print      source      versions

Comments ... #

Maybe he's trying to promote intolerance and scare away decent people?

It never ceases to amaze how many genuinely good people I know don't go to church at all. Obviously I'm prejudiced that I correlate goodness and church attendance. Is that a sin?

posted by charlatan on Nov 18, 2007 at 11:13:07 pm     #

FWIW, he's not just protesting the same sex unions...he's also protesting giving a legal status to cohabitating heterosexual couples too.

(Not saying that I agree or disagree w/what he's doing either way...just pointing out the additional info.)

posted by mom2 on Nov 18, 2007 at 11:42:37 pm     #

I have two postings about the homophobic bishop on my blog

posted by Man_with_the_muck_rake on Nov 18, 2007 at 11:55:14 pm     #

I almost forgot about the Bishop's slight on cohab folks....

Here's the thing -- how can he take on these issues and ignore the ones within our church? (scandal, cover-up, more scandal, more cover-up, lies, deception, cover-up...)??????

At the end of the day, whether you're in a same sex relationship or co-habbing, as long as you're not sexually abusing kids or covering it up, or providing cover for a murder suspect, how "bad" can you or your lifestyle/life choice be????????

It's funny (ironic, not ha-ha) when Bishop Blair has been called to task a few times over the last few years, he cries 'victim' -- against those groups who challenge him. Now, publicly he says he has a duty to bring to light these moral problems.... isn't that a bit hypocritical????

I mean, if he can't take it, should he dish it out?

posted by anotherblogger on Nov 19, 2007 at 12:39:19 am     #

I cringed when I heard the letter being read at Mass this morning. Didn't have a chance to discuss it with anyone else, but my husband and I looked at each other in a "WTF?" kind of moment while it was happening.

At first I didn't realize that our priest was just reading a letter from the Bishop...was so confusing to me b/c the letter certainly didn't sound like anything that he would say on his own. When he got to the end and it became clear to me that he was just reading the Bishop's words, I was a little relieved.

(Not relieved b/c the words were said, of course...just relieved that they weren't the words of our own priest, who quite honestly didn't appear terribly thrilled about reading the letter.)

posted by mom2 on Nov 19, 2007 at 01:01:01 am     #

I should note in addition to my comment above that I'm actually not a big fan of the domestic partnership registry idea. (But not for homophobic reasons - I don't have a problem with giving a legal status to homosexual couples...whether that be a civil union, marriage, etc.)

Anyhow, even though I actually don't support this version of the domestic partnership registry, I still resented hearing that letter read in church.

posted by mom2 on Nov 19, 2007 at 01:09:11 am     #

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu#On_homosexuality

In an interview with BBC Radio 4 on the 18th of November 2007, Archbishop Desmond Tutu accused the church of being obsessed with homosexuality and declared:

" If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."⁴

...

Tutu is a humanitarian with a Nobel Peace Prize and according to wikipedia "has likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the treatment of Black South Africans under apartheid."

He makes Mother Theresa look like Christopher Hitchens was critical.
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083

posted by charlatan on Nov 19, 2007 at 01:17:14 am     #

Catholics of the Toledo diocese ought to vote him out with their pocket books. No money in the collection basket will send a thunderbolt message straight to the oh-so righteous man.

posted by Man_with_the_muck_rake on Nov 19, 2007 at 08:53:42 am     #

I'm not Catholic, so I don't know about this, hence the questions:

What, exactly, is the role of the Bishop?

My limited understanding would seem to indicate that addressing the various parishes about such issues is part of his job. So, is this the first time he's done such a letter? If not, what other topics did he cover?

Whether or not you agree with his comments, is his statement reflective of the official position of the Catholic Church?

For years the church instructed against birth control, but many Catholics used it anyway - is this issue similar to the way many Catholics view homosexuality?

I'd appreciate your help in understanding this.

posted by MaggieThurber on Nov 19, 2007 at 09:51:27 am     #

Maggie, if the position Bishop Blair has taken is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic church, how does one explain the hyporcrisy with having clerics who are closeted homosexual, semi-closeted homosexual and/or openly homosexual leading the individual parishes? It seems that the Bishops 'urging Catholics to defeat this legislation' would be very different if the Bishop were not ignoring the big pink elephant in his own living room!!!!!

He can't feign to not know that homosexual clergy are on the payroll and take up this torch with any amount of credibility, can he?

I support equal rights -- and for once, agree with McNamera, specifically that this is about property rights etc.. but how can the Bishop talk the talk here, but not walk the line?

posted by anotherblogger on Nov 19, 2007 at 12:05:41 pm     #

anotherblogger - not being Catholic and not knowing the position or duties of Bishop, I couldn't say. That's why I asked the question.

Some churches teach that 'being' gay is not a sin but that 'engaging' in such acts is. I don't know what position the Catholic Church takes, so I asked.

And my understanding from what I've read about the Bishop's comment was that it applied to unmarried heterosexual couples as well. But, again, not being Catholic and not hearing the statement, I don't know for sure.

As for the last question "talk the talk but not walk the line?" ... I think many religious leaders will tell you that they certainly do sin as they are far from perfect - as is everyone.

Are you Catholic, anotherblogger? I'm not defending the action, just trying to understand it in relation to a religion I do not practice.

posted by MaggieThurber on Nov 19, 2007 at 01:09:59 pm     #

I applaud the Bishops stand for traditional values. I am also glad that he noted that heterosexual relationships outside of marriage are also wrong. I am glad that some people still want to go back to the basics of a stable society, that is a marriage between a man and a woman. The future of our nation depends on it.

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 19, 2007 at 02:02:12 pm     #

The future of our nation depends on it.

How so?

posted by Chris99 on Nov 19, 2007 at 02:08:00 pm     #

My opinion is that God ordained marriage to be permanent between one man and one woman. It should be a comittment before God by faith and by the grace of God. I believe that the integrity of marriage as God defined it is fundamental to the strength, integrity, and cohesion of society and that if it is twisted into something else it will weaken that nation. Children need to know that their families will not evaporate. Look at how much trouble is caused by broken homes? More and More I am only more convinced that strong nations only can endure because of strong families and strong families can best exist inside a family based on faith.

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 19, 2007 at 02:38:13 pm     #

Chris99 - some say that poverty and single-parent homes (whether by divorce or never-married) are inter-related.

Economist Walter Williams said in one of his columns:

"...from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of their under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment of the black population that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor.

Among whites, one population segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Another segment of the white population suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor.

What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations? The only statistical distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage. There is far less poverty in married-couple families, where presumably at least one of the spouses is employed. Fully 85 percent of black children living in poverty reside in a female-headed household.

So for many, the idea of stable families and marriages is key to helping address the problems of poverty.

I offer this as a non-religious example of why stable families appear to be important to societies in general.

Please note - I am not addressing the issue of homosexuality in this particular posting...

posted by MaggieThurber on Nov 19, 2007 at 03:03:13 pm     #

Fully 85 percent of black children living in poverty reside in a female-headed household.

Isn't this a no-brainer? Republicans like to harp on this fact quite a lot as I have noticed. Rush and Hannity enjoy filling the heads of their listeners with data like that to insure high ratings for their program.

posted by Man_with_the_muck_rake on Nov 19, 2007 at 03:32:12 pm     #

ilovetoledo, I appreciate your opinion. But I don't understand this comment:

Children need to know that their families will not evaporate. Look at how much trouble is caused by broken homes?

Are you saying that children are having their families "evaporate" due to homosexuals? Are homosexuals breaking up homes? If so, are they doing it at a greater rate than others? What is the divorce rate in America? Are these broken homes?

More and More I am only more convinced that strong nations only can endure because of strong families and strong families can best exist inside a family based on faith.

I thought we were a strong nation because of our acceptance of diversity (and an unprecedented buildup of the military-industrial complex). I believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran has no homosexuals. Would you consider them a strong nation?

posted by Chris99 on Nov 19, 2007 at 03:35:58 pm     #

Maggie--if you are going to make that argument, then logically by allowing homosexuals to marry, you'd be helping to decrease the rate of poverty, no?

posted by Chris99 on Nov 19, 2007 at 03:38:56 pm     #

Are you saying that children are having their families "evaporate" due to homosexuals? Are homosexuals breaking up homes? If so, are they doing it at a greater rate than others? What is the divorce rate in America? Are these broken homes?
************
Whether homosexual or heterosexual, I think relationships based on sex are doomed to instability and failure.
******
I thought we were a strong nation because of our acceptance of diversity (and an unprecedented buildup of the military-industrial complex).

******
Diversity is good. God made us to be individuals but I think diversity should be within the God ordained view of the world. For example, I have a diverse selection of tools in my basement. They are good and they help me to do good work. However, when a tool is misused it can lead to problems and even injury. For example, if I tried to use my chainsaw to pound a nail it would not work well and I would probably get hurt. I also believe that if you accept the theistic view of the world, then you must believe God designed males for females and vice versa.
*****************
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran has no homosexuals. Would you consider them a strong nation?

I think he is probably not being realistic. I also think Iran's Islamic law is very barbaric. I don't think homosexuals or heterosexuals who practice sex outside of marriage should be executed, but I don't believe I should be forced to accept, against my religious views, that what they are doing is correct. Just like everyone else, I should be allowed to live according to my convictions and free to voice my opinion.

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 19, 2007 at 03:45:09 pm     #

Chris99 - not MY argument...please read carefully what I wrote. I just offered some census data that many believe points to a non-religious reason why strong families are important to a society.

I also specifically said that I wasn't addressing the issue of homosexuality in the comment.

And MWTMR - it's census data - it is what it is. Why must everything boil down to 'evil' republicans?

Don't Democrats also believe in strong families? Don't Democrats also believe that children are better off being in stable families? For goodness sake!

posted by MaggieThurber on Nov 19, 2007 at 04:18:48 pm     #

Whether homosexual or heterosexual, I think relationships based on sex are doomed to instability and failure.

I agree. I would like to reiterate, that I respect your opinion and agree with parts of it. Here's my issue--if we as a nation decided to make laws based on everyone's religious beliefs, we'd never come to an agreement. That why I feel laws should be secular. In this sense, the Constitution trumps the Bible. And since we (all of us) are guaranteed equal rights, it would be wrong to deny minorities the same rights based on religious views.

posted by Chris99 on Nov 19, 2007 at 04:21:36 pm     #

Chris99 - not MY argument...please read carefully what I wrote. I just offered some census data that many believe points to a non-religious reason why strong families are important to a society.

Yes, you are very good at posting other people's views. If offers you excellent cover. But, if you were merely posting a column about the economic benefits of "stable families" then what does that have to do with gay couples? Are you saying that gay couples live "unstable" environments compared to others?
Please explain...

posted by Chris99 on Nov 19, 2007 at 04:31:50 pm     #

My husband and I are Catholic, send our children to Catholic schools, and are involved in our parish.

I was so angry yesterday during Mass. My husband and I looked at each other in disbelief when we heard that letter from the bishop. About halfway through the letter, I told my husband I'd heard enough, and we grabbed our kids and got out of there, making loud noises about how we weren't going to subject our kids to that hate speech.

Bishop Blair needs to find a new diocese. I think perhaps his method of heavy-handed "leadership" would go over better somewhere else -- like the former Soviet Union. This letter was nothing but a red herring, an effort to take people's minds off the injustices done to the survivors of abuse by priests and nuns, to the parish in Kansas, OH, and to Sister Margaret Ann Pahl.

I have no problem at all with people who choose to cohabitate in loving, committed, adult relationships. At least they're not pervin' on the kids.

posted by Anniecski on Nov 19, 2007 at 04:38:44 pm     #

if we as a nation decided to make laws based on everyone's religious beliefs, we'd never come to an agreement..
************

Religion, personal opinon, and politics are absolutely inseparable. Religion will always be reflected in the laws of all nations whether that religion is Christianity, Islam, hinduism, or atheism, (which from my point of view is merely the religion of non believers.) Religion will always be an overwhelming force and will reflect the views of the consituents. This is because when it comes down to it all the things that matter have to do with religion, especially moral issues. No matter how much you try to chase it from the room, or pretend it is not there, it always will be. To try to say we will have religious people and secular government is folly and it cannot be done.

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 19, 2007 at 04:42:20 pm     #

Chris - you'd asked 'how so' about ilovetoledo's comment about stable families.

I was offering a perspective.

And while you may think posting someone else's compilation of DATA constitutes 'cover,' you're very adept at trying to bait others into arguments by taking general comments and extrapolating them into such comments as "Are you saying that gay couples live (in?) "unstable" environments compared to others?" when nothing like this was even mentioned - while, at the same time, I actually noted that the my comment had NOTHING to do with the issue of homosexuality.

Here's the thing, though. Some say it's possible for kids to thrive in an environment with two moms or two dads. Some say it's possible for kids to thrive in single-parent homes. I'm sure there are examples both ways - as well as examples of kids not doing well in stable heterosexual-parent families.

I don't have enough information, nor do I think there is enough statistical data yet for anyone to make general statements on the stability of same-sex 'families' or the impact on the kids in such families. In terms of the outcomes of raising kids in such an environment, they're a relatively new occurrence and I don't know if anyone is even researching it. If you do, please share the links, as I'd be very interested in reading about it.

posted by MaggieThurber on Nov 19, 2007 at 04:50:46 pm     #

BTW - is there someone who can answer my earlier questions about the Bishop's role?

Thanks.

posted by MaggieThurber on Nov 19, 2007 at 05:00:13 pm     #

To try to say we will have religious people and secular government is folly and it cannot be done.

So then we could take the Bill of Rights, and show how each of these has some deep-seeded root in Christian priciples?

posted by Chris99 on Nov 19, 2007 at 05:03:34 pm     #

Chris - you'd asked 'how so' about ilovetoledo's comment about stable families

No-it was about the future of our nation depending on keeping marriage between a man and a woman. And so I thought your data on stable families was based on this. Of course I agree that a stable family is better for everyone. I would say that defining what is more "stable' would be difficult, since as you say, there is little data on this. (and may be subjective anyway)

posted by Chris99 on Nov 19, 2007 at 05:13:06 pm     #

Mom2...how can you claim to be Catholic and at the same time say you wouldn't have a problem with allowing homosexuals to marry?

I would ask haven't you read what the Bible says about the lifestyle...but, being a FORMER Catholic myself...I know 98% of Catholics don't actually read the Bible.

Why are you and your husband even in the church if you don't even agree with THE BOOK in which the Catholic Church considers the Word of God? Are you just going through the motions there?

The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. The Apostle Paul grouped homosexuals with murderers and thiefs. The Apostle Paul also called men with men and woman with woman...degrading passions and lust.

Why be in church if you don't even believe what it teaches. Do yourself and the church a favor and just quit going.

posted by Kooz on Nov 19, 2007 at 05:23:38 pm     #

Heck Kooz -- if not believing in everything that a church teaches means that people should just quit going, then what's the point?

Seriously. Religion and spirituality are for those of us who know we are imperfect . . .

If you apply your standard, then I'd say a big portion of the priests from the Toledo Diocese would have to leave the church too because they don't practice the Catholic Church's teaching on priests maintaining homosexual or heterosexual celibacy.

I think that the reason that this rubs me the wrong way is that I have because the Bishop weighs in on this and yet he ignores so much else.

What -- isn't there something about noticing the speck in someone else's eye while you have a plank in your own?

posted by corky on Nov 19, 2007 at 05:46:15 pm     #

Maggie,

I was raised catholic and my recollection is that the role of the bishop is to serve as the pastor of the diocese -- the shepherd of the flock.

He is also to support and "enforce" (how, I'm not sure) the teachings of the Roman Catholic religion.

In that sense, Bishop Blair is doing his job by pointing this out, but I am puzzled as to why he is going to bat on this and why he overlooks so many other things.

posted by corky on Nov 19, 2007 at 05:54:44 pm     #

thank you corky!

posted by MaggieThurber on Nov 19, 2007 at 06:25:05 pm     #

To try to say we will have religious people and secular government is folly and it cannot be done.

So then we could take the Bill of Rights, and show how each of these has some deep-seeded root in Christian priciples?
**************

You know your arguments and defenses are weaving all over the road. Show me where I said that each one of the Bill of Rights has some "deep-seeded root in Christian priciples [SIC]?"

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 19, 2007 at 07:04:33 pm     #

kooz - I was going to try to type a polite response to your questions, but then realized that there was no point. It seems apparent to me that you don't want a serious response - you just wanted to take an opportunity to try to get a rise out of people.

posted by mom2 on Nov 19, 2007 at 07:07:47 pm     #

I still maintain that your arguments are going all over the road, but to answer your question, here is a web page that deals with the Biblical origins of the Bill of Rights.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 19, 2007 at 07:31:31 pm     #

ilovetoledo, I don't think I was all over the road---I disagree directly with your assertion that a secular gov't is "folly" in a land of religious people. I offered the Bill of Rights as an example of how our gov't is shaped by ideals that are not religious in nature. The link you offered really doesn't contradict my point.

posted by Chris99 on Nov 19, 2007 at 08:05:20 pm     #

I will go back to my original thesis that it is folly to believe that you can separate religion from government. If you go back to the Puritans and why they left England, you will find it was because of persecution. King James and others realized that Christianity and the Bible had a powerful leveling type effect which they were indeed afraid of. The principles of democracy, equality and liberty are powerfully reflected in the Puritans and their government establishments in America. The effect of the Puritans as well as their influence on their offspring contributed mightily to influencing our democratic form of government and this is seen reflected in The Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The very idea of justice and equality and freedom are heavily influenced by the Bible.

During the American Revolution it was considered by the Founding Fathers that the Church of England used the power of state established religion to impinge upon peoples' freedoms. Their goal in establishment of separation of church and state was not to remove the influence of religion from government. Far from it. Rather, their goal was to protect religion from being corrupted by government. They certainly did not want to prevent religion from influencing government rather they wanted to prevent the opposite. This can be seen in important documents beyond The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution and can be seen in The Northwest Ordinance, heavily influenced by Thomas Jefferson. Also, if you look at the writings of men like John Adams and even Washington, they certainly did not believe that government should be sterilized and exorcised of all religious influence. I think modern secularists and humanists have perverted the original intentions of the Founding Fathers and are using "Separation of Church and State" to remove any vestige of Christianity from government in order to further their own amoral religion.

No, if you try to look back and find a government free from the influence of religion, you will not find it in America nor will it ever be in the future. Whether it be Christianity or atheism, or something else, some sort of spiritual Weltanschauung will always be prevailing at any given moment.

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 19, 2007 at 08:26:13 pm     #

Maggie - there is alot of info on Wikipedia:

Duties of a diocesan bishop are to "teach, sanctify and govern": that is, to oversee preaching of the Gospel and Catholic education in all its forms; to oversee and provide for the administration of the sacraments; and to legislate, administer and act as judge for Canon Law within his diocese. He serves as the spiritual leader of the diocese and has responsibility for the pastoral care of all Catholics living within his ecclesiastical and ritual jurisdiction. He is obliged to celebrate Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation with the intention of praying for those in his care (pro populo), assign clergy to their posts in various institutions and oversee finances. Latin Catholic bishops also must make regular ad limina visits to the Holy See every five years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_%28Catholic_Church%29

posted by MaumeeMom on Nov 19, 2007 at 09:15:19 pm     #

The very idea of justice and equality and freedom are heavily influenced by the Bible

I would say the opposite is correct since these ideas existed long before the bible. You can give examples of groups that practiced democratic principles, without proving that these principles came from said groups. And you can site other writings by our founders that reflect some of their personal feelings on the subject, but this does not mean they were incorporated into our American form of gov't. It looks clear that you would have a hard time looking at this from a non-religious perpective, judging from your comment about secularists and "their own amoral religion". Btw, morals and religion are separate. Man practiced morals before organized religion.

posted by Chris99 on Nov 19, 2007 at 09:33:13 pm     #

MaumeeMom - has the Bishop done these types of letters to the congregation in the past? And, if so, on what topics? Is this a normal thing for a bishop to do?

posted by MaggieThurber on Nov 19, 2007 at 09:39:20 pm     #

It's interesting that anything to do with gays and marriage/equal rights gets so many people to comment in here. Does anyone know was this letter read just to Toledo parishes, or was it through out the whole dioceses? It is very odd to have it coming from the pulpit. As a Catholic, from a long line of Catholics, no one takes every word that comes from the pulpit as "the" word, never have, never will. Just like the Bible, no one can live on it's every word because it contradicts itself. So we have our core beliefs, you try to live as Christ would.

It is sad with all the issues that are facing this dioceses and all that it has been through that the Bishop goes out of his way to target this. I grew up in a small rural parish that was closed, and so was our "sister" parish. The dioceses put us together with another neighboring parish and then closed another parish (that makes 4 of us now)and threw them into the mix--one community after another torn apart. This all happened under Bishop Blairs reign. The grade school I attended had 3 priets that had child molesatation charges against them. One after another, after another. This is how our Bishops attend to thier flocks....... Thank God, I, nor anyone that I know of was ever messed with.

I guess this bishop has his duties in check....tending to his flock, making sure that anything outside of "normal" marriage is condemned...ahh priorities!!

posted by Buckeye-1 on Nov 19, 2007 at 10:00:17 pm     #

Maggie - to answer your questions, yes I am Catholic. You asked if Bishop Blair has issued these types of letters in the past -- sure, on topics he has an interest in:

1. Ohio Senate Bill 17 -- he issued a few letters to both the priests and the parishoners. Both of which were completely inappropriate, but then, this is the Bishop who covered for a murderer (least we forget the 145 pages withheld from investigators necessitating 2 no knock search warrants).

2. The Bishop mandated a letter to be read out loud at masses that 'he really did coooperate with the police et al...' even though, they've all gone on the record now, stating the diocese wasn't cooperative in the Fr. Robinson case (hence the reason 2 no knock search warrants had to be executed).

Aside from issues of equality, my beef here with the Bishop is the double standard.

Bishop Blair has openly gay, closeted gay and semi-closeted gay priests running churches, distributing communion etc... is this like the military, 'don't-ask-don't-tell' SOP?

Furthermore, before Blair decides to take on publicly the registry, shouldn't he deal with the pink elephants in his own living room?

What's equally interesting to me is that when it comes to those priests who have sexually abused kids, Blair preaches 'tolerance' and 'forgiveness' --- where's his tolerance now?

Kudeos to the Mom above who took her kids out, forbidding them to hear the 'hate' speech.

Isn't it possible that the reason the Bishop has run this issue up the flag pole, is because in doing so, he keeps the spotlight off of the scandals he's embroiled in and yet to deal with?

posted by anotherblogger on Nov 19, 2007 at 11:23:15 pm     #

Maggie, I am not catholic but it would seem from this link, http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/bishopsbetraying.html, that the bishop is more in line with Catholic teaching than many might wish. The line between "Americanism" and Catholicism is just probably being made more clear is all.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 19, 2007 at 11:39:44 pm     #

This link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church#Episcopate, from Wikipedia also stresses that bishops have full authority to "teach". From what I read he is in full accord with traditional Catholic teaching.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 20, 2007 at 12:05:11 am     #

I think the bishop may be in a quandary. There are those who accept the verdict of murder, and yet there are others who support the pastor, and refuse to believe he murdered. He is supposed to act in a way that doesn't allow disrepute on the church. And yet no matter what he does that may occur. So falling back on tradition would seem a safe course.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 20, 2007 at 12:08:10 am     #

Maggie -- on the religious leaders and nobody is perfect slant -- I am not talking about the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' argument. This goes beyond well beyond the flaw in flawed human beings.

I'm talking about blatent, flagrant hypocrisy.

Bishop Blair rails against this registry and all it envelopes, but as an employer seemingly feigns this isn't happening under his own roof!!!!

Blair would at least be somewhat consistent if he adopted the same zero tolerance for his own homosexual clerics who are on the job, but frequent the gay bars, nudity shops or are underground, but still gay etc.. The diocese even had a priest support group for gay clerics. But, their still on the clock.

My heart goes out to any of them who had to 'read' the letter because Blair said so...

You can't preach morality and then be the biggest hyporcrit out there, and expect to be taken as credible - can you?

RE: Disrepute on the church - the Bishop causes disrepute on our church everytime he acts as though he is above reproach as though the rules and law apply to everyone but him. I have a very difficult time imagining Jesus doing this, don't you?

posted by anotherblogger on Nov 20, 2007 at 12:39:29 am     #

Maggie, I am not a practicing catholic so I don't know if there have been other letters. "Anotherblogger" references a few so I guess this is not a new thing for Bishop Blair to do. I just looked this up for you because I figured there would be info on Wikipedia.

I was raised Roman Catholic but no longer practice in part due to things like this. I believe in a higher being but question the faith in which I was raised.

I do believe in the separation of church and state. I do think that elected officials need to put their own faith aside and listen to their constituents. I don't think that officials should act or vote according to what the Bishop tells them to do.

If there is a call for the domestic partnership registry, Bishop Blair is free to express his opinion (as we all are) but in the end the Mayor and Council should listen to the constituency as a whole. They must make a decision regarding what is best for the city of Toledo, the whole population, not just one religious group.

That is my two cents.

posted by MaumeeMom on Nov 20, 2007 at 01:51:33 am     #

MaumeeMom - thanks for sharing your view on this...

OSEB - thanks for the links - very helpful!

posted by MaggieThurber on Nov 20, 2007 at 08:39:51 am     #

Anotherblogger --

On top of your beefs about Bishop Blair, add a couple of mine:

A Catholic school was closed for a day to celebrate the funeral of a defrocked priest accused of sexual misconduct. What, was that one week ago or two?

Fr. Leyland, well-respected and well-loved by his congregation at St. Rose (arguably one of the area's more wealthy churches), forced out by Bishop Blair, to be replaced by a priest who confessed he'd had sex with a woman shortly after her husband's funeral.

Gee, do ya think this letter about gays was a red herring?

Anybody up for appealing to the Pope to get rid of this guy?

posted by Anniecski on Nov 21, 2007 at 01:36:33 pm     #

Anniecski, you made me laugh out loud!

I am glad to know someone else out here thought it was repulsive to close a school for a honor filled funeral of a child molester.

I'm with you, Bishop Blair really has been a big fat disappointment. He could have done so much good, but lives in a bubble. I thought he walked a dangerous tight rope taking on the civil registry, given it's no secret the number of gay clergy on the payroll.

Bishop Blair's operates a bit like the Wizard of Oz -- no one look behind the curtain!

I don't know the process by which one appeals to Rome, nor that Rome would care. Maybe the person to write is Cardinal Law, maybe Bishop Blair could go work in his cubicle, as they seem cut from the same cloth. Afterall, if you'd cover for a murderer, is there anything you wouldn't do?

posted by anotherblogger on Nov 23, 2007 at 08:09:05 pm     #

home • about • help • contact

© 2003-2008 Toledo Talk

current date: 20-Jul-2008 8:28 P.M.

old version of Toledo Talk