Danny Doom’s Booze Cabinet

As Ireland withstands Rome’s offensive apology while an Irish bishop resigns, I ask Americans to understand why an Irish Catholic woman who survived child abuse would want to rip up the pope’s picture.

I have long wanted Sinead O’Connor to say something more about all that, and maybe she has and I missed it. But this op-ed in the Washington Post answers a lot. At the time, when she ripped up the picture of the pope on SNL, I thought: “awesome.” But not really sure why, just a powerful sign of rebellion. As is usually the case, the more you know… My distaste for Catholicism just grows with knowledge, and so these new revelations are for me no more than another nail in the coffin–what else can there be now? How many nails to seal it?

But it’s not just Catholicism, it’s religion, the man-made concept. So flawed, so very very flawed. And it seems as if the worst men for the job hold the highest positions (ha, women in religion? subservient at best!). Follow the money, follow the power, and you will find them. I watch all of this with interest, but surprisingly little emotion. You’d like to see some justice but then, I don’t really expect it to happen. I don’t really think most people care that much. And I don’t know many people who are/were religious anyway.

To Irish Catholics, Benedict’s implication — Irish sexual abuse is an Irish problem — is both arrogant and blasphemous. The Vatican is acting as though it doesn’t believe in a God who watches. The very people who say they are the keepers of the Holy Spirit are stamping all over everything the Holy Spirit truly is.

Here’s the Hitchens-Maher version (UPDATE: embedding working.) I like this version very much.

How do I really feel about the Catholic scandal in which “church leaders chose to protect the church instead of the children” (and when they say “church leaders” I think we all know who they’re talking about)?

Oh, you don’t want to know.

I guess I’m just confused.

It is difficult to over-estimate the degree to which last night’s vote in the House, passing a comprehensive health care reform bill, was a huge victory for the Catholic Church … The belief that heath care is a right, not a privilege, took a giant step towards legislative enactment last night.

Pro-lifers think health care is a right, not a privilege? But the Catholic Church is for universal healthcare? Or what? You know what, I don’t even wanna know.

That’s not gonna happen, at least for now. In Maine they voted to repeal the law allowing same-sex marriage, and naturally the religious forces played a big role in this. Why? Because contrary to everything it stands for, religion serves to divide instead of unify.

The Catholic Church was a leading supporter of the repeal campaign, even asking parishes to pass a second collection plate at Sunday Mass to help the cause.

It is times like these that I am extra-super-especially glad I didn’t allow the Catholic Church to be involved in my own marriage (normally I’m just extra-glad). An institution such as that has no business presiding over a unification ceremony–what can it possibly know of such a thing? What insight can it provide?

The Catholic Church, along with less powerful cult organizations, serves as a barrier for love, a dividing line for reason, and a blindfold for its own crimes against humanity. It is an ancient, irrelevant male-dominated clubhouse that ignores its own gayness–overcompensates for its own gayness–by actively campaigning against civil rights. A religion that considers some more equal than others.

And yet, I am going way too easy on them.

I don’t have HBO so I’ll have to wait for this one, but it sounds pretty sweet:

At one point in the show, David goes to the bathroom in a Catholic home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus; he doesn’t clean it off. Then a Catholic woman goes to the bathroom, sees the picture and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her equally stupid mother and the two of them fall to their knees in prayer. When David and Jerry Seinfeld (playing himself) are asked if they ever experienced a miracle, David answers, “every erection is a miracle.”

That’s Catholic League sourpuss Bill Donahue commenting on the show. Man, I would love to have seen his face as he took that episode in!

Evil-doers, unite!

The priest at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in downtown Greenville has told parishioners that those who voted for Barack Obama placed themselves under divine judgment because of his stance on abortion and shouldn’t receive Holy Communion until they’ve done penance.

In a letter posted on St. Mary’s Web site, Newman wrote that “voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.”

Who was the “plausible pro-life alternative” in this election? McCain? Ha ha! In the past this may have gotten me worked up, sure, but now I just have to laugh. Ha ha ha! It’s funny. Ho ho ho! We are coming to the end of eight years of almost exclusive Republican rule, with pro-lifers wielding the power and the glory, and what do they have to show for it? What did they do for the pro-lifers?

The dirty secret of the right-wing is this: “pro-life” is total bullshit. It is nothing but a wedge issue. These men (and they are almost exclusively men–white men) don’t care one bit about overturning Roe v. Wade, nor do they care about protecting the lives of the unborn. They just want your vote, righteous ones. And, well, it didn’t work this year. As these bishops and priests are finding out, they have no influence on politicians, anymore than they do on their own parishioners. There’s a positive sign. In fact, it is change we can believe in.

Asked if Catholics could ever in good conscience vote for pro-choice candidates, the Archbishop Charles Chaput replies:

I think there are legitimate reasons you could vote in favor of someone who wouldn’t be where the church is on abortion, but it would have to be a reason that you could confidently explain to Jesus and the victims of abortion when you meet them at the Judgment.  That’s the only criterion.

A follow-up please. Archbishop–your excellency–could I ever, in good conscience, vote in favor of someone who supports the death penalty or is responsible for unjust wars? A war president, if you will?

“Yes, Mr. Doom, that is acceptable. You see, most death penalty victims are guilty of something, even if the evidence is lacking. As are the many war casualties that we allow as collateral damage. So do not worry, your vote for President Bush will not count against you in the eyes of Jesus. You did vote for him, yes?”

Uh, sure, whatever you say. And what about sexual misconduct? What is the criterion for that?

“Oh, Mr. Doom, this too is acceptable–if you are a Catholic. The faggots will burn, but our brothers and sisters of the church will be escorted by angel-driven golf carts to their proper eternal rest.”

Thank goodness. So it’s just the abortion stuff that will raise some eyebrows?

“Indeed.”

Gotcha.

Glenn Greenwald nails the Corner nut, Kathryn Jean Lopez, to the proverbial cross with this great column on “the right’s selective political manipulation of Catholicism.” In short (because GG keeps it long), K-Lo wonders how any Catholic could consider voting for a Democrat considering their views on “innocent life.” What does “innocent life” mean? Well, that depends. Take a wild guess, though, and see if you can figure it out.

Abortion = bad! War = good!

I’m sure the death penalty is OK for Catholics like Lopez, because they’re not innocent after all (at least some of them aren’t), but when it comes to cheerleading an immoral and unjust war that will take thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of innocent lives, you can count on the Catholic Lopez to sidestep that whole principled approach and wave the flag in the name of Republicanism. Hurray!

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?