DADT, Gay Marriage: Who cares?

Last week wasn't very good as far as blog posts went. And I'm sorry for that. This week, I've got three posts already written.  This one is considered "timely," as my Examiner.com editors like to say.



A while ago, I wrote an article about gay marriage in New York.  It was entitled: Gay Marriage, so what?  I suspect you can guess what my general conclusions were.



I collect all sorts of weird articles, and magazines.  On the one hand, I could read Guns and Ammo, then the Spring catalog for a major publisher, then Time Magazine (until they went anti-Semite), the list goes on.



One such magazine is Salute, the magazine of the archdiocese for the military services, USA.



Yes, the military has their own archdiocese.



In their Summer, 2011 issue, there was a statement from Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, the Archbishop for USA military services.

His statement was two pages long, and here's an excerpt ...

"The church is unwavering in her commitment to the pastoral care of all persons in need, regardless of sexual inclination or anything else.  All people in need are served by Catholc Chaplains with zeal and passion for bringing the reality of the Risen Lord to all.  Whether Don't ask don't tell persists or not is immaterial to that bedrock principle.  The faithful .... must never forget that those with a homosexual inclination must be treated with the respect worthy of their human dignity."  [Typed by hand, any typos are mine]

In short: that's nice, we don't care if they're outed, it doesn't matter to us.



The message then cited Federal law (1 USC subection 7)... which I believe is commonly known as the defense of marriage act (DOMA).



So, "yes, you have DADT repealed. Who cares? We don't like it, but we're not going to marry gays, and you're not going to make us. We can continue, business as usual."  Everyone can move on.



Which is pretty much what I said the first time about gay marriage.



It's so nice when the Catholic Church listens to me.

[More below the break]



Then, on September 30th, the Pentagon issued an order allowing all military clergy to perform gay marriage ceremonies ....



The response of Broglio?  It's pretty much the same. Not to mention, there is still DOMA.  It's a federal law.  How can a federal agency allow the existence of something that, legally, does not exist at the federal level?



And, come April, 2012, what will happen when all of the gay married couples file joint income tax? The IRS cannot acknowledge them -- the IRS is a federal agency.  Accountant friends (and relative) are already saying that the IRS will not accept joint filings from any of the new marriages from New York (et al) between two men, or two women.



Not to mention .... the military has bases all over the 50 states. Gay marriage is only passed in about ... Five? (CA, VT, MA, NY, HI).  Isn't that a bit of a problem? And arguing that they are federal institutions is a problem, when you consider that, again, DOMA is federal law. State laws do not matter in this instance.



Is it just me, or did someone not think this through?



As I said the first time: I'll start to care about gay marriage when someone comes after religion in its name.



I don't care just yet. Initial reports of this story said that "military chaplains are being forced to marry homosexual couples."  I cared for about five minutes, then I looked for more footnotes.



However, now that I found that it "allowed" gay marriage, instead of "requiring" clergy to perform them, I'm back to not caring. Though the legal situation is going to be hilarious.

FCBD Story: One Way To Stay out of Jail.

If you are new to the blog page in support of my novel A Pius Man, welcome.  If you've been here before, welcome back.

Today's free comic book day story has been brought to you ... with a lot of last-minute photoshopping.

This is basically how Sean A.P. Ryan, self-described mercenary and lunatic, manages to collect enough partners to

This story is called, simply  "One Way to Stay Out of Jail."  The star of this story is one Sean Ryan, who appears in A Pius Man and has already had a few short stories all his own: The Pirate King, the surprisingly popular Boys of the Old Brigade, and God Hates .... Superman?.  He's one of my more colorful characters.  Unlike Scott "Mossad" Murphy, who likes to go unnoticed, Sean has a tendency to leave behind evidence of his presence.  One can usually follow him if one just runs towards the screaming.... Oh, wait, wrong blog.

And, for the record, the complete list of stories is here.

Also, hang around for some of our trailers, below the story.

And here we go...

One Way to Stay Out of Jail



A trailer for the book proper.






Thanks to the Gepetto Project for this one:




My character, Scott Murphy .... he's around the site. You'll enjoy him. [Thanks again to http://www.matthewfunti.me/ for the voice work.]

Snarky Theolgy 6: Easter: HE IS RISEN

Today's work of art is provided by the ever-charitable Matthew Funtime.  I don't know about you, but I find it funny as heck.  But then again, I am quite possibly a sick, sick man.



And it's Easter, so there.



When I first started this blog series, I promised you I would introduce you to the rabbit hole that is my faith, but I wouldn't shove anything down your throat as far as my belief in it.  This still holds. I'm going to do a little walkthrough on the story of Easter Sunday.  Pretty much it.



As mentioned in my surprisingly popular blog post on Lent, Easter is more of an estimated time, and it's conveniently located at the start of spring.  Or, if you live on the East coat of the United States, when spring is supposed to start.  It was put in near Passover, and there were a whole bunch of computations put into the matter that I don't pretend to understand. 



I want to say it was programmed up against a pagan Roman festival of Ester, though I think I may have had my wires crossed there, if only because the Catholic church did something similar with Christmas, put up against Saturnalia, a pagan feast that involved an orgy of food and drink and other things that happen at orgies -- it's still celebrated as the office Christmas party.



Anyway ....



So, when last we left our Deity, He was about six feet under.  More accurately, He had been put into a cave, a tomb on loan to him from Joseph of Aramathea -- a wealthy businessman, disciple of Jesus, and he was either unconcerned about sharing a crypt, or he figured he'd only be loaning it out.



Also, someone was intelligent.  When Jesus was put into the crypt, one of the Sanhedrin suggested that "Well, this Jesus guy hinted that if we put Him into the ground, He'd come back.  Might we suggest a few guards to make certain that none of the groupies steal the body?"



Since politics were, in large part, the reason for putting Him into the ground in the first place [see last week], this seems like a reasonable suggestion.  If Fred Phelps ever made a suggestion about coming back from the dead, when he died, I'd want an armed guard just to make sure he'd stay in the ground, one way or another.



Also, while Jesus was getting the heck beaten out of Him, His acquaintances, are, largely, nowhere to be seen.  The women in His life are the only ones who moved within swinging distance. His Number Two man has already sworn up down and sideways that "Nope, don't know Him, never saw Him, no idea what you're talking about, bye," thereby setting a standard that church bureaucrats never fail to live up to.



So, the moral of the story thus far is that you can be a good little boy all your life, and still get nailed to a set of 2x4s, while all of your friends pretend you never existed. 



Sounds like high school. 



So, this God is so wimpy, weak, and pathetic that He gets publicly humiliated, whipped, beaten, and publicly executed next to the Hekyll and Jekyll of death row, and His backup are rejects from the Keystone Kops.



Let's say that it's about thirty-six hours after the 2x4s when the story gets interesting.  Mainly because the Twelve apostles are (1) down to Eleven and (2) are busy hiding in their hotel room, hoping that they don't find themselves in a similar position to the guy they'd been hanging out with for the previous three years.



Maybe they didn't think the crypt had seating for twelve.



So, the Roman soldiers are on guard at the tomb, like most guards, are bored out of their mind.  They don't fall asleep, because Roman soldiers are, more or less, the equivalent of marines, only the penalties for slacking off on duty are tougher.  Much tougher. 



And then ... why did the earth just move, and why is the tomb now empty?



I don't need to be a mind reader, a psychic, or posess any measure of ESP to telling you exactly what went through the minds of those soldiers at that moment. 



"No es in profundus feces."



Or, in English: "Oh darn.  We're in trouble."



Hmm, now what?  These Romans, who have been shipped to the back end of the Empire, have no interest in taking any more abuse from the locals, and really didn't want to be parked in front of a grave all night long in the first place, probably pondered their options.  They could either (A)  go to their nearest Centurion (Sergeant), and get the heck kicked out of them, or, (B) "You know, those old Jewish guys wanted the dead guy watched.  Maybe they can come up with something."  The story goes that the Sanhedrin came up with something perfectly reasonable -- "Just say you fell asleep, the body was stolen, and here's monetary compensation.  Since, let's face it, if you say that the guy just vanished from the crypt, well, what's Latin for 'funny farm'?  Yes you'll get a beatdown, but this should make it worth your while."



A few hours later, after dawn, two of Jesus' closest female associates come up to the tomb and find it empty.



Their first thought: "They stole Jesus!  Those bastards!"



Soon after, Jesus pops up again.  "Yes, I was dead, but I'm feeling much better."



In theory, it could have been mass hysteria and people seeing things ... but no one ever hallucinates the same thing when there's mass hysteria.



Also, I'm trying to imagine those eleven boneheads called the apostles sitting in a room.  Their dead friend came in, walked through the wall, had an extended chat with them, and ... they never compared notes on what just happened?  Not impossible; the apostles were never a brain trust, but I think something like that would make most people take a step back, reevaluate their sanity, and compare notes....



And, of course, someone could have stolen the body ... why they would have stolen the body would make sense if I could believe any of the original bozos as having the potential to be Fred Phelps in progress.  After all, if Jesus didn't pop up of His own accord, it would have been obvious that, nope, no Messiah here.  They would KNOW that they were part of a fraud, risking their necks for a hoax. So, that would be sort of stupid.



The only reason I can come up with to disappear the body would be as part of as a massive power play ... Considering all of the candidates for such a conspiracy ended up being crucified, fed to the lions, and having been immortalized in the Bible as not being the brightest lights in the night sky, I'm thinking .... no.  After all, the apostle Peter turned out to be the leader of this ragtag bunch of fishermen and ex-thieves.  His nickname translated as "The Rock," or "Rocky," or, perhaps most accurately, "Rockhead."  He ended up being crucified himself.



Welcome to the moral of Easter: you have Heaven and Glory ... though you're still going to have to go through a Good Friday of your own, even if it's only death.



Narrative-wise, the Easter story makes sense.  The story is now back when the Bible begins.  As we see in Genesis, the point is ..... People Are Stupid ("I tell you don't eat the apples, was that so hard?").  And that the God of Abraham does not come in a show of force.  He comes in a gentle breeze.  He doesn't pick an empire and adopt it, but a bunch of nomads and farmers.  He picks a stuttering nervous wreck found floating on the Nile.  He picks the smallest and weakest boy of a family of brothers, from the smallest tribe.  You have the thing with the 2x4s, and the Twelve morons.  And there were more wars for survival fought over the years, it looks like everything AFTER the 2x4s meant a problem once every hundred years or so.



Welcome to the Catholic church.  Everywhere you don't want us to be....



What, you thought I was going to end on an uplifting, soulful note?  Sorry, wrong blog.



This concludes my Snarky Theology posts.  I hope you've enjoyed reading them.  I've enjoyed them so much ...



I hope to never do it again. Thank you.



Next week, I will not be doing a blog.  I will post a short story.  One for Sean A.P. Ryan.  Which means there will be blood.



A Pius Man, slipping theology and history in between the gunshots since ... well, whenever I get published.



See you next week.

Guest Blog: Murder in the Vatican Author Ann Margaret Lewis.

Welcome to the blog for my novel A Pius Man.



The Good News: No Snarky Theology this week.  After Communion, Lent, Sex, and Evolution, I'm taking a break.



The Even Better News: Today, we have a guest blog from Murder in the Vatican author Ann Margaret Lewis.



Since Murder in the Vatican deals with tales from the Sherlock Holmes canon that involve Holmes working with Leo XIII, I asked if she could blog about history in fiction, religious historical character in fiction, or "something like that".   As you can see, I was very helpful about picking out a topic for her.



The below was the result.



For the record, I have not doctored or altered her text in any way.  In fact, the only "edit" I made was that she insert some hyperlink footnotes to some of her statements.



And, here we go.

With Religious Characters, Honesty is the Best Policy

Ann Margaret Lewis

You can’t help but notice: people of religious faith make popular villains—especially with secular publishers and film studios. From The Three Musketeers and Hunchback of Notre Dame, to DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. From the Godfather series, to even Charles Dickens’ Pickwick Papers. From Voltaire’s Tartuffe, to TV shows like Showtime’s Borgias and films, comic books and animated films like Happy Feet. The list goes on and on.



So it’s safe to say that making a villain a person of religious conviction isn’t an unusual convention. A great source of conflict and interest is a character who goes against their own supposed principles, or warps them to their own ends. And in any case, to many in the secular world, someone who believes something to the exclusion of all else, someone who isn’t a relativist, has to be close-minded bigot, right?



On the contrary, having principles and sticking by them does not always mean that. Real people are not so cut and dried. What one needs to be, when creating characters and even creating their villains, is honest. Otherwise, the whole convention just gets to be….well…cliché.



When I wrote Murder in the Vatican, I did my best to portray Pope Leo XIII in a way that was, I hope, honest. I would be just as honest in writing about a shameful pope like Alexander VI. But I wasn’t interested in a crummy pope. I’ll leave that for Showtime to cover (yawn). Our secular culture is so hungry to see religious figures as corrupt, they rewrite history to try to turn those who were fine people into villains—as is this case of the pope of this blog, Venerable Pius XII. And not just he, but Benedict XVI as well—if he isn’t a Nazi (here Benedict’s the story in his own words), then he’s a protector of paedophiles (never mind that he was one of the one’s trying to do right in that regard).



So it stands to reason that I decided to do something—well—different—to go against the grain. The religious folks in my book aren’t the villains. While, Pope Leo is a man of his time, he is also a man of the future in thought. He was a son of a noble family, quite different from his predecessor and successor (Pius IX and Piux X) both of whom came from humbler beginnings. Perhaps that is why Leo has not been put on the sainthood track, though his care for the poor and the working class was legendary. But I realized through simple research, all I had to do was write Leo as he was to the best of my ability to have an interesting character.



Sherlock Holmes himself says in the story “A Case of Identity”—“Life is infinitely stranger than the mind of man can invent.” I would suggest to the would-be storytellers of the world that before you go with the tired cliché of a corrupt religious character, try making them three dimensional, tell the truth about them. Give them a point of sympathy, for most humans have one. It is far more satisfying for your readers/viewers (not to mention less bigoted).

About the Author: Ann Margaret Lewis

Born and raised in Waterford, Michigan, Ann Margaret Lewis attended Michigan State University, where she received her Bachelor's degree in English Literature. She began her writing career writing tie-in children’s books and short stories for DC Comics. Before Murder in the Vatican: The Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes, she published a second edition of her book, Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Alien Species, for Random House.

Ann is a classically trained soprano, and has performed around the New York City area. She has many interests from music to art history, to theology and all forms of literature. She is the President of the Catholic Writers Guild, an international organization for Catholic Writers and the coordinator of the Catholic Writers Conference LIVE. After living in New York City for fifteen years, Ann moved to Indianapolis, Indiana with her husband Joseph Lewis and their son, Raymond. Together they enjoy their life in the heartland.

Snarky Theology 4: "Things that go boink in the night." Catholicism on Sex and Gays

This one may have slightly less snark.  We'll see how it turns out.



I hear from a lot of people that the Catholic Church is obsessed with sex.  I usually hear this from people who aren't Catholic, or Catholics who haven't been to church since they left their parents' basement.  I've been going to church every Sunday for about 20 years.  That's approximately a 1300 masses, with holy days ... and I'm adding this note at 2:30 in the morning, so don't nitpick my math ....



In all 1300 masses, I don't think I've never heard the priest talk about sex unless there was a reading that involved adultery, or someone begetting someone else.



This month, I turn 29. I believe I am one of the few male beings on the planet, and maybe the only person in New York City, who is deliberately a virgin.



I put special emphasis on deliberately, since being one involuntarily is not really that impressive for a nerd of my caliber. I've been given the option, and I have expressly said no.  I don't think this is a gloating matter, and I don't mean it to be "Haha, I'm more virtuous than you," I mean it more in the context of "Whew, I dodged a bullet."



My reasons for avoiding sex are numerous. For starters, I'm not married.  I have personal reasons (I've met too many people where sex has taken normal people with slight personality quirks, and turned them into full-on neurotic messes). I have practical reasons (my parents are both in the medical field, and I ask far too many questions when I'm at a microbiology conference--did you know that there are 25 difference STDs, 50 with varying mutations, and that condoms have an 85% failure rate against pregnancies, and viruses are many, many times smaller than a sperm cell? Oy!)



Also: I've got this strange notion from my philosophy and my faith that has said that, “Sex should be the perfect union of two people, so that they are linked biologically, psychosomatically, psychologically, and spiritually, making them one.  You don't do that with just anybody.”



Hey, I warned you I was a romantic sap. You should expect some of this tripe every so often.



But this is just me. What about the Church of Rome?



Oh, yeah, apologetics.



My last, "philosophical / religion" position, is the same position of the Catholic Church, which isn't half as obsessed with sex as the average American. To expand on that original premise, sex should be such a perfect union, only undertaken by two people in a committed relationship. And, sex should also fulfill all of its natural functions.  I briefly covered this topic before.



Thus, the Roman Catholic Church is the only one where sex is a sacrament.... Something blessed by Christ that gives god’s grace



Yes, you read that right. You get married, you are supposed to have sex. Children should be an end result, but timing is everything, isn't it? There are usually enough signs and portents in the average hormone cycle that self control is the best method of birth control available.



For the record: sterility doesn't really enter into the equation. The married couple having sex is doing everything right, it's just a matter of equipment failure.



And now you know everything about the Church's, um, position on sex … Tab A goes into Slot B.  The Church doesn't care where else it stops on the way, it doesn't care if whips, chains, exhibitionism, or anything else is involved, as long as the end result adds up to Tab A in Slot B.  It doesn't matter how it starts, it matters where you finish. 



And, personally, not only do I not care, I don't want to know.



In sum: sex that has no possibility of procreation is considered a deliberate violation of the natural order of things, and hence considered a sin.  Save sex for marriage, and after that, knock yourself out.  Have fun. Thank you, the end, goodbye ....



What? You mean I missed something?



Q: “What about the pill?”



A: Sigh ...



To start with, even environmentalists are wary about the pill.  Something about chemicals and the environment.  I'm not big into the Green movement, so find one of the Green people to explain this. 



Aside from medical purposes, the Church doesn't like the pill; to start with, it's tinkering with natural body chemistry, and I have to tell you, the warning labels scare the crap out of me. And, I already told you, marriage is a contract to have children—unless the pill is for a medical purpose, like to correct an aspect of body chemistry that's out of whack, Catholic married people don't need it, do they?



Q: “What about condoms?” Again, marriage, contract, children.  Tab A into Slot B. 



A: Let's look at something ELSE the Pope said about contraceptives, aside from the Condom article.  "If we separate sexuality and fecundity from each other in principle ... then sexuality becomes arbitrary.  Logically, every form of sexuality is of equal value."



In English: when you separate sex from producing children, sleeping with a hooker has just as much value as sleeping with your wife.  They both have the same outcomes, and are treated with just as much responsibility.  Separate sex from reproduction, and now you can introduce animals and batteries into the conversation.



Q: "But maybe I don't want to have children right now, and I am married, and no one has an STD?"



A: Okay, fine, if you want to drag this out.....



What do you call a girl who uses the rhythm method of birth control?  Pregnant. We've all heard this joke, and there are probably priests who've told this joke.  The rhythm method is so broken, it's not funny.  There is something called natural family planning, which requires observation of natural body functions, and self control.  Please look it up yourself, I am not going into those details here on this blog, thank you very much.  Though I should note that it has a success rate against pregnancies that is somewhere in the mid-90% range. 



To quote the pope (Yes, I'm whipping out the Pope here), the Church goes for

"natural regulation of conception, which is not just a method, but also a way of life.  Because it presupposes that couples take time for each other.  And that is something fundamentally different from when I take the pill without binding myself interiorly to another person, so that I can jump into bed with a random acquaintance."

IE: If you don't want to have children, use your brain, and keep it zipped for a few days, okay?  Thanks.



Bye.  We're done. Good day.



Q; “But I'm not married, but I want to have sex. That means I should ditch both the pill and condoms, right?”



A: All right, fine.  I'm going to bash my head against a wall a little.



Keep it zipped if you're not married is the Church's position. As I already mentioned in my Church, Sex and Latex article, if you're already committing a sin (like, you know, non-marital sexual affairs, or even, God save us, extra-marital affairs), taking precautions to mitigate side-effects of your screwing around would be a good idea.



Q: “Are you judging me?” 



A: I don't know how many times I can say that, 1) I don't care  2) I'm only explaining aspects of my religion, and 3) as far as judgement goes, I already did that article.  I've been asked these questions a lot.  And very often, I have to say it a few times.



Q:  "But what about this fling I had"---



A: Let me stop you right there, and see if I can issue a generic statement that should cover a lot of things.



Can we agree that somethings are better than others?  Dark Chocolate better than milk chocolate, or New York Pizza versus California pizza, or ... you get the idea.



As far as sex goes, it was once broken down for me like this ... think of this as the only secular portion of this blog.



Solo <   $ <   One Night <  Friends w/Benefits <    Girlfriend <    Committed Relationship <  Marriage.



And if I have to translate that into English for you, forget it. This blog has been PG in language since the start, I'm not having it go into an R rating now.



Even Matt, who is an atheist, and as far as I can get from Catholic theology, has also noted that a committed relationship is better than occasional flings ... And he's made this argument from experience.  I guess I'm not the only romantic sap around here.



Oh, yeah, and Matt's position is basically a secular version of the Catholic Church's.  Again, Rome prefers a committed relationship that lasts for, oh, life.  But welcome to America, where the divorce rate is a little over 40%



Q: "The Divorce rate is over 60%, isn't it?"  



A:  Not if you take out all of the repeat customers to the lawyer's office (thank you to my friend Jason for that number).  Next topic?



Q “What about gays? Why does the church hate them?”



A: ..... 



The Catholic Church hates nobody.  If it makes you feel any better, if I get any more stupid questions, I will hate you.



Let's go straight to the videotape.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible ... They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.  These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives."

Yes, we really hate gays, don't we?



Q:  "Then what's the Catholic issue with Gays?"



Here's the part where the Church and gays might, conceivably, have an issue:



Back to the Catechism.  "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture .... tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."



Yes, that's the harshest word that Catholics have towards gays: disordered.  Ooooo, let's call out the SWAT team... And when you consider that the American Psychological Association had homosexuality down as a psychological disorder until a couple of decades ago, I wonder where we got the term from .....



Here's a question for you, dear reader: What do the gay commentator and playwright Harvey Fierstein, Lesbian Lawyer and ex-NOW (CA) President Tammy Bruce, and the Pope all have in common?



They really don't like gay lifestyles …



Nope, I'm not joking.



With Fierstein, a little background.  Fierstein was picketed for a brief period of time in the early 1980s, because he had come out with a play that had three, monogamous, gay couples ... he was picketed by gays, who protested on the grounds that "We can have sex with anyone at anytime, we don't need to be tied down to one person!"



Then newspaper stories on AIDS came out soon after, and monogamy became very popular.



More recently, Fierstein has noted that the trends have come back.  He's written in the New York Times about a trend of gay youth that says “Hey, if you get AIDS, that means you have become a man!” Apparently, according to Fierstein, the triple cocktail and other AIDS medications have made AIDS "trendy"—the infected can live for decades, so now it's “just a status symbol.”  Fierstein's a little nervous of such "trends." 



Lesbian, Lawyer, and ex-NOW California President Tammy Bruce has noted that this thought process of "Hey!  AIDS won't kill you immediately" has led to another trend—multiple partners a year, with numbers in the triple-digits.



While, on the other hand, you have the Catholic church running clinics that take care of 25% of all AIDS victims on the planet, and 40% of those infected in Africa.



Now, if you go from the Catholic position on sex, you can understand why the church doesn't like gay sex.  The distinction usually made that that the Church dislikes the actions, not the people committing the acts.  Hence why on one hand, we should care for the people, but the actions are "disordered."  The older summation of this idea (going back 1500 years) is: "Error has no rights, but people do."



Also, let me note something.  Last time I checked, the Catholic Church has never utilized stoning as an official punishment for, well, anything.  We don't kill people for being something -- being gay is not a sin.  Thank you.



Q: "So, what? That means you're going to legislate who people love?" 



A: Me? Personally? I don't care.  I'll say it until I'm blue in the face.  Sleep with whoever you like, just don't tell me about it the morning after.  This goes for you straight people, too. 



In fact, since there are more straight people than gays, this goes double for you.



Again, it's not about who loves who.  It's more lifestyle issues.



Q: "So, basically, that means that all gays should become virgin priests?" 



It's not required.  Though it's not out of the question, because a lot of gays are following that route. 



According to statistics from Fr. Andrew M. Greeley, PhD (Sociology, U of Chicago), about 10% of the priesthood is gay, and keeping it zipped. (I'll see if I can find a link for this, I remember this from an article of his a few years ago -- and you type in "gay" and "Catholic" into a search engine, see what screwed up stuff you get).



Q: So, pedophilia ...?

A: Separate question, separate article. I'm blogging as fast as I can.  Short version from the Church: pedophilia bad.  Personally: If I had my way, sharp objects and kerosene will be involved ... but no one asks my opinion.



I think that just about covers it.  Any other questions can be asked in my comments.  If you have issues with how I have translated Italian, religious Bureaucratic-Speak into Plain English, comment.  If you have complaints about the content of what I have said, take it up with the Vatican. 



HOWEVER, keep it civil.  I've never said it before, but before the little exchange of words over Lent, I never felt the need to.  I did not delete any of the comments from the Lent article, because I didn't tell people "no profanity," and I wasn't going to pull a bait and switch.   Now, you have been warned.



Keep in mind, next week we will have a guest blog from Ann Margaret Lewis, an interview with her, and a review of her novel Murder in the Vatican: The Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes.

Catholic Conspiracies II: Revenge of the Vatican Ninjas.

Last week, I mentioned that the vast, massive conspiracy theories about the Catholic Church amuse me. I discussed some specific issues and theories, but I find them all funny, almost no matter the details. Why?

Dear God in Heaven, where do I start?



The theories are so ludicrous, I hardly know where to begin.



SECRET SOCIETIES



One running theme of most of the conspiracy theories is that there is a “conspiracy of silence” running around within the Vatican, the hierarchy, an order, pick one or all. This pops up in almost any fiction where a Catholic priest appears.



Given the news of the last decade, anyone should see an immediate problem. Not only does the Church of Rome write everything down, they never throw anything out. This is a bureaucracy that has held onto the divorce petition from Henry VIII of England, written in the early 16th century.  We've held onto it for nearly five hundred years, and we haven't thrown it out yet.



If there were a conspiracy in the church, there will likely be paperwork to document it, and they'd hold onto it with their dying breath. Bad habit for a conspiracy.



But, the way I look at it, the Vatican is essentially the world's biggest marble office building, complete with Dilberts and the occasional pointy-haired boss … or pointy-hatted boss.



In the current day and age, any bureaucracy can keep a secret for a few years. But two thousand? Really?



My major problem with that idea isn't so much a matter of my religious background (Catholic), my educational background (history and Philosophy), or anything of the sort. Bureaucracies tend to leak like a sieve. Even the army and law enforcement.



The FBI spawned Deepthroat—a loser who got passed over for promotion.



The Pentagon—Pentagon papers, anyone?



Most intelligence agencies have politicians in the mix somewhere, so that'll screw over practically anyone …



You can have whistle blowers in practically any organization...



The Catholic Church is also a bureaucracy. One disgruntled employee is all you need. End of secret.



Last week, I mentioned that one organization in the Church people like to pick on is the Society of Jesus, a.k.a., the Jesuits.



The Jesuits started as a missionary order, and tended to go out to new worlds, seek out new civilizations, boldly go where no man had gone before … and sometimes get eaten by the locals. Now a teaching order, they've spawned more stupidity than orthodoxy in the Church. If you look up Liberation Theology, Jesuits had a hand in spawning that steaming pile of theological gruel--a gruel that has been banned by every Pope since its inception.



The other order that conspiracy theorists like to shoot at is the Opus Dei … Where do I start? According to reporter John A. Allen, all you need to do to get the Opus Dei to open up is buy them a few rounds. Then the trouble becomes trying to shut them up.



And the biggest problem with using them in a conspiracy: Opus Dei is primarily a lay organization. Of it's nearly 90,000 members, only 2% are priests. I'm sorry, a Catholic organization of civilians are going to be privy to ancient secrets and conspiracies? There is a disconnect here.



THE MUSCLE



Also, I have another problem, one that has great big flashing red lights. All of these big secrets, threats to the Catholic Church, maybe even all of Christendom, are being eliminated. Lives are snuffed out, voices silenced.



Depending on who you ask, Catholics killed President Lincoln and JFK, and we're pulling the strings behind President Obama.



With the tinfoil helmet brigade, the Vatican is so scary, covers up so much, silences so many, controls so much of the planet even in THIS day and age.  Then we have to have muscle men.  We must have kneebreakers  This must mean that the Pope has his own personal assassination squad. People to kill at the nod of his pointy hat … wait.



Matt's Vatican Ninja rendering

Does this mean … that the Vatican has Ninjas?



Hmm, Vatican Ninjas … I wondered why all of those ancient Soviet leaders dropped dead after John Paul II was shot.

I can see it now. Dark, shadowy figures clad in the blue and gold colors of the Swiss Guard. Each of them either Swiss with Special Forces background, or former soldiers who join the priesthood. Once they join the shadowy ranks of the Papal hitmen, they are taught to kill up close with a rosary-garrote. When you turn your back, they smack you over the head with a halberd.  For longer distances, a boomerang shaped like a cross comes out of the darkness and takes down armed guards (It worked in the video game Castlevania).

 

And maybe, just maybe, they can have Throwing Stars of David for every time they worked with the Mossad.

Vatican Ninjas would be awesome!

I want my Vatican Ninjas!

Sigh … I guess I'll have to write my own.

How would I do it?  Simple: the Catholic Church has a screening process to weed out psychos, pederasts, etc.  That's why the majority of bad priests were ordained before the new screening process was installed (I say "new screening process", but it came out in the early 90s).  If I wanted to create actual Vatican Ninjas, I would forward all of the "psycho" pile to a special division, where they can weed out the "special" ones, ones that can be sent to training to Kill For the Lord!  Muahahahaha! 

Problem: who wants a psycho as a hirling?  Seriously?  While the priesthood MUST, statistically, get some nutjobs applying to their ranks, who'd want to bring in a crazy who's impossible to control?  I mean, that's as out there as having an assassin who is a psychotic albino monk with a bad limp ....



Oh, wait, nevermind.

The biggest problem: back to the pointy-hatted Dilbert boss, and the Vatican bureaucracy.  If there were Vatican Ninjas, there would be enough memoirs from them by now to fill a library.

End of the day, the vast conspiracies around and about the Vatican are laughable. In America, our Bishops don't have the charisma to lead a pack of vampires to a blood bank.  Trying to get people to actually teach the faith correctly seems to be impossible (my Catholic schools were nothing to write home about). We can hardly get Cardinals to line up in a row, or organize halfway decent public relations, yet the Vatican is supposed to be leading the charge to take over the world.

Right now, I would sooner believe in a "conspiracy" once jokingly suggested to me by R. Hendershot: that Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyer are in a plot to overhype their books to the entire universe.

However, if there is someone out there in charge of accounting for this vast, Roman Catholic conspiracy, I want a paycheck. Thank you.

 

And this is my rendering of a Vatican Ninja.

This is why I'm grateful to Matt.

And what am I going to be doing tonight?

Why, what I do every night …

TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!



On paper.

With my Vatican Ninjas.

Muahaha.

The Pirate King, a Story of Sean A.P. Ryan.

One of my characters in A Pius Man is self-described mercenary Sean A.P. Ryan.  He enjoys long walks on the beach, heavy caliber machine guns, and the screams of his enemies as he dangles them off the roof of a skyscraper.



This is one of his stories.



The Pirate King

A Pius Synopsis

The below is basically how the fly leaf of a A Pius Man dustjacket would look like.

*******************************



A Pius Man is a mystery with too many suspects.



In Rome, an old terrorist is blown out the window of a hotel and crash-lands on a car at the gates of the Vatican. A figure in a priest’s robes is seen running from the scene. But the body on the windshield is just the beginning for a team of six unlikely investigators from around the world. Each pair of hands on this case has a past, and a few secrets … and an axe to grind. They don’t want to work together. They don’t want this case.



And one of them just might be the killer.



Is it....



Sean Ryan, an American stuntman turned mercenary and self-described “cleanser of the gene pool”? He’s supposed to be in Rome to train priests in combat, and old habits die hard.



Then there’s Giovanni Figlia, a homicide cop for the Pope who fears only paperwork. He was best known for starting soccer games with bishops in the Borgia gardens … until the corpse landed on the hood of his Jetta.



Could it be a former U.S. Army chaplain who was meeting with the murdered man on a weekly basis? Did the Jesuit priest who’s killed men with his bare hands know that his weekly luncheon date had just murdered a researcher in the Vatican Archives?



And what about Scott "Mossad" Murphy of Israeli intelligence’s “Goyim Brigade”? He and his partner are in the middle of investigating another murder at the Vatican … this one a high-ranking Muslim leader with connections to al Qaeda.



Into this mix comes Maureen McGrail, an Irish Interpol agent with a bitter past with Sean Ryan. She’s working her own murder case, related to the controversial canonization of Pope Pius XII, sometimes known as “Hitler’s Pope.” And guess who Interpol wants to send to Rome … ?



And the final, most distressing suspect is Joshua Kutjok....aka Pope Pius XIII, a right-wing African pope with rumors of blood in his past and the stated goal of turning “Hitler’s Pope” into the “Hero of the Holocaust.” To accomplish this goal, he’s already let terrorists into the Vatican Archives … would he kill a man who stood in his way?



In A Pius Man, six unlikely heroes must work together to unravel a web of intrigue and murder that entwines one of the most controversial figures of the twentieth century. Was Pius XII a Nazi collaborator who deliberately let millions of Jews die? Has the Vatican covered up the truth for more than 60 years? Or has someone perpetrated a decades-long smear campaign? And what will happen to six strangers trying to finally bring the truth to light?

"Where do they get those wonderful toys?" The Weapons of A Pius Man, an Illustrated Guide

The Weapons of A Pius Man: An Illustrated Guide