Tuesday, May 27, 2014


News Clips For The Day


Pope Francis Says 'Door Is Always Open' to Rethink Priestly Celibacy – NBC
— Erin McClam
Reuters contributed to this report.
First published May 27th 2014

Pope Francis says priestly celibacy is up for discussion.

For the first time since his election, the pope said that it is “not a dogma” that members of the clergy must abstain from sex. He made the remark in a chat with reporters on his way back to the Vatican from a historic trip to the Middle East.

“It is a rule of life that I appreciate very much, and I think it is a gift for the church, but since it is not a dogma, the door is always open,” Francis said on Monday.

The Catholic Church has been under pressure to abandon the celibate tradition. Some critics have argued, in the face of widespread sexual abuse of children by priests, that sexual frustration may be partly to blame.

Francis, in some of his harshest language to date on that scandal, said aboard the papal plane that sexual abuse by clerics is “like a satanic Mass.” He will meet with abuse victims next month at the Vatican.

“We must go ahead with zero tolerance,” he said on the plane.

Priestly celibacy is a tradition dating 1,000 years, but it is not considered dogma, or unchangeable. Priests can marry in the Anglican and some other Protestant churches, and in the Orthodox Church.

Francis made similar remarks about celibacy when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires. After his elevation to pope, his secretary of state said in September that celibacy “is not an institution.”

The pope has sought to change the direction of the church, urging a focus less on culture-war issues like abortion and gay marriage and more on pastoral outreach and helping the poor.




“The pope has sought to change the direction of the church, urging a focus less on culture-war issues like abortion and gay marriage and more on pastoral outreach and helping the poor.” This article says that the tradition of priestly celibacy goes back 1000 years. It was only recently that I learned that it had begun during the Middle Ages and was not mandated by the Bible, nor was celibacy. It is supposed to shield the priest from the passions, conflicts and stresses of a male-female relationship and leave his mind more free for meditation and spirituality. The problem is that it surely does leave the average man sexually frustrated, and I maintain that it also tends to select for sexually abnormal men in the matter of who chooses to go into the priesthood. Men who are not drawn to women are drawn to other men or children most of the time, rather than being asexual. A change by the church allowing married men would be welcome. Our Methodist ministers were all married, and also were men of good character, not getting into scandals over matters of adultery. Sexual scandals in the Protestant church are rare. Marriage is not a problem, but a solution to a problem.


http://www.elandar.com/back/summer02/stories/story_mejia.html

A Brief History of the Celibate Priesthood
by Robin Mejía
Summer 2002 Issue


“For the first dozen or so centuries of the Church’s existence, not only priests, but also bishops and popes married and raised families. As the Church expanded from the Middle East into Europe, many changes occurred. Interaction with Greco-Roman culture impacted Church views on sex and marriage. At the same time, the Church’s power grew and wealthy landowners began donating more property to parishes. Many priests viewed these gifts as personal and would sometimes bequeath them to their heirs, upsetting the Church hierarchy. 

By the eleventh century, shifting cultural views, which included the recognition of celibacy as a valuable religious choice, were used to support practical considerations. First, Pope Benedict VIII made it illegal for priest’s children to inherit property. Then, in 1139, the Second Lateran Council made celibacy an official requirement for priesthood. 

Many Catholics believe that decision was a purely practical one, designed to better control the priesthood and maintain Church assets. After all, while celibacy has a history as a valid religious choice, it was never a scriptural requirement. In fact, the Eastern churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church during this period, have maintained a married clergy through today, even in branches that look to the Pope in Rome as their spiritual leader.

C. Russell Ditzel, vice president of CORPUS, the National Association for an Inclusive Priesthood, explains that throughout Church history “there are pragmatic things that happen… and over time they overlay a theology on top to make it look nicer.” 

In the centuries following the Second Lateran Council, attempts were made to reintroduce marriage to the Catholic clergy, but none were successful and the Council of Trent officially reaffirmed the requirement for priestly celibacy in the sixteenth century. 

So it certainly surprised me to learn that there are a few dozen Vatican-sanctioned married priests serving in Roman Catholic parishes in the US today. John Schuster and Russell Ditzel are not among them; they were forced to leave the clergy in order to marry, along with about 20,000 other priests over the past three decades.

However, even while maintaining a general requirement of celibacy, Pope John Paul II has, since 1980, allowed married Episcopalian clergy to convert and become Catholic priests. About a hundred married Episcopalian ministers have taken up the offer, becoming the only Church-sanctioned married Catholic priests in the U.S. today. 

At the same time, some married Catholic priests who were forced from their parish have converted to the Episcopal Church in order to maintain an active ministry.”




Battles Rage in Donetsk as Ukraine Accuses Militia of Arms Smuggling – NBC
BY ALBINA KOVALYOVA
First published May 27th 2014

KIEV - Ukraine accused Russian militia of smuggling a convoy of arms across the border Tuesday as a fierce battles continued between Kievs forces and pro-Moscow separatists in the city of Donetsk.

A column of trucks and cars carrying Kalashnikov rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other explosives was intercepted by border guards in the Lugansk region in the early hours, Ukraine’s border security force said in a statement.

Border forces fired at the convoy, which the statement said consisted of “armed militias.”
Ukraine said it had recaptured Donetsk airport following an overnight fight with separatists who had seized control on Monday.

The separatists “retreated” and were hiding in nearby homes, “using civilians as human shields,” Alexei Dmitrashkovsky, spokesman for Ukraine’s anti-terrorism operation, told NBC News on Tuesday.

Amid ongoing clashes, a sports stadium in the city was set on fire.

Ukraine’s swift military attack on the separatists came after Moscow said it was ready for dialogue with Kiev’s newly-elected president Petro Poroshenko.

The political veteran and billionaire candy factory owner, who looked set for a decisive victory in Sunday’s election, firmly rejected any suggestion of negotiations.

"They want to preserve a bandit state which is held in place by force of arms," said Poroshenko. "These are simply bandits. Nobody in any civilized state will hold negotiations with terrorists."

Gunfire and explosions were heard as a warplane flew over the airport. Ukraine said its jets had strafed the area with warning shots and then struck a location where rebels were concentrated, scattering the fighters before paratroops were flown in to face them.

"Fighting continues in the airport, with the use of planes and helicopters," separatist leader Denis Pushilin told Reuters. "It's a full-blown military standoff. I have no information on casualties. Our groups have destroyed one helicopter of the enemy."

The airport serves a city of one million people which rebels have declared the capital of an independent "people's republic", and where they succeeded in blocking all voting in Sunday's election.

Their attempt to seize the airport may have been intended to prevent Poroshenko from traveling there: he has said his first trip in office would be to visit the east.

So far, Ukraine's military forces have had little success against rebels who have declared independent "people's republics" in two provinces of the eastern industrial heartland where about 20 people have been killed in recent days.

Russia's foreign ministry urged Kiev to halt what it called "military operations against its own people" and said it wanted the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to investigate clashes with pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk.

With 80 percent of votes counted from Sunday’s poll, Poroshenko had 54.1 percent of the vote. His closest challenger, former premier Yulia Tymoshenko, had just 13.1 percent and made clear she would concede.




“'Ukraine accused Russian militia of smuggling a convoy of arms across the border Tuesday as a fierce battles [sic] continued between Kiev's forces and pro-Moscow separatists in the city of Donetsk.... A column of trucks and cars carrying Kalashnikov rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other explosives was intercepted by border guards in the Lugansk region in the early hours,' Ukraine’s border security force said in a statement.” The Russians were driven from the airport and sheltered in private homes, using civilians as “human shields.” This tactic has always struck me as the lowest of the low, with the possible exception of using gang rape as a war weapon. The article mentions that there are still more contested sites in two provinces where 20 people have been killed. I'm sure the fight will continue.




Iran Court Summons Facebook's Zuckerberg Over Instagram, Whatsapp – NBC
- Reuters
First published May 27th 2014

A judge in southern Iran has ordered Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to appear court to answer complaints by individuals who say Facebook-owned applications Instagram and Whatsapp violate their privacy, semiofficial news agency ISNA reported Tuesday.

It quoted Ruhollah Momen Nasab, an official with the paramilitary Basij force, as saying that the judge also ordered the two apps blocked.

Another Iranian court last week had ordered Instagram blocked over privacy concerns. However, users in the capital, Tehran, still could access both applications around noon Tuesday. In Iran, websites and Internet applications have sometimes been reported blocked but remained operational.

Facebook already is banned in the country, along with other social websites like Twitter and YouTube. However some senior leaders like Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarifare active on Twitter.

While top officials have unfettered access to social media, Iran's youth and technological-savvy citizens use proxy servers or other workarounds to bypass the controls.

The administration of moderate President Hassan Rouhani is opposed to blocking such websites before authorities create local alternatives. Social media has offered a new way for him and his administration to reach out to the West as it negotiates with world powers over the country's contested nuclear program.

"We should see the cyber world as an opportunity," Rouhani said last week, according to the official IRNA news agency. "Why are we so shaky? Why don't we trust our youth?"
Hardliners, meanwhile, accuse Rouhani of failing to stop the spread of what they deem as "decadent" Western culture in Iran.




“Facebook already is banned in the country, along with other social websites like Twitter and YouTube. However some senior leaders like Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are active on Twitter.” Rouhani has spoken out against the ban, saying “'Why are we so shaky? Why don't we trust our youth?'" Hardliners have referred to such media as 'decadent' Western culture.” Rouhani is using it himself, and values it as a way “to reach out to the West as it negotiates with world powers over the country's contested nuclear program.” Again, Rouhani shows the open and progressive viewpoints that may lead to an improved relationship with Western countries. He is definitely an improvement over previous leaders in Iran.





Photo Gives Glimpse of Low-Profile US Air Operation – ABC



In the fall of 2012, a young Pakistani girl named Rimsha Masih was released from a three-week stint in a local prison where she had been held for blasphemy.

During her detention, Masih’s controversial case garnered international attention so it was unsurprising that when she was freed, crowds had gathered at the prison. Fearing for her safety, the Pakistani government hustled her aboard a military helicopter to be flown to an undisclosed location.

A photographer at the scene, Farooq Naeem, snapped a picture of Masih in the helicopter, with her headset on, face barely visible through a small window in the side of the chopper. It’s a powerful image, but it also captured something else – a curious detail that a source familiar with the event recently noted to ABC News: a small red patch on the helicopter co-pilot’s shoulder that appears to say “Department of State Air Wing” surrounding what looks like the seal of the U.S. State Department. The co-pilot’s face, turned towards the Paksitani military pilot seated next to him, is not visible.

At the time, the State Department publicly had kept its distance from Masih’s ordeal, except shortly after she was arrested when State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland called the case “deeply disturbing.” When asked if the U.S. had been in touch with Pakistan about Masih’s detention, Nuland said then she was unsure if the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan was “on it.”

More than two weeks later, Masih was released on a Saturday and by Monday, other news had overtaken the State Department. She wasn’t mentioned in the Department’s daily briefing.

Still, the image indicates a State Department pilot was there and the small incident gave a glimpse, however brief, into the operations of the U.S. State Department’s Air Wing, formally called the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Office of Aviation (INL/A), a little-known but surprisingly robust air operation run in a number of foreign nations.

“The Department of State Air Wing operates a large number of helicopters and airplanes relatively unnoticed all over the world,” a source familiar with Air Wing operations told ABC News. “Most Americans have no idea that the program exists at all.”

Do you have information about this or a related story? CLICK HERE to confidentially send your tip in to the Investigative Unit.

The Air Wing, established in the mid-1980s, was originally intended solely “for the purpose of conducting aerial eradication and interdiction operations in drug-producing countries under bilateral agreements,” according to the State Department. A 2011 State Department magazine described the organization’s earliest missions as crop dusting over drug-production fields in Guatemala and Colombia. But over the years mission requirements expanded to “counter-terrorism, border security/law enforcement, and embassy transportation missions.”

The State Department says it currently employs 150 aircraft in the Air Wing, down from approximately 240 in 2010 – still more than the air forces of some smaller countries. A 2010 State Department fact sheet said then that the Air Wing operated in eight nations: Afghanistan, Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Iraq, Mexico, Pakistan and Peru. Recently the State Department said it’s now active in five: Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, Pakistan and Peru.




“Still, the image indicates a State Department pilot was there and the small incident gave a glimpse, however brief, into the operations of the U.S. State Department’s Air Wing, formally called the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Office of Aviation (INL/A), a little-known but surprisingly robust air operation run in a number of foreign nations.”The Air Wing began as “crop dusting over drug production fields” but now includes anti-terrorism, law enforcement and “embassy transportation missions.” This rescue of a teenage girl being held on charges of blasphemy is undoubtedly the last category. I'm glad to see the US intervening to save a young life in this way. Air Wing to the rescue!




States Consider Bills To Crack Down On Workplace Bullies
by YUKI NOGUCHI
May 27, 2014

Bullying is a behavioral problem often associated with children in grade school, but according to a recent Zogby poll, more than a quarter of American workers say they've experienced abusive conduct at work.

Now, many states are considering laws that would give workers legal protections against workplace abuse.

Lisa-Marie Mulkern says her boss — the commandant of a retirement home for veterans in New Hampshire — turned on her after she expressed concerns about what she calls wasteful financial management. Mulkern was working as a public-relations manager and fundraiser at the home.

"Even though residents and their families had nothing but praise for my work, and the home's publicity continued to increase, the commandant started to make my work situation a living hell," she says.

Mulkern says she was repeatedly excluded from meetings and denied credit for her work and access to critical information. Colleagues took notice but treated her like she was contagious. "And I was told point blank, 'You're on your own with that one, Lisa-Marie,' " she says.

Mulkern says she lost weight and sleep from the stress.

"I didn't realize how much of a toll it was taking on me. I was the public face of the home, and I was trying to look the part of the PR person and not let people know that personally, I was being pummeled at work," she says.

In 2006, after four years working at the retirement home, Mulkern tangled with her boss over a bad evaluation, and lost her job. The current commandant of the home declined to discuss Mulkern's case, citing state privacy laws. But Mulkern has since testified several times before the New Hampshire legislature, which is one of 15 states, including Massachusetts,New York and Florida, that are considering bills giving legal protection to workers harmed in abusive work environments.

Such proposals are gaining support as awareness increases. Last year, bullying made the news when Jonathan Martin left the Miami Dolphins, complaining about abuse from teammates. And last month, the CEO of a technology company called GitHub resigned after an employee complained he and his wife bullied her. The internal investigation at GitHub found no legal wrongdoing.

Michael Aitken, vice president of government affairs for the Society for Human Resource Management, says the problem can't be addressed by a law.

"It's tough, if not impossible, to legislate against somebody being a jerk," Aitken says.

Bad behavior can be subjective. It might boil down to a he-said, she-said. And Aitken says, unlike racial or gender discrimination, bullying is hard to define and therefore hard to regulate. But, he says, employers are trying.

"Many employers have already taken steps or are taking steps, more and more actually, to adopt training policies and procedures to address workplace bullying, where it occurs," Aitken says.

Steven Williams, who until two years ago worked as a strategist at a trading firm, doubts that mere corporate policy would've helped him. "Without laws, there's no way to protect a person," he says.

His criticism of the firm's largest client, he says, made him a target early. Everyone seemed complicit in attempts to undermine his work, even inserting errors into his reports.

"I just went to my direct supervisor. When nothing was done, I went to his direct supervisor. When nothing was done, I went to his direct supervisor. There was no place for me to go at that point. I went right to the top. And that was it, nowhere else to go," he says.

The firm declined comment on Williams' case but confirmed he worked there for only 10 months.

Williams says there was no one he felt he could trust.

"What happens if everybody at the company is in on it? What happens if everybody there wants you out? They're not going to voluntarily get themselves in trouble," he says.

Williams says the experience devastated him financially, socially and emotionally. After not working for two years, Williams says he's finally looking for work, but probably not on Wall Street




"'It's tough, if not impossible, to legislate against somebody being a jerk,' Aitken says.” Lisa-Marie Mulkern, however, has “testified several times before the New Hampshire legislature, which is one of 15 states, including Massachusetts,New York and Florida, that are considering bills giving legal protection to workers harmed in abusive work environments. “Aiken has said that many companies are now making changes within their own structure to adopt procedures and initiate training to reduce the incidence of such events. The American public is becoming gradually more sensitive in general to such unfair and discriminatory treatment of individuals or groups, mainly because of the changes in federal laws covering minorities and women. It became illegal to do some of those things. Some people will never become kind, honest or fair, but they will stop misbehaving if they are punished sufficiently for it. It does, I believe, improve the situation to make laws against such things. Eventually society begins to see the fairness of the new law and even have some shame for their misdeeds.





Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Secret Service In Free Speech Case
by EYDER PERALTA
May 27, 2014

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in a favor of Secret Service agents in a free speech case involving President George W. Bush.

The case is this: During Bush's campaign for a second term he showed up at an restaurant in Jacksonville, Oregon. Anti-Bush protesters as well as supporters showed up. Fifteen minutes after Bush decided to sit in the patio of the restaurant, the Secret Service asked police to move the anti-Bush protesters away from the restaurant and out of sight from the president.

Anti-Bush protesters sued the Secret Service agents and the case moved its way through the lower courts, with the Ninth Circuit agreeing that the agents lost their immunity against lawsuits because they acted unconstitutionally.

In a rare unanimous decision, the Court reversed that judgment saying the Secret Service agents deserved immunity.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the majority opinion, in which she said the Secret Service agents — logically — moved anti-Bush protesters away from the president because they were within "weapons reach" of President Bush. The supporters, however, were being blocked from the outdoor patio by the building itself.

Ginsburg concludes:

"We emphasize, again, that the protesters were at least as close to the President as were the supporters when the motorcade arrived at the Jacksonville Inn. See supra, at 5. And as the map attached to the complaint shows, see supra, at 4, when the President reached the patio to dine, the protesters, but not the supporters, were within weapons range of his location. See supra, at 14. Given that situation, the protesters cannot plausibly urge that the agents 'had no valid security reason to request or order the[ir] eviction.' App. to Pet. for Cert. 186a.

"We note, moreover, that individual government officials 'cannot be held liable' in a Bivens suit 'unless they themselves acted [unconstitutionally].' Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 683. We therefore decline to infer from alleged instances of misconduct on the part of particular agents an unwritten policy of the Secret Service to suppress disfavored expression, and then to attribute that supposed policy to all field-level operatives."




The Supreme Court supported Secret Service agents who moved anti-Bush protesters away from the president, because they were within "weapons reach" of President Bush.” That was a decision that makes complete sense to me, as it only takes a second for an attacker to raise his gun and shoot if he is within such a close proximity of the President. They did not need to move his supporters because they weren't as close as the opposing group, and didn't represent a danger to him. If the Secret Service didn't take notice of such situations and act accordingly, they wouldn't be of any use. That's why when the two cases recently made the news of drunken and disorderly behavior by Secret Servicemen I was angered. President Obama, being black, is a target to certain right-wing groups in this country and I worry about him sometimes. I hope he remains safe until 2016 when we hold the next election and afterward.