Honor Roll: Bishops who supported traditional marriage in Maine

I've written before about the hard-fought battle won for traditional marriage in Maine earlier this month, with significant Catholic assistance.

Tim Drake at NCRegister has the numbers of the top dioceses which supported the Maine efforts financially {and I have added the names of the cardinal or arch/bishop in each diocese}:

Maine released its campaign finance filings, showing contributors to the Diocese of Portland’s successful effort to prevent the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

According to the campaign finance records, nearly five dozen dioceses and bishops made financial contributions to the effort. Among the largest donations were $50,000 donations from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Diocese of Phoenix. 

Here is the list of the Top 12 Dioceses That Contributed to Support Marriage:

Phoenix         $50,000 - Bishop Thomas Olmsted

Philadelphia     $50,000 - Justin Cardinal Rigali

St. Louis         $10,000 - Archbishop Robert Carlson

Kansas City, Kan.  $10,000 - Archbishop Joseph Naumann

Newark         $10,000 - Archbishop John Myers

Providence       $10,000 - Bishop Thomas Tobin

Youngstown     $10,000 - Bishop George Murry

Fall River         $5,000 - Bishop George Coleman

Rockford         $5,000 - Bishop Thomas Doran

Crookston       $5,000 - Bishop Michael Hoeppner

Pittsburgh         $5,000 - Bishop David Zubik

Arlington         $5,000 - Bishop Paul Loverde

To see the entire list of campaign contributors, visit here.

Quite frankly, these are bishops who put their financial resources and personal reputations on the line to defend traditional marriage in this country. Traditional marriage is not a popular issue to defend these days. Just look at the attacks that have been aimed at the Mormons since Proposition 8 passed in California.

If you live in one of these dioceses (or another diocese that donated, but a lesser sum), please consider contacting your bishop and briefly expressing your gratitude to him.

I can guarantee these bishops will get angry letters (or worse) from individuals on the opposite side of this issue. 

The St. Louis Catholic blog, for example, has already detailed the case of the local Saint Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper attacking Archbishop Robert Carlson for supporting the efforts of his brother bishop in Maine to protect marriage. (The Archdiocese has issued a short statement in response here.)

Also, please continue to show your support for the local bishop in Maine, Bishop Richard Malone. 

I'm sure he is getting the brunt of their anger.

Wuerl's Gambit: Claims that Church's social services threatened by DC gay marriage

There is a showdown taking place in Washington DC between the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington and the liberal DC City Council over new efforts to redefine marriage in the District.

I have blogged before about Archbishop Wuerl's decision to actively engage the resources of the local Church on this issue.

The Washington Post has coverage today on the latest salvo fired by representatives of the Archdiocese, claiming that if the gay marriage bill is approved, the Catholic Church may be forced to cease providing its numerous social services in the area.

[As an aside - we should be wary of the objectivity of the WaPo's coverage. This is the same publication, after all, that only a couple weeks ago called Catholic attorney general candidate Ken Cuccinelli a "bigot" and an "embarrassment" for his personal views about homosexual acts. Well, Ken still won the election, and the WaPo has yet to apologize.]

Anyway, I'd rather trust what the Archdiocese of DC has said itself about the issue in its press release, which points out that in this situation, it is the DC council that is acting as the aggressor - the council have made changes to the language of the bill which render it even more harmful to the free practice of religious entities in the District:

"... [as the bill is currently written,] religious organizations and individuals are at risk of legal action for refusing to promote and support same-sex marriages in a host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs. This includes employee benefits, adoption services and even the use of a church hall for non-wedding events for same-sex married couples. Religious organizations such as Catholic Charities could be denied licenses or certification by the government, denied the right to offer adoption and foster care services, or no longer be able to partner with the city to provide social services for the needy."

“It is our concern that the committee’s narrowing of the religious exemption language will cause the government to discontinue our long partnership with them and open up the agency to litigation and the use of resources to defend our religious beliefs rather than serve the poor,” said Edward Orzechowski, president/CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington. Catholic Charities serves 68,000 people in the city each year. The city’s 40 Catholic parishes operate another 93 social service programs to provide crucial services."

The same press release invites folks to visit www.MarriageMattersDC.org for more information.

This threat isn't small potatoes. Though I do not have the time at present to hunt down all the related links and news stories, regular AmP readers will recall that the Catholic Church's social services have been shut down over issues related to gay marriage and adoption legislation (notably in Boston and San Francisco) before. It's a disturbing trend.

I'm also trying to track down parallel stories of religious organizations being forced to shut down their charitable organizations due to harassment for "discrimination" against homosexuals. This sort of thing has happened before but typically it does not receive much mainstream media attention. If you know of cases please send them to me.

update: Get Religion's analysis of the reporting by WaPo is once again a very useful contribution.

update 2: I also recommend reading Chuck Donovan over at Heritage for more context.

Action: Halt same-sex marriage in New York

update - it appears that gay marriage proponents decided not to introduce their measure in the senate meeting today. Great work, papists! Thank you for defending traditional marriage in the state of New York!

===

As I wrote late last week, Governor Patterson may try to bring gay marriage to a vote TODAY.

Edward Mechmann (who blogs for the archdiocese of New York) gives AmP readers some tips:

Please visit the NYS Catholic Conference Catholic Advocacy Network or the National Organization for Marriage to send emails to the NYS legislature.  

Thanks for taking a few moments to contact your state reps!

Alert: Gov. Patterson plans to push gay marriage in NY next tuesday

No less than one week after the American people, for the 31st time, clearly rejected homosexual marriage when given a chance to vote on the issue, the highly-unpopular governor of New York is attempting to force it on his state before he leaves office:

"Gov. David A. Paterson said Thursday that he would include gay marriage on the agenda of an extraordinary session he is calling for Tuesday, potentially setting up the first vote on the issue in the State Senate and a dramatic floor debate.

Senate Democratic leaders could still block the issue from coming to the floor and have done so before, though it appears more likely to be put to a vote this time. Gay rights advocates, who feared holding a vote amid a Senate leadership feud this summer, cheered the governor’s action.

The measure’s chances of passing, though, are seen as far less likely. While a same-sex marriage bill has already been passed twice in the Assembly, it faces an uphill battle in the Senate. Democrats have a shaky 32-to-30 edge in the chamber, but several Democrats have said they will vote against the measure, and no Republicans are publicly supporting it." (NYT)

I'm trying to figure out a clear action item in response to this story, so papists can get involved, and when I find it, I'll post it.

Sounds like New York needs a defense of marriage act passed to stop this nonsense.

update - very relevant to this topic is what Maggie Gallagher - president of the National Organization for Marriage which recently won in Maine - wrote today about despair:

Despair is a spiritual weapon, and it is the gay-marriage movement's single most powerful weapon.

I understand that, and therefore I understand why gay-marriage advocates use it so often. But why do we pro-marriage conservatives use it on ourselves so often?

[Read on.]

In aftermath of Maine, gays step up their attacks on the Church

Last night, by a comfortable margin of 53-47%, the citizens of Maine became the 31st state to vote down gay marriage (as has every single state that has given its citizens a chance to vote on the issue). 

Not surprisingly, the mainstream liberal press is beside itself with frustration, especially because it drives yet another nail in the "inevitability" and "wrong side of history" arguments we are often fed.

As I wrote on National Review this morning, Maine voted for traditional marriage "despite it being a liberal state, despite a 2-1 funding disadvantage, despite aggressive legal action against traditional-marriage defenders, despite unusually high voter turn out, and despite Rachel Maddow and the elite press running interference."

And unlike in California's Prop 8 victory for traditional marriage, proponents of gay marriage can't blame this Maine loss on "Mormons, on African Americans who turned out for Barack Obama, or on confusing ballot wording." 

They can however, blame it on Catholics, and some angry members of the gay marriage movement are already doing so.

As I wrote back in September, the Catholic Church in Maine - with the strong leadership of Bishop Richard Malone - effectively and institutionally supported efforts to preserve traditional marriage. I have been told the Catholic Church contributed upwards of $500k to the final $2 million or so that was raised by defenders of traditional marriage.

Now, like what happened to the Mormons in the wake of Prop 8, some gays are calling for a systematic attack on the Catholic Church and her freedoms in retaliation for Maine. In case you have any doubts about what happened to supporters of Prop 8 after that was decided, the Heritage foundation has posted a summary:

Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry.

Now read what one gay blogger wrote today in the wake of the Maine referendum today:

"[Maine voters] have bowed their heads to the nameless, faceless financiers of campaigns which continue to sew bigotry, hatred, and suspicion of their fellows. They have bowed their knees to potentates in the Catholic and Mormon Churches and claimed that this was about their freedom of religion.

... The day will come very soon when Maine will regret turning its back on equality. It is time that the legislature of Maine strip the Catholic Church of all its exemptions. It is time to force the National Organization into the light. It is time to purge their dens of iniquity and shame and to force them into the light.

It is time to dismantle those who seek through deception and fraud to repress others."

Nor is such out-in-the-open hatred of the Catholic Church confined to isolated individuals - no less a figure than Andrew Sullivan, an openly-gay and widely-read author for The Atlantic Monthly - and who still claims to be Catholic - wrote today:

"After Maine, where the Catholic church actually organized a second collection to raise money to prevent gay people from having civil rights, the situation shifts again. Using a tax-exempt church to raise money to defeat the civil rights of fellow citizens is not too shocking in the age of Benedict. It is shocking if one believes in a separation of politics and religion, and if one believes that the church of Jesus should stand in solidarity with the marginalized, rather than seeking to marginalize and demonize them still further.

It is time to acknowledge that the Catholic church hierarchy can no longer pretend that it isn't the active enemy of gay people and our families. That this church hierarchy - especially in its more conservative wing - is disproportionately gay itself and waging war against their fellow gays through the cowardly veil of the closet, is not new. But it is, as we flinch with the sting of defeat, harder to take than ever.

It is time to demand that gay priests who are actively fighting against the dignity of gay people own their enmeshment in injustice, stigmatization and cruelty."

The Atlantic is a major publication, Andrew Sullivan is a significant figure. This is serious. And authors such as Sullivan are getting a free-pass for legitimizing lies and hatred against the Church.

All this is especially ironic when one considers how the gay marriage movement tries to cast itself as one that is seeking tolerance and acceptance of all. Well, apparently the Catholic Church isn't a legitimate recipient of such treatment. I would be more encouraged if leaders of the gay marriage movement would call out or apologize for outbursts against the Church like the ones I've cited above.

Nonetheless, in the coming days and weeks, we need to be vigilant for anti-Catholic rhetoric and attacks. Don't be surprised if a lot of damning stories about the Church are published in the short term. Even if the issue of gay marriage isn't mentioned, you can bet reporters who have something against the Church are dusting off their old file folders right now.

Now of course, this oft-repeated smear that the Catholic Church hates gay people and hates equality is completely without foundation. Just look at a portion of the statement Bishop Malone released today:

“These past few months have served as a teaching opportunity to explain to parishioners and the wider community about how and why the Church views and values marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It has also been an opportunity for listening, and I trust that those who voted for such a radical change did so out of concern for our gay brothers and sisters. Respect and acceptance of all people regardless of sexual orientation is not a point of controversy — indeed, it is a teaching of the Church. While the Catholic Church will continue its commitment to work for the basic human rights to which all people are entitled, it remains devoted to preserving and strengthening the precious gift of marriage.”

That sure doesn't sound like hate speech to me. {update: neither does the statement just issued by the US Bishops - for those stumbling across this post, please read it before attacking our position. It has been compassionately thought through.}

For our part, meanwhile, we have to be charitable and confident in the teaching of the Church and  be consistent in our own witness to it. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is not to treat gays as inferior or unequal. This definition has overwhelming historical, cultural, sociological, and religious support.

Such anger and retaliation from the gay community are a sad indicator that they have no more arguments. Nonetheless, whenever the Church is attacked, we must defend ourselves and the Church we love, continuing to articulate the truths of the human person which reason reveal and faith confirms.

Truth, after all, is the foundation for equality, and for every valid social justice movement. So it should not surprise us that the only way the gay community is now attempting to establish its legal "right" to marriage is through power and intimidation. 

update - I won't clutter my post with more examples, but I'll add just one more. There are many others:

The Bishop of Maine, Richard Malone, must be quite pleased with himself. He ran a campaign of lies, hate and distortions -- and convinced enough Maine voters to vote with him. It's going to take me a couple days (or more) to get my head around this one. But, for now, suffice it so say: HATE was the winner in Maine. Hate and the Catholic Bishop. But, this isn't over. Time and justice really are on our side.

Luke 6:22.

Action: Oppose the Chai Feldblum nomination

Over at APP we're launching a project to stop the nomination of Chai Feldblum. I think AmP readers will have a special interest in our efforts because Belmont Abbey College is mentioned in the press release:

Today the American Principles Project and its sister organization American Principles in Action urged concerned Americans to contact their Senators over the impending confirmation of Chai Feldblum to a five year post on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). [read more.]

We have also written a "Simple Case against Chai Feldblum" laying out the case for why we oppose her nomination. 

Please join our efforts and take action in opposing her nomination here at American Principles in Action. There is also a Facebook group to help spread the word. 

If you want one example of why Chai is bad news for religious institutions (like Belmont Abbey College) in particular, take a look at this post: "Video: Chai Feldbum says Government should promote "gay sex is morally good."

I've written two posts for AmP on the situation of the EEOC persecuting Belmont Abbey College:

• Belmont Abbey College in hot water for daring not to pay for contraception 
  
• Surprise: Washington behind forcing Belmont Abbey to pay for contraception
  

Just imagine what would happen if Chai Feldblum is successfully appointed to the EEOC.

Luckily for Belmont Abbey College, they've retained the services of the Becket Fund. The Becket Fund is helping them out pro-bono, so if you want to support the Becket Fund's fine work then please click here and help support them.

I'm sure the Becket Fund wouldn't mind being put out of business (as far as defending religious institutions from government intervention), but looking at the times we live in, that's probably not going to happen any time soon.

Huh? Notre Dame funds students to attend DC Gay March, hosts "coming out day"

What the heck?

The Cardinal Newman Society points out more craziness at Notre Dame:

A surprise move from the Student Activities Office allowed five students to attend a national gay rights demonstration in Washington D.C. Sunday, sophomore Jackie Emmanuel, president of the Progressive Student Alliance (PSA), said.

The students were granted permission from the Office to use PSA funding to travel to the nation's capital to participate in the National Equality March over the weekend, Emmanuel said.

"The fact that we were University-approved was surprising but it was a wonderful surprise," she said. "The University hasn't always been entirely receptive in the past."

... She said her group hung out in the gay neighborhood of the city and stayed with friends to minimize costs. (ND Observer)

Whose bright idea was this?

A Notre Dame student sent me this photo they snapped on their phone at the student center a few days ago. In case you can't read it, the headline says "Coming Out Day - by signing this pledge:"

I'm guessing this is organized by Notre Dame's "Core Council for Gay and Lesbian Students" as part of their October 11th "National Coming Out Day"

Video: Protecting Traditional Marriage and Preserving Childhood Innocence

Two videos this morning about two important causes....

First, the battleground to preserve traditional marriage in the United States is currently in the state of Maine. The victory won in California through the passage of Proposition 8 last November in California is threatened if the referendum for traditional marriage in Maine is defeated (30 out of 30 of the previous state referendums have all preserved traditional marriage, but this vote in the liberal state of Maine is down to the wire - and it will take place on November 4th).

Here is the latest video from Stand For Marriage Maine:



A second and related cause is the protection of Childhood Innocence in our nation's schools. Homosexual activists are attempting to teach school kids inappropriate material about the homosexual "lifestyle" starting as early as kindergarden (this really is happening already - and almost always its the parents who are the last to know) One of the leaders of this "queering" movement, Kevin Jennings, was appointed by President Obama to the Deparment of Education.

Now through the efforts of American Principles in Action, we're trying to get him expelled:



I've written extensively on Jennings here, and will write on the situation in Maine soon.

Here are five effective ways you can help:

1. Link to this post from your blog, website, facebook profile, or through sending emails
2. Watch, favorite, rate, comment on and/or embed each of these YouTube videos
3. Join the Facebook groups Expel Kevin Jennings, and Stand For Marriage Maine, and invite your friends. Re-tweet this message for Jennings and this message for traditional marriage.
4. Visit http://www.expeljennings.com/ to sign the petition requesting Jenning's removal, and visit http://standformarriagemaine.com/ to find a variety of ways you can help them save marriage in Maine
5. Pray for the protection of children, and for the preservation of traditional marriage

I know there are many causes that are worthy of our attention these days, but these are two critical issues close to my heart, where small, organized actions taken by us can have a great and beneficial effect. Together, we can win this.

Thank you, papists!

Catholic Church steps up defense of traditional marriage in Maine

Bishop Richard Malone, head of the only diocese in Maine, has placed the resources of local Catholics behind the efforts of Stand for Marriage Maine. We should too.

Maine is yet another example of government officials or judges forcing same-sex marriage on a state. Stand for Marriage Maine is simply attempting to give the people of Maine a chance to vote on an issue that will effect them intimately.

Same-sex marriage proponents intend to use the individual example of states (like Maine) to eventually make same-sex marriage legal nationally (they make no secret about this strategy of theirs).

Well, we can prevent this happening if we appeal to the average American - who still supports traditional marriage - instead of leaving this in the activist hands of courts and government officials.

Hop on over to http://standformarriagemaine.com/ and they have ways you can support their efforts to preserve traditional marriage. There's an action item for most everyone who feels passionate about this issue.

Orthodoxy FAIL: "A Catholic View Of Gay Marriage"

A letter to the Washington Post editor from Mark Clark, a member of the board of "Dignity USA, a national organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics and their families and supporters":

"A Catholic View of Gay Marriage"

As one of the 580,000 Catholics in the Washington Archdiocese, I object to the suggestion by Ronald Jackson, executive director of the D.C. Catholic Conference ["Wuerl Ups Opposition to Gay Marriage," Metro, Sept. 2] that we are all bigots.

Many Catholics support the right of all people to marry, whether to a person of the opposite sex or to a person of the same sex.

Church authorities should stick to the governance of religious wedding ceremonies and leave to civil authorities the responsibility of granting marriage licenses, a responsibility that should be exercised without discrimination.

Calling faithful Catholics "bigots"? Check. False "Church is a democracy" assertion? Check. "Church shouldn't speak out on moral issues" fallacy? Check.

That's one heckuva letter to the editor.

Ben & Jerry introduces gay ice cream

This is not a parody:

From the Ben & Jerry's website:

In partnership with Freedom to Marry we are gathered here to celebrate Vermont and all the other great states where loving couples of all kinds are free to marry legally. We have ceremoniously dubbed our iconic flavor, Chubby Hubby to Hubby Hubby in support, and to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality. Check out our press release.

Talk about setting out on a rocky road....

So long, Ben & Jerry's, I'm going to miss Half-Baked. Hopefully Haagen-Dazs wants more business.

Ph/t: Catholic Femina.

In DC, Archbishop Wuerl gets off the same-sex marriage fence

(Not to say he was ever on the fence about the issue - but hey, it made you click the headline, didn't it?)

In all seriousness, Archbishop Donald Wuerl is definitely off the bench and in the fight for traditional marriage now.

From the Washington Post:

Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl is plunging the Catholic Church deeper into the battle over legalizing same-sex marriage in the District, a tactic that could complicate the D.C. Council's efforts to quickly take up the matter this fall.

Wuerl sent a letter to 300 local Catholic priests Tuesday reminding them about the church's opposition to same-sex marriage, and he launched a round of media interviews designed to bolster the church's presence in the debate.

In his efforts to mobilize Catholics, Wuerl joins a group of Baptist, predominantly African American, preachers in stepping up the pressure on D.C. officials to allow a public vote on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized.

... 

Wuerl launched the media offensive on the same day that eight opponents of same-sex marriage, including {non-Catholic} Bishop Harry Jackson, filed a request with the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics to hold a initiative next year defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The proposed initiative simply states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the District of Columbia." 

... 

In a letter supporting the proposed initiative, the D.C. Catholic Conference noted that there are 580,000 Catholics living in the Washington metropolitan area.

"It is ironic that at the same time the city is asking for voting representation in the U.S. Congress, its leaders are denying residents the opportunity to participate in the Democratic process for an issue with widespread implications for children and families," Ronald Jackson, executive director of the D.C. Catholic Conference, said in a statement. 

Good to have you in the game, Archbishop. Now let's get behind him.

From the Archdiocese of Washington press release:

Learn more about Catholic teaching and marriage at www.MarriageMattersDC.org, an initiative of the Archdiocese of Washington to promote a deeper understanding of marriage and its contribution to society.

Robert George writes on "Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts" in today's Wall Street Journal

Today in the Wall Street Journal, American Principles Project founder Robert P. George writes:

We are in the midst of a showdown over the legal definition of marriage. Though some state courts have interfered, the battle is mainly being fought in referenda around the country, where “same-sex marriage” has uniformly been rejected, and in legislatures, where some states have adopted it. It’s a raucous battle, but democracy is working.

Now the fight may head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Following California’s Proposition 8, which restored the historic definition of marriage in that state as the union of husband and wife, a federal lawsuit has been filed to invalidate traditional marriage laws.

It would be disastrous for the justices to do so. They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights.

[Read the entire article here.]

Canada: Homosexual altar-server sues bishop for dismissal

LifeSiteNews has the developing story:

Jim Corcoran, the owner of one of Canada's largest and most lavish spas, has launched a human rights complaint against the Bishop of Peterborough Ontario for refusing him permission to continue to serve as an altar server.

Corcoran admits that he is homosexual and lives with another homosexual man, but says that he follows the Church's teaching and lives a chaste lifestyle. According to the Catholic Register, Bishop Nicola De Angelis asked Corcoran to accept his decision that he not serve on the altar based upon the bishops' desire to avoid public scandal.

Corcoran is seeking monetary damages of $25,000 from the bishop and $20,000 each from 12 parishioners who complained to the bishop about Corcoran and his roommate having been invited by the local priest to serve on the altar at Masses.

The matter is tricky because Corcoran claims to be living chastely with his live-in boyfriend.

If that previous sentence didn't quite make sense to you, you're on to something. Corcoran would be an object of scandal if he was a heterosexual man claiming to be living a "chaste lifestyle" with his live-in girlfriend. The fact that he is an open homosexual exacerbates the problem.

As I've said before, the homosexual agenda cannot be reconciled to biblical Christianity, and the two movements cannot co-exist peacefully in society (they certainly do not appear to be co-existing well now). This episode, to my mind, is one more case which proves the truth of that claim.

NY Gov. Paterson claims gay "marriage" the "right way" from a spiritual standpoint

CNA reports:

"While New York's senators debate whether or not to legalize same-sex "marriage" in their state, the seven Catholic bishops of New York have issued a statement strongly opposing "such a drastic measure."

David Paterson, the governor of New York, introduced a measure to legalize same-sex "marriage" on April 16, claiming that it was the "right way" to proceed from a spiritual standpoint."

It's that last point that gets under my skin - what reasons can Patterson give for his personal revelation?

The bishops of NY, meanwhile, led by Abp. Dolan, give argument after argument after argument:

On Monday, all of the Catholic bishops of New York, headed by the newly-installed Archbishop Timothy Dolan, issued a statement on the attempt to legalize same-sex "marriage."

"We face today the prospect of a law in New York which would radically change the timeless institution of marriage. As pastors of citizens from every corner of our great state, we stand unified in our strong opposition to such a drastic measure," the bishops said, urging Catholics to contact their senators.

Beginning with a historical approach, the group of bishops noted that "throughout history ... the one constant has been the conviction that marriage is the union of a man and a woman in an enduring bond, ordered for the procreation and stable rearing of children."

Although Catholic opposition to same-sex "marriage" is frequently cast as solely religion-based, the New York bishops stated that, "Just as importantly, it is based on reason, sound public policy, and plain common sense." They pointed out that "the state has a compelling legal interest in promoting marriage between men and women in order to create stable families and provide for the safety, health and well being of children.

On the other hand, "the state has no such compelling legal interest in recognizing a relationship between two people of the same sex," the prelates said.

Addressing the argument that homosexual couples face discrimination and must be protected by legalizing same-sex "marriage," the New York bishops advised, "If there are injustices against those in relationships other than marriage, those injustices can certainly be reformed and corrected in a way other than by drastically redefining marriage."

Weighing the common-sense arguments of the bishops against Patterson's interior locutions, well, I think it's obvious which side is coming up short. 

Maybe that explains why Patterson attempts to skip into the "spiritual" ... he's not having a very good time of it in the plainly rational. 

UK Court rules Catholic Charities breaking law on homosexual adoption

It is becoming increasingly impossible for the Catholic Church to maintain her autonomy in the face of the homosexual lobby, especially in the United Kingdom:

"The tribunal ruled that a "heterosexuals only" policy in the adoption field of the Catholic Church in England and Wales would fall foul of the ban on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation brought in two years ago.

The Tribunal's ruling leaves leading charity Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) facing a deep religious impasse and creates a fundamental conflict between the tenets of the Catholic Church and the law of the land.

If the charity now sticks to Church policy and continues to follow its "heterosexuals only" policy it could lose its charity status and public funding.

It might also face discrimination claims by same-sex couples it has turned away in the past.

The ruling means that Catholic Care has been thwarted in its wish to amend its charitable objectives on religious grounds so that it could discriminate against same-sex couples wishing to adopt.

Catholic Care has a respected reputation, particularly in finding new families for "hard to place" children, but has never provided adoption services to homosexuals for religious reasons. (UK Telegraph)"

In other words, similar to cases in the US, Catholic Charities is faced with the option of getting out of the adoption business ... or compromising its principles. That's a choice a Church charity shouldn't have to make.

update: and, as if on cue, 9th Circuit Upholds Anti-Catholic Resolution - Same-sex Adoption Backgrounder.

Ph/t: Blog of the Courtier.

White House proclaims June to be LGBT pride month

The proclamation:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Full text here at whitehouse.gov.

Video: Miss USA California puts Perez Hilton in his place

Good for Miss USA California (never really thought I'd say something like that):


The (beginning of the) aftermath:

Miss California's answer sparked a shouting match in the lobby after the show. "It's ugly," said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his partner. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are." (FOX News)

Support for traditional marriage: supposedly a "minority" position whose adherents it is considered acceptable to mock and marginalize.

... at least if you live on the edge of the California coast.

Outrageous: Tony Blair says Pope must rethink 'entrenched' views on gays

Ruth Gledhill of the UK Times:

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has made the case for a rethink on conservative religious attitudes to homosexuals. Read our story in The Times today. In an interview with the gay magazine Attitude, Tony Blair says he wants to urge religious figures everywhere, including the Pope, to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal. He predicts that in time this will make all religious groups accept gay people as equals. He also believes there is a change of heart taking place in evangelicalism, with many younger evangeliclas becoming pro-gay, that the issue with evangelicals and Catholics is 'generational'. We already knew the Blair family did not abide by the Church's teaching on contraception and it seems Blair's conversion has not changed this. Interesting that many converts become more conservative than those born to a faith or denomination, but Tony Blair has stuck by his liberal principles.

Time to let that conversion sink in a little deeper, Mr. Blair.

Update: Iowa Catholic Conf. of Bishops release statement on homosexual marriage

Sent to me by an AmP seminarian reader:

We, the Roman Catholic Bishops of Iowa, strongly disagree with the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court which strikes down Iowa’s law defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. This decision rejects the wisdom of thousands of years of human history. It implements a novel understanding of marriage, which will grievously harm families and children. (More.)

Last week an Iowa Court approved same-sex "marriage."

Breaking: Iowa Court Approves Same-Sex Marriage

The Hawkeye State?

The Iowa Supreme Court today declared unconstitutional a state ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for Iowa to join two other states in allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

In a unanimous decision, the seven-member court upheld a lower court's ruling in August 2007 that a 1998 state law limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

... same-sex couples likely will be able to obtain marriage licenses in Iowa in three weeks, attorneys for the plaintiffs said.

... With the Supreme Court decision, Iowa becomes the third state in the nation, after Massachusetts and Connecticut, to permit same-sex marriage.

... Bryan English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, which opposes same-sex marriage, said the group would immediately begin pushing for a referendum on the issue. (WaPo)

And the stuggle moves into America's heartland.

Gay Catholics call Pope's condom comments `amazingly insensitive'

Like, amazingly:

Nicole Sotelo, Communications Director of Call To Action, said, "Catholics throughout the world understand that condoms save lives. We must stop making orphans of children throughout the world because of misinformation. To this day, the Vatican bans the use of condoms by Catholics. This is just morally wrong." (Dallas Morning News Religion Blog)

Thanks for the guidance.

Frightening: New website exposes where Prop. 8 donors live!

This is very scary .... from a UK Telegraph blogger:

Valleywag is reporting today on a new Google Maps mashup, eightmaps.com, which gives the name and profession of every Proposition 8 donor. It also lists how much they donated and shows where they live.

The site's strapline is distinctly creepy:

"Proposition 8 changed the California state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. These are the people who donated in order to pass it."

In other words, for everyone who is angry that some people don't want homosexual marriage - this website shows them where to direct their attacks. Literally. Frightening.

update: on a perhaps related note, the HBO show "Big Love" aired parts of the temple rites of the Mormon church during their latest episode. Why should we care? Reader James:

"Because to Mormons this is akin to the desecration of the blessed sacrament [to Catholics]. Needless to say, it has caused outrage in the Mormon community ... some theorize that this was done in revenge for the Mormon Church's campaigning for Prop. 8."

Of course, this is not strictly-speaking akin to desecration of the Eucharist, but we still ought to show solidarity with Mormons for the persecution they are receiving because of their Prop. 8 support. This is an issue of justice.

Kmiec brilliantly defends the Church's teaching on same-sex marriage .... not

Instead he tries to broker a deal that sells Catholic teaching far short:

One conservative constitutional scholar has said that the court could both affirm its historic May 15 ruling giving gays equality and uphold Proposition 8 by requiring the state to use a term other than "marriage" and apply it to all couples, gay and straight.

"The alternatives are for the court to accept Proposition 8 and authorize the people to rewrite the Constitution in a way that undermines a basic principle of equality," said Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec. If the court overturns Proposition 8, "that is the short course toward impeachment."

...Kmiec, a Catholic, said he reluctantly voted for Proposition 8 "because of the instructions of my faith community" but felt "entirely unsatisfied" with the outcome. (LA Times)

Let's just draw out what Kmiec is actually saying:

• He's offering a purely semantic solution, as if that would satisfy either side
• If homosexuals can't marry, Kmiec says, that undermines a basic principle of equality
• Kmiec reluctantly follows the teaching of the Church and finds its guidance "entirely unsatisfy[ing]"

I'll just let his own words stick to him.

Meanwhile, justices in California are arguments "for and against the validity of the controversial November ballot measure that barred same-sex unions in California by declaring marriage only for a man and a woman." (Saramento Bee).

I guess Kmiec is more liberal than Cardinal Mahony on this issue. That's quite an accomplishment.

End of the week chuckle post

Only, in this day and age, the chuckle posts contain quotes from real articles:

Catholic Denomination Says Gay Priests Are OK

An alternative Catholic denomination is ordaining openly gay priests, but will such rogue religious groups ever be recognized by the papacy?

In a recent service that looked nearly identical to a traditional Roman Catholic mass, four priests were ordained at Yale’s Dwight Chapel in New Haven, Conn. But three of the new priests are openly gay men, something the Catholic Church has refused to allow.

My internal "errors-per-sentence" counter is going crazy!

Gay bishop invited to pre-inauguration event in DC

The circus has begun:

The first openly gay Episcopal bishop will say a prayer at the Lincoln Memorial for one of President-elect Barack Obama's first inauguration events.

New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson will deliver the invocation at an event on Sunday to kick off inauguration festivities. His selection follows weeks of criticism from gay-rights groups over Obama's decision to have the Rev. Rick Warren give the invocation at his Jan. 20 inauguration. Warren had backed a recent ballot measure banning same-sex marriage in his home state of California.

The Warren selection was discussed on AmP here. Some tried to claim it was an example of Obama reaching out to pro-lifers and revealing his genuine concern for their interests.

So what are we to make of Robinson?

A bit more from the Family Research Council.

SF pro-homosexual church vandalism investigated as hate crime

... as it should be investigated:

Parishioners of the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood plan to arrive early for morning Mass today so they can paint over walls that were scrawled with swastikas and other graffiti.

A priest walking his dog early Sunday outside the church at 100 Diamond St. found the black swastikas and angry messages about Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that voters approved in November, a church employee said Monday. The vandalized walls were washed Monday morning to remove most of the scrawlings.

... The vandals wrote Niederauer's name on the side of the church along with the question, "Where is the love?" (SF Chronicle)

Most Holy Redeemer should be familiar to regular AmP readers.

Bishops of Los Angeles issue letter reassuring gays

I'm calling this a case of "unteaching":

The bishops of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, led by Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, issued a letter to homosexual Catholics on Friday seeking to ensure them that the Church’s support for Proposition 8 was not meant to diminish their dignity or their membership in the Church. The true aim of the Church’s support, the bishops write, was to “preserve the ordered relationship between man and woman created by God.”

The pastoral letter, which was printed in the archdiocesan paper The Tidings, is written to all homosexual members of the Church as well as the rest of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. According to the bishops, its purpose is to offer reassurance to gays amidst the fallout surrounding Prop. 8’s success that they are “cherished members of the Catholic Church, and that we value you as equal and active members of the Body of Christ.” (CNA)

Newsweek nonsense equates "Jesus has two (Immaculate) Mommies"

Mike Fragoso over at the FRC blog writes a first-class response to Lisa Miller's laughable attempt in Newsweek to deconstruct the traditional Christian vision of Marriage. A sample of Fragoso's response (underlining mine):

[Miller] elides much of the New Testament, and her history is reliant on the quotably wrong Stephanie Coontz. Where does one begin to answer imputations that King David was a homosexual? How can one comprehend-let alone respond to-an argument that first apparently admits Christ's virgin birth and then proceeds to equate the Holy Family to "Jesus has two (Immaculate) Mommies"? The Bible is simply a weapon-at-hand for her preferred policy ends. She's the sort of person Aeflric was worried about.

That underlined equating that "Jesus has two (Immaculate) Mommies" got me thinking: what an antitype that is to the Solemnity of Mary's Immaculate Conception which we Catholics are celebrating today!

It never ceases to amaze me how people can use the same words as we do, and yet completely miss their proper meaning. But there is something deeper in play here: the publication of this article is clearly a result of the California referendum reversing the CA court's decision to allow homosexual marriage, which subsequently caused progressive secularists to attack traditional Christian churches for their continued resistance to state-mandated homosexual "marriage."

What happens when these secular progressives try to do theology? Little gems like this:

"We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future."

How wonderfully Hegelian. Problem is, universal truths and justice itself are not separated from individual acts, which either bring about justice, or defeat it. Sorry to be a bother - but that's what Christ actually revealed.

Theology a la Miller, part deux:

"More basic than theology, though, is human need."

Actually, nothing is deeper than theology in this sense: theology reveals to us that human need is placed within us by God, and that His love is the only answer to the deepest yearnings (needs) of the human heart.

But if you have convinced yourself that your deepest yearning is to witness the legalization of homosexual "marriage", than sure, theology is inconvenient.

And so is the biblical teaching on marriage.

update: well isn't this interesting. Politico is reporting (in a very popular story) that Newsweek is catching alot of heat for this (cover)story:

Leading social conservatives blasted Newsweek for its current cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," which they said misinterprets both biblical scripture and their own political movement.

.... Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research Council, agreed, calling Newsweek’s cover story “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity. I hardly think that Newsweek is a credible venue for theological discussion,” said Perkins. “I mean, I thought it was just full of holes.”

And yes, that's the same Family Research Council I mention in this same post.

What really gets me is the way the Newsweek editors are being defiant on the issue, as if Miller's argument actually holds any theological weight. I'm sorry, but such a stand would just be laughed off the soapbox if we were encountering an objective debate here. Instead, we are witnessing an ideologically-driven deconstruction of Christian teaching and tradition.

Arguing that the Christian vision of marriage ought not to influence American legislation is one thing, but denying the Christian vision of marriage in its essence ... that's another (and mute) topic.

[photo credit: Flickr user Steve Rhodes]

"Holy See not in favor of death penalty for gays, Vatican spokesman clarifies"

As if the point needed clarification?!

Homosexual rights advocates in Italy harshly criticized the [Holy See's]remarks, labeling them “grotesque” and “anachronistic.”

The Director of Vatican Radio, Father Frederico Lombardi, defended the archbishop’s remarks, saying “no one wants the death penalty or jail or fines for homosexuals.” (CNA)

Oh that's right, if the Church even dares to do anything less than totally support an international right to homosexual marriage .... it gets accused of favoring the death penalty for homosexuals.

Now that sure sounds like a reasonable way to discuss the issue. (/sarcasm.)

Papist Quote of the Day

It's a depressing one:

"Hate crimes occur when homosexuals are attacked. Christians don't count." - Diogenes

Poll: CA Gay Marriage Ban numbers down

AP:

A new poll shows California voters who oppose the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages slightly ahead going into Tuesday's election.

The Field Poll released Friday had opponents of the ban with a 49 percent to 45 percent edge. That's much closer than in previous surveys over Proposition 8.

I know - it's just a poll, but for any CA readers who thought they could just stay at home on Tuesday...

NCR introduces "New voices from young Catholics"

National Catholic Reporter evidently saw the writing on the wall and is trying something new.

It's called "Young Voices" and here's how they describe it:

The future of our church is in the hands of a generation coming of age in the first decade of the 21st century. NCR went looking among this generation and found four young Catholics -- Nicole Sotelo, Kate Childs Graham, Mike Sweitzer-Beckman, Jamie L. Manson -- from different backgrounds and with different connections to the church. They will be sharing their stories in this space weekly.

Two possible goals here:

• Maybe they'd like to have subscribers under 40 again (no offense)
• Maybe they'd like to convince their subscribers over 60 that they are not a dying breed

Regardless of the conjectural editorial motivation, their inaugural column is by Nicole Sotello on Proposition 8.

Her thinly-veiled disagreement with the teaching of the bishops on this topic runs as follows:

But I wonder what type of laws we are preserving. We’ll be keeping a system of marriage laws that are not about love, but about privilege. Our current civil marriage laws privilege heterosexual men and women who happen to be fortunate in finding a partner. These couples receive special benefits with regard to taxes, pension plans, health care, social status and a variety of other societal advantages. Those who happen to be unlucky in love or whose families do not fit the mold are left out: unmarried parents with children, unmarried elderly individuals who live together and care for one another, and so on.

But marriage is a privilege - not a right. If it was a right, I could demand to be married - and as easier as that might make things for me on a friday night, it's clearly not reality. And marriage as a civil institution says nothing about love - that's a sacramental/interpersonal category, so it's unfair to ask if civil marriages are about "love". Try arguing that in a court.

Moving on: yes, marriage law privileges heterosexual couples, but why? Because they are the fundamental unit of society and society has an interest in protecting and fostering them. Society doesn't have that same interest in fostering the relationship between my brother and I, even if we share a house and expenses together (we don't, he has to graduate college first).

Protecting marriage is not about excluding people who are "left out". Even if gay marriage were approved by the state, that would do nothing to address the other situations Nicole talks about, including the unmarried, single-parents, etc. So that's really a completely separate issue.

And that coy "families who don't fit the mold" line? Please, if you're going to be a columnist, actually talk about the things you want to talk about. Don't use code language like that. Try being specific and explicit.

Oh, and in a column talking about Proposition 8, ya know that might be a really good time to express your understanding of the Church's teaching on homosexual unions and the civil ramifications.

My final take:

168 words of forgettable.

Good news: Prop. 8 is winning in CA

Let's hope this winning margin holds:

According to the latest poll from California, those fighting for the defense of traditional marriage have a nine point advantage over activists seeking state recognition of same-sex marriage.

The poll released on Tuesday afternoon by the Knights of Columbus, reports that the drive to pass California’s Proposition 8 is leading among likely voters 52 to 43 percent. If Proposition 8 is passed, it will amend the state Constitution to say, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the state of California.”

The poll also shows that Proposition 8 leads in every region of California except the San Francisco Bay Area, where 58% are opposed to the measure. (CNA)

Full-court press for gay "Marriage"; Bishops call for Catholic response

Connecticut has ruled gay "Marriage" is legal.

First, a cluster of news links....

[The NYT: "Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut" Commentary: "Using Biology, Not Religion, to Argue Against Same-Sex Marriage"Related, WSJ: "First Graders Taken to San Francisco City Hall for Gay Wedding" Local: "State Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage"]

The Connecticut Catholic Conference, has condemned the decision and "calls for a “Yes” vote on a Constitutional Convention" More information on that campaign here.

Let me make it doubly clear - here is what the Catholic Conference of Connecticut has said:

"... we will be calling on the Catholic people of our state to vote “Yes” for a Constitutional Convention and the right of referendum on Election Day." (source.)

That's pretty clear.

Meanwhile, on the other coast.... http://www.protectmarriage.com/ & TFP's action blog.

Moreover, some of the California bishops are active. From an AmP reader:

"There is a new website up (http://www.marriagematterstokids.org/) that has a series of videos on the meaning of marriage. The site is a Catholic response to the situation of marriage in California and what the upcoming election might mean.

There are extended (10-20 minutes) interviews with Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Diego, Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco, and Bishop Allen Vigneron of Oakland.

The home page has a 13 minute video with Bishops, Priests, a family counselor, a constitutional lawyer and ordinary people discussing marriage and what it means."

Form your conscience - vote Catholic this November!

Vatican responds to claims that Cardinal Newman was a homosexual

Basically-accurately reported by the UK Mail:

The Vatican has hit back at claims that the man likely to become Britain’ s next saint was a closet homosexual.

The Holy See is furious at allegations made by gay activists in the UK that Cardinal John Henry Newman was a celibate gay man.

The claims were made after the Government granted a licence for the cardinal to be exhumed from a grave he shares with fellow priest Father Ambrose St John in a small cemetery in Rednal, Worcestershire.

... [Pope Benedict] personally commissioned the Rev Dr Ian Ker, a theologian at Oxford University and the world’s leading Newman scholar, to refute the allegations in an article for the Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.

Father Ker, the author of the definitive biography of Newman, said there was no evidence to suggest that the cardinal was gay other than the deep grief at the death of his closest friend and the request to be buried in the same grave as him.

More from CNA.

Report: French gay groups under surveillance ahead of papal visit

Wednesday Wierd:

French police have placed radical gay militants under surveillance ahead of the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to France on September 12-15, the daily Le Figaro reported on Wednesday.

Eager to avoid a repeat of the condom shower that greeted the Pope in Sydney, Australia, in July, certain gay activist groups such as Act Up are being closely watched in the run-up to the visit. (DPA)

On a more serious note, France has an active al-Qaeda network that has made threats on the pope's life back in 2007. So let's keep his safety in our prayers.

Noted: California Voters Oppose Ban on Gay 'Marriage'

Things aren't looking good for the upcoming November referendum:

A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative to ban gay "marriage," though they are evenly split on the practice itself, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex "marriage," which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court.

... A majority of likely voters, 54 percent, oppose ending gay "marriage," compared with 40 percent who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51 percent of likely California voters opposed ending gay "marriage," while 42 percent said they supported it. (AP)

It's hard to give people reasons to vote for something they don't think directly effects their lives.

Picture: Hallmark rolls out gay marriage cards

Well so much for buying Hallmark:

Most states don't recognize gay marriage -- but now Hallmark does.

The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards -- featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says.

...The language inside the cards is neutral, with no mention of wedding or marriage, making them also suitable for a commitment ceremony. Hallmark says the move is a response to consumer demand, not any political pressure.

...Hallmark started offering "coming out" cards last year, and the four designs of same-sex marriage cards are being gradually released this summer and will be widely available by next year. No sales figures were available yet. (AP)

CA court ruling: Doctors must inseminate lesbian couples

The doctors were even willing to instruct the couple how to "self-inseminate" after fertility drug treatment, but that was not enough:

California's high court on Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the unanimous ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain anti-discrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from assisting her further.

The case drew the attention of religious organizations, medical groups and gay civil rights organizations.

The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups.

The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from the gay rights community, joining health care provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors. (AP)

It saddens me to see that these Christian doctors did not receive at least equal support from the Christian community, although obviously I am not trying to assign blame in this matter because I only heard of it myself after the decision was handed down, and this apparently has been in litigation for some time. It's hard to be an ethical doctor these days.

And I wonder how homosexual men could be discriminated against in this instance ...? Do I want to?

update: CNA picks up on the story here.

Ph/t: AmP reader "J."

Pro-Gay persecution continues in Canada

Quoted in full as a warning to the rest of us, so that we realize what is already happening:

Canada's human rights industry has resumed its investigation of Catholic Insight magazine, published by Father Alphonse de Valk. The Canadian Human Rights Commission had announced on July 4 that it was dropping its 16-month investigation against the publication for alleged 'hate'. However, homosexual activist Rob Wells, the complainant in the case, was given 30 days to request a judicial review of the case.

According to a federal court docket, Wells requested the judicial review on July 31. Canadian blogger 'Blazing Cat Fur' broke the story Thursday evening ... The docket lists the complainant as "Robert Dale Wells" and mentions that he is suing from Edmonton Alberta.

Fr. de Valk was informed of the application for judicial review Friday morning by reporter Pete Vere, author of an upcoming book on the Human Rights Commission and its attack on freedoms of religion and speech. "I'm very disappointed if I have to go through this again," he told Vere.

Fr. de Valk further told LifeSiteNews.com that he sees the move as "another attempt to drain us of funds" noting "he's already cost us over $20,000." (LifeSiteNews)

The so-called "hate speech" published by the magazine was actually only orthodox Catholic teacing on the subject. The person suing excerpted sentences and fragments from out of their proper context in his case.

"Massachusetts House repeals law restricting same-sex marriages to residents"

The homosexual lobby moves quickly:

In what marriage advocates called “part of a cynical strategy to inflict same-sex marriage on the unwilling citizens of other states,” the Massachusetts House on Tuesday voted by a margin of 119 to 36 to repeal a 1913 law that blocked marriage licenses from being granted to same-sex couples from out-of-state.

The Senate approved the repeal earlier in July, meaning the measure now requires one more procedural vote in each chamber of the legislature before it is sent to Governor Deval Patrick, who has said he will sign the measure.

Massachusetts became the first state to permit homosexual marriage in 2004, but then-Governor Mitt Romney ordered town and city clerks to follow a 1913 law that prohibits couples from marrying if the unions would be illegal in their home states.

At the time, Romney argued that repealing the law would turn the state into the “Las Vegas of gay marriage.”

The Catholic Action League denounced the House vote in a Tuesday statement, calling it “part of a cynical strategy to inflict same-sex marriage on the unwilling citizens of other states without the consent of the electorate.” (CNA)

And Catholics helped:

Doyle also lamented Catholic politicians’ involvement in passing the law.

“Today, a majority of Catholics in the Massachusetts House of Representatives voted again in favor of homosexual marriage. There is a growing sense of outrage among faithful Catholics over the conduct of nominally Catholic politicians who repudiate fundamental Catholic moral teachings about the sanctity of human life and the integrity of traditional marriage. There is also a growing sense of urgency that this scandal must be brought to an end.”

Update: Author believes California bishops' response to "gay marriage" was "tepid"

I said, she said:

But the response from some Catholics so far has been tepid. Take the following statement released by the California Catholic Conference.

{she quotes it, then comments:}

“Maintain support” for traditional marriage? Catholic support requires more episcopal muscle than the release of a mild statement. Because the Church is "the universal sacrament of salvation" (Lumen Gentium), our shepherds should be mobilizing Catholics to fight back. Every Catholic priest, religious, businessman, teacher, doctor, banker, grocer, landlord, professor, and college student should be sent out with a mandate to fight for marriage.

Again, maybe a topic like "gay marriage" deserves a press release longer than one page.

Report: "Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church"

This was an outrageous civic action taken in San Francisco about two years ago (via WND):

A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."

It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."

As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

The fine folks at the Saint Thomas More Law Center aren't about to let this one go:

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel's decision.

"Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church," he said in a statement. "The judge in her written decision held that the Church 'provoked the debate' by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded 'responsibly' to all of the 'terrible' things the Church was saying."

Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," he said.

You can read the original document in PDF here (thanks to the AmP reader who sent it to me).

Commentary: LA bishops' statement about "Gay Marriage"

Available as a PDF on the archdiocese website here, reproduced in full below:

The Catholic Bishops of the United States have affirmed repeatedly that persons with a homosexual orientation "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."

Accordingly the Bishops condemn all forms of violence, scorn, and hatred—whether subtle orovert—against men and women who are homosexual. All people, regardless of sexual inclination, are called to holiness; and "should be encouraged to take an active role in the faith community" and to live according to its teachings.

Nonetheless, the Church cannot approve of redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended. The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed. "When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalentto it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened."

The state has a primary and fundamental obligation to protect and promote the family,which is rooted in marriage and sustained by it. Some benefits currently sought by same sex partners can already be obtained without regard to marital status. For example, individuals can agree to own property jointly with another, and they can generally designate anyone they choose to be a beneficiary of their will or to make health care decisions in case they become incompetent.

Other desired benefits such as sharing in a partner's health insurance could be made available without the drastic step of a cultural or legal redefinition of marriage.

Let us strengthen our resolve to respect the dignity of each human being and to protect the sanctity of marriage, asking God's guidance in our efforts to promote the common good central to a free and democratic society.

I thought this statement was a good and sufficient one until I realized that, golly, it doesn't mention a single reason for the Church's teaching that homosexual acts are wrong, that allowing homosexual partners to marry is imprudent, that homosexual persons are called to lives of chastity, etc.

Would it have been so bad if they had made their document two pages instead of just one, I wonder?

Today, meanwhile, the California Supreme Court has allowed Californians to vote this November and decide whether to ban same-sex marriages.

In this sort of political climate, it is imperative upon the bishops of not only Los Angeles, but all California to uphold and witness to the Church's understanding of anthropology and divinely-revealed teaching on the subjects of sex and marriage. The clock is ticking.

Breaking: California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

Associated Press:

The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.

The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.

....

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

More from the LA Times here.

LifeSiteNews:

Today the California Supreme Court imposed, through judicial fiat, so-called same-sex marriage on Californians, thus totally disregarding the sanctity of marriage and the will of the people. In 2000, Californians adopted Proposition 22 to protect marriage and maintain its definition as a union between one man and one woman, and expressly prohibiting the state from recognizing same sex marriages.

To ensure that marriage is protected and the voice of the people is heard, a constitutional marriage amendment must be placed on the November ballot and national efforts need to be made to generate a federal constitutional marriage amendment. The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.

... "On a positive note, the Court's decision today will likely serve as a wake-up call to both Californians and their fellow Americans across the country. I'm certain this decision will help fuel a California marriage amendment and re-ignite debate over a federal amendment which would protect marriage as between one man and one woman."

Your thoughts?

Action: 96 Catholic Colleges have pro-homosexual clubs or activities

Sounds like a poor joke, right? Well, it's true.

From the TFP Student Action center:

... TFP volunteers examined the official web sites of 211 Catholic universities and colleges listed by Granley’s Catholic Schools in America. Their research discovered that 45% have pro-homosexual clubs. Many of these clubs share in the movement’s radical goal – to force social acceptance of unnatural vice on Christian America, and gag expressions of free speech that oppose the movement’s ideological agenda.

... However, the number of pro-homosexual clubs on Catholic campuses may exceed 45% because not all clubs are listed on university web sites.

Action points:

1. Read the full report of the TFP.
2. See the list of Catholic colleges with pro-homosexual clubs
3. Send a pre-written (but customizable) letter to your school, if it applies.

Here in Washington, DC, Georgetown is the most blatant offender:

"... Georgetown University, the nation’s oldest Catholic university, recently agreed to open and fully fund a new center for homosexual students in addition to the already existing pro-homosexual club on campus."

Georgetown hosts mock same-sex “wedding”, grants health benefits to the partners of homosexual employees, and provides services for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Youth and their Families.

On the GU Pride University website, photos from their "Coming OUT Day 2006" include shots of gay and lesbian students kissing at the public event, and other untoward images. A sample caption? "There's nothing strange about people in bright orange shirts kissing each other in a public forum with hundreds of people walking by and staring, right?"

Instead of directly answering that question, let me be very clear: the reason to decry "pro-homosexual" clubs is not because the Catholic Church is "anti-homosexual." It is because (for example) the Church cannot endorse or promote behaviors that hurt the human person, like these clubs do.

And there's nothing strange about that.

[photo: GUPride]

"Anglican bishop fined for refusing gay youth worker"

"An Anglican bishop has been ordered to pay a heavy fine and undergo “equal-opportunies training” for refusing to approve the hiring of an openly homosexual man for a post in youth ministry." - CWNews

Scanning headlines all day sometimes has its toll. When I first read the headline for this story I thought it said, "Anglican bishop fined for having gay youth worker" and I thought to myself "Oh great, here we go again."

Not only was the anglican bishop fined roughly $92,000, but "The tribunal ordered that officials of the Hereford diocese who are engaged in hiring employees—including the bishop-- should be given training to make them more sensitive to homosexual applicants."

I wonder if the anglican diocese could refuse an athiest who wanted to direct anglican youth?

CWNews: "Canadian Catholic magazine faces legal attack for criticizing homosexuals"

"Catholic magazine in Canada faces severe legal attack and possible censorship after a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleged it made derogatory comments about homosexuals.

In February 2007 Rob Wells, a member of the Pride Center of Edmonton, filed a nine-point complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that Catholic Insight had targeted homosexuals as a powerful menace and innately evil, claiming it used inflammatory and derogatory language to create a tone of “extreme hatred and contempt." - CWNews.

And many more cases to come, if the laws in Canada remain unchanged.

"British cardinal objects to plan aiding lesbians in achieving pregnancy"

In a letter to the London Times, the leading Catholic Church official in England has protested legislation designed to help lesbian couples achieve pregnancy by artificial means.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster said that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is "profoundly wrong" because, among other provisions, the legislation would eliminate the requirement for fertility clinics to ensure that a a child born through in vitro fertilization will have a father. That requirement makes it illegal for the clinics to help a single woman, or a member of a lesbian couple, achieve pregnancy.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said that the bill "radically undermines the place of the father in a child's life, and makes the natural rights of the child subordinate to the desires of the couple." - CWNews

Related:

• Homosexual Parenting Studies Are Flawed, Report Says - Fox Report
• Catholic Answers on Gay Marriage (and related adoption/IVF questions, scroll down)
  

"House Passes Job Bias Ban Against Gays" (AP)

Soundbite: "This is, frankly, a trial lawyer's dream," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn.

Update: CWNews adds:

On November 7 the US House of Representatives approved a bill that would make it a federal crime to discriminate against potential employees on the grounds of sexual preference. But the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) still faces steep hurdles before it could become law.

Won't someone think of the children?

A new Italian ad campaign:

The quote reads "Sexual orientation isn't a choice."

(... so much for a "lifestyle option")

[full story]

Pastor of MHR parish just not getting the point

From CNS:

Pastor: Reaction to archbishop giving Communion to 'nuns' overblown

Reaction to San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer giving Communion to two men in mock nuns' garb during an Oct. 7 Mass has been overblown, said the pastor of the church where the Mass was celebrated. "It is most unfortunate this incident has clouded the fact the archbishop came to meet with his people and celebrate a beautiful and reverent Mass together -- and that is what really happened," said Father Stephen Meriwether, pastor of Most Holy Redeemer Parish. "This incident has been blown way out of proportion," he told Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocesan newspaper. Reaction has run the gamut from some who insist the "sisters" had set out to embarrass the church and the archbishop to others who felt the unannounced visitors who videotaped the Mass were more of an intrusion than the costumed men.

Honestly, reactions to most events "run a gamut". But which position is correct? Are frustrated parishioners who are trying to get the word out about the liturgical abuse and the abuse of the sacraments going on at their parish and diocese "more of an intrusion" than "costumed men" (this non-descriptive phrase is really a euphemism for "transvestites dressed to mock nuns")?

Gee, I dunno, opinion on that question "has run a gamut."

This also just re-emphasizes my point that Pastor Meriwether does. not. get. it.

Blasphemous "sisters" release "press release" about receiving communion, etc.

Why isn't the light of truth meant to be kept hidden under a bushel? Because the forces of darkness are always on the move....

Today, in the latest sad episode related to Abp. Niederauer giving communion to a couple of "queer sisters" at Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco, the organization "sisters of the perpetual indulgence" (SPI) - a sham organization of transvestites that take systematically (and irrationally) mocking everything about Catholicism, religious orders and Christ to offensive new extremes - released a press release today entitled "Sisters Upset Communion Being Turned into Political Issue".

As just a brief taste of the SPI's modus operandi, the "abbess" leader who leads the press release with a quotation is named "Edith Myflesh" (get it? That's supposed to be a pun on Christ's words "Eat my flesh", only it's just as crude, this-worldly and blasphemous as you would care to understand). Let nothing about this "press release's" correct grammar, 501 (c) (3) status and official letterhead fool you - this is a pernicious group which celebrates lifestyles deeply at-odds with human dignity and which, moreover, has for more than twenty years mocked the figures and realities of Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular.

Revealing the blatant errors present in this press release would be too easy. So, too, would uncovering the malicious intent behind it (though I might stray into that temptation from time to time below). Frankly, this organization doesn't deserve to be dismantled at an intellectual/theoretical level. Others may do so if they wish. I tend to save my bullets for fish not confined in barrels of their own making.

My purpose is merely to demonstrate that the ministry of Most Holy Redemeer parish directly, and I would also argue the recent decisions made by Abp. Niederauer proximately, have done nothing to actively and publicly disabuse this organization of its pathetic attempts to create a false reality for themselves (or in other words, to self-deceptively think that they are full members of the Catholic Church eligible to receive communion when they're motto is "go and sin some more!").

I read, therefore, through this document with one question to answer: how is this press release the result of receiving no catechises from their parish and little to no reprimand of their "lifestyle choices" from the Archbishop?

First of all, of course, this issues isn't a "political" one as claimed repeatedly by the press release. It is a theological, doctrinal and spiritual one, for starters. Sorry, we're not constrained by the narrow horizons of politics here. There's far more at stake, which is why we're concerned in the first place. Anyway:

While at Mass the Sisters joined other parishioners in respectful and sincere worship and received Communion from the Archbishop.

They were dressed like this. Has anyone ever told them how disrespectful that sort of dress is in Mass, how completely it works against "respectful and sincere worship"? Not just within Mass, but how their activities in such dress (i.e., participating in publical sex acts as part of gay pride parades, etc., etc.) similarly bar them from "respectful and sincere worship"?

Our hearts go out to the parishioners of Most Holy Redeemer and to the Archbishop who have been unfairly stigmatized by these disingenuous campaigns for doing nothing more than following the welcoming teachings of Christ and administering Communion in keeping with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

Has anyone told them that the "teachings of the Second Vatican Council" say nothing about distributing communion to those actively and regularly committed grave acts of scandal and sin? Do they think the Second Vatican Council renounced the Catholic Church's long tradition of condemning homosexual acts as sinful? Acts that the "sisters" participate in regularly? Did mocking the Church get its own document?

We would like to take this opportunity to state again that, contrary to the spin of right-wing fanatics, that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence do not "mock nuns" but live "as nuns," taking vows that affirm the traditional compassionate and justice-seeking ministries of religious women....

Has anyone told them that they aren't nuns? That their anti-vows cannot be brought into harmony with living an integral virtuous human vocation?

We are open and supportive of all forms of spirituality that teach respect for human life, diversity, freedom and community, including those of the Catholic Church.

Again, just to give you a feeling for what content the "sisters" actually mean when they appropriate words: one of the sisters who was given communion by the Archbishop has been photograhed at pro-abortion rallies holding a wire hanger. That's what they mean by "teach[ing] respect for human life."! Again, see a problem?

It is no secret that our vows sometimes call us to challenge the dogmas and hypocrisies of the Catholic hierarchy....

This is an admission that the "sisters" do not accept the dogmas of the Catholic faith. This may seem elemental (and obvious), but we recite the creed before communion for a reason - the saving truths of the faith must be given our consent before we present ourselves for communion.

Final paragraph:

In keeping with our vows to expiate stigmatic guilt and promulgate universal joy, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence call on all people of good faith to oppose those who would desecrate the sanctity of a church and defile a moment of true communion for cheap political gain. In a world wracked by violence and fear, we have no time for such lies and will continue to serve our community by boldly proclaiming that joy is more powerful than shame. We extend our sincerest gratitude and affection to the parishioners of Most Holy Redeemer and hope that their new Archbishop continues to walk with them in service to the gospel of joy and justice.

Okay, enough arguments. Just an observation: this is more mockery. This is a clear example of obstinate sin, of blithely desecrating the Body and Blood of Christ and going back to business as usual. This is continuing to spread errors in thought and errors in deed unopposed. This is a lie to support a lifestyle of lies and untruth. This is claiming to be what they are not, and in so doing, cheapening and further offending those who do act in service to neighbor and love of God. This is, finally, claiming the sponsorship and endorsement of Most Holy Redeemer Parish and the Archbishop who "walk[s] with them".

And to those responsible for this state of affairs (i.e., Most Holy Redeemer parish and it's pastor, Fr. Steve Meriwether): this is what you get when you don't teach, when you don't witness to the Gospel, and when you act upon a permissive, "everything-goes" attitude about sexual deviance. The "sisters" have grown up, and have been allowed to flourish at MHR parish for so long that - suddenly - when MHR is put in the spotlight, its pastor and staff find themselves continually embarrassed and abused by the individuals it has failed to teach.

This is why the light of truth isn't meant to be kept hidden under a bushel, because the forces of darkness are always on the move....

How much longer will the light of Christ only shine dimly at Most Holy Redeemer?

Related:

• Speroforum: Archbishop Niederauer team spinning damage control
• AMDG: The amazing (and frightening) demographics of MHR parish
• LSN: Jesuit Prof. Says Abp. Was Correct in Giving Communion to Transvestite 'Nuns'

Previous posts on this topic:

• Follow-ups to three important current stories
• Update: MRH parish Removes Thank-you of transvestite from online bulletin
• A little gem found on the MHR parish website
• Breaking: Blasphemous "Sisters" given space in Church's bulletin today!
• Text of public apology from Abp. Niederauer
• Abp. Niederauer makes a second bad decision (and here's why)
• Why Abp. Niederauer's Giving of Communion to "Queer Nuns" is a big deal
• Video: Abp. Niederauer giving Communion to gay cross-dressers

Breaking: Blasphemous "Sisters" given space in Church's bulletin today!

This is utterly beyond the pale.

ADMG has discovered that today's bulletin at Most Holy Redeemer parish published an email from one of the very same blasphemous "Sisters" (pictured below) who were videotaped receiving communion from Archbishop Niederauer:

To All the Folks at Most Holy Redeemer,

Just a quick note to recognize the wonderful Mass yesterday at your Church to welcome Archbishop Niederauer. Your entire congregation was so welcoming and it was great to be able to participate in the Mass. The service was absolutely beautiful and I know that I personally walked away very inspired by both the Archbishop’s message and the angelic voices of your choir ringing in my ears! Amazing!

Afterwards, one of the parishioners offered us a blue “MHRC: An Inclusive Catholic Church” pin that I was proud to wear through the Castro Fair. You are a wonderfully inclusive Church!

Best Regards, Delta (Goodhand)

Let's get this clear: On the very same day that the Archbishop published these words....

The manner of dress and public comportment of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is deeply offensive to women religious and to the witness of holiness and Christian service that women religious have offered to the Church and to the world for centuries.

Someone who dresses in a mock religious habit to attend Mass does so to make a point. If people dress in a manner clearly intended to mock what we hold sacred, they place themselves in an objective situation in which it is not appropriate for them to receive Holy Communion, much less for a minister of the Church to give the Sacrament to them.

Therefore I conclude that the presence of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at the Mass on October 7th was intended as a provocative gesture.

.... the Pastor of Most Holy Redeemer Parish, Fr. Steve Meriwether, publishes a letter from one of the offending transvestite individuals!

It's hard for me to decide if this decision represents stupidity or arrogance on the part of MHR.

Consider: The Pastor of MHR parish must know what an outcry the action of the blasphemous "sisters" has caused from Catholics across the country. I'm sure the website traffic alone to the parish website has increased ten-fold in the last week. Moreover, dozens (if not hundreds or more) of people have surely contacted the parish office to voice their complaints.

It is in this atmosphere that the MHR bulletin was published with the above text emailed by one of the offending sisters. The transvestite individual even used the assumed name he took on as a blasphemous "sister." The responsibility for the publication of this letter I believe rests with the pastor ultimately, especially since he appears to be the only priest in residence.

I'm not even going to argue that it is gravely inappropriate to publish this text in the bulletin of a Catholic parish. I don't have to: my task has been made much simpler and more direct by Abp. Niederauer's apology.

Therefore:

Those responsible for the publication of this letter are guilty of providing a public forum for an individual named by the Archbishop as having "made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular", of being "deeply offensive" and who have "mock[ed] what we hold sacred" and who have "place[d] themselves in an objective situation in which it is not appropriate for them to receive Holy Communion."

Therefore, because Abp. Niederauer has stated that it is "not appropriate ... for a minister of the Church to give the Sacrament to them [the Sisters]" so also it is completely inappropriate for an employee or Pastor of MHR parish to published an email from one of the "sisters" without any clarification, critique or disclaimer.

At minimum, the pastor should publish a retraction and apology as soon as possible. Get the word out.

Update: Deacon Keith Fournier, Editor-in-Chief for Catholic Online, has some clear words to say about these events. He especially notes that the Archbishop's action constituted a scandal in the fullest sense of the term and calls on the US hierarchy to take this debacle as an opportunity to seriously examine its guidelines for the distribution of the Eucharist to those who mock the Church and are manifestly unworthy to receive Communion.

Update 2: Insight Scoop has a roundup of related coverage.

CWNews now covers this story here.

Abp. Niederauer makes a second bad decision (and here's why)

Update (Oct 12th): Abp. Niederauer has issued a public apology. You can read it here.

I regret having to do this, but I think it must be done....

LifeSiteNews contacted the office of Archbishop George Niederauer to give him a chance to explain or respond to the recent accusations leveled against him:

A statement by Archbishop Niederauer sent to LifeSiteNews.com by Archdiocesan communications director Maurice Healy says that the Archbishop did not notice any "mock religious garb."

Here is what the Niederauer sent back:

"At Most Holy Redeemer Church Oct. 7, I noticed no protest, no demonstration, no disruption of the Sunday Eucharist," said Archbishop Nierderauer. "The congregation was devout and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence. Toward the end of the Communion line two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. I did not see any mock religious garb. As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland."

The Archbishop has chosen to a) deny that he did anything wrong and even b) misses an opportunity to promise that, if faced with a similar situation, he would not do it again.

His statement, furthermore, seems illogical, indefensible and incoherent for these reasons:

• On the one hand, he claims to be aware enough of his surroundings to conclude that the entire celebration was conducted with reverence and devoutly, but at the same time he could not tell that two transvestites were staring him in the face one-after-the-other during communion time.
• He vaguely refers to these two transvestites as "strangely dressed persons." This is coming, mind you, from a man who ministers in San Francisco. Is he honestly trying to claim that he does not recognize what are clearly transvestite individuals? What does that say about his ability to minister? They have white chalk on their faces. They are wearing red lipstick. They were wearing heals. "Strangely dressed persons" is an untenable euphemism. Moreover, he is celebrating Mass at a well-known gay-friendly parish! Shouldn't he, so to speak, be more on his guard against this sort of thing?
• "I did not see any mock religious garb." This, again, coming from an Archbishop of the Catholic Church. Large black veils are not worn by the general populace. Shouldn't he admit at the very least that, given everything else he "missed" about these persons, they might also have been wearing religious garb?
• "As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland." Again, this apparently was no cause for concern - judging by the Archbishop's tone. Such nonchalance when administering the Body and Bloody of Jesus Christ is alone reprehensible. Where, exactly, is his mind at when he is administering the Eucharist that he only "vaguely" remembers a "flowered hat or garland" but can't remember lipstick, white-chalk faces, rainbow headdresses, men wearing skirts and high heels, mascara ... etc.!

And then, finally, there is the fact that the video further contradicts the Archbishop's explanation of the situation. If you watch it closely (as I have many times, and you can too), I think it is pretty clear that this is what happened. I've embedded the video below and then written up a timeline of what it shows actually happening in bulleted form with comments interspersed:




My play-by-play:

• The first transvestite presents himself for communion
• Instead of presenting communion, Niederauer stops and extends his hand and gives the transvestite a blessing

If there was nothing memorable about the transvestite, why didn't Niederauer simply give him communion? I think it is clear that Niederauer noticed something was different and initially chose to withhold communion and chose instead to give a blessing.

• At a crucial point, the camera view is obstructed by a passer-by, in the meantime, Neiderauer voices something to the transvestite, who nods, and Niederauer then gives him communion.

We can only speculate what was said (there is a rumor that another video of the event will be made available shortly). I don't think it's far off to guess that Niederauer asked the transvestite if he wanted communion, and he said yes. But, this we cannot know for certain. [Note: I also considered the possibility that the transvestite told Niderauer that he had been to confession. If that happened - and I doubt it - Niederauer should have said "Okay, now please come back when you are not so offensively dressed."] Either way, however, the Archbishop talked to the man! Is his memory so failing that he cannot remember having a conversation with a communicant? Can he talk to someone with a face like this and have no memory of something being ... "off"?!

• What is visible, however, is that Niederauer follows the transvestite as he walks away with his eyes. At the same time, his mouth is open in a state of either shock of confusion.

Again, if nothing about this transvestite was memorable, why follow him with your eyes? I think in the Archbishop's best defense, his expression would seem to suggest that he was taken aback by the situation, and failed to think quickly on his feet. If that is the case, however, he should discard the pretense and admit candidly that he was taken off-guard.

• Now the second transvestite approaches. This time there is no question and Neiderauer immediately gives him communion. Once again, however, Niederauer shoots a quick glance at the second transvestite with his eyes.

In my experience - and I'll admit that there are times when I'm in the front of church and watching the communion line while I pray - priests don't follow communicants with their eyes unless they are uneasy about whether the person is going to immediately consume the Host. Why did Niederauer look at not one, but both individuals if ... there was nothing unusual about them?

This entire sequence puts the lie to Abp. Niederauer's claim that the appearance of two transvestites in his communion line a) did not register in his mind as a reason to deny them communion and b) caused him no second-thoughts to the point that he has already forgotten what happened.

With all due humility to his office as an Archbishop of the Church, but equally inspired by a sincere concern that he dispense his office as the Guardian of the Sacraments properly ...

I don't think his response to LifeSiteNews is honest.

Update: CurtJester, with his distinctly withering style of irony, takes a look at the Abp.'s response. Also, Closed Cafeteria is a good place to find backstory on the blasphemous "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence".



Update 2: Thanks to everyone who has linked to this post. I've added an embedded youtube video to make it easier to see for yourself what I'm claiming.


Update 3: George Neumayr, editor of the American Spectator, has written a good editorial for Catholic World Report about this situation, and reminds us about the chance for resolution at the U.S. Bishop's upcoming meeting in November:

In November, the U.S. bishops will gather in Baltimore for their annual conference, and this unresolved scandal hangs over them. The choice they face is clear: either they adopt as a uniform policy the duty enshrined in canon law to protect the sacraments from sacrilege and scandal, or these Communion controversies will multiply without end.

...The Church's position on whether a bishop should stop sacrilege is not up for debate. The only question left is whether the bishops will follow it. The fiasco in San Francisco makes this much clear: If the bishops don't get control over the sacraments, the Church's enemies most certainly will.

Here-here.

Why Abp. Niederauer's Giving of Communion to "Queer Nuns" is (and should be) a big deal

This story (blogged here and then here), is going to attract plenty of attention. While it involves many complex questions, a few points are objective and obvious, and therefore shouldn't be lost sight of:

Canon Law says that those "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" are "not to be admitted to holy communion." Not "discouraged" - not admitted.

Two men dressed as nuns, who look like this, are objectively, manifestly supporting a culture of grave sin and openly mocking the Church.

This action represented a public challenge on the part of the "Queer nuns," a public choice made by Archbishop George Niederauer, and we have video evidence of what happened (available streaming here or WMP here). The fact that the objective situation is not open to dispute means the only question here is one of principle and norm.

To name one ramification, Abp. Neiderauer is the head of the San Francisco archdiocese. It goes without saying that his actions and attitude towards the gay agenda are closely observed. He is providing an example (for good or ill) to the rest of the Catholic Church in America concerning the appropriate response to make when gay activists present themselves for the Eucharist. His record was already questionable.

In this situation, I would submit that anything less than a sincere apology and firm public commitment to change course will not answer either the disservice he has done to his office and his flock, or to the objective sacrilege he is allowed to be visited upon the Real Presence entrusted to his care.

Conclusion: When the bleachers are full and everyone's watching, it's really time to step up to the plate.

Related links (I fully expect the mainstream media to pick up on this by tomorrow):

• "Queer nuns” get Communion - California Catholic Daily
• One bread, one body? - Off The Record

Video: Abp. Niederauer giving Communion to gay cross-dressers

From Quamdiu Domine, video of the story reported yesterday of George Neiderauer, Archbishop of San Francisco, giving Holy Communion to two gay-activists dressed up ostentatiously (and blasphemously) as nuns. The video is embedded below. To view the video in Windows Media player, click here.

The video:

More context and information at QD here.

Gerald explains what we are seeing:

... Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco [is] giving Communion to two "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence". It looks as if the archbishop was going to give only a blessing to the first "sister", then an exchange of words, then he gives it to the first, then, without further ado, to the second. As Diogenes shows, the same two sisters were at the Walk for Life in SF.....as counter-protesters! These "sisters" are very well-known in San Francisco and nation-wide. So, certainly the archbishop knows what they do. And even without knowing about them - the outfit alone should be enough to get kicked out of any decent church.

Outrageous.

It's "National Coming Out Week", and Boston College is very prepared

Dawn Eden, who works at the Cardinal Newman Society as director of their Love & Responsibility program, notified me about this story (she's flying off to Dublin today and beginning a speaking tour that will also take her to London).

The focus of Dawn's work at CNS involves programs of campus outreach geared to promote Catholic teachings on "sexual ethics, human life, marriage, love, and personal responsibility."

Sadly, there are significant forces at work against this noble project. A case in point?

Boston College's Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender Leadership Council is organizing and hosting events campus-wide as part of "National Coming Out Week" as the independent BCHeights reports.

Planned activities include:

• Tuesday night features a panel discussion lead by five professors and staff titled "How to be straight." Perez said, "This event really deals with how to get the community involved. People often support GLBT issues but don't know how to fit it into their day-to-day lives. We want to emphasize how to provide support to the GLBT community even though they might not identify themselves as GLBT."
• An open-mic discussion called "Opening Boston's Closets" takes place on Wednesday at 6 p.m. in the Chocolate Bar, with students expressing themselves through discussions and performances about issues of sexuality.
• "Guess who's gay," a game-show-themed event aimed at breaking down stereotypes, will take place Thursday at 7 p.m. in Gasson 305. Students will ask non-sexuality-based questions to a panel of participants to try to discern their sexuality.
• The week concludes with a fashion show titled "I feel pretty," to be held in the Cabaret Room at 7 p.m., at which models will each wear an outfit they feel uncomfortable in and one in which they feel like themselves. (Kandrach is also planning on participating in the fashion show as a model. "I'll probably wear the typical BC attire of cargo pants and a polo shirt for my outfit representing the closeted me," he said. "For my other outfit, I'm wearing a crazy rainbow shirt and white denim pants. I do dress flamboyantly normally, but I don't care - that's one of the great aspects of gay men. They just do what they want.")

With a events like this being promoted and hosted throughout BC, it's not hard to see why the services of organizations like the Cardinal Newman Society are so desparately needed.

Here is Boston College's resource page for LGBT Students & Alumni.

From Boston College's "Jesuit, Catholic Tradition: Encountering the World" page:

Boston College is committed to maintaining and strengthening the Jesuit, Catholic mission of the University, and especially its commitment to integrating intellectual, personal, ethical, and religious formation; and to uniting high academic achievement with service to others.

... keep this in mind as you formulate your questions for this week's "Guess Who's Gay" gameshow!

(For a bit more context, blogged in May of last year, it should be remembered that BC is the same university that managed to get 100 of its faculty members to sign a protest letter - originating from its theology department - upon the occasion of Condoleezza Rice's invitation as a commencement speaker, because, the letter claimed, her activity in the Iraq War supposedly conflicted with Catholic and Jesuit principles. If this isn't a clear example of selective concern with Church teaching and Jesuit tradition then I don't know what is.)

Activist/Founder of Gay Magazine tells his story of conversion

Update: CNA has more on the story.

David of C-L-S has an excellent post up this week:

Michael Glatze, the founding editor of Young Gay America magazine and an activist promoting the lifestyle of those who choose to embrace their Same Sex Attraction Disorder, has just published an article in WND explaining his path from “gay” activist to having been healed of the disorder. The title of this post is the message that he wrote on his computer at YGA to inform his co-workers of his decision. Glatze says of his healing: “‘coming out’ from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I’ve ever experienced in my entire life.”

[Read the rest of David's summary of Michael's story.]

The homosexual argument from nature: a new perspective

Ever had the experience of getting so focused on one aspect of an argument that you completely miss an obvious response? Good, me too. Luckily, we both have LifeSiteNews interviews....

So What if Animals Have Gay Sex? They Also Practice Polygamy, Pedophilia and Incest
A Case Unmade for Homosexual Unions within the Anglican Church

ST. JOHN'S, June 20, 2007 (LifeSitenews.com) - Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, released a paper responding to a recent push for the official blessing of homosexual unions within the Anglican Church of Canada.

...

Commenting to LifeSiteNews.com, Gagnon explained why the argument for homosexuality from nature doesn't hold weight, saying, "Nature is broader than the concept of innate impulse."

...

In the animal kingdom, objects Thorp, certain creatures exhibit gay behavior. Gagnon responds, "I never used my dear departed dog 'Cocoa' and her instinctive sexual habits as a basis for determining what is 'natural' behavior. You can find animals of various species where some part of the population at least practices incest, pedophilia, extreme polyamory, and cross-species sex, along with same-sex activity." [More...]

I realize that this is rather unpleasant discussion material, but the argument for the licitness of homosexual acts based upon tendencies held in common with the rest of the animal kingdom is a very popular one, and I'm happy to see an additional way to counter its absurd claims put forward.

Amato gets feisty (+commentary)

Update 3: So does LifeSiteNews.

Update 2: CWNews has coverage.

Sure, the Reuters reporting is slanted, but reading between the lines you can pick up that Amato wasn't pulling any punches. Good for him.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican's second-highest ranking doctrinal official on Monday forcefully branded homosexual marriage an evil and denounced abortion and euthanasia as forms of "terrorism with a human face."

The attack by Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was the latest in a string of speeches made by either Pope Benedict or other Vatican officials as Italy considers giving more rights to gays. [More...]

Update: This story is getting picked-up by many places it seems. I'd like to see the original text ... anyone have it handy? Thanks.

Update 2: I guess what surprises me about this story is that it tries to give the impression that these positions taken by Amato are new (they're not) and that the Catholic Church in Rome is this huge political propaganda machine:

Italy's Roman Catholic Church, set up on diocesan and parish levels, has the organizational machinery to mobilize hundreds of thousands of people. A huge turnout, which is expected, could be a major embarrassment for Prodi's government.

The church is more than a union, and being "set up on a diocesan and parish levels" isn't for the sake of political activism. This kind of structure is employed by the worldwide Church, after all.

So, let's step back for a moment and see how the various sides in this debate are portrayed:

In the one corner we have the Roman Catholic Church, with its "organization machinery" to "mobilize" "a huge turnout" causing "major embarassment" to its enemies, and led by the deadly-duo of Pope Benedict and Cardinal Angelo Amato (grainy file photo featured in this article ... because they're movements are shadowy and it's difficult to pin-down their whereabouts at any given time):


In the other corner you have - I kid you not - from the photo that accompanies this article, "Members of gay and lesbian associations throw[ing] flowers as they demonstrate on St. Peter's square at the Vatican":


Who do you sympathize with? Which side is clearly in the right? The vitriolic organizers of a geopolitical highly-organized machine? Or the gents tossing flowers in tuxedos?

[photo 1 source: The Daily Telegraph]

[photo 2 source: Dario Pignatelli/Reuters]