In San Francisco's Castro district, a handful of homosexual activists were peacefully chanting slogans when they were set upon by a mob of angry fundamentalist Christians, who surrounded and hounded them, shouting obscenities and threatening to kill them. One woman was thrown to the ground and kicked. Police intervened in time to prevent further violence, and escorted the small group out of the area, with the mob howling threats all the way.

Editorial writers are outraged by this hate crime. Hundreds of columns have been written protesting the incident and demanding prompt government action to ensure the safety of every minority group. 

Wait. That's not quite right. The small group was composed of the Christians, not the gay-rights activists. They were singing hymns, not chanting slogans. The violence, intimidation, and threats came from the gay activists, not the Christians. Otherwise the story is accurate. 

Oh, and one more thing: The editorial writers don't seem concerned at all. Hate crimes occur when homosexuals are attacked. Christians don't count. 

A) Not so very long ago, some American states refused to recognize a marriage if the spouses were of different racial backgrounds. Today we all deplore that benighted attitude, and recognize the loving unions of racially mixed couples.

B) Not so very long ago, many American states refused to recognize the loving alliance between a man and his garden tractor as a marriage. Today the states still refuse to see that love-- however sincere-- as marital. We all support that refusal. 

C) Not so very long ago, all American states refused to recognize a union as marriage if the partners were of the same sex. Today opinion is mixed. Two states-- or maybe three, depending on the latest court ruling in California-- recognize same-sex marriage. Others do not. Some people think same-sex unions should be recognized as marriages in all states. Others think that is nearly as silly as proposing marriage to a garden tractor. 

How do we resolve this disagreement? We can turn to Anna Quindlen, who has delivered her magisterial judgment of magisterial judgment in a Newsweek essay. The piece is  entitled "The Loving Decision," but the subtitle is much more revealing: 

Same-sex marriage was beaten back at the ballot box. Now here's a history lesson on why victory is inevitable in the long run.

Yes, voters in several states approved efforts to define marriage as the union of man and woman; Quindlen concedes that. But there was a time when voters approved efforts to define marriage as a union between a man and woman of the same race. That changed, so this will change. QED.

The world only spins forward.

And if you know which way the world is spinning, why not give things a shove in the right direction? It's tough to accept the mutable decisions of a democratic majority, when you have historical inevitability on your side. The courts have used that logic already, implicitly, in calling for acceptance of same-sex marriage. Since we're all going to accept it eventually, we might as well accept it now. Then the enlightened people of the media and academe spring into action to consolidate the progress.

It goes without saying that that historical progress is always beneficial. Things are better today than yesterday, and will be better still tomorrow. Just look at the economy. Oh, wait; don't look at the economy. But look at philanthropy. Once we had do-gooders like Mother Teresa: a nice person, certainly. But today Angelina Jolie can adopt a starving child in the morning and still look hot at a photo-shoot in the afternoon. Progress. Once we had female writers like Flannery O'Connor: a decent talent. But now we have Anna Quindlen. Just sample the woman's ability to cut straight to essentials:

As for the notion that allowing gay men and lesbians to marry will destroy conventional marriage, I have found heterosexuals perfectly willing to do that themselves.

It's undeniably true: there are male-female couples who hold valid marriage licenses, but make a mess of their lives together. There are also doctors who, despite having won medical licenses, mistreat their patients. Still, if I'm going to have an operation, I'd prefer to know that the surgeon is licensed by the state. And I'd feel better still if the licensing process required that surgeon to show his grasp of fundamental anatomical facts. Such as, for instance, the difference between a male and a female, and the impossibility of fruitful conjugal ties without those differences.

Catholic shills for the Democratic Party enjoyed some success this year in publicizing the claim that abortions declined in the Clinton years because increased disbursements to social services allowed pregnant women to keep their babies instead of aborting them, whence we were to believe that the Democratic policy -- an unrestricted right to abortion combined with financial disincentives to exercise that right -- was the authentically pro-life position. 

Some may be inclined to doubt whether, even if the economic argument were sound, the sort of woman who'd decide to kill or spare her child based on her level of unearned income would model a Catholic notion of citizenship. But IS it sound? Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice (not a woman in the service of the pro-life lobby, the U.S. bishops, or the Religious Right) has made a telling case that the antipoverty claim is a sham, that the data was cooked so as to present a connection that doesn't exist, in order to weaken conservative resistance to anti-poverty programs. Kissling writes:

This overwhelming and admirable commitment to ending poverty and promoting policies that would do that has caught not only [Jim] Wallis, but another newly important figure in progressive evangelical circles, Glenn Stassen. Stassen, who describes himself as prolife, but is publicly in favor of legal abortion, is the author of the study that claimed abortions went down under Clinton and up under Bush and hypothesized that the reason was Bush's cuts in the antipoverty budgets. More recent research has proven that Stassen was wrong on the facts. Abortions went down under Clinton and have continued to go down under Bush (although at a much slower rate). Most importantly, data shows that Stassen's conclusion -- that the abortion rate went down under Clinton because of better support for poor pregnant women -- is demonstrably wrong. Analysis by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of government data show that the reason for the decline during Clinton's presidency was increased use of emergency contraception and better use of traditional contraceptives such as the pill. When I asked Stassen why he continues to make his claims, despite the facts showing otherwise, instead of supporting contraception as a way to reduce abortion, he passionately responded, "Because I want to make an antipoverty argument." 

Nota bene: the analysis exploding the economics claim comes not from some conservative think-tank or the bishops' pro-life office; it comes from the Guttmacher Institute, from the heart of the abortion campaign itself. That makes it all but impossible for liberals to dismiss the conclusion as biased against the progressivist stance.   

With the factual flooring knocked out from under them, will liberal Catholics feel constrained to modify their enthusiasm for the Democratic "solution"?  I'm skeptical. On the one hand, the correct attribution of the abortion decline to contraception and pharmaceutical abortion will not bother those who reject Catholic teaching concerning those practices.  On the other hand, the suspiciously opportune timing of the revived Clinton-claim, and the curiously fervid support for the same, suggest that progressivist Catholics with a bad conscience on the abortion issue are backing the antipoverty ruse simply in order to buy themselves permission to go with pro-abort Democrats. Most, probably, never really believed it themselves. 

Flannery O'Connor published a short story in 1955 with the title "You Can't Be Any Poorer Than Dead." The point has not been communicated to the Kennedy-Drinan-Pelosi Catholics, whose verbal concern for the poor, combined with lofty disdain for those who would protect the unborn, results in a Marie Antoinette-like detachment from the grisly reality: "Call on us when you exit the womb, mon enfant, and we have a shiny new sovereign for your cello lessons!" And hey, if a million or so every year aren't in a position to take them up on the offer, at least no one can fault them on their generosity.  Liberals are more caring than the rest of us.

So here's the next move in the culture wars, an editorial cloud no bigger than a man's suspiciously well-groomed hand.  The Los Angeles Times has an editorial deploring the Holy See's newly-issued Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the Priesthood.  Why? Because, according to the Times, the document emphasizes 

that even chaste gay men are to be barred from the priesthood. Never mind that large numbers of gay priests -- estimates range from 25% to 50% -- already serve the faithful, with most adhering to their vow of celibacy. 

The Guidelines never mention the word "gay"; the Holy See is concerned -- as the Times is not -- to keep libido distinct from behavior, and both distinct from conviction. Nor is it surprising that, for the nonce, most homosexual priests have remained celibate, that is, unmarried. Celibacy is not chastity, however, and anyone who thinks most self-declared gay priests are chaste is deceiving himself. 

That said, it's true that the Holy See's unwillingness to admit homosexual priests is broader than avoidance of sodomy.  The Church teaches homosexual appetite is in itself disordered, and the psychic disturbance that attends the disorder should be healed before a man is admitted to the priesthood, even if he's physically continent.  It's this unwavering insistence on the homosexual libido as disordered that makes the Times editors so indignant: 

The Vatican's hard line against chaste gay priests seems to be inspired by the condemnation the church justly received for its passive response to the sexual abuse of minors -- most of them male -- by some priests. But, as Pope Benedict XVI conceded during his visit to the United States this year, homosexuality isn't the same as pedophilia. That statement was a rebuke to conservative Catholics, and others, who have attempted to equate the two. (Despite the pope's enlightened comments, he approved last month's statement.) 

As this conservative Catholic has insisted, the problem isn't gays, but priests who sodomize persons of the same gender; blue collar slang provides several technically accurate alternatives to the gay-label. But the motive for the Guidelines suggested by the Times is false.  As Msgr. Bruguès made clear at last month's press conference, the document was initiated back in 1995, seven years prior to the general crisis and condemnation to which the Times refers.  The ignorance imputed to the Holy See is, in reality, the Times' own blunder presented to us as a deduction. 

Having grudgingly conceded that the Church enjoys the right to enforce even unenlightened norms among her own members, the editors' next move is to insinuate that the psychologists who assist the Church in screening seminarians are guilty of an ethics violation: 

Yet even if the U.S. church is following a more compassionate policy than Vatican pronouncements would seem to authorize, the role of psychologists in screening applicants raises troubling ethical questions, as even psychologists who approve of such cooperation admit. Aiding the church in weeding out homosexuals is hard to reconcile with these guidelines of the American Psychological Assn.

Troubling ethical questions. Right. Note the kicker in the last paragraph: 

If the church -- or a diocese within the church -- takes the Vatican decree literally, it's hard to see how a psychologist could lend his or her expertise to the thwarting of a young man's aspiration to serve God simply because he happens to be gay. In our view, that's not just cruel; it's unprofessional. 

Does the Times really care about psychologists' smirching their honor?  Of course not. The point is to increase the odium directed at the teaching Church, and, more importantly, to nudge the issue of the Church's stance on homosexuality out of the "free exercise" sphere toward the publicly regulated sphere, as a potential violation of civil rights.   

Pay attention to how the language sets up the move.  We're presented with a young man whose wish to serve God (and we all know the esteem the Times has for THAT desire) has been thwarted "simply because he happens to be gay." So we've got a wholesome wish (priesthood) that a man who "happens" to be disqualified is prevented from realizing "simply because" he has that disqualification.  Where have we heard that language before? First the plea is for tolerance, then acceptance, then ennoblement, and finally compulsion of those who refuse to acknowledge the new regime.   

What's behind the fury fueling the protests against Proposition 8?  Outrage that voters still have a right to be wrong -- and the Church (in the protestors' view) is the villainess at the back of the bigotry.  What the Times calls cruel and unprofessional today will inevitably be termed intolerable tomorrow. 

For the 2nd time in just over a year-- or should I say barely over a year-- a Catholic priest is in legal trouble for appearing naked in public. Is this the beginning of an ominous trend? And if it is, who should be more concerned: the naturists who see an unacceptable government restraint on citizens' right to enjoy good weather, or the traditionalists who cling obstinately to the view that priests should behave with dignity, and dignified people wear clothes?

You may recall the case of Father Whipkey, the Colorado priest who eschewed clothing for outdoor exercise because he perspires freely. 

Now from Australia comes the case of Father Wieslaw Pawlowski, who told the court that he needed plenty of sunshine to heal burn-scarred skin on his back. But it wasn't the sight of the priest's back to which the neighbors objected. Father Pawlowski claimed that he was wearing a G-string. Whether that would have reassured the neighbors is a moot point, because the court concluded that he was in the altogether.

Why hadn't Father Whipkey heard about the miracle-fiber garments that wick away perspiration? Why hadn't Father Pawlowski heard of tanning salons? What are they teaching in seminaries these days?

The Washington Post has discovered a member of the Kennedy family who favors legal abortion, and is willing to talk about it. 

In other news, Warren Buffett has revealed that he is active in the stock market. 

 When Father Scott Newman instructed his parishioners that they should make a good Confession before receiving Communion if they had voted for a pro-abortion candidate, he received both kudos and criticism. The most pointed criticism came from the administrator of the diocese, Msgr. Martin Laughlin, who announced: "Father Newman's statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church's teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated."

Now that's interesting. Because on the very day Msgr. Laughlin released that statement, the local newspaper had reported: 

While Newman has been the most outspoken of South Carolina priests in the wake of the election, the administrator of the diocese of Charleston, Msgr. Martin T. Laughlin, supports him fully, said diocesan spokesman Steve Gajdosik.

"I think it's fair to say that Father Newman's letter echoes the sentiments of Father Laughlin," he said.

 No competent PR man would issue such a clear statement of support without first having checked with his boss-- in this case (since the Charleston see is currently without a bishop) the diocesan administrator, Msgr. Laughlin. Notice too that Gajdosik used Laughlin's name. Why do you suppose he felt so sure that he knew how Laughlin felt?

Maybe it was because other priests of the Charleston diocese had already indicated their support for Father Newman.  On November 12, for example, Father Newman received this message:

Thank you for your statement. I wish the bishops would have been as forthright. Why did they not speak before the election?

That email message was sent to Father Newman by... are you ready?... Msgr. Laughlin.

Let's review: On November 12, Msgr. Laughlin personally thanks Father Newman for his statement, and compares him (Newman) favorably with the US bishops. On November 14 the same Msgr. Laughlin officially repudiates Father Newman's statement. 

Wouldn't you love to see Msgr. Laughlin's phone log for November 12-14? 

 Let's not be judgmental. They were young and needed the money. It's not as if they were Benedictines, after all. Boston College has cut a licensing deal with Victoria's Secret to market its logo on various delicate hand-washables. From the Boston Herald:

Boston College’s merchandising deal with racy lingerie peddler Victoria’s Secret is raising ire on campus and among the conservative, Catholic school’s alumni. 

“It’s disgraceful and appalling,” said Boston College graduate C.J. Doyle, who runs the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. “This is just one more example of the university’s callous contempt for Catholic sensibilities and its complete indifference to what remains of its Catholic identity.” 

Yesterday on Newbury Street, outside a Victoria’s Secret store that is selling hot-pink Boston College tank tops for $19.50 and Eagles “short shorts,” others agreed.

You can tell they were playing close attention during Pope Benedict's address to Catholic universities last year, can't you?  

The universities of Minnesota and North Carolina have already pulled out of the deal, in part because they did not want their brand associated with the retailer.

“There is no way that we want that (BC) logo to be interpreted as ‘We OK the sexualization of women,’ ” said Sharlene Hesse-Biber, director of the Women’s Studies Center at Boston College, about the products. 

Remind me. Are short shorts commended in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, or am I confusing it with Dominus ac Redemptor again?

BC spokesman Jack Dunn said the school was “very selective” when it agreed to let Victoria’s Secret sell BC sweatshirts, sweatpants, T-shirts and flip-flops as part of the racy chain’s youth-oriented Pink line.“We thought it was a tasteful line of clothing that college students wear,” he said. 

He said the college had no knowledge of Eagles-emblazoned “short shorts” that were selling next to the hot-pink BC tank tops.“We never authorized undergarments,” he said, though other colleges have their names printed on panties in the Pink collection. 

As a Phillip Morris attorney famously asked, "What's the point of having integrity if you can't sell it?" Boston College has given its students a splendid and truly instructive example of the approach of today's mature "thinking Catholic" toward worldly advancement. Hey, it certainly paid off for the Theology Department.

[Dunn] also said the university does not divulge how much it makes from selling licensed apparel.

As Ignatius Loyola whispered to the young Francis Xavier at the University of Paris, "Shouldst thou gain the whole world, and yet forfeit thy immortal soul thereby, be sure to get a percentage of the gross." 

Julia Duin, who covers religion for the Washington Times, has been covering the meetings of the US bishops' conference for years, and has learned how to spot trends in the bishops' thinking:

One thing reporters have learned to look for is who wins or loses yearly elections as chairman of a variety of USCCB committees.

Sound reasonable. So what do those elections show?

I have noticed, strangely, that the most outspoken bishops on the pro-life issue always lose these elections.

But wait: the bishops were talking tough about abortion this week. Doesn't that mean something?

Thus, the days are getting more desperate and bishops may need to be more outspoken than ever. But when they are, their own confreres punish them for it.
 

 In Boston, a town once famous for its Puritan ethos, an innovative dating service is customizing its appeal to married people considering adultery. "Life is short, have an affair," read the ads. The Boston Herald notes with a smirk that the agency is "unfazed by a quaint state law that bans adultery." And the office of the attorney general assures Herald readers that nobody is ever prosecuted for adultery these days.

Hey, with friends like these, why does the adultery-aid agency need to pay for ads? 

At their annual meeting this week, the US bishops elected Bishop Gabino Zavala-- of "we're not a one-issue church" fame-- to chair their communications committee. He was chosen over Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, author of one of the strongest episcopal statements about the obligation to vote pro-life. 

What message does this vote communicate to the world? 

Bishop Finn was admirably clear. In a pre-election radio interview he asserted plainly that "you can't support a person who wants to go to complete full-scale war against the unborn."

Bishop Zavala was clear, too. The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne said that the outspoken comments by the LA auxiliary proved: "Progressive Catholics are now as organized as conservative Catholics were in 2004." 

 If Joe Biden plans to visit Pensacola, Florida anytime soon, he knows that the bishop there questions his fitness to receive Communion. But in his own home diocese of Wilmington the vice-president-elect has no such problem; Bishop Malooly doesn't "want to alienate people." The difference can be explained thus:

• Senator Biden's support for legal abortion is well known in Florida, but remains a secret in Delaware, so that his reception of the Eucharist does not constitute a scandal there? Nope. The voters in Delaware aren't stupide. They know. 
• Public support for abortion is seriously wrong in Florida, but not in Delaware, because... No, that argument is going nowhere. If it's seriously wrong anywhere, it's seriously wrong everywhere.
• A bishop in Florida is worried that Biden is jeopardizing his immortal soul, but the senator's own bishop isn't interested in that question. Let's hope that's not right.

OK, I give up. You tell me the difference.

And if you can do that, move on to problem #2. In today's Boston Globe, Cardinal Sean O'Malley is questioned about whether pro-abortion politicians should receive Communion, and delivers the following answer:

The church's teaching on worthiness for Communion and proper disposition is in the Catholic catechism, and it's no secret, and I support that. There is perhaps a teaching where we have not done as good a job of late as we used to. . . . Today, I think we need to reinforce that teaching a lot. And once that teaching is better understood, then, I think, it will be obvious as to who should be coming to Communion and who shouldn't. But until there's a decision of the church to formally excommunicate people, I don't think we're going to be denying Communion to the people. However, whatever the church's decision is, we will certainly enforce.

For extra credit, answer the following questions:

1. The Church's teaching is "no secret." What is it, and where can it be found in the cardinal's answer?
2. If "it's no secret," why is there a need to "reinforce that teaching" and make it better understood?
3. When will that reinforcement begin? When will it be obvious who should come to Communion and who shouldn't? Who will make it obvious?
4. If the Church decides formally to excommunicate people, who will make that decision for the Boston archdiocese?
5. Who is the Archbishop of Boston?