Heisman Hijinks and Jordan Lynch

Jordan Lynch
Northern Illinois Quarterback

At this time of the year Heisman hysteria dominates college football.  Will Johnny Manziel repeat after being the first freshman in history to win the trophy? Or will Florida State's accomplished quarterback, Jameis Winston, join the ranks of Archie Griffin and Bo Jackson? And what about my favorite, Jordan Lynch, Northern Illinois' record-setting quarterback?

Perhaps the more important question is: will the Heisman voters follow the intent of Heisman Foundation's mission statement, or will they vote as though this is just another Most Valuable Player award?

At the very least, voters should remind themselves of what the trophy stands for.
"The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance and hard work."

With that in mind one would hope the Heisman voters want to find the one college football player who not only excels on the field, but whose "integrity" can be emulated by high school players. Such has not always been the case. In 2010, Auburn quarterback, Cam Newton, received the trophy in spite of the fact there had been evidence that his father was "auctioning off" his son's services.

Back to the present and two top contenders. Even if the prosecutor chooses not to file rape charges against Jameis Winston or if he waits to do so until after the Heisman voting, voters already know enough about his character and what has occurred in Tallahassee to know that he is deficient in the "integrity" aspect of a Heisman candidate.

And then there is Johnny "Football" Manziel. Last year many felt that in spite of his outstanding season, the Heisman should not be awarded to a teenager. As it turned out, the skeptics were vindicated thanks to Johnny's adolescent off-season shenanigans. Among other problematic behaviors, there was evidence that Manziel was selling autographs. As a slap on the wrist, the inscrutable NCAA punished him by making him sit on the bench for the first half of Texas A&M's first game. It would appear that, after all this, no Heisman voter could vote for Johnny with a straight face.

On the other hand there is no shortage of excellent college players who have great numbers and also seem to possess integrity, "diligence, perseverance and hard work." Among those is Jordan Lynch of Northern Illinois. Although is a bit smaller (6ft, 216 lbs.) than today's quarterbacks, his numbers are among the best in the NCAA. His problem, however, is that he plays in the Mid American Conference, and the supposition is that his numbers are so good because of the lack of quality opponents. Skeptics will question how he would fare in the revered SEC, and will refer to his lack-luster performance in last year's Orange Bowl against Florida State. That is a valid point, but one also has to wonder how well he would do if he were surrounded by a team full of five-star athletes as are Jim McCarron at Alabama or Jameis Winston at Florida State.

Although the Heisman mission statement does not mention that the winner has to be from one of the so-called power conferences, the voters seem to have made that an important aspect of their thinking. Such was not always the case. Jay Berwanger of the University of Chicago, Larry Kelley of Yale and Dick Kazmaier of Princeton were all Heisman winners. Today,  Heisman voters would not even consider Superman if he played at one of these schools.

Getting back to Jordan Lynch, here are some facts to consider:

• Northern Illinois, like Alabama, Florida State, and Ohio State, is undefeated this season. 
• NIU defeated two Big Ten teams.
• Lynch was intercepted only 6 times in 394 attempts
• He completed 60.2% of his passes.
• At this point he has over 3000 career rushing yards and 5000 passing yards  - all-time, only 8 other quarterbacks have done as well.
• he has 8 career 150 + rushing/150+ passing yard games.
• he has 4 NCAA records for rushing yards by a quarterback per game.

Realistically, I doubt that the voters would choose Jordan, but it would be unthinkable that he was not invited to New York  for the Heisman ceremony.

The Exorcist: Bishop Paprocki

Bishop Thomas Paprocki
Springfield, Ill.

Today I find myself confronting a dilemma: to write about Toronto Mayor, Rob Ford; Catholic Bishop of Springfield, Ill., Thomas Paprocki; or those who invested large amounts of money collecting Beanie Babies. (Contemplating dilemmas always reminds me of George Farquhar's dilemma: I must commit murder or commit matrimony.)

Since Mayor Ford has already received too much attention, I will pass on him. I don't want to get a penalty for "piling on." As for those sorry souls who "invested" in Beanie Babies, I can't bring myself to heap scorn on them. I have purchased high tech stocks that make Beanie Babies look good.

That leaves me with Bishop Thomas John Paprocki.

But, where to begin? Perhaps most recent events are a good start. Pope Francis has recently advocated practicing tolerance for gays. and attempting to make the Church more inclusive. Apparently Bishop Paprocki missed that memo. He has been lashing out against gays and same sex marriage. When the state of Illinois voted to allow same sex marriage with some of the legislators quoting Pope Francis, Bishop Paprocki went ballistic. In his mind, such equality legislation was the work of the devil and an exorcism was required. Therefore when Governor Pat Quinn, a Catholic, signs the bill today (11/20 2013), Bishop Paprocki is going to do an "exorcism" to drive the devil out of Illinois. ( In Ohio, we have a few devils in political office. Perhaps we could find a Catholic bishop who could drive them out of Ohio and back to Pennsylvania. But perhaps that's why they're here. Someone performed an exorcism in Pennsylvania, and Ohio is stuck with John Kasich.)

In November of 2010, Bishop Paprocki organized a conference of exorcism. Perhaps the good bishop has watched "Rosemary's Baby" too often.

No doubt, the poor man is obsessed with the devil. When asked about who was responsible for the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, he said the devil was responsible for the lawsuits against the Church. That's right: that's what he said. Thus, the pedophile priests who abused children were not responsible; the problem was the devil bringing lawsuits on behalf of the abused victims. That's a warped scenario.

Then there is the issue of women religious. Perhaps the  term, "women religious" bothers males like Bishop Poprocki. After all, is not religion and Catholicism reserved for males? Why do we superior beings have to be concerned about the heretical views of American Catholic nuns?  Why don't they get back to their job of  housekeeping and scrubbing the floors?

Bishop Paprocki, Bishop Blair of Toledo, and Bishop Sartain of Seattle were charged by Pope Benedict XVI with conducting a multi-year investigation of the U.S. Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Although these women have adhered to their mission as defined in the Gospels, they have had the temerity to question why the priesthood is reserved for males.

And then it was our friend Bishop Paprocki who decided that the Catholic Church could deny individuals  the freedom to follow their own conscience in matters of contraception and turn the tables to say that health care plans offering contraception were a violation Catholics' freedom of religion rights. Although the truth of the matter is that Bishop Paprocki and his kin want to dictate to the rest of us what is right and wrong, therefore imposing their religious views on others. And that is exactly what our Founding Fathers  fought so hard to avoid.

And, speaking of separation of church and state, Bishop Paprocki crossed that line again in the 2012 election. Although he did not directly endorse Mitt Romney, he issued a letter, using the tax-exempt status of the church, which suggested that  voting for an evil candidate could endanger your personal salvation. And of course, he pointed out that the Democratic Party embraced objectionable doctrines. 

No one wants to prevent Citizen Thomas Paprocki from speaking his mind. He is entitled to freedom of speech as we all are. What is objectionable is a Bishop Paprocki using his religion in an attempt to influence an election. If Citizen Paprocki wants to distribute that letter on his own dime without invoking his religious "authority," so be it.

(Sources for above are: Wikipedia, MINNPOST(12'19'12), LifeSiteNews (6/5/13), TTCblog (11/18/13), Americablog (11/14/13). 

Sycamore Row by John Grisham

John Grisham

Storytelling is an art , and although we all tell stories, few of us have mastered the art. John Grisham has.

With his latest bestselling novel, Sycamore Row, Grisham returns to the fictional town of Clanton, Mississippi, the site of his first novel, A Time to Kill. A few year have passed, and Jake Brigance, the young lawyer who won the historic Hailey trial, has not fared well since. Disgruntled racists burned his beloved Victorian home to the ground and the insurance company is refusing to agree to an equitable settlement. Jake, his wife, Carla, and daughter, Hanna, are living in a cramped apartment, and to make matters worse, his clients are often not able to pay their fees.

On a Monday morning, Jake receives a letter from a mysterious millionaire who committed suicide over the weekend after he had written this letter and the accompanying hand-written will. Because the will and its terms were bound to be contested, Jake finally has a case that could pay some considerable fees. On the other hand, the case presents significant obstacles.

Although a civil case centered around a contested will does not sound too interesting, in the hands of a gifted storyteller like Grisham, the reader will become immersed.

In truth, Sycamore Row, is a sequel to A Time to Kill and is a return to the legal mystery that has fascinated Grisham fans and has made his name synonymous with "best seller." Although he tried other formats and genres over the years, he is back doing what he does best -- the legal mystery.

Personally, I tend to shun bestselling authors and seek out good authors who fly below the radar, but there are a few exceptions -- Johm Grisham , John Irving and Gillian Flynn are among them.

The Edmund Fitzgerald Remembered

The Edmund Fitzgerald

Today, November 10, is the 38th anniversary of the disappearance of the SS. Edmund Fitzgerald -- affectionately known as " The Mighty Fitz."

The 729 foot carrier with a cargo of 26,116 tons of taconite iron ore left Superior, Wisconsin, and was headed to Detroit when it encountered a severe storm on northern Lake Superior. In the late afternoon  the winds were gusting to 70 knots (81 mph)  creating 25 foot waves. About 7 P.M. the Edmund Fitzgerald disappeared from radar.

All 29 men aboard apparently went down with their ship. Captain Ernest McSorley and a number of the crew lived in the Toledo area.

The sunken freighter has since been located on the bottom of the lake under 530 feet of water. The site has been explored and photographed and it appears the huge vessel broke in half  as a result of the high waves generated by the storm. A smaller ship nearby, the Arthur M. Anderson, survived the storm and had hoped to rescue survivors. There were none.

The disaster is remembered every year in the Mariners Church in downtown Detroit  and has been memorialized by Gordon Lightfoot's haunting ballad, "The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald."

Rand Paul and the End of Responsibility

Rand Paul

Whether it is in politics, business, sports, media or academia, it is becoming more and more difficult for individuals to admit they made a mistake and are responsible for wrongdoing or dishonesty. Corporate types, e.g.  CEOs of huge financial institutions, have this down to an art form. In fact, think about it: the reason we have corporations is to avoid individual responsibility.

In the case of politicians, one would think that based on their oath of office and their responsibility to their constituents, they would have to assume President Harry Truman's dictum: "The buck stops here."

Well, apparently politicians of today have another dictum: "Deny as long as possible, and when that is no longer viable, blame someone else."

Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, is the latest to adopt this strategy. After he could no longer deny that he was guilty, on several occasions, of plagiarism -- "the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person," (Miriam-Webster Dictionary), Senator Paul blamed his wrong-doing on his staff and those "haters" out there trying to bring him down. Apparently Rand Paul can't "man up." He's not accepting responsibility for what he did; he's blaming it on others. Obviously, he will never qualify as "A Profile in Courage."

In addition, Mr. Paul said, "To tell the truth, people can think what they want. I can go back to being a doctor anytime, if they're tired of me. I'll go back to being a doctor, and I'll be perfectly content." (Translation: I don't need you people. I'm a doctor and I can make big bucks without your constant questions.)

And that presents another problem for Doctor Rand Paul. a Libertarian, who has a problem with certification. Although he was an officially certified ophthalmologist, when his 10-year certification expired, he chose not to re-certify  Instead he founded his own certification program, the National Board of Ophthalmologists, in his hometown of Bowling Green, Kentucky. He appointed himself president, and his wife (not a doctor) vice president.  He in effect re-certified himself. Although no one knows what criteria this organization uses to re-certify, Rand Paul claims to be a certified eye-doctor.

I am thinking that if I lived in Kentucky and needed an ophthalmologist, I would be checking his/her "certification" very closely.

The bottom line, however, is that Doctor Rand Paul created his own certification organization which in turn re-certified him. I'm not confident with a doctor who re-certifies himself; but, if you are a Tea Party type, that may work for you. If so, I'll be seeing you although you may not be seeing  me.

The most frightening aspect of Rand Paul is that he aspires to become the next president of the United States. If the people do not elect him, will he organize his own electoral college which then chooses him?

Vatican Disrespects American Catholics

Swiss Guard Protecting the Vatican

With the arrival of Pope Francis a spirit of renewal appeared to be taking place in Catholicism and particularly within the Vatican. Granted, most of the changes were a matter of style rather than substance, but Catholics were hopeful their church would focus on the message of the Gospels rather than it's own man-made teachings.

Even more encouraging was the news from the Vatican that it was going to ask Catholics their opinions on a variety of issues including same-sex marriage, contraception, communion for divorced and remarried couples. This is a real step forward for a monarchical organization. The Vatican is actually asking for the opinion of its members. Has this ever happened before? I think not.

But hold on a minute. If you are an American Catholic, the Vatican does not want your opinion. Although Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the Vatican's Synod of Bishops asked them to distribute the poll "immediately as widely as possible," when the poll was sent to American bishops it was accompanied by a second letter which does not ask them to seek the opinions of American Catholics. Instead the letter asks the bishops to provide their own observations. We know that the American Catholic faithful and the U.S. Bishops Conference disagree on many issues. Apparently the Vatican does not care what the parish priests, the women religious, or the Catholics on the street think; they care only for what the the U.S bishops think. Why even send the poll to the US; the whole world knows what the US bishops think.

What value will this Vatican survey have? If a large portion of Catholics are excluded, the survey
 will tell us very little about what Catholics think. And, perhaps this maneuver is typical of a Vatican that is suspicious of democratic principles. For example, the United States allows women to vote and participate in government. That scares the you-know-what out of a Vatican Patriarchy. Therefore they are content to accept our financial support, but they do not want to know our opinions.

Questioning minds have to ask whether this Vatican move to disrespect American Catholics is part of a pattern. It was only a few years ago that the Vatican was close to calling American Nuns heretics. In addition the Vatican insists on appointing (some call it, "shoving down our throats") bishops who are clearly conservative fundamentalists who are out of touch with American Catholics.

(For details of the Vatican survey, consult article by Joshua J. McElwee in the National Catholic Reporter, October 31, 2013.)

The Petulant Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin
"Let's go shoot us sumthin."

Who is this guy, Ted Cruz,  who forced the US government to shut down and cost the country approximately $24-26 billion? He is the same guy who threatened to force the US government to default on its debt. Have to wonder what he was thinking when he took the oath of office. Is he really committed to promoting "the general Welfare"?

Well, "Ted" Cruz is really Rafael Edward Cruz, born in Calgary, Canada, the son of a Cuban immigrant and an American mother. And you are thinking, since his father was an immigrant and little Teddy was born in a foreign country, he would be in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. You would be wrong. As an old Polish friend once suggested, "The last immigrant to get into the country is the one who wants to close the door behind him."

Like other Republicans such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Rafael Edward Cruz prefers to be called Ted rather than the name they received from their parents. What's wrong with Rafa Cruz? The tennis star, Rafael Nadal is quite proud of his name. Is it perchance that "Rafa Cruz" has the ring of being Spanish? God forbid that a Tea Party poster boy's name sounds too Spanish. The right wing is quite comfortable with Rafael becoming Ted, but if President Barack Hussein Obama had tried to change his name, Fox Network, Donald Trump and Michelle Bachmann would be screaming day and night that the president  was trying to conceal something.

And since Teddy is already campaigning to become the Republican presidential candidate in 2016, the question arises as to whether Mr. Cruz is "a natural born citizen," as required by the Constitution. If not, he would not be able to be president.  But since the Republicans were able to justify the candidacy of John McCain (born outside of the country), they would have no problem with this issue -- unless of course, the candidate had black skin like President Obama. (For the record, Mr Trump etc., there is no question Mr. Obama's mother was a citizen and he was born in the USA. Therefore his status fits the constitutional requirements whereas those of  McCain or Cruz are more questionable.)

Mr. Cruz is a freshman senator from the state of Texas -- the state whose governor talks about seceding from the Union. Is it a surprise that he comes to Washington and tries to strangle and bankrupt the government?  A violation of his oath of office?

And then there is is the issue of health care. Mr. Cruz and his allies in the House shut down the government in an attempt to defund the Affordable Care Act. He and his GOP allies did not want poor Americans to have health care insurance. During his grand-standing quasi filibuster, he was asked about his personal health care insurance. Everyone presumed that he had the "Cadillac" insurance plan that Congress had granted itself. He hesitated and then admitted that he "probably" was not on that plan. Very, very interesting. Was he purchasing his own health insurance? You gotta be kidding. He was on his wife's super health insurance policy paid for by Goldman Sach's. Very interesting! Goldman Sachs was the company who was able to profit from the collapse of prime mortgage rated bonds in the summer of 2007. This company employs Cruz's wife as a manager in Houston and pays for Teddy's deluxe health care insurance. But I'm sure we all can be positive that Teddy will be objective on any legislation that Goldman lobbyists send to the Senate.

Teddy Cruz, once described as "a charming sociopath" (Jason Stanfird,1/30.13), recently commented: "I believe in Jesus who died to save himself, not enable lazy followers to be dependent on him." An interesting take on Christianity, more in line with the gospel of selfishness and greed proposed by the atheist Ayn Rand who is so popular among Republicans than it is with the Gospels of the New Testament -- love thy neighbor and such. Is he suggesting a selfish Jesus? Please Ted, spare us from your attempt to remake Christianity in an effort to justify your unchristian policies. 

In the interest of brevity, I will simply list items that speak to the character of the Junior Senator from Texas:

• Ann Coulter who describes herself as a "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative" refers to Ted as "my love."
• Cruz is trying to hold up the nomination of Tom Wheeler to the FCC until Wheeler agrees not to enforce the law which demands disclosure of the real funders of "dark money" groups who run salacious attack ads.*
• He informs us that it is their own fault that the poor live in squalor.
• He suggests that God told him to force a government shutdown. God talks to Republicans. He told George W. Bush to start the Iraq War.
• He compared his attempt to defund the Affordable Care Act with the fight against Nazi Germany.
• He opposed FEMA aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy although Texas collects the more FEMA aid than any other state.
• Ken Cucinelli, Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia, did not want to be photographed with Cruz.
• Cruz' father supported the Communist dictator, Fidel Castro, who overthrew the democratically elected Cuban government. He later parted ways with Castro and immigrated to this country.
• Cruz and Palin protested the closing of the WWII Memorial in spite of the fact that he and House Republicans caused the shutdown.

For the sake of the country and common sense, let's hope Mr. Cruz was prophetic when he predicted: "Twenty years from now if there is some obscure trivial pursuits question, I am confident I will be the answer."

* Mr. Cruz  later agreed to the nomination after, according to him, he had received assurance that Mr Wheeler would not press for full disclosure of funders. 

The Psalter, A Novel

Michael Romano, a Catholic priest, paleographer, and archivist, learns that various people or groups are intensely interested in a medieval Psalter -- a book of psalms and prayers. In fact, someone is so interested that they killed the Pope's secretary to get it.

After some study, Michael discovers the Psalter is not what it appears to be. An original Aramaic text had been erased in the ninth century and the parchment was used for a Psalter. But, of course, it is the original, erased text, that is of interest.

Is it the Vatican that is trying to prevent Michael from finding and revealing apocryphal accounts of Jesus' life written by 1st century disciples? Perhaps, but there is another group who is willing to murder in order to get their hands on these parchments.

An interesting aspect of the novel is that the author switches back and forth between the present and ninth century Rome at the time the documents were being erased and used for Psalters. Galen Watson's account of medieval history may be questioned by some, but his version makes for interesting reading. And, one must remember this is a novel.

Many may want to compare The Psalter to Dan Brown's novels; and although it may have the same tension between fact and fiction, it lacks the polish of a DaVinci Code. It will, however, appeal to Brown's readers. 

Time to Stop Religious Encroachments

       


"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." First Amendment to the US Constitution. 

"The next time believers tell you that 'separation of church and state' does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word 'trinity.' The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin.

If they are still unfazed (or unphrased), by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural, Transcendence, Immaculate Conception, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, Sunday School, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Apostasy, Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible." (FFRF Co-President Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith)

The Founding Fathers, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were all clear that, "Church and State are and must remain separate."

Today, however, there are increasing pressures to break down the wall of separation. Recently church pulpits have been used for political propaganda. For the most part, the IRS has done little to remove tax-exempt status form churches who have crossed the political line. This lack of enforcement may have resulted in the following ridiculous situation. When Tea-Party- affiliated non-profits (501C3s) were scrutinized by the IRS for forfeiting their tax-exempt status because they were in fact a front for a political party, they and their right-wing allies attacked the IRS for doing their job of preventing fraudulent tax-exempt status abuse. A classic case of the law-breakers attacking the enforcers.

It seems the churches are all in favor of freedom of religion, but only if it is their religion that is free. If you happen to be be Native American, Hindu, or Muslim. that's a whole different story. Some Catholics, Rick Santorum and Mike DeWine for example,  want to impose Catholic beliefs on non-Catholic citizens (cf. the contraception issue as it relates to the Affordable Health Act), but they decry the Taliban's effort to impose Sharia law. It frequently comes down to this: "Don't mess with my religion, but let's get rid of those other guys." Fortunately, our Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to prevent such nonsense.

Also, recently there was a Pew Research attempt to gauge Protestants' attitude toward the separation of church and state;

"Forty-two percent of black Protestants and 37 percent of white evangelical Protestants say houses of worship should endorse candidates, according to the Pew Research Center. Among Americans overall, that figure has been in the 20s for a decade.

The report focuses on faith groups but would apply to secular 501c3 nonprofit organizations as well." 

Over one-third of those two Protestant groups are in favor of using the pulpit to promote a political candidate . In terms of the First Amendment, that is pretty scary. But of course, if their church's pulpit was used to promote a Middle-Eastern Muslim candidate who wants to institute Sharia Law in Texas, they would be be invoking the First Amendment.

And that's why the Founding Fathers in their wisdom insisted on separating Church and State! To prevent the "Religion of the Day" or the "Religion of the Majority" from ruling the country. Our Founding Fathers were aware of the abuse that had resulted from such a system in Europe, and wanted to do better in this country.

And, on the darker side, there is the use of religion to discriminate against women.

Dozens of companies are challenging the federal contraception mandate in the Affordable Health Care Act on religious grounds. They argue that because of the company owner's religious  beliefs, their companies should be exempt from covering the cost of contraceptives. Recently a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that a for-profit, secular corporation cannot seek to impose the owners' religious beliefs on its employees.* As The Toledo Blade editorialized, "No one seeking employment should have to worry about the religion of the boss." (9/23/13)

Another area of religious encroachment is in the field of education. Conservative Republicans have been been pushing the Charter School option. In spite of the fact that these schools are under-regulated and have produced sub-standard results, the number of such schools increases each year. And the dirty little secret that is so-often overlooked is that so many of these schools are organized around a particular religion. Result: public tax dollars supporting a religious-oriented charter school.

 Some Americans fail to realize that  pursuing "the free exercise" of religion does not mean imposing those beliefs on the rest of the citizens.   If Jehovah's Witnesses believe it's wrong to receive a live-saving blood transfusion, they have no right to think the rest of us should agree. It's time to remember that a "belief" -- religious or otherwise -- is just that, a "belief." It is not a proven fact; it is not a law of nature; it has not been proven. If one has a particular, deeply-held belief, the rest of us should respect his/her right to hold such a belief, but we should also expect you to respect our belief or dis-belief.

* This is one of three such cases that have the federal appeals level. Two have upheld the contraception mandate. A Denver Appeals Court disagreed and ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby's refusal to provide the benefit.  At some point, one of these cases has to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Financial Benefit of Clerical Celibacy

Since Pope Francis, unlike his predecessors, seems to be allowing a real discussion of the possibility of a non-celibate priesthood, many are considering the practical consequences of married priests.

Some have felt that the Church was hanging onto celibacy simply because it has had a deep-seated tendency, in spite of its protests to the contrary,  to consider sex as evil. And in fact, such maybe the case considering the Church's irrational position on the use of contraceptives. Their position on contraceptives makes sense only if one argues that sex in and of itself is wrong, unless it is directed toward procreation. In other words, sex without the possibility of procreation is evil.

Granted that Catholicism, or at least institutional Catholicism, is nervous about human sexuality, there may be another factor, according to some,  in the priestly celibacy issue.

And it has little to do with sex itself.

It is, they speculate, about money. Most Catholic priests could not afford to be married and raise a family on what they are paid at the present time. The Church, to its credit,  has been an advocate of a "fair wage," and would therefore have to increase the salary of married priests in order for them to support a spouse and raise a family.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. the 2011 median salary for for US clergy was $48,490 per year. On the other hand, the median salary for Catholic priests was $33,100.* At that rate, a dedicated married priest may find himself applying for food stamps.

The question then becomes: can the Catholic Church in the United States afford married priests? Of course, it can; but it may choose not to do so. It has become so fascinated with flexing it's political muscle that it may be reluctant to divert some of that campaign money to its priests.

Parish priests are the face of the Church for most Catholics. Those priests are the ones who serve the needs of their congregations. They make Catholicism work. Certainly the Church could invest more of its assets in its clergy, married or not. The priests deserve better.

Let's hope that the leaders of the Catholic Church are not clinging to celibacy merely in an effort to save money.   

*as reported on "Chron" Houston Chronicle, Dana Severson.