The evolution of mainstream Protestant churches continues to intrigue and bore me. I love that the dialogue continues, but I'm also of the opinion that its 2010 already ... let's get it resolved so we can fight poverty and war and all that biblically based stuff.

From The New York Times ...

A public law school did not violate the First Amendment by withdrawing recognition from a Christian student group that excluded gay students, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The case, involving a clash between religious freedom and antidiscrimination principles, divided along familiar ideological lines, with the court's four more liberal members and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in the majority.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said it was constitutionally permissible for public institutions of higher education to require recognized student groups to accept all students who wished to participate in them.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the four dissenters, said the decision represented a triumph for the principle that there is "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."

Strike another blow against the ongoing attemps to pit equal rights for the LGBTQ community against "religious freedom" in the public realm.  Religious freedom is always limited in public institutions, but that very freedom permits individuals and groups to set up their own private religious institutions.  You can't have it all ways.

Groan.  Colonel Richard Young of Texas, formerly of Ellwood Cty has a letter to the editor in the Trib.  He argues against the repeal of DADT because it will impinge on military chaplains. 

While chaplains are willing to minister to everyone, including people they disagree with, they cannot allow the government to censor parts of their faith. Not only would chaplains lose religious freedom, but so would service members who wouldn't have the benefit of the full counsel of God if chaplains  are muzzled.

Pitting "religious liberty" against LGBTQ equality always frustrates me.  There are no freedoms to be lost for homophobic military chaplains if gay soldiers live openly.  Colonel Young disagrees:

Teaching on sexual morality would be endangered. Counseling biblically could generate charges of "discrimination." Declining to perform same-sex "marriages" could bring the ire of activists. And these scenarios could easily bring about career-ending Officer Efficiency Reports for chaplains who obey God rather than man.

Not true, Colonel.  The repeal of DADT won't have any impact on your ability to counsel soldiers.  Your argument would carry more weight if you could provide evidence that desegragating the military had an adverse impact on chaplains who found that decision offensive.  Other than personal angst ...

Gay activists don't care if you perform same sex marriages.  Seriously. The obey God, not man piece is quite a nugget -- this is the military, for God's sake. It is all about obeying men (and some women). 

Stll, Colonel Young took the time to write and submit his point of view in socially conservative SW Pennsylvania.  Are we effectively exercising our First Amendment freedom to do the same?

The Reverend Janet Edwards weighs in on the banning of burquas in a very thoughtful post on how Christian women might feel to have their religious symbols banned.

She previously weighed in on how a covenant relationship with God mirrors the intimacy necessary for a healthy sexuality.

When the Church insists that marriage vows are the exclusive doorway into moral sex, it removes itself from real and crucial discussions about the morality of sex – in part because a lot of immoral sex, like spouse battering and promiscuity, goes on within marriage, as well.

Janet is a wonderful leader in our community. I admire her willingness to take all sorts of risks for her faith. 

We like to keep up with local media coverage on LGBTQ issues, but things occasionally slip by us.

The Tribune Review ran a little AP piece on world condemnation of a Papal comment linking homosexuality and pedophilia. 

"Many psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relation between celibacy and pedophilia," the Italian cardinal said. "But many others have demonstrated, I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true. That is the problem."

The Vatican backed away from that winner of a comment, but I'm curious why the Trib ran this.  Overall, the article condemns this attitude, but there seems to be a distinct trend in the Trib --- they run content that is anti-gay such as Pat Buchanan's column alongside local interest pieces about lesbian teenagers saving the world with food drives or some such thing.  So I can't help but wonder which editorial instinct ran with this piece  -- the part that wanted to get out the homosexuality/pedophilia story or the part that condemns it?  You never know.

If you have been sort of "meh" about immigration <ahem> reform in Arizona and/or international affairs that don't involve sporting events, you should take a quick read of this piece in today's Post-Gazette, reprinted from the New York Times.

Not only is Uganda attempting to make gay advocacy illegal and potentially punish gay people with the death penalty, but Americans are helping them out in the name of "religious liberty."  Yes, religious freedom to persecute the gay community in a very poor African nation is a high priority for certain American pastors. 

Though not originally linked to the Ugandan legislation, [Kansas City evangelist Lou] Engle has long been a controversial figure in the United States for his views on homosexuality. During California's referendum on same-sex marriage in 2008, he called homosexuality a "spirit of lawlessness."

Before arriving here last week, Mr. Engle came out with a statement condemning the harsh penalties proposed in the bill, and said that his ministry could not support it. But when he took the stage late on Sunday afternoon, with Ugandan politicians and pastors looking on, he praised the country's "courage" and "righteousness" in promoting the bill.

"NGOs, the U.N., Unicef, they are all coming in here and promoting an agenda," Mr. Engle said, referring to nongovernmental organizations. "Today, America is losing its religious freedom. We are trying to restrain an agenda that is sweeping through the education system. Uganda has become ground zero."

With highly-ranked universities and growing arts, medical, financial, and technological sectors, Pittsburgh is evolving into a global city. In this economic and social climate, the stakes for the city as well as its incoming international residents are high. This event explores Pittsburgh's past, present, and future response to immigration and addresses the high stakes for Pittsburgh in rejuvenating our community through the engine of immigration. 

Combining personal, creative, and historical narratives, "The Immigration Stakes" examines themes of relocation and finding new national identity. Local music performance and a short film screening will accompany the program of short readings and conversation. 

sdf

From the Post-Gazette ...

The Catholic Diocese of Greensburg will no longer participate in the U.S. bishops' anti-poverty program, which some conservative activists say has funded abortion-rights and gay-rights supporters.

Bishop Lawrence Brandt said he intends to create a Diocesan Poverty Relief Fund to receive the money that formerly went to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

The Greensburg diocese sent nearly $22,000 to the campaign last year.

Here's the past that troubles me.

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development was founded in 1969 to fund efforts to eradicate the causes of poverty. In 2009, it awarded more than $7.7 million to 250 community and church groups. It doesn't give money directly to the poor, but funds self-help groups in which poor people work to fix problems such as poor schools or slum housing. Some conservative groups have long complained that this strategy gives the campaign a liberal bias. But criticism reached new heights last year.

But officials in the Greensburg diocese were troubled that the campaign gave no money to alleviate poverty directly and said that the new Diocesan Poverty Relief Fund would do just that.

How is it a liberal bias to empower people to tackle their own challenges?  What about "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."?

Apparently, it is better if the folks giving the money get to call the shots on how to solve your problems.  Hmmm.  Why does that seem familiar? 

Anyway, this is a sleight of hand game.  Our very own Bishop Zubik is a big kahuna with the Campaign for Human Development and there are clear safeguards in place, including repaying the money if you are in violation of church teaching. 

I think it is more wingnut venom from those who are threatened by the empowerment of poor people.  I think they toss abortion and gay rights into the mix to terrify the ignorant and gain support for their overarching goal of maintaining control over diocesan resources. They can't find a way to slice the Catholic Church from its mission to serve the poor, so they bring out the big guns of those who don't deserve justice -- pregnant women and gay people. 

I ran a faith based ministry project for about 14 months back in the nineties.  The piece that REALLY worked was the piece that empowered people.  Sure, I had men mowing the grass and painting in exchange for the cash assistance (I had to do that), but I started a program where women in our rural community were able to volunteer in the thrift store and receive credits toward purchasing clothing for their family.  It was hugely successful.  And it was the idea of a group of women who advised me on how to get the Center growing -- people who lived in the community and understood the local work ethic as well as the harsh impact of poverty.  They lived it, they came up with the program and it sustained itself long after I left. 

This about controlling the lives of the poor, not justice.  If they have to revisit the tired old anti-gay, anti-woman rhetoric to maintain control, so be it.  There is no way the powers that be in Greensburg wants poor people with power calling the shots. 

From the Post-Gazette:

The First Presbyterian Church of Beaver has been allowed to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) and take its property into the more theologically conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

An agreement between the 700-member church and Beaver-Butler Presbytery was reached Tuesday. The congregation made a parting gift to the presbytery of $133,700 from its reserve funds, and the presbytery signed over the deed to the property. The settlement was reached through a process that the presbytery approved in 2009, when it became apparent that several congregations wanted to leave over issues including gay ordination and biblical authority.

At least this was resolved amicably, but how very sad that entire congregations are so rooted in bigotry against the LGBTQ community that the church must change hands. Even more sad that the "theologically conservative" denominations are preying on these same fears to swell their ranks. 

This brought to mind the Washington Post blog of Reverend Janet Edwards, a Pittsburgh based minister in the Presbyterian Church. She writes that the call of pastoral ministry is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

But if a pastor is struggling with a conflict between his or her faithful knowledge of Scripture and the traditional assumptions of the congregation -- even when congregants hold to them tightly as defining beliefs -- then welcome to ministry. There is no getting around the fact that afflicting the comfortable is an aspect of our calling.

While it is comfortable to see the lack of acrimony among the church and the presbytery play out across the front pages, I can't help but wonder if genteel agreements about the distribution of property are the way to go.  Is the further entrenchment of the gay-friendly and the gay-phobic faith community consistent with the obligations of the pastors, the bishops -- the calling? 

Pittsburgh's own Reverend Janet Edwards examines the decision of former Pittsburgher, now D.C.'s Archbishop Donad Wuerl to eliminate family benefits (including health care) for Catholic Charities.  This came in response to the legalization of marriage equality in D.C.  As we wrote last month, Reverend Edwards is now a regular contributor to the Washington Post blog, on Faith.

Jesus' example has inspired Christians through the ages to reach out to the hungry and needy, the orphan and the widow, including the long mission of Catholic Charities in the Washington Archdiocese. This service has been life-giving and a witness to the love of Christ for all.

And so it grieves me to see Archbishop Wuerl and the Catholic Charities choose to deny help to those in need because they have judged certain parents unworthy of adoption, and certain employees' spouses unworthy of health care and other benefits.

As Christians who strive to follow Jesus' example, we are called to minister to the weak and to rejoice when the longsuffering find relief -- including the stalwart LGBT couples who have waited so long to get married. We all know Jesus loved a good wedding feast.

I hadn't really thought about the Catholic Church being called to minister to LGBTQ families and individuals as part of their long history of social service outreach.  Typically, when one thinks of ministering to the LGBTQ community, one thinks of "pray away the gay" or the very dedicated LGBTQ community of faith.  I have struggled to understand why otherwise sane gay people remain wedded to their Catholic culture.  Perhaps Janet is right and the ministers on the front lines grasp this in a way that Archbishop Wuerl has chosen to reject?

I suggest you keep up with Reverend Edwards' column as she continues to frame LGBTQ issues within the American cultures of faith.

The transformation from cuddly Siamese kitty to mutant superhero begins as Coco/Wolverine subdues her foe.

Uh oh ... our mutant superhero is overcome by her foe ....

Don't let her fuzzy cuteness detract from her vicious attack of the renegade (but 100% recycled content) paper towel roll.