Pope Francis and Gay Catholics

March 20, 2013

Catholics and non Catholics alike watched a new Pope being selected in the age old ritual of a secret election to replace the retired Pope Benedict. It was a wonder occasion filed with pomp and circumstance. The secrets of the Church fascinated the world.

The New Pope showed humility unlike his successor Benedict. He choose a name associated with reform of the Church. He choose the name of Francis after St Francis of Assisi. It set a tone that for the days that followed his selection and later his installation yesterday. Pope Francis is on a roll. His numbers are up using the language of the secular world.

The gay catholic community all over the world has been holding their breath that the selection of this humble servant of God will usher in a new era of reform and enlightenment in the Church. The proof however is in the pudding and in this case there is no reason to believe that the new Pope will support the ordination of women, allowing married men to serve as priests and support for gay marriage. Even more basic an issue is support for gays and lesbians all over the world to openly participate in the sacraments of the Church such as going to mass.
In the American Catholic church gays and lesbians have been openly participating in the Church especially in the blue states that support the civil rights of gays and lesbians. There is no apparent effort to purge the American church of all the gays and lesbians who add to the fabric of the Church in the USA.There are some bishops who still rant and rave over the issue of gays participating in the Mass but by and large we can find a Church in our cities that welcome us.

In Sacramento, my home, there is a Franciscan Church, St Francis of Assisi Church in mid-town Sacramento. It is not a parish church or diocesan church, it is a destination Church. People come from all over the region every Sunday to attend a church that welcomes gay, unwed mothers, same sex couples and divorced Catholics. The current Bishop and those who have preceded him look the other way and allow St Francis to be the refuge of all these out of the box Catholics, the lost and otherwise rejected souls.
Back to the central theme of this blog. How do we as gay Catholics view this new Pope? Already there are blogs and editorials published from all over the country asking the same question. There is much scrutiny of the former Cardinals’ opposition to gay marriage in his home of Argentina. The Argentine government recently passed a law legalizing gay marriage over the loud opposition of former Cardinal Bergolio. As Cardinal, he said many often hateful things about these important issues.

I think the Church ought to stand for the redistribution of wealth around the world to feed the poor; not be obsessed with who can be married; it ought to support democracies around the world not oppose the civil rights of those  Catholics who are gay ; Recognize the important role of women in the Church by allowing them to become Priests not maintain the boys only club in the Vatican; Clean up the sexual scandal in the Church rather than be obsessed with sex and gender ; and recognize that allowing married  men to be ordained will provide a vast reservoir of potential priests.

It is unlikely that Pope Francis will be the progressive Pope we hoped for but I continue to have hope that the Holy Spirit can infuse this Vicar of Christ on earth with the spirit of St Francis. I am skeptical yet hopeful. As a gay Catholic, I refuse to be excluded from the sacraments of the Church. I often recall a simple message from my favorite Franciscan Priest who has said to me” Bob, just concentrate on your personal relationship with God and forgot about all the other stuff.”

God Bless you all.

Catholic Bashing is Rampant

February 25, 2013

I am a liberal Roman catholic that has had it with the bashing that is going on in the media, on Face Book and Twitter and from my own left wing of the Democratic Party.

There is no doubt that the stewards of the Roman Catholic Church have failed terribly with regard to the sexual abuse crisis that has been going on in American and Ireland and around the world. We have heard most recently about the highest ranking Roman official in Scotland abruptly resigning his red cap over the weekend over allegations of his own sexual abuse of others over the years.

This crisis in American has made lawyers rich. Everyone is suing everyone. The litigation has ruined dioceses all over the country. When someone sues the Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento about an abuse that happened twenty years ago. That judgment has to be paid out of local Diocese funds that in the end come out of the social justice mission of the Church.
I think that those found guilty in a court of law ought to be punished but not the local churches. Taking a million dollars out of the operating budget of a catholic diocese hurts the programs that serve the poor and does not hurt the church. Those Cardinals that sit in Rome are not hurt, the Vatican treasury is not hurt but local Catholics are punished for the sins of the priests.

I object to the cottage industry that has grown around the network of individuals that have been hurt by individual priests. Litigation is not the answer. The Church has asked for forgiveness in many ways and individual Bishops and Cardinals have personally met with families of the victims.

The long term solution is to take away the veil of sexual frustration for priests by allowing them to marry and have normal lives like the people they serve. Allowing women to be ordained would give the Church a much needed shot in the arm especially in the United States where we desperately need American priests.

It is ironic that the step child of the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopalians and the Anglican Community have lead the way ordaining women , allowing priests to marry and allowing gays to serve opening as priests and bishops. These changes were not without controversy and it has caused divisions within the American Episcopal Church. The train however has left the station and these reforms are part of the fabric of the Episcopal Church.

My democratic friends, bloggers and members of the press have taken aim at the Church, the abuses of the Roman Catholics hierarchy who have failed to take charge of this abuse crisis and have sweep it under the rug. They are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The Catholic Church is not the enemy. The rich and wonderful liturgy is not the cause of this crisis. The millions of faithful Catholics in the United States and around the world are not the enemy. The enemy is the archaic rules of the Church  with regard to married priests, ordaining women and allowing gays to opening serve as priests.
.
During these six weeks of lent, I pray that the critics of the Roman Catholic Church would turn their anger and disappointment towards those who  are responsible not the those wonderful priests and nuns who faithfully serve the people of God. Take litigation out of the equation and put the blame where it belongs, the old men who sit in Rome with their red hats and fancy clothes.

Lent is a time of reflection for all Christians and a time to forgive.

Vote Recommendations

I recommend a straight democratic ticket from Obama, Feinstein all the way to the bottom of the California General Election Ballot. No big surprise there. My suggestion for the State wide ballot propositions may surprise you.

Yes on Prop 30-Governor Brown’s tax proposal.
Yes on Prop 34 which repeals the death penalty and replaces it with life without parole
Yes on Prop 36 which revises “Three Strikes” which makes the 3rd strike requirement only when the crime is violent not just a shopping lifting arrest.
Yes on Prop 40 which keeps in place the newly drawn state senate district lines proposed by the same non-partisan citizen reapportionment Committee that did the new Assembly and Congressional district lines.

No on everything else no matter how well intentioned. The Legislature must do its job. These issues must be addressed by our elected representative not kicking the can down the road to the people with no public committee hearings.

It is time to throw the bums out not the process. Please take time to vote this year.

Court Throws Out Defense of Marrriage Act

May 31, 2012

In a giant step toward equality today, a federal appeals court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

The decision was clear: the law treats same-sex couples as second-class citizens – and that's a violation of fundamental rights.

But despite losing over and over again in court, GOP House Speaker John Boehner continues to fight this law all the way to the Supreme Court, if need be – dumping millions of taxpayer dollars into defending discrimination.

DOMA hurts American  families. But Boehner and Cantor won't focus on jobs and the economy instead  They continue to defend it unless despite this decision and others. – their decision to appeal today's ruling could come any hour.

President Obama ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending the DOMA case in court over a year ago. His leadership was critical to the progress made to date.

But Boehner , reacting to the anti-LGBT current mood the Republican Party, stepped in to use House resources – our taxpayer dollars – to make sure this terrible law was defended.

The  House Republican leadership doesn't see the writing on the wall. Already a vast majority of Americans oppose DOMA and want it repealed. The House already has a bill before it – the Respect for Marriage Act – which would get rid of DOMA's discrimination once and for all.

This ruling marks a critical juncture in the battle for marriage equality will the GOP House Leadership see the hand writing on the wall. 

May 21, 2012

California’s June Primary

This is for all you California readers preparing to vote June 5th.The rest of the country can just tune out.

First of all, I strongly support the nomination of President Obama and US Senator Feinstein. That said let’s get to the propositions.

This is an unusual California election. Usually there are twenty plus initiatives and referendums on the ballot to totally confuse and annoy the voter. This June there are just two.

Proposition 28 is the first of the two propositions. It amends term limits passed by the voters in 1990.  Current law states that an individual cannot serve more than three two- year terms in the Assembly and 2 four- year terms in the Senate for a total of 14 consecutive years of service. The new proposal, Prop. 28, cuts the number of years an Assembly member or Senator can serve to 12 years; a reduction from 14,  but that member can serve all the 12 years in the same House.

This is an attempt to get at the nonsense of term limits by allowing a person to serve those 12 years in the same House in order to provide some continuity in the Legislature. The idea that a person has to leave the Assembly after a six year just when he or she is getting the hang of it is crazy.  So the theory is if you hate term limits vote for Prop 28. It is a gutless way to get rid of term limits. It is politics as usual. The proposal makes the assumption that a full repeal is not possible; so go for this half a loaf approach. I say next time; let’s put a proposal on the ballot that eliminates term limits as a failed experiment. We can then have a real dialogue on the merits of this terrible law. Propose to the voters the elimination of this idiotic law. Up or down. No mild mannered proposal.

Proposition 29 is an increase in the tax on cigarettes in California of one lousy little dollar. It is supposed to be for cancer research but there are few safe guards in the proposal for fiscal responsibility. The money should go to the General Fund for research not to a special fund.

If you want to get people to stop smoking raise the tax by $10 and expose the Tobacco industry as an evil perpetrator of death. Don’t tip toe around the issue; slam it to the tobacco industry. I am for taxing them to hell and back. I am unhappy with the sloppy language in the proposal. It is a tiny step towards making it impossible for people to afford to smoke. It is a feel good vote. An increase of a $1 will not stop people from smoking. Again it a mild mannered proposition.

I am holding my nose and voting Yes on 28 and 29. There you have it.

Obama, Just Follow This Road Map

April 4, 20112

Great Article by Robert Reich and a road map the Democrats in Congress and the President ought to follow.

Robert Reich: Health care jujitsu

If the Supreme Court decides the so-called "individual mandate" requiring everyone to buy health insurance is an unconstitutional extension of federal authority, the law starts unraveling. But with a bit of political jujitsu, President Obama could turn that defeat into a victory for a single-payer health care system -- Medicare for all.

Here's how.
The dilemma at the heart of the new law is that it continues to depend on private health insurers, who have to make a profit or at least pay all their costs, including marketing and advertising. Yet the only way private insurers can afford to cover everyone with pre-existing health problems, as the new law requires, is to have every American buy health insurance -- including young and healthier people who are unlikely to rack up large health care costs.
This dilemma is the product of political compromise. The administration couldn't get the votes for a single-payer system such as Medicare for all. Not a single Republican would even agree to a bill giving Americans the option of buying into it.
But don't expect the Supreme Court to address this dilemma. It lies buried under an avalanche of constitutional epistemology.
Those who are defending the law in court say the federal government has authority to compel Americans to buy health insurance under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Washington the power to regulate interstate commerce. They argue that our sprawling health insurance system surely extends beyond an individual state.
Those who are opposing the law say a requirement that individuals contract with private insurance companies isn't regulation of interstate commerce. It's coercion of individuals.
Unhappily for Obama and the Democrats, most Americans don't seem to like the individual mandate very much anyway. Many on the political right believe it a threat to individual liberty. Many on the left object to being required to buy something from a private company.
The president and the Democrats could have avoided this dilemma in the first place if they'd insisted on Medicare for all, or at least a public option. After all, Social Security and Medicare require every working American to "buy" them. The purchase happens automatically in the form of a deduction from everyone's paychecks. But because Social Security and Medicare are government programs financed by payroll taxes, they don't feel like mandatory purchases.
Americans don't mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular that even conservative Republicans were heard to shout "Don't take away my Medicare!" at rallies opposed to the new health care law.
There's no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there's no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits. But requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is different because private companies aren't directly accountable to the public. They're accountable to their owners, and their purpose is to maximize profits. What if they monopolize the market and charge humongous premiums? Some already seem to be doing this.
Even if they're organized as not-for-profits, there's still a problem of public accountability. What's to prevent top executives from being paid small fortunes? Apparently that's already happening.
Moreover, compared to private insurance, Medicare is a great deal. Its administrative costs are only around 3 percent, while the administrative costs of private insurers eat up 30 percent to 40 percent of premiums. Medicare's costs are even below the 5 percent to 10 percent administrative costs borne by large companies that self-insure, and under the 11 percent costs of private plans under Medicare Advantage, the current private-insurance option under Medicare.
So why not Medicare for all?
Because Republicans have mastered the art of political jujitsu. Their strategy has been to demonize government and try to privatize everything that might otherwise be a public program financed by tax dollars (see Paul Ryan's plan for turning Medicare into vouchers). Then they go to court and argue that any mandatory purchase is unconstitutional because it exceeds the government's authority.
Obama and the Democrats should do the reverse. If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate in the new health law, private insurers will swarm Capitol Hill demanding that the law be amended to remove the requirement that they cover people with pre-existing conditions.
When this happens, Obama and the Democrats should say they're willing to remove that requirement -- but only if Medicare is available to all, financed by payroll taxes.
Do this and the public will be behind them, as will the Supreme Court.
Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.

Read more: http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/robert-reich-health-care-jujitsu/article_e08b5d3f-b613-5abc-80b3-f55eb864f458.html#ixzz1r74JGOH1

Sports or Politics

January 15, 2012

Ever since I retired from working for the California Legislature three years ago last September, I have had a decreasing interest in what the idiots in the Legislature and Congress are doing and more and more I have become a super sports fan. College football and then the NFL followed by baseball a few months later. Compare what the San Francisco 49ers have done this season with the Republican race for the nomination.
The gazillion number of debates has offered us a glimpse of the sad state of the Republican Party. No serious debate about the future of our country just yelling and screaming. You said...no you said. Flip Flop vs. serious but reactionary comments by Ron Paul. Romney is boring and offers no inspiring vision for the country.

I have said time and time again the only candidate that represents the Republican Party of yore is the one with the least chance of winning the nomination, Jon Huntsman. I find the race for the GOP nomination a gaggle of screaming right wing zealots. The question is will the voters choose a totally different direction for this country by electing one of these candidates out of the mainstream of America politics or forgive the President for not being the superman they hoped for and re-elect him

I admit that part of my problem is the farther I get away from working in the political process,  I see the world in a more objdective way. I read the paper each morning ; front page, sports, business and the comics. This is the way real people live. They are not obsessed with every word uttered by politicians each day. They are not political junkies like I used to be.

I hope that after the Super Bowl, I can regain my interest in the race for the White House and what is going on in the Legislature with Governor Jerry Brown battling the Republicans. Baseball opening day is in April  and  the sound of the ball coming off a baseball bat may lure me away.

2012 is the year we elect a President who will guide this nation to economic recovery and keep us from another Middle East war. A President who will inspire us once again and who will deliver this time on his promises.

God Bless the United States of America but right now…Go San Francisco 49ers.