Pope Francis Weighs in on Pedophilia, Same-Sex Marriage and the Refugee Crisis

 

05/18/2016 06:42 pm ET | Updated 20 hours ago



Sébastien Maillard Vatican Correspondant for La Croix, Rome




Alessandro Bianchi / Reuters




Guillaume Goubert and Sébastien Maillard of La Croix recently interviewed Pope Francis at the Vatican. Maillard writes The WorldPost’s monthly column, “Following Francis.” The following interview appeared in La Croix on May 17.


* * *


Pope Francis sat down with “La Croix” for an interview of over an hour at the Vatican, at the Santa Marta residence, on Monday, May 9. A number of themes were discussed, including: the Christian roots of Europe, migration, Islam, secularism, his idea of France and the pedophilia scandals.

In your speeches in Europe, you refer to the “roots” of the continent without ever describing them as Christian. Rather, you define “European identity” as “dynamic and multicultural.” In your view, is the expression “Christian roots” inappropriate for Europe ?

We need to speak of roots in the plural because there are so many. In this sense, when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful. It then takes on colonialist overtones. John Paul II, however, spoke about it in a tranquil manner.


‘Europe has Christian roots and it is Christianity’s responsibility to water those roots.’


Yes, Europe has Christian roots and it is Christianity’s responsibility to water those roots. But this must be done in a spirit of service as in the washing of the feet. Christianity’s duty to Europe is one of service. As Erich Przywara, the great master of Romano Guardini and Hans Urs von Balthasar, teaches us, Christianity’s contribution to a culture is that of Christ in the washing of the feet. In other words, service and the gift of life. It must not become a colonial enterprise.

On April 16, you made a powerful gesture by bringing back the refugees from Lesbos to Rome. However, does Europe have the capacity to accept so many migrants ?

That is a fair and responsible question because one cannot open the gates wide unreasonably. However, the deeper question is why there are so many migrants now. When I went to Lampedusa three years ago, this phenomenon had already started.

The initial problems are the wars in the Middle East and in Africa as well as the underdevelopment of the African continent, which causes hunger. If there are wars, it is because there exist arms manufacturers — which can be justified for defensive purposes — and above all arms traffickers. If there is so much unemployment, it is because of a lack of investment capable of providing employment, of which Africa has such a great need.



Pope Francis, during a visit at the Moria refugee camp on the island of Lesbos, Greece. (Andrea Bonetti/Greek Prime Minister’s Office via AP)


More generally, this raises the question of a world economic system that has descended into the idolatry of money. The great majority of humanity’s wealth has fallen into the hands of a minority of the population.

A completely free market does not work. Markets in themselves are good but they also require a fulcrum, a third party, or a state to monitor and balance them. In other words, [what is needed is] a social market economy.

Coming back to the migrant issue, the worst form of welcome is to ‘ghettoize’ them. On the contrary, it’s necessary to integrate them. In Brussels, the terrorists were Belgians, children of migrants, but they grew up in a ghetto. In London, the new mayor (Editor: Sadiq Khan, the son of Muslim Pakistanis) took his oath of office in a cathedral and will undoubtedly meet the queen. This illustrates the need for Europe to rediscover its capacity to integrate.

I am thinking here of Pope Gregory the Great (Editor: Pope from 590 - 604), who negotiated with the people known as barbarians, who were subsequently integrated. This integration is all the more necessary today since, as a result of a selfish search for well-being, Europe is experiencing the grave problem of a declining birth rate. A demographic emptiness is developing. In France, at least, this trend is less marked because of family-oriented policies.


‘The great majority of humanity’s wealth has fallen into the hands of a minority of the population.’


The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified?

Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.

In the face of Islamic terrorism, it would therefore be better to question ourselves about the way in [which] an overly Western model of democracy has been exported to countries such as Iraq, where a strong government previously existed. Or in Libya, where a tribal structure exists. We cannot advance without taking these cultures into account. As a Libyan said recently, “We used to have one Gaddafi, now we have fifty.”

Ultimately, co-existence between Christians and Muslims is still possible. I come from a country where they co-habit on good terms. Muslims come to venerate the Virgin Mary and St George. Similarly, they tell me that for the Jubilee Year Muslims in one African country formed a long queue at the cathedral to enter through the holy door and pray to the Virgin Mary. In Central Africa, before the war, Christians and Muslims used to live together and must learn to do so again. Lebanon also shows that this is possible.



London Mayor Sadiq Khan attends his swearing-in ceremony at Southwark Cathedral in central London on May 7, 2016. (YUI MOK/AFP/Getty Images)


The significance of Islam in France today, like the nation’s Christian historical foundation, raises recurring questions concerning the place of religion in the public arena. How would you characterize a positive form of laicity (Editor: ‘laicity’ refers to the French system of separation of Church and state)?

States must be secular. Confessional states end badly. That goes against the grain of history. I believe that a version of laicity accompanied by a solid law guaranteeing religious freedom offers a framework for going forward. We are all equal as sons (and daughters) of God and with our personal dignity. However, everyone must have the freedom to externalize his or her own faith. If a Muslim woman wishes to wear a veil, she must be able to do so. Similarly, if a Catholic wishes to wear a cross. People must be free to profess their faith at the heart of their own culture not merely at its margins.

The modest critique that I would address to France in this regard is that it exaggerates laicity. This arises from a way of considering religions as sub-cultures rather than as fully-fledged cultures in their own right. I fear that this approach, which is understandable as part of the heritage of the Enlightenment, continues to exist. France needs to take a step forward on this issue in order to accept that openness to transcendence is a right for everyone.

In a secular setting, how should Catholics defend their concerns on societal issues such as euthanasia or same-sex marriage?

It is up to Parliament to discuss, argue, explain, reason [these issues]. That is how a society grows.


‘The right to conscientious objection must be recognized within each legal structure because it is a human right.’

However, once a law has been adopted, the state must also respect [people’s] consciences. The right to conscientious objection must be recognized within each legal structure because it is a human right. Including for a government official, who is a human person. The state must also take criticism into account. That would be a genuine form of laicity.

You cannot sweep aside the arguments of Catholics by simply telling them that they “speak like a priest.” No, they base themselves on the kind of Christian thinking that France has so remarkably developed.

What does France mean to you?

It is the eldest daughter of the Church, but not the most faithful! (Laughs) However, during the 1950s, they also spoke of “France, the mission country.” In that sense, it remains a periphery to be evangelized. However, to be fair to France, the Church there does have a real creative capacity.



View of Saint Therese mosaic by artist Pierre Gaudin in the crypt of St Therese basilic in Lisieux, northwestern France. (MYCHELE DANIAU/AFP/Getty Images)


France is also a land of great saints, great thinkers such as [Jean] Guitton, [Maurice] Blondel, [Emmanuel] Levinas, who was not Catholic, and [Jacques] Maritain. I am also thinking of the depth of its literature.

I also appreciate how French culture is impregnated with Jesuit spirituality compared to the more ascetic Spanish current. The French current, which began with Pierre Favre, gave it another flavor, while continuing to emphasize discernment of spirits.

There have also been great French spiritual figures such as (Louis) Lallemant, or (Jean-Pierre) de Caussade. And the great French theologians who helped the Society of Jesus so much, namely Henri de Lubac and Michel de Certeau. I really like the last two. Two Jesuits who are creative.

Overall, that’s what fascinates me about France. On one hand, that exaggerated laicity, the heritage of the French Revolution, and on the other hand, so many great saints.

‘In the face of Islamic terrorism, it would be better to question ourselves about the way in [which] an overly Western model of democracy has been exported to countries such as Iraq.’

Who is your favorite?

Saint Therese of Lisieux.

You have promised to come to France. When might such a trip be possible?

I recently received an invitation from President François Hollande. The episcopal conference has also invited me. But I don’t know when the trip will take place because next year is an election year in France, and in general, the policy of the Holy See is not to organize such trips during these periods.

Last year a few hypotheses emerged regarding such a trip, including a visit to Paris and its suburbs, to Lourdes and to a city that no pope has yet visited, such as Marseille, which represents an open door to the world.



Two women posing during a demonstration in Paris backing the government project to legalize same-sex marriage in Paris. (AP Photo/Benjamin Girette, File)


As elsewhere, the Church in France is experiencing a serious crisis of priestly vocations. How is it possible to manage today with so few priests?

Korea provides a historical example. That country was evangelized by missionaries from China who later left. Then, for two hundred years, Korea was evangelized by lay people. It is a land of saints and martyrs that now has a strong Church.

So there is not necessarily a need for priests in order to evangelize. Baptism provides the strength to evangelize. And the Holy Spirit, received at baptism, prompts one to go out, to take the Christian message with courage and patience. The Holy Spirit is the protagonist of whatever happens in the Church, its motor. Too many Christians are ignorant of this.

On the other hand, the opposite danger for the Church is clericalism. This is a sin committed by two parties, like the tango! The priest wants to clericalize lay people and lay people request to be clericalized because it’s easier.

In Buenos Aires, I knew many good priests who, whenever they saw a capable lay person, immediately exclaimed “let’s make him a deacon!” No, let him remain a lay person.


‘People must be free to profess their faith at the heart of their own culture not merely at its margins.’


Clericalism is particularly significant in Latin America. If popular piety is strong, it is precisely because it is the only lay initiative that has not been clericalized. This is not understood by the clergy.

The Church in France, particularly in Lyon, has been shattered recently by historical pedophilia scandals. What should be done about this situation?

It is true that it is not easy to judge the facts decades later in a different context. Reality is not always so clear. Nevertheless, there can be no statute of limitations for the Church in this field. As a result of these abuses, a priest, whose vocation is to lead a child to God, destroys him. He disseminates evil, resentment, distress. As Benedict XVI said, there must be zero tolerance.

Based on the information that I have, I believe that Cardinal Barbarin in Lyon took the necessary measures and that he has matters under control. He is courageous, creative, a missionary. We now need to await the outcome of the civil judicial proceedings (Editor: As opposed to canon law proceedings).



Roman Catholic Cardinal, Archbishop of Lyon, Philippe Barbarin leads a mass, on April 3, 2016. (JEFF PACHOUD/AFP/Getty Images)


So Cardinal Barbarin does not need to resign?

No, that would be a contradiction, imprudent. We will see after the conclusion of the case. At the moment, however, that would amount to an admission of guilt.

On April 1, you received Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior-general of the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X. Is the re-integration of the Lefebvrists into the Church again under consideration?

In Buenos Aires, I often spoke with them. They greeted me, asked me on their knees for a blessing. They say they are Catholic. They love the Church.

Bishop Fellay is a man with whom one can dialogue. That is not the case for other elements who are a little strange, such as Bishop Williamson or others who have been radicalized. Leaving this aside, I believe, as I said in Argentina, that they are Catholics on the way to full communion.

During this year of mercy, I felt that I needed to authorize their confessors to pardon the sin of abortion. They thanked me for this gesture. Previously, Benedict XVI, whom they greatly respect, had liberalized the use of the Tridentine rite mass. So good dialogue and good work are taking place.


‘As a result of these abuses, a priest, whose vocation is to lead a child to God, destroys him.’



Would you be ready to grant them the status of a personal prelature?

That would be a possible solution but beforehand it will be necessary to establish a fundamental agreement with them. The Second Vatican Council has its value. We will advance slowly and patiently.

You have already convoked two synods on the family. In your view, has this long process changed the Church?

This process was started by the consistory (Editor: The consistory of February 2014) where it was introduced by Cardinal Kasper, prior to an Extraordinary Synod in October the same year which was followed by a year of reflection and an Ordinary Synod.

I think that we all came out of the various processes different from the way that we entered. Including me.



Pope Francis leads a mass for the opening of the Synod on the themes of family at St. Peter’s Basilica on October 4, 2015 in Vatican City, Vatican. (Franco Origlia/Getty Images)


In the post-synodal exhortation (Editor:Amoris Laetitia, April 2016), I sought to respect the Synod to the maximum. You won’t find canonical prescriptions there about what one may or may not do.

It is a serene, peaceful reflection on the beauty of love, how to educate the children, to prepare for marriage... It emphasizes responsibilities that could be developed by the Pontifical Council for the Laity in the form of guidelines.

Beyond this process, we need to think about genuine synodality, or at least the meaning of Catholic synodality. The bishops are cum Petro, sub Petro (Editor: with Peter and under Peter). This differs from Orthodox synodality or that of the Greek Catholic Churches, where the Patriarch only counts as a single voice.


The Second Vatican Council set out an ideal of synodal and episcopal communion. This still needs to be developed, including at parish level, with respect to what is required. There are parishes that still do not have a pastoral council, nor a council for economic affairs, even though these are obligations under canon law. Synodality is also relevant at this level.


Source

.

Millennials Exploring Social Exclusion With Pope Francis: God, the Internet and Disrupting Business

Michelle Arevalo-Carpenter

Social Entrepreneur and Human Rights Techie. Lives in Quito



Posted: 11/17/2014 2:02 pm EST Updated: 11/17/2014 2:02 pm EST




Next week 40 Global Shapers of the World Economic Forum will travel to the Vatican from 5 continents to hold a private audience with Pope Francis at the Vatican. This meeting aims to respond to challenge Pope Francis poses: How do we create a new global mindset to overcome social and economic exclusion?

Ever since I was honored with an invitation to join this gathering in Rome, I've been wondering: Why invite 40 millennials and not the top 40 CEOs? What sort of insight can we offer that the world's foremost academics on social inclusion couldn't? How can a heterogeneous group with diverse religious beliefs help shape a debate hosted at the center of the Catholic world?

The Internet as a gift of God.
I found part of the answer online. Pope Francis understood from early in his tenure the power of social media and the internet. In fact, writing about communications and global understanding, Pope Francis calls the internet a gift from god. The English-language Pontifex twitter account has almost 5 million followers, the PopeApp has more than over 200,000 downloads and his entire agenda is available and streamable for the world to see. Given this interest in the possibilities the web can offer to his pastoral concern for humanity, conferring with digital natives is a smart move. Among the 40 participants, many are already using technology to enhance democratic participation, document and visualize human rights information oramplifying the voice of the underheard through mobile.

Real change will bring about some disruption -- which Gen Y's love.
Another hint about why Pope Francis is interested in this meeting can be found in the Evangelii Gaudium, a document Pope Francis issued in 2013 outlining his views on church reform. In it, Pope Francis goes beyond suggesting business people become more charitable. In fact, he questions the notion of Milton Friedman that "the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits." A section dedicated to the economy and distribution of income indicates:

Business is -- in fact -- a vocation, and a noble vocation, provided that those engaged in it see themselves challenged by a greater meaning in life.

The challenge of overcoming socio-economic exclusion is too large for governments, charities, non-profits and agencies to tackle alone. The private sector has played a crucial role in catalyzing important leaps in health, engineering, communications and technology. Knowing this, Pope Francis suggests it is time to review the purpose of business and rethink models of growth.

This concept is not new to millennials -- a generation that brings us professionals who make career decisions based on meaning before salaries. In engaging Gen Y leaders, Pope Francis finds natural allies for creating a new global mindset around business. Thousands of companies that tend to appeal to the next great generation are enterprises with a social mission. Many of them have joined an international movement of B Corporations -- companies that redefine business success by making a public and often statutory commitment to their social mission. This way, directors and shareholders are not forced to abandon their altruistic objectives when times get tough. The long-term vision is to forever change the raison-d'être of business in society. This January at Davos, Pope Francis nudged the business community in this direction:

I ask you to ensure that humanity is served by wealth and not ruled by it.

Empathy + risk-taking = change
Now, switching to a global mentality where businesses have a mission beyond pleasing shareholders requires a significant leap. This is where Pope Francis has identified the potential of focusing on younger leaders -- having a shorter trajectory, emerging leaders have less to lose and therefore a more open mind about re-engineering the way the private sector is structured. In his 2013 manifesto, Pope Francis reminds his followers,

Young people call us to renewed and expansive hope, for they represent new directions for humanity and open us up to the future, lest we cling to a nostalgia for structures and customs which are no longer life-giving in today's world.

Given the right opportunities, young people are more susceptible to developing deep empathy and stimulate innovation. The Catholic Church, in particular, Jesuits, have leveraged this feature of youth capacity for empathy with impressive results.
In Latin America, TECHO, a youth-led non-profit dedicated to alleviating poverty in urban slums, was founded as a Jesuit initiative. The impact speaks for itself: over 600,000 young volunteers from all faiths have been mobilized in 19 countries to build over 120,000 transitional homes for those at the base of the pyramid. The homes are built entirely by young volunteers and families, who later engage in community development initiatives to give continuity to the projects.

Likewise, the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) has offered legal aid to 600,000 refugees in dozens of countries so they can unlock the key to inclusion in their home countries: legal documentation. In giving young lawyers the chance to understand the harsh reality of trying to make a living as a non-citizen, JRS is changing mentalities and the course of their careers forever.

Unlikely allies
Under Pope Francis´s leadership, the Catholic church has gained more non-Catholic fans than ever. Pope Francis understands the challenge. Speaking about young people in the Evangelii Gaudium, he admits

[A]s adults, we find it hard to listen patiently to them, to appreciate their concerns and demands and to speak to them in a language they can understand.

His statements about evolution and creation, his open support for the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the church and his challenging world leaders on wealth distribution demonstrate leadership that is willing to question traditional interpretations of doctrine and focus on action. Without appealing to religious piety, millennials -- in our search for a meaningful life and career -- may be Pope Francis' unlikely allies in this quest for developing a new global mindset.

Source

.

Seventh-Day Adventists To Vote On Women's Ordination In 2015

Religion News Service | By Adelle M. Banks
Posted: 10/19/2014 8:14 am EDT Updated: 10/19/2014 8:59 am EDT

SILVER SPRING, Md. (RNS) Seventh-day Adventists opted for a middle-way approach on the divisive issue of women’s ordination on Tuesday (Oct. 14), kicking the question to next year’s worldwide meeting without taking a firm stance either for or against women’s ordination.

Next year’s debate will come nearly 100 years after the death of Adventist matriarch Ellen White and could settle decades of disagreement over whether women should be allowed to be ordained in the 18 million-member church she co-founded.

The church’s Annual Council voted to refer the matter to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio. Under the proposal, regional church bodies would be able to decide whether to ordain women pastors.

“Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry?” is the question that will be asked at the 2015 worldwide gathering in Texas.

Tuesday’s 243-44 vote marks the latest step in a debate that has divided the denomination, which time and again has voted to not permit women’s ordination.

Despite the churchwide ban on ordaining women, several U.S. regional groups have voted for women to be ordained. The Adventists’ Southeastern California Conference elected a female president, and several of the church’s 13 worldwide divisions have approved theological reviews suggesting that women’s ordination should be widely accepted.

Women pastors have often held a “commissioned” credential without being formally ordained.
More than 500 people attending Tuesday’s meeting at church headquarters in Silver Spring heard both sides of the issue after a task force spent two years studying theological questions about ordination.

Artur Stele, who chaired the Theology of Ordination Study Committee, said the 106-member panel gained a consensus on the theology of ordination but not on whether women should be ordained.

“If someone has made up his mind or her mind, it is impossible to change it,” he said. “Very, very little change took place. This really reminds me of our need to be open for God’s guidance.”

The committee outlined options ranging from outright prohibition to allowing women’s ordination in some regional bodies where it is deemed “appropriate” but not forcing any individual pastor or congregation “to support such diversity.”

Stele, along with other speakers, said the church cannot keep pushing off a final decision.

“Then the task would be an eternal task,” he said. “Even when Jesus would come we would still be in the final sections of the report.”

SDA President Ted N.C. Wilson said the 127-page committee report was endorsed by an array of church leaders. But, in an attempt to move toward a final resolution, those officers also recommended that a question be brought to the 2015 meeting “that is not a weighted question one way or another,” Wilson said.

For hours, the delegates debated whether the question was unbiased, should be changed or would split the church.

Dan Jackson, who heads the Adventists’ North American Division, supports women clergy and said “we will not break the church if individual divisions have the right to ordain women.”

Alberto C. Gulfan Jr., president of the Southern Asia-Pacific Division, expressed his appreciation for how women serve in many evangelistic and educational roles — including “Sabbath school superintendents” — but said his division has not affirmed their ordination as pastors. He, too, wants a final vote by the General Conference delegates.

“We are also supporting this recommendation to bring this to the General Conference in session and let the world church decide on the issue once and for all,” he said.

Source

.

Supreme Court's Lack of Religious Diversity

Chris Weigant

Political writer and blogger at ChrisWeigant.com

Posted: 06/30/2014 9:01 pm EDT Updated: 06/30/2014 9:59 pm EDT

The makeup of the current Supreme Court can be seen, in one way, as a big success story for certain minorities. It is a triumph, in fact, for two groups which have historically had to put up with a lot of discrimination and lack of political representation in America. These two groups are not defined by gender or race, but rather by religion. Broken down on religious lines, today's Supreme Court has members from just two religions, both of which had been historically underrepresented on the highest court: Roman Catholics and Jews. There are six Roman Catholics currently serving on the court (Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas) and three Jews (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen). This is undoubtedly a story of rising up from underrepresentation. But, bearing in mind that America is a country with almost too many religions to count, have we actually moved into a problem of overrepresentation or lack of diversity? The question is on my mind today, obviously, as a result of the decision today in the Hobby Lobby contraception case. Three Jewish Justices and one Roman Catholic voted against five other Roman Catholics in a case defining the dividing line between religion and government -- a decision which affects us all.

Even bringing such questions up is a delicate matter. The United States Constitution states quite plainly that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Even if Article VI, paragraph 3 didn't exist, it brings into question the concept of "affirmative action" and the concept of "quotas." All of which have their own long history, pro and con, in America. So allow me to state from the beginning that I am not advocating religious quotas on the Supreme Court in any way. I don't think we should revert to the days when people openly spoke of there being a "Jewish seat" or a "Catholic seat" (note that both are singular) on the Supreme Court. But I still have to wonder, with all the top-notch lawyers in the country, why the current court has such a stunning lack of diversity in the religious realm. I propose no concrete solutions, though, I merely raise the question.

The change in the Supreme Court's makeup is undoubtedly a story of triumph over previous discrimination. Roman Catholics in particular have faced enormous discrimination in American history. There was even briefly a political party (the "Know Nothings" or the "American Party") whose entire agenda was based on being anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic. No other religion has that dubious historical distinction (with the possible exception of the Mormons, who faced equally virulent political discrimination in America's past).

The first Roman Catholic was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1836, but the second and third had to wait until 1894 and 1898. The first Jewish appointment was made in 1916. Since the Constitution was ratified, there have been a grand total of 112 Supreme Court Justices. A full 91 of these (81 percent) have been one flavor of Protestant Christian or another. Only 12 have been Roman Catholic (11 percent), and only 8 have been Jewish (7 percent). Seen in this light, it is pretty stunning that of only 20 Jewish and Roman Catholic Justices in all American history, almost half are now currently serving on the Supreme Court. This, as I mentioned, is a real triumph of minorities who faced a lot of previous discrimination. The equivalent today might be a future Supreme Court composed entirely of women and Latinos (in terms of the political hurdles they have overcome -- I'm not trying to equate religion and either gender or ethnicity, mind you, in any other way than on the scale of struggles faced).

As recently as the 1980s, there was a clear de facto religious quota on the Supreme Court, with one Jew and one Roman Catholic sitting in what was called the "Jewish seat" and the "Catholic seat." There was no law which compelled this, but it was a strong 20th-century political tradition -- one eventually expanded to also include an "African-American seat" and then a "woman's seat." But by the 1990s, even such unacknowledged quotas crumbled, as court members were nominated which fell outside the traditional concept of such minority seats (such as having a conservative African-American on the court, or having more than one woman). Soon the court's age-old Protestant majority shrank as well, until (in 1994) Stephen Breyer's nomination led to the first-ever Protestant minority on the court. By 2010, the last remaining Protestant retired, and the Supreme Court became exclusively Jewish and Roman Catholic.

This brings us up to date. One-third of the Supreme Court is now Jewish, and two-thirds are Roman Catholic. By population, about one-fourth of the American public is Catholic and less than two percent is Jewish. This means that, in terms of religious demographics, 27 percent of the country has 100 percent representation on the Supreme Court. The 50 percent of the country who identify as Protestant have precisely zero representation -- to say nothing of other various religious minorities.

The Supreme Court has had a large degree of success in moving towards greater diversity in the past half-century. Women, in particular, have made great strides. We now have a Latina on the high court as well. In not-so-obvious areas, however, the Supreme Court seems to be regressing noticeably. There is not a single Supreme Court member who didn't attend either Harvard or Yale, for instance. There is not a single member who has ever run for any public office -- which might go a long way to explain their obtuseness when it comes to rulings on campaign finance laws. Both these improvements and these regressions have to be laid at the feet of the presidents making the appointments. Supreme Court Justices are not elected, therefore the makeup of the court is entirely up to the president, who is free to chose any candidate for any reason they wish -- taking into account whether such a person improves diversity on the court in some ways, and removes diversity on the court in other ways.

This is also a result of the "no religious test" idea, enshrined in the Constitution. This concept cuts both ways. It means that even if 90 percent of the people are of one religion, a member of the 10 percent shouldn't be barred from office. But it also means that there is nothing to stop the 10 percent from holding all the available positions, either. If there is really no religious test (instead of de facto religiously-based individual "seats"), then sooner or later, randomly, we should face the situation we now face. If the best candidate for the job is weighed on legal knowledge and judicial temperament alone, and if religion isn't part of that equation whatsoever, then sooner or later we'll have an all-Protestant Supreme Court again (or a court made up of Mormons and Muslims, perhaps). By the laws of chance, the religious makeup of the Supreme Court should fluctuate over time.

But the makeup of the Supreme Court doesn't actually change all that often, so it might be a long time indeed before we see an all-Mormon/Muslim court. Consider that the following religions have never had a single member named to the highest court in the land: Orthodox Christians, Mormons, Pentecostals, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs (this should only be read as a partial list -- there are many other religions which have also never been represented). No Supreme Court Justice has ever publicly claimed to be an atheist, either.

The claim cannot be made that co-religionists on the Supreme Court vote identically (political position is a much better indicator). The fear when John F. Kennedy ran for president that "he would take orders from the Pope" cannot now be proven by the voting patterns of the current court (while five Roman Catholics voted in Hobby Lobby's favor, one dissented, just to give the most obvious example). There is not a true "Catholic bloc" of votes on the Supreme Court, even when it comes to questions of religion and law -- not in the way that there are reliably conservative and liberal blocs of votes (both currently balanced at four each). So I am not suggesting that the five in the majority voted the way they did because their own religion has strict views on contraception.

Presidents select Supreme Court Justices in order to further their own legal, political, and constitutional philosophies. Ultimately, if the voters want a different makeup on the Court, they will indicate this by the presidents they elect (to put this another way). America has moved beyond forming political parties whose purpose is nothing short of religious bigotry, and we've also moved beyond the undeclared tradition that "this is your religion's single seat on the Supreme Court, so just be happy with one out of nine." This is all to the good. But diversity for diversity's sake is a valid goal as well, because it brings to the table different life experiences, different viewpoints, and different ways of viewing the real-world effects of judicial decisions. Two religions who have historically been in the minority on the Supreme Court (20 out of 112, remember) now not just dominate the court, they exclusively dominate the court. Since religion is a big part of the worldview of any adherent, it doesn't seem too much to ask that future presidents at least consider a wider range of religious diversity when considering equally-acceptable candidates to the highest court in the land.

Source

.

It Won't Be All Cheers For Obama At LGBT Fundraiser As Immigrants Plan Protest

Elise Foley Become a fanelise@huffingtonpost.com




Posted: 06/17/2014 5:45 pm EDT Updated: 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will be met outside a Tuesday evening fundraiser focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights by activists who say his deportation policies are failing one part of the LGBT community: Undocumented immigrants.

From 50 to 80 immigrant and LGBT rights advocates with the groups GetEQUAL, United We Dream's Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project, Make the Road NY, and Immigration Equality plan to rally outside a gala fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee in New York during Obama's appearance there. Six people may risk arrest by stopping traffic, according to organizers. Their goal is to highlight Obama's detention and deportation policies that they argue are damaging the LGBT community in particular because LGBT immigrants may be abused in detention centers and in their home countries.

Obama "has evolved on marriage and he has evolved now on work discrimination, now we want him to evolve on the inhumane process of deportation," said Carlos Padilla, a coordinator for the Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project who traveled from Washington to New York for the protest.

News broke on Monday that Obama had directed his staff to draft an executive order that would ban workplace discrimination against LGBT employees of federal contractors. The move came after the House failed to act on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban employers from firing or harassing employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

While immigration groups applauded the move, activists also asked why the president doesn't act to help them. Immigrants, too, are faced with a House of Representatives that isn't moving on reform, but Obama has declined, for now, to make new executive actions. The president delayed a review that could have led to new policies to reduce deportations, and advocates are increasingly frustrated with the inaction.

"We are glad Obama is using his pen and phone more often to provide relief to communities across the county in the absence of a working Congress," Erika Andiola, co-director of the advocacy group Dream Action Coalition, said in a statement Monday after the LGBT announcement. "Just like the LGBT community, we undocumented immigrants across the country need his bold action immediately."

There are at least 267,000 undocumented immigrants in the U.S. who identify as LGBT, according to a 2013 report from The Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA Law School devoted to law and public policy issues related to gender identity and sexual orientation.

Padilla, who identifies as queer, said that for many undocumented immigrants, deportation could lead to abuse or even death in their native countries. He came to to the U.S. from Mexico when he was 2 years old. Now, at 22, he can stay in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, which allows young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children to apply to stay and work legally for two years, with the ability for renewal.

Padilla said the activists want to urge Obama to stop deporting LGBT undocumented immigrants and provide more protections for them in detention centers.

"For many of these folks, when they are deported they're persecuted," Padilla said. "Many of them face the price of death because of their identity and gender expression. So for us, deportation is a very serious threat."

Source

.

Pope Francis Calls For 'Legitimate Redistribution' Of Wealth To The Poor

AP | by NICOLE WINFIELD
Posted: 05/09/2014 8:35 am EDT
Updated: 05/09/2014 12:59 pm EDT

VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope Francis called Friday for governments to redistribute wealth to the poor in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the "economy of exclusion" that is taking hold today.

Francis made the appeal during a speech to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the heads of major U.N. agencies who are meeting in Rome this week.

Latin America's first pope has frequently lashed out at the injustices of capitalism and the global economic system that excludes so much of humanity.

On Friday, Francis called for the United Nations to promote a "worldwide ethical mobilization" of solidarity with the poor in a new spirit of generosity.

He said a more equal form of economic progress can be had through "the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society."

Francis had a similar message to the World Economic Forum in January and in h is apostolic exhortation "The Joy of the Gospel." That document, which denounced trickle-down economic theories as unproven and naive, provoked criticism in the U.S. that he was Marxist.

Francis has denied he's Marxist, and spent years in Argentina battling Marxist excesses of liberation theology. But he has said from the outset that he wants a church that "is poor and for the poor" and ministers to the most marginal of society.

On Friday, he urged the U.N. to promote development goals that attack the root causes of poverty and hunger, protect the environment and ensure "dignified" labor for all.

"Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustices and resisting the economy of exclusion, the throwaway culture and the culture of death which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted," he said.

Source
.

Pope Francis: Punking the Catholic Church

Punking?


Punking?


Puffington Host propaganda:

Rev. David Weekley, One Of First Transgender Methodist Clergyman, Shares His Story

HuffPost Live | Posted: 06/28/2013 2:19 pm EDT | Updated: 06/28/2013 11:39 pm EDT


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/david-weekley-transgender-clergy_n_3512590.html?1372443601&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl19%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D337950

Rev. David Weekley hid his identity as a transgendered person for 28 years, until he finally revealed his secret in 2009, becoming one of the first openly transgender clergy serving the United Methodist Church. He shared his story on HuffPost Live.

The reaction from Weekley's parish after he came out reflected many of the challenges the transgender community faces. "I received real mixed feedback from people -- colleagues, parishioners, just friends of the community," he told host Mike Sacks. "While I had a lot of support, there was a lot of pushback. There were attempts made to bring charges against my ministry--to have my ordination revoked."

Weekley, who authored the book "In from the Wilderness: Sherman," transitioned from female to male in 1975, at the age of 24. "When I went to seminary in the '80s, it wasn't safe to be out, whether you were LGBTQ -- those topics weren't talked about, only in negative ways. And so I decided to enter the ordained ministry, serve congregations the best I could, and let them have a chance to know me, then share my story. I thought that would make a positive difference."

But though a number of churches have begun to accept transgender people in the clergy, widespread acceptance is still a challenge, Weekley explained.

"The problem is, so often, even if the policy is open, for transgender people to actually be called to a church or have an opportunity to serve is a different story. Transgender people are just newer on the radar, and for a lot of us who transitioned years ago, we were told by the folks we worked with not to share our story."

Source

/

Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter Registration Citizenship Requirement

Another example of logic defying rationale:




By JESSE J. HOLLAND 06/17/13 11:42 AM ET EDT



WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot on their own require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law.

Federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself," Justice Antonia Scalia wrote for the court's majority.

The court was considering the legality of Arizona's requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "motor voter" registration law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which doesn't require such documentation, trumps Arizona's Proposition 200 passed in 2004.

Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

"Today's decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law," said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and lead counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200.

"The Supreme Court has affirmed that all U.S. citizens have the right to register to vote using the national postcard, regardless of the state in which they live," she said.

The case focuses on Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states – Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee – have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating such legislation.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court's ruling.

The Constitution "authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied," Thomas said in his dissent.

Opponents of Arizona's law see it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly. They say they've counted more than 31,000 potentially legal voters in Arizona who easily could have registered before Proposition 200 but were blocked initially by the law in the 20 months after it passed in 2004. They say about 20 percent of those thwarted were Latino.

Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, called the decision a victory. "The court has reaffirmed the essential American right to register to vote for federal election without the burdens of state voter suppression measures," she said.

But Arizona officials say they should be able to pass laws to stop illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from getting on their voting rolls. The Arizona voting law was part of a package that also denied some government benefits to illegal immigrants and required Arizonans to show identification before voting.

The federal "motor voter" law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration, requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver's license or certain benefits. Another provision of that law – the one at issue before the court – requires states to allow would-be voters to fill out mail-in registration cards and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn't require them to show proof. Under Proposition 200, Arizona officials require an Arizona driver's license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will reject the federal registration application form.

While the court was clear in stating that states cannot add additional identification requirements to the federal forms on their own, it was also clear that the same actions can be taken by state governments if they get the approval of the federal government and the federal courts.

Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and take any decision made by the government on that request back to court. Other states have already done so, Scalia said.

The Election Assistance Commission "recently approved a state-specific instruction for Louisiana requiring applicants who lack a Louisiana driver's license, ID card or Social Security number to attach additional documentation to the completed federal form," Scalia said.

The case is 12-71, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

Source

.

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

US News | Syria News | More ABC News Videos

White House Benghazi Attack Talking Points Edited

By Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl
Follow on Twitter
May 10, 2013 6:33am

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.




AFP/Getty Images

Related: Read the Full Benghazi Talking Point Revisions

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:


“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Related: ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl Answers Your Questions About Benghazi

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”

After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected

After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”

One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.


Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

.

Benghazi Talking Points Revisions Pushed By State Department

Posted: 05/10/2013 12:49 pm EDT | Updated: 05/11/2013 1:50 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points_n_3253638.html?ir=Politics 


By DONNA CASSATA, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senior State Department officials pressed for changes in the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used after the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya last September, expressing concerns that Congress might criticize the Obama administration for ignoring warnings of a growing threat in Benghazi.

An interim report by Republicans on five House committees last month had detailed how the talking points were changed, days after the Sept. 11 attack and in the heat of the 2012 presidential campaign. New details about the political concerns and the names of the administration officials who wrote emails concerning the talking points emerged on Friday.

The White House has insisted that it made only stylistic changes to the intelligence agency talking points in which Rice suggested that protests over an anti-Islamic video set off the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Before the presidential election, the administration said Rice's talking points were based on the best intelligence assessments available in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

But the report and the new details Friday suggest a greater degree of White House and State Department involvement.

The latest developments are certain to add fuel to the politically charged debate over Benghazi. Republicans have suggested that the Obama administration sought to play down the possibility of terrorism during the campaign and has misled the country. A senior administration official reiterated Friday that the talking points were based on intelligence assessments and developed during an interagency process, which included the CIA, officials from the Director of National Intelligence, State Department, FBI and the Justice Department.

The official commented only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation

Last Sept. 14, two days before Rice's appearance, the CIA's initial draft of the talking points referred to Islamic extremists taking part in the attack in Benghazi, possible links to Islamic extremist group Ansar al-Sharia, a CIA assessment of threats from extremists linked to al-Qaida and a mention of five previous attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.

A congressional official who reviewed 100 pages of emails and the 12 pages of talking points said former State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about the talking points, writing that they "could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill."

The reference to al-Sharia was deleted, but Nuland wrote later that night, "these don't resolve all my issues and those of my building leadership, they are consulting with NSS," a reference to the National Security staff within the White House.

A meeting of senior officials was convened on Saturday morning after the attack to work on the talking points and they included officials from the White House, State Department and CIA.

Deleted from the final talking points were mention of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya and Islamic extremists, according to the congressional official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the emails that have not been released.


Source
.

Pope Benedict (Emeritus) Returns To Vatican With New House And Pope Francis

By NICOLE WINFIELD 05/02/13 03:13 PM ET EDT






VATICAN CITY — Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI came home to the Vatican on Thursday for the first time since he resigned Feb. 28, beginning an unprecedented era for the Catholic Church of having a retired pontiff living alongside a reigning one.

Pope Francis welcomed Benedict outside his new retirement home – a converted monastery on the edge of the Vatican gardens – and the two immediately went into the adjoining chapel to pray together, the Vatican said.

The Vatican said Benedict, 86, was pleased to be back and that he would – as he himself has said – "dedicate himself to the service of the church above all with prayer." Francis, the statement said, welcomed him with "brotherly cordiality."

A photo released by the Vatican showed the two men, arms clasped and both smiling, standing inside the doorway of Benedict's new home as Benedict's secretary looks on.

Unlike the live, door-to-door Vatican-provided television coverage that accompanied Benedict's emotional farewell in February, the Vatican provided no television images of his return Thursday.

The low-key approach followed the remarkable yet somewhat alarming images transmitted on March 23 when Francis went to visit Benedict at the papal retreat in Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, where Benedict was living. In that footage, Benedict appeared visibly more frail and thinner only three weeks after resigning.

Some Vatican officials questioned whether those images should have been released, given how frail Benedict appeared. Thursday's photo showed no obvious signs of further decline.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, has acknowledged Benedict's post-retirement decline but has insisted the 86-year-old German isn't suffering from any specific ailment and is just old.

"He is a man who is not young: He is old and his strength is slowly ebbing," Lombardi said this week. "However, there is no special illness. He is an old man who is healthy."

Benedict chose to leave the Vatican immediately after his resignation to physically remove himself from the process of electing his successor and from Pope Francis' first weeks as pontiff.

His absence also gave workers time to finish up renovations on the monastery tucked behind St. Peter's Basilica that until last year housed groups of cloistered nuns who were invited for a few years at a time to live inside the Vatican to pray.

In the compact, four-story building, Benedict will live with his personal secretary, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, and the four consecrated women who look after him, preparing his meals and tending to the household. The building also has a small library, a study and a guest room for when his brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, comes to visit.

"It is certainly small but well-equipped," Lombardi said.

When Benedict announced his intention to resign – the first pontiff to do so in 600 years – questions immediately swirled about the implications of having two popes living alongside one another inside the Vatican.

Benedict fueled those concerns when he chose to be called "emeritus pope" and "Your Holiness" rather than "emeritus bishop of Rome." He also raised eyebrows when he chose to continue wearing the white cassock of the papacy.

Given the political intrigues that plague the Vatican, it wasn't much of a stretch of the imagination to wonder if some cardinals, bishops and monsignors – not to mention ordinary Catholics – might continue making Benedict their point of reference rather than the new pope.

But Benedict made clear on his final day as pope that he was renouncing the job and pledged his "unconditional reverence and obedience" to his then-unknown successor. It was a pledge he repeated in person on March 23 when Francis went to have lunch with him.

It was during that visit that the world saw how weak Benedict had become: Always a man with a purposeful walk, he shuffled tentatively that day, using his cane.

Francis, for his part, seems utterly unfazed by the novel situation. He has frequently invoked Benedict's name and work and has called him on a half-dozen occasions, making clear he has no intention of ignoring the fact that there's another pope still very much alive and now living on the other side of the garden.

Francis' gestures to Benedict during that March 23 visit were also remarkable: He refused to pray on the special papal kneeler in the small chapel of Castel Gandolfo, preferring to join Benedict on a kneeler in the pews, and referring to his predecessor as his "brother."
..
..
. Now that they're neighbors, they might bump into one another on walks in the Vatican gardens or at the shrine to the Madonna, which is just a stone's throw from Benedict's new home.

___

Follow Nicole Winfield at http://www.twitter.com/nwinfield

Source

.

Facebook Home Means You'll Never Check Facebook Again (It'll Check You)

Bianca Bosker

bianca@huffingtonpost.com


Posted: 04/05/2013 11:55 am EDT | Updated: 04/05/2013 12:28 pm EDT





At a press conference Thursday, Facebook unveiled Home, a new smartphone software design it cryptically said “isn't a phone or operating system,” but is “more than just an app” and will deliver a "completely new experience."

That "new experience" doesn’t stop at the phone’s screen. What Home seeks to deliver is not only a Facebook environment for our phones, but also a Facebook environment for our lives.

With Home, Facebook has crossed the line between something people check -- that they have control over, and deploy according to their wishes and needs -- to become something that’s always on, checking in with us, fighting for attention, waving people we know in our face. Rather than a tool we use to talk to others, the phone, thanks to Facebook, has become something that communicates to us. And it’s Facebook that gets to do the talking.

Home, which will be available for download on a handful of smartphones next week, is essentially a Facebook-ified version of Google’s Android operating system, modified by Facebook engineers to place the social network at its core. A flow of updates from the News Feed will be the first thing people see when they turn on their phones -- the newly named “cover feed,” a slideshow of friends’ photos and status updates, will take over the phone’s primary screen, though users can swipe past to access other applications. Home also touts “chat heads,” a feature that brings together texting and messaging, replaces names with Facebook photos and lets users message within any application. Ads will be on their way to the cover feed soon, Facebook conceded. And though the social network didn’t say as much, technology observers, such as Om Malik, have pointed out that Home will let Facebook scoop up even more personal information about everything from our locations to our calls.

The social network has a very specific idea of what we should be doing on our phones and has designed Home to push that mission. The phone "[puts] people first," Facebook's director of product, Adam Mosseri, explained at Thursday’s press conference, noting that Home’s design purposefully shifted the focus "away from tasks and apps."

Seen one way, Home makes communication with loved ones more seamless, more fluid. Seen another, however, Home lets Facebook ensure we don’t have bothersome news readers, workout trackers or even work emails -- those irksome apps and tasks -- distracting us from Facebook.

All tech companies want us to spend more time with their products. But Facebook is unique in that its fortunes depend on convincing us to pay attention to it over all else, and it just invited itself to be the DNA of our most personal device, which we carry with us, on average, all but two hours of our waking day. Google, Apple and Microsoft of course want their users to spend hours with their smartphones and consume liberally from the ecosystem of content they have for sale. Yet they compete with each other in no small part to deliver the smartphone software that will be most intuitive, helpful and easy-to-use. Facebook's software isn’t there to necessarily offer the best smartphone software or most intuitive design, but to offer the best version of Facebook, one that more quickly and permanently attracts our attention.

Facebook doesn’t just want us to spend time on its phone. It wants you to spend time on Facebook. Home is strategically designed to grab our attention, with mewling chat heads and rotating pictures of our friends, and to make everything it shows more interesting than whatever you see around you. Phones can still be slipped into pockets and darkened, but for Home adopters, Facebook will be the first thing they see when they pick up their phones -- on average, we do so 100 times a day -- and Mark Zuckerberg expects we’ll be enthralled by what his social network sends to our screens. Our phone, more than ever, now has an agenda.

“From the moment you wake up your phone, you become immersed in cover feed,” a Facebook press release promised. Take out “your phone,” and we might have a sense of what else Facebook has in mind.

Mark Zuckerberg dismissed concerns that Home would distract people from their surroundings or from being in the moment with the people around them.

"Whether or not communicating online disconnects you from people offline ... I think that’s overblown," Zuckerberg said, according to TechCrunch. "With Facebook and other tools, you can stay connected and get more context from more people."

And yet Facebook’s advertisements for Home show people checking their screens at dinner parties, sprawled on the couch with a friend and even while in bed with a loved one. Even the name raises questions: Does Home reference the fact that Facebook has found its home on phones? Or is Home supposed to be our home?

Clifford Nass, a Stanford University professor and expert in human-machine interaction, observed in an interview last month that companies have been wielding an ever-more powerful arsenal of tools in the fight for our attention, and Home would appear to be the latest weapon. Although it’s too soon to predict how Facebook’s innovation may shift our eyes, Nass’ research has shown that the high-tech war for our time is leading us to multitask with greater frequency, which in turn is injuring our ability to focus and think deeply.

“The way to make money in media is to sell attention. You have to fight and claw and do all these things to get attention. And the more media there is, the more you have to compete, so it’s an arms race, with everyone competing harder and harder to grab people’s attention,” Nass said. That “arms race” drives multitasking and, Nass explained, “If we’re breeding a world in which people chronically multitask, that has very, very worrisome and serious effects on people’s brains.”

Home will also be free to interrupt its regularly-scheduled broadcast with a word from its sponsors, Facebook confirmed, bringing ads ever more directly into our personal space and consciousness. Facebook could theoretically let Bank of America “poke” people when they’re near a branch, or, by comparing our location to the content in our cover feed, assure J.C. Penney that we stepped into its store moments after seeing its ad rotate through the phone’s screen.

Facebook’s phone ties what we’re doing in real life to what we’re doing on Facebook. It even promises to go both ways, so what we do on Facebook could change what we’re doing in real life.

Source

.

Sadie, 11-Year-Old Transgender Girl, Writes Essay In Response To Obama's Inauguration Speech

Posted: 01/23/2013 9:28 am EST | Updated: 01/23/2013 3:20 pm EST

Barack Obama made history on Monday when he became the first president to speak about the Stonewall uprising and the gay rights struggle during an inaugural speech.

While many in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community were thrilled with the mentions, an 11-year-old transgender girl named Sadie wondered why the President didn't directly address trans people, too.

(SEE A SLIDESHOW OF PHOTOS OF SADIE BELOW)

"Sadie was so proud of President Obama for including the gay community in his inaugural address on Monday; however, she felt like the trans community wasn't included," Sage, Sadie's mother, told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "That inspired her to write her own 'speech.'"

The speech, which began making the rounds on the Internet soon after the President spoke and was published in full on the TransGriot site, reads:

"The world would be a better place if everyone had the right to be themselves, including people who have a creative gender identity and expression. Transgender people are not allowed the freedom to do things everyone else does, like go to the doctor, go to school, get a job, and even make friends.

Transgender kids like me are not allowed to go to most schools because the teachers think we are different from everyone else. The schools get afraid of how they will talk with the other kids' parents, and transgender kids are kept secret or told not to come there anymore. Kids are told not to be friends with transgender kids, which makes us very lonely and sad.

When they grow up, transgender adults have a hard time getting a job because the boss thinks the customers will be scared away. Doctors are afraid of treating transgender patients because they don't know how to take care of them, and some doctors don't really want to help them. Transgender patients like me travel to other states to see a good doctor.

It would be a better world if everyone knew that transgender people have the same hopes and dreams as everyone else. We like to make friends and want to go to school. Transgender people want to get good jobs and go to doctors like they are exactly the same. It really isn't that hard to like transgender people because we are like everyone else."

Sadie socially transitioned from male to female in kindergarten. She was home schooled until this year and is now in fifth grade and attending public school. A vegan, she loves anything that "protects the environment," as well as reading, swimming, basketball and texting her friends. She listens to Lady Gaga, Pink and Justin Bieber and wants to work for Green Peace when she grows up. She also wants to be a mom.

Though Sadie has been openly discriminated against, her mother says that she "isn't shy or ashamed of who she is," and adds, "I'm always 'on' when we go out because I never know when she'll strike up a conversation with the person in front of her in line at Trader Joe's. When she chats with people, she introduces herself as, 'Hi, I'm Sadie, my favorite color is pink, I'm vegan, and I'm transgender. Who are you?'"

Sage says she encouraged Sadie to write the essay because she thought "it might help empower her and overcome any feelings of oppression." In the end she says that she wants Sadie "to know that she has a voice. My dream for her is that she will be happy. That's all, really. I just want her to be happy."

Below, see a slideshow of photos of Sadie and her family:



Sadie's Dream





1 of 12





Courtesy of Sadie's Family

Source 

.