A 3′ tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus has ramifications for Christianity–mostly positive–but with plenty of room left for debate. 
It speaks of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days. Jesus’ predictions of a suffering messiah, one who would bring salvation to the people of Israel, were not new. They were circulating years before his ministry, and can be found in the Book of Isaiah.
Ada Yardeni, who analyzed the stone together with Binyamin Elitzur, is an expert on Hebrew script, especially of the era of King Herod, who died in 4 B.C. The two of them published a long analysis of the stone tablet, dubbed “Gabriel’s Revelation,” more than a year ago in Cathedra, a Hebrew-language quarterly devoted to the history and the archaeology of Israel. Yardeni and Elitzur said that based on the shape of the script and the language, the text dated from the late first century B.C.
Israel Knohl, a professor of Bible Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, posited in a book published in 2000 the idea of a suffering messiah before Jesus, using a variety of rabbinic and early apocalypic literature as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In Knohl’s interpretation, the specific messianic figure embodied on the stone was a man named Simon who was slain by a commander in the Herodian army, according to first-century historian Josephus. The slaying of Simon, or any suffering messiah, is seen as a necessary step toward national salvation.
Knohl focuses on line 80, which begins clearly with the words “L’shloshet yamin,” meaning “in three days.” The next word of the line was deemed illegible by Ms. Yardeni and Mr. Elitzur, but Mr. Knohl, who is an expert on the language of the Bible and Talmud, says the word is “hayeh,” or “live” in the imperative.
It was less important, Mr. Knohl said, whether a man named Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus.
“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of the people but to bring redemption to Israel.”
Is Catholic art getting too excremental?
In recent years we’ve been treated to “Senation,” a Virgin Mary pelted with elephant dung; and ”Piss Christ”- a crucifix immersed in the artist’s urine.
Now it’s “Zuerst dei Fuesse” (Feet First). A green frog is nailed to a cross holding a beer mug in one outstretched hand and an egg in the other. The frog wears a green loincloth and is pinned to the cross in the manner of Jesus Christ. Its green tongue hangs out of its mouth. 
The 4′ wood sculpture was made by the late German artist Martin Kippenberger.
Franz Pahl, an official from the Trentino-Alto Adige region in northern Italy, said the pope had written to him to complain about the frog, which was installed in May at Museion, the modern art museum in Bolzano.
In a letter dated August 7, 2008, Pope Benedict said that the sculpture “injured the religious feeling of many people who see the Cross the symbol of the love of God and of our salvation, which deserves recognition and religious devotion.”
The board of the Museion museum decided by a majority vote that the frog was a work of art and would stay in place for the remainder of the exhibit.
Museum officials said the artist, who died in 1997, considered the sculpture to be a self-portrait illustrating human angst. “Fred the Frog” was Kippenberger’s alter-ego.
An art critic exclaimed: “In this work Kippenberger represents a society that appears perfect but is actually hypocritical…the frog on the cross represents men reduced to animals, that drink to the point of demeaning themselves, that cannot free themselves from the cross of alcohol lived as a plague. And Kippenberger condemns a society that, one the one hand claims to be Christian and on the other, right under and before Christ that it reckons to venerate, can only express its worst side.”
“A crucifixion is always an invitation to reflect on suffering,” said another critic. “In any event of contemporary art you will find more or less strong works on religion. It is part of people’s life, it is normal for it to become an ingredient of art. Society is getting used to being hypersensitive about certain themes but nobody can feel offended by a work of art.”
Well, Pope Benedict, who is German himself, obviously doesn’t agree.
I like my current pastor, Fr. Tom, very much. I appreciate his style: his earnestness, sincerity, and good humor set the tone for the parish. He gracefully navigates the shoals of small-town life. He impressed me when he spoke up against anti-Catholic bias when our creche was vandalized.
Fr. Tom makes everyone welcome–North Fork natives, retirees, weekenders, immigrants, visiting family members and returnees. He is a good priest and a good man. We could ask for none better.
As much as I appreciate and respect Fr. Tom, and would be happy to have him as my pastor for the rest of my life, I would also miss not being able to experience the Eucharist with a woman priest.
So I decided to seek one out.
I will be attending a home church with a Roman Catholic Womenpriest presiding at Mass later this fall. She was ordained in Boston this summer. I have no idea what kind of emotions I will feel, but I suspect they will include pride, wholeness, a degree of fear, and a feeling of connection with the women of early Christianity. 
I will also have an out-pouring of gratitude. First, to all the women who felt the call to ordination and stuck it out in the Catholic Church, not leaving for MCC, or the Episcopalians, another denomination or ending up as an aching or sour agnostic. For people like Sr. Louise Lears and Maryknoll priest Fr. Roy Bourgeois who put their principles on the line and paid the price; and finally for the founders and leadership of Women’s Ordination Conference, who breathed life into the dearest hope of women. Thank you all.
The bishop of Limburg, Germany, Franz Peter Tebartz van Elst, has removed a priest from office for “blessing” the partnership of two gay men. Their marriage took place on Friday, August 15th. 
Fr. Peter Kollas, a dean of priests in the city of Wetzlar, participated in the blessing of the two men during a civil wedding ceremony witnessed by a Protestant minister and 150 guests.
The bishop, appointed to the Diocese of Limburg by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, said Catholics “have a duty to protest the legal recognition of homosexual partnerships.”
In a statement appearing on the diocese’s website, Bishop Tebartz van Elst said he had removed Fr. Kollas as dean of priests to avoid further “damage” to the Church’s reputation.
The bishop met with Fr. Kollas, who said hat he would promise to “omit” such blessings in the future and said that he had never done them before.
A new dean of priests will be chosen who has the “confidence of the bishop.”
The statement from the bishop’s office came after protests over the event, not only from Catholics, but also area Protestants.
Fr. Kollas must have been disciplined within days of the event. The bishop’s reaction was much swifter than what we usually see for other transgressions–like pedophilia accusations or financial improprieties.
Obviously, gay men and lesbians in love are a much greater threat to the church–and merit a much harsher response-than serial child abusers and priests who help themselves to the parish bank accounts.
I am grateful to Fr. Kollas the sacrifice he made to bless a loving relationship.
“As a director, my goal is to be completely open. Just look at how I portray sex in my films. They’re considered shocking and obscene because I like to carefully examine human sexuality. It has to be realistic.”
Paul Verhoeven’s biography of Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth: A Realistic Portrait, will be published next month by J. M. Meulenhoff, an Amsterdam publishing house. It will be translated into English in 2009. 
Verhoeven, 69, is best known as the director of a number of blockbuster films, including Basic Instinct, Robo Cop, and Total Recall.
Over the years, Vehoeven, who is Catholic and holds a doctorate in mathematics and physics from the University of Leiden, was a regular attendee of the Jesus Seminar, which was co-founded by the late religious scholar Robert W. Funk. The Jesus Seminar is a group of scholars and authors that seeks to establish historical facts about Jesus, and examines miracles and statements attributed to him.
Verhoeven’s new book makes the suggestion that Jesus may have been the son of Mary and a Roman soldier who raped her during a Jewish uprising against Roman rule in 4 B.C. The book also makes the claim that Judas Iscariot was not responsible for Jesus’ betrayal.
William Porter, a professor of religious studies at the University of Dayton, in Ohio, said the Jesus Seminar was known for making provacative claims, but “they are real scholars–you have to deal with them.”
However, he said Verhoeven’s ideas sounded “pretty out there.”
John Dominic Crossan, a Jesus Seminar founder, agreed. He said that while Verhoeven was a member in good standing, there was little evidence for the view Jesus was illegitimate.
Crossan said the claim was first reported in a polemic written in the 2nd century against the Book of Matthew, intended for a Jewish audience.
“It’s an obvious first retort to claims that Mary was a virgin,” Crossan said. “If you wanted to do a hatchet job on Jesus’ reputation, this would be the way.”
Cartoons are wonderful venues for religious satire. One of the best is Slap Upside the Head by “Mark,” a 28-year-old Canadian.
Mark’s August 20th post was about a story reported by LifeSite, conservative website that oozes sex in the same type of sensational reporting as the average supermarket tabloid.
One of their recent stories had all the elements guaranteed to whip their readers up into a frenzy: sexual perversion and demonic possession!
The article quoted an English Roman Catholic priest who is also a self-styled exorcist. He completed a 4 month course of training offered at the Vatican (details were a little fuzzy).
“Promiscuity, as well as homosexuality and pornography, says 73 year old Fr. Jeremy Davis, is a form of sexual perversion and can lead to demonic possession. Offering what may be an explanation for the explosion of homosexuality in recent years, Fr. Davis said, ‘Among the causes of homosexuality is a contagious demonic factor.’”
“Fr. Davis’ comments come in conjunction with the publication of his new book, Exorcism: Understanding Exorcism in Scripture and Practice published earlier this year by the Catholic Truth Society (CTS).”
“He also said that Satan is responsible for having blinded most secular humanists to the ‘dehumanising effects of contraception and abortion and IVF, of homosexual ‘marriages’, of human cloning and the vivisection of human embryos in scientific research.”
“Fr. Davis also warns in his book against so-called New Age and occult practices, as well as trendy exercise and ’spiritual healing’ regimens derived from eastern religions.”
“‘The thin end of the wedge (soft drugs, yoga for relaxation, horoscopes just for fun and so on) is more dangerous than the thick end because it is more deceptive–an evil spirit tries to make his entry as unobtrusively as possible.’”
U.S. bishops, in New York and California especially, have had plenty to say about same-sex marriage in the last couple of months.
“Sexual intimacy between persons of the same sex does not pass muster,” Bishop William Murphy wrote in the Diocese of Rockville Centre newspaper. Homosexual relationships “do not serve the common good. They cannot do so because they contradict biological teleology and the natural law.”
The L.A. bishops added, “When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened.”
But after pages of obfuscating over benefits and gender, the bishops finally got to the main point of their objections: “…the movement for ’same-sex marriage’ is less about such benefits than it is about societal acceptance and approval of homosexual relationships.” 
They’re right. As society more and more accepts gay and lesbian couples and families as friends and neighbors, the church has less and less of a sure footing to ignore or condemn us.
This past spring, Governor David Patterson of New York signed an executive order directing state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.
Patterson related to a NY Post reporter that most of the people who had come up to him to express their appreciation were not gay couples–but parents of a lesbian daughter or gay son.
The church is sunk.
While gay and lesbian couples made the issue visible, it is their parents, friends, siblings, neighbors and co-workers that are making these couples and their children a normal part of the family and community fabric.
The greatest adversaries the church will have to contend with are Catholic parents–the mothers and fathers, husbands and wives they have sworn to honor and defend.
How ironic.
One of the best statements I have read on gay marriage was a letter in Commonweal Magazine. Written by a man named Jim McCrea, it is prophetic in describing how legal and legislative battles will eventually transform the institution of marriage; not by making it inclusive, but separating its legal standing from religious vetting.
This compromise on same-sex marriage will not force the blessing of organized religion on gay couples or attempt to do so. Instead, it will substantially reduce the legal and cultural clout of clergy and the institutions they represent on the issue of marriage.
“The legal debate about same-sex marriage will be played out in voting booths and in the courts for a long time to come,” McRea begins. “Even if those of us who advocate same-sex marriage prevail, religious communities will not be forced to change their norms for marriage. If anyone attempts to force Christian communities to bless gay marriages, I and other Californians will vigorously oppose it.”
“Still, religious proscriptions masquerading as cultural norms should not be imposed on those who do not accept them. I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation on how my thirty-six-year relationship with my partner diminishes family stability or the value of anyone else’s marriage.”
“I recommend a familiar solution: Anyone who wants to get married should have to enter into a state-sanctioned civil union that confers all the legal rights and privileges that come with marriage.”
“After that, anyone who wants a religious ceremony can have one. This is what most of Europe has done for many years, and life as they know it has not come to an end.”
Lori and I are now a happily married couple.
We were married at Smith College (her alma mater) on Friday, August 15th in the morning by The Honorable J. Mary (JM) Sorrell, a Justice of the Peace in Northampton, Massachusetts. “JM” was a wonderfully kind and caring, and made the ceremony joyful and relaxed.
Before she married us, JM read selected text from the Goodridge decision, a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court which found the state may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.”
“…as matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families.”
“…(These couples) are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends…We share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth. Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do. The union of two people contemplated by the laws of Massachusetts “is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. (These couples) should no longer be excluded from that association.”
JM also married that day two young men that couldn’t have been older than 21 or 22. They looked so young! As we waited to receive our marriage licenses at the town hall the four of us exchanged congratulations and good wishes.
Lori and I were happy and excited and nervous, even though we have been together for over 20 years.
I am happy for those young men, that they have the opportunity to start life together as a young married couple; and for Lori and I to finish it the same way.
Our red bouquets were inspired by the huge bouquet of flowers Lori bought for me the first night she stayed over. On her way from Brooklyn to my apartment on the upper west side of Manhattan, Lori stopped off at the 72nd Street or 79th Street (we couldn’t remember which one!) subway station and bought every red flower she could find.
When I opened the door she presented me with a gorgeous red bouquet. Our wedding bouquets were in remembrance of that first romantic and passionate gesture. 
On July 27, 2008, a man walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville and opened fire with a 12-gauge shotgun. He killed two people and seriously wounded seven others. Around 200 people were packed in the church for a children’s rehearsal of “Annie.”
The man, David Jim Adkisson, 58, was motivated by a hatred of “the liberal movement,” and he planned to shoot until police shot him, said Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV. 
The police found a four-page letter Adkisson wrote, in which he stated his hatred of “liberals in general, as well as gays.” He targeted the church “because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they have ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets.”
Adkisson said that “he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement” so he would “target those that had voted them into office.” Police Chief Owen said Adkisson specifically targeted the church for its beliefs and its political advocacy, including gay rights.
Inside his house, officers found Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder by radio talk show host Michael Savage; Let Freedom Ring by political pundit Sean Hannity; and The O’Reilly Factor by television talk show host Bill O’Reilly.
All three of these books didn’t prompt a madman to kill people. But in all three of them a madman who hates liberals and gays found words that resonated, sentiments to take comfort in, and nothing to make him think twice before going out to engage in domestic terrorism - violence and murder against fellow Americans holding different political beliefs. The same kind of behavior these three men condemn when perpetrated by Islamic terrorist groups.
I went to see if Bill O’Reilly (Roman Catholic) or Sean Hannity (Roman Catholic) said anything about the incident, had any expression of compassion or grief for the Knoxville victims and their families, or any condemnation of the shootings at all. No quotes turned up on Google or on their websites.
Michael Savage has no search function on his site and no mention of the story either. But his site did feature a link to a Daily Mail story about how an “Islamic ban on ’suggestive’ cucumbers’ cost al-Qaida public support in Iraq.” 
Huh? Well, I guess he has his priorities.
I was disappointed in all three of these entertainers/commentators that they couldn’t spare one word for the dead in Knoxville and the assault on freedom in Tennessee. One man in particular, an usher, shielded others with his body and took the brunt of the first shotgun blast. This is ususally the type of person these talk show hosts love to laud - an American who died for others.
I hope O’Reilly and Hannity have enough left from a Catholic upbringing to be a little shaken up that this nut looked to them for inspiration. They should continue to disagree furiously and passionately with liberals and others they feel are mucking up America, but they need to stop de-humanizing people they don’t like or disagree with. That gives murderers a license to kill.
A long lost radio interview with John Lennon, in which he calls himself “one of Christ’s biggest fans” was broadcast by the BBC on July 13, 2008.
The 1969 interview, with Ken Seymour from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, was taped during a bed-in for peace in Montreal.
Lennon’s remarks about Christianity drew international headlines in a March 4, 1966 interview in the London Evening Standard when he said: “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I do not know what will go first, rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. We’re more popular than Jesus now.”
Asked to clarify his remarks, Lennon said: “It’s just an expression meaning the Beatles seem to me to have more influence over youth than Christ.”
“Now I wasn’t saying that was a good idea, because I’m one of Christ’s biggest fans,” he went on. “And if I can turn the focus of the Beatles on to Christ’s message, then that’s what we’re here to do.” 
He said: “If the Beatles get on the side of Christ, which they always were, and let people know that, then maybe the churches won’t be full, but there’ll be a lot of Christians dancing in the dance halls.”
Two years after the “we’re bigger than Christ” interview, Lennon released a song, “Imagine,” that drew the ire of churchgoers. The song contains the lyrics, “Imagine there’s no heaven; it’s easy if you try…Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.”
Now, the recovered 1969 may shed some light on Lennon’s thoughts behind the famous song.
“I haven’t got any sort of dream of a physical heaven where there’s lots of chocolate and pretty women in nightgowns, playing harps,” he said. “I believe you can make heaven within your own mind. The kingdom of God is within you, Christ said, and I believe that.”
Why wasn’t this interview released back in the ’60s or ’70s? It would have been a huge support to grassroots Christianity.
