That's the subject of a recent talk given by Fr. Michael Sweeney, OP, President of the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology over in Berkeley.
The talk is broken down into nine videos on YouTube. This is number three of nine. The other parts can be found on the right hand menu of this YouTube page.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Stacked Deck: Same-Sex “Marriage” Symposium at USF Law School
Today, February 26, the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco School of Law will host a symposium called “The Future of Same-Sex Marriage.”
Calling the deck stacked in favor of those supporting same-sex marriage would be an understatement. 10 of the 24 panelists or moderators contributed financially to the “No on Proposition 8” campaign, in amounts ranging from $100 to $5000. There is not a single donor to the “Yes on Proposition 8” campaign either as a panelist or moderator.
The symposium consists of five panels:
1) Crunching the Numbers: Examining empirical data regarding the material consequences of denying or recognizing same-sex marriage.
2) Analyzing the Federal Challenge: Discussing the federal constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8 and similar litigation.
3) Mobilizing Movements: Exploring the roles of competing social movements in shaping the future
of marriage.
4) Protecting Families: Examining the emerging focus on questions about parenting children and
securing families.
5) Exercising Religion: Considering the intersection of religion and anti-discrimination law in the context of same-sex marriage.
There is one supporter of natural marriage at the symposium, Vincent McCarthy, Senior Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. The ACLJ filed an amicus brief on behalf of several members of California’s Congressional delegation in the case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which currently awaits the decision of Judge Vaughn Walker. Judge Walker’ credibility and impartiality are open to question, and at least two of his procedural decisions in the case have been overturned by the Ninth Circuit and the US Supreme Court.
Mr. McCarthy’s presence balances the presence of Therese Stewart, Chief Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Francisco, who won the 2008 “Marriages” case, and who will give the keynote address—but there the balance ends. While there are only two representative of openly activist organizations (Brad Sears, Executive Director, The Charles R. Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA; and Molly McKay, National Media Director, Marriage Equality USA) the symposium is filled with activist lawyers.
An examination of the participants in a randomly chosen panel (#4, "Protecting Families") reveals:
• Prof. Annette Appell, Washington University School of Law, “a champion in the field of gay adoption” ( "Gay Parenthood and the Revolution of the Modern Family," Nicholas Arnsten, University of Connecticut 2009, p. 29)
• Prof. June Carbone, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, who apparently does not take opposition to same-sex “marriage” seriously: “In Ohio, an all important bellwether state with an anti-gay marriage proposition on the ballot designed to increase turnout among evangelicals…” ( “Red Families v. Blue Familes,” with Naomi Cahn, p. 19.) Emphasis added.
• Prof. Courtney Joslin, whose UC Davis School of Law bio page states: “Prior to joining the faculty at UC Davis, Professor Joslin served as an attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), where she litigated cases on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families.”
• Prof. Melissa Murray, UC Berkeley, School of Law, who is one of the “experts” UC Berkeley provides on the issue of same-sex “marriage.” “Murray, along with Herma Hill Kay and Joan Hollinger, signed an amicus brief filed by a group of law professors in support of same-sex marriage.”
There's no reason to consider the ideological balance of the other panels to be any healthier. For instance, the "Exercising Religion: Considering the intersection of religion and anti-discrimination law in the context of same-sex marriage" panel has three participants:
Prof. Alan Brownstein, UC Davis, School of Law, who donated $500 to oppose Proposition 8;
Prof. Dale Carpenter, University of Minnesota Law School, who donated $2200 to oppose Proposition 8; and Prof. Doug Ne Jaime, Loyola Law School, who donated $475 to oppose Proposition 8.
This is obviously not an academic conference in search of truth, it is an activist's planning session.
If the Jesuits at USF were even neutral on same-sex “marriage”—what the Holy Father considers a non-negotiable issue--that would be bad enough. But they are obviously not even neutral. The only statement, that I am aware of, made by a USF Jesuit was that of Fr. Donal Godfrey on December 13, 2008, when he said in Catholic San Francisco that he "...personally opposed Prop 8 which is a matter of conscience...".
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Calling the deck stacked in favor of those supporting same-sex marriage would be an understatement. 10 of the 24 panelists or moderators contributed financially to the “No on Proposition 8” campaign, in amounts ranging from $100 to $5000. There is not a single donor to the “Yes on Proposition 8” campaign either as a panelist or moderator.
The symposium consists of five panels:
1) Crunching the Numbers: Examining empirical data regarding the material consequences of denying or recognizing same-sex marriage.
2) Analyzing the Federal Challenge: Discussing the federal constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8 and similar litigation.
3) Mobilizing Movements: Exploring the roles of competing social movements in shaping the future
of marriage.
4) Protecting Families: Examining the emerging focus on questions about parenting children and
securing families.
5) Exercising Religion: Considering the intersection of religion and anti-discrimination law in the context of same-sex marriage.
There is one supporter of natural marriage at the symposium, Vincent McCarthy, Senior Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. The ACLJ filed an amicus brief on behalf of several members of California’s Congressional delegation in the case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which currently awaits the decision of Judge Vaughn Walker. Judge Walker’ credibility and impartiality are open to question, and at least two of his procedural decisions in the case have been overturned by the Ninth Circuit and the US Supreme Court.
Mr. McCarthy’s presence balances the presence of Therese Stewart, Chief Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Francisco, who won the 2008 “Marriages” case, and who will give the keynote address—but there the balance ends. While there are only two representative of openly activist organizations (Brad Sears, Executive Director, The Charles R. Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA; and Molly McKay, National Media Director, Marriage Equality USA) the symposium is filled with activist lawyers.
An examination of the participants in a randomly chosen panel (#4, "Protecting Families") reveals:
• Prof. Annette Appell, Washington University School of Law, “a champion in the field of gay adoption” ( "Gay Parenthood and the Revolution of the Modern Family," Nicholas Arnsten, University of Connecticut 2009, p. 29)
• Prof. June Carbone, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, who apparently does not take opposition to same-sex “marriage” seriously: “In Ohio, an all important bellwether state with an anti-gay marriage proposition on the ballot designed to increase turnout among evangelicals…” ( “Red Families v. Blue Familes,” with Naomi Cahn, p. 19.) Emphasis added.
• Prof. Courtney Joslin, whose UC Davis School of Law bio page states: “Prior to joining the faculty at UC Davis, Professor Joslin served as an attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), where she litigated cases on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families.”
• Prof. Melissa Murray, UC Berkeley, School of Law, who is one of the “experts” UC Berkeley provides on the issue of same-sex “marriage.” “Murray, along with Herma Hill Kay and Joan Hollinger, signed an amicus brief filed by a group of law professors in support of same-sex marriage.”
There's no reason to consider the ideological balance of the other panels to be any healthier. For instance, the "Exercising Religion: Considering the intersection of religion and anti-discrimination law in the context of same-sex marriage" panel has three participants:
Prof. Alan Brownstein, UC Davis, School of Law, who donated $500 to oppose Proposition 8;
Prof. Dale Carpenter, University of Minnesota Law School, who donated $2200 to oppose Proposition 8; and Prof. Doug Ne Jaime, Loyola Law School, who donated $475 to oppose Proposition 8.
This is obviously not an academic conference in search of truth, it is an activist's planning session.
If the Jesuits at USF were even neutral on same-sex “marriage”—what the Holy Father considers a non-negotiable issue--that would be bad enough. But they are obviously not even neutral. The only statement, that I am aware of, made by a USF Jesuit was that of Fr. Donal Godfrey on December 13, 2008, when he said in Catholic San Francisco that he "...personally opposed Prop 8 which is a matter of conscience...".
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Thursday, February 25, 2010
SFOP Honoree Nancy Pelosi Flat-out Lies
On Sunday Nancy Pelosi was honored at the San Francisco Organizing Project's "Soul of the City" dinner. Sponsors of the dinner included four San Francisco Catholic parishes: Corpus Christi, Mission Dolores, St. Patrick, and St. Peter. The Archdiocese of San Francisco is a "partner" with the SFOP, and the Archdiocese is responsible for determining the SFOP's suitability to receive CCHD funding.
Nancy Pelosi today at the Health Care "summit":
"My colleague, Leader Boehner, the law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills and I don't want our listeners or viewers to get the wrong impression from what you said," Pelosi asserted.
Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, responded:
"Speaker Pelosi has her own idiosyncratic dictionary, in which federal agencies can pay for abortion on demand without spending 'public funds' or 'taxpayer funds' for abortion," Johnson said. "In ordinary English, however, this is deceptive claptrap."
More at LifeNews.
On a happier note, the Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin is withholding funds from the CCHD this year.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Nancy Pelosi today at the Health Care "summit":
"My colleague, Leader Boehner, the law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills and I don't want our listeners or viewers to get the wrong impression from what you said," Pelosi asserted.
Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, responded:
"Speaker Pelosi has her own idiosyncratic dictionary, in which federal agencies can pay for abortion on demand without spending 'public funds' or 'taxpayer funds' for abortion," Johnson said. "In ordinary English, however, this is deceptive claptrap."
More at LifeNews.
On a happier note, the Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin is withholding funds from the CCHD this year.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Monday, February 22, 2010
"Direct federal funding of abortion on demand"
That's what the National Right to Life Committee says is in today's healthcare proposal from President Obama.
"Any member of Congress who votes for the final legislation proposed by President Obama will be voting for direct federal funding of elective abortion through Community Health Centers, and also an array of other pro-abortion federal subsidies and mandates.
The health bill passed by the Senate in December (H.R. 3590) had become, by the conclusion of the Senate amendment process, the most expansively pro-abortion bill ever brought to the floor of either house of Congress since Roe v. Wade. The Senate bill, as passed, contained seven distinct problems pertaining to abortion policies. (The bill passed earlier by the House, H.R. 3962, contained none of these pro-abortion components, thanks to adoption of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment on the House floor on November 7, 2009, by a vote of 240-194.) President Obama today proposed "a targeted set of changes to" the Senate-passed bill. None of President Obama's proposed changes diminish any of the sweeping pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill, and he actually proposes to increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize abortion procedures (through Community Health Centers) and to subsidize private health insurance that covers abortion (through the premium-subsidy tax credits program).
If all of the President's changes were made, the resulting legislation would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand (including some federally administered plans), and would authorize federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion."
The full statement from the NRLC is here. H/t Tom Peters.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"Any member of Congress who votes for the final legislation proposed by President Obama will be voting for direct federal funding of elective abortion through Community Health Centers, and also an array of other pro-abortion federal subsidies and mandates.
The health bill passed by the Senate in December (H.R. 3590) had become, by the conclusion of the Senate amendment process, the most expansively pro-abortion bill ever brought to the floor of either house of Congress since Roe v. Wade. The Senate bill, as passed, contained seven distinct problems pertaining to abortion policies. (The bill passed earlier by the House, H.R. 3962, contained none of these pro-abortion components, thanks to adoption of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment on the House floor on November 7, 2009, by a vote of 240-194.) President Obama today proposed "a targeted set of changes to" the Senate-passed bill. None of President Obama's proposed changes diminish any of the sweeping pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill, and he actually proposes to increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize abortion procedures (through Community Health Centers) and to subsidize private health insurance that covers abortion (through the premium-subsidy tax credits program).
If all of the President's changes were made, the resulting legislation would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand (including some federally administered plans), and would authorize federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion."
The full statement from the NRLC is here. H/t Tom Peters.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Friday, February 19, 2010
Four SF Parishes Sponsor CCHD Grantee Dinner
Event to Honor Nancy Pelosi
This Sunday, February 21, four San Francisco Catholic parishes, Corpus Christi, Mission Dolores, St. Patrick’s and St. Peter’s are sponsoring the San Francisco Organizing Project’s 2010 “Soul of the City” Dinner. The dinner will honor Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
The San Francisco Organizing Project is one of the two remaining recipients of CCHD grant money in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, although its eligibility for CCHD funding is open to question. Two other organizations whose grant requests were approved by the Archdiocese of San Francisco have since had their funding pulled. Those two organizations were the Chinese Progressive Association and Young Workers United. Both lost funding after it was revealed they were promoting positions in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching. The eligibility of the San Francisco Organizing Project has been challenged ever since it was revealed that the SFOP won $200,000 worth of funding for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, a group which, according to their webpage and the testimony of a former employee, provides abortion referrals. Subsequent investigations revealed that the SFOP was instrumental in two San Francisco health initiatives that provided publicly funded abortion and contraception. Mr. George Wesolek, the CCHD Director for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, is on the honorary committee for the Pelosi dinner. The Honorary Committee is chaired by San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty.
While the usage of Catholic parishioners’ money to fund a group doing abortion referrals might have originally been excused on the grounds of ignorance, that excuse is no longer possible. And in fact it’s no longer being offered. The position of the Archdiocese is “yeah, we know they won money for a group doing abortion referrals, but we support them because they do other good stuff, too…” Still, it’s breathtaking to see parishioner’s money being used to sponsor a dinner honoring Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi’s championing of abortion is well known to every conscious American. According to Project VoteSmart: Pelosi was a 100% supporter of the interest of NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2001. Also, according to Project VoteSmart: Pelosi was a 100% supporter of the interest of Planned Parenthood in 2008, 2006, 2002, and 2001—but of course that just refers to her voting record. Voting is just a small part of Pelosi’s supporting the culture of death. But I guess the same argument applies: “yeah, we know she’s an absolute champion of abortion, but we support honoring her because she does other good stuff, too…”
On February 5 Jack Smith of “The Catholic Key” wrote a widely discussed column on the methods of community organizers and their penchant for claiming to speak for large numbers of people when they actually represent far smaller numbers. Mr. Smith specifically mentioned his experience with the SFOP during his time in San Francisco, and how they inflate their numbers in order to magnify their influence:
“…for instance, the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) claims to represent 40,000 San Franciscans through 30 different Catholic, Protestant and Jewish congregations. But only a very small number of parishioners from each of those congregations have had any involvement with SFOP. Many will have no idea that the organization exists and most would be surprised to know that, by virtue of their parish membership, they are among the 40,000 people who make up SFOP.”
I bet they’d be even more surprised to find out that their money is being spent to honor one of the greatest enemies of innocent life in American history, Nancy Pelosi.
Published by Gibbons J. Cooney
This Sunday, February 21, four San Francisco Catholic parishes, Corpus Christi, Mission Dolores, St. Patrick’s and St. Peter’s are sponsoring the San Francisco Organizing Project’s 2010 “Soul of the City” Dinner. The dinner will honor Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
The San Francisco Organizing Project is one of the two remaining recipients of CCHD grant money in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, although its eligibility for CCHD funding is open to question. Two other organizations whose grant requests were approved by the Archdiocese of San Francisco have since had their funding pulled. Those two organizations were the Chinese Progressive Association and Young Workers United. Both lost funding after it was revealed they were promoting positions in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching. The eligibility of the San Francisco Organizing Project has been challenged ever since it was revealed that the SFOP won $200,000 worth of funding for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, a group which, according to their webpage and the testimony of a former employee, provides abortion referrals. Subsequent investigations revealed that the SFOP was instrumental in two San Francisco health initiatives that provided publicly funded abortion and contraception. Mr. George Wesolek, the CCHD Director for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, is on the honorary committee for the Pelosi dinner. The Honorary Committee is chaired by San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty.
While the usage of Catholic parishioners’ money to fund a group doing abortion referrals might have originally been excused on the grounds of ignorance, that excuse is no longer possible. And in fact it’s no longer being offered. The position of the Archdiocese is “yeah, we know they won money for a group doing abortion referrals, but we support them because they do other good stuff, too…” Still, it’s breathtaking to see parishioner’s money being used to sponsor a dinner honoring Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi’s championing of abortion is well known to every conscious American. According to Project VoteSmart: Pelosi was a 100% supporter of the interest of NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2001. Also, according to Project VoteSmart: Pelosi was a 100% supporter of the interest of Planned Parenthood in 2008, 2006, 2002, and 2001—but of course that just refers to her voting record. Voting is just a small part of Pelosi’s supporting the culture of death. But I guess the same argument applies: “yeah, we know she’s an absolute champion of abortion, but we support honoring her because she does other good stuff, too…”
On February 5 Jack Smith of “The Catholic Key” wrote a widely discussed column on the methods of community organizers and their penchant for claiming to speak for large numbers of people when they actually represent far smaller numbers. Mr. Smith specifically mentioned his experience with the SFOP during his time in San Francisco, and how they inflate their numbers in order to magnify their influence:
“…for instance, the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) claims to represent 40,000 San Franciscans through 30 different Catholic, Protestant and Jewish congregations. But only a very small number of parishioners from each of those congregations have had any involvement with SFOP. Many will have no idea that the organization exists and most would be surprised to know that, by virtue of their parish membership, they are among the 40,000 people who make up SFOP.”
I bet they’d be even more surprised to find out that their money is being spent to honor one of the greatest enemies of innocent life in American history, Nancy Pelosi.
Published by Gibbons J. Cooney
When Bishops Do the Right Thing
Ought we rejoice in Lent? Well, Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon, has given us the absolute best reason to rejoice in a penitential season: he yanked the title "Catholic" from a hospital in his diocese that refuses actually to be Catholic. What a refreshing development in episcopal leadership! In fact, Lent is probably the perfect time for such an act to take place because it is an exercise of discipline and courage, which we love to see in our prelates. Bishops who are true shepherds, and not politicians, strengthen us and enliven our faith - thank you, Bishop Vasa!
The point of contention that the good bishop had with the St. Charles Hospital in Bend, OR was the hospital's practice of surgical sterilization. Apparently the Board of Directors thought that the Church's clear prohibition of this practice was, uh, optional. So after a fair and timely investigation, the bishop could not convince the hospital administration to change practices and simply yanked the Catholic name and insignia from the building with the exception of the cross on top to remind them of their failure to live up to the challenge of the Cross.
Can't you hear the bishop wince when the president of the healthcare chain, James Diegel, said that the hospital had "an obligation to provide comprehensive health care services to our patients while remaining true to our values of compassion and caring for all"? This sounds like slimy Planned Parenthood language if you ask me. Outside of the fact that sterilization is the direct mutilation of an organ of the body and is not true health - care, the Church condemns the act in no uncertain terms as immoral. Well, the bishop was right not to tolerate that kind of nonsense - and the Church is stronger for it!
One hates to think how many other nominally Catholic hospitals are getting away with the same thing due to lack of honest Church investigations into their practices….
Human Life International e-Newsletter
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International
The point of contention that the good bishop had with the St. Charles Hospital in Bend, OR was the hospital's practice of surgical sterilization. Apparently the Board of Directors thought that the Church's clear prohibition of this practice was, uh, optional. So after a fair and timely investigation, the bishop could not convince the hospital administration to change practices and simply yanked the Catholic name and insignia from the building with the exception of the cross on top to remind them of their failure to live up to the challenge of the Cross.
Can't you hear the bishop wince when the president of the healthcare chain, James Diegel, said that the hospital had "an obligation to provide comprehensive health care services to our patients while remaining true to our values of compassion and caring for all"? This sounds like slimy Planned Parenthood language if you ask me. Outside of the fact that sterilization is the direct mutilation of an organ of the body and is not true health - care, the Church condemns the act in no uncertain terms as immoral. Well, the bishop was right not to tolerate that kind of nonsense - and the Church is stronger for it!
One hates to think how many other nominally Catholic hospitals are getting away with the same thing due to lack of honest Church investigations into their practices….
Human Life International e-Newsletter
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Ashes to Ashes
It was nice to see Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden on two separate news conferences yesterday “proudly” displaying the ashes they had evidently received at a morning service. It appears that they both believe in sacamentals. If they could only believe in the value of life from the womb to the tomb!
Now there’s a Lenten intention.
Now there’s a Lenten intention.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Church Stands Up in DC
Catholic Charities of Washington DC will close their adoption program rather than conform the program to meet Washington DC's new same-sex "marriage" law. From the Catholic News Agency:
"The D.C. City Council’s law recognizing same-sex “marriage” required religious entities which serve the general public to provide services to homosexual couples, even if doing so violated their religious beliefs. Exemptions were allowed only for performing marriages or for those entities which do not serve the public."
Good for the Archdiocese of DC!
"The D.C. City Council’s law recognizing same-sex “marriage” required religious entities which serve the general public to provide services to homosexual couples, even if doing so violated their religious beliefs. Exemptions were allowed only for performing marriages or for those entities which do not serve the public."
Good for the Archdiocese of DC!
Monday, February 15, 2010
"Walk for India's Missing Girls"
Mark your calendars. It's March 6 in San Francisco.
"A march protesting female infanticide and foeticide in India will take place on Saturday, March 6 in San Francisco. Organized by Bay Area resident Nyna Pais Caputi, the march hopes to raise awareness of the human rights violations against millions of baby girls in India.
In the last century over 50 million girls have been eliminated from India's population. 10 million girls have been killed by their parents either before or soon after birth in India over the past two decades, resulting in an imbalance in the gender ratio -- 927 girls per 1,000 boys. In some regions it is as low as 500 girls per 1000 boys. This has led to an increase in trafficking, sexual abuse and violence against women.
Ms. Caputi, a Bay Area filmmaker, realized the gravity of the situation when she decided to adopt a child from India. She wanted to adopt a girl. “I was told I would have at least a two- to three-year wait for a baby girl. I was surprised to learn that there were long waiting lists of families wanting to adopt girls from India,” she said. “Then the orphanage that I visited in India pointed a lake out to me in the vicinity where baby girls used to be drowned by their parents.”
"A march protesting female infanticide and foeticide in India will take place on Saturday, March 6 in San Francisco. Organized by Bay Area resident Nyna Pais Caputi, the march hopes to raise awareness of the human rights violations against millions of baby girls in India.
In the last century over 50 million girls have been eliminated from India's population. 10 million girls have been killed by their parents either before or soon after birth in India over the past two decades, resulting in an imbalance in the gender ratio -- 927 girls per 1,000 boys. In some regions it is as low as 500 girls per 1000 boys. This has led to an increase in trafficking, sexual abuse and violence against women.
Ms. Caputi, a Bay Area filmmaker, realized the gravity of the situation when she decided to adopt a child from India. She wanted to adopt a girl. “I was told I would have at least a two- to three-year wait for a baby girl. I was surprised to learn that there were long waiting lists of families wanting to adopt girls from India,” she said. “Then the orphanage that I visited in India pointed a lake out to me in the vicinity where baby girls used to be drowned by their parents.”
The "Walk for India's Missing Girls" will begin at 11:00 AM in front of the Conservatory of Flowers in Golden Gate Park, and will end at the Indian Embassy at 540 Arguello Boulevard
For more information visit http://www.petalsinthedust.com/
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Vagina Monologues at USF: “One year the entire basketball team was forced to come"
As Valentine's Day rolls around, the USF College Players will once again engage in a performance of the Vagina Monologues. Not many Catholic Colleges perform the objectionable play any longer, but the Jesuit University of San Francisco still does.
The play's director Julianne Fawsitt described her experience with the play: “One year the entire basketball team was forced to come . . . . They all sat in the back awkwardly, but sometimes that’s the point, to make people feel uncomfortable.”
Contrast the ugliness of Ensler's play, and Fawsitt's attitude, with this beautiful observation made by Rebecca Ryskind Teti in Zenit:
"The vocation of woman is to reveal God's beauty to the world.
Woman is made to be beautiful. Our culture's emphasis on physical beauty is not wrong, but it is shallow, and often misdirected.
The deepest way a woman is beautiful is when she reveals to others their own goodness by teaching them the love God has for them. This is the 'feminine genius:' to reveal the goodness of the human person, and thus the beauty of God."
There's a subject for consideration at USF.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
The play's director Julianne Fawsitt described her experience with the play: “One year the entire basketball team was forced to come . . . . They all sat in the back awkwardly, but sometimes that’s the point, to make people feel uncomfortable.”
Contrast the ugliness of Ensler's play, and Fawsitt's attitude, with this beautiful observation made by Rebecca Ryskind Teti in Zenit:
"The vocation of woman is to reveal God's beauty to the world.
Woman is made to be beautiful. Our culture's emphasis on physical beauty is not wrong, but it is shallow, and often misdirected.
The deepest way a woman is beautiful is when she reveals to others their own goodness by teaching them the love God has for them. This is the 'feminine genius:' to reveal the goodness of the human person, and thus the beauty of God."
There's a subject for consideration at USF.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Gay rights: Don't ask, don't think
The central argument in favor of same-sex marriage or overturning "don't ask, don't tell" contains a fatal flaw. In fact, this is the flaw at the heart of the entire gay rights movement. Joint Chief Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen dutifully proclaimed the flaw as truth the other day when speaking in favor of ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." Lie about who they are?
Sorry Admiral, but as a former ROTC instructor and legal officer in the United States Navy, I helped deny entrance to potential recruits and prosecuted existing service people for all sorts of behaviors that were incompatible with unit cohesion and military readiness. As you know, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice prohibits numerous behaviors that are not criminal offenses in civilian life (including adultery, fraternization, and gambling with a subordinate), yet I never once saw anyone excused for their behavior by claiming that's who they are.
The military is essential to our survival as a nation. It's not a social experiment, and serving in it is not a right. People have to qualify and then make sacrifices. Military people must subordinate many of their individual rights to advance the national interest. Recruits must agree to give up some of the freedoms that civilians enjoy, including certain sexual freedoms and even the freedom of speech! So even if homosexual behavior is permitted in society, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be permitted in the military.
Having served, I believe that the military needs as few sexual distractions as possible, be they from men and women serving together in combat or open homosexuality. The job is too difficult and critical to be complicating matters sexually. …
Perspectives --Frank Turek, Guest Columnist
Sorry Admiral, but as a former ROTC instructor and legal officer in the United States Navy, I helped deny entrance to potential recruits and prosecuted existing service people for all sorts of behaviors that were incompatible with unit cohesion and military readiness. As you know, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice prohibits numerous behaviors that are not criminal offenses in civilian life (including adultery, fraternization, and gambling with a subordinate), yet I never once saw anyone excused for their behavior by claiming that's who they are.
The military is essential to our survival as a nation. It's not a social experiment, and serving in it is not a right. People have to qualify and then make sacrifices. Military people must subordinate many of their individual rights to advance the national interest. Recruits must agree to give up some of the freedoms that civilians enjoy, including certain sexual freedoms and even the freedom of speech! So even if homosexual behavior is permitted in society, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be permitted in the military.
Having served, I believe that the military needs as few sexual distractions as possible, be they from men and women serving together in combat or open homosexuality. The job is too difficult and critical to be complicating matters sexually. …
Perspectives --Frank Turek, Guest Columnist
Victory for Live Action in Alabama
The State of Alabama has placed Planned Parenthood of Birmingham on probation after Lila Rose and Live Action exposed their failure to obey the law.
From the AP:
MONTGOMERY, Ala.—A Birmingham abortion clinic that was targeted in an undercover sting by anti-abortion activists has been put on probation by state health officials.
State inspectors, who went to the Planned Parenthood clinic after the sting by the anti-abortion group "Live Action," cited problems with the reporting of suspected sexual abuse and how parental consent was obtained for minors.
.........
"We have seen this across the country in our investigative work and released videos from several other states showing the same activity," Lila Rose, president and founder of Live Action, said during break from classes at UCLA. The 21-year-old history major played the part of the pregnant teen at the Birmingham clinic. She said her group applauds the state's efforts but feels the probation was too lenient.
After the tape was released last year, state health inspectors reviewed clinic records and found that nine minors, ages 13-15, had received abortions without proper verification of parental consent since November 2008.
In one case, health officials said, a 15-year-old received an abortion even though the person claiming to be her mother did not appear to be and presented questionable records, including an expired Alabama driver's license. Inspectors said Alabama birth records show a different person as the girl's parent.
There were also concerns about reporting child abuse. One of the 13-year-olds who received an abortion reported starting having sex at age 12 and having three partners in the previous year. She was back at the clinic for another abortion four months later and said she had now had four sexual partners in her life.
"A reasonable person would suspect abuse or neglect of this 13-year-old child, based on the above," inspectors wrote. "Neither the Registered Nurse, the Medical Doctor, nor any other Center staff reported the suspected abuse or neglect to the authorities as required by law."
From the AP:
MONTGOMERY, Ala.—A Birmingham abortion clinic that was targeted in an undercover sting by anti-abortion activists has been put on probation by state health officials.
State inspectors, who went to the Planned Parenthood clinic after the sting by the anti-abortion group "Live Action," cited problems with the reporting of suspected sexual abuse and how parental consent was obtained for minors.
.........
"We have seen this across the country in our investigative work and released videos from several other states showing the same activity," Lila Rose, president and founder of Live Action, said during break from classes at UCLA. The 21-year-old history major played the part of the pregnant teen at the Birmingham clinic. She said her group applauds the state's efforts but feels the probation was too lenient.
After the tape was released last year, state health inspectors reviewed clinic records and found that nine minors, ages 13-15, had received abortions without proper verification of parental consent since November 2008.
In one case, health officials said, a 15-year-old received an abortion even though the person claiming to be her mother did not appear to be and presented questionable records, including an expired Alabama driver's license. Inspectors said Alabama birth records show a different person as the girl's parent.
There were also concerns about reporting child abuse. One of the 13-year-olds who received an abortion reported starting having sex at age 12 and having three partners in the previous year. She was back at the clinic for another abortion four months later and said she had now had four sexual partners in her life.
"A reasonable person would suspect abuse or neglect of this 13-year-old child, based on the above," inspectors wrote. "Neither the Registered Nurse, the Medical Doctor, nor any other Center staff reported the suspected abuse or neglect to the authorities as required by law."
Oprah Show "A Huge Disservice?"
You'd think most everyone would be pleased by Oprah's show yesterday featuring the Domincan Sisters. But you'd be wrong. Check out some of these comments from Oprah's website--reminiscent of the response to the Tim Tebow ad (all emphasis added):
I must say however that I was disappointed that the only community featured was that of this extremely conservative group....
...............
This was an interesting program but I would like to see a comparison of the different Orders to get a more comprehensive understanding of what life as a nun is like in the different venues....
...............
- I think that you could have done a bit more to investigate some of the active orders, more progressive orders, those who have chosen to leave. The ignorance regarding religious life is profound but I am afraid that your show possibly did more to continue the ignorance. Please do a follow up with a more diverse group of women....
Some of the more passionate comments purport to be (and I believe are) from Catholic women religious:
i would hope that in the future you would give equal time to the thousands of sisters that live the same vows as these sisters, who don't wear the habit and minister to the poorest of the poor. i was a little insulted by some of the language - Nunnery??? NOT! These sisters live in a CONVENT, actually a Monastery as they are Monastic Nuns. The habit is NOT a wedding dress - it originally was the dress worn by widows in the time period. Most sisters do not wear a habit any longer, and it certainly does not lessen the vows we take....
...............
The story about nuns only represents about 5% of Catholic religious women in this country, perhaps visiting the traveling museum exhibit "Women & Spirit: Catholic Sisters in America" can complete the picture. I am a Sister of Mercy for 28 years and as we say "who would give this up for an ordinary life". I've been inspired by the ordinary and extraordinary lives of my sisters. Women religious began educational and healthcare facilities in this country long before women broke through the glass ceiling, we saw the need and responded. Today many communities have NGO status at the United Nations and are envolved in enviremental issues. My community started in Dublin, Ireland wearing the simple dress of the day never intending to stand apart from our brothers and sisters....
...............
As a member of an international community we strive to make one among all peoples wherever we are sent. We're about responding to the mission of Jesus Christ by being obedient to God's call found through prayer and contemplation. You've begun to expose religious life. You might look at the display that is currently being displayed by the Leadership Conference of Wome Religious (LCWR) displaying the impact religious women have had on this country since its founding most especially in the areas of health care and education. You've only shown one facet of the diamond of religious life. How about letting more of it shine....
...............
The women you interviewed are not a representative sample of the vast majority of women living in religious life today, and frankly did a huge disservice to thousands of women and men living vowed life....
Some comments: Oprah wanted to do a story about nuns, not about teachers or nurses or UN NGO's. It seems like some of these Sisters don't feel that being a Sister is enough. They've got to be lawyers, doctors, PhD's.
Secondly, the LCWR pops up a number of times in the negative comments. On February 7, Carl Olsen over at Ignatius Insight did a piece about the upcoming Vatican Visitation, and the sisters who support it. A lady named Ann Carey has set up a website where such sisters can voice their concerns and opinions. Mr. Olsen reported:
"Mrs. Carey wrote in her email that a former president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR, which represents more than 90 percent of American women religious), had sent her an e-mail on Jan. 6 saying that the Yahoo group is divisive and that perhaps Mrs. Carey should rethink its existence.'
'It's hard to imagine how anyone could be divisive by supporting an initiative of the Holy See, but some sister leaders use that term for anyone who disagrees with them,' she said."
I guess that makes the Oprah show divisive, too.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
I must say however that I was disappointed that the only community featured was that of this extremely conservative group....
...............
This was an interesting program but I would like to see a comparison of the different Orders to get a more comprehensive understanding of what life as a nun is like in the different venues....
...............
- I think that you could have done a bit more to investigate some of the active orders, more progressive orders, those who have chosen to leave. The ignorance regarding religious life is profound but I am afraid that your show possibly did more to continue the ignorance. Please do a follow up with a more diverse group of women....
Some of the more passionate comments purport to be (and I believe are) from Catholic women religious:
i would hope that in the future you would give equal time to the thousands of sisters that live the same vows as these sisters, who don't wear the habit and minister to the poorest of the poor. i was a little insulted by some of the language - Nunnery??? NOT! These sisters live in a CONVENT, actually a Monastery as they are Monastic Nuns. The habit is NOT a wedding dress - it originally was the dress worn by widows in the time period. Most sisters do not wear a habit any longer, and it certainly does not lessen the vows we take....
...............
The story about nuns only represents about 5% of Catholic religious women in this country, perhaps visiting the traveling museum exhibit "Women & Spirit: Catholic Sisters in America" can complete the picture. I am a Sister of Mercy for 28 years and as we say "who would give this up for an ordinary life". I've been inspired by the ordinary and extraordinary lives of my sisters. Women religious began educational and healthcare facilities in this country long before women broke through the glass ceiling, we saw the need and responded. Today many communities have NGO status at the United Nations and are envolved in enviremental issues. My community started in Dublin, Ireland wearing the simple dress of the day never intending to stand apart from our brothers and sisters....
...............
As a member of an international community we strive to make one among all peoples wherever we are sent. We're about responding to the mission of Jesus Christ by being obedient to God's call found through prayer and contemplation. You've begun to expose religious life. You might look at the display that is currently being displayed by the Leadership Conference of Wome Religious (LCWR) displaying the impact religious women have had on this country since its founding most especially in the areas of health care and education. You've only shown one facet of the diamond of religious life. How about letting more of it shine....
...............
The women you interviewed are not a representative sample of the vast majority of women living in religious life today, and frankly did a huge disservice to thousands of women and men living vowed life....
Some comments: Oprah wanted to do a story about nuns, not about teachers or nurses or UN NGO's. It seems like some of these Sisters don't feel that being a Sister is enough. They've got to be lawyers, doctors, PhD's.
Secondly, the LCWR pops up a number of times in the negative comments. On February 7, Carl Olsen over at Ignatius Insight did a piece about the upcoming Vatican Visitation, and the sisters who support it. A lady named Ann Carey has set up a website where such sisters can voice their concerns and opinions. Mr. Olsen reported:
"Mrs. Carey wrote in her email that a former president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR, which represents more than 90 percent of American women religious), had sent her an e-mail on Jan. 6 saying that the Yahoo group is divisive and that perhaps Mrs. Carey should rethink its existence.'
'It's hard to imagine how anyone could be divisive by supporting an initiative of the Holy See, but some sister leaders use that term for anyone who disagrees with them,' she said."
I guess that makes the Oprah show divisive, too.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Monday, February 8, 2010
One of Top 10 --"Whatever You Did for the Least of These"
A 71-year old Catholic farmer, who has spent 23 taking care of the elderly, sick, abandoned and handicapped, has been named one of the "Top 10 People of 2009" in China.
The list is compiled based on votes cast by major Chinese national media and by the general population through online voting, reports the Fides news agency. The award ceremony will take place on Chinese New Year, which falls this year on Feb. 14.
The story of Wang Ping An, who has accompanied 63 dying people during their last days, has caught the attention of the nation. He also took out a loan in 2000 to build a 50-room shelter for the homeless.The poor farmer is known for often saying: "Jesus taught us 'Whenever you did to this to the least of these my brethren, you did unto me.'"
Wang Ping (which means peace) said that the highlight of his life was when he visited Rome in 2007 and attended a general audience with Benedict XVI.Fides news agency called the award an "eloquent testimony of how Chinese Catholics today are valued and recognized by society and by the Chinese media in general." (Zenit.org).-
The list is compiled based on votes cast by major Chinese national media and by the general population through online voting, reports the Fides news agency. The award ceremony will take place on Chinese New Year, which falls this year on Feb. 14.
The story of Wang Ping An, who has accompanied 63 dying people during their last days, has caught the attention of the nation. He also took out a loan in 2000 to build a 50-room shelter for the homeless.The poor farmer is known for often saying: "Jesus taught us 'Whenever you did to this to the least of these my brethren, you did unto me.'"
Wang Ping (which means peace) said that the highlight of his life was when he visited Rome in 2007 and attended a general audience with Benedict XVI.Fides news agency called the award an "eloquent testimony of how Chinese Catholics today are valued and recognized by society and by the Chinese media in general." (Zenit.org).-
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Tim Tebow Pre-Game Ad
Is below. There is also a second one which will run during the game.
UPDATE: Here's the second ad:
Why all the outrage?
I think Jeff Miller at Curt Jester explained it pretty well in a post called "Stop Using Reality Against Us."
UPDATE: Here's the second ad:
Why all the outrage?
I think Jeff Miller at Curt Jester explained it pretty well in a post called "Stop Using Reality Against Us."
Devastating Critique of Prop. 8 Judge's Conduct
It's by Ed Whelan today, in National Review's the Corner.
Read the whole thing. Whelan examines five "controversial--and in many cases, unprecedented decisions" by Judge Walker, and concludes:
"Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now."
That's why we never even bothered following it. We wrote back on January 25:
"We haven’t commented on the issue much, or even followed it, because it seems to be mostly a propagandistic exercise in narcissism. The "trial" has the same relationship to a real trial as same-sex "marriage" has to real marriage."
Read the whole thing. Whelan examines five "controversial--and in many cases, unprecedented decisions" by Judge Walker, and concludes:
"Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now."
That's why we never even bothered following it. We wrote back on January 25:
"We haven’t commented on the issue much, or even followed it, because it seems to be mostly a propagandistic exercise in narcissism. The "trial" has the same relationship to a real trial as same-sex "marriage" has to real marriage."
Friday, February 5, 2010
"Main Problem for CCHD--Community Organizing Involves Lying"
Must read column today from Jack Smith at "The Catholic Key", addressing one fundamental problem with the CCHD/USCCB's embrace of the "community organizing" model.
UPDATE: In his post, Jack tells about his experience with the Bay Area Organizing Committee. Fr. Malloy and I both have had experience with the BAOC, too, which we shared in a long post called "Shadow 'Churches'" on June 8, 2009. This excerpt from our post is relevant:
"But let’s suppose that in Connecticut, Bill #1098 had passed, and that the activists had succeeded in restructuring the administration of parishes in that state. Who would have taken over? Are there any power structures being developed in or around the Church who could have stepped in? A power structure is simply a group of persons organized for common action...
One of the recent developments in church life is the appearance of local “organizing committees” who work with groups of parishes. In the San Francisco Bay Area there are three: the “Bay Area Organizing Committee,” the “Marin Organizing Committee” and the “North Bay Sponsoring Committee.” In Los Angeles the organization is called “One LA.” They exist all over the country, including Connecticut.
They charge a fee, not small, for a parish to join. As it happens, I have some experience with one such group. In 2000, my parish signed up with the Bay Area Organizing Committee. We held some meetings. I, and a lot of the more active parishioners, were invited. I asked the leader of the BAOC what we were going to try and accomplish. The answer was that we were going to join together for common action. But for what aim? I asked. He responded that we were going to try and build an organization that would work on issues affecting the community. In other words, I got no answer. (Read this page from the “One LA” website to see what I mean.) This left me suspicious. Anyway, our relationship with the BAOC soon ended, because Fr. Malloy came in as Pastor the next year, and his idea was that the Catholic Church is all the organization you need.
What I did not know back in 2000, but I know now, is that every one of these "organizating committees" are all part of the Industrial Areas Foundation, an umbrella organization founded by the famous community organizer Saul Alinsky.
Certainly, some of the things the IAF pushes may be good, but so what? Remember that homosexual activism at Catholic Charities was a result of the organization’s admirable response to the AIDS epidemic. That response was a good thing too, but it also resulted in the development of an alternative power structure within the Archdiocese that has been a disaster.
Those activists did not want the Church to go away--they wanted to use it for their own ends. They had allies in government who could pressure the Archdiocese in such a way so that the activists seemed to be the ones able to offer a way out--thus strengthening their position. They were working together. The IAF affiliates are even more dangerous, because they are about developing power structures pure and simple. And nobody has any idea what they will use their power for."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
UPDATE: In his post, Jack tells about his experience with the Bay Area Organizing Committee. Fr. Malloy and I both have had experience with the BAOC, too, which we shared in a long post called "Shadow 'Churches'" on June 8, 2009. This excerpt from our post is relevant:
"But let’s suppose that in Connecticut, Bill #1098 had passed, and that the activists had succeeded in restructuring the administration of parishes in that state. Who would have taken over? Are there any power structures being developed in or around the Church who could have stepped in? A power structure is simply a group of persons organized for common action...
One of the recent developments in church life is the appearance of local “organizing committees” who work with groups of parishes. In the San Francisco Bay Area there are three: the “Bay Area Organizing Committee,” the “Marin Organizing Committee” and the “North Bay Sponsoring Committee.” In Los Angeles the organization is called “One LA.” They exist all over the country, including Connecticut.
They charge a fee, not small, for a parish to join. As it happens, I have some experience with one such group. In 2000, my parish signed up with the Bay Area Organizing Committee. We held some meetings. I, and a lot of the more active parishioners, were invited. I asked the leader of the BAOC what we were going to try and accomplish. The answer was that we were going to join together for common action. But for what aim? I asked. He responded that we were going to try and build an organization that would work on issues affecting the community. In other words, I got no answer. (Read this page from the “One LA” website to see what I mean.) This left me suspicious. Anyway, our relationship with the BAOC soon ended, because Fr. Malloy came in as Pastor the next year, and his idea was that the Catholic Church is all the organization you need.
What I did not know back in 2000, but I know now, is that every one of these "organizating committees" are all part of the Industrial Areas Foundation, an umbrella organization founded by the famous community organizer Saul Alinsky.
Certainly, some of the things the IAF pushes may be good, but so what? Remember that homosexual activism at Catholic Charities was a result of the organization’s admirable response to the AIDS epidemic. That response was a good thing too, but it also resulted in the development of an alternative power structure within the Archdiocese that has been a disaster.
Those activists did not want the Church to go away--they wanted to use it for their own ends. They had allies in government who could pressure the Archdiocese in such a way so that the activists seemed to be the ones able to offer a way out--thus strengthening their position. They were working together. The IAF affiliates are even more dangerous, because they are about developing power structures pure and simple. And nobody has any idea what they will use their power for."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Recommendation for the CCHD
More scandal at the CCHD.
Lots of coverage of their current disaster: Bellermine Veritas Ministry, LifeSiteNews, American Life League, Real Catholic TV.
Inasmuch as their recurring claim is "we didn't know," there's an obvious solution: hire somebody who does know. Just put those guys from Bellarmine Veritas Ministry on the board that approves grants. Solve the problem in no time.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Lots of coverage of their current disaster: Bellermine Veritas Ministry, LifeSiteNews, American Life League, Real Catholic TV.
Inasmuch as their recurring claim is "we didn't know," there's an obvious solution: hire somebody who does know. Just put those guys from Bellarmine Veritas Ministry on the board that approves grants. Solve the problem in no time.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Catholic Charities and Needle Distribution
"Formal cooperation in another's evil act (that is, undertaking to help expressly another to perform an act known to be evil) is itself evil. Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology (1938), I: 341-342. There are no exceptions to this rule; no supervening circumstances can ever render formal cooperation in evil good."
That's how Canon Lawyer Ed Peters responds to Bishop Howard Hubbard's decision to allow Catholic Charities of Albany, New York, to distribute syringes to intraveneous drug users. There's much more, of course, all worth reading.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
That's how Canon Lawyer Ed Peters responds to Bishop Howard Hubbard's decision to allow Catholic Charities of Albany, New York, to distribute syringes to intraveneous drug users. There's much more, of course, all worth reading.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
