So it was entirely appropriate and welcome ten years ago, that at the start of the season Pope John Paul spoke of the horrors that had been perpetrated by the church in the past, apologised for the evils it had done to .    and asked for forgiveness. This was important and welcome:  I do not wish to belittle it in any way.  However, there is an important category of offence which was omitted from the list, for which he did not apologise, and for which there has never been any apology: the persecution of “sodomites”.

For the first thousand years of its history, the Church was disapproving of homoerotic relationships, as it was of all sexual expression, but showed varying degrees of tolerance, culminating in what John Boswell described as a flowering of a gay sub-culture in the high medieval period.  During the 11th century,  Burchard, the Bishop of Worms in Germany,

“classified homosexuality as a variety of fornication less serious than heterosexual adultery. He assigned penance for homosexual acts only to married men. In civil legislation regulating family life in the diocese of Worms there is no mention of homosexual behaviour”

In 1059, the Lateran synod accepted all of the reforms for the church proposed by St Peter Damian – except for his proposal for harsher penalties against monks engaged in homosexual affairs.

All that changed within a few decades. In 1120, the Church Council of Nablus specified burning at the stake for homosexual acts.  Although this  penalty may not immediately have been applied, other harsh condemnations followed rapidly. In 1212, the death penalty for sodomy was specified in in France. Before long the execution of supposed “sodomites”, often by burning at the stake, but also by other harsh means, had become regular practice in many areas.

[ad#In post banner]

Templars

Historical research to date has been patchy, and in many places the records have not survived. Even so, the evidence from the modest research we do have is horrifying.  In the largest scale, and best known, single incident, over 400 hundred Knights Templar were burned in the early 14th century. This is usually discussed in terms of trials for “heresy”, but in fact the charges were of both heresy and sodomy.  (These terms were often associated and confused at the time, but much of the evidence in the templar trials made it clear that specifically sexual offences were meant).

To modern researchers, it is clear that the trials were deeply flawed, with the procedures seriously stacked against the accused.  In marking the 700th anniversary of the trials in 2007, the Vatican explicitly cleared those killed of the charges of heresy – but said never a word about the charges of sodomy.

Elsewhere, the trials and punishments were of individuals, or of small groups – but with equally flawed judicial procedures. (Typically, the prosecutor was also judge; torture was widely used to extract confessions;  and church and state benefited by sharing the property of those convicted).  These were sometimes under the auspices of the Inquisition, sometimes of the state – but always inspired by church preaching against the “sodomites”.

The severity of the pursuit and punishments varied from place to place.  Venice was one of the harshest, with several hundred executions from 1422, until the persecution finally ended. In Spain, it was calculated that in total there were more burnings for homosexuality than for heresy. Executions also applied in the New World – in both North America (where some of the colonists were accused and convicted) and South (where it was the indigenous locals who suffered for the Spanish prejudices) .  Altogether, it is likely that executions in Southern Europe, either by or with the collaboration of the Church, amounted to several thousand men.

Protestant Europe

After the Reformation, the practice of burning homosexuals spread to Northern Europe and some of the new Protestant territories, where the practice was sometimes use as a pretext to attack Catholic clergy: in Belgium, several Franciscans were burnt for sodomy, as was a Jesuit in Antwerp (in 1601).

The persecution finally began to ease from the late 17th century, when some “softening” became evident by the Inquisition in Spain. Nevertheless, some executions continued throughout the eighteenth century, to as late as 1816 in  England. The statutory provision for the death penalty was not removed in England until 1861.

Obviously, the Catholic Church cannot be held directly responsible for the judicial sentences handed down by secular authorities in Protestant countries.  It can, however, be held responsible for it part in fanning the flames of bigotry and hatred in the early part of the persecution, using the cloak of religion to provide cover for what was in reality based not on Scripture or the teaching of the early Church, but on simple intolerance and greed.

It is important as gay men lesbians and transgendered that we remember the examples of the many who have in earlier times been honoured by the Church as saints or martyrs for the faith.  It is also important that we remember the example of the many thousands who have been martyred by the churches – Catholic and other.

Sources:

• Crompton, Louis: Homosexuality and Civilization
• Greenberg, : The Construction of Homosexuality
• Naphy, William: Born to be Gay: A History of Homosexuality
• Len Evans, Gay Chronicles from the Beginning of time to the End of World War II

Related articles

• “Burned for Sodomy”
• “The Last Judgement”, and the Homoerotic Spirituality of Michaelangelo.
• Gay Popes: Sixtus IV (r. 1471-1484)
• Nov 1st: All (Gay) Saints
• Celibacy, Homosexuality, Jeffrey John and Cardinal Newman

Today, the same perception, that queer sexuality is condemned by scripture, remains widespread but is no longer the only view. Instead, there is a widespread and growing recognition, especially by those who have studied the matter most closely, that the biblical message either does not condemn loving LGBT relationships, or is at worst ambiguous on the subject. I want to outline the course of that transformation, and stress just how far it has gone.

Chronicling the Reassessment of the Bible and Homosexuality

Traditional assumptions began to unravel once people began to examine the Biblical texts, instead of simply repeating the slogans. That process began in the early 1950′s, when Canon Derrick Sherwen Bailey led an Anglican study group on the broader issues of homosexuality and society. He began to explore the texts, expecting to find corroboration for the traditional views, but instead reached a surprising conclusion: the biblical evidence is inconclusive and ambiguous. Bailey’s book, “Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition“, published in 1956, was a landmark, opening up a whole range of new considerations in biblical interpretation of the subject.

After a short chapter by John McNeil in “The Church and the Homosexual“ (1976) “, the next landmark took a different tack. Rather than merely contesting the meaning of the infamous clobber texts, Tom Horner’s ”Jonathan Loved David” (1978) also drew attention to the broader contextual background, and to some of the many queer affirmative passages.

Soon afterwards John Boswell, in an important chapter in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (1980) drew on Bailey’s earlier work, and his own extensive linguistic skills, to argue that the traditional interpretations were badly flawed, and based on a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of the texts. Later writers drew heavily on Boswell’s analysis.

Two notable full – length treatments published over the next ten years were Robin Scroggs’ “New Testament and Homosexuality” (1984), and William Countryman’s “Dirt, Greed, and Sex” (1988). Thereafter the floodgates opened, with an abundance of new titles during the nineties and noughties re-evaluating the scriptural verdict on homosexuality. By last year, it was noticeable that some of these titles were even being aimed by publishers at the mass market, in marked contrast with the earlier works, which had either scholarly works primarily for academics, or aimed at niche markets, such as clergy and the LGBT community. These more recent works varied substantially in their approach, and their conclusions.

Varied Approaches to Reassessing Scripture and Homosexuality

The early pioneers, like Bailey, Boswell and Countryman, had focussed primarily on countering the half dozen clobber texts. Later writers emphasised the importance of reading the Bible in context, with its greater message of love and inclusion. For these writers, focussing on just a handful of clobber texts represents an abuse of scripture, as they argue in works with titles like “Practicing Safer Texts” (Stone, 2005 – my favourite title), “The Savage Text: The Use and Abuse of the Bible ” (Thatcher, 2008), and “The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible’s Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love ” (Spong, 2005).

A third theme that has emerged recently, has been to highlight explicitly queer affirmative readings of scripture.  Following the early example of “Jonathan Loved David“, “Take Back the Word” (Goss, 2ooo) examined selected books and passages to illustrate same-sex love or gender bending themes. The culminating achievement of this approach is the monumental “The Queer Bible Commentary” (2006), for which a team of scholars from a wide range of Christian and Jewish backgrounds collaborated, to produce a detailed queer reading for every single book of the bible. (Most books are given a complete chapter. Minor books are grouped in thematic chapters).

The most recent books also includes work by a wide range of denominational and faith backgrounds. The early pioneering was done almost entirely by Catholic and Anglican scholars, but more recent titles show more diversity: Jack Rogers for instance ( Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality )is Presbyterian, Steve Greenberg (Wrestling with God and Men)  is Jewish. A complete listing of the probably hundreds of new books will show many more.

However, it would be wrong to claim that revisionist readings now hold sway. Inevitably, traditionalists have responded with counterarguments. The surprise is not that they have done so, but that they appear now to be in the minority – at least in terms of the number of books sold.

The Balance of Competing Views on Scripture and Homosexuality

I have seen somewhere a claim that “the majority” of biblical scholars now agree that the traditional reading of the Bible and homosexuality is incorrect. I have no way of evaluating that claim, but a simple  test seems at least to support the suggestion.  A book search on either Amazon.com or Google books for “bible and homosexuality” will throw up hundreds of titles, of which the majority appear to argue either that the traditional condemnation is wrong, or that the evidence is mixed and ambiguous.

Here are the top 20* titles listed by Amazon.com for a search on “Bible and homosexuality”, which I have loosely grouped into affirmative / neutral / traditional (based on my reading of Amazon’s book descriptions).

* (The 20 listed below exclude the Holman Bible Dictionary, which is not specifically about sexuality, and does not attempt interpretation) 

Queer affirmative interpretations of scripture

(ranking,  author, title):

1) Helminiak: What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality

3) Rogers: Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church

4) Cannon: The Bible, Christianity, & Homosexuality

5) Dwyer: Those 7 References: A Study of 7 References to Homosexuality in the Bible

7) Patterson: Hate Thy Neighbor: How the Bible is Misused to Condemn Homosexuality

10) Thelos: God is not a Homophobe: An unbiased look at Homosexuality in the Bible

12) Greenberg: Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition

14) Cannon: Homosexuality in the Orthodox Church

16) Goss: Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible

Queer neutral interpretations of scripture

(ranking,  author, title, publication date ):

9) Via: Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views

19) Gibson: Discerning the Word: The Bible and Homosexuality in Anglican Debate

(No information for assessment):

18) Ide: Zoar and Her Sisters: Homosexuality, the Bible, and Jesus Christ

2o) Barnett: Homosexuality and the Bible: An Interpretation 

Traditional interpretations of scripture and homosexuality:

(ranking,  author, title, publication date ):

2) Gagnon: The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (2002)

6) Himbaza: The Bible on the Question of Homosexuality

Haley: 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality

11) White: Same Sex Controversy, The: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message About Homosexuality

13) Dallas: The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible

15) De Young: Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law

17) Swartley: Homosexuality: Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment

The analysis above is crude and simplistic, but the message is clear: only 7 of the top 20 titles attempt to affirm the traditional interpretation of the Bible and homosexuality, and even these generally soften the harshness of earlier presentations, to emphasize the importance of compassion in pastoral care. Even allowing for my possible bias in assessing where to place these titles, it is clear that the field is a divided one. The traditional, hostile view is no longer a universal one.

The Impact of the Reassessment of the Bible and Homosexuality

Whereas the Bible could once be freely used as a weapon against us, we can now use biblical counter arguments in favour of full inclusion. The gradual  recognition of this has been important in giving confidence to LGBT people in church, has forced many fair – minded straight leaders in the churches to reconsider their own positions, and has been an important enabling factor behind the other transformations affecting the place of LGBT people in church:

• the development of independent LGBT ministry and support groups
• the emergence of openly queer clergy, stepping out of the closet
• the development of a distinctive body of gay/lesbian and queer theology
• the emergence, and inclusion in ministry, of modern queer families.

I will be covering these later in this series, to mark February as  LGBT history month (UK),  and 2012 as Queen Elizabeth’s diamond jubilee year. (I have already posted as a preamble, a summary of changes over the previous 2000 years)

Related articles

• “Blessed Are The Queer in Faith”: Preamble
• English Bishop Backs Gay Marriage: Queer Ferment in the Anglican Church
• Towards Full GLBT Inclusion in Faith: Some Signs of the Times.
• Christian Repentance for Sin (of Homophobia)
• Bringing the “Good News” to Queer Christians: My Vision for Queering the Church.
• The Bible and Textual Abuse: The Case of “malakoi” and “arsenokoites”.
• Homosexuals and the Catechism

As a theologian, her work was undoubtedly influential – but also highly controversial. Just the titles of her two major books illustrate this: “Indecent Theology”, and “The Queer God”. I love the title and concept “Indecent Theology” (which I have not read), which suggests for me two distinct concepts: that theology should not shrink from tackling concepts that are too often avoided as “indecent”, and simultaneously that in tackling conventional themes, it need not automatically adopt a reverential, deferential submission to received, supposedly authoritative opinion.  Her thorough grounding in liberation theology left Althaus – Reid with a firm commitment to the value of base communities, in which ordinary people in small groups can do theology by talking about the influence and impact of God in their lives, in their unique circumstances. The formal, accredited theologians have greater training and academic understanding of the theory of God – but the base communities have real – world experience of their own lives. Both methods of doing theology deserve attention and respect.

For her admirers, she was a pioneer in the transformation of gay liberation theology into queer theology. See for instance, Jay Emerson Johnson of the Pacific School of Religion Centre for Lesbian and Gay Studies, School of Religion and Ministry , in a commemorative reflection after her death:

Hardly anyone has a neutral reaction to the word “queer.” People either love it or hate it. I used to belong to that latter camp until a wiry, effervescent, brilliant Latin American liberation theologian converted me. That theologian’s name was Marcella Althaus-Reid, who passed away on February 20 – far too young and with many more theological and spiritual insights left to offer to a world that desperately needs them.

“Queer theology” has been bubbling up in some quarters for a while now, but not quite as long as “queer theory.” Both spark considerable controversy, and sometimes for similar reasons. Usually the word “queer” is enough to send an otherwise congenial dinner party of LGBT people rocking with impassioned disclaimers, hurled history lessons, and proffered pleas for tolerance. In religious circles, gay and lesbian people have been working for decades to carve out a “place at the table” in faith communities that they so rightly deserve. The work can be slow and arduous, which the word “queer” – some strenuously insist – can derail. A few years ago I attended a national gathering of LGBT-affirming ministries where a well-known gay Christian author practically begged his audience of several hundred to refrain from using “that word” in their advocacy work. It simply perpetuates the assumption that we’re different, he explained.

That’s exactly the point, as Marcella Althaus-Reid would have chimed in had she been there. We are different. And the only way to do Christian theology is from that place of difference. The “we” for Althaus-Reid didn’t mean only lesbian and gay people, nor the ones so quickly added on later, like bisexuals and transgender folks. “We” are all those who don’t fit the regulatory regimes of both state and church marked by gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class, and economics. For her, “queer” maps out a space of resistance to those regimes, not just to oppose but creatively to construct, re-imagine, and envision a different kind of world.

-Centre for Lesbian and Gay Studies, School of Religion and Ministry

Johnson doesn’t spell it out, but her understanding of “queer” was emphatically not restricted to lesbian, gay and trans – it very much included bisexual (which she was herself), and all the varieties of sexual non-conformity – she was one of the few queer theologians to include discussion of S/M  sexuality.

For her detractors, there are many counterarguments. A good friend, who knows far more about the Catholic Church and theology than I do, once described her to me quite simply as a “nutter”. Her writing has far more the character of post-modern philosophy or literary criticism than of conventional theology. Her sources are secular writing more often than they are scriptural, or based on earlier theologians. (When I read “The Queer God”, I was baffled at times by the style and the dense, sometime impenetrable writing – but equally stimulated and excited by other passages of brilliance and insight). Some would even argue that her theology is post-Christian, not Christian. For example, Rollan McCleary:

In reality, Marcella Althaus-Reid constitutes one of the strangest phenomena in the long and diverse history of Christian thought. To judge from her published works this lecturer in “Christian ethics” who dismissed the Ten Commandments as “a consensus” reflecting “elite perspectives” (2003:163) was less a spokesperson for the “indecent” or disruptive she is supposed to represent and that might have had it uses, than an unusual kind of atheist and blasphemer whose written wit and reportedly frequent laughter in person barely disguised the extent of the game she must have known she was playing. Within the increasingly effete, too often irrelevant world of theological and Queer studies she found opportunity. Her admirers, and in her last years she had them on an international scale, have been deceived or perhaps never really understood what she wrote – whole chunks of it admitted to be dense, difficult, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary based. Those who truly understood might have to be considered infidels towards the religion they profess.

Rollan’s Censored Issues Blog

But even her detractors agree on some undeniable lasting value in her work. McCleary concedes in his post,

…. even if Marcella hadn’t returned right answers she had raised pertinent questions based on experiences not to be ignored.

Related articles

• Towards Full GLBT Inclusion in Faith: Some Signs of the Times.
• Liberate Me, Liberate You: The Preferential Option for the Queer

• Marcella Althaus-Reid: Queer theology pioneer (jesusinlove.blogspot.com)
• Marcella Althaus-Reid (The Dance of the Elements)
• Vale Marcella Althaus-Reid 1952-2009 (Michael Carden’s Jottings)

Freedom of Religion… but for Christians only. 

This whole contraception debate has gotten completely out of hand. In light of the Obama Administration’s decision regarding birth control access for women employed by Catholic organizations, Catholic’s have been kicking and scream about Freedom of Religion. It seems that their main argument is that by forcing Catholic organizations to provide insurance that has the option of covering birth control for women who want it violates their religious beliefs and therefore violates the notion of religious freedom.

With that in mind, let’s turn to the even more controversial topic of abortion. Catholic’s and conservatives have made it abundantly clear that they believe and that their religion states that life begins at conception, therefore making abortions murder. This is what their religion dictates.

However, there are other religions that do not share these views.

via « Saira Says.

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. 
Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. 

John 13:34-35

I greet you in the very name of our Lord, Jesus Christ!

Difficult letters, like difficult conversations are never easy. However, God never promised us easy, and there are times when we must take up the cross and walk in faith. I write today not representing the United Methodist Church, for only General Conference can do that. So, even though I write this letter as your Bishop, I hope it will also be received as your friend in Christ.

With the signing by Governor Gregoire of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Washington as of June 7th, the state joins six others in recognizing this union. Personally, I celebrate the signing into law of the legalization of same-sex marriage for our state. It is an historic moment for the people of this geographic region, and it marks a secular turning point in the liberation of those who have too long been oppressed in our current times. I celebrate with those who will be free to enjoy equal health and security benefits through the state institution of marriage. 

I also personally grieve over our United Methodist Church polity that will not recognize same-sex marriage. I believe that it is wrong, and we should work for a more inclusive and humane response. The reason for this stance is that I believe that Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God’s divine love for the entire creation, and no one should be shut out from God’s embracing Grace. God’s Grace is so pure and encompassing that anything that attempts to limit or control this love must be transformed.

-read the full letter at  Reconciling Minisgtries Network

(emphasis added)

 

More than a thousand United Methodist clergy across the United States have signed statements committing themselves to fulfill their vow to ministry by marrying or blessing couples regardless of their gender. More than a third of the population of the United States lives where marriage or civil unions for gay and lesbian couples are legal. When parishioners come to their pastors to request that they officiate at their weddings, ministers face a conflict between their vow to minister to their whole congregation and their vow to uphold the Book of Discipline which asks them to deny ministry to some of their members.

-  Reconciling Minisgtries Network

My difficulty has not been in identifying my own thoughts. There are several clear issues that disturb me:

• As several theologians have pointed out, it is a simplistic distortion of Catholic theology to claim that providing contraceptive coverage at arm’s length, as proposed in Obama’s proposed accommodation / compromise plan, is in conflict with Catholic teaching.
• The bishops’ claims of “religious freedom” ring hollow, as they show no recognition of the religious freedom, or the freedom of conscience, of others – their employees of other faiths, or Catholics who have been led in conscience to believe there is an obligation to practice contraception (for the sake of the planet, for example, or for other reasons). Their concern is not to protect religious freedom, but to impose their views on others.
• There is a grave imbalance of priorities, here. It is remarkable that the two issues where the bishops have recently thrown themselves into the political fray in defence of religious freedom and Catholic conscience are both sexual, first gay marriage and now contraception. Why have they not been as equally outspoken in defence of Catholic conscience on other matters where public policy clearly contravenes Catholic teaching – the death penalty, the war in Iraq, or the assault on labour unions?
• It is particularly bizarre that their activism on sexual matters is in a field where as celibate men, they have no personal experience of loving sexual relationships to inform their thinking. This is one area above all others, where they should be listening to other Catholics, not simply preaching to them.

My difficulty has been in supporting and substantiating my views, not simply articulating them. I had hoped to share with you important and informed commentary from around the web, leading you to writing better informed than my own, by theologians and writers actually in the US. But I found I was tying myself in knots, drowning in the sheer volume of high quality material around. It became as much as I could do to keep up myself, let alone organize any of the material into a coherent post. Besides, why re-invent the wheel?

One of the things that Bill Lindsey at Bilgrimage is superbly good at, is precisely this: locating and pointing to intelligent comment elsewhere, so I have given up any thoughts of doing it myself. If you go to Bill’s site, you will find not only this own thoughts, but summaries and extensive links to the best of  what is available anywhere.

So, in a series of posts below, I have purloined the openings or other extracts of several of Bill’s recent posts. Read them in full, follow his links, and you will have read comprehensive coverage of what has been written on this sad story of the Catholic bishops’ assault on the religious freedom of others, in defence of their own.

]]> http://queeringthechurch.com/2012/02/18/us-bishops-selective-simplistic-uproar-over-conscience/feed/ 1 http://queeringthechurch.com/2012/02/18/us-bishops-religious-freedom-health-care-omnibus-commentary-part-1/ http://queeringthechurch.com/2012/02/18/us-bishops-religious-freedom-health-care-omnibus-commentary-part-1/#comments Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:50:19 +0000 Terence Weldon http://queeringthechurch.com/?p=22167

Robert McClory on the Embarrassment the Catholic Bishops Have Become (and How They’ve Gotten There).

Robert McClory at National Catholic Reporter writing about the U.S. Catholic bishops and what an embarrassment their campaign for “religious freedom” is for many American Catholics:

There is, of course, a reason why this sort of thing happens. An institution that is closed at the top makes decisions entirely through the deliberation of a carefully selected, all-male elite and feels no obligation to consult the voice of the church body is almost guaranteed to engage in foolhardy campaigns and come up with misguided strategies. Generally when this does occur, only Catholics are aware because the subject doesn’t affect non-Catholics, much less get into the middle of a national political campaign. But this one does. Everyone can enter the debate while puzzling over the fractured church we have.

For most Catholics, I think, it is indeed an embarrassment.

-Bilgrimage

Two Pictures, Two Thousand Words: Congressional Hearing on Religious Liberty.

As Pema Levy notes at Talking Points Memo today, the picture at the head of the posting is from yesterday’s Congressional hearing about “religious liberty,” and has been circulating all over the Internet since the hearings were convened.

Can you imagine why?  Do you spot anything remarkable in this picture of men people gathered for an official hearing to talk about the healthcare needs of women?

Andrew Sullivan features the same picture today in a posting about the hearings that he entitles “Mad Men.”

And here’s another picture from the same Congressional hearing that is also featured in Levy’s article:

- Bilgrimage

This Just in: USCCB Legal Counsel Anthony Picarello Tells Media Bishops “Will Not Relent”.

This just in: right-wing propagandist legal counsel to the U.S. Catholic bishops Anthony Picarello informed reporters today that the U.S. Catholic bishops “will not relent” on their refusal to accept the Obama administration’s offer of a compromise in their ginned-up contraception war.

This statement comes at the same time that the USCCB’s “religious freedom” head honcho, Bishop William Lori, testified before a Congressional committee headed by Republican Rep. Issa from which women were deliberately excluded, as Issa deemed them “not qualified” to address the issue of birth control.

And the statement comes as well on the same day that His Eminence Donald Cardinal Wuerl wrote in the Washington Post that “[w]hat is at stake here is a question of human freedom.”

via Bilgrimage

Contraception Battles: More Commentary Hot off the Presses.

I can’t avoid that news, because it’s everywhere these days, from an article today at Alternet by Adele Stan about how the bishops’ political powerlessness has been definitively exposed, to  a similar statement by Joe Conason at Truthdig, to a piece by Gene Lyons at Salon about the bishops’ cynical political power play and how it (and the response of “liberal” co-belligerent Catholics) exposes Catholic hypocrisy at its worst, to Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches unmasking the dirty “abortion pill” lie that the bishops and their “liberal” Catholic co-belligerent allies keep trying to shop around to conflate contraception and abortion in the current manufactured political controversy.

-Bilgrimage