ProPublica reported that private schools in Ohio are actively encouraging parents to seek vouchers for their children to supplement their tuition. This enables the private schools to reduce student aid and also to raise tuition.
ProPublica said:
Tara Polansky and her husband were torn about where to enroll their daughter when they moved back to Columbus, Ohio, a year and a half ago. The couple, who work for a nonprofit organization and a foundation, respectively, were concerned about the quality of the city’s public schools and finally decided to send her to Columbus Jewish Day School. It was a long drive out to the suburbs every day, but they admired the school for its liberal-minded outlook.
So Polansky was startled when, in September, the school wrote to families telling them to apply for taxpayer-funded vouchers to cover part of the $18,000 tuition. In June, the Republican-controlled state government had expanded the state’s private-school voucher program to increase the value of the vouchers — to a maximum of $8,407 a year for high school students and $6,165 for those in lower grades — and, crucially, to make them available to all families.
For years the program, EdChoice, targeted mostly lower-income students in struggling school districts. Now it is an entitlement available to all, with its value decreasing for families with higher incomes but still providing more than $7,000 annually for high school students in solidly middle-class families and close to $1,000 for ones in the wealthiest families. Demand for EdChoice vouchers has nearly doubled this year, at a cost to Ohio taxpayers of several hundred million additional dollars, the final tally of which won’t be known for months.
That surge has been propelled by private school leaders, who have an obvious interest: The more voucher money families receive, the less schools have to offer in financial aid. The voucher revenue also makes it easier to raise tuition.
“The Board has voted to require all families receiving financial assistance … to apply for the EdChoice Program. We also encourage all families paying full tuition to apply for this funding,” read the email from the Columbus Jewish Day School board president. She continued: “I am looking forward to a great year — a year of learning, growing, and caring for each other. Let’s turn that caring into action by applying for the EdChoice Program.”
Polansky bridled at the direction. She had long subscribed to the main argument against private school vouchers: that they draw resources away from public education. It was one thing for her family to have chosen a private school. But she did not want to be part of an effort that, as she saw it, would decrease funding for schools serving other Columbus children. Together with another parent, she wrote a letter objecting to the demand.
“For this public money to go to kids to get a religious education is incredibly wrong,” she told ProPublica. “I absolutely don’t want to pull money out of an underfunded school district.”
For decades, Republicans have pushed, with mixed success, for school voucher programs in the name of parental choice and encouraging free-market competition among schools. But in just the past couple of years, vouchers have expanded to become available to most or all children in 10 states: Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia. The expansion has been spurred by growing Republican dominance in many state capitals, U.S. Supreme Court rulings loosening restrictions on taxpayer funding for religious schools, and parental frustration with progressive curricula and with public school closures during the coronavirus pandemic. Many of the expanded programs are experiencing high demand, which voucher advocates are taking as affirmation of their argument: that families would greatly prefer to send their children to private schools, if only they could afford them.
But much of the demand for the expanded voucher programs is in fact coming from families, many quite affluent, whose children were already attending private schools. In Arizona, the first state to allow any family to receive public funding for private schools or homeschooling, the majority of families applying for the money, about $7,000 per student, were not recently enrolled in public school. In Florida, only 13% of the 123,000 students added to the state’s expanded school-choice program had switched from public school.
In Ohio, the effects of the move toward looser eligibility in recent years was clear even prior to last summer’s big expansion: Whereas in 2018, fewer than a tenth of the students who were newly receiving vouchers that year had not attended a public school the year before, by 2022, more than half of students who were new to EdChoice were already in private schools.
That ratio will climb much higher in Ohio, now that the vouchers are available for families at all income levels and private schools are explicitly telling parents to apply. The surge in applications this school year has been so dramatic that it’s nearing the total enrollment for all private schools in the entire state.
At St. Brendan’s the Navigator, on the other side of the Columbus beltway from the Jewish Day School, the missive arrived on the last day of July. The letter, signed by the Rev. Bob Penhallurick, called the expanded vouchers a “tremendous boon to our school families and Catholic education across Ohio” and said that all families were “strongly encouraged to apply for and receive the EdChoice scholarship.” He noted that, depending on their income level, families could receive up to $6,165 for each child — nearly covering the $6,975 tuition. “Even a small scholarship is a major blessing for you, the school, and the parish,” he wrote.
And then he added, in italics, that if a family did not apply for the vouchers, “we will respect that decision,” but that “supplemental financial aid from the parish in this case will require a meeting” with either himself or another pastor at the school…
At Holy Family School near Youngstown, the directive arrived a few days later, on Aug. 3. “As you are aware, ALL students attending Holy Family School will be eligible for the EdChoice Scholarship. We are requesting that all families register their child/ren for this scholarship as soon as possible,” wrote the school’s leadership. And then it added in bold: “It is imperative that you register for EdChoice for each of your students. We are waiting to send invoices until your EdChoice Scholarship has been awarded.”
In an interview at the school, Holy Family principal Laura Parise said the push to apply for EdChoice had succeeded. “One hundred percent of our students are on it,” she said. “We made it that way — we made our families fill out the form, and we’re going from there.”
There is more. Open the link.

The BIG STEAL!
LikeLike
The voucher plan’s inception in Ohio by a Republican, Catholic governor, was solely to benefit Catholic schools (“Whose choice? How school choice began in Ohio”, Dec. 14, 1999, Akron Beacon Journal.)
Cleveland.com reported in 2017 that 7 of the top 10 recipients of voucher money were Catholic schools.
The reason that a Notre Dame professor who is a Koch Manhattan Institute Fellow succeeded in getting religious charter schools is because there has been no pushback, for 23 years, against the growth in weapons used by politicized right wing Catholics.
Even after 3 dioceses in Ohio spent $900,000 on the GOP agenda to destroy democracy in Ohio in August, there is no willingness to confront a quarter century religious sect juggernaut.
Even with the overturn of Roe v Wade, there is no willingness to identify the enemy.
Accepted spin is pervasive, for example, all sects are equal in politicking, Catholics are being persecuted, Christian evangelicals are Trump’s facilitators, not right wing Catholics, the Catholic Church isn’t politically powerful because a decline in membership is happening, the misperception that a majority of Catholics are liberal and have influence in the Catholic Conferences which are the political arm of the bishops, etc. And, we’re propagandized with the American Catholic Church’s down-the-rabbit-hole justification that the”common good” is their homophobic, anti-woman, Koch capitalism beliefs imposed on Americans.
What a strong indictment it is, when a blog commenter felt the need in a prior thread to preface her statement of truth with an apology.
Pats on the back to the liberals whose silence got the nation to where it is today (the praise is sarcasm). It’s likely that its too late to get freedom back and to stop the campaign of the linked despots and priests- as the nation was warned, democracy, if you can keep it.
LikeLike
If only 13% of voucher students came from public schools, then the state should not pull funds from public school budgets to pay them. Otherwise, it enables private entities to use public school budgets like an ATM. The choices of affluent parents should not allow public school budgets to get strip-mined by private entities. Public funds should be available to public services instead of unaccountable private groups.
LikeLike
Ohio’s adult population of Jews- 1.3%.
Speculating, how many protestant Christians (Black and White), Catholics, Mormons, religious unaffiliated, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. will be spending the taxpayers money at Jewish schools?
LikeLike
nmhedgehog@yahoo.com ________________________________
LikeLike
“The American Federation for Children is pleased to announce the official launch of AFC Victory Fund, a national Super PAC that will take AFC’s work of championing school choice and empowering parents to the next level.
During the 2024 election cycle, AFCVF will be a powerful force in state legislative races nationwide, devoting at least $10 million in support of school choice champions and against opponents.
AFCVF’s mission is to support candidates who prioritize education freedom, enabling families to choose the best education for their children. AFCVF believes every child deserves an education tailored to his or her unique needs and aspirations.“
https://www.federationforchildren.org/project/ohio/
The Ohio Federation For Children
LikeLike
She did not want to be part of an effort that,
as she saw it, would decrease funding for
schools serving other Columbus children.
“I absolutely don’t want to pull money out of
an underfunded school district.”
Did she
“put one’s money where one’s mouth is”?
Was she stopped from returning the money,
to schools serving others?
The tax and transfer money spent on
BELIEF schools is WRONG.
Differentiating religious beliefs from
State beliefs, plays well as a funding
qualifier.
Manifest destiny exceptionalism, the
divinely ordained right, quacks like
a religion.
Insert “Wall of separation”…
So when it comes to parroting
State beliefs, consider who benefits,
and who suffers.
LikeLike
The article’s final paragraph- the reporter was kicked out of the parking lot when he wanted to interview parents. A Catholic environment that is secretive, has it ever been good for society?
LikeLike
Ah, the vast, secret conspiracy! What’s REALLY in those thuribles? Mind-control chemicals?
And when will people demand an end to all these burnings at the stake!!!! They just aren’t acceptable here in the 21st century. And they really stink up the place!!! Ewwwww.
And Catholic Conferences! Why–did you know?–the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a diabolical call for people to stop being racist and love one another!!!! Yikes!!!!!!! Where is the outrage?!?!?!?
Click to access open-wide-our-hearts.pdf
And where’s Batman when you need him to stop these Catholic evil doers?!?!!?!?!?!? And what are Batman’s superpowers, you might ask? Well, he’s male, white, and rich. Is that sufficient to stop the nefarious secretive Catholics? After all, they are EVERYWHERE!!!!! It’s rumored that Nancy Pelosi’s cleaning lady is Catholic!!!!!!
And is the Catholic church really fielding drones in the shape of birds? Is it those listening and watching outside my window as I write this?
LikeLike
Bob-
When you were proven wrong about the programs of Sanders’ employer, I asked you a question you didn’t answer. Do you want tax-funded vouchers for religious schools?
LikeLike
I wasn’t proven wrong. She worked as the manager of philanthropy for a HOSPICE. She raised funds for it. And no, I do not support vouchers or diversion of tax dollars to religious schools. But you know this. I have written about my opposition to these here and on my own blog MANY TIMES.
LikeLike
So, you have never answered my question. What was it in your past that set you off on this crusade against Catholics and Catholicism? There must be some etiology. Why so secretive? Do share.
LikeLike
Perhaps you are confused, Linda, because you think that a hospice is always a place that deals with dying people. But that’s not so. A hospice is a place that does not try to IMPROVE people but, rather, offers palliative care. In this particular hospice that she worked for as a fund raiser, the idea was not to try to make the exceptionally neurodivergent into neurotypical people but, rather, to accept them as they are and to help them have a good quality of life. A noble undertaking, that, and not the sinister thing you tried to portray it as, with your references to its somehow nefarious funding. It is a charity that does charitable work, and it has funding, which is a good thing. OBVIOUSLY.
LikeLike
At its website, the Center for Family Love does not identify itself as a hospice care center. Sanders has worked there since 2013.
When the Catholic Church gains the passage of laws that jeopardize your life and that of your son, and one of you chooses to fight that political action, I will ask you what personal trauma inflicted by individual Catholic religionists induced you or him to fight on behalf of those of your gender. Should your homosexual child fight for the rights of the LGBTQ community, I will ask you to tell him/her to explain the personal trauma inflicted by Catholic religionists. And, if there is none, I will demand that something be imagined by your child and reported to the blog.
When you told the blog that you and Diane are friends, you made what you write a reflection on her. She says she reads every comment. I’d speculate that me responding to your silly stuff e.g. Batman, again is a waste of her time. But, if she thinks her friend’s repetitive ridicule of me warrants my reply, I’ll take the request under advisement.
LikeLike
ROFL. I had a beagle once who, when he got hold of a bone, wouldn’t let it go come Ragnarök.
LikeLike
I JUST FREAKING EXPLAINED THE SENSE IN WHICH IT IS A HOSPICE FOR CRYING OUT FREAKING LOUD. CAN’T YOU FREAKING READ?
LikeLike
“Center of Family Love Serving the Intellectually Disabled Through Christ”
That is at the top corner of every single page of their website.
This isn’t hospice, which is generally limited to someone having a life expectancy of less than 6 months.
Bob, could you be confusing hospice and palliative care, which are not the same thing?
If someone raising funds identified this as a “hospice”, it would be fraud. Why not just identify it for what it is instead of using a term like “hospice” which is clearly not what anyone calls a program that serves the intellectually disabled? (FYI I am using the terminology that Center for Family Love uses to describe its activities).
Center of Family Love: Serving the Intellectually Disabled Through Christ includes a program placing individuals living with disabilities into “careers manufacturing heat and air filters at Filters for Life in Kingfisher”. And seems to have a nursery/flower shop where others can work.
According to its website, another way to help is to pray.
All are invited to
“Join us in the Blessed Stanley Rothel Chapel for Mass held by one of our visiting priests!”
Thursdays @ 9:30am
(The “Ways to Pray” portion of the website does not seem to include other religions)
No doubt this organization does some very good work.
Fundraising is an important part, as a requirement to be on their volunteer teen board is to “Meet a minimum fundraising requirement”. The other requirements of service seem typical, but it seems unusual to have fundraising a requirement for teens.
I took a look at their 2022 990-PF filing.
13.7 million in revenue against 9.1 in expense (most expense was salaries)
Although the organization spent 5.5 million in salaries in 2022, only one person – the executive director – is listed under employees earning more than $100,000.
LikeLike
You two insist on beating this dead horse. She is described on her website as working at a hospice for disabled persons. This comes from a profile of her in the Oklahoman. A hospice is a place that offers palliative care. Sometimes, usually it offers palliative care to the dying. In this case it offers palliative care to persons with disabilities. By this they mean that they accept and meet people where they are without trying to make them neurotypical. I have explained this numerous times. I am done explaining it. Get a freaking life.
LikeLike
13.7 million in revenue against 9.1 in expense (most expense was salaries).
This is utterly unsurprising is a small nonprofit. And a salary of $100K for the director of a care facility is also unsurprising and not large or extraordinary. It’s slightly below the median for someone working as a healthcare manager:
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/medical-and-health-services-managers.htm
LikeLike
The website makes it clear that the philosophy behind their work is to meet and accept the neurodivergent where they are rather than try to take active measures to make them neurotypical. In other words, they don’t try to cure. That’s what hospice is, as I have explained to you two now over and over and over and over freaking again. It’s a place where the care model is not to cure but to offer a comfortable and dignified environment. Yes, there is hospice for dying people. This is where one usually encounters this mode of care. But there is also hospice for the neurodivergent, and this is an example of that.
It takes a “special” way of thinking to turn something as obviously good as running a center to give disabled people a comfortable and dignified environment into something supposedly sinister.
LikeLike
NYC
I appreciate the thoroughness of your approach to gathering information.
I wrote to The Oklahoman which appears to be the single source Bob used, suggesting they review for accuracy.
I also appreciate your willingness to and skill at making the case that government function when tethered to a religious sect is problematic. It is alarming that taxpayers have made Catholic organizations the nation’s 3rd largest employer (and, that ranking is without the flood gates opened for vouchers and religious charter schools in every state).
One of the major disappointments of my life as an American citizen, is the number of people unwilling to identify the foremost enemy in the fight to reclaim separation of church and state. Even after women’s lives were put at risk
and further indignities heaped on them and LGBTQ… crickets.
I understand the support, the acquiescence, received by a man who writes in disparagement of female commenters, “Can’t you read?”. Never the less, it disappoints which is how Greg felt, I think. NYC, you are a bright spot because you challenge it.
LikeLike
Mystified as to why this minor fact is being debated. Center of Family Love Serving the Intellectually Disabled Through Christ isn’t a hospice. It’s not a reflection on the organization’s work to point out that it isn’t a hospice. It is just the truth. Some newspaper erroneously saying it is does not make it true, especially when anyone looking at its tax returns or website can see what charitable activities it does do.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’”
LikeLike
Hospice is a mode of care. The approach is not to attempt to cure but to make patients as comfortable and happy as possible. Once again, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
LikeLike
This minor fact is being debated because in her usual mode of vituperation against anything Catholic, she insinuated that this woman was working for a Catholic “Center” that had outrageous amounts of funding without bothering to mention that a) it was a home for caring for disabled people, b) Sanders worked as a fundraiser for it, c) it has a fairly modest budget as such places go but, FORTUNATELY, is funded. So, a few little details left out there. ROFL. But do go on and on and on and on and on and on aond aon aon anon anon anon anon ad nauaseam
LikeLike
The National Institute of Heath has a good explanation of the difference between palliative care and hospice care. “Hospice is provided for a person with a terminal illness whose doctor believes he or she has six months or less to live if the illness runs its natural course.”
https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/hospice-and-palliative-care/what-are-palliative-care-and-hospice-care
LikeLike
Yes, that is true of a hospice that serves dying patients. ROFL.
LikeLike
As opposed to this one, which was described as “a hospice care center that works with disabled people.” But please go on and on some more. People enjoy this so much when you do. Especially if you can fill a few thousand column inches.
LikeLike
Bob, what is wrong with you that you can’t simply say that you were wrong about a minor fact? You can still make whatever arguments you want to without doubling down on a minor fact.
Come on! The folks in this center are (hopefully!) getting treatment for whatever illnesses they might get. If they get a bad case of covid or pneumonia they presumably go to a hospital where all life-saving methods are taken to cure them. They aren’t just treating their pain and making them comfortable. No family with disabled adults sends their loved ones to “hospice” to help them become more functioning adults.
You are letting your personal feelings get in the way of your good sense. Why? Linda and I don’t have a problem at all with people telling us we are wrong. I have seen Linda acknowledging her errors on occasion and I definitely do. But often we defend our views. Just be courteous.
Treat us the way you treated “Wendy” when you told her she was wrong. You were courteous to “Wendy”, a right wing troll who launched a personal attack (at someone you dislike), but you can’t extend that courtesy to us? Or admit that hospice means what the NIH and most people say it means and doesn’t mean the same as palliative care?
LikeLike
Please, NYC. You can do much, much better than that. This isn’t even close to your personal best. See if you can go on about this 24/7 through February at least. I have explained this to you over and over again. THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO CURE THESE PEOPLE’S NEURODIVERGENCE. That has nothing to do with whether they send them to a doctor when they get sick. Really. And here’s the wonderful thing, NYC: You will never run out of pixels to use up harping ABOUT FREAKING NOTHING and making weird claims. You could keep up this thread for the next 20 years!!! Now that would be an accomplishment!!! Call the Guiness people!!!
LikeLike
The profile described the Center as “a hospice care center that works with disabled people.” But ofc you know better than the people at the Center do what they do, just as you know what teachers should teach better than teachers do. And you have this magical ability to tell what books you have not read are all about and what their effects are. You know, like the Moms for the Liberty to Take Away Other People’s Liberties.
LikeLike
And, OF COURSE, palliative care is one of the primary functions of a hospice. LOL. It’s not freaking either/or. That’s a pretty obvious fallacy.
LikeLike
So, once again. I will say this very slowly so you can follow it. At this Center, they. don’t. try. to. cure. people. of. neurodivergence. As a hospice for dying people doesn’t try to cure them and so keep them from dying. It’s the same mode of care. Make them comfortable. Make them as happy as possible.
BTW, I have a friend who has worked at a hospice for many, many years. He has seen hundreds of people die. We met at our local Humanist Society meetings. This SKEPTIC said to me, “You know, Bob. When the body is almost entirely wasted away, all you can see, what you see, is the soul.”
LikeLike
Insert six hundred more pages of refutation here, NYC. Everyone is waiting with bated breath. Not since Dickens was serialized in Victorian England has there been such anticipation!!!!!!
LikeLike
“At this Center, they. don’t. try. to. cure. people. of. neurodivergence. As a hospice for dying people doesn’t try to cure them and so keep them from dying. It’s the same mode of care. Make them comfortable. Make them as happy as possible.”
Rehab Centers for people who become paraplegics or who lose a limb don’t try to “cure” people of their disability. They teach them how to LIVE with it. They aren’t hospices. You are starting to sound like a parody, Bob. Rehab Centers also want their patients to be comfortable and as happy as possible. That has nothing to do with HOSPICE. Which you keep confusing with palliative care despite hospice being commonly understood (present company excepted) to refer to care for terminally ill people who have less than a year to live, while palliative care can be given to people who are in hospice and who are not. All (good?) hospice includes palliative care, but all palliative care is not hospice.
At this Center, the mission is not to “make them comfortable”. The mission is:
To cultivate a nurturing environment where individuals with IDD and neurodivergence can flourish and lead fulfilling lives. ….Gone are the days of relegating this community to menial jobs and tamping down their dreams and goals. We know they can do more.”
Let’s just stop before you write another 1,000 or 100,000 words accusing me of doing what you are doing.
LikeLike
Perhaps you and Linda can hock everything you have and start an institute to look into THE TRUTH about this extremely important question of whether these folks can call themselves a hospice. This major epistemological question will doubtless ENTRALL future generations, just as every reader of this blog cannot wait to read your next multi-paragraph exposition about it. ROFLMAO.
LikeLike
Bob, you are the only one making this a big deal.
Let’s agree to disagree. If you want to keep doubling down that it’s correct to call a place whose mission is to “cultivate a nurturing environment where individuals with IDD and neurodivergence can flourish and lead fulfilling lives” a hospice, then I find it odd, but whatever.
CBK below writes a courteous response to Linda. Linda may very well disagree. But that’s okay. People can have different opinions without making this personal.
LikeLike
There’s e-mail contact for St. Brendan’s at its website.
LikeLike
Holy Family has an e-mail address for the principal quoted.
LikeLike
Holy Family as reported by US News, student diversity 94.8% White. The Black population of Youngstown is 42.4% .
LikeLike
Cutthroat Capitalism ALEC libertarian style on steroids
LikeLike
Fordham is quoted in the article. IMO, Fordham’s alignment with Hoover tells us the staff wants libertarianism i.e. the social and economic tenets of Charles Koch’s network. The fact that Fordham champions what benefits religious schools, forces the conclusion that religion is inconsistent with a developed nation’s goals for quality of life for all its citizens (no one left behind) and for equality of opportunity.
The religious leaders of the majority religious in the US inform us about Christ’s teachings, whether Jesus is deemed a prophet or as one of the trinity and, the leaders steer politically in the direction that they ascribe to Christ.
The concern about the survival of religion in an advanced nation like the US is well-founded. Compassion is at odds with the largest swath of religious voters in the US. Christ may be rooting for right wing religionists to lose but, they are winning in the electoral college-rich states which are the majority of the states in the nation (GOP). Either the US is a progressive nation where the hold of right wing religionists is eliminated or, it is the land of Christ-less, Jesus talking libertarians.
LikeLike
Hello Linda Interesting note; but you forgot something in the end where you say, first that “Compassion is at odds with the largest swath of religious voters in the US. Christ may be rooting for right wing religionists to lose, but they are winning . . .”
. . . . and then you offer only two (either/or) choices about where the United States can end up. But you missed the third, compliments of your interest in omitting important aspects of your analyses. Here are your two choices, based on your analysis, then I suggest the one you missed, based on that same analysis (and much more):
You write: “Either the US is a progressive nation where the hold of right wing religionists is eliminated or, it is the land of Christ-less, Jesus talking libertarians.
The third, then, is related to your statement that “compassion is at odds with the largest swath of religious voters in the US.”* Here, you imply wrongly (1) that all religious voters are *right wing religionists.” And (2) that all are “at odds” with compassion.
If you are covertly relating compassion with the teachings of Jesus, (which I hope you recognize is the case) you would be right. (And I wouldn’t even guess who Jesus is “rooting for.”)
With that in mind, you overlook that “a huge swath” (whatever that means) of religious voters are NOT at odds with compassion (on the contrary); and that, BTW, who understand clearly the danger that’s going on with this “back door” financial-based intrusion (through education) into a fundamental tenet of freedom of religion as well as separation of it from formal support of and identity with State and U.S. Institutions.
And those omitted religious people are the third way that is “out there” and that belie your statement that: The concern about the survival of religion in an advanced nation like the US is well-founded.
That’s a pretty big leap, Linda . . . from “right wing religion” which, by omission, you broadbrush to all red states or even the whole of the US: the “concern for the survival of religion.” (where did right wing go?) AND from there to assuming even all right-wing religious people are compassionless. (My head is swimming at the apparent house of mirrors . . . .)
I haven’t read your stuff for a long time, but I peeked, and see nothing has changed from before in your twisted analyses, which apparently are still based (at least) on a lack of distinction (more covert omissions), in this case, between questions of morality, which compassion is, and questions of religious doctrine, not to mention political and religious foundations which are both in the Constitution, notably for religion, under “freedom of,” and where it says nothing about “right-wing” religion. But where you still subtly equate religion with your lip service to (wait for it) right-wing religion. CBK
LikeLike
CBK,
You raise some interesting questions. At what point does invoking one’s religious beliefs for their support of a candidate become relevant to what those religious beliefs are?
I believe Linda readily acknowledges that there are progressive religious people. But they usually don’t worship at churches that seem to make it a condition that worshipers must support their progressive political goals or be excluded.
This wasn’t always the case. The Southern Baptist Convention used to be a place that recognized differences and slowly morphed into an intolerant right wing organization where religion was used to push a very right wing political agenda.
The Catholic Church has also seemed to move rightward thanks to folks like Leonard Leo. It’s concerning when a relatively conservative Pope is seen as some left winger because the US Catholic Church has turned so far rightward. I do wonder what would happen today if the next Pope was a very right wing Catholic. I admit to being ignorant and defer to you on this, but wouldn’t a Leonard Leo approved Pope have an affect on all US Catholic Churches regardless of the progressive leanings of its leader or congregants?
When did the US Bishops start to debate setting “Communion guidelines”? Did that happen when there were a fair number of Republicans who supported a woman’s right to choose, or did it only happen once those folks were drummed out of the right wing Republican party and being pro-choice was associated only with Democrats?
Did the US Bishops set “Communion Guidelines” for politicians who supported the death penalty, recognizing that all priests should have the right to withhold communion from any Republican politicians who supported the death penalty?
There is no doubt that there are progressive and moderate Catholic Churches. There are also progressive, moderate,and right wing Jewish synagogues, too. But there are also separate organizations, not a single organization of Jewish Rabbis who decide on policy for all.
LikeLike
a relatively conservative Pope?
Pope Francis has evoked the ire of conservatives everywhere by being clear about his belief that capitalism oppresses the poor and threatens our planet via climate change, species eradication, pollution of air and water, and so on. He has been extremely vocal and adamant about all of this.
He has historically supported LGBTQX rights. In a recent interview with Jesuit Father James Martin, he said that “God is Father and he does not disown any of his children. And ‘the style’ of God is ‘closeness, mercy and tenderness.’ Along this path you will find God.”1 He also called on Catholic bishops who support laws that criminalize homosexuality to welcome LGBTQ+ people into the church, saying that “Being homosexual isn’t a crime.” He has welcomed LGBTQX people into the church. He has said that it is OK for priests to bless LGBTQX couples and has opened the door to acceptance by the church of gay marriage.
Quite an unusual Conservative, there.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent What Bob said, and what he said in another post where he quoted from recent Catholic meetings.
But I also think that, in a different context, the gender thing and other divisive social issues, including abortion, is a group of red herrings for those unelected wealthy among us to merely use for their self-serving purpose. . . those who think, for some reason, that they are above the law, not to mention the rest of us, and every other degenerate character trait and emptiness of spirit you can think of. And Leonard Leo is scum, in the same bag, in my judgment, as Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, and Trump himself. Excuse me . . . I need to take a shower. CBK
LikeLike
I retract the term “relatively conservative”* and replace it with “relatively moderate”.
It says a lot about how brainwashed we have become about the rightward tilt of our country to present what seems to me to be Pope Francis’ fairly mainstream beliefs as if they were some radical Catholic theology.
40+ years ago, liberation theology was radical. But Pope Francis seems to be perceived as a radical liberation theology supporter by the right wing even though to me he seems relatively moderate. I didn’t realize that caring for the planet, welcoming gay folks into the Catholic Church, and recognizing the ill-effects of capitalism while not being “anti-capitalist” in any sense was suddenly far left radical.
Wouldn’t it be at least as accurate to say that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has become a lot more right wing? They never thought to deny Communion to politicians until very recently. I don’t recall the Eucharist being weaponized against Democratic politicians until very recently.
I read somewhere that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in other western countries is not as conservative and politicized as in the US — not trying to deny Communion to politicians, etc. Does Pope Francis seem fairly mainstream to them?
*Perhaps our view of what “conservative” means has been warped as radical far right neo-fascists seem to define themselves as “conservatives” when it is they who are far out of the mainstream of what America was when I grew up, while the progressives like Bernie Sanders are advocating what is basically the economic and social policies of LBJ and Truman (and even Eisenhower) and the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter. So if someone supported those policies today, I’d think of them as fairly conservative since that is the term I use to refer to the views that seemed mainstream in my youth.
LikeLike
“to present what seems to me to be Pope Francis’ fairly mainstream beliefs as if they were some radical Catholic theology.”
NO ONE HERE said that his beliefs were “radical Catholic theology.” NO ONE. Again, you are attributing to people things they did not say.
However, a pope calling into question Capitalism itself is not considered by right-wingers to be “moderate.” It’s considered to be leftist. And it is
LikeLike
^^^My recollections may be wrong, but I remember a time in the late 1970s or 1980s when Catholics could oppose abortion personally while not feeling that meant they had to fight to make all abortion illegal for all. Nancy Pelosi seemed like a fairly mainstream Catholic, instead of some radical that she is now portrayed as by the current hierarchy of the US Catholic Church.
LikeLike
Bob says “a pope calling into question Capitalism itself is not considered by right-wingers to be “moderate.” It’s considered to be leftist. And it is”
Wait, now I am confused.
Did the pope call into question Capitalism itself or did the pope say that capitalism oppresses the poor? Because saying that capitalism oppresses the poor is what I thought most people believed from the time that FDR fought for social programs, and continued through the LBJ era.
If Pope Francis is advocating for ending capitalism, then I didn’t realize it. I thought he was doing what FDR and LBJ and many other religious folks were doing and recognizing that something needs to be done about the negative effects of capitalism and how it affects the poor. I assumed that meant a strong safety net like in western democracies.
That doesn’t seem radical but maybe because I grew up believing that was mainstream thought.
I said I was wrong to call the beliefs that seemed mainstream during my childhood “conservative” and I explained it and replaced it with “moderate”. Why are you still jumping all over it?
But the leadership of the US Catholic Church has changed their political involvement since the early 2000s, and I don’t understand why what the far right leadership in the US (but not in other western democracies) has done to politicize the Church to help Republicans is “conservative”. If anything, they are the radical ones and Pope Francis seems more like the leadership of the US Catholic Church in the 1980s.
Maybe CBK has an opinion on this, and perhaps she believes the leadership of the US Catholic Church has always been this politically right wing. But I did not think so. And I hope some other comments of mine will eventually post that quote how different the politics of the leadership was in the 1980s.
LikeLike
Please go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on until Armageddon, NYC.
LikeLike
And now, added to your many accomplishments, such as knowing better than teachers do whether they should teach a book you have never read, you are an expert on Catholicism and the papacy. My lord, the accomplishments!
But sorry, please go on and on and on. Everyone is so fascinated. They can’t wait for the next 10,800 paragraphs about the utterly unimportant.
LikeLike
NYC It would take a month of Sundays to reply properly to your note here about politics, religion, the Pope and several U.S. Presidents. And I think the term “conservative” is desperately looking for several other terms for further differentiations of its burgeoning meaning, so it really is an only sometimes-helpful catchall term. At any rate, I appreciate your questions, but the firehose of information and work await. Thanks, CBK
LikeLike
CBK,
Thank you for your courteous reply.
As I am sure you know, I do not hold myself to be an expert in Catholicism and the papacy. That is why I took the time to post some excerpts from articles that talk about how the current situation has evolved since the early 2000s, and is different than what was going on in the US Catholic leadership in the 1970s and 1980s, where there didn’t seem to be a right wing politicization. But obviously other people may know differently and I welcome that insight.
I thought it was very interesting to learn that the idea of denying pro-choice Catholic politicians communion was NOT done in the 1970s and 1980s when there were pro-choice Catholics in both parties. Faithful Catholics like Nancy Pelosi were not condemned for their political beliefs, as opposed to their personal beliefs.
I don’t welcome people who don’t even want to discuss whether the US Catholic leadership has become more right wing political in the last 20+ years, but instead just want to launch personal attacks and snark.
I have no idea why Bob even inserted himself into this thread except to once again hijack it with more gratuitously nasty personal attacks in which Bob puts words in my mouth.
Bob is constantly putting words in my mouth and then throws temper tantrums if he believes I have mischaracterized something he wrote. The difference between us is that I don’t have a problem correcting something if I got it wrong, whereas Bob just doubles down on the attack. It’s getting tiresome. I see why Linda would rather Bob not reply at all.
LikeLike
NYC “I don’t welcome people who don’t even want to discuss whether the US Catholic leadership has become more right wing political in the last 20+ years, but instead just want to launch personal attacks and snark.”
If that comment was aimed at me, then let me clarify what you refer to as my “snark” and “personal attacks.”
In my view, it’s Catholics (and others who claim Christianity), like poster-boy Leonard Leo, who have swung the U.S. to the far right (as you say, as different in the US from other countries, and even the Pope), and (as I said in my note) who are, in fact, the unelected wealthy, and POLITICALLY and MORALLY ideological power-mongers in this country.
You or anyone can put it in a psychological-only framework (snark and personal attacks, which already limits any power discourse might have); but I have nothing but contempt for Catholics and others who apparently have replaced (in their own low-level thinking) Jesus’ teaching (and you cannot get much clearer than the New Testament on that score) with their own spiritual vacuum of self-serving egotism dressed up like class . . . I can find no relation between what they are doing and Jesus’ teaching.
What makes it so-much-worse is that they use their Catholicism, Christianity, and religion as such, to run interference for their own bevy of psychological, political, and moral diseases. To me, they are no better than some honky-tonk, backwoods, hard-haired preacher stealing money from their parishioners under the guise spreading the word.
I mean no offence, NYC, but if that’s not satisfactory to you, I still have to leave the stage. CBK
LikeLike
^^I also was fascinating to learn from the 2004 article in the National Catholic Reporter below that what the author referred to as “the communion controversy currently raging in the United State” was seen as “an exclusively American phenomenon” because “Across Europe, there are many Catholic politicians who differ from church teaching on issues such as abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, and stem cell research”, and there had never been (at least in 2004) a suggestion by the Catholic Church in those European countries to deny them communion.
LikeLike
CBK,
I am shocked you thought that reference to being snarky was for you. It never remotely crossed my mind that it wasn’t obvious I was referring to Bob’s many gratuitously uncivil replies, but I apologize for not making that more clear in my comment.
CBK, we are in agreement. But like Linda, I find it worrisome when the leadership of any religion politicizes it in that way. As a Jew, if there was some overriding body who was the hierarchy of all Jewish synagogues in America which was condemning Jewish politicians of one party only for not having the right stance on Israel or abortion or being kosher, I would consider it a radical movement trying to change what the practice of Judaism has meant for decades and I would not believe it was anti-Semitic to talk about it. If the US Synagogue leadership (if there was one) was taken over by the right wing and now demanded all Jewish politicians vote a certain way on Israel or fight for US laws that ban intermarriage or ban abortion or be expelled from the synagogue, or prevented from participating in certain sacraments, I would be outraged.
Jews have huge disagreements about a lot of thing (Israel itself is significantly divided about a lot of things). As people of every religion do. But when one group takes hold of a country’s entire religious hierarchy and tries to make it a condition of being Jewish that they support only politicians and policies that conform with what the new right wing leadership defines as proper “Jewish” beliefs, that would be wrong and concerning.
I support religions that have all kinds of practices. Mormons have the right to not drink alcohol. But as far as I know, they aren’t fighting for laws that prevent all people in the US from having alcohol because they believe it is wrong.
Speaking out to condemn abortion and trying to convince women not to have them makes sense as a religious practice. So is speaking out against the death penalty. But at some point 20 or so years ago that changed into fighting for politicians who will make abortion (but not the death penalty) illegal for everyone including non-Catholics and then saying that politicians who didn’t fight for that weren’t proper Catholics. And it ONLY happened in the US and not Europe, although perhaps since that 2004 article was written, the hierarchy in European countries has also been radicalized to be right wing the way the US has.
LikeLike
A belief that puts women and girls’ lives at risk is backwards, the motivation is ugly and, it is the oppression of the vulnerable. A characterization of it as moderate, normalizes the indefensible.
LikeLike
NPR.org:
“Pelosi receives Communion in the Vatican, despite her home archbishop refusing it”
June 29, 202210:03 AM ET
“Pelosi’s home archbishop, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, has said he will NO LONGER ALLOW her to receive the sacrament in his archdiocese because of her support for abortion rights. Cordileone, a conservative, has said Pelosi must either repudiate her support for abortion or stop speaking publicly of her Catholic faith.”
This article was written in 2022, and the phrase “NO LONGER ALLOW” certainly suggests that this kind of politicization of religion is not the norm. It is not “conservative”.
The fact that the Pope allowed Nancy Pelosi to receive Communion is “conservative” because that is what she could do in her own US archdiocese until suddenly in 2022 we all got brainwashed to believe that a US archbishop denying it to her was normal.
LikeLike
From the National Catholic Reporter
“The Word From Rome” May 28, 2004, by John L. Allen Jr.
“Who speaks for the Vatican?; European and American approaches to pro-choice politicians”
“In January 2001, Rome’s outgoing mayor, Francesco Rutelli, was the candidate of Italy’s center-left “Olive Tree” coalition to be the country’s next Prime Minister. (Rutelli went on to lose to Silvio Berlusconi). Rutelli’s political background was in the Radical Party, which had led the battle for legalized abortion in Italy. As he moved into the mainstream, Rutelli took the classic position of left-leaning Catholics in public life: personally opposed to abortion, but not willing to impose his stance through law.
On Jan. 6, Rutelli and his wife Barbara, who are regular Mass-goers, attended the final act of the Catholic Church’s Jubilee Year: the closing of the Holy Door at St. Peter’s Basilica. Despite what in the United States would be termed his “pro-choice” stance, Rutelli came forward for Communion and received it from Pope John Paul II himself.
By itself, the episode does little to indicate the right answer to the communion controversy currently raging in the United States. But it does reflect a striking aspect of the debate, which is that so far it is an exclusively American phenomenon.
Across Europe, there are many Catholic politicians who differ from church teaching on issues such as abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, and stem cell research. One clear example comes in Germany, where Christa Nickels is a deputy in the Bundestäg with the leftist Green Party, which favors marriage rights for homosexuals. Yet Nickels is also a practicing Catholic and the spokesperson for environmental and bio-ethical questions for the Central Committee of German Catholics, a state-sponsored body. To date, no German bishop has suggested denying her communion.
Similar examples can be found in every European parliament. In Austria, the Social Democratic Party supports abortion rights, and features a number of practicing Catholics. In Belgium, the Christian Democratic Party includes Catholics who clash with the church on homosexual marriage and euthanasia.
So why is it just the Americans talking about sanctions? ”
From Wikipedia:
“Proposals to deny communion to pro-abortion rights politicians are more common in the United States. Suggested reasons for this are a politicization of pastoral practice.”
…
“The first instance of a pro-abortion rights politician being censured via denial of communion was in 1989. During a special election for the California Senate, Pro-abortion rights Catholic Lucy Killea was barred from communion by Leo Thomas Maher, then bishop of San Diego. She received communion in Sacramento with the consent of Bishop Francis Quinn.The incident brought publicity to Killea’s candidacy and gained her the voters’ sympathy, helping her to win the election.
In 1984, Cardinal John Joseph O’Connor, then archbishop of New York, considered excommunicating New York Governor Mario Cuomo. He also condemned Cuomo’s statements that support for abortion rights did not contradict Catholic teaching, but DID NOT SUGGEST THAT CUOMO SHOULD STOP RECEIVING COMMUNION.”
LikeLike
Just living in San Francisco must have Cordileone constantly in knots. ROFL.
LikeLike