fought on behalf of the disenfranchised, in communities where both homophobia, and controversy reign.

While the reasons abound, it’s obviously time for America, to use the euphemism of comedian Joan Rivers, to just “grow up!”

But, this growth has also occurred with a swiftness that even long-time supporters have wondered about.

For me, it seems as if the gay community has now enjoyed an easy familiarity (at least outside of the South) with their non-gay counterparts in a way that is possibly more attributable to everyday people.

Another reason, built on the backs of those who have fought the good fight, is that people have simply come out, in addition to rubbing shoulders in every venue; and that simple fact alone may have given rise to non-gays seeing that there are more similarities than differences between the two. For as Shylock, said, in the Merchant of Venice. “If you do prick me shall I not bleed?”

And, we certainly cannot forget that President Obama after his, by now, infamous,, “evolving”, came out publicly in favor of marriage equality, a position that he publicly advocated in his early political days in Illinois, but did not resurface until he saw a more favorable political climate – albeit with a view from the Oval Office; because as in life ,everything, timing is everything.

We cannot, at any rate, ignore the fact that money played a crucial role, in addition to everything discussed. As the Keen News Service reported in the Windy City Times:

“Money that enabled campaigns to make earlier media buys that were both cheaper and provided for a long, sustained interaction with voters. The money also totaled much more than the National Organization for Marriage and marriage equality proponents could muster.”

But, as I noted earlier, the issue at stake, before the highest court is one that affects the fabric of the lives of Americans, is in the words of Thomas Jefferson, of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Of the myriad of rights that non-gay people have with federal recognition of their marriages, one of the most important, especially for low-income couples, is being able to receive the deceased partner’s social security benefits.

As the wire services have noted, “If DOMA is found unconstitutional, same-sex couples married  the state level will become eligible for the same federal treatment as opposite-sex couples when it comes to financial matters such as taxes and Social Security benefits.”

One of the most cumbersome, and time consuming efforts for couples that are joined together in civil unions is the filing of tax returns, or as Kelly Cassidy, State Rep. in Illinois told us, in an interview that she, and her partner have to create a “dummy” federal form, and one that had no legal status, but was merely a conduit in the filing process, in order to file their taxes.

But, if DOMA falls, then not only families like Cassidy will  be able to file jointly, but would also be able to reduce their “tax liability by as much as thousands of dollars a year -- especially when one spouse earns significantly more than his or her partner.”

In Illinois, where I live, the ante was upped significantly, in favor of same- sex marriage; when Mayor Rahm Emanuel placed it as number three on his legislative “to-do” list. As he noted, “Although the state of Illinois now has civil unions, the time for marriage equality is now. The time is right, and the time is here.”

Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois the state’s oldest largest and most effective LGBT advocacy organization, noted, in a recent press release:

“It's just time for a state steeped in the tradition of fairness and equality to remove this barrier to full recognition of the relationships of LGBT couples. It's just time to end the fallacy that the separate status of civil unions is equal to marriage. It's just time to put to rest the mistaken notion that changing the civil law on marriage will force any religion to sanctify any marriage against its belief. It's just time that the children of LGBT couples have the full protections of law that marriage provides.”

I couldn’t agree more.

 

 

 

Obama victory says yes to American values

What couldn’t be doubted, with the defeat of Mitt Romney, is that, despite some of the more egregious patterns of American life, we are not extremists, and that his attempt to embrace the more radical elements of the Republican agenda, did not play well in Peoria, or the rest of the country, the South excepted.

The centrist position, as proven in the past, by Bill Clinton wins presidential elections.

America is not a country, despite its flaws, that wants to take extreme positions and have politicians utter such absurdities as pregnancies, resulting from rape, are a gift from God.

It also, with apologies to Donald Trump, does not concern itself with the so-called “birther” movement directed against President Obama.

The electorate also realizes that when someone changes their position repeatedly, as did Romney that they can’t be trusted.  After all, this is the same Romney who not too long ago claimed that he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy, and even was pro-choice.

This, of course, in political jargon, is called flip-flopping, and while that might have worked in the campaign headquarters, the majority of America saw through the sham.

But, Obama, gave America an honest core, and while not blind to the work that must be done, did not give us the hyperbole of a Michelle Bachman who claimed that the government was riddled with radical Muslims, or the rants of Trump, and the challenges to the traditional separation of church and state by Rick Santorum.

What we did see, sadly, was that the racial divisions in America, still so strongly evident in the South, where the overwhelmingly support, for Romney, told the rest of the nation that they were willing to pay higher taxes than the rich, and have almost no health care, to avoid seeing a black man occupy, again, the highest office in the land.

But, the era of Jim Crow is over, the benighted arguments, and the beatings of the Pettis Bridge have been pushed back into the recesses of this country’s consciousness.

While the road ahead will not be easy – thanks to Republican partisanship – we have to remind ourselves as Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Follow me on Twitter @dgrantchi

Obama versus Romney, and the winner is - in the Debates

With the first of the Presidential debates scheduled tomorrow between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney scheduled for Wednesday night, and Romney taking a plunge in the polls, the evening should be the highlight for even the most un-political of us.

While the campaign itself has been bitter at times, it’s probably less bitter than the 1801 presidential campaign between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, which proves that vituperative assaults, untruths, and the use of the press are not new to American presidential politics.

Romney, who must be cringing, behind his carefully manicured facade, with the poll numbers showing Obama ahead in the polls surely must be aware that there are not significant increase in numbers – read votes, after watching the debates, but this may not stop him, form trying.

Of course, the most famous exception was here in Chicago, on Sept. 26, 1960, when Vice-President Richard Nixon who entered the debate against the young Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, he was ahead by 1 percentage point; and after the debate where the cool, calm, collected, junior senator easily swatted him, Nixon trailed by 4 points, and Kennedy then won the popular vote by 0.2 percentage points, and became president.

And, the rest was history.

Certainly, some say, including professional pollsters, that debates are not a game changer, and as George Washington University professor, John Sides, told The Christian Science Monitor:

“Presidential candidates tend to be fairly evenly matched in terms of capability, preparation, and political experience. Over a series of debates, neither is likely to be able to dominate the other so thoroughly that undecided or wavering voters will judge them a superior possible president.”

Yet, 54 percent of people think that Obama will win the debate, rather than Romney, who only gets a 28 in a recent poll by Quinnipiac University.  Another one shows him ahead with women (guess someone did get tired of Ann). And, the by now venerable, CNN, shows Obama 50 percent, and Romney 47.

With independents, Romney takes 47 to 45 and 52 to 42 percent on the budget deficit.

In the not too distant past, the nation told Bush senior,  that “it’s the economy stupid”  and ushering in the Clinton era; and while perhaps Romney’s lead gives his team some relief, the problem is that Obama does lead “on every other issue, among them health care, national security, the economy and handling an international crises.”

One way that the Romney campaign, tries to undermine the president, subtly, is by referring to his foreign last name, even to the point of slowly uttering it slowly, as if to say, “All y’all that dislike this uppity negro, here it is Ohbbbbbaaaaaaaaammmma” thus poking at the soft racial underbelly of the United States.

Certainly, this is not far from the surface as I faced, in the last month, some ugly racism by whites, including a verbal attack by some poor demented woman, who kept screaming at me, “They’re taking over, the blacks are taking over” all the while berating me, because of my support by the president, even to the point of forgetting that I was one of “them.”

And, my tongue-in-cheek statement, that if “we’re taking over, then forget the 40 acres and the mule, I’ll just take a million bucks” seemed to not dampen her ardor, until the authorities were called.

Then there was some sad sack of a fellow who kept insisting, to me, that he could not walk down the street, unmolested, because of the young black teenagers, supposedly stalking  in roving gangs, ready to do bodily harm to him, at a moment’s motive in the LGBT neighborhood of Chicago, called Boystown, because, are you ready? “Obama doesn’t care.”

Finally, there was the young, white, Catholic, Southerner, who upset that Catholic Charities in Illinois was not allowed an exception to case law to forbid legal adoption of children by lesbian and gays, and that we are all now supposed to say, saving it for the last here, folks,  “The Obama Prayer, instead of the Lord’s Prayer.”

So, while the party of “NO”, suffers some sweaty armpit moments, perhaps they should have thought first about ignoring the common good by vetoing every plan that the well-intentioned Obama administration put forth, and offered none of their own, and now have tattered credibility; and  as they prepare to enter the final weeks with still nothing, including Ryan’s fuzzy math, that the man from Chicago with the Harvard degree, the encyclopedic knowledge of Voltaire, and the smarts to best, even the best, might just as well stay home, because to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, we don’t need any more failed policies from the Bush administration, re-heated and re-served to the American public.

Court sentences Philadelphia Monsignor to 6 years in jail and Chicago alderman says "no" to chicken

For what has seemed an eternity – in all recent actuality about three decades, the Catholic Church has seemingly enjoyed immunity from criminal behavior in the form of pedophile priests – now with the sentencing of Msgr. William Lynn in Philadelphia perhaps this egregious pattern of abuse, and cover-up can end.

We can only hope that those whose work is consecrated to help shape our souls can manage to stay on a moral course that does not allow the harm of those young, or vulnerable.

But, the real problem, to many observers, and the faithful alike, is the systemic pattern of abuse and cover-up, that has been part and parcel of the church and what has been a pattern where not only has the harm not been categorized, as a crime, only a fall from grace, to one where abuse is the norm, and the victims re-victimized with threats, bribes, and intimidation.

The irony, of course, is that this pattern of abuse has taken fresh soil, in the culmination of abusing the religious sisters, many of whom, have given unstintingly of their time, since the Vatican II council, outside of their traditional roles of teaching and nursing, to minister to those that need it the most, becoming in short, as St. Theresa would say, the feet, the hands, and even the heart of Jesus.

The abuse takes the form of trivializing their ministry and agenda of mercy as radical feminism, and neglect of doctrine. While groundless, the attacks reveal not merely patriarchal misogyny, but placing doctrine before the Gospel; albeit spiritual malaise, if not spiritual danger.

A change of guard in Rome may make little difference, as Rome seems hell-bent on self-implosion, as I noted previously, but more worrisome is that there seems to be a real determination to not listen to anyone but themselves.

If all of this seems to seem like an inquisition, then perhaps it is, but the real problem seems to be a lack of morality, all the more appalling, in a church that claims prophetic voice, and even the deposit of faith.

Perhaps the deposit can be returned?

Nyet to Chick-fil-A

We support Alderman Joe Moreno and his efforts to block Chick-fil-A from his ward because giving money to people who want to use it to block certain groups of people from their human rights is wrong.

While there are those that want to center the argument on religious freedom, and rights to religious belief, well, they have missed the boat. No one is arguing that one dos not have a right to hold specific beliefs, but when those beliefs, supported by money, power, and influence, are designed to prevent people from their basic human rights, then they deserve every roadblock that they encounter.

And, while we feel for the local franchise couple, here in Chicago, that they are getting caught in the maelstrom, those of us that advocate for true freedom, cannot give them a pass; for ultimately, monies that they make are going to Mr. Cathy, the president of the fast food restaurant.

What often seems to be the dilemma is this: the founder of Christianity was a simple man, who not only said YES to God, but whose entire ministry was devoted to those that were marginalized, and disenfranchised; yet his followers seem more devoted to excluding those from the love of God, and the inalienable rights, enshrined in the equally sacred documents of this country, those first few stirring words penned by Thomas Jefferson notwithstanding.

As the United States has moved from a slaveholding republic to one that lives up to those early espoused ideals that separated us from being mere colonies of Great Britain, the trajectory is clear.

For those that were once not given their true worth, or value; blacks, women, and now gay men and lesbian women, the torch of liberty can never be dimmed, or diminished.

But, what is ironic is that Cathy claims that he believes in a biblical definition of marriage.

A closer look at what Scripture gives as examples of marriage gives us pause.

Consider this: Abraham, the patriarch of the bible, had sex with his servant-slave when his wife was infertile, and whose wife Sarah turned out the same woman and her son, fathered by Abraham out into the desert without water, or food.

Jacob, who was tricked into having sex with another woman besides the one that he loved, but who, subsequently fathered children with four different women.

Hmm, talk about baby-mama drama!

And, Jesus, who asked his disciples to leave family and possessions and come follow him – I am sure that there were a few first-century wives, and mothers, who were none too pleased to be left behind to fend for themselves.

The great St. Paul saw marriage as a last resort, for those that could not restrain their lust for each other, hardly a ringing endorsement for marriage.

These are but a few of the examples of marriage in the Bible, and they show us that we must see Scripture as less than an instruction manual, or a rule book, and more of a panoply of steps, missteps, and matched with stories of promise and redemption, that show humankind’s struggle to understand, and even grapple with a transcendent God.

For gay men and women, the issue does boil down to the desire to love and form families; so today we have not so much a paradigm shift, but an embracement of the most basics of desire, and of need.

This is nothing less than what Dr. King said so eloquently, “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.”

And, as black Americans have known, the Bible was used by slaveholders to defend their peculiar institution; that arc was indeed long.

Of course, in closing, I won’t even look at polygamy, or else Mr. Cathy may have women lining up on his doorstep, because I am sure that he is paid in currency more valued, and a good deal cleaner than camels.

Vatican hires "spin doctor" Greg Burke to repair damaged image

In what seems to be the recognition of an obvious need, the Vatican has appointed a public relations man, or as we would say in secular circles, a spin doctor, to counter the increasingly negative publicity that the church has faced, notably on the doctrinal investigation of the largest organization of American nuns, condemnation of theologian Sr. Margaret Farley’s latest book, and then the American Girl Scouts, who seem to be guilty, more by association than action. 

And, with numbers totaling over 77 million Catholics, in the US, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, the American Catholic Church has adherents that total nearly 22 percent of the entire population; worldwide they have 1.147 billion members according to various estimates. 

Already burdened by the priest pedophilia scandal and the recent indictment of Monsignor William J. Lynn of Philadelphia convicted of covering up sexual abuse of priests in that diocese, Rome obviously feels the need to repair its image. 

So, it’s certainly the right time for a change, but I question if the hiring of American journalist Greg Burke is the right person for this mammoth, if not unforgiving job. First, he comes from such a conservative background like Time magazine and the Fox News channel; so conservative that detractors often refer to it as the Al Jazeera of the West. 

But, comments from political wags aside, it also seems that his job is to defend the indefensible: how can one defend the actions of a system wide practice of defending pedophiles?

No matter how one cuts it, at the end of the day, pedophilia is a crime, and as the Philadelphia Grand Jury has established, with its conviction of Msgr. William J. Lynn, the cover up is also a crime.

It’s been well-established that the churches worldwide has covered up the crimes not only in the US, but in such bastions of Catholicism as Ireland, where not only the churches was complicit but were aided by the police. 

Germany has also not been spared, and Chancellor Angela Merkel has called for the Catholic Church to come clean. 

Even Sweden, with its tiny Catholic minority, has not been spared. 

And, the American nuns, who have transitioned from their traditional roles of teaching and nursing, after Vatican II, to work on behalf of the poor and marginalized have been criticized for not working enough against gay marriage and abortion; twinned evils in the eyes of Rome. 

Then it was time for another doctrinal investigation - this time for the Girl Scouts of American - for their supposed inclusion of a sex-positive guide for HIV positive girls; and for distribution of material by a playwright who advocates positions out-of-step with official church doctrine, at a conference.

Unfortunately, the list is long, and getting longer as everyone who embraces prayerful dissent, moderation, and even discussion of issues such as the ordination of women, becomes an object of censure, and condemnation by Roman authorities. 

The final straw came, for many, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike with the condemnation of a prominent theologian, Sr. Margaret Farley, whose book “Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics”, for being doctrinally impure on positions such as pre-marital sex, masturbation, homosexuality and the whole panoply of Roman “no-nos”, even though the intended audience was for graduate students as part of a wide variety of viewpoints. 

What is apparent to many is that the Catholic Church has failed – despite the heroic efforts of Pope John XXIII - to adapt itself to the realities of a new world, with its continuing recognition of human development, and potential for those once shunned as outcasts (divorced and LGBT people, to name but a few) and especially with the insights gained from the field of psychology, anthropology, and medicine. 

With attendance at Mass in Europe at significantly lower levels than in decades past, with some reports at 5 percent, and others at 10 percent, the American Church was holding steady at slightly under 12%; although CARA’s report, published in the National Catholic Reporter, says that Mass attendance was 64% in 1999, and now 50% in 2011; but despite the discrepancies, the church faces an increasingly sophisticated and  educated membership that has moved beyond the old dictum of pray, pay, and obey, as noted by author and journalist, Charles R. Morris.  

As Charles Curran, former theologian at Catholic University, and a previous victim of Rome’s censure, now professor of Christian Ethic at Southern Methodist University, has said in the National Catholic Reporter, “there is a real crisis in the church today” one that is beyond one of moral theology and a problem that he has identified as the “the understanding and role of authority in the Catholic Church.” 

He notes that in the Unites States, the largest denomination is made up of ex-Catholics and cites the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life which says that “one in three people who were brought up as Roman Catholic in the United States are no longer Catholic” and furthermore, “One out of every 10 people in the Untied Sates is an ex-Catholic.” 

But, most importantly Curran sees the following as central to the issue: 

“What is happening here is that the pope and the Vatican are more and more defending the idea of a remnant church -- a small and pure church that sees itself often in opposition to the world around it. It seems as if church authorities are not concerned at all about those who leave the church. Any other organization would take strong action to remedy the loss of one-third of its members. But the remnant church sees itself as a strong church of true believers, and therefore is not worried by such departures. “ 

And, in light of another recent appointment, this time of Bishop Gerhardt Ludwig Muller of Regensburg, Germany to replace American Cardinal William Levada as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, one wonders what the outcome will be as he shares the pure confidence of Pope Benedict XVI, now known after a few gratuitous, and disingenuous, bouquets to liberals and conservatives alike, to be a die-hard, if born-again conservative, in the mold of the now post Vatican II church. 

NCR also reported that many observers of Rome now think that since he will be the key player on the Roman side against the American nuns of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, that there might be a rumble, to use a sports metaphor, with someone with different cultural and national values. 

But yet the Muller appointment is not without controversy: first much like presidential candidate Mitt Romney, his orthodox, read conservative credentials, are not considered strong enough, especially his public endorsement of liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez; seemingly an anathema to orthodox Catholics; along with his ecumenical work (the Catholic Church sees itself as the one and only true Christian Church). 

While he hails from the pope’s home diocese, where his brother Georg still lives, he also faced accusations of protecting  the Rev. Peter Kramer, credibly accused of sexual improprieties involving a minor -  and who after conviction, and  therapy was returned to parish life. 

So where does this leave us? 

In a perfect world, and a small “c” church, it might mean that another candidate might be chosen, but in or large ‘C” church, writ even larger by the current pontificate, it might mean even more of the same. 

Or, despite the claims of the conservatives, would Muller be able, like the Politburo of Soviet Russia,  to “rehabilitate” those who the Vatican see as enemies of the state? 

The comparisons seem to be apt, for as Karen Armstrong, British author, public intellectual and former, nun called the pope, accurately enough, the world’s last ruling autocrat, Vladimir Putin excepted. 

These nearly two decades of crisis on the sexual abuse front have helped create not only a dichotomy between the hierarchy and the people in the pews, but have also created what the New York Times called an “epochal shift” pitting those traditionalists (who want to protect the bishops and priests) and those who want an open, and more transparent church and “who call for more openness and accountability” in the church. 

The risk, as I see it, is for self-implosion; and the destruction of even of a remnant church, which not only is in danger of becoming an anachronism, despite spin doctors, and “younger” prefects chosen for the Roman curia. 

And, it seems to be, for the public-at-large, not only Catholics, that dysfunction in no longer immutable, not to mention criminal behavior, even as the church pasively watches the departure of many of its faithful. 

Perhaps, as Lincoln once said, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.”

US Supreme Court blocks part of Arizona law: views from abroad

On Monday, the US Supreme Court gave a divided decision on Arizona’s stringent immigration law, upholding what many see as its most controversial position, according to the New York Times.

The provisions that were blocked, centered in three areas: making it a crime, via state law, for immigrants to fail to register under a federal law, making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or to try and find work, and allowing the police to make arrests for people without warrant, “if they have probable cause to believe that they have done things that would make them deportable under federal law.”

In considering the decision, I was especially struck that the justices did not use the equal protesting clause of the Constitution, as has been the reasoning in so many cases in the past.

Later that day I heard a panel discussion on the local NPR station with a local columnist that was originally from Arizona, but as a native offered a warning that those of us who live in Chicago, may have a different understanding of the law and Arizonians, seeing them as somehow less than progressive; when in truth she wanted listeners to understand that as she grew up in Arizona, “that it was like Mexico’ and proceeded to share with the audience that she grew up “eating tacos”, and that when Chicago got more Latinos (code word for Mexicans) that we would somehow understand the position of those that Arizonians that crafted the law, since after all they were a border state.

So, the take-away message she was shamelessly giving, seemed to be, “Look, you just don’t know what it’s like to have to live surrounded, on all sides, by these people, and their language, and their food; and you just wait, till you feel overwhelmed by them, and then you will feel as Arizonans do and pass these laws.”

Perhaps many listeners going about their day, this was the middle of the afternoon after all , might not have paid too much attention to what was being said, in the columnists thinly veiled prejudice, but I was appalled to hear this from someone who previously espoused a fair, if not progressive view towards race in the past.

Conventional wisdom, however, says that many groups, despite inclusion, or assimilation, all share one “pet” prejudice, and perhaps in this case it’s true.

As the nation grows more and more progressive, and its numbers include greater waves of immigration, we are probably going to hear even more comments like those of the columnist; and, especially those who are not from Western, or even Northern Europe.

What has always struck me, as a native-born American is how while we espouse, and are quick to point out, the many opportunities and benefits of citizenship, but are also just as quick to deny others the benefits based on some ill-defined view of who is, or who is not worthy to enter our shores.

While I am not suggesting that anyone should break the law to enter the country, it seems time that a national conversation be held on just how, and even when, immigration should be handled; whether legal, or illegal.

Perhaps we are not as far removed from the prejudices of Ellis Island, as we have thought, as it now seems that anyone who immigrates to the U.S., especially if they are of Hispanic origin is somehow illegal, and even illegitimate.

Another anecdote: in my not too distant past, while working in Washington, DC, my somewhat imperious female boss noted that when she travelled to New Jersey, all that she saw were Indians (from Southeast Asia) and that their presence, in such high numbers, was surely a sign that, “They are taking over.”

If racial prejudice and even xenophobia rule our hearts, and minds, then how, can we possible evolve into that city on the hill, that early English puritan settlers noted, or even the New Jerusalem, prominently featured as part of even a secular revelation?

My late father used the old maxim: “As much as things change they remain the same.”

Dear old Dad, was right about more than he probably thought.

Marriage Equality

The story has legs and we are fast moving in a direction that no one would have thought possible, even a decade ago. Here is my second installment for Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-appeals-court-strikes-at-the-heart-of-the-defense-of-marriage-act

Illinois Grapples with Medicaid and Pension reform

As I noted in the Examiner article last night, there is good news and bad news from Springfield as they tackle a huge and burdensome - yet necessary Medicaid reform, plus $83 million in unfunded pensions - yet there is real horse trading going on here.

With Illinois nursing homes receiving a huge share of their operating expenses from the state medicaid coffers, accepting a lower reimbursement rate, offset by lower staffing requirements for registered nurses makes a compromise - the soul of politics - but also has the potentiality for patient care and safety.

So, how far have we really come from the reforms of two years ago? Perhaps, not as far as we'd like - or need to be.

Finally, it seems that Gov. Quinn may face the ire of unions protecting state workers as he offers a choice that is obviously no choice  - either workers take a reduced payout, or they take none at all! For some the offer may be softened because there is no increase in age eligibility as many advocates wanted, but to me it seems more like political sophistry.

In the rush to meet this Thursday's deadline, will the state Senate, like the House, throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Only time will tell!

Marriage Equality

First in my series on marriage equality - the issues, the challenges, and also the back story:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-and-the-gays-a-marriage-of-convenience

Sisters doing it for themselves

I covered the announcement by the Vatican of its nearly three year investigation of nuns in the United States for the Examiner, but I wanted to share some more thoughts, outside of a traditional news forum.

First, and foremost, this is less about what the sisters have not done, and more about what they have done: consistently and steadfastly upheld the message of the Gospel, especially in caring for those that have been on the margins of society and those that have been seen as less than deserving:. the poor, including the working poor, and gay and lesbian people, in particular.

If the American Catholic Church has taken a more liberal bent, it is undoubtedly due to the American traditions of freedom, and liberty, that the sisters have embraced in the apostolate; and as history as shown, often ahead of elected officials.

But, the move by Rome has also shown the spotlight on the Catholic male-dominated hierarchy and its patriarchal misogyny – one that has shown unease with women, even in the time of early Christianity, or as religious historian and scriptural scholar, Gerd Theissen refers to as “primitive Christianity”; a period when some male leaders were uncomfortable with the role of women, even those notable Biblical figures such as Lydia, Phoebe, Priscilla and others who contributed funds, and meeting space, to the growing church, especially after it left Judaism, and spread westward from Asia Minor.

Church history has shown that there were female deacons, powerful abbesses, as late as the middle-ages, and whose power was legendary and wide-spread.

But, when the diaconate was curtailed, only to be reestablished, in the late 1960s, it did not include women, thus creating a vacuum for many Catholic women, many of whom belonged to religious orders and who also had the education, training, and vocation to succeed in this role.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=26824

Chicago became a stronghold of dedicated religious women such as Sister Marjorie Tuite, who was a tireless promoter of peace and justice issues, and who championed women’s ordination (more on that later) and who spearheaded a strong movement for it.

As I noted in the article, much of the problem that the Church has with women is that it only has two models – virgins or whores – respectively the Blessed Mother, and the falsely labeled Mary of Magdala; leaving the spirit and lives of modern women at a drastic loss.

http://www.examiner.com/article/taking-it-from-the-top-american-nuns-face-vatican-rebuke

Many commentators, me included, have stressed the historical reality that the Catholic Church in America would not be possible without the dedicated work of women, notably those in religious life, the often black and white clad women who educated hundreds of Chicagoans.

Even a casual walk in Chicago neighborhoods reveal their work – block after block of schools, hospitals and charities all almost nearly staffed by their dedicated, and “cheap” labor.

Misericordia was the brainchild of one such nun – Rosemary Connelly - whose creative, and dedicated energy has made a huge difference in the way that we view children who are developmentally disabled, and how they can lead productive lives.

Rome has never been comfortable with American Catholicism, seeing it as too liberal, too worldly, and too free – but this aside, they have also never turned away the money that supports much of the Church’s efforts worldwide, both charitable, and educational.

While the average age of the sisters is around 70, and its numbers decreasing, they have also kept the wheels turning; as the shortage of priests have strained parish, and especially sacramental life.

American nuns now serve as pastoral administrators, a euphemism for lay pastors, in areas where a full-time priest is not available, teach in its seminaries, author its papers, and even serve as de facto associate priests in many poor and urban parishes as pastoral assistants.

As Charles R. Morris noted in his seminal work, “American Catholic: The Saints and Sinners Who Built America’s Most Powerful Church”, “The availability of nuns has been a major factor masking the growing shortage of priests. Nuns have longed since moved out of the elementary school system and into diocesan management positions as chancellor, directors of education, and . . . allow bishops to rotate priests back into parish work.”

Morris wrote those words in 1997, and now the shortage of priests has grown even more acute, and many parishes, Chicago included, are importing priests from other countries, such as the UK, Southeast Asia, and Africa to help stem the shortage, which much like that of the sisters, is due to attrition.

Ordaining women, either those that are members of religious orders, or simply women would stem the tide, but Rome has said no; and the late Pope John Paul II (who said that it cannot change because Jesus only had male apostles) told Catholics that they were to not even talk about it.

But talk has continued, even if hope might not spring eternal; and again the fear of women, has dominated the discussion.

I laugh when I re-read the words of the late Mary Daly, theologian, feminist, and scholar who said in “The Church and the Second Sex”, “Even the mention of the idea appears to suggest to some that hordes of women priests (all resembling traditional Mother Superiors) will descent like invading soldier ants upon the heretofore all-male stronghold, thus producing a cultural shock of titanic proportions.”

It does seem that the cultic priesthood is so fearful of women that holding them at bay, and telling them what to wear, when to sit down, and when to speak,  seems the norm.

But, while much ink – not to mention frequent flyer miles – has been spent on the so-called “visitations” to the American convents, the problem of pedophile priests is still present, with the spectacular news that 29 priests have been placed on administrative leave in Philadelphia pending investigation of charges, and Msgr. William Lynn on trail for child endangerment.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120517_Prosecution_rests_at_landmark_priest_sex_abuse_trial.html

Now, the Vatican via the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is investigating another group of women – this time the Girl Scouts of America – with an official inquiry.

Despite the disbelief that many have, upon hearing this, the group has long been as noted by the Associated Press, “a lighting rod for conservative criticism” because of purported inclusion of a Planned Parenthood brochure, at a conference, that discussed HIV young people to lead safe sex lives; or organizational links to the Sierra Club, Doctors Without Borders, and Oxfam because “they support family planning or emergency contraception.”

http://www.dailytribune.com/article/20120510/NEWS04/120519947/girl-scouts-under-scrutiny-from-catholic-bishops

But, while the GSA notes that they take no position on contraception, or abortion, there seems to be guilt by association as far as the bishops are concerned.

All of which makes me wonder where the priorities are in a church whose moral authority has been compromised by decades long sexual abuse by its priests, and where traditionally Catholic countries, such as Ireland, have been rocked, and racked, by abuse; and whose adherents have had their faith nearly shattered by a systemic cover-up reaching all the way to the Vatican.