Party of Death Gets Their Wish: Taxpayer Funded Abortion in the Healthcare Bill

From the AP:

"Dems win approval of health bill in committee

WASHINGTON – In a triumph for President Barack Obama, Democrats narrowly pushed sweeping health care legislation through a key congressional committee Friday night and cleared the way for a September showdown in the House.

The 31-28 vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along party lines, was weeks later than either the White House or Democratic leaders had hoped....

On a vote that crossed party lines, abortion opponents failed in an attempt to bar insurance plans that offer abortion services from accepting customers with government subsidies. The vote was 31-27."

Steve Ertelt at LifeNews has more:

"Congressional Committee Defeats Another Attempt to Limit Abortion in Health Care"

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- After defeating one pro-life amendment Thursday night and adopting a phony ban on abortion funding, the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Friday afternoon defeated another amendment to limit abortion in the House health care restructuring bill.

Rep. Joe Pitts, a Pennsylvania Republican, would ensure taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions or subsidize health insurance plans that include abortion.

"We want an explicit exclusion in the bill to prevent any taxpayer funding from paying for abortions," Pitts told his colleagues. "Anything else is wrong, and contrary to overwhelming popular opinion.”

Though Pitts received support from most Republicans and a handful of pro-life Democrats, he could not gather enough votes to overcome the pro-abortion Democrats who control the committee.

The panel voted 31-27 against the amendment.

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said the rejection of the amendment "underscores that H.R. 3200 would drastically change federal policy, channeling massive new federal subsidies to health plans that pay for abortion on demand, including a national plan that will be offered by the federal government."

Normal Kid Shocks Sleazy Journalists

That's Tim Tebow, star quarterback of the Florida Gators. A reporter asked him, essentially: "Are you a virgin?"

One proper answer would have been: "That's not the kind of question a gentleman asks, or answers, in public."

But, in a way, Tim's answer is even better. From LifeSiteNews:

"At 21 years of age and graced with boyish good looks, Tebow is one of the most talked about rising stars of the NCAA; but the football superstar literally left reporters speechless last week when he answered a question during a press conference about whether or not he is 'saving himself' for marriage.

'Yes I am,' said Tebow briefly, who then indicated he was ready for the next question. However, in the video of the press conference, a reporter is heard stumbling over his words in the background as he tries to ask a follow-up question. Tebow then laughs, obviously reacting to the reactions of the reporters in the room.

'I think y'all were stunned by that,' he says. 'Y'all can't even ask a question. Wow. I mean, I was ready for that question. I don't think y'all were.'"

It sounds like Tim's got the self-possession necessary for an NFL quarterback already. But from what I hear Florida needs to let him throw the ball more!

h/t American Papist

Party of Death Votes Abortion Coverage into HealthCare Bill

From the AP:

"Abortion measure passes, then fails, in House

WASHINGTON — An anti-abortion amendment to a sweeping health overhaul bill was voted down in a House committee late Thursday — a dramatic reversal just hours after the measure initially was approved.

The amendment said health care legislation moving through Congress may not impose requirements for coverage of abortion, except in limited cases. It was approved in the Energy and Commerce Committee after conservative Democrats joined Republicans to support it.

But committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., invoked House rules that allowed him to bring up the amendment for a second vote, despite Republican objections.

This time, one conservative Democrat — Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee — changed his vote from "yes" to "no." And a second conservative Democrat who hadn't voted the first time — Rep. Zack Space of Ohio — voted "no."

It was enough to take down the amendment on a 30-29 vote."

Playing for Change

Very nice video sent to us by a friend.

Stand By Me Playing For Change Song Around The World from Concord Music Group on Vimeo.

A Fitting Epitaph...

The story is here.

Homosexual Indoctrination Mandatory in Alameda Schools

On May 27, board members of the Alameda Unified School District voted 3-2 to introduce a new curriculum that will expose children as young as five to homosexual activist propaganda. The curriculum is scheduled to begin in September. In addition, the school board has refused to allow parents to have their children “opt-out” from the classes.

The curriculum in question is defined as the “Safe Schools Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” However, a quick look at the lesson plans reveals that the issue of “safety” is being used as an excuse for indoctrination.

Examples of the curriculum from the “Revised Lesson Plan” page on the Alameda Unified School District website:

First grade: The required book is "Who's in a Family?" by Robert Skutch. In a May 3, 2005 interview on National Public Radio, Mr. Skutch said "The whole purpose of the book was to get the subject [of same-sex parent households] out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced that there's another way of looking at life."

Second Grade: The required book is “And Tango Makes Three,” the story of two male penguins who raised a penguin chick. The stated lesson purpose is “To be able to identify alternative types of family structures.”

Third Grade: The subject is “Talking About Families.” The single lesson aid is a film called “That’s a Family,” created by Debra Chasnoff and Helen S. Cohen. During San Francisco’s 2009 Pride Month “That’s a Family” was screened at Zeum, San Francisco’s children’s museum, as a celebration of “the city’s LGBT families during the same month as San Francisco’s LGBT Pride Celebration.” The filmmakers have also provided an accompanying curriculum for teachers using the film. Chasnoff, an open lesbian, is one of the founders of the national gay and lesbian quarterly Out/Look.

Fourth Grade: “Being an Ally.” “Ally” is a word that has a very specific meaning in the homosexual lexicon. An “ally” is a sexually normal person who approves of the homosexual agenda. Online examples can be readily found: Allyaction.org, whose motto is “One Classroom at a Time” or Allyweek.org, a project of GLSEN, the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network. The sole teaching aid used in the class: “Students will be introduced to an article by Robert, an 11 year old, whose family has 2 moms.”

Fifth Grade: “Discussing Stereotypes, Including Lesbian Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people.” The use of the word “Including” in the lesson title is misleading. Here is the “Lesson purpose“ in its entirety: “To define the word Stereotype; To learn that LGBT people are represented among all races, genders, religions, socio-economic classes and professions; To identify stereotypes about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; To learn that LGBT people have made important contributions within the United States and beyond.”

The next lesson, with no grade specified, is “Famous Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People ( LGBT )”

Unsurprisingly, a majority (75% acording to Mr. Frank Lee) of parents found this objectionable. Especially troubling was the stipulation that parents would be unable to have their children “opt-out” of the classes. The Pacific Justice Institute is now taking up the parents cause, and has offered to represent them free of charge. Kevin Snider of the Pacific Justice Institute emailed:

“If you are a parent of a child who will be enrolled in AUSD schools for the 2009-2010 school year in grades K-5, you may wish to opt-out your child from the LGBT curriculum recently passed by the board. Attached is a simple opt-out letter that you can use. Please fill it out completely, sign your name and fax/send it to the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), care of Kevin Snider.

PJI will send in your letter to the District for you. The goal is for PJI to submit at least 100 opt-out letters to the District. As such, if you have friends and acquaintances who have children enrolled in AUSD schools for the 2009-2010 school year in grades K-5, please forward this email and letter to them.

Please note that the District may not honor your request to opt-out. If this occurs PJI will file administrative complaints with the District as well as a lawsuit, if necessary, to enable the parents to opt-out. PJI’s attorneys will represent the parents without charge.”

The Alameda curriculum is quite similar to that pioneered by the San Francisco Unified School District. Disturbingly, that curriculum was developed by an ex-Catholic priest.

On September 26, 1990 the Los Angeles Times reported: “The San Francisco school board has hired a gay former Roman Catholic priest to counsel homosexual students. ‘This program will send a message that all people are important no matter who they are,’ said Kevin Gogin, whose hiring was approved Tuesday night….He also will help coordinate a district-wide campaign to help eradicate prejudice against gay and lesbian students.”

Mr. Gogin continues to lead the San Francisco School District’s “Healthier Schools” project. Gogin, and his “partner” Dan MacPherson, were longtime parishioners at San Francisco’s notorious Most Holy Redeemer Church. MacPherson is currently the Associate Dean of the School of Education at the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco.

For concerned parents, today's California Catholic Daily has more contact information.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Read & Weep--Then Speak

Subject: Obama Care Highlights

This person has been reading the 1000 page house bill and posting it at Twitter…… The bill is worst than you thought! Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman’s)

PG 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
PG 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get
PG 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
PG 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise PG 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individual's finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!
PG 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your bank accts for elect. funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
PG 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring priv HC plans under Govt control. PG
84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs for priv. HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation for illegal aliens
PG 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels for Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice PG 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monop
PG 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.
PG 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE PG 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families. PG 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr with payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll PG 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesn't prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll PG 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC accrdng to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc PG 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay) PG 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finan/pers recs
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that
PG 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
PG 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same
PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT of CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
PG 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions. PG 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial readmiss-Govt will penalize you.
PG 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.
PG 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand
PG 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!! PG 335 L 16-25 PG 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing PG 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqual Medicare Adv admiss that results in a Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps iti2 Govt plan PG 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl!. My sis has down syndrome!!
PG 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can you say HC by phone?
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life
PG 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory! PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding you in death PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends PG 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates
PG 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV PG 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life
PG 469 Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!?
PG 472 L 14-17 Payment to community-based org. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage
PG 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

Against Federal Funding for Abortion? The time to act is NOW!

Thomas Peters over at "American Papist", and Jack Smith at "The Catholic Key" are issuing a call to action over House Bill #3312. This bill will provide $700 million to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups.

The USCCB calls Bill #3312 "unnaceptable" and refers to it as the "Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009."

Peters provides a number of actions we can take to oppose this bill. PLEASE visit his site!

Jack Smith has been covering this issue for the past few weeks, showing it to be a phony "common ground" initiative. They are trying to work this scam by claiming that one of the bill's sponsors, Tim Ryan, is pro-life. Ryan has garnering a zero percent rating form the National Right to Life Committee, has voted to allow federal funding for abortion and, has been thrown out of "Democrats for Life.

PLEASE Visit Jack's site. He also has the contact info of the 20 Democratic Congressmen who voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Let's thank them!

Ben Stein on Obama

The good pro-lifer has a good column in today's American Spectator:

We've Figured Him Out

"Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?

Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:

The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth....

Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do...."

Read the whole thing

Update: Pence Amendment Does not Pass

From LifeNews:

"Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The House of Representatives, today, voted 247-183 against an amendment that would stop sending taxpayer funding to the Planned Parenthood abortion business. Rep. Mike Pence, the Indiana Republican behind the amendment, says public funds should not go to a business that does abortions."

The vote was 247-183 against the amendment. 20 Democrats joined with 163 Republicans to defund Planned Parenthood. 9 Republicans voted with 238 Democrats to continue funding the abortion business.

Congressman Pence said:

"'It is morally wrong to destroy innocent human life through abortion, but it is also morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote or perform abortions at home or abroad. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funds under Title X,' Pence said during the debate.

'Federal funding should reflect the values of the majority of the American people and this House now has the opportunity and obligation to close this offensive loophole,' he continued.

'The right to life is not a partisan issue, it is a moral one. The time has come for this Congress to come together in a bipartisan way to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and to defend the rights of the taxpayer; The time has come to deny any and all federal funding for the Planned Parenthood,' Pence added."

God bless the good Congressman for bringing the amendment to the floor!

DE-Fund Planned Parenthood! Call Your Congressman NOW!

From Tom Peters at American Papist:

"Pro-life warrior Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has given us a chance to have Planned Parenthood cut off from receiving federal funds through the Health and Human Services Department.

Pence has said (and written):

'The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funds under Title X.'

He has offered a simple amendment which reads:

'None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act.'

It's a miracle this amendment made it through the rules committee last night, making it eligible for a general floor vote today. This is a chance to defund Planned Parenthood and also a chance to see who is in their pocket.

Since this vote is happening so soon, the best thing to do is call your congressional office now and tell them 'I want you to vote for the Pence Ammendment and defund Planned Parenthood!' The switchboard number is 202-224-3121 and they can direct you by state to the right office. Staffers are waiting to hear your voice. That's why they are there."

Life in San Francisco, where it's impossible to write satire.

"Singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" in church is something I will never forget."

From the Most Holy Redeemer parish bulletin of July 19:

"My daughter and I were visiting from southern California last weekend (pride weekend). I am a cradle Catholic and belong to a wonderful church in Yorba Linda- St. Martin de Porres. I just wanted you to know what a wonderful experience we had in your church. Although we goofed up the time and came late to mass, we were made to feel welcome by the friendly greeter at the door who showed us where to enter and not feel disruptive. Three separate people came up to us and spoke to us, welcomed us, invited us to fellowship downstairs after mass. The beautiful feeling of inclusion and spiritual peace is palpable in your church. The music was incredible. Singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" in church is something I will never forget...."

It's too perfect--couldn't make it up in a million years.
____________________________________________________________

And at the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco, an Art Professor tries "urine capture" as art.

"Creative Capital for USF Artists

Two University of San Francisco art professors have been chosen as 2009 Creative Capital grant winners for their work breaking down barriers and raising awareness.

Amy Franceschini, assistant professor of visual arts, and Roberto Gutierrez Varea, associate professor and chair of performing arts, have each been award multi-year grants from Creative Capital, a national nonprofit that supports and funds adventurous and imaginative artists in the performing and visual arts, film or video, innovative literature, and other emerging fields.

'The Creative Capital award is much more than the financial support. This group offers professional support and access to a network of other funders, publishers, fellowships, and publicity,' said Franceschini. 'This is something that is priceless.' "

Priceless indeed:

"Franceschini is working with San Francisco’s Exploratorium on a plan to install urine-capturing receptacles in the museum’s bathrooms, for the first of a three-part art series titled 'Local Landscape Campus.' The captured urine will be used to water and fertilize a garden installation at the museum to illustrate the possibilities of recycling.

'It is a cross-disciplinary research and social critique, focusing on how humans create, interact with, and impact the world they inhabit,' Franceschini said."
__________________________________________________________

And a San Francisco City Supervisor is moving his family out of the city for the sake of his children.

From today's San Francisco Chronicle:

"District 6 Supervisor Chris Daly, who has often mocked his critics who do not live in San Francisco, announced today that he and his wife have purchased a house in Fairfield and that she and their two children moved there a month ago. Public records show that Daly and his wife, Sarah Low, purchased the home on a suburban cul de sac in Fairfield in April.

Writing in the Fog City Journal blog, Daly said the home is "two doors away from Sarah's childhood home, where her parents still live." He said the decision to move was made because, 'Sarah and I are determined to do what is best for our kids - which means moving them closer to multi-generational family support.'"

Supervisor Daly is clownish , in a nasty way, even by San Francisco standards. But we applaud his effort to do what is best for his kids--and admire his insight that any place that would elect him to public office is probably not the best place to raise kids.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Report on "Dignity" Convention

The California Catholic Daily today posts part one of a two-part report on the "Dignity" Convention, held in San Francisco July 2-5.


Shocking reading. We will comment later.

Stop Federal Taxpayer Funded Abortion!

From Tom Peters at American Papist:



"Tonight the largest pro-life webcast in history will take place at 9PM EDT to organize the resistance to taxpayer funded abortion: www.stoptheabortionmandate.com."

Tom also says:


"As I mentioned yesterday, if you are looking to do something about all this, consider taking a few moments to sign this petition circulated by the Susan B. Anthony List: 'Tell the Senate Abortion is NOT Health Care.'"

New Report on AIDS in Africa

A headline in the Agencie France Press:

Stigma driving AIDS crisis among African gays: Lancet

PARIS (AFP)– Rates of HIV infection among gays in some African countries are 10 times that of the general male population, and stigma, poor access to treatment or testing are to blame, doctors said in The Lancet.

A wall of silence, repression and discrimination are amplifying dangers for men who have sex with men in sub-Saharan Africa, they said in a paper published online on Monday.

Researchers from the University of Oxford looked at published studies for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence from 2003 to 2009.

Prevalence among gays in some parts of West Africa is 10 times that for the general male population, they found.

The difference varies a lot across Africa, but in most of the countries studied, the rates among homosexuals were substantially higher than among heterosexuals..."

To attribute this to “stigma” or “repression” strikes us as odd. Since the 1980’s the major focus of San Francisco’s Department of Public Health (SFDPH) has been fighting HIV. And there is absolutely zero stigma or repression here. What are the results?

In the year 2006, according to the SFDPH’s 2008 HIV Epidemiology Report, there were an estimated 975 new HIV cases in San Francisco, of which 851 were among men who have sex with men. That’s over 87% of all new HIV cases in the city. And that is from a demographic that in 2006 was only about 8.3% of the city’s population, according to Dr. Willi MacFarland, Director of the SFDPH’s Seroepidemiology Unit.

So: zero stigma, zero repression, decades of “education” and the HIV rate for homosexual males in San Francisco is about 10 times that of the rest of the population.

Maybe Pope Benedict was on to something.

Devil in the details!

Carl Anderson, Knights of Columbus Supreme Commander, has some important observations, re health care plan, as quoted in Zenit.

…. However, such coverage must not come at the price of an unprecedented expansion of abortion mandates and funding.

Sadly, buried in the legislation under consideration are a variety of mandates that will -- intentionally or unintentionally -- result in greater funding for and coverage of abortion.The National Right to Life Committee maintains that the bill would result in "the greatest expansion of abortion since the Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973."Many other experts have sounded similar warnings -- as currently written federal courts and administrators would mandate abortion coverage in virtually all health plans.Such a result would be a prime example of the dangers of charitable intentions separated from the truth about the human person.

And the potential abortion mandates would not only be morally bankrupt, but would fly in the face of the will of the American people themselves. A recent poll commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, as part of our Moral Compass Project, found that 86% of Americans favor significant restrictions on abortion, and more self identify as "pro-life" than as "pro-choice."In addition, other recent polls also indicate that Americans do not want taxpayer funding of abortion -- at home or abroad.

A poll commissioned by Americans United for Life in May showed that 71% of Americans opposed using tax dollars to fund abortion in the United States, and that 61% were "strongly opposed."A Gallup poll in February showed that 58% of Americans disapproved of the president's decision to allow funding of overseas groups that provide abortion. Only 35% approved….A health care system designed to facilitate the saving of lives on the one hand, and the taking of lives through abortion on the other, is at war with itself, and hardly good policy.The United States deserves better. The American people -- as poll after poll has shown -- want something better.

A recent poll commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, as part of our Moral Compass Project, found that 86% of Americans favor significant restrictions on abortion, and more self identify as "pro-life" than as "pro-choice."In addition, other recent polls also indicate that Americans do not want taxpayer funding of abortion -- at home or abroad.

A poll commissioned by Americans United for Life in May showed that 71% of Americans opposed using tax dollars to fund abortion in the United States, and that 61% were "strongly opposed."A Gallup poll in February showed that 58% of Americans disapproved of the president's decision to allow funding of overseas groups that provide abortion. Only 35% approved….A health care system designed to facilitate the saving of lives on the one hand, and the taking of lives through abortion on the other, is at war with itself, and hardly good policy.

The United States deserves better. The American people -- as poll after poll has shown -- want something better.

"This Week Could Determine Abortion in Healthcare"

Will taxpayers be paying for federally funded abortions?

Jack Smith at "The Catholic Key" has a full rundown of the critical events taking place this week.

Please visit his site.

Stimulus ??

Don’t be fooled by Obama’s stimulus program.

Some time this year, we taxpayers might receive an Economic Stimulus payment. This is a very exciting new program. I will explain it using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase ahigh-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.
(from a faithful correspondent)

More Health Care Bill Insanity: Government to Define Gender

Are you a man or a woman? Don't worry. . . the government will tell you.

From CNSNews:

"The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s health care legislation will give the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop “standards of measuring gender” -- as opposed to using the traditional "male" and "female" categories -- in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans."

Here's the text in question, from the Senate's bill, with our emphasis:

‘‘(2) COLLECTION STANDARDS.—In collecting data described in paragraph (1), the Secretary or designee shall—
‘‘(A) use Office of Management and Budget standards, at a minimum, for race and ethnicity measures;
‘‘(B) develop standards for the measurement of gender, geographic location, socioeconomic status, primary language and disbility measures;...

This reminded me of a passage from the recent (July 15) essay by Anglican Bishop Tom Wright, of Durham, England:

"It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day."

Yep. Poor Secretary Sebelius is way behind the postmodern curve. Who is she, or her successors, to develop "standards" for the measurement of "gender"? Won't that be just one more mode of oppression?

Perhaps it would be more sensible for us to just stay men and women.

Some Progress at the Folsom Street Fair

Notorious Event to Prohibit “Lewd Behavior”

Back on April 30, the Bay Area Reporter (“serving the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communies since 1971”) reported that the San Francisco Police Department had told Folsom Street Events, the organizers of the Folsom Street Fair and Dore Alley Fair that they’d better crack down on obscene and lewd behavior at their events.

In the article, Folsom Street Events Executive Director Demetri Moshoyannis pledged to follow the rules and said that a larger number of the event staff will be devoted to security.

But we are not very trusting, so we check the Folsom Street Fair website every once in a while to see if they are notifying fairgoers that, from now on, obscenity/public lewdness laws will be enforced. Well, apparently Folsom Street Events has heeded the warning. This year’s “FAQ” page on the Folsom Street Fair website includes this advisory to those who plan to attend the event:

Q: What is the policy on lewd behavior?

A: Folsom Street Events encourages all fairgoers to express behavior that is safe and within the law. We encourage everyone to take personal responsibility for providing a positive communal environment for the adult alternative lifestyle community. Lewd acts will be disrupted by our security volunteers who reinforce this message for anyone found on the fairgrounds to be in violation of our policy.

At the suggestion of SFPD, we have implemented a more aggressive graduated policy for violators of the lewdness policy.

Step 1: Verbal warning: Inform the fairgoer that the behavior is not allowed and that they will face ejection from the fair on the next occurance.
Step 2: Reminder: Fairgoer will be reminded of the first warning and given a personal escort to the fair exit with notification to gate volunteers not to allow re-entry. Warn the fairgoer that on the next violation of this policy we will escalate to SFPD.
Step 3: Turn over to SFPD: SFPD will be called to assist and requested to cite the fairgoer who has violated the lewdness policy.

Lewd behavior in second and third story windows on the fairgrounds will be referred directly to SFPD for intervention.

This is the first time the Folsom Street Fair’s “FAQ” page has posted such a warning. The most recent cached “FAQ” page, from February 14, 2008, contains no warning of any kind against illegal behavior.

We’d written, with evidence documenting the illegal behavior, to city officials and religious leaders on November 14, 2007, and September 12, 2008. We’re glad if our efforts have helped. The campaign really took off when two citizens went to the SFPD’s Office of Citizen Complaints, and filed a complaint there against police officers for not enforcing the law. And the photographic evidence of “Zombie” (the same SF photojournalist who publicized the outrageous recommendations of Obama Science Czar John Holdren on July 10) made an irrefutable case that blatantly illegal behavior has been allowed at the fair.

It's good to see San Franciscans stepping up, and it shows it can be done. As for this year, our motto is: "Trust, but verify!"

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Crossroads 2009 Pro-Life Walk

What with one thing and another, we've negelected to mention the 2009 Crossroads walkers.

The Crossroads walkers are Pro-Life college students who walk all the across the country in witnmess to the culture of life. There is a Northern, Central, and Southern Walk, all of which end up at a Pro-Life Rally in in Washington DC. The Central walk started right here in San Francisco. We had Josh Spears and Bridget Kaehler address us at all the Masses on May 23-24, right before they started walking.


Here are the Central walkers with good Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento. Poor His Excellency, you can barely see him with all those big kids! Bridget is the girl with the brown belt and Josh is the tall guy in the center.

I love Bishop Soto!

Visit the Crossroads blog to find out about the progess of the walkers, or visit their website to learn more or make a donation.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

New English Liturgical Translations Approved

From the USCCB:

All Four Pending Liturgical Items Pass; Work On The Translation Of The New Roman Missal Continues

WASHINGTON—All four liturgical item actions whose votes were inconclusive at the June general assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are now approved. Support for the action items continues the work for the English translation of the new Roman Missal for use in the United States.

Read the whole thing.

And Catholic World News reports:

"The bishops engaged in heated debate over the translations during their June meeting in San Antonio. Each of the revised translations required a two-thirds vote (163 bishops) for approval. None of the them gained the required number of votes in San Antonio, requiring the mailing of ballots to the 55 bishops who were absent from the meeting.

In the end, the revised translation of the Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Intentions gained the minimum number of votes for approval; it was approved by a 163-53 margin, with five abstentions. The other translations passed by wider margins."

More on Honduras: Zelaya's "Referendum" Was Pre-Rigged

This story broke in a Catalan newspaper on July 17. Go here for the article in Spanish, plus a translation.

We post in full the "Q and O" Blog entry on the story:

"Certified Honduran Referendum Results Found

Criminal investigators in Honduras have reportedly found computers containing the certified election results of the referendum which was to confirm Mel Zelaya as president for…however long he wanted to be president, I guess. Anyway, the certified results contained voting tallies, information about the voters, and other electoral information.

An example:

'One of the district attorneys that participated in the operation that took place this Friday showed reporters an official voting result from the Technical Institute Luis Bogran, of Tegucigalpa, in which the specific number of people that participated in table 345, where there were 550 ballots, 450 of which were votes in favor of Zelaya’s proposal and 30 were against, in addition to 20 blank ballots and 30 ballots, which were nullified.'

That’s a very complete report of the election, and contains a wealth of details about the results that would be a credit to the authorities in charge of any election.

Of course, it would be even more impressive if the referendum had actually taken place.

There was no referendum. It was aborted by the legal, constitutional removal of Mr. Zelaya from power.

And yet, in the presidential palace’s computer, Mr. Zelaya apparently had a complete, certified result of an election that never took place.

If the Honduran authorities are to be believed, the evidence is that he had already completed a plan to steal the election, and the only remaining act to be performed was to conduct a sham referendum, whose results had already been determined.

Yet, this is the guy that the Obama Administration and the OAS thinks should be the legitimate leader of Honduras."

Emphases added.

Today USA Today (alone among the MSM) has a short entry, cribbed from a blog, on the story.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

We don't want too many!

ROME, JULY 19, 2009 The idea that some people are genetically inferior, and need to be eliminated or prevented from reproducing, is a mentality that still persists, despite the battering it took after the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.

In a revealing interview published July 12 in the New York Times Magazine Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court of the United States was asked about abortion, among other topics.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision that opened the doors to abortion, Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions about abortion funding, Ginsburg commented: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

This amazing statement was not elaborated on, and there was no explanation of which groups might fall into the sectors "we don't want to have too many of."
In an opinion article published July 14 by the Los Angeles Times, Jonah Goldberg admitted that the text could be interpreted as a mere description of the mentality behind the decisions, and so we are not certain if Ginsburg endorses this approach.

Nevertheless, he continued, it certainly is true that the push for abortion owed a lot to a desire to eliminate those seen as unfit. It's well known, he said, that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, "was a racist eugenicist of the first order."
Father John Flynn (Zenit.org)

"Life...Imagine the Potential!"

Another beautiful spot from CatholicVote and Grassroots Films.

"During the premiere in Texas, show of support came from several astronauts, including Dr. Joseph Kerwin, the first American Doctor in space, who stated: 'For thousands of years, man has looked at the moon and the stars in awe but forty years ago we did the unthinkable. We landed on the moon. This new ad by CatholicVote.org captures the spirit of this historic mission by highlighting the potential of human life.'

Retired astronaut Dr. Bill Thornton and Dr. Gene Krantz, flight director at mission control during the famed Apollo 13 mission, were also present to show support for the new ad."

More on Canadian Gay Activist Ex-Altar Server

Back on July 9, we blogged about Jim Corcoran, the openly gay Canadian man dismissed from his position as altar server at St. Michaels Church in Coburg, Ontario. Mr. Corcoran therepon brought a case to one of Canada's notorious Human Rights Inquisitions. He's suing twelve parishioners, plus his Bishop.

The story is getting some interest in Canada. In today's National Post, Michael Coren writes:

"The man in question, spa-owner Jim Corcoran, claims that while he is homosexual he is celibate and a devout Catholic who observes Church teaching. Not, it seems, so devout and so observant of Church teaching that he is prepared to accept with Catholic humility and self-control the decision of that very Church to terminate an entirely voluntary (if important) position. Instead, he has appealed to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a secular body that has habitually ruled against individual Christians and, some would argue, is in direct conflict with Roman Catholic teaching and pursues a pugnaciously anti-Catholic agenda. These are hardly the actions of a faithful Catholic in good standing, which leads one to wonder if there is more to this story — and to Mr. Corcoran.

Any serious Catholic knows of people who faithfully attend Mass but cannot receive Communion, let alone be an altar server, because they are waiting for an annulment or face some other obstacle. Nonetheless, they accept Church teaching; they love and follow the Church. For Mr. Corcoran to lash out at the Church because it refuses to bend to his will indicates, at best, a somewhat weak faith, and, perhaps, utter hypocrisy. "

That sounds about right to us.

We post, as we have many times, "Redemptionis Sacramentum" #46:

"The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them."

The July 16 Peterborough, Ontario Examiner covered the story, too. In addition to $20,000 from each of the parishioners and $25,000 from the diocese, Corcoran also wants:

"the bishop to restore his role as a server, to apologize and to preach a sermon at St. Michael's on the consequences of discrimination and spreading rumours, hate and innuendo. "

Gee, anything else, Mr. Cocoran?

____________________________________________________________

Here in San Francisco, we are used to these tactics. Back on June 7, in the post "San Francisco Versus the Church" we wrote:

"Since our Church cannot change its teaching on this issue, the activists--in conjunction with likeminded persons both inside and outside the Church--will try to intimidate the Church from without and undermine it from within."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Oscar Wilde

Jack Smith has an interesting post about a L'Osservatore Romano review of a book on Oscar Wilde.

From the review:

'The existential path which Oscar Wilde trod can also be seen as a long and difficult path toward that Promised Land, which gives us the reason for existence, a path which led him to his conversion to Catholicism, a religion which, as he once said in one of his more acute and paradoxical aphorisms, was "for saints and sinners alone — for respectable people, the Anglican Church will do".'

Jack then quotes from articles covering the review in the Daily Mail and London Times. The authors of those articles are unable to understand (or pretend to be unable to understand) how we in the Church can love and appreciate the difficulties of our fellow sinners--while still being opposed to the sin.

Jack nicely sums up their pathetically stunted view of reality:

"Literature, longing, demons, desire, truth, redemption, grace, beauty, wisdom, suffering, humor, joy, life and death - all boil down to where you stand on same-sex marriage for the very small minds in secular journalism."

Pastor Walter Hoye in the L. A. Times

Abortion protester denies stepping over the line

"Minister challenges Oakland's 8-foot buffer zone for clinic access.
By Robin Abcarian July 16, 2009

Reporting from Oakland -- Just a few blocks off Oakland's busy Jack London Square, Walter Hoye, a soft-spoken Baptist minister, was standing outside an abortion clinic, doing his best not to get arrested.

Dressed in black and wearing his "Got Jesus?" ball cap, Hoye, 52, of Union City, Calif., held the hand-lettered sign he always brings: "God loves you and your baby. Let us help you." His black wire-rimmed sunglasses, perched halfway down his nose, gave him a faintly Hollywood air. In fact, he looked more like actor Don Cheadle than a public menace."

Read the whole thing

h/t Quintero at L. A. Catholic

More From Obama's Science Czar

More from "Ecoscience":

"Individual rights.

"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (emphasis in original). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children (our emphasis). But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces.

Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted. It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?" (Ecoscience, page 838)

Yesterday, Holdren's co-authors Paul & Anna Ehrlich said "Ecoscience" was description, not endorsement. That is not true. In the passage above, Holdren and the Ehrlichs are not quoting another person--and their endorsement is proved by the caveats they add further down the page (see here): that the population control policies described must meet "reasonable" needs, that they must not be applied arbitrarily, that they must not be permitted to discriminate against particular groups, etc. They are not against the policies--only their "unfair" application.
______________________________________________________________

Holdren's spokeman, Ken Weiss, says Holdren no longer believes these things. Weiss quoted a section of the Holdren's confirmation transcript in which Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) asked Holdren whether he thinks “determining optimal population is a proper role of government.”

“No, Senator, I do not,” was Holdren’s reply, according to Weiss and a transcript of the proceedings.

But Holdren answered that question in the middle of a job interview. Had he answered "yes," there is no way he would have got the job he wanted. So it is not a statement that can be uncritically accepted. But if Holdren is sincere, a simple "No, Senator, I do not" is not a sufficient response to the gravity of a statement like the one above. And if he has sincerely changed his mind, he knows that it is not a sufficient response.

I ask Professor Holdren: What has changed? Have the conditions that led you to argue for population control eased since 1977?

Or, if it is no longer a question of population pressures, how have you changed? You wrote and/or signed off on the above statement--and the others in Ecoscience. If you have indeed changed your mind, why?

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Money isn’t Every Thing!

It can buy a House
But not a Home
It can buy a Bed
But not Sleep
It can buy a Clock
But not Time
It can buy you a Book
But not Knowledge
It can buy you a Position
But not Respect
It can buy you Medicine
But not Health
It can buy you Blood
But not Life

So you see money isn't every thing. It often causes pain and suffering. We tell you this because We are your Friend, and as your Friend We want to take away your pain and suffering!
So send us all your money and We will suffer for you.
Cash only please.

signed: Legislators, Washington, D.C.

“Compulsory Abortion”: Obama’s Science Czar In His Own Words

A San Francisco photojournalist has published a series of excerpts from a shocking book co-authored by Obama Administration appointee John Holdren. Professor Holdren was unanimously confirmed as President Obama‘s “Science Czar” on March 20, 2009.

The book is “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment” a 1977 work co-authored by Holdren, along with Paul & Anne Ehrlich. Professor Holdren currently serves as President Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The position is informally known as the United States' “Science Czar.”

The horrifying recommendations made in Ecoscience were first reported in the February 22, 2009 Front Page magazine article: “Obama‘s Biggest Radical." The assertions in the article--that Ecoscience recommended compulsory abortion, etc.-- struck the San Francisco photojournalist who writes under the name “Zombie” as “too inflammatory to be true.” Zombie procured a copy of Ecoscience, and learned that the claims made in the Front Page article were accurate. In fact, the Front Page article underplayed Ecoscience’s anti-life (or, to use the authors’ own terminology, anti-natalist) suggestions. On July 10, 2009, Zombie published excerpts from Ecoscience on his website. Aware that the extreme nature of the recommendations made in Ecoscience would invite disbelief, he scanned all pages from which quotations were taken.

“Ecoscience” is concerned with catastrophic population increase, including in the United States. It contains a number of suggested actions to be taken should this ever occur. Under “Changing American Institutions” Holdren and his co-authors contend that compulsory abortion would be legal under the Constitution if “the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

“For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”--Page 837

Other recommendations include mandatory contraception for girls, beginning at puberty. Under the heading “Involuntary fertility control” we read:

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men…The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.” (pages 786-787)

The authors even consider the possibility of sterilizing entire populations, should a perceived need arise. Also from the section “Involuntary Fertility Control”:

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.” (pages 787-788.)

Although the authors mention in passing that their proposal would “horrify” people, they seem here to be more concerned with its technical feasibility. Other suggestions from Ecoscience include requiring “pregnant single women to marry or have abortions” (page 786), and the necessity for a “Planetary Regime” to enforce population policies.(pages 942-943). The authors also suggest that certain groups, who contribute to “general social deterioration by overproducing children” be required by law to exercise what they call “reproductive responsibility”:

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.” (page 838.)

This seems to jibe with the statement made by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her July 12, 2009 interview with New York Times. In that interview, Justice Ginsburg said

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

The authors of Ecoscience, writing in 1977, were convinced that the world was on the brink of population-driven environmental catastrophe. That belief led them to suggest totalitarian means to combat a non-existent problem. In 1986, Professor Holdren also predicted 1 billion deaths by carbon-dioxide induced famines by 2020. That has not happened, either. Today Professor Holdren is very concerned about global warming. In 2006, he predicted a 13 foot sea level rise due to climate change. The most extreme current estimates are less than half that--a fact Holdren admitted at his Senate confirmation hearings.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

America Mag Writer on the Heathcare Bill

Jack Smith, over at "The Catholic Key" has been covering the Healthcare Bill and the abortion funding therein. (Here, here, and here). Today he posted this excerpt from a column by Michael Sean Winters at America magazine:

"To be clear: I have never voted for a Republican in my life. My mother told me my right hand would wither and fall to the ground if I did. But, if the President or my representatives in Congress support federal funding for abortion in any way, shape or form, I will never vote for them again and I might risk my right hand in the next election by voting for their opponent.

So, call your Senators and Representatives. Call the White House. Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week. All the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care. Politics is the art of compromise, but on this point, there can be none."

Needless to say, we agree with Mr. Winters on the last point. Let's hope his exhortation bears fruit.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Strange White House Post Office...

American Papist has picked up an item from the "Growing with My Girls" blogspot about a strange White House response to the "red envelope" campaign--the empty red envelopes sent to the White House, each red envelope representing an aborted child. The blogger at "Growing With My Girls" had received in return an empty envelope. There is some speculation over whether this is a deliberate insult to those who sent the red envelopes. I just think it shows the Obama administration cannot manage a mailroom, let alone a country.

Because I had an odd experience with the White House post office myself.

I'd sent a letter to Obama complaining about his pro-abortion policies. In due time I get a letter back from the White House:

Dear Mr. Cooney,

Thank you taking the time to share your views on abortion.
This is a heart wrenching (yadda, yadda, bs, bs, yadda...)

Anyway, this was a regular single page letter. One sheet of paper.

But get this: it comes in a 9 x 12" envelope with a piece of cardboard inserted. (Maybe I was supposed to frame it?) So instead of 44 cents, the postage is $1.22--a difference of 78 cents. I don't know if this is a regular practice with them, but if it is, multiply that by 100,000 and you have $7,800,000 (OOPS: should be $78,000--thanks "Anonymous") of utterly useless, pointless, meaningless expenditure (unless they are deliberately screwing the taxpayers to benefit the USPS, which is possible).

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Change Is Possible

Here’s note from Focus on the Family that is sure to irritate the homosexual community:

A new report from the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a group of psychologists, psychotherapists and other health care professionals, is directly challenging the central claims of the pro-gay political movement.

The entire homosexual rights movement has been built upon the politically correct idea that homosexuality is unchangeable. In addition, homosexual activists say that efforts to change unwanted same-sex attraction are damaging.

However, after reviewing more than 100 years of literature, NARTH has found that the research clearly indicates homosexuals can overcome unwanted same-sex attraction, and it is not generally harmful to do so. This new research confirms what the thousands of men and women who have left homosexuality already know: Change is possible.

That's "Dialogue", Fr. Jenkins.

The Holy Father, not surprisingly, showed how you deal with the most pro-abortion President in US history.

I seem to recall that during Obama's visit to Notre Dame, Notre Dame's president called for "dialogue." He called for it, but didn't do it. What happened at Notre Dame was: Obama gave a speech and and the University gave him an honor.

Now, if Fr. Jenkins and his supporters say "Well, a Commencement ceremony is not the proper place for dialogue," I respond: in that case, your justification by "dialogue" was a smokescreen. I say: that's why you should not have invited him.

The Holy Father, on the other hand, did not call for dialogue with Obama, he did it:

"In the course of their cordial exchanges the conversation turned first of all to questions which are in the interests of all and which constitute a great challenge for the future of every nation and for the true progress of peoples, such as the defence and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience."

I'm still waiting to hear Fr. Jenkins engage in some "dialogue."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Leno Tries to Undercut Prop. 8: Mainstream Media Complicit

On Tuesday, we reported on SB 54, sponsored by openly homosexual San Francisco state senator Mark Leno and "Equality California." Leno flew the bill under the radar, using the "gut and amend" tactic to change the contents of the bill.

The bill would undercut Proposition 8 by forcing the state of California to recognize out-of-state same sex "marriages." On Thursday, SB 54 passed the Assembly Judiciary committee on a straight party line vote. SB 54 will now move to the Assembly floor where it will probably be voted on after the legislature returns from their summer vacation on August 17.

On September 1, 2002, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on the "gut-and-amend" process:

"In the halls of the state Capitol, it's known simply as "GANDA."

The acronym stands for "gut-and-amend," a practice during the final days of a legislative session in which the entire contents of a bill are stripped out and replaced with something new.

The article quoted Jim Knox, President of California Common Cause:

"It makes a mockery of the entire legislative process. It's an insider's game designed to exclude the public."

Given that Proposition 8 has been the most covered story in the state of California over the past 18 months, one might expect the mainstream media to cover SB 54. Nope. A google news search brings up all of eight results for "Leno SB 54." It has been covered by a few outlets in the homosexual community press (Bay Area Reporter, Queerty, SFist), and the California Catholic Daily, but you have not seen a word about it in the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, or the San Jose Mercury News.

Since all these publications (indeed, all but five in the whole state) supported same-sex "marriage," it appears they are deliberately burying the story so as not to alert California voters that once again our legisalture is flouting the will of the people.

You can contact your Assembly Member by going here .

Bishop Dismisses Openly Homosexual Altar Server

When I saw the headline for a second I thought (hoped) this was about Most Holy Redeemer. But it's from Canada:

"Homosexual Adult Altar-Server Files Human Rights Complaint against Bishop for Dismissal

PETERBOROUGH, ON, July 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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. "

It will be interested to see how Canada's infamous "human rights" commission rules on this!

"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.

That priest, Fr. Allan Hood, of St. Michael the Archangel Parish, was not available to speak with LifeSiteNews.com"

God Bless good Bishop De Angelis! We have pointed out numerous times that there are at least seven openly same-sex "married" parishioners at San Francisco's Most Holy Redeemer serving as Eucharistic Ministers, lectors, acolytes, and in the music ministry. We don't expect 12 or even one MHR parishioner to complain about this. But that should not matter. From "Redemptionis Sacramentum" #46:

"The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

"Traditional marriage has never lost on the ballot in any state. We expect it to prevail in Maine.”

Back in May, Maine, legislators passed and the governor signed LD 1020, attempting to legalize counterfeit "marriage." But Maine gives the people a chance to have their say. Opponents of counterfeit "marriage" had a 90 day window to gather 55,000 signatures to put LD 1020 to a "people's veto", which means the measure is put on hold once the signatures are collected and certified. The measure will then be put on the ballot in November. We can help by contributing to: Stand for Marriage Maine

When LD 1020 passed, the Archdiocese of Portland, Maine said:

"We believe that the vast majority of Maine's people believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that calling same-sex relationships marriage doesn't make them so...."

Yep! and:

"Same-sex marriage is a dangerous sociological experiment that I believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole. Children will be taught in schools that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are simply different expressions of the same thing, and that the logical and consistent understanding that marriage and reproduction are intrinsically linked is no longer valid." - Bishop Richard Malone.

Yesterday's Catholic News Agency reported on the repeal effort:

“In just four weeks, we've gathered more than 55,000 signatures from Mainers who believe they, not the legislature and governor, should have the final say on the definition of marriage," said Marc Mutty, chairman of the coalition supporting the ballot proposal and Public Affairs Director for the Catholic Diocese of Portland.

“There has been an extraordinary outpouring of support from voters across the state. This response gives us momentum that will lift us over the first hurdle of putting the issue before the people and, ultimately, carry us to victory in November.”

Bob Embrich, an executive committee member of Stand for Marriage Maine and founder of the Maine Jeremiah Project, said the speed with which the signatures were gathered suggested that Maine citizens want to restore marriage “to its historical and time-honored definition as between a man and a woman.”

“We look forward to submitting the measure for certification and engaging Mainers in a vigorous defense of marriage.

The Vatican's unofficial synopsis of Caritas in Veritate

"Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness" is "the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity": Thus begins Caritas in Veritate, the encyclical addressed to the Catholic world and "to all people of good will."

In the introduction, the Pope reminds us that "charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine." On the other hand, given "the risk of being misinterpreted, detached from ethical living," it is linked with truth. And he cautions us: "A Christianity of charity without truth would be more or less interchangeable with a pool of good sentiments, helpful for social cohesion, but of little relevance" (§ 1-4).

Truth is necessary for development. Without it, says the Pope, "the social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmentation" (§ 5). Benedict XVI dwells upon two "criteria that govern moral action" that come from the "charity in truth" principle: justice and the common good. Every Christian is called to love through an "institutional path" which has an incidence on the life of the pólis, of life in society (§ 6-7). The Church, he insists, "does not have technical solutions to offer"; however, she has "a mission of truth to accomplish" for "a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation" (§ 8-9).

The first chapter of the document is about Paul VI's message of Populorum Progressio. "Without the perspective of eternal life -- the Pope warns us -- human progress in this world is denied breathing space." Without God, development becomes negative, "dehumanized" (§ 10-12).

Paul VI, one can read, stressed on "the indispensable importance of the Gospel for building a society according to freedom and justice" (§ 13). In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI "shows the strong ties between life ethics and social ethics" (§ 14-15). He explains the concept of vocation in Populorum Progressio. "Development is vocation" because "it derives from a transcendent call." He goes on to underline that it is thus "integral," that is, it has to "promote the good of every man and of the whole man." "Faith -- he adds -- does not rely on privilege or positions of power," "but only on Christ" (§ 16-18). Paul VI shows that "the causes of underdevelopment are not primarily of the material order." They are above all in the will, thought and even more "in the lack of brotherhood among individuals and peoples." "As society becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbors but does not make us brothers." We must, therefore, mobilize ourselves so that economics evolves "towards fully human outcomes" (§ 19-20).

In the second chapter, the Pope deals with human development in our time. Profit as the exclusive goal, "without the common good as its ultimate end, risks destroying wealth and creating poverty." He goes on to mention some distortions of development: financial dealing that is "largely speculative," migration of peoples "often provoked" and then insufficiently attended to, and "the unregulated exploitation of the Earth's resources." Before such interconnected problems, the Pope calls for "a new humanistic synthesis." The crisis "obliges us to replan our journey" (§ 21).

Development today, says the Pope, "has many overlapping layers." "The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase," with new forms of poverty emerging. Corruption, he fears, is present in countries rich and poor; too often, multinational enterprises do not respect the rights of the workers. Besides, "international aid has often been diverted from its proper ends, through irresponsible actions" both of donors and of beneficiaries. At the same time, says the Pope, "there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge on the part of rich countries, through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care" (§ 22).

Since the end of the "blocs," John Paul II had been asking for a global "re-examination of development," but this "has been achieved only in part." There is today "a re-evaluation" of the roles of the "state's public authorities," and one can foresee an increase in the "political participation in civil society, nationally and internationally." The Pope then turns his attention to the search, by rich countries, for areas in which to outsource production at low cost. "These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems," with "grave danger for the rights of workers." To this, one has to add that "the cuts in social spending, often made under pressure from international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks." In any case, one can observe that "governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom of labor unions." Those who rule are reminded that "the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity" (§ 23-25).

Truth is necessary for development. Without it, says the Pope, "the social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmentation"

On a cultural level, the possibility of interaction opens new perspectives of dialogue, but with a double danger. First, there can be a cultural eclecticism in which all cultures are viewed as "substantially equivalent." The opposite danger is that of "cultural leveling," "the indiscriminate acceptance of types of conduct and lifestyles" (§ 26). The Pope then turns his attention to the scandal that hunger represents. What is missing is a "network of economic institutions" capable of confronting this emergency. One must hope for "new possibilities" in the techniques of agriculture and land reform in developing countries (§ 27).

Benedict XVI then underlines that the respect for life "cannot in any way be detached" from the development of peoples. Various parts of the world still experience practices of demographic control which "go as far as to impose abortion." In economically developed countries, there is "an anti-birth mentality, frequent attempts (being) made to export this mentality to other states as if it were a form of cultural progress." In addition, there is "reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked" to "specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition" of birth control. The "laws permitting euthanasia" are another matter for concern: "When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man's true good" (§ 28).

There is another aspect connected to development: the right to religious freedom. Violence "puts the brakes on authentic development," and this "applies especially to terrorism motivated by fundamentalism." At the same time, promotion of atheism in many countries "obstructs the requirements for the development of peoples, depriving them of spiritual and human resources" (§ 29), for development needs the interaction of the various levels of knowledge, put in harmony through charity (§ 30-31). One must hope that the economic choices continue "to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment" for everyone. Benedict XVI warns us against "short-term -- sometimes very short-term -- economy, which leads to "lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers" in order to "increase the country's international competitiveness." For this, he exhorts us to correct some dysfunctions of the development models, as is required today by the "Earth's state of ecological health." He concludes with globalization: "Without the guidance of charity in truth, this global force could cause unprecedented damage and create new divisions." Therefore, we have to deal with "a new and creative challenge" (§ 32-33).

Fraternity, economic development and civil society is the theme of the third chapter of the encyclical, opening with a praise of the experience of giving, often unrecognized "because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view of life." The conviction that economics are free from the "influences of a moral character" "has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way." Development, "if it is to be authentically human," must "make room for the principle of gratuitousness" (§ 34). This is particularly relevant regarding the market.

"Without internal forms of solidarity and mutual trust, the market cannot completely fulfill its proper economic function." The market "cannot rely only on itself"; it "must draw its moral energies from other subjects" and must not consider the poor as a "burden, but a resource." The market must not become "the place where the strong subdue the weak." Commercial logic needs to be "directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility." The market is not negative by nature. Therefore, what is to be challenged is man, his "moral conscience and responsibility." The present crisis shows that the "traditional principles of social ethics like transparency, honesty and responsibility cannot be ignored or attenuated." At the same time, the Pope reminds us that economics do not eliminate the role of the state and requires "just laws." Calling to mind Centesimus Annus, he points to the "necessity of a system with three subjects: the market, the state and civil society" and calls for ways of "civilizing the economy." We need "economic forms based on solidarity." The market and politics need "individuals who are open to reciprocal gift" (§ 35-39).

In the fourth chapter, the encyclical deals with the development of people, rights and duties, and the environment. One can notice the "claims to a ‘right to excess'" in the affluent societies, while food and water are lacking in certain underdeveloped regions. "Individual rights when detached from a framework of duties can run wild." Rights and duties are in connection to an ethical context. If, on the other hand, their basis is only "to be found in the deliberations of an assembly of citizens," they are liable to be "changed at any time." Governments and international bodies must not forget "the objectivity and ‘inviolability' of rights" (§ 43). On this matter, one can dwell upon the "problems associated with population growth." It is a "mistake" to "consider population increase as the primary cause of underdevelopment." The Pope reaffirms that sexuality cannot be "reduced merely to pleasure or entertainment." One cannot regulate sexuality through "strategies of mandatory birth control." He then goes on to underline that "morally responsible openness to life represents a rich social and economic resource." "States are called to enact policies promoting the centrality and the integrity of the family" (§ 44).

"The economy," he adds, "needs ethics in order to function correctly -- not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centered." The same centrality of the human person must be the guiding principle "in development programs" of international cooperation, in which the beneficiaries should always be involved. "International organizations might question the actual effectiveness of their bureaucratic machinery," "often excessively costly." The Pope notices that too often "the poor serve to perpetuate expensive bureaucracies." Hence his call for a "complete transparency" concerning funds received (§ 45-47).

The market "cannot rely only on itself"; it "must draw its moral energies from other subjects" and must not consider the poor as a "burden, but a resource." The market must not become "the place where the strong subdue the weak."

The last paragraphs of the chapter are devoted to the environment. For the believer, nature is a gift of God to be used in a responsible way. In this context, our attention is brought to consider the energy problem. The fact that some states and power groups "hoard nonrenewable energy resources" constitutes "a grave obstacle to development in poor countries." Therefore, the international community should "find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of nonrenewable resources." "The technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption," while at the same time "encourage research into alternative forms of energy."

Basically, "what is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new lifestyles." A style which, up to now in most parts of the world, "is prone to hedonism and consumerism." The decisive issue, therefore, is "the overall moral tenor of society." The Pope goes on to caution: "If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death," "the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology," including that of environmental ecology (§ 48-52).

The cooperation of the human family is at the heart of the fifth chapter, in which Benedict XVI shows that "the development of peoples depend above all on a recognition that the human race is a single family." On the other hand, one can read that the Christian religion can contribute to development "only if God has a place in the public realm." By "denying the right to profess one's religion in public," politics "takes on a domineering and aggressive character." The Pope warns: "Secularism and fundamentalism exclude the possibility of fruitful dialogue" between reason and religious faith, a breach that "comes only at an enormous price to human development" (§ 53-56).

The Pope then examines the principle of subsidiarity, which offers a help to the human person "via the autonomy of intermediate bodies." Subsidiarity "is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state" and is well-suited to direct globalization towards its authentic human development. International aids "can sometimes lock people into a state of dependence," hence all subjects of the civil society, and not only the rulers, should be involved. "Too often, aid has served to create only fringe markets for the products" of these countries (§ 57-58). The Pope exhorts the economically developed nations to "allocate larger portions" of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations undertaken. He then advocates a greater access to education and more towards "the complete formation of the person," for relativism makes everyone poorer. An example is given by the perverse phenomenon of sex tourism. "It is sad to note that this activity takes place with the support of local governments, with silence from those in the tourists' countries of origin, and with the complicity of many of the tour operators" (§ 59-61).

The Pope then deals with the phenomenon of migration, with "epoch-making" proportions. "No country can be expected to address today's problems of migration by itself." Every migrant is "a human person" who "possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance." The Pope asks that the foreign workers not be considered as merchandise and shows the "direct link between poverty and unemployment." He pleads for a decent employment for all and invites the authorities other than those in politics to focus their attention on the workers of countries where their social rights are violated (§ 62-64).

Finance, "after its misuse which has wreaked such havoc on the real economy, needs to go back to being an instrument directed towards development." "Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity." In addition, the Pope calls for a "regulation of the financial sector" to safeguard weaker parties (§ 65-66).

He adds: "Development must include not just material growth but also spiritual growth." And he concludes by exhorting us to have a "new heart" in order to rise "above a materialistic vision of human events" (§ 76-77).

The last paragraph of the chapter deals with the "strongly felt need" for a "reform of the U.N." and of the "economic institutions and international finance." There is an "urgent need of a true world political authority," which seeks to "observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity," an authority vested with "effective power." The Pope concludes with a call to establish "a greater degree of international ordering" for the management of globalization (§ 67).
The sixth and final chapter is centered on the development of peoples and technology. The Pope cautions us against the "Promethean presumption" which would have us believe that "humanity can re-create itself through the wonders of technology." Technology cannot have an "absolute freedom." "The process of globalization could replace ideologies with technology" (§ 68-72). Connected with technological development are the "means of social communications," called to promote "the dignity of persons and peoples" (§ 73).

A particularly crucial battleground in "today's cultural struggle between the supremacy of technology and human moral responsibility is the field of bioethics." The Pope goes on to add: "Reason without faith is doomed to flounder in an illusion of its own omnipotence." The social question has become an "anthropological question." Research on fetuses and cloning is "being promoted by today's culture," believing it has "mastered every mystery." The Pope expresses his fear of a "systematic eugenic programming of births" (§ 74-75). He adds: "Development must include not just material growth but also spiritual growth." And he concludes by exhorting us to have a "new heart" in order to rise "above a materialistic vision of human events" (§ 76-77).
In his conclusion, the Pope underlines that development "needs Christians with their arms raised towards God in prayer"; it needs "love and forgiveness, self-denial, acceptance of others, justice and peace" (§ 78-79).

Catholic Education Resource Center

Caritas in veritate

Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, who yesterday was part of the group presenting the new encyclical: 'Caritas in veritate,’ made this observation; “It was conceived by the Holy Father as a commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of Paul VI's 'Populorum Progressio'" although the theme of this new encyclical "is not the 'development of peoples', but 'integral human development'

For his part, Archbishop Crepaldi spoke of various new topics dealt with in this encyclical. "For the first time the two fundamental rights: to life and to religious freedom", he said, "are given explicit and extensive space in a social encyclical. ... They are", he went on, "organically linked to the question of development. ... In 'Caritas in veritate' the so-called 'anthropological question' becomes to all intents and purposes a 'social question'

I agree with our good friend Fr. Fessio, S.J. of Ignatius Institute who drew attention to section 51 of the document: "If there is lack of respect for the right to life and a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational system and laws do not help them to respect themselves" (51). There is no charity in truth if the truth of man’s value before and after birth is not understood and protected.

An inportant observation for me was when the encyclical drew attention to these words
In Paul V!’s Populorum Progressio:” The first is that the whole Church, in all her being and acting — when she proclaims, when she celebrates, when she performs works of charity — is engaged in promoting integral human development. . The second truth is that authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension[11]. Without the perspective of eternal life, human progress in this world is denied breathing-space.”

For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal[133]. Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who wield political power.(31)

I am sure this work of our Holy Father will be discussed for years. It is full of wisdom and good news. Charity after all is Supreme and truth is the basis of right thinking without which we are doomed.

How-to Guide for Men on Convincing Your Girlfriend to Have an Abortion

From the Catholic News Agency comes word of a surprisingly honest columnist advising men on how to convince their wives, girlfriends, victims, to kill their child:

CNA STAFF, Jul 8, 2009 / 07:17 am (CNA).- A men’s advice column advising men how to encourage their pregnant girlfriends to abort provides an unsettling glimpse into the realities of abortion. One pro-life leader characterized the column, which highlights some men’s personal desires to avoid the burdens of parenthood, as “a primer for coerced abortion.”
The advice column was authored by Isabella Snow, who is described as a Sex Education Correspondent. It was published on AskMen.com, a risqué site which claims seven million monthly visitors.

The column is bluntly utilitarian in style, focusing on pregnancy’s and abortion’s effects upon the relationship of a man and a woman. It ends each paragraph of advice with a summarizing tip labeled “prenatal prep.” The avoidance of children and fatherhood is a repeated theme.

Snow begins by noting that while male readers may hope a woman will “stick to the original plan and terminate the pregnancy,” some women may suddenly want to become mothers “despite previous agreements.”

She advises the male reader to try to make his girlfriend consider his wants and desires by approaching her “correctly” and taking care with his “presentation.”

Snow advises discussing a possible abortion on a sofa at home to provide intimacy and “reduced eye contact,” purportedly to make it easier for the woman to speak “openly.”

“You’ll also want to take care with your word choice; pregnant women tend to feel like they’re carrying someone, as opposed to something, even if she is just a month or so pregnant,” Snow adds. “You can’t just talk about having an abortion the same way you’d talk about having a cavity filled.”

This is quite well known--when there were plans to loosen abortion restrictions in the United Kingdom, women were far more opposed than men to the idea. The CNA article also interviewed Serrin Foster, President of Feminists for Life, who:

"... advised sympathy be shown for the columnist, speculating that Snow has to be “post-abortive” herself.

“We don't know what has happened to Isabella in her private life to take out whatever she has on other women. We need to reach out to Isabella. Isabella is a person too.

"In a weird way she is alerting women and girls by documenting what has happened all the time to women and little girls especially from older men or people from clinics."

"The best part about this is that Isabella has documented it and now we can warn women and girls that this is a routine - no matter where you hear it from."

The thought that the author was post-abortive struck me too, before I'd even reached Ms. Foster's comments.

State Senator Tries to Undercut Prop. 8

Openly homosexual San Francisco state senator and Most Holy Redeemer favorite Mark Leno, (go here to see Senator Leno attending a "leather" function at Most Holy Redeemer's parish hall in 2007) is trying to undercut Proposition 8.

Leno is attempting what “Catholics for the Common Good” Chairman Bill May calls “a legislative slight of hand tactic” to force the state of California to recognize same-sex “marriages” taking place in other states.

Bill tells us:

“Because of a legislative slight of hand tactic called ‘gut and amend‘, we are called on once again to defend Prop 8 in the California Legislature. A hearing on SB 54, a bill to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ from other states is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday, July 9.

The bill is co-authored by Senator Marc Leno (D- San Francisco) and sponsored by Equality California. According to May, SB 54 “…started as healthcare legislation, passed the Senate floor, moved to the Assembly where it passed the Health Committee. On its way to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, something changed – EVERYTHING CHANGED. All the original language was stripped out and an attack in Prop 8 was substituted -- after it had been reviewed by three legislative committees and passed the Senate as a completely different bill."

“The bill seeks to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ from other states. If the out-of-state same-sex ‘marriages’ took place after the passage of Prop 8, all of the rights and privileges would still be recognized, except for the use of the word ‘marriage‘. This is a clear violation of Article I, section 7.5 of the California Constitution (Prop 8) that reads, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ The California Supreme Court has already upheld Prop 8.”

“The Court specifically stated that their ruling had no effect on same-sex “marriages” from other states or countries (page 135, note 46). If SB 54 passes, it will create a flimsy basis for new legal challenges that will waste more taxpayer money fighting the clearly expressed will of the voters on traditional marriage. This is particularly outrageous at a time when the state is forced to cut deeply into funding for vital human needs because of the current budget crisis.”

Senator Leno’s “Facebook” page describes the bill:

“Senator Leno’s Senate Bill 54, sponsored by Equality California, has been amended to clarify that same-sex couples who married outside of California before Proposition 8 went into effect on November 5, 2008 are recognized as married spouses. The bill also confirms that same-sex couples who married outside California after November 5, 2008, or plan to do so in the future, must receive the same rights, protections, benefits, obligations and responsibilities afforded to opposite-sex spouses, with the sole exception of the designation of “marriage.’…

The Court’s decision states that California must recognize the marriages of couples who married in California before the passage of Prop 8 but does not specify how couples who married outside of the state should be recognized….”

The Leno bill is is co-authored by the members of the LGBT Legislative Caucus, including Senator Christine Kehoe and Assembly members Tom Ammiano and John A. Pérez.

SB 54 will be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday, July 9, before Friday's legislative deadline for bills to be reported out of policy committees. Catholics for the Common Good asks that Californians concerned about this maneuver contact the Judiciary Committee Members RIGHT AWAY and ask them to stop trying to overturn the will of the voters. Judiciary Committee members are:

Mike Feuer (D-AD42), Chairman
Phone: (916) 319-2042
Fax: (916) 319-2142

Van Tran (R-AD68), Vice-Chairman
Phone: (916) 319-2068
Fax: (916) 319-2168

Julia Brownley (D- AD41)
Phone: (916) 319-2041
Fax: (916) 319-2141

Noreen Evans (D- AD7)
Phone: (916) 319-2007
Fax: (916) 319-2107

Dave Jones (D- AD9)
Phone: (916) 319-2009
Fax: 916 319 2109

Steve Knight (R-AD36)
Phone: (916) 319-2036
Fax: (916) 319-2136

Paul Krekorian (D-AD43)
Phone: (916) 319-2043
Fax: (916) 319-2143

Ted Lieu (D-AD53)
Phone: (916) 319-2053
Fax: (916) 319-2153

Bill Monning (D-AD27)
Phone: (916) 319-2027
Fax: (916) 319-2127

Jim Nielsen (R-AD2)
Phone: (916) 319-2002
Fax: (916) 319-2102

If Obama Can't Find "Common Ground" Here, He Won't Find it Anywhere

Jack Smith follows up on the NIH (that is, President Barack Obama's) new stem cell guidelines.

Here is today's satement from the USCCB:

"CARDINAL RIGALI CRITICIZES FINAL NIH GUIDELINES FOR DESTRUCTIVE STEM CELL RESEARCH

WASHINGTON—Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, reacted today to final guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research issued yesterday by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The text of his statement follows:

“In April I criticized the NIH’s draft guidelines for destructive embryonic stem cell research, saying that under these guidelines ‘federal tax dollars will be used to encourage destruction of living embryonic human beings for stem cell research – including human beings who otherwise would have survived and been born.’

“The final guidelines issued yesterday are even broader. Parents who are asked to consider having their embryonic children destroyed for research will not even have to be informed about all their other options – only about the options that happen to be available at their particular fertility clinic. Moreover, under the final guidelines, stem cell lines that existed previously or that are produced in foreign countries may be made eligible for federally funded research even if they were obtained in ways that violate one or more of the NIH's own informed consent requirements.

“The comments of tens of thousands of Americans opposing the destruction of innocent human life for stem cell research were simply ignored in this process. Even comments filed by the Catholic bishops’ conference and others against specific abuses in the draft guidelines were not addressed. For example, federally funded researchers will be allowed to insert human embryonic stem cells into the embryos of animal species other than primates; federal grants will be available even to researchers who themselves destroyed human embryos to obtain the stem cells for their research. Existing federal law against funding research in which human embryos are harmed or destroyed is not given due respect here.

“This debate now shifts to Congress, where some members have said even this policy does not go far enough in treating some human beings as objects to be created, manipulated and destroyed for others’ use. I hope Americans concerned about this issue will write to their elected representatives, urging them not to codify or further expand this unethical policy.”

For more information about the USCCB’s “Oppose Destructive Stem Cell Research” campaign, visit www.usccb.org/stemcellcampaign. Cardinal Rigali’s April 21 statement on the draft guidelines is at www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-087.shtml. The USCCB’s official comment letter of May 22 is at www.usccb.org/prolife/NIHcomments.pdf. "

Embryonic stem cells don't work, kill the unborn, cause tumors when they are used, and are unnecessary, given the successes of adult-stem cells. Obama, and his supporters claim he wants "common ground." Here was a perfect opportunity: he could have embraced the pro-life side, and, at the same time follow the leading contemporary scientists. He chose not to, despite the overwhelming success of adult stem-cells. If he will not find "common ground" here, he will not find it anywhere. He is, as Mark Steyn said, an abortion absolutist. There is no common ground.

"Caritas in Veritate"

Is here.

Tom Peters has posted it as a word file, too.

Dennis Prager, NY Times on Honduras

Mr. Prager asks:

"When did a military coup ever take place that was ordered by that country's supreme court, that was supported by the political party of the president who was overthrown, in which not one person was injured, let alone killed, and which replaced the ousted president with the president of the country's congress, a member of the same party as the ousted president?"

He also says:

"Even if you know little or nothing about the crisis in Honduras, nearly all you need to know in order to ascertain which side is morally right is this: Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, Cuba's Castro brothers, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States are all lined up against Honduras."

We note that as of today, there actually has been one person killed in demonstrations. That may have happened after Mr. Prager wrote his column. He also note that he fails to include Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton along with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Fidel and Raul Castro as those who are lined up against Honduras.

Even the New York Times seems to be getting the picture. They printed a guest column by Roger Marin Neda, a columnist at the Honduran daily El Heraldo. Emphasis added:

"He (Zelaya) began his four-year term in January 2006, and by mid-2008, the idea of a second term was already in the air, even though it is forbidden by the Constitution. Since its independence from Spain in 1821, Honduras has had 16 constitutions, as these documents were vulnerable to leaders’ desire to extend their stay in office. The current constitution, which came into effect in 1982 after many years of military rule, was written to forever protect the country against presidents’ overstaying their welcome.

But over the years, the lust for power has proved too strong. The first president under the 1982 Constitution, Roberto Suazo Córdova, sought to eliminate the constitutional prohibition. Most of his successors have also tried, one way or another, to stay in the presidential palace longer than they were constitutionally allowed.

But only Mr. Zelaya had the guts to go all the way to plan a referendum, laying the groundwork for an assembly to remake the Constitution to allow him to serve one more term. His larger goal seemed to be a change from our democratic system into a kind of 21st-century socialism. In other words, he wanted to create a Hugo Chávez-type of government."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

More "Common Ground" From the Obama Administration

As Jack Smith wrote: "'Common Ground' keeps bustin' out everywhere."

From the webpage of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

"Following President Obama’s March 9 executive order, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has proposed guidelines for federally funded embryonic stem cell research. The guidelines would – for the first time – use taxpayer funds to encourage the killing of embryonic human beings for their stem cells.

This marks a new chapter in divorcing biomedical research from its necessary ethical foundation, respect for human life at all stages."

The bishops then provided a link from their page to the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA). The NHCLA page allowed visitors to send a message to the National Institute of Health expressing their oppositon (or, for that matter, support) of the new NIH guidelines.

Well, today's Catholic News Service reports:

"Although 30,000 of the approximately 49,000 comments on the National Institutes of Health's draft guidelines on human embryonic stem-cell research opposed any federal funding of such research, those responses were "deemed not responsive to the question put forth," according to the acting director of NIH.

"We did not ask them whether to fund such funding, but how it should be funded," said Dr. Raynard S. Kington in a telephone briefing with the media July 6.

But Richard M. Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said it was "disingenuous (for Kington) to say that comments criticizing the guidelines overall were to be ignored."

h/t The Catholic Key

More on Honduras: Salesian Cardinal asks Zelaya NOT to Return

On Friday we posted a blog entry "Honduras and the Rule of Law" which contained excerpts of an essay by Honduran lawyer, former Presidential advisor, and former Honduran Minister of Culture Hugo Sanchez.: "A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense. Don't believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law."

Senor Sanchez very lucidly described the circumstances leading to the removal of power of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. I ask that you read the blog post, and even more that you read his original essay.

Now Salesian Cardinal Rodrigues has addressed the issue. We post the article here in full:

"TEGUCIGALPA, July 4 (Xinhua) -- The Honduran cardinal and main leader of the Honduran Catholic church, Oscar Andres Rodriguez, Saturday urged ousted President Manuel Zelaya not to come back to Honduras.

In a televised speech, Rodriguez warned that the return of Zelaya could lead to a blood bath.

"I know you love and respect life, at this moment only a Honduran citizen has died, please meditate your decision, because later it could be too late," he said.

He also urged the Organization of American States (OAS) to investigate all the "illegal deeds" that happened during the rule of Zelaya.

"Our people ask themselves why (OAS) has not condemned the war threats made against us by other countries," said the religious leader, referring to recent statements of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

"We have the right to choose our own destiny without external pressure of any kind and look for solutions that promote common welfare, we reject military threats or blocks of any kind that will only make the poorest people suffer," he said.

The cardinal also called on the new government to promote national reconciliation and let aside revenge, pursuit, violence and corruption.

Rodriguez Friday had a meeting with OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza who was in the country on a mediation mission."

His Eminence is not alone among the clergy in Hinduras. Today, Catholic Online has an essay by Tom Esposito, member of the Missioners of Christ serving in Honduras. Excerpts:

"There are many critical details in the sequence of events in Honduras that are important to know, and for that I would direct you to the web-log of our lead missionary in Honduras, Carol Restaine (http://missionersofchrist.blogspot.com/). Carol has lived in Honduras for eight years now, and has a good sense of the plight of the Honduran people. But for the sake of this article, a brief summary is as follows:

President Manuel Zelaya, nearing the end of his four-year term, sought to hold a public referendum which would, among other things, seek to change the Honduran Constitution to eliminate term-limits for the Presidency. As only the Congress has authority to call such a referendum, Zelaya was informed both by the Honduran Congress as well as the Supreme Court that this act would be illegal. Nonetheless, Zelaya ordered the head of the military, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez to enact the public vote. Gen. Velásquez refused, restating that it was deemed illegal, so Zelaya summarily fired him. The Honduran Supreme Court determined that Zelaya’s firing of Velásquez was illegal and ordered him reinstated, which Zelaya refused. Then Zelaya proceeded to the military base with his supporters to confiscate the voting boxes and materials.

The Congress and Supreme Court entered an emergency session on June 27 to determine their response to Zelaya’s illegal acts, as well as his clear intent to go through with the vote. They determined that, for the protection of both democracy and the Constitution, it was necessary to arrest Zelaya. Acting on orders from the Supreme Court and in conjunction with the Attorney General, Zelaya was arrested by a military contingent, and then allegedly given the choice to stay in Honduras and be prosecuted, or accept exile to Costa Rica. It is reported that he chose exile, though Zelaya denies these claims. Zelaya was voted out of office the same day, and the next in line of succession (via the Constitution), Roberto Michelleti, was sworn in as interim President.

This was not a military coup as the general media seems insistent on reporting. While acknowledging the sequence and even manner in which the events were carried out have provided “wiggle-room” for ideologues to incite the international community, this is clearly a diversion from this critical truth; the new interim government is both Constitutional and has overwhelming popular support of the Honduran people. Our people on the ground, who are anything but political, affirm this fact."

Those who are worried about an army coup are fighting the last war. The danger to democracy in Central and South (and maybe North!) America is no longer from military coups. but from an elected leader who then uses the machinary of the state to gobble up the other societal institutions. What we have in Honduras is one man who claimed a right to defy the Constitution.. He was opposed by the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Army, and now the Church. That's not a coup made, it's a coup prevented.

h/t Catholic Caveman.

More on Father Farrow, Renegade Priest

The 2009 DignityUSA Convention in San Francisco is proving to be one teaching moment after another.

On Tuesday, the California Catholic Daily ran the article "Renegade Catholic Advises Priests on How to Fight the Church." We blogged about it here. It contained this quote from Fr. Farrow's blog:

“Borrow the full amount against your Knights of Columbus life insurance policy immediately. Take the check and invest the funds with an LGBT friendly fund. Do not pay back the loan.”

Lo and behold, following the story, Fr. Farrow's blog posting was then changed to omit the sentence "Do not pay the loan back." (A sharp eyed person over at the Catholic Answers forum posted a link to the original, cached posting). Presumably, Fr. Farrow felt this left him open to liability, and removed the sentence for legal reasons. That is quite instructive. I thought that sentence was the least objectionable of Fr. Farrow's recomendations. After all, the Knights are big enough to take care of themselves. Far worse, to my way of thinking, were his recommendations regarding the manipulation of the parish bulletin and parish facilities. Those recommendations, that pastors abuse their authority in the pursuit of personal political goals, are unconscionable for a priest.

But it shows where Fr. Farrow's priorities lie. I believe the Diocese of Fresno is fortunate to have him gone.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

"Leather Spirituality" and Catholicism

Quite a little convention they've got going on down on Cyril Magnin place. That's where the Parc 55 hotel is, the site for this year's DignityUSA convention in San Francisco. We've already reported on it here and here.

From today's Cailfornia Catholic Daily (emphasis added):

"Dignity USA Catholics to Explore Leather Spirituality
The Defenders to Sponsor Liturgy

The 2009 DignityUSA Convention, being held in San Francisco from July 2-5 will include a workshop on July 4 called “Leather Spirituality as an Ingredient of Christian Life.” The convention will also feature a July 3 liturgy sponsored by a group known as “The Defenders” and a Leather Caucus on July 5.

The Defenders are an integral part of DignityUSA. According to the Dignity website:
“The Defenders has been affiliated with DignityUSA from the beginning and maintains close ties to this very day. Each Defenders club is associated with a local Dignity Chapter … The Defenders is a club for individuals who value and wish to celebrate both their leather "lifestyle" and their Christian spirituality…The Defenders believe that the leather experience can, when integrated and spiritually informed, actually produce a richer spirituality for us, and for the Church.”

Dignity’s website mentions but does not define what is meant by the ”leather lifestyle”: Wikipedia gives this definition: “The leather subculture denotes practices and styles of dress organized around sexual activities and hedonistic eroticism (‘kink.’)”

The website of the San Francisco chapter of the Defenders is more specific:

“Defenders/SF is a Leather/Levi club, chartered by Dignity, the national gay Catholic organization. Defenders take a stand for the sacredness of our leather sexuality and explores practical ways of integrating sexuality and spirituality."

"The Defenders/SF website also has a page called “Leather and Spirituality” where the meaning of Leather Spirituality becomes even more explicit: “What we notice about our sexual experience as leather people is that much of what turns us on sexually has to do with such things as power exchange (dominance/submission)”

This is so outrageous that one is tempted to either joke about it or not take it seriously. That would be a big mistake. The "leather subculture" is a quite serious contingent of the homosexual culture. The homosexual culture defines itself by the kind of sex they like to engage in. Well, that's all the leather subculture does, too. As we wrote back in 2007 in our review of Fr. Godfrey's book "Gays and Grays: the Story of the Gay Community at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church":

"And if the type of genital pleasure one enjoys is the community-forming experience of a people, it would be unheard-of for the spiritual institutions of that community not to be informed by this same experience.

Fr. Godfrey says as much: 'I believe in other words, that the gospel must always be inculturated into every culture, and this must include gay culture.' p138.

'Is it less appropriate for gays to imagine Jesus as gay than for African Christians to picture him as black, Asian Christians as Asian?' p134."

Simply take Fr. Godfrey's question one step further: "Is it less appropriate for a leatherman to imagine Jesus as a leatherman than for African Christians to picture him as black, Asian Christians as Asian?" Fr. Godfrey would have to answer his own question either yes or no. If he answers "no", he would be saying it is OK to imagine Jesus engaging in s/m practices. But if he answers "yes" he is letting himself in for a hornets nest: What if the s/m practices are an expression (as the Defenders claim) of their spirituality? What if the two persons engaging in the s/m practices love each other and are consenting? Why is Fr. Godfrey privileging non s/m gay practices over s/m gay practices? The questions could easily be multiplied.

I remind readers for the 50th time that Fr. Godfrey is the Executive Director of Campus Ministry at the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco. Thus, he is charged with the spiritual welfare of thousands of college students.

Back to the California Catholic Daily article:

"From 2002- 2008, as members of the Inter-Club Fund, a group of "leather" organizations, the Defenders had been nearly annual visitors at the parish hall of San Francisco’s Most Holy Redeemer Church."

We've reported more than once on the hosting of leather (read s/m) groups at Most Holy Redeemer's Ellard Hall. Most Holy Redeemer bills itself as "Your parish church in the Castro." That is, it is the manifestation of the Catholic Church to the people of the parish area. I simply do not see how this can continue.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Honduras and the Rule of Law

What has happened recently in Honduras, and the Obama administration's response to the events is, I believe, very important. President Obama, joining forces with Hugo Sanchez and Raul Castro is condemning the actions by the Honduran Supreme Court, military, and congress in removing ex-President Mel Zelaya from office.

Following are excerpts from an article in today's Christian Science Monitor by Octavio Sánchez. Senor Sánchez is a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras. Senor Sanchez gives a very clear description of why the removal of Zelaya was urgent and necessary.

A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense.
Don't believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law.
By Octavio Sánchez

"Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.

.....

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis in original], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.

Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.

I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law."

The Honduran Supreme Court, military, and Congress saw Zelaya following the example of Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, and, for that matter Adolf Hitler: after attaining power via the democratic process, use the institutions of government to stay in power indefinitely.

Senor Sánchez is right to be proud of his compatriots. Their actions would be approved by our own Founding Fathers.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Pope: It is a Childish Faith to Oppose the Church Teaching on Life and Family

Excerpts from The Holy Father's closing homily for the year of St. Paul. From LifeSiteNews, h/t American Papist.

By John-Henry Westen

ROME, June 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Closing the Year of St. Paul yesterday evening, Pope Benedict XVI reflected on the writings of the famed convert to Christianity. With reference to Paul's letter to the Ephesians (4:14), the Pope explained what Paul meant by his statement that Christians should not remain "children at the mercy of the waves, transported here and there by every wind of doctrine."

"Paul wants the Christian faith have a 'responsible', an 'adult faith," said the Holy Father. "The word 'adult faith' has in recent decades become a popular slogan. It is often used to refer to the attitude of those who no longer adhere to the Church and her pastors, but choose for themselves what they want to believe and not believe - a kind of do-it-yourself faith."

Benedict XVI continued: "Speaking against the Magisterium of the Church is presented as courageous. In reality, however, it does not take courage for this, since you can always be sure of audience applause."

"Rather it takes courage to adhere to the faith of the Church, even if it contradicts the 'scheme' of the contemporary world," said the Pope. "It is this non-conformism of the faith that Paul calls an 'adult faith.'"

The Holy Father gave two examples of an 'adult faith'. First, "to commit to the inviolability of human life from the very beginning, thus radically opposing the principle of violence, in defense of the most defenseless humans." And second, "to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for life as a law of the Creator, restored again by Christ."

For Paul, said Benedict XVI, "following the prevailing winds and currents of the day is childish."

Homoactivists versus the Church: More Obvious Every Day

From today's California Catholic Daily:

Renegade Catholic Advises Priests on How to Fight the Church
Knights of Columbus Targeted

"Suspended Fresno priest turned gay activist Father Geoffrey Farrow has called for Catholic priests to retaliate against the Knights of Columbus for their support of Proposition 8....

In a post on his personal blog dated June 4, 2009 “Boycott the Knights of Columbus,” Farrow wrote: “Many priests have E-mailed me and expressed their rage and anger over the hypocrisy of the Catholic hierarchy in supporting anti-marriage equality legislation…One of the organizations, which the bishops have effectively employed to do their dirty work, has been the Knights of Columbus.”

Farrow then asked “So, what can priests do to fight the anti-gay agenda of the bishops and the K of C?”

Farrow recommended, among other things, that Catholic priests use their authority against their own parishioners:

"Father Farrow recommends that faithful parishioners be denied the proper use of parish facilities. He reminded pastors that they control the content of the weekly parish bulletin. He urged: 'Do not let the K of C publish or announce.' He encouraged pastors not to allow Knights of Columbus events to be held on church property--even if that would mean “creating” a “program” to occupy available time slots at parish facilities:

“Pastors may grant or withhold permission for organizations to use church facilities for their meetings. Most parishes have very tight facility scheduling. Create a program and tell the K of C they need to meet elsewhere.”

How could any Catholic pastor recommend such a thing? Answer: a Catholic pastor couldn't. As we have said before, discussing Most Holy Redeemer, for the homosexual activists the moral credibility of the Catholic Church is determined by the extent to which it supports, or fails to support, the celebration of homosexuality. Since the ultimate good for the homosexual activists is not the teaching of the Catholic Church but the celebration of homosexuality, it makes perfect sense for the teaching of the church to be rejected whenever there is a conflict between the two.

But Farrow goes even farther. He urges priests to embrace dishonesty and reject the proper duty of a pastor to his flock in the interest of furthering the homosexual agenda. This is only comprehensible if the celebration of homosexuality has become for Farrow the true religion. He is in fact a relgious fanatic.

The CCD story closes by reporting:

"Father Farrow is the scheduled homilist for the “Eucharistic Celebration” at the 2009 Dignity USA Convention which will be held July 2-5 in San Francisco. Other attendees are keynote speaker Richard Rodriguez, a parishioner of Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco, and Fr. Donal Godfrey, SJ, the executive director of campus ministry at the University of San Francisco, who will be conducting an unspecified 'workshop.'”

Actually, Fr. Godfrey's workshop is specified on the Dignity USA website. It is called "Gays and Grays: Parish-Based Pastoral Care for GLBT People."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Just for fun...

This is amazing.