The Vatican issued revisions to its internal laws on Thursday making it easier to discipline sex-abuser priests, but caused confusion by also stating that ordaining women as priests was as grave an offense as pedophilia.
The decision to link the issues appears to reflect the determination of embattled Vatican leaders to resist any suggestion that pedophilia within the priesthood can be addressed by ending the celibacy requirement or by allowing women to become priests...
Jane Via, a county prosecutor, can't receive the sacraments at an official Roman Catholic Church. She can't even be buried in consecrated ground when her time comes.
Yet she gives communion, marries people -- even gays -- and takes confession. Via, who was ordained in Europe without the Vatican's approval, is apparently the only woman who claims to be a Roman Catholic priest in the county. She oversees a parish that meets in a Serra Mesa neighborhood church each Sunday evening.
The Roman Catholic Church has excommunicated all women who claim to have been ordained as priests, cutting their ties to the rituals of the faith. And earlier this month, the Vatican linked the ordination of women to pedophilia in the hierarchy of church offenses...
Yesterday I was surprised to learn, at an introductory discussion at the South Bay Unitarian Church in Chula Vista, that Catholics believe in three gods. This was told to me by a "recovering Catholic" who says she is a pagan.
I'm afraid the "three gods" idea is a misinterpretation of Catholic belief. A woman sitting next to me at the discussion leaned toward me and asked, "Who are the three gods?" She herself had been raised Catholic, but without the benefit of Catholic religious instruction, so she was sincerely confused and curious.
I offered to this woman the explanation that my Irish parents gave regarding Catholic belief about the Trinity: just as each leaf of the shamrock has three sections, so God has three persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. (Protestants also believe in the Trinity, so why did the leader of the discussion limit her remarks to Catholics? Perhaps she has issues?)
I told the woman that Catholics do not believe in three gods, and she got so mad at me that she withdrew her offer of membership. She was shaking with anger, and said I'd have to talk to the minister. She said the nuns in Evanston, Illinois taught her when she was a child that there are three gods. I think she may be either misremembering or misreporting that story.
Another woman at the meeting said "I'm sorry" when I mentioned that I had been raised Catholic. I said I still considered myself a Catholic, just not a very good one, and I understood that Unitarians weren't required to reject their original religions. Clearly the women running the show at South Bay UU disagree with that notion--at least if the original religion is Catholic.
Ironically, these same women are planning a trip to Arizona on July 28-29, 2010 with the specific purpose of committing civil disobedience.
Apparently the hope is that Arizonans will back down if the Unitarians are unpleasant enough. It seems to me that there is a bit of a contradiction here. These women don't want anyone in their church that disagrees with them about the number of gods worshipped by Catholics, and yet they think that somehow the people of Arizona will listen respectfully to folks who disagree with them about the number of immigrants that should live in Arizona.
It's a lost cause. Registering a protest only gathers sympathy when people accept that the protester is in the right. Polls show this not to be the case in the current situation. The public supports the Arizona law, and, in fact, support is increasing. Obviously the Arizona law is unconstitutional, but the majority of the population seems to see the law itself as a protest against the federal government's failure to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. The immigrants themselves would like to be legal; the law, however, makes that logistically close to impossible.
Most people on this planet--including many of the supporters of the Arizona law-- are just like the Unitarian women I talked to on Sunday: they have little use for others' opinions. My guess is that the Zonies will be just as headstrong as the Unitarians. The protests won't turn any hearts or minds. The protests might actually be counterproductive. They might have the same effect as similar protests that occurred the night before the vote on California's Proposition 187: the protests seemed to have triggered a landslide in favor of the proposition.
I agree that the law is bad, but the Unitarians need to think a bit more clearly about how one goes about changing the world. The attitude of the South Bay UU women seems to be that they can simply demand compliance from just about anyone. I would recommend that they think this through. How can you change the world when you're so obviously working from the same rule book as your opponents? I suggest open, free-flowing discussion that includes lots of different opinions.
Some possibilities:
1. Work to obtain better drug treatments for Americans so we won't be funding the narco-traffickers who are destroying the economy of Mexico, sending refugees north.
2. Better media coverage and social integration of immigrants in the US, so Arizonans and others won't be so afraid of them.
3. Pressure on Mexico to share the wealth among its citizens. Mexico has the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim). Simply by reducing his profits by a reasonable amount he could stop the transfer of funds from poor Mexicans to himself. Mexico could become just as comfortable a place to live as the US if the laws were more egalitarian.
A difference in approach is needed, not just constant posturing to prove who is stronger.
...Ralph Opacic, the charter school's president and executive director, issued a statement defending administrators, arguing that charter schools were exempted from the law defining student rights.
Even if this teacher lost her job because of unrelated issues, this is still an important story. I would really like to know why the students wrote about the religion of the food service providers. Was religion a factor in hiring the caterer? Is that what the school wanted to cover up?
An Orange County high school newspaper and yearbook adviser who stood up to the school's administration when it threatened to censor the paper has been dismissed, prompting accusations of retaliation.
Konnie Krislock, adviser at Orange County High School of the Arts, got a letter June 20 saying she had been dismissed – less than a year after Krislock had a very public dust-up with Principal Sue Vaughn last fall, according to the Student Press Law Center...
The story began last September, when Vaughn tried to stop publication of the student newspaper, Evolution, because a story about the school's new food services vendor described the company, Alegre Foods as a "Christian-based company" whose purpose is to serve God, according to a report in the Orange County Register.
Krislock said the school – a public charter school – was illegally censoring the student press. Ultimately, the school administration allowed the paper to publish without pre-approval.
But the controversy didn't end there. A few days after the school backed down, Ralph Opacic, the charter school's president and executive director, issued a statement defending administrators, arguing that charter schools were exempted from the law defining student rights.
That in turn prompted state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, to sponsor SB 438. The law would make provisions regarding free speech for public school students specifically applicable to charter schools. It has been unanimously approved by the state Senate, cleared the Assembly Appropriations Committee and will go before the full Assembly soon, the Student Press Law Center reports...
Note to Texas legislators: what about the commandment not to bear false witness? If you don't want to separate church and state, could you at least agree to separate truth and falsehood?
Thomas Jefferson, until this year, was revered in American history textbooks as the Founding Father who wrote the Declaration of Independence. His document is the reason we celebrate the fourth of July as this country's independence day. This is a holiday to remind Americans about the history and significance of that document.
But earlier this year, Christian conservative members of the Texas Board of Education decided to push for a revision of our history by downplaying Jefferson's influence in the founding of our nation. Why? Because the notion of the "separation of church and state" has been traced to him. These religious rightists believe this country was founded as a Christian nation and decided to make their point by revising public school text books. The effect of this kind of revision of American history would be to celebrate the founding of this country as a Christian event rather than the secular event it always has been...
It's ridiculous to complain about the word "Christ" in a song played at school unless the teacher is actually focusing on one religion as a subject, which was not the situation in the case below.
Note to attorney Dan Shinoff: Although "Christ" was added to the name of Jesus by believers after his death, and wasn't actually part of Jesus' name during his life, a lot of people have heard the words "Jesus Christ" so often that they think Jesus had two names. They are not saying "Jesus is the Messiah" when they say, or play a song tape that says, "Christ." Really, they aren't. You shouldn't have made such a big deal out of this word. It was unfair and it made Lemon Grove School District look bad.
It's good to teach about religion in the classroom as long as more than one religion is covered. The California framework asks that teachers cover three or more faiths if they talk about religion.
A dance teacher who was terminated from her job after a complaint was made that she used religious music in her instruction, is in trial this week. The single complaint which cost the teacher her job came from a school staff member rather than a parent or student. In addition to secular music on the day in question, the instructor, Kathy Villalobos, used a rendition of Dona Nobis Pachem, Canon in D and O Si Funi Mungu. Dona Nobis Pachem is a baroque piece by J.S. Bach and is sung in Latin. O Si Funi Mungu, which is translated as “Praise God,” is sung in Swahili, though the song has some English interspersed. Though the 15 stanza song is predominantly in Swahili, one stanza mentions Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
An attorney for the Lemon Grove School District, Dan Shinoff, cross-examined the teacher on her views of the Trinity. The jury sat attentive as the songs were played in court last week. Villalobos then testified as to the educational purpose for the selections.
Despite emails and testimony to the contrary, the District is claiming that Villalobos was not fired because of the religious music but for reasons such as pupil attendance class scheduling. Yet, the school is inconsistently claiming that it was justified in firing Villalobos to prevent a violation of the separation of church and state. “It is clearly constitutional and legal for a teacher to use both religious and secular music as a part of instruction,” commented Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute.
Villalobos’ lead attorney in the case is Karen Milam, PJI Senior Counsel who directs the southern California office. Assisting her in the trial is PJI attorney Matthew McReynolds. The trial, now in its second week, will likely go to the jury on Thursday. California law which allows instructors to use non-proselytizing references to religion while teaching, specifically identifies dance instruction as an acceptable subject for use of such references. (9/1/09, Pacific Justice Institute)
No God Music San Diego Reader By Jay Allen Sanford Oct. 14, 2009
“I played a song in my after-school dance class, a job that I had for five years [and] this song mentioned the name ‘Christ,’ ” says former Lemon Grove arts teacher Kathy Villalobos. “This name…seemed to bother an administrator, a clerk, and an after-school coordinator; subsequently, I lost my job a few days later.”
“Religious art and music should not be banished from our schools,” says attorney Karen Milam of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is appealing a recent San Diego County Superior Court decision dismissing Villalobos’s claim of wrongful discrimination because “[Villalobos] had not suffered as much as the Jews in Nazi Germany.”
The song in contention, “O Sifuni Mungu,” is mostly sung in Swahili. Villalobos claims the song — chosen for its danceable African rhythm — was the cause of her termination. The Lemon Grove School District maintains she was fired mainly due to missing a number of classes and district rescheduling.
“They are also on record as saying this is about insubordination,” says Villalobos. “I have never, ever in all the five years had one complaint or warning laid against me until someone heard the name of Christ in one of my songs.… They have offered me a ‘settlement,’ what I call ‘hush money,’ and they absolutely refuse to publicly admit what they did.”
