Friday, October 31, 2008

Catholic Priest, Catholic Charities Director Donate to DEFEAT Proposition 8!

On August 4, the Conference of California Catholic Bishops issued a statement to their flocks on Proposition 8. It closed with these words:

"And finally, we strongly encourage Catholics to provide both the financial support and the volunteer efforts needed for the passage of Proposition 8. "

Why do our bishops expect their flocks to listen to them when they are not only ignored, but defied, by their own priests and employees?

Here's a page from the website of the California Secretary of State that tracks campaign finance. It shows a donation of $100 to DEFEAT Proposition 8, made by Cameron Ayers, SJ, the Pastor of St. Agnes parish in San Francisco. Click on the image for a larger view:

This is not totally unsurprising. During Fr. Ayer's pastorate, he led his flock at the 2005 San Fancisco "Gay Pride" parade.

And here's a page from this morning's "SF Gate" the website of the San Francisco Chronicle. They had a story today with an interactive feature that allowed you to search for who is giving to the "Yes on 8" and "No on 8" campaigns. This page shows a donation of $500 to DEFEAT proposition 8 made by Brian Cahill, Executive Director of Catholic Charities. Click on the image for a larger view.

This is not surprising at all. During Mr. Cahill's tenure (which thankfully ends this year), Catholic Charities:

a) installed a "married" lesbian as their treasurer;

b) had male transvestite and same-sex "marriage" activist "Donna Sachet" entertain at their parties;

c) embarked on the disastrous partnership with Family Builders by Adoption, which is being dissolved in June 2009.

So while our bishops (including our own Archbishop George Niederauer) are spending their time, talent, and treasure to defend marriage, and encouraging us to do the same, they are being undercut by these guys in their own dioceses.

This is pure unadulterated scandal. Why the hell do they tolerate it?

For more information on homosexual infiltration of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, go to "Homosexual Activism in the Archdiocese of San Francisco"

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Catholic Vote

I have been asked by many people to help clarify Catholic teaching on exercising one's voting rights, especially with respect to the abortion issue. There are many candidates across the nation running on many issues, and Catholics are trying to sort through them all, so I will state the Church's position as unequivocally as possible for the education of the faithful and not as an endorsement of any particular candidate or candidates: true Catholics are not "single-issue" voters - we are principled voters. That determines which candidates we give our vote to and it determines the state of our souls after we vote.

With respect to the abortion issue, the principle in question is the moral impossibility for a Catholic to cooperate in an act or an institution that is "intrinsically evil." Now, something that is
"intrinsically evil" is not just a bad thing - it is a heinous thing, trumping all other moral considerations, and we can never legitimately commit the act ourselves or approve of it in anyone else. Casting a vote for a candidate who forcefully advocates the killing of innocent unborn babies shows approval or unacceptable toleration of that heinous crime against humanity, and Catholics can never do it in good conscience. The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls such an attitude and action "formal cooperation" in evil (#2272). This does not mean that I commit the evil myself. It means that I agree with it and have made it possible for a person in public office to continue and/or advance that evil in my society.

Formal cooperation in the evil act of another is a sin, and depending on the gravity of the person's evil act, formal cooperation in it can be a mortal sin. Since procured abortion is an intrinsically evil act, and all promotion of it fits into the same moral category, voting for a person who forcefully advocates it must be a mortal sin. Add to the sin of formal cooperation in evil the sin of disobedience to legitimate Church authority.

To date the USCCB, more than a dozen US bishops' conferences and more than 80 individual US bishops have clarified these principles for Catholics, and their teachings couldn't be clearer.
Further, add the sin of scandal that a regrettable number of priests and religious are giving by their appalling disingenuousness about Church teachings both in and out of the pulpit. Catholic parents and teachers equally give scandal when they do not teach their children the principles that undergird moral behavior or properly form their consciences according to the Truth that is in Christ.

Some ask if a Catholic may vote for someone whose policies would advance an agenda that is mostly in line with the Catholic Church's teaching?

Also, what if the Catholic disagrees with the candidate's position on abortion but still wants to vote for this candidate for other reasons consistent with our values? Here the Church uses the term "proportionate reason" to indicate that there must be some kind of balance in the candidate's position that indicates it is likely that a greater good would be accomplished for society despite the evil he or she advocates.

Proportionate reasoning usually has to do with positions that are not intrinsically evil in themselves or that, if they are, would constitute such a minimal part of the platform that they would be "outweighed" somehow in the grand scheme of the candidate's public service. According to the above principle, however,
the degree to which the candidate would promote something as heinous as abortion can literally nullify all the other "good" that he or she would do for humanity! When the fundamental right to life is denied in society, all other rights and goods are therefore threatened. The very moral foundation of a people is eroded. So the answer has to be no, it is not legitimate to disagree on abortion and still vote for a radical abortion candidate.

May a Catholic vote for an "imperfect" candidate if the radical abortion candidate is worse? The Church says yes, but only if the vote is not expressed as an agreement with the "imperfect" elements of the candidate's policies and only if the vote is intended to limit the evil that other candidate would inevitably do.

It is truly regretful that we have gotten to the point where we might have to surrender some of our basic values in the voting booth because we have not successfully insisted on the very best candidates for public office to serve the common good. That is a discussion for another day, but I anticipate that if Catholics do not assert Catholic values forcefully in elections and public policy from here on out, we may be faced in future elections with no choice whatsoever that can morally satisfy the Catholic conscience. Heaven help and guide us all on November 4th.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International

Copyright © 2004 Victor Claveau
. All Rights Reserved

Quotes from a Letter to Obama by LW

...Your own comment that "this is no longer a Christian nation but a nation of Muslims, Jews, Hindus'" etc. is just unconscionable. While we are indeed tolerant and inclusive of other groups, this is a Christian nation and for you to say otherwise is just one of the reasons that millions of people are fearful of you.

Additionally in your book 'Audacity of Hope' - you say. "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction". You are quite simply, frightening.I truly do not get the impression that you put the best interest of our nation before being a democrat. I have never seen people so afraid of the consequences of electing someone of your ideals and with your agenda.

Thank God for a stalwart Supreme Court who can check your potential infringement of our liberty's. Your agenda to "Redistribute the Wealth" is what really caused me to decide to vote for your opponent. I have worked extremely hard for my little bit of wealth. I put forth considerably more effort than some of my colleagues and hence I have progressed and been rewarded accordingly. I have earned my "wealth" and my good fortune and I will not let you take it from me and 'redistribute" it to those who "you and the government" think should benefit from my labor. That Mr. Obama is just "not fair" as you like to say.

I sincerely hope I am wrong about you, but if what I have read and heard about your views are true, I and many millions of my countrymen are afraid. George may have lied to us and shown poor judgment, and for that I distrust him, but I'm not afraid of him. I don't hate you, I merely fear you and your militant party. Actually I should say "MY" (former) militant party.

Words to Ponder

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Gays against Same-Sex Marriage

Not all same-sex attracted persons support same-sex "marriage." Far from it! We've already blogged about the position of the philosopher Lee Harris. Reproduced below are the closing paragraphs from "What Homosexuals Want," an insightful article by Eve Tushnet, a same-sex attracted Catholic woman struggling, like all of us, to live a Christian life.

"At this point, the most common question that arises is, "So what? Okay, maybe marriage didn’t develop in response to same-sex couples, but c’mon – how can Bob and Jim getting married really affect your marriage?" There are three basic reasons to think same-sex marriage will damage, perhaps fatally, the institution of marriage – maybe not in this generation, but in the one that grows up with same-sex marriage as the norm.

The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could write a history of American culture without noting how much of it began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to subtler infusions of "camp" humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority culture.

The second reason is that homosexual activists are merely picking up on a trend begun by and for opposite-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is just the next step in the divorce culture. The belief that marriage is merely the way that our culture expresses its approval of atomistic adults’ sexual and romantic partnerships isn’t new – it’s the same "me generation" worldview that produced "fatherless America."

And finally, unlike easy divorce, same-sex marriage would change the fundamental ideal of marriage. Even the most ardent defenders of divorce today view it as a necessary evil, a response to the tragedy of marriage failure. Same-sex marriage by contrast, would say that the ideal marriage is gender neutral – not a way for boys to become men by marrying and pledging to care for women. It would say that the ideal marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned and chosen – children would become optional extras rather than the natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union. It would say that the ideal family need not include a father – a message that is especially pernicious in a country where one-third of births in 2000 were to unwed mothers. And it would say (because who can imagine that most homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional, not the norm – that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren’t heroic, we must not be called to marry. Any one of these changes would be destructive. Put together, they are a recipe for disaster, a recipe for revisiting and surpassing the harm done to families by the "sexual revolution."

Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children. But we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage, because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the "opposite sexes" to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal and losing our best hope for marriage renewal."

Sense & Senselessness in California

Our California Catholic Bishops have come out forthrightly for Proposition 4, the abortion notification initiative, that requires notification of at least one adult family member when a minor is contemplating having an abortion. They have said this is just "common sense" and they're right.

But our California Bishops have been notably silent on the choice of a President. Here's where the senselessness kicks in.

As Fr. Malloy points out in the preceding post, Senator Obama has promised, as his first act in office, to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will automatically overturn Proposition 4. So all the work that the Bishops have done, all the money that has been contributed, all the work the volunteers have done will be for nothing if Barack Obama is elected.

A number of Bishops around the country understand this and for this reason they have either explicitly or in barely veiled terms told their flocks that it is immoral to vote for Barack Obama.

It's time for our California Bishops to do the same.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

A Moral Imperative

Barack Obama has promised that a first act of his presidency would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Read why it’s immoral to vote for this abortion provider:

Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph said this in a statement last week:

"The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), was first introduced in November of 1989. […] The more recent wording of FOCA, introduced last year, is as follows: A government may not: (1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose -- (A) to bear a child; (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."Bishop Finn explained that this act applies to "every federal, state, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, penalty, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before or after the date of enactment of this act."It would thus "make null and void every current restriction on abortion in all jurisdictions," he said.

Citing an article from the Family Research Council, the bishop noted that among the laws FOCA would automatically overturn are 44 states' laws concerning parental involvement; 40 states' laws on restricting later-term abortions; and 46 states' conscience protection laws for individual health care providers; as well as 38 states' bans on partial-birth abortions.

"If we learn that our 'candidate of choice' further pledges -- through an instrument such as FOCA -- to eliminate all existing limitations against abortion, it is that much more doubtful whether voting for him or her can ever be morally justified under any circumstance." (

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

More Barack Buddies...

Only ignorance can explain why a significant number Americans think Barack Obama is qualified to hold any public office.

Andy McCarthy over at National Review online reports on yet another America-hating academic who also happens to be close friend of Barack & Michelle Obama, and how the mainstream media refuses to cover the story:

"Let’s try a thought experiment.

Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?

Do we really have to ask?

So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?"

Read the whole thing.

h/t Threshing Grain

Another Great Proposition 8 Video: "The Best Gift"

Monday, October 27, 2008

Marriage Matters to Kids! Vote YES on Prop. 8!

Bishop Gracida Preaches!!!

Radio spot from Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, Texas:

"This is Bishop Rene H. Gracida, reminding all Catholics that they must vote in this election with an informed conscience. A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate."

Abortion Survivor Gianna Jensen Speaks

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Proposition 8 and Schools (Update III)

Our friend Bill May, Chairman of Catholics for the Common Good, did a great job on our local ABC affiliate today. You can see video & text here.

Some background: on October 10, a San Francisco First Grade Class went on a field trip to a lesbian "wedding." (They called it a "teaching moment." Were they right!) Since Mayor Gavin Newsom was presiding, the wedding, including kids, was videotaped by supporters of the event, and published. No objection from the parents.

The San Francisco Chronicle's video of the wedding is in fact a VERY IMPORTANT teaching moment and can be seen here.

But wait! Now the parents are objecting to the fact that their kids were videotaped at a lesbian "wedding." They're complaining because the videoptape, which is in the public domain, was quite properly used as evidence by the "Yes on Proposition 8" campaign to show that homosexual indoctrination of children in California Public Schools is a reality, and will increase if Proposition 8 fails.

In today's story, Bill really went to town. First he blasted Jack O' Connell, the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of California who said:

"Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage and using kids to lie about that is shameful."

Bill responded:

"The Superintendent of Public Instruction is absolutely lying on this. He knows better. They're trying to cover it up. They don't want parents to know that this is going to be taught in public schools."

Evidence of O'Connell's lie can be found by going to his own website. The "Yes on 8" campaign has documented this here.

Today, one of the parents said:

"You can't use children's images in political statements like this. (The entire event was a political statement, lady. That's why the event was videotaped, by opponents of Proposition 8, in the first place) No one asked us to use our children. No one talked to us about this. And I feel like my children are being manipulated."

Bill's response:

"Asked about the pictures May told ABC7, 'The images of the children
wouldn't be in the public domain if they hadn't called the press and publicized it. It's been on national TV.'"

Again, we strongly encourage readers to look at the video of the wedding (especially the end) , which was intended essentially as an unpaid ad for the "No on 8" Campaign, and which backfired disastrously. And just in case the Chronicle decides to pull the video, it closes with the teacher saying:

"I really hope that all the children of the world matter who is getting married it's a beautiful and blessed union and that right should be afforded to everyone."

That's indoctrination.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney


Inscribed around the inside of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC, are the immortal words of ThomasJefferson: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

Justice for children? Even unborn?

Examine your conscience before you vote.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Proposition 8 and Schools (Update II)

Opponents of Proposition 8 have aired a duplictious ad, featuring Jack O'Connell, Superintendent of of Public Instruction for the state of California. In the ad Mr. O' Connell states that if Proposition 8 fails, and the recent 4-3 Supreme Court decision is left to stand, California Public Schools will not teach about same-sex "marriage":

“Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools…Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage…”

The Yes on 8 Campaign has a comprehensive exposure of Mr. O'Connell's falsehood. You can read it by going here. But I think the "Yes on 8" Campaign's arguments do not go far enough.

The issue in Proposition 8 is not same-sex "marriage," it's marriage, period. For Mr. O' Connell's words to be true, California Public Schools would have to:

1) Never use the words "marry" "marriage" or "married"--because the definition of the word "marriage" will have changed to include same-sex "marriages";

2) Not teach vocabulary--because the definition of the word "marriage" will have changed to include same-sex "marriages";

3) Not contain dictionaries--because the definition of the word "marriage" will have changed to include same-sex "marriages";

4) Never mention the most important event that has ever happened in the state of California--the redfinition of humanity's most foundational institution.

All Americans of good will, straight or gay, who care about the common good of society, should support Proposition 8.

And they need your help. The polls now seem to be even, and the opponents of marriage are getting incredible money from places like Hollywood.

YOU can donate to Proposition 8 by going here.

Friday, October 24, 2008


Child at 20 weeks of age.


Thursday, October 23, 2008

Terrorists & Communists Support WHO???

Seantor Obama's relationship with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers is now well known. So is his relationship with Mike Klonsky, founder of the Maoist "October League." Mr. Klonsky was blogging in Senator Obama's website as recently as June 25, 2008. In 1991 Klonsky and Ayers founded the "Small Schools Workshop" in Chicago. They received nearly $2 million in funding from the Joyce and Woods Foundation and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge when Barack Obama sat on the boards of those organizations--indeed, Senator Obama was the chair of the board that oversaw funding decisions when he was at Joyce/Woods.

Today the "American Thinker" linked to a video of a man named Larry Grathwohl, an FBI agent who infiltrated the Weather Underground in 1969-1970. In the video Mr. Grathwohl claims that the Weather Underground discussed mudering up to 25 million Americans if they ever came to power in the United States. After viewing the video I did some googling of Mr. Grathwohl and came across this 1977 story in the New York Times, discussing the Weather Underground. Excerpts below:

FBI Asserts Cuba Aided Weathermen

The New York Times
October 9, 1977


WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 - Cuban espionage agents operating in the United States and Canada supplied limited aid to the Weather Underground, a militant antiwar organization, in the late 1960's and early 1970's, according to a top-secret report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

The following were some of the key points:

-Three years before militant members of the students for a Democratic Society split off to form the Weather Underground Organization in 1970, North Vietnamese and Cuban officials were influencing radical antiwar strategy through foreign meetings. Many of these meetings were held in Communist countries, including Hungary, Czechoslovakia and North Vietnam,

-The conduit for contact in the United States was a group of intelligence agents assigned to the staff of the Cuban Mission to the United Nations in New York. These agents arranged for American youths to be inculcated with revolutionary fervor and, occasionally, to be trained in practical weaponry by Cuban military officers through the so-called Venceremos Brigades.

-After the Weathermen went "underground" in 1970 and many of them were being sought by the F.B.I. on criminal charges, Cuban intelligence officers were in touch with them from both the New York mission and the Cuban Embassy in Canada.

-Cuban officials helped several Weather Underground adherents who feared arrest in the United States to travel to Prague, Czechoslovakia, and then to reenter the United Slates surreptitiously. The report linked the growing militancy of certain members of the Students for a Democratic Society, which resulted in the so-called Days of Rage in Chicago in 1969; to North Vietnamese advice the year before to choose youngsters who would battle with the police.

The report noted that the objective of Cuban intelligence officers in the General Directorate of Intelligence (known by its initials in Spanish as the D.G.I., Cuba's equivalent of the C.I.A.) was not always the same as that of the young members of the Weather Underground.

It said the ultimate objective of the D.G.I's participation in setting up the Venceremos Brigades "is the recruitment of individuals who are politically oriented and who someday may obtain a position, elective or appointive, somewhere in the U.S. Government, which would provide the Cuban Government with access to political, economic and military intelligence...

A man who was publicly described as the most effective informer the F.B.I. ever placed among the Weathermen, Larry Grathwohl, reported to the bureau that a code system for communications had been set up by the Cubans, the report said.

"In February 1970, leading WUO member Bill Ayers told fellow underground WUO member Larry Grathwohl that if communication could not be made through these Canadian numbers, an individual should get in touch with the Cuban Embassy in Canada in order to establish contact with other members of the WUO," the report said.

Why is a candidate for the President of the United States palling around with Communists and terrorists? Why do they support him?

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

So Many Good Bishops...

I can't keep up!

But Tom Peters over at American Papist can:

"On Keeping/Kicking Kmiec Out

One bishop (Most Rev. Lawrence E. Brandt, JCD, PhD of Greensburg, PA) is trying:

Yesterday afternoon I received word that Seton Hill University had extended an invitation to Mr. Douglas Kmiec to speak on its campus regarding faith and politics. I have attempted in vain to reach the President of Seton Hill, Dr. JoAnne Boyle in this regard, but to no avail.
As the teacher of authentic Catholic doctrine in the Diocese of Greensburg, I feel compelled to state in view of this situation that Mr. Kmiec distorts Catholic teaching by making it synonymous with his own personal views. There is no “other” Catholic position except the one which appears in authentic Church documents. His misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine do a grave disservice to the Catholic community and far beyond.

I seriously question the good judgment of the University administration in allowing him a platform on campus.

... Is it any wonder then that not only the demonstrators at the event, but many others as well, consider his presentation an offensive trivialization of the institution's declared Catholic identity!"

Mr. Peters also has good coverage on Bishop Martino of Scranton's visit to a political forum.

Morally Impermissible

Here's quote from Zenit and it is well worth pondering, bold print added:

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there is an alternative option is to cooperate in evil, and therefore morally impermissible, clarified two Texas bishops.

In a message made available to the faithful during this Respect Life month, bishops Kevin Farrell of Dallas and Kevin Vann of Fort Worth seek to "dispel any confusion or misunderstanding that may be present among you concerning the teaching contained in" the U.S. bishops document on faithful citizenship.

'"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship' clearly teaches that not all issues have the same moral equivalence," the bishops explained. "Some issues involve 'intrinsic evils'; that is, they can never under any circumstance or condition be morally justified. Preeminent among these intrinsic evils are legalized abortion, the promotion of same-sex unions and 'marriages,' repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research."

Thus, bishops Farrell and Vann stated, "we cannot make more clear the seriousness of the overriding issue of abortion -- while not the 'only issue'-- it is the defining moral issue, not only today, but of the last 35 years. […] This electoral cycle affords us an opportunity to promote the culture of life in our nation."As Catholics we are morally obligated to pray, to act and to vote to abolish the evil of abortion in America, limiting it as much as we can until it is finally abolished."… "let us be clear: Issues of prudential judgment are not morally equivalent to issues involving intrinsic evils. No matter how right a given candidate is on any of these issues, it does not outweigh a candidate's unacceptable position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or the protection of 'abortion rights.'"Salvation at stakeThe Texas bishops, citing the U.S. episcopal conference document, addressed the question of if it is "permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil -- even when the voter does not agree with the candidate's position on that evil."They said there are only two conditions when voting for a pro-abortion candidate is permissible: "A. If both candidates running for office support abortion or 'abortion rights,' a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or, "B. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no 'truly grave moral' or 'proportionate' reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year. "To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or 'abortion rights' when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil -- and, therefore, morally impermissible."The bishops concluded affirming that the decisions made on such political and moral issues "may affect each individual's salvation.""As Catholics, we must treat our political choices with appropriate moral gravity," they wrote, "and in doing so, realize our continuing and unavoidable obligation to be a voice for the voiceless unborn, whose destruction by legal abortion is the preeminent intrinsic evil of our day."
DALLAS, Texas, OCT. 22, 2008 (

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

"The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama"

It's a must-read post over at Hot Air.

Catholic Charities of San Francisco Adoptions (Conclusion)

This week's "Catholic San Francisco" printed an article confirming the dissolution of the relationship between Catholic Charities CYO and Family Builders by Adoption/Adoption SF ("the gayest agency in the country") in the words of their Executive Director, Jill Jacobs.

While the dissolution is itself good news, the article is confused and confusing, and begs at least two questions:

1) The article asserts that only a three-year partnership with FBA was ever envisaged:

"CCCYO officials told Catholic San Francisco that, as planned, the agency’s placing of two full-time employees at California Kids Connection will end in June 2009. 'The action is completely consistent with our 2006 announcement on adoption. At that time, we said that our plan was for a three-year partnership with California Kids Connection. That period concludes in June of 2009,' [CCCYO Executive Director Brian] Cahill stated."

Where, when, and to whom was this said? The only CCCYO announcement mentioned in the entire article is the CCCYO Press Release of August 2, 2006 (to this day the only document on the CCCYO website addressing the issue) which gives no indication whatsoever that the partnership was temporary.

And if that was the plan, why, in a Bay Area Reporter article published eight days later, on August 10, 2006, did Mr. Cahill himself say:

"Partnering with Family Builders actually will allow Catholic Charities to help even more children than before, he [Mr. Cahill] emphasized.

'It's impossible not to use the word 'irony' in this situation. Out of what could have been a crisis came a great opportunity,' said Cahill.

'We actually are going to increase our role in adoptions...'

And why, a little more than two weeks after that, in a San Francisco Chronicle article published on August 27, 2006, did Mr. Cahill himself say:

"This place started with adoptions -- how could we ever consider not doing them?''

And why did the body of that article open with:

"In an adroit end-run against a Vatican ban on granting adoptions to same-sex couples, Catholic Charities of San Francisco will launch a new project in coming weeks that experts say will lead to the placement of hundreds of foster children around the state every year."

(All emphases above are added.) None of that sound to me like the arrangement was seen as temporary.


So, on October 17, 2008 Mr. Cahill says that in 2006 it was announced that only a three-year partnership was envisaged.

But contradicting this:

1) the August 2, 2006 CCCYO press release addressing the issue does not say or give even the slightest indication that the partnership was temporary;

2) on August 10, 2006 Mr. Cahill said CCCYO was going to "increase its role in adoptions";

3) on August 27, 2006 Mr. Cahill said: "This place started with adoptions -- how could we ever consider not doing them?''

If, as he said last week, Mr. Cahill knew back in August of 2006 that only a three-year partnership with FBA was planned, why did he make the above statements to the press? For if what Mr. Cahill said last week was true, in August of 2006 CCCYO had not only considered not doing them, they had already decided not to do them--after a three-year period.

Conversely, if what he said in the August, 2006 statements to the press were true, why did he say last week:

"The action is completely consistent with our 2006 announcement on adoption. At that time, we said that our plan was for a three-year partnership with California Kids Connection."

The second strange contention in the article come from Jill Jacobs, Executive Director of Family Builders by Adoption:

"According to Jacobs of Family Builders and CCCYO officials, the strategic goal of the expanded CKC outreach was to establish data that supported its effectiveness in placing foster care children in adoptive families, and, thereby, provide an economic incentive to the state to step in when CCCYO vacated."

This is ridiculous. According to the Catholic San Francisco article, from 2006-2009 CCCYO was giving $110,000 annually to FBA. Over that same period, state & federal government was already giving over $1,100,000 annually to FBA--more than 10 times the contribution of CCCYO.

They did not need to "step in" when CCCYO "vacated"--they were already in to the hilt. The contract specifying government funding to FBA is below. Click on the image for a larger version.

Why all the contradictions? I think the simplest explanation of what happened is this: Catholic Charities partnered with Family Builders by Adoption, "the gayest (adoption) agency in the country." From the moment the partnership was created, Catholics loyal to the teaching of the Church were outraged. It was a disaster. Catholic Charities is now pulling out, but trying to find a way to do so without admitting their mistake.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Monday, October 20, 2008

Proposition 8 and Schools (update)

Here's the latest ad from the "Yes on 8" Defend Marriage campaign:

Now, of course you could say "Well, that's just a political ad. Why should we believe it?" In fact, you should say that, even if you agree with the campaign doing the ad. Being cynical, I did say that. So I did a little research, and here is an excerpt from a story on this very issue, dated April 20, 2006, in the ultra-liberal Boston Globe :

"Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash said Estabrook (the school the Wirthlin's child attended) has no legal obligation to notify parents about the book. ''We couldn't run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed," he said. ''Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.'"

Emphasis added.

That is exactly the argument made by backers of Proposition 8, and hysterically denied by those who oppose Proposition 8. Schools teach about marriage. If Proposition 8 fails, and same-sex "marriage" is left legal, children will be taught that marriage is no longer marriage, but is just what anybody decides it is.

Abortion Advocate to Speak at the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco

On October 30, USF's Lane Center for Catholic Studies and Social Thought will host a lady named Sylvia Marcos. From the USF webpage:

"Sylvia Marcos: Feminist Theology and the Zapatista Movement: A Report from Chiapas
Thursday, October 30, 2008
12:00 noon
Handlery Dining Room 100, USF Lone Mountain Campus

Co-sponsored with the USF departments of theology and religious studies, Latin American studies and Latina/Chicana studies and the USF Center for Latino Studies in the Americas (CELASA).

Internationally recognized professor of religion and sociology, Sylvia Marcos, will discuss Catholic pastoral activism and feminist theology in the woman-centered leadership of the Zapatista movement in Chiapas, México."

Ms. Marcos also happens to be one of the signatories to this document:

"A Faith-Filled Commitment to Development Includes a Commitment to Women’s Rights and Reproductive Health"
"Religious Reflections on the Millennium Development Goals
Prepared for the 2005 World Summit
14-16 September 2005

The document includes the following paragraph:

"Women must have access to comprehensive reproductive health services and information to prevent unplanned and high-risk pregnancies, which often lead women to abortion, even where abortion is unsafe and illegal. Unsafe abortion is a public health concern and where abortion is illegal governments and health systems should work together to change their country’s abortion laws and make safe abortion legal and accessible to those women who voluntarily choose to have one." (emphasis added).

The signatories of this document are arguing, on the basis of religion, that a woman has the "right" to kill her child. This might be a good time to remind the University of San Francisco of these words, from our United States Catholic Bishops:

"The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions. "

Such a guest is of course nothing new for USF's Lane Center. Go here to see a series of posts on Lane Center activities.

Proposition 8 and Schools

The No on 8 Campaign claims that the passage of Proposition 8 will not require teaching of same-sex "marriage" in public schools. Public schools teach about marriage in their health classes. Ergo, if same-sex "marriage" recognized as marriage in California it will have to be taught in school health classes. And there's already more than enough proof.

Think public schools will have any problem with this? Well, the California Teachers Association gave $1,000,000 to the "No on 8" campaign last week.
And of course a San Francisco First Grade class was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding:

And check out this flyer put out by the San Francisco Unified School District in April, 2008. Click on the image for a larger version.

That's what the activists are doing NOW! Vote "YES" on Proposition 8!

Sunday, October 19, 2008

"You Can't Make an Omelet Without Breaking Eggs"

That seems to be the conclusion of Cathleen Kaveny, a pro-Barack Obama "Catholic" writing in the October 27 issue of "America," the Jesuit magazine. In her closing paragraph she writes:

"For many pro-life Catholics, the issue of voting and abortion comes down to this: what does one do if one thinks that the candidate more likely to reduce the actual incidence of abortion is also the one more committed to keeping it legal?"

The answer is: you don't actually kill people today in the hope of some possible El Dorado down the road. The Twentieth Century sacrificed over 90 million people to that idea. That's why this post is titled with that quote that is often attributed to Lenin. For even if he did not originate it, he certainly applied it. If a pro-Obama "Catholic" can say such things, may the Blessed Mother protect us from a pro-Obama atheist!

No wonder the Communist Party USA supports Obama and thinks that "their time has come."

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Catholic Charities to Sever Ties with Family Builders by Adoption: Archdiocesan Confirmation

Today's "Catholic San Francisco" has an article confirming the dissolution of the partnership between Catholic Charities CYO and Family Builders by Adoption. The article is an official Archdiocesan confirmation of an article published in the October 12 issue of "Our Sunday Visitor" by Valerie Schmalz.

We will comment on the "Catholic San Francisco" article soon.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Most Holy Redeemer Chimes in on Proposition 8

You knew it was just a matter of time.

The San Francisco Chronicle printed a column today by C. W. Nevius titlled: "S.F. Catholic church walks fine line on Prop. 8"

The column describes MHR's objections to the Church's defense of natural marriage, and opens with the unintentionally hilarious line:

"It seemed San Francisco's Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church had found the perfect balance between the teachings of the church and gay and lesbian parishioners - at least until Proposition 8 the state initiative to ban same-sex marriage, made the ballot."

Most Holy Redeemer Church is the only Catholic Church in history that has photos of parish events posted on a website that requires an obscenity disclaimer.

For an example of the "balance" Mr. Nevius describes, go here and follow the links, particularly to "Ellard Hall Events" or to the "Staff Members" page (particularly "Lay Staff") or to the infamous video of "Revival Bingo."

Mr. Nevius' column also quotes two MHR Pastoral Council Members (past & current) Matt Dorsey and Patrick Mulcahy.

"It is really out of right field," said Matt Dorsey, a member of the Holy Redeemer Parish Council. "I would expect this from Karl Rove, but not from the spiritual leader of (several hundred thousand) Catholics."

Mr. Dorsey is Press Secretary for Dennis Herrera, City Attorney of San Francisco. It was Mr. Herrera who sued the State of California over same-sex "marriage."

Of course Fr. Donal Godfrey, Executive Director of University Ministry at USF, makes an appearance:

"In a perfect world, Niederauer would stand up to the church to say that he knows many gay and lesbian married couples and that their unions do not threaten anyone. But the reality is that church leaders get their marching orders from what Mulcahey calls 'a fax machine in the Vatican,' and taking a stand against the hierarchy is a no-win situation.

And, sure enough, a call to the archbishop's office produced no answers. A spokeswoman, who insisted that she not be quoted, said that the man who was authorized to speak to the media would be out of the office until Oct. 29, and that no one else could comment. A message left on thearchbishop's voice mail was not returned.

You can hardly blame them for their caution, said (Fr. Donal) Godfrey, who is the executive director of university ministry at the University of San Francisco. "The bishops must feel pressure to go along," he said. 'There aren't that many going around campaigning for (Prop. 8). I think they signed off on (the e-mail) and hoped it ends soon.'"

I look forward to His Excellency's response to columnists & Jesuits putting words in his mouth.

Of course, had Mr. Nevius done a little homework, he could have found an extended treatment of the issue by Archbishop Niederauer, by going here:

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Friday, October 17, 2008

"A Peculiar Kind of Self-Hypnosis"

How nice it is to honestly be able to say: the greatest leaders in America today are our Catholic Bishops. Here's Archbishop Chaput speaking in Denver this evening:

"I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ‘abortion-rights’ presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973.”

“Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests,” he continued, “the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ‘pro-choice;’ it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child – and let’s remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ‘murder’ – the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life.”

Chaput also addressed Kmiec’s assertion that there are “defensible motives” to support Obama. “Speaking for myself,” he said, “I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates.”

The archbishop also offered his analysis of Catholics who argue that “Senator Obama is this year’s ‘real’ prolife candidate.” For Catholics to believe this “requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse,” he stated.

Eduardo Verastegui On Proposition 4

Eduardo Verastegui, the famous actor, star of "Bella," takes a stand.
God Bless him! How wonderful it is to see a movie star stand up for life!
What an example to our young people.

This Election is about Infanticide

From His Excellency Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis:

"Save our children! More than anything else, this election is about saving our children or killing our children. This life issue is the overriding issue facing each of us in this coming election. All other issues, including the economy, have to take second place to the issue of life.

Save our children! Many people in Germany supported Hitler for economic reasons even though, as his programs advanced, he put to death millions of Jewish people. He ended up wrecking the economy together with the country of Germany.

How are we different if we vote for proabortion candidates for office? How can we help change our political and legal situation to protect innocent children and support a culture of life?

Save our children! When I speak to some so-called good Catholics, I am shocked that they are quite ready to vote for a pro-abortion candidate under almost any circumstance. I find this hard to understand. We have heard the word "abortion" so often that perhaps we no longer associate procured abortion with the killing of children, yet that is what it is. The term itself can be misleading. The dictionary tells us that it comes from a Latin word that means "to disappear or to miscarry." Sometimes abortions simply happen because of natural causes. That is why this word abortion, for many people, apparently does not really connote the destruction of children. When a human agent induces an abortion, that human agent is taking the life of one of our children.

Save our children! How can a so-called good Catholic vote for a candidate that supports laws that take the life of innocent children, when there is an alternative? If there were two candidates who supported abortion, but not equally, we would have the obligation to mitigate the evil by voting for the less-permissive candidate.

Save our children! How can a so-called good Catholic vote for a candidate that supports laws that justify the killing of a child that survived a botched abortion? How can such a so-called good Catholic receive the Holy Eucharist? In Chapter 10 of St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he states: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? ... You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons."

Save our children! Have some of our so-called good Catholics become so hardened against the Gospel of Life that they believe that other issues outweigh the Gospel of Life? Have some of our so-called good Catholics put politics ahead of the Fifth Commandment, in which God states: "Thou shalt not kill"? Do some of our so-called good Catholics, who may go to Mass every Sunday and receive the Holy Eucharist, really believe that voting for a pro-abortion candidate, when there is a clear alternative and therefore no justifiable reason for so doing, is really not voting to have children killed? This election is all about saving our children!

Save our children! I have no doubt that there may be some so-called good Catholics who are reading this column and who may be really angry about now. I ask the question "Why would such a person be angry?" If we do good deeds, then our conscience is at peace. If we do evil deeds, then our conscience bothers us. It is my hope that this column will lead some of our so-called good Catholics to study the Catholic Catechism.

Save our children! Some of our so-called good Catholics may have hardened their hearts against the real understanding of induced abortions, that they can no longer see that this involves the destruction of our children. "If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts!"

Save our children! Supporting induced abortions is not the greatest sin in the world. A greater sin is the refusal to repent of such a serious crime or the denial that this involves the killing of innocent children.

Save our children! I have used this terminology again and again penetrate the defenses of anyone who in the past may have put personal, economic or political interests above the issue of saving our children. The right to life is our most fundamental right, and to defend this right on behalf of the most vulnerable is a great privilege and is worth giving one’s life for. Policemen and firemen always risk their lives to save human life. Why should we not risk our own reputation to save our children?

Save our children! You can see by now that I do not believe that this column by itself will change hearts. The issue of abortion involves serious sin, and to overcome serious patterns of sin requires grace. If you are still with me, may I suggest that you join me and many others in praying the daily Rosary from now until election day for the sake of life. Why not pray the family Rosary every night between now and the general election. The Rosary brought down the Iron Curtain. It can also help us turn around the culture of death to a culture of life.

Save our so-called good Catholics who ignore Catholic moral principles when applied to our political life. Pray the family Rosary daily. Pray the family Rosary for our so-called good Catholics who could use your love and your charity. Pray for our so-called good Catholics who ignore serious Catholic moral teachings and still receive Holy Communion. Love them by praying the family Rosary for them. Don’t debate with them. Intercede for them. Praying for them is more fun than fighting with them.

Save our children and save our so-called good Catholics who have abandoned Church teachings in favor of personal gain. Pray the Rosary. Pray it every day. Get the whole family to pray the Rosary daily. Prayer is more powerful than contentious arguments. Spread the word to other families. In praying the Rosary, children’s votes count as much as adult votes. Sometimes they pray with purer hearts than we do. If you are disgusted with the TV news, then turn it off and turn on the prayer Internet. What we hear in prayer leaves us in peace. When we pray for our country and for our fellow citizens, we are filled with peace. St. Paul tells us that our warfare is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and powers and the spirits of darkness.

Prayer is our protection. Let it also be a protection for our country. If you want to make Satan angry, pray the Rosary for the sake of Life. Pray that as a nation we will choose leaders that will say ‘no’ to the culture of death and say ‘yes’ to the culture of life. Save our children! Pray the Rosary!"

H/T Curt Jester & American Papist

Transparent, Desperate Lies from No on 8 Campaign

Maggie Gallagher, writing over at National Review addresses the question of whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California Public Schools if Proposition 8 fails. It would have to be. In Public School health classes, they teach about marriage. If marriage in California includes "marriage" between a man and another man, that will have to be part of the curriculum. Maggie's column is below. Interpolations are in black.

"The latest Protect Marriage Yes on 8 television ad in California shows an incredibly cute 8 year old Hispanic girl bringing the book King and King home to her mother saying "Guess what I learned in school today. . . I can marry a princess!"

The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage crowd is running ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a "lie."

The latest press release from the Protect Marriage Yes on 8 campaign in California rather cleverly points out the same groups now charging its a lie public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not — were just in court in Massachussetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don't have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.

From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:

“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]

(Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:

“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]

(Note: The Human Rights Campaign has organized one of the largest recipient committees to oppose Proposition 8. The committee, Human Rights Campaign CA Marriage PAC (ID# 1307246) has received more than $2.2 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including over $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign itself in non-monetary contributions. The committee has funneled over $2 million of its funds to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:

“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]

(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?

Thursday, October 16, 2008

More on Infanticide

From National Review:

"More Abortion Lies [Ed Whelan]

Barack Obama’s false and misleading statements about his positions on abortion, like his false and misleading statements about so many other matters, are so brazen and incessant that it can seem almost futile to try to hold him to account. The National Right to Life Committee, whom Obama falsely accused of lying about his record on the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, dissects his lies on that topic in yesterday’s debate
here. "


The Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was a simple three-sentence bill to establish that every baby who achieved "complete expulsion or extraction" from the mother, and who showed defined signs of life, was to enjoy the legal protections of a "person." As a state senator, Obama led the opposition to this bill in 2001, 2002, and 2003. On March 13, 2003, Obama killed the bill at a committee meeting over which he presided as chairman. In the October 15 debate, Obama said, "The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment." This claim is highly misleading. The law "on the books," 720 ILCS 510.6, on its face, applies only where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb." But humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such "sustained survival" – that is, long-term survival – is likely or possible (which is often called the point of "viability"). When Obama spoke against the BAIPA on the Illinois Senate floor in 2001 -- the only senator to do so -- he didn't even claim that the BAIPA was duplicative of existing law. Rather, he objected to defining what he called a "previable fetus" as a legal "person" -- even though the bill clearly applied only to fully born infants. These events are detailed in an August 28, 2008 NRLC White Paper titled "Barack Obama’s Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -– and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion," which contains numerous hyperlinks to primary sources.

William Ayers and Public Schools...

Speaking of Education, Teachers, and Corruption, this is from today's Wall Street Journal by Mr. Sol Stern:

"One of the most misleading statements during the presidential debates was when Barack Obama claimed that William Ayers was just "a guy in the neighborhood."

But that piece of spin is nothing compared to the false story now being peddled by Mr. Obama's media supporters that Mr. Ayers -- who worked with the Democratic nominee for years to disperse education grants through a group called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- has redeemed his terrorist past...

I've studied Mr. Ayers's work for years and read most of his books. His hatred of America is as virulent as when he planted a bomb at the Pentagon. And this hatred informs his educational "reform" efforts. Of course, Mr. Obama isn't going to appoint him to run the education department. But the media mainstreaming of a figure like Mr. Ayers could have terrible consequences for the country's politics and public schools...

Mr. Ayers was hired by the Chicago public schools to train teachers, and played a leading role in the $160 million Annenberg Challenge grant that distributed funds to a host of so-called school-reform projects, including some social-justice themed schools and schools organized by Acorn. Barack Obama became the first chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge organization in 1995. When asked for an opinion on the Obama/Ayers connection, Mayor Daley told the New York Times that Mr. Ayers had "done a lot of good in this city and nationally."

In fact, as one of the leaders of a movement for bringing radical social-justice teaching into our public school classrooms, Mr. Ayers is not a school reformer. He is a school destroyer."

Read the whole thing.

Back on Octber 6, we quoted from a speech that is posted on Mr. Ayers own blog. The speech wasn't given 20 years ago, it was given at the "World Education Forum" in Caracas, Venezuela in 2006. Mr. Ayers closed with "Viva Presidente Chavez! Viva La Revolucion Boliviarina"

One Million!!

What a travesty! One million dollars given by the teachers union to defeat what was the will of the people of California: keep marriage as a union of man and woman.

And that’s not all the union has done to defend its social engineering program. The foxes are guarding the hen house!

Of course, not all teachers are bad, but why do they sit back and accept their hard earned dues going to support political issues? And how can they accept first graders getting released time to attend the “wedding” ceremony of their lesbian teacher?

My plan: cut the budget where it can and should be cut-- the administration. Why do our private schools do as good and better a job of education with less then half the capital? The pork is removed and that’s what we need in our public schools and our state politics. Cut out the pork and there will be money for the basic needs.

Here are some wise words of Tom McClintock, who a couple of years back, suggested cutting the administration budget by asking if, "Maybe - as a temporary measure only - we should spend our school dollars on our schools. I realize that this is a radical departure from current practice, but desperate times require desperate measures." He goes on to describe a school with luxury commercial office space, executive washrooms, around-the-clock janitorial service, wall-to-wall carpeting, utilities and music in the elevators, new desks, associate professors from the California State University, an annual membership at a private health club with a trained and courteous staff of nutrition and fitness counselors, aerobics classes and the latest in cardiovascular training technology, $75 new books - plus an extra $5 to have the student's name engraved in gold leaf on the cover.

California Teachers Union Gives $1 Million to No on Prop 8!

That's right, YOUR tax dollars at work.

When they're not taking your kids to a lesbian wedding...

The Sacramento Bee reports: On Tuesday, the California Teachers Association gave $1 MILLION dollars to the "No on Proposition 8" Campaign.

From the article's "Comments" section:

"I will now oppose any CTA Teacher cause or event, including increased teacher salaries."

"$1 million would buy a lot of school books, a lot of computers, revitalize undershelved libraries, tudor many struggling children, or, or, or . . . . What a waste! Any teacher who is a member of CTA needs to take a long look before giving one more penny in dues -- no matter what his or her own lifestyle or political agenda."

"I'm supposed to take more money from my family to pay more taxes so we can pay the poor underpaid teachers more so the CTA can take more money from THEIR families for more dues to spend on political causes that many of the teachers don't agree with in the first place."

"The teachers unions are the most corrupting social influence in America today."

And here's the email that went out to CTA members:

"Dear Staff:

I wanted to let you know that CTA made an additional donation of $1 million to the NO on Prop 8 campaign, as well as $600,000 to the NO on Prop 6 and No on Prop 9 campaigns.

As these donations get reported in the news media, some of our members (and many non-members) may call or e-mail to express concern over CTA's position on Prop. 8. Please be polite and ask the caller if he or she is a CTA member - remember we are here to provide service to our members.

I'm attaching some talking points to help you with any calls you may receive. Should the caller become abusive or use inappropriate language, let the caller know that you are going to hang up and then please do so.

Thank you for the work you do on behalf of our members.

Carolyn Doggett
CTA Executive Director"

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

St. Victor's Pastor Defends Marriage!

Hats off to Monsignor Jeremiah Murphy, Pastor of St. Victor's Church in West Hollywood, a neighborhood with one of the largest percentages of same-sex attracted persons in Los Angeles.

The good Monsignor is bravely doing his duty, unapologetically arguing the Church's position on natural marriage. Parishioners are manning "Yes on 8" tables and the Monsignor is including bulletin inserts on the subject every Sunday. God Bless him!

Needless to say, this is causing some hard feelings in the area. That, too, is part of the Church's patrimony....

Go to the link above for St. Victor's Church and let good Monsignor Murphy know you support him. He has gone into the lion's den!
(Image is from "Walking WeHo")

Cute ad

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

"Morally Impermissible"

There was an extremely powerful and unambiguous statement from the Bishops of Dallas & Fort Worth about the upcoming election. It's a straightforward application of Natural Law reasoning in deciding which candidates one should (or must not) vote for.

Some excerpts:

"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship clearly teaches that not all issues have the same moral equivalence. Some issues involve "intrinsic evils"; that is, they can never under any circumstance or condition be morally justified. Preeminent among these intrinsic evils are legalized abortion, the promotion of same sex unions and "marriages", repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research...

"There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called ‘intrinsically evil’ actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, ‘abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed....

As Catholics we are faced with a number of issues that are of concern and should be addressed, such as immigration reform, healthcare, the economy and its solvency, care and concern for the poor, and the war on terror. As Catholics we must be concerned about these issues and work to see that just solutions are brought about. There are many possible solutions to these issues and there can be reasonable debate among Catholics on how to best approach and solve them. These are matters of 'prudential judgment.' But let us be clear: issues of prudential judgment are not morally equivalent to issues involving intrinsic evils. No matter how right a given candidate is on any of these issues, it does not outweigh a candidate’s unacceptable position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or the protection of 'abortion rights.'"

If both candidates running for office support abortion or "abortion rights," a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or, b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no "truly grave moral" or "proportionate" reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or "abortion rights" when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible."

Chinatown Rally for Marriage

Our good Chinese-American brothers and sisters were rallying in defense of traditional marriage in San Francisco's Chinatown this Sunday. God Bless them!

Here's one of a number of videos of the rally:

You can hear the opposition chanting in the background. We are blessed with a great and active Chinese Apostolate here at Saints Peter and Paul Church. Family oriented, hard working, plus you've never had more fun in your life than at one of their parties! The Chinese-Americans come from the oldest civilization in the world and they're not real happy about the idea of redefining marriage. They couldn't sign the Prop 8 petitions fast enough!

Here are more videos of the event

POsted by Gibbons.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Marriage Matters to Kids Video

Part 1) Have We Forgotten the Meaning of Marriage?

Part 2: Are We Okay With Denying Children their Right to a Mother and a Father?

Part 3: Do Mothers Matter? Do Fathers Matter?

Part 4: What About Equality?

Part 5: What are the Dangers of redefining Marriage?

For higher resolution versions, visit

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Speak Your Mind

Just enter your zip and you will get your rep's address.