The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has released the document "Vocation of the Business Leader." I have just scanned it, but it looks very interesting. Samuel Gregg, reviewing the document in the Corner, indicates some of the key themes:
"The first is that business is not a necessary evil or a mere means to an end. Business, the Note states, is a vocation. It is “a genuine human and Christian calling”from God and therefore an opportunity to engage in human flourishing. This point has been made in a round-about way by popes. Never, however, has a Curial text spelt out in so much detail the potential nobility of life as a business leader. Business, the Note states, makes “an irreplaceable contribution to the material and even the spiritual well-being of humankind.” That’s very powerful language. Not only is business the normative means by which many of our material needs and legitimate desires are satisfied. It’s also a sphere in which people can acquire virtues."
Some excerpts form the document:
"The vocation of the businessperson is a genuine human and Christian calling. Its importance in the life of the Church and in the world economy can hardly be overstated. Business leaders are called to conceive of and develop goods and services for customers and communities through a form of market economy. For such economies to achieve their goal, that is, the promotion of the common good, they should be structured on ideas based on truth, fidelity to commitments, freedom, and creativity."
And:
"Business leaders have a special role to play in the unfolding of creation—they not only provide goods and services and constantly improve them through innovating and harnessing science and technology, but they also help to shape organisations which will extend this work into the future..."
I especially liked this, about the educative function of work. Their first full-time job is where young people really enter into society, and a hardworking and honest boss can be a wonderful teacher:
"When managed well, businesses actively enhance the dignity of employees and the development of virtues, such as solidarity, practical wisdom, justice, discipline, and many others. While the family is the first school of society, businesses, like many other social institutions, continue to educate people in virtue, especially those young men and women who are emerging from their families and their educational institutions and seeking their own places in society..."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Very Disturbing: Foreign Priests Concelebrate Ordinations with Illicit Bishop in China
This is very disturbing. We know the "Chinese Patriotic Church," not recognized by the Church, ordains priests, but what is new here is that foreign priests are now giving the phony "church" cover and support.
From Catholic Culture:
"A Chinese bishop whose ministry is not recognized by the Holy See has ordained four men to the priesthood. Three foreign priests--a Maryknoll priest from the US and two Korean Benedictine priests--concelebrated the ordination Mass with Bishop Joseph Ma Yinglin of Kunming."
From Catholic Culture:
"A Chinese bishop whose ministry is not recognized by the Holy See has ordained four men to the priesthood. Three foreign priests--a Maryknoll priest from the US and two Korean Benedictine priests--concelebrated the ordination Mass with Bishop Joseph Ma Yinglin of Kunming."
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Nice Photo Essay on SF Religious Freedom Rally
The great photojournalist Larry in SF has very nice pictures of Friday's "Stand up for Religious Freedom Rally."
He also points out that original estimates of 500 people in attendance is a serious undercount (Mea Culpa!). He is positive that at least 1,000 people were in attendance, & backs it up.
"Friday, one thousand Bay Area Catholics gathered outside the Federal Building in San Francisco to celebrate America’s exceptional guarantee of freedom of religion, and defend against an unprecedented assault by the Obama Administration...."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
He also points out that original estimates of 500 people in attendance is a serious undercount (Mea Culpa!). He is positive that at least 1,000 people were in attendance, & backs it up.
"Friday, one thousand Bay Area Catholics gathered outside the Federal Building in San Francisco to celebrate America’s exceptional guarantee of freedom of religion, and defend against an unprecedented assault by the Obama Administration...."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Sunday, March 25, 2012
San Francisco Rally for Religious Freedom Video
A guy called Braddah Randy has lots of video from the "Stand up for Religious Freedom" rally. Here is just one, of His Excellency Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, the first speaker:
And here is Dolores Meehan:
And here is Dolores Meehan:
Friday, March 23, 2012
"Get the Government out of our Church!"
The rally was organized by the Walter and Lori Hoye and Mrs. Joni Durling. Mary Beth Bonacci of RealLove.net was mistress of ceremonies.
The HHS mandate was seen to present such a clear and present danger to basic American freedoms that even normally subdued and conciliatory speakers such as Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, San Francisco Archdiocesean Director of Public Policy George Wesolek, and Bill May, President of Catholics for the Common Good, were moved to vehemence.
Bishop Cordileone described the HHS mandate not as a Catholic or Christian issue, nor as one just affecting people of faith, but as an issue that affects all Americans as Americans. He related a conversation he had with his mother about the mandate. She told him “This (religious freedom) is what the pilgrims came to this country for!" The bishop continued “If my 85 year-old mother, who never went to college, can understand this, why is it so hard for our elected officials?...How dare the government define for us what constitutes our religious faith? Get the Government out of our church!"
George Wesolek began by describing an order of religious sisters who came to San Francisco in the late 1800’s. He recalled that they founded orphanages, began institutions to minister to the sick, and schools to educate the young, then observed that according to the mandate that would no longer be considered religious expression: “That is not a religious expression? Unbelievable!” As Wesolek enumerated the objections to the mandate, he paused at the end of each statement as the crowd shouted with him “Unbelievable!” Wesolek closed by saying “Mr. Obama, let Christians practice their faith as they see fit…we will not be confined to the Churches. That is not our mission!”
Wesolek was followed by Ms. Reggie Littlejohn of “Women’s Rights Without Frontiers” who noted ominous parallels between the HHS Mandate and the situation in China, where churches are only allowed to practice their faith at the whim of a communist government.
Even the normally soft spoken Bill May, President of Catholics for the Common Good, led the crowd in a chant. He related how some medical schools have, due to legalized abortion, removed the section of the Hippocratic Oath which says “First, do no harm.” May said “This (the mandate) causes harm…don’t force us to do harm!” As with Wesolek, following each of May’s statements the crowd responded “We will not do harm!”
Enrique Morales, Jr., co-pastor of Iglesia de Cristo Nuevo Pacto in San Francisco told the crowd “This is a sound of liberty. This is not a test of the emergency broadcast system. This is the real thing. Let freedom ring! Let freedom ring in San Francisco, in New York, in Dallas, in Washington DC! Let freedom ring across this country!”
Dolores Meehan, co-founder of the Walk for Life West Coast began by saying “I’m here with my rosary, and I’m here with my ovaries, and I’m here to tell you I’m not leaving either of them at home! Women will not be used to further your agenda!” She continued “You are trying to take our basic rights away by executive order. Well, come and get us. Game on. Send you National Guard to close down our secondary schools, our hospitals. The answer is simply ‘no.’ No man in the White House, no man in the Kremlin, no Chairman Mao, no Fidel Castro, no Barack Obama can take these rights away.”
The final speaker was Father Joseph Fessio,SJ of Ignatius Press. He told the crowd that when Obama was elected, "some people thought they were voting for a Messiah. Last month, he performed a true miracle... He united all of the Catholic bishops in the U.S!"
The rally closed with a short statement of thanks and encouragement by organizer Walter Hoye, followed by Diana Nagy performing America the Beautiful. Ms. Nagy also encouraged rally attendees to pick up any trash in the plaza before leaving, even if it was already there, because “that is who we are.”
Six or seven protestors attempted to disrupt the rally but the SFPD and Department of Homeland Security moved them to the margins of the rally. They began the old “Not the church, not the state…” chant but were drowned out by rally attendees singing the Ave Maria.
Photo of Bishop Cordileone courtesy John Herreid. For more of John's photo of the rally, go here.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Religious Freedom Rallies Begin: Cleveland
I'm off to the rally at San Francisco's Federal Building, which begins at noon, but here is an early clip from one of the other rallies around the nation. This is from Cleveland:
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Why Not?
The case against same-sex “marriage” is found in the TFP’s pamphlet "10 Reasons Why Homosexual 'Marriage' is Harmful and Must be Opposed.” The reasons given are:
1. It is not "Marriage.
2. It violates Natural Law.
3. It always denies a child either a father or a mother.
4. It validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle.
5. It turns a moral wrong into a civil right.
6. It does not create a "family," but a naturally sterile union.
7. It defeats the state's purpose of benefitting marriage.
8. It imposes its acceptance on all society.
9. It is the cutting edge of the sexual revolution.
10. Most importantly, it offends God.
Traditional, Family and Property
1. It is not "Marriage.
2. It violates Natural Law.
3. It always denies a child either a father or a mother.
4. It validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle.
5. It turns a moral wrong into a civil right.
6. It does not create a "family," but a naturally sterile union.
7. It defeats the state's purpose of benefitting marriage.
8. It imposes its acceptance on all society.
9. It is the cutting edge of the sexual revolution.
10. Most importantly, it offends God.
Traditional, Family and Property
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Opening FRIDAY! "October Baby"
This Friday, "October Baby," the story of a baby who survived an abortion, will open in theaters across the U.S. Fr. Frank Pavone calls the film "a major blessing" to the pro-life movement. To find a theater near you, and learn more about the movie, go here, and you can watch the trailer below:
Newest Electronic 360 Degree Scanning Technology Color Video of Human Birth
THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING EMAIL I HAVE EVER RECEIVEDI
This is a link to this video of human life from conception to birth using the
newest x-ray scanning technology that won its two inventors the Nobel Peace Prize.
Only the hadest of hearts can believe that abortion is not murder after seeing this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fKyljukBE70
This is a link to this video of human life from conception to birth using the
newest x-ray scanning technology that won its two inventors the Nobel Peace Prize.
Only the hadest of hearts can believe that abortion is not murder after seeing this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fKyljukBE70
Monday, March 19, 2012
Bishop Lori to See of Baltimore?
That is what the knowledgeable Rocco Palmo of Whispers in the Loggia is reporting. Good Bishop Lori has been at the forefront of the battle for religious freedom.
God Bless him!
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Contraception Controversy
Any paper you pick up or TV show you turn on will talk about the “contraception controversy.”
That’s how the media and the “reproductive rights” crowd have framed the Obama Administration’s outrageous demand that religious organizations violate the tenets of their faith by offering insurance to their employees that covers abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization.
But all you ever hear from newsmen or politicians is that this is all about contraception. And sadly, according to the polls anyway, they’ve been successful in shaping the argument.
Friends, this controversy is NOT about contraception. It is about the ability of the government to limit the free exercise of our religion. This is a religious liberty question.
I’ve gone out of my way in conversations with people to straighten them out on this, and it immediately changes their point of view. What’s really at stake here is whether the executive branch of the government can enforce administrative orders that violate the Constitution and trample upon the Bill of Rights.
If Christians are to do anything in the public square today, it is to raise the rallying cry of freedom. Remember freedom is the created condition of humans made in the image of God, who Himself is free. This is being taken away from us right under our noses.
You are one of the 525,000 people who have signed the Manhattan Declaration. If you and every single signer would explain this issue in simple terms to your neighbors, we would turn the polls around. This is a winning issue for us, but only if we do not allow the other side to frame the debate.
The case is simple; it is not about contraception. It is about religious liberty, the first of all our freedoms.
Chuck Colson
That’s how the media and the “reproductive rights” crowd have framed the Obama Administration’s outrageous demand that religious organizations violate the tenets of their faith by offering insurance to their employees that covers abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization.
But all you ever hear from newsmen or politicians is that this is all about contraception. And sadly, according to the polls anyway, they’ve been successful in shaping the argument.
Friends, this controversy is NOT about contraception. It is about the ability of the government to limit the free exercise of our religion. This is a religious liberty question.
I’ve gone out of my way in conversations with people to straighten them out on this, and it immediately changes their point of view. What’s really at stake here is whether the executive branch of the government can enforce administrative orders that violate the Constitution and trample upon the Bill of Rights.
If Christians are to do anything in the public square today, it is to raise the rallying cry of freedom. Remember freedom is the created condition of humans made in the image of God, who Himself is free. This is being taken away from us right under our noses.
You are one of the 525,000 people who have signed the Manhattan Declaration. If you and every single signer would explain this issue in simple terms to your neighbors, we would turn the polls around. This is a winning issue for us, but only if we do not allow the other side to frame the debate.
The case is simple; it is not about contraception. It is about religious liberty, the first of all our freedoms.
Chuck Colson
Friday, March 16, 2012
The Woman Who Terrifies the Culture of Death
She is Gianna Jensen, who survived an abortion.
Tell HER she is not a person. Tell HER she is a different person from the unborn Gianna. Tell HER the scars she bears were inflicted on a non-person.
Ms. Jensen will be speaking at First Resort's 28th Annual Spring Fundraising Dinner at the Hyatt Regency in Burlingame. The dinner will be on May 11.
You can support First Resort's great work here.
Tell HER she is not a person. Tell HER she is a different person from the unborn Gianna. Tell HER the scars she bears were inflicted on a non-person.
Ms. Jensen will be speaking at First Resort's 28th Annual Spring Fundraising Dinner at the Hyatt Regency in Burlingame. The dinner will be on May 11.
You can support First Resort's great work here.
Defense of Marriage is a Matter of Justice
On March 9, Pope Benedict spoke to the American Bishops in Rome, and reminded them (not that the Bishops needed it) what the the defense of marriage is ultimately about:
"Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike."
The defense of marriage is a defense of the common good of society, and the redefinition of marriage is an attempt to put special interests above the common good. It's destructive and self-destructive, since attacks the common good, if successful, harm those doing the attacking.
"Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike."
The defense of marriage is a defense of the common good of society, and the redefinition of marriage is an attempt to put special interests above the common good. It's destructive and self-destructive, since attacks the common good, if successful, harm those doing the attacking.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Take Three Minutes
Do you remember the famous ABC radio news commentator Paul Harvey? Millions of Americans listened to his programs which were broadcast over 1,200 radio stations nationwide.
The following commentary was broadcast 47 years ago.... April 3, 1965. I
hope you will listen to this.
It's short less than 3 minutes.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJc8Mzg0C-c&feature=player_embedded
Jim Kalb on the Inevitable Totalitarianism of "Liberalism"
Here is a sample, from his article at ISI's "First Principles:"
"Because all preferences are equally preferences, and there are no higher goods that allow us to judge one better than another, all have an equal claim to fulfillment. Maximum equal preference satisfaction thus becomes the uniquely rational guide for ordering society.
As the supreme guide to a just social order, that principle of maximum equal satisfaction is considered worthy of a loyalty that trumps all others. For that reason it naturally receives a quasi-religious interpretation, one that sanctifies individual feelings and purposes as the source and goal of all value. Such an outlook has become the criterion for what amounts to a public religious orthodoxy: liberal religion, which affirms the equal dignity of values, is good and beneficial; antiliberal religion, which proposes a substantive higher standard, is dangerous and oppressive....
In any event, it is less a government’s conception of the good that makes it tolerant than its willingness to put up with other conceptions. In that regard there is nothing intrinsically tolerant about liberalism. To the contrary, liberalism is an evolving outlook based on abstractions whose demands expand without limit. In practice it tries to root out one illiberal arrangement after another, and becomes more and more intolerant of competing views and practices. A nonliberal government that views, say, Christian virtue as the ultimate goal of social order will try to facilitate it in various ways, but it is also likely to accept that virtue cannot be coerced, and so adopt a laissez-faire attitude in many respects. A liberal government that aims at equal preference satisfaction and that takes a technological approach to the social order is likely to notice that people inconvenience each other in ways that are unjust by its standards and conclude that a comprehensive system of politically correct supervision, indoctrination, and control is needed to keep them from doing so. Which government will be more tolerant in practice?"
"Because all preferences are equally preferences, and there are no higher goods that allow us to judge one better than another, all have an equal claim to fulfillment. Maximum equal preference satisfaction thus becomes the uniquely rational guide for ordering society.
As the supreme guide to a just social order, that principle of maximum equal satisfaction is considered worthy of a loyalty that trumps all others. For that reason it naturally receives a quasi-religious interpretation, one that sanctifies individual feelings and purposes as the source and goal of all value. Such an outlook has become the criterion for what amounts to a public religious orthodoxy: liberal religion, which affirms the equal dignity of values, is good and beneficial; antiliberal religion, which proposes a substantive higher standard, is dangerous and oppressive....
In any event, it is less a government’s conception of the good that makes it tolerant than its willingness to put up with other conceptions. In that regard there is nothing intrinsically tolerant about liberalism. To the contrary, liberalism is an evolving outlook based on abstractions whose demands expand without limit. In practice it tries to root out one illiberal arrangement after another, and becomes more and more intolerant of competing views and practices. A nonliberal government that views, say, Christian virtue as the ultimate goal of social order will try to facilitate it in various ways, but it is also likely to accept that virtue cannot be coerced, and so adopt a laissez-faire attitude in many respects. A liberal government that aims at equal preference satisfaction and that takes a technological approach to the social order is likely to notice that people inconvenience each other in ways that are unjust by its standards and conclude that a comprehensive system of politically correct supervision, indoctrination, and control is needed to keep them from doing so. Which government will be more tolerant in practice?"
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Marvelous Alan Keyes Clip Defending Marriage
Mr. Keyes is actually doing more than defending marriage--he is defending reality. As we have said many times, same-sex "marriage" is a counterfeit of marriage. This clip is from the 2004 Senate Race between Alan Keyes and Barack Obama. We had never seen it before.
Pamela Geller Nails NY Times Anti-Catholic Bias
We had not commented on the NY Times publishing of a scurrilous anti-Catholic ad last week, because that is what we expect from them, but Ms. Pamela Geller's response is too damning to to ignore. She created a virtually identical ad, except that the words "Catholic" and "Islam" were transposed.
Did the Times print it? No.
Visit her website to see the two ads, and the Times laughable rationalizations.
Did the Times print it? No.
Visit her website to see the two ads, and the Times laughable rationalizations.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Evangelicals Greet Occupiers in SF
On Saturday, some of our Evangelical brothers and sisters, bless them, reached out to the the "Occupy SF" group down on Market St.
The photojournalist Larry in SF at Fund 47 captured the action. Here's one photo of the Evangelicals sharing the Good News:
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The War Goes On
The issue of same-sex marriage has been in the headlines in recent days in Britain. Responding to Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposal to legalize same-sex marriage, Edinburgh’s archbishop, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, wrote an article in last Sunday’s edition of the Telegraph newspaper on the topic.
“Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists,” he said.
Re-defining marriage will have huge repercussions on society, the prelate warned.
“Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?,” he asked.
The institution of marriage predates any state or government, he explained. “It was not created by governments and should not be changed by them.”
Profoundly radical
A number of press reports say that this Sunday a pastoral letter will be read out in all churches in England and Wales on the topic of same-sex marriage. It is reportedly authored by the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, and the Archbishop of Southwark, Peter Smith.
Redefining marriage to include homosexuals would be a “profoundly radical step” stripping it of its “distinctive nature,” according to copies of the letter published by the press. The definition of marriage is much more than a matter of public opinion, the letter affirms. “Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility,” the bishops say.
“This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself.”
The government has shown no signs of backing down from its commitment to legalizing same-sex marriage. “If a couple . . . want to commit to a life together, this Government believes they should have the option of a civil marriage irrespective of sexual orientation,”
. LONDON, MARCH 7, 2012 (Zenit.org).-
“Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists,” he said.
Re-defining marriage will have huge repercussions on society, the prelate warned.
“Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?,” he asked.
The institution of marriage predates any state or government, he explained. “It was not created by governments and should not be changed by them.”
Profoundly radical
A number of press reports say that this Sunday a pastoral letter will be read out in all churches in England and Wales on the topic of same-sex marriage. It is reportedly authored by the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, and the Archbishop of Southwark, Peter Smith.
Redefining marriage to include homosexuals would be a “profoundly radical step” stripping it of its “distinctive nature,” according to copies of the letter published by the press. The definition of marriage is much more than a matter of public opinion, the letter affirms. “Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility,” the bishops say.
“This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself.”
The government has shown no signs of backing down from its commitment to legalizing same-sex marriage. “If a couple . . . want to commit to a life together, this Government believes they should have the option of a civil marriage irrespective of sexual orientation,”
. LONDON, MARCH 7, 2012 (Zenit.org).-
Bishp Soto: Let the Church say AMEN!
Good Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento has moved to prevent parishioners dollars going to support an organization whose leader publicly supports positions in violation of non-negotiable Church teaching.Catholic World News reports:
"The Diocese of Sacramento will no longer donate funds to Francis House Center, an agency that assists the homeless, because its new director is a Methodist minister who supports legalized abortion and same-sex marriage."
The mainstream media's "go-to guy" when a faux-Catholic opinion is wanted, Fr. Thomas Reese, ex-editor of America magazine, offered this strange and naive comment:
“If the bishops are going to defund every organization headed by someone who disagrees with their views on gay marriage, birth control and abortion, they are going to find very few agencies to fund."
Photo courtesy Sacramento Bee.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Must Read Post at CatholicVote.org
Tom Peters describes the recent meeting between USCCB staffers an the White House:
Cardinal Dolan: White House Lectured My USCCB Staff On How to Interpret Catholic Teaching!
Peters links to the letter Cardinal Dolan sent out after the meeting. The letter is very good, but we do take issue with this sentence:
"Instead, they (the White House) advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the 'enlightened' voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America."
Eminence, "fortune" had nothing to with it. It's a mistake to believe, or to pretend, that people like the editors of America are on the side of the Church.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Cardinal Dolan: White House Lectured My USCCB Staff On How to Interpret Catholic Teaching!
Peters links to the letter Cardinal Dolan sent out after the meeting. The letter is very good, but we do take issue with this sentence:
"Instead, they (the White House) advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the 'enlightened' voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America."
Eminence, "fortune" had nothing to with it. It's a mistake to believe, or to pretend, that people like the editors of America are on the side of the Church.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Bishop Cordileone to Headline SF's "Stand up for Religious Freedom" Rally
Join us at San Francisco's Federal Building at 12 noon on March 23, as we join defenders of the Constitution and supporters of religious liberty around the country as we oppose Obama's UnAmerican HHHS Mandate and "Stand Up For Religious Freedom!"
The San Francisco rally is being organized by the great Rev Walter Hoye. Here are the details, and check out the speakers:
"Religious leaders of many faiths, all across the country, have joined all 181 Catholic Bishops in denouncing the HHS Mandate as an assault on religious liberty and freedom of conscience. NOW it's time for direct, grassroots ACTIVISM — right here in the San Francisco Bay Area! Pro-lifers in our town are joining with others all over the country in staging a NATIONWIDE RALLY to take place coast to coast on March 23 at Noon.
OVER 60 CITIES AND TOWNS have signed on to join the Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom — including San Francisco!
YOU are now invited to take part in this historic event:
·What: RALLY FOR
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
·When: Friday, March 23,
Noon
·Where: San Francisco U.S.
Federal Building
·Address: 90 Seventh St.,
San Francisco
TO DATE the peaceful
Rally will include the following guest speakers:
·Bishop Salvatore
Cordileone, (Bishop of Oakland)
·Dolores Meehan, (San Francisco
Walk for Life West Coast)
·Reggie Littlejohn, (Women's Rights
Without Frontiers)
·George Wesolek (Public Policy,
Archdiocese of San Francisco)
·Kevin McGary, (Frederick
Douglass Foundation of California)
·Gary Wagner, (Pastor, Reformed
Heritage Church)
·Antoine Lamar Miller, (Pastor, Chosen
Vessels Christian Church)
·Father Joseph
Fessio, SJ, (Ignatius Press)
·William B. May, (President,
Catholics for the Common Good)
·Enrique Morales, (Pastor, San Francisco House of Prayer)
Sunday, March 4, 2012
St. Mary's College of Moraga Hosts Abortion Activist
Keynote Speaker Worked With Planned Parenthood/co-founded group that Paid For Abortions
On Saturday, March 3, St. Mary’s College of Moraga hosted the “Wo/men’s Conference 2012.” The event was held at the college’s Soda Activity Center. The event description says, in part: “Our Catholic heritage charges us to ‘defend the goodness, dignity, and freedom of each person, and to foster sensitivity to social and ethical concerns,’ which are principles evident in the mission of Saint Mary's College of California.”
But the keynote speaker for the event gives the lie to any connection with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The keynoter is a writer, lecturer, and “abortion rights advocate” named Amy Richards. She is co-founder of the “Third Wave Foundation.” Her bio on the “Soapbox” website says, in part: “Amy’s leadership and visionary work launched her as a primary spokesperson and leading voice for young feminist issues and for the past fifteen years Amy has assumed that role by lecturing at hundreds of venues, writing books and articles about feminism today, and making numerous media appearances all in an attempt to confirm that younger people are making bold and transformative contributions to their communities.”
Bold indeed. On July 18, 2004, in the New York Times column “When One is Enough” Ms. Richards related to Amy Barrett her justifications for killing two of her three children. When Richards found out she was pregnant with triplets, her response was in equal parts chilling and oblivious:
“My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to…Having felt physically fine up to this point, I got on the subway afterward, and all of a sudden, I felt ill. I didn't want to eat anything. What I was going through seemed like a very unnatural experience. On the subway, Peter asked, ‘Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.’ Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.”
The organizers co-opting of Catholic teaching to justify the presence of such a speaker is obscene.
On July 28, 2004 the Times decided to run an addendum to their original column, which noted: “The column identified Ms. Richards as a freelancer at the time of her pregnancy but should have also disclosed that she is an abortion rights advocate who has worked with Planned Parenthood, as well as a co-founder of a feminist organization, the Third Wave Foundation, which has financed abortions.”
The Times’ statement that Ms. Richards “worked with Planned Parenthood” can be elaborated. On the “Prostitution” page of procon.org (where Ms. Richards argued that prostitution should be legalized) her “affiliations and institutions” are listed. They include her being a board member of “Choice USA” and serving on the “Council of Advocates” for Planned Parenthood New York City.
The phrase “financed abortions” in the Times addendum refers to the Third Wave Foundation’s “Emergency Abortion Fund.” The Third Wave’s “Emergency Abortion Fund” began in 1998 and was in existence until 2011. Its mission statement reads “Through the Emergency Abortion Fund, we have granted more than $200,000 to over 2,000 people. In order to make best use of our resources and expertise, Third Wave will no longer operate our own abortion fund, but will continue to fund organizations working to ensure reproductive freedom, including access to safe and affordable abortion.”
Other speakers and workshops at the event were benign compared to Ms. Richards—but only in the sense that a tumor can sometimes be considered “benign.” Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, who represents California’s 15th District, led one workshop. She has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, a 100% rating from NARAL, and a 100% rating from Equality California. Another workshop was called “Her, Their, Hir: What Wo/men’s Spaces Mean for Gender Variant Individuals” presented by Mckenzie Mullen, vice-president of the Queer Alliance at the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco.
The conference did include some pro-life and genuine Catholic groups. Representatives from the Gabriel Project, First Resort/Rachel's Vineyard, Bethany Christian Services, and Alpha Pregnancy Center manned tables at the event’s “Opportunities Fair.”
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
On Saturday, March 3, St. Mary’s College of Moraga hosted the “Wo/men’s Conference 2012.” The event was held at the college’s Soda Activity Center. The event description says, in part: “Our Catholic heritage charges us to ‘defend the goodness, dignity, and freedom of each person, and to foster sensitivity to social and ethical concerns,’ which are principles evident in the mission of Saint Mary's College of California.”
But the keynote speaker for the event gives the lie to any connection with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The keynoter is a writer, lecturer, and “abortion rights advocate” named Amy Richards. She is co-founder of the “Third Wave Foundation.” Her bio on the “Soapbox” website says, in part: “Amy’s leadership and visionary work launched her as a primary spokesperson and leading voice for young feminist issues and for the past fifteen years Amy has assumed that role by lecturing at hundreds of venues, writing books and articles about feminism today, and making numerous media appearances all in an attempt to confirm that younger people are making bold and transformative contributions to their communities.”
Bold indeed. On July 18, 2004, in the New York Times column “When One is Enough” Ms. Richards related to Amy Barrett her justifications for killing two of her three children. When Richards found out she was pregnant with triplets, her response was in equal parts chilling and oblivious:
“My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to…Having felt physically fine up to this point, I got on the subway afterward, and all of a sudden, I felt ill. I didn't want to eat anything. What I was going through seemed like a very unnatural experience. On the subway, Peter asked, ‘Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.’ Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.”
The organizers co-opting of Catholic teaching to justify the presence of such a speaker is obscene.
On July 28, 2004 the Times decided to run an addendum to their original column, which noted: “The column identified Ms. Richards as a freelancer at the time of her pregnancy but should have also disclosed that she is an abortion rights advocate who has worked with Planned Parenthood, as well as a co-founder of a feminist organization, the Third Wave Foundation, which has financed abortions.”
The Times’ statement that Ms. Richards “worked with Planned Parenthood” can be elaborated. On the “Prostitution” page of procon.org (where Ms. Richards argued that prostitution should be legalized) her “affiliations and institutions” are listed. They include her being a board member of “Choice USA” and serving on the “Council of Advocates” for Planned Parenthood New York City.
The phrase “financed abortions” in the Times addendum refers to the Third Wave Foundation’s “Emergency Abortion Fund.” The Third Wave’s “Emergency Abortion Fund” began in 1998 and was in existence until 2011. Its mission statement reads “Through the Emergency Abortion Fund, we have granted more than $200,000 to over 2,000 people. In order to make best use of our resources and expertise, Third Wave will no longer operate our own abortion fund, but will continue to fund organizations working to ensure reproductive freedom, including access to safe and affordable abortion.”
Other speakers and workshops at the event were benign compared to Ms. Richards—but only in the sense that a tumor can sometimes be considered “benign.” Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, who represents California’s 15th District, led one workshop. She has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, a 100% rating from NARAL, and a 100% rating from Equality California. Another workshop was called “Her, Their, Hir: What Wo/men’s Spaces Mean for Gender Variant Individuals” presented by Mckenzie Mullen, vice-president of the Queer Alliance at the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco.
The conference did include some pro-life and genuine Catholic groups. Representatives from the Gabriel Project, First Resort/Rachel's Vineyard, Bethany Christian Services, and Alpha Pregnancy Center manned tables at the event’s “Opportunities Fair.”
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Friday, March 2, 2012
House Urged to Repeal Contraception Regulations
WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 1, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Bishop Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, chair of the US bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, spoke about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Forcing employers to pay for sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, has “absurd consequences,” he said.
The February 10 changes to the original plan announced by President Barack Obama “would not change the scope of the mandate and its exemption,” he said.
“For present purposes, the ‘accommodation’ is just a legally unenforceable promise to alter the way the mandate would still apply to those who are still not exempt from it,” he said. He added that “the promised alteration appears logically impossible.”
The fundamental issue at stake, Bishop Lori explained, “is a matter of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the government to provide coverage for contraception or sterilization, even if that violates their religious beliefs.”
He also questioned why sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients are requirements of the health care act while decisions on prescription drugs and hospitalization that are supposed to be “essential” are “handed off to each state.”
Ardent opposition
Jeanne Monohan, director of the Family Research Council's (FRC) Center for Human Dignity, also gave testimony on Tuesday.
"In a letter to the President and members of Congress recently signed by thousands of women of 18 different faiths and representing doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, mothers, community care workers, business owners, scholars and more women voiced their ardent opposition to the mandate,” she told the committee.
“We call on President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and our representatives in Congress to respect religious voices, to respect religious liberty, and to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to provide witness to their faiths in all their fullness,” the letter stated.
"The contraceptive mandate is an unprecedented directive which deeply conflicts with religious and conscience freedom protections the American people currently receive," said Monohan.
“In our democratic society governed by the U.S. Constitution, it is not the role of this Administration to dictate what does or does not violate another person's conscience on matters as critical as life and death,” she added.
“We urge you not to allow this President to discriminate against those with moral or religious objections to this mandate coverage of contraceptives, sterilization services, and abortifacients," she said.
--- --- ---
Forcing employers to pay for sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, has “absurd consequences,” he said.
The February 10 changes to the original plan announced by President Barack Obama “would not change the scope of the mandate and its exemption,” he said.
“For present purposes, the ‘accommodation’ is just a legally unenforceable promise to alter the way the mandate would still apply to those who are still not exempt from it,” he said. He added that “the promised alteration appears logically impossible.”
The fundamental issue at stake, Bishop Lori explained, “is a matter of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the government to provide coverage for contraception or sterilization, even if that violates their religious beliefs.”
He also questioned why sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients are requirements of the health care act while decisions on prescription drugs and hospitalization that are supposed to be “essential” are “handed off to each state.”
Ardent opposition
Jeanne Monohan, director of the Family Research Council's (FRC) Center for Human Dignity, also gave testimony on Tuesday.
"In a letter to the President and members of Congress recently signed by thousands of women of 18 different faiths and representing doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, mothers, community care workers, business owners, scholars and more women voiced their ardent opposition to the mandate,” she told the committee.
“We call on President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and our representatives in Congress to respect religious voices, to respect religious liberty, and to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to provide witness to their faiths in all their fullness,” the letter stated.
"The contraceptive mandate is an unprecedented directive which deeply conflicts with religious and conscience freedom protections the American people currently receive," said Monohan.
“In our democratic society governed by the U.S. Constitution, it is not the role of this Administration to dictate what does or does not violate another person's conscience on matters as critical as life and death,” she added.
“We urge you not to allow this President to discriminate against those with moral or religious objections to this mandate coverage of contraceptives, sterilization services, and abortifacients," she said.
--- --- ---
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Democrats Trade Constitution for "Free" Birth Control
Intolerable.
The vote was 51-48 against the Blunt Amendment. Three Democrats switched sides to support the Constitution, and one Republican, retiring Olympia Snowe of Maine abandoned the Constitition for free birth control.
I used to think there was a contradiction between being a good Catholic and a member of the Democratic party--now I think there's a contradiction between being a good American and a member of the Democratic party.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
The vote was 51-48 against the Blunt Amendment. Three Democrats switched sides to support the Constitution, and one Republican, retiring Olympia Snowe of Maine abandoned the Constitition for free birth control.
I used to think there was a contradiction between being a good Catholic and a member of the Democratic party--now I think there's a contradiction between being a good American and a member of the Democratic party.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Double Standard?
An article in the Wall Street Journal reports that when Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue.
Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets.
There's no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.
President Obama, by contrast, gets a pass because everyone understands—nudge nudge, wink wink—that he's not telling the truth. The press understands that this is just one of those things a Democratic candidate has to say so he doesn't rile up the great unwashed.
Does double standard apply to Demoracts or only Republicans?
Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets.
There's no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.
President Obama, by contrast, gets a pass because everyone understands—nudge nudge, wink wink—that he's not telling the truth. The press understands that this is just one of those things a Democratic candidate has to say so he doesn't rile up the great unwashed.
Does double standard apply to Demoracts or only Republicans?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
