Solving the Crisis in Catholicism

(Editor's note: Although Tom Garrow is a good friend of the National Alliance Foundation's leadership team, his views are not necessarily those of the entire organization).


Morality and sensibility are both elements which the world seems to be ever so frequently robbed of, and thus religious institutions must often serve as a counselors and guides to restore much of the world unto a righteous track that seeks to espouse these two virtuous parts in the formation of generational stability. Generally speaking, the Roman Catholic Church has done a fine job of this responsibility over the past centuries, yet I am forced to take up the dreaded mantle of the justice observer a point out the area in which the religious tent has failed--both utterly and needlessly: lifetime celibacy for its priests.

It must be made evident that I am a Catholic, proud and of strong faith, yet I refuse to continue to endorse a binding rule which has proven to have devastating effects not only on the basic welfare of Catholic spiritual leaders, but also on the psychological development of countless children. Perhaps not all offending religious figureheads are from my church, nor are all crimes involving the molestation of children exclusive to the parishes, but the vast majority are, and for an almost entirely explainable reason: like ever other human, Catholic priests are fallen creatures; saved by a loving God yet never capable of attaining perfection--unless they are in Heaven itself.


Not only is celibacy strictly against the teachings of the Bible; its tenets suggest a scenario which realistically none of us can hope to achieve: perfected spiritual leaders. For precisely this reason, Jesus Christ, the only flawless man to walk the earth, was sent to atone for the world's sins, so that all those born into the world a presently living at the time of his sacrifice would be saved from an eternity in oblivion. In plainer terms, priests are not free of sin because of their occupation, yet at the same time, they were never intended to be! Just like leaders in any other faith, priests are meant to serve as guiding clerics, not holier than thou personages.

From the most liberal to the most zealously conservative Catholics, their is a long running commitment to the family, and as such families adhering to the faith look to prime examples of strong and faithful relationships in life. Keeping with this line of belief, why should our priests not be permitted to have mature sexual relationships, become married, and beyond this, have children, if all of these might serve as a beacon and image of success for a congregation of families? It might be added that the Bible makes no discrimination with the following verses. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."--Genesis 2:24. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."--Hebrews 13:4. Even more explicitly, Proverbs 5:18-19 notes that "May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.  A loving doe, a graceful deer—may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love." Passages like "honored by all," and "your fountain," hardly can be proven to refer to only those beneath the Church's leadership, neither in their independent form or in the full chapter context. 


The attempts within the media to demonize priests may draw some appreciation, but the core of its argument remains ignorant of a valid fact of debate: the very cause of the inhuman crimes targeting children. Some of the most open-minded people would look at a 5-10 year period of celibacy for priests in the seminary or recently graduated as reasonable, though the expectation that these men live their entire lives without the natural satisfaction of intimate relationships is wholly unrealistic. Priests are not compensated marvelously in worldly manner, so they must rely on God's work alone as the greatest payment--an evident difficulty while living life in "single" status.


That's not to condone any of the horrific and unjustifiable actions by priests against altar boys around the world, yet the initial beginning of the heinous sin should be acknowledged, both by the lowest of spiritual leaders and the most elite, including the Pope. Living a life of both little material reward and physical separation is enough to drive an average person mad, and most priests are not immune to such crippling realities. I regret the bluntness of this, but if many of the clerical heads in the Church were permitted to "get it on" with members of the opposite sex as everyone else is, my belief is that the rates of abuse would drop noticeably over shorter, and longer periods of time. 


Not one of us, from the lowly beggar to the Pope himself, can claim perfection or even a state that fulfills a small minority of its requirements; in other terms, we are a fallen and weak race. But it is for this reason, that God, in all his shining perfection, chose to send a miraculous Savior, steering us away from an inevitable and painful death through His indescribably wonderful mercy. As part of that decision, He allowed us all to live normal and balanced lives--essences of life which would bring glory to His kingdom and to the earth. In the creation of future priests, the purpose was to raise up messengers of God on the earth. However just like those priests are equal to all those whom they guide, they are entitled to the same permissible pursuits and actions of average spiritually faithful individuals. 




Tom Garrow


Adjunct Writer--Of Faith and Life Blog

Fulfilling the Democratic Mission

In an age of streaming rhetoric, it is common for elected officials to attempt to claim some sort of moral high ground on the issues of democracy and human rights. Few can hardly begin to forget the winning ticket of 2008, which was led by two politicians pledging to the take military action in Darfur, which thus far has not come close to fruition. But while Africa maybe the one most frequently reported bodies of land in conflict, there are countless around the world which continue to undergo such difficulties with freedom, and still are overlooked by even the most stalwart of American politicians.

Most evident is the country of Burma, and more pointedly, Aung San Suu Kyi's extended house arrest while the world stands by preaching values which they have not acted upon. Kyi, the all but official prime minister-elect of the nation, has been waiting for more than 14 years for her release; yet now it appears she may in actuality be detained for even longer. While Burma remains under the imperialistic army junta rule, it can hardly be called an imposing country, and one wonders why no members of the United Nations have chosen to deploy security forces to remove and replace the present government.

Beyond its outset, the situation in Burma grouped with those around the world reveal a sad pattern of inaction on democratic values and principles, which seem largely based off of the costs of pursuing such policies. The ill-fated War in Iraq might be viewed in such a way, despite its overall success in reducing human rights violations in the Middle East. Politicians become too concerned with the home front, neglecting to foster freedom and new allies in countries were the seeds of democracy are just waiting to grow, if with some international encouragement. A small detachment of troops would be enough, together with the UN's label, to alter the course of history in so many places were they given the authority to actively combat and eliminate threats to individual and societal free enterprise.

The card may be played that in the current financial crisis, such actions are imprudent, but a disagreement must be had. When the United States won a hard fought victory over Japan in th 1940s, a new pro-business country was established, leading to the dramatic benefit of free market upswing which was witnessed later in the 20th Century. In the same way, elected leaders must look at the countries not as financial burdens, but as tickets to market power. Loosening the hold of fascism over Burma would allow the nation's companies to expand and grow, defeating unemployment and giving the West another lucrative trading partner to do business with.

However, more important is that this attempt would free people and  remain in the basking grace of the best interests of human and civil rights. For one who had been awarded the grandeur of the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama should realize this better than most. Standing by when action may and should be taken is not a sign of intelligence, but of weakness. Of course leaders like Kyi may eventually be released, yet their potential during that time of imprisonment is worth noting. How might this brave woman, who has endured so much, have managed to help the world had the administrations of George H.W. Bush and William J. Clinton been more anxious to spread human rights and universal freedom? The facts suggest quite a great deal.

Costs are always keen facts that must be dealt with, yet they should never override duty. If Winston Churchill had worried about the monetary loss of World War II, the world might today be a unified German state. Leadership and true creation of good history is seizing up the moment and taking a chance, always with the best intentions in mind.

No one can begin to predict how democracy will affect areas like Burma and Darfur, but the sooner that they are allowed to experience the wonderful gift, the sooner we can reap the largely positive results of its presence.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Notes on the Border: A Hawkish Opinion

Capping it off at 12 million, living in the United States of America, illegally. For anyone who fails to be shocked enough, those numbers are from the year 2004. So honestly, the question has to be, has the nation had enough? Sure companies ship jobs overseas, but allowing more undocumented workers to come into the country doesn't solve that problem, even if they are deputized as American citizens. In reality, what we really need to do is stop selling governmental control to the Mexican border conflict and start where the real problem is: freedom of passage.

I've spoken at lengths beforehand about my blatant disagreement with President Obama's reckless decision to amend border security laws in a such a manner that cuts off general funding for the ever so necessary fence to protect American citizens, and in this piece my view is no different. Regardless of George Bush's election in the swing year of the change in centuries, it still took almost 60% of a decade for his party to address immigration reform, resulting in the slow start of a process to complete the line of defense against those disrespectful of the laws.

In the 21st Century however, we have to take a different approach. No longer are new immigrants simply pursuing the American Dream, as they might have years ago. With many states offering healthcare and social benefits as lucrative welcome presents, illegally entering immigrants now have more incentive than ever to break the rule of justice and decency in our good nation. Critics of my viewpoints often argue that these people just want new opportunity like my own ancestors who arrived in the States, yet they miss the huge elephant in the room that summarizes neatly their logic: the availability of government benefits. Perhaps there was less of a downside to immigrants arriving illegally generations past, as they could not waltz up and claim food stamps or unemployment--all while not paying taxes. And in the social democratic mindset of today, our nation must care for, first and foremost, all of its citizens.

For these reasons I can see no better policy than a hardened mentality which seeks to deport all discovered illegals for their crimes. Much like in the country of Italy, we should hold little regrets about doing what is right in the best interests of American citizens of all races and creed.

Of course these decisions may divide families, yet people must come to terms with their own actions in life. America is a melting pot; not a swine's trough, and her riches must be protected at all costs. To those who feel that tough immigration policy is discriminatory towards Hispanics, view this link, which explains how Latinos have become regular targets of crime from illegal immigrant hands.

People have the right to be angry that families are broken up, or that the legal immigration process takes so long, yet this does not justify their actions against international and American law. The end should certainly not justify the means, and the insistence by modern political scientists to apply the reverse of such a tenet to immigration policy is irrefutable evidence of confused logic over the issue.

Indeed we must stand together, and in the defense of something greater than ourselves.


Gene Schilling

Writer--Our America Blog

Notes on the Border: A Liberal's View

(Please note: this piece is part of a two section opinion series on America's solution to illegal immigration. Neither article forcibly represents the views of the National Alliance Foundation)

In the age of the Tea Party and the conservative revolution which it embodies, it's sometimes easy for us to be swept up in the moment, forgetting the hard facts and truths about where we as a nation have come from, and were we may go if we do so in a united fashion. To be clear, I'm not a Republican by a long shot; I dislike the policies that too often fringe on pro-corporatism and outsourcing of American jobs, which can be tied directly to the immigration issue, as will soon be covered. Instead, my registration is Democratic, and I favor a more realistic approach to immigration, and indeed one which I think even my red state friends can come to agree with me about.

Spend even a few hours with a family of South or Central American descent, and almost universally they display and incredibly noticeable pro-familial attitude towards life, which, strange as it may be, is very conservative! Many Latinos own the small businesses of our nation, harvest the produce for our organic markets, and provide wonderful environments for growth even for other Americans under lesser circumstances. Even in the poorest of conditions, Hispanic families cherish a warm and united feeling between their members, inspiring those around them and in the case of the small business owners, creating jobs.

This is why I cannot abide to the GOP's near insistence on not only alienating, but going so far as to demonize the immigrant community for being as they will. Of course assimilation is necessary, but does anyone really want to chase away the pro-family attitude of the majority of these immigrants? Considering the mounting divorce rates spreading across the land like a plague, how is it hurtful to to bring in a culture which predominantly is advocating monogamy in marriages and a close knit, conservative way of life?

Whenever he border security issue comes up, my good Republican friends are always ready to pounce, delivering a blistering tirade against the problem of the open border, and thus sidelining the countless Hispanic immigrants who have made the lives of others better in this country through their courageous openings of businesses and shops. And regardless of the hard right conservative mementos of the Spanish language as some festering virus, most second generation immigrants speak near flawless English while their parents may pass on still communicating in their motherland tongue. If this seems untrue, then I urge my conservative detractors to listen to a speech by their newly enthroned bastion of Reaganism, Senator-elect Marco Rubio of Florida, whose parents were Cuban immigrants, yet he today speaks flawless English.

Solving our issues with the border is by no means about trying to marginalize and cut off one source of new American citizens in the form of the Hispanic community. Looser legal immigration restrictions, more protectionist job opportunities, and further investments in math and sciences are what will help us build a more united future as a true melting pot culture. This image does not need to be scapegoated habitually by the GOP, nor by the more traditionalist Democrats. As Americans we are not exclusive to one race or one party, but instead to a legacy of pride and honor as the last hope for freedom and enterprise in the world.

Let's work together; not apart.


Rick Mendoza

Adjunct Writer--Latino Coalition Blog

How to Fix the Budget Deficit

Even the most optimistic observers have to admit that America's present budget deficit is both an unsustainable and irresponsible creation of governments unwatched and unregulated by voters in the past 30 years. With national debt at a staggering $13.4 trillion, even the least engaged should wonder at just how further generations are expected to deal with the overwhelming challenge of negative intake versus spending for the depleted coffers of Washington.

Raising taxes is always a possibility, but one that hardly guarantees real change. Essentially Congress would need to raise income tax rates to 15% at the minimum, driving families into further destitution while failing to fully secure a change in revenue. And of course there is no mandate forcing Congress to use those taxes for the budget deficit; they might easily add it to their own means of extorting earmarks or championing district spending projects.

No, while taxes are an option, they aren't the first factor of the equation which we must consider. The real solution to America's troubling financial instability is the dramatic cutting of spending, across the board, to foster a steadily decreasing budget issue. Most figures show that the HHS Department and Social Security make up a massive majority of the total spending in America, trailed only slightly by the Department of Defense. These programs all promise good intentions, yet at east small fractions of their total cost could be eliminated in order to fix our revenue and spending dilemmas.

Initially, the closure of unneeded military installations in Europe would be a start for the Department of Defense. Several positions are generally unnecessary, and so shutting them down would benefit the country. In fact, transferring stationed troops to the border of Mexico would be enough to combat the rising drug problem between our countries, which could help eliminate casualties and save money from the largely less than stellar DEA. To be clear, no funding should be cut from the troops themselves, yet many of these bases are simply a drag on our budget clarity.

Some smaller alternatives also exist. The Department of Commerce has turned into a useless organization that makes plenty of briefs and presentations yet hardly has a beneficial impact on our nation's economy. Thus I would move to propose that Congress pass a 5-year mandate on the agency, allowing workers time to gain new employment or even start their own companies before its dissolving. In branching off of this, the departments of labor, personnel management, housing, environmental protection, and homeland security should all face similar mandates, thus cutting preliminary articles down to a more realistic budget condition.

Pushing forward, Congress must also make the hard decision of cutting parts of social security and Medicare coverage. As my colleague Ayla Samadi noted in her article Long-term Security, the government has a duty to create an umbrella factor for both those reaching retirement age and citizens of lower income levels in order to prevent a dramatic fallout from lack of support. Yet at the same time, the middle class should be transferred into 401K savings plans, which, while insecure in their own way, will draw off a huge section of the budget deficit by eliminating it largest spending target.

Finally, the government should cut the proposed healthcare plan of the Obama Administration, which promises to only add more jeopardy to our financial future, and certainly that of our children.

Difficult choices often seem like infectious diseases to the average politician; sending them running fear if one crosses their path. The truth is, we cannot continue to deceive ourselves over their dramatic issue of trust and financial security. Only a decisive move to curb spending will allow us to continue transferring prosperity to the generations to come, and it is the government's duty to do so.


John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

A Wiser Republic

The great philosopher Plato always spoke of the dangers of democracy, as he realized the unhealthy tendency for voters to choose as they so believe, regardless of hard facts or common sense. In an olden analogy, he uses the example of a ship floundering in the bowels of a tempest, led by a weak captain who represents the majority, and a crew of sailors, who show themselves to be as politicians, anxious to dismantle and then seize control. And even as this remains intensely applicable in the modern day, many seem to defend democracy as the only way, disregarding what could be a singular yet decisive change for the best in its clockwork: a prerequisite test for each registered voter. 

Of course this move brings immediate scorn and hate from members of the more socially liberal, who feel it would be disadvantageous to their average supporters, however a quick analysis of this past election campaign can prove otherwise, in states both in the east and west coast. 


To be clear, the following assessments of the Maryland, Oregon, and Washington races are not meant to be overtly partisan; on the contrary, they can be applied in 2008 to the Senate Race in Georgia, in which voters failed to elect a good man over a sleazy Republican insider. Depending on the circumstance, the disease of voter ignorance can permeate across both red and blue states, though for practical purposes it focuses on the blue in this election. 


When Bob Ehrlich announced his bid for reelection in early 2006, he should have cruised to victory, even as a conservative in the Democratic haven of Maryland. Instead, voters moved to elect Martin O'Malley due to his party affiliation, letting Ehrlich leave office with immense budget successes despite his earning of a second term. But in 2010, as the former governor launched a comeback bid, Maryland voters, clinging desperately to their Democratic leanings, would not reelect him, regardless of O'Malleys blatant failures to keep the state;s fiscal house in order. All because of Baltimore, a haven for welfare recipients and the average ignoramus when it comes to politics, the entire state was forced to loose a hope for economic recovery. 

Democrats have argued that background is important in any election, and so they propped up failure ex-governor John Kitzhaber to battle the imposing Chris Dudley, who was bulleted  as inexperienced and unprepared to lead--notwithstanding the 28 years of Democratic rule in the state which has led to a budget shortfall and 25% of the state budget meant for public sector retirement pay. True Dudley was a novice, yet he swept the entire state, only losing because of Portland's strong Democratic lean, and equal lean away from sensibility. If thirty years cannot solve one's problems, is it not time for a change?

And to the north, Washington's vote, decided predominantly by King County, went to veteran Democratic Senator Patty Murray, ignoring her categorically corrupt associations with Wall Street lobbyists and special interests in the nation's capital. Never mind that her opponent, estate agent Dino Rossi, carried most every county of the state--it is only the population center which counts. 

So are these outcomes really sensible or fair? Should each race be hinging on the largest portion of the states, which according to studies are the least educated and intellectually deficient? There's no forcible right or wrong answer, yet this should not stop the country from adopting a test for would be voters before they may pass their ballots. Nothing extreme, but a quick test on constitutional law would be enough to encourage individuals to read up on the issues before going out to vote, thus resulting in at least closer or more logical election consequences. 

Melanie Bryant

National Alliance Vice President for Education

Analysis and Progress

The tidal wave is certainly subsiding, yet within its wake is a call not to sit back in temerity, but rather to step up and challenge the issues which we so desperately need to overcome in these next two years. After four years of painful eradication at the ballot box, the Republicans have returned to Capitol Hill in full force, led by a stronger grassroots effort than ever seen before, and a mandate to deliver fundamental changes to government. As the National Alliance Foundation made clear in an earlier piece, this must be a time for the GOP to truly work and complete its promises to the public. Winning a race is one thing, yet following through on campaign promises is another entirely, and this is the test of the Republican mettle for 2011.

In almost a saddening way, the Democrats have fallen prey to the mistakes of poor judgement, and they arrive at Congress in January lacking senior giants such as Ike Skelton, Jim Oberstar, Allen Boyd, and even Rick Boucher, who could not survive the swarm of opposition in rural southern Virginia. This leaves the Democrats with less senior members, and a reminder of how governmental folly punishes the arrogant of the mob with minority status. The House is gone, solidly rocked to the other side with a sixty vote swing, though some still believe it may go as high as seventy over the next few days.

Although the Senate was easier for the Democratic Party to survive in, their proximity to defeat in a number of races should also serve as something of a message of 2012 and their electoral hopes in that great contest. In the state of Washington, upstart Dino Rossi looks likely to lose, yet only by less than 1%, a sure sign of danger in the traditionally blue state which Barack Obama cruised to victory in during 2008. Michael Bennett may fend off Ken Buck, but only by a mere point as well, putting that state's loyalty in question for the president's reelection. Obviously the firmest results for the left were in Nevada, where Harry Reid survived the coup to remove him from power, and California, where Barbara Boxer crushed challenger Carly Fiorina by more than 600,000 votes.

Possibly a larger problem for the DNC to mull over now is the simple dilemma of state gubernatorial races, which seem destined to hand bellwether states to the GOP, swapping out only a choice few solid blue provinces of California and New York with confident liberals. Ohio will now have a Republican governor, as will likely Florida and Michigan, all key states for both redistricting and the next presidential contest. Even true blue Oregon, which has not elected a Republican for decades, seems destined to fall out of the center-left's hands as Chris Dudley leads his Democratic opponent.

As if the fall of the giants was not enough, countless freshmen Democrats have been soundly routed, most notably with the case of liberal bastion and take-no-prisoners Alan Grayson, whose distasteful ads landed him a double digit silencing as Republican Daniel Webster annihilated his chances at reelection.

Refuting claims of anti-minority standing, the GOP elected a number of African Americans, most notably Allen West in Florida and Tim Scott in South Carolina. And in statewide contests, Marco Rubio pummeled independent Charlie Crist and Democrat Kendrick Meek, followed by Susana Martinez's defeating Diane Denish, adding more Hispanics to the national Republican caucus. In short, the mirage of the DNC serving as some welcoming all party was shattered as voters turned to real leadership, not talking points.

While these are all causes for celebration, they must serve as a warning to the GOP to not repeat the disaster of 1995, which was simply a smearing of President Bill Clinton. Indeed, Mitch McConnell's unwise quip that the GOP's focus is only unseating Barack Obama was hardly prudent, and should disqualify him from the leadership post. This Congress needs to represent action, not political gains. Republicans have a duty to build reasons for their taking of the executive branch in 2012, not simply a platform. That is the test of leadership for the GOP for the next two years in the lower house majority.


Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy