Pope Francis’s Disordered Exhortation

From Pope Francis's Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exusultate:

101. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection...

102. We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions …

Emphasis added. The New York Times correctly noted that Francis’s argument here is: 

“consistent with a view articulated by Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin, the archbishop of Chicago who died in 1996, and who called for a ‘consistent ethic of life’ that wove issues of life and social justice into a ‘seamless garment.’”

Before you can have a garment (seamless or otherwise) you have to have cloth. The right to life is not part of the seamless garment—it is the cloth from which the garment is made. To put the right to life on the same level as “the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection” as Francis does, is disordered.

Kristor on counterfeit "gay marriage"

Kristor writes over at the Othosphere:

"...no one is ever really fooled by such linguistic or legal circumlocutions and euphemisms. Whatever it is that homosexuals will get when homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land – as seems likely to happen this summer, when the Supreme Court takes up the matter – it won’t be the true and honest social approval for their arrangements that is given to real marriage, and that they so want. None of the actual, ineluctable differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality will be changed by the legal fiction. Thus it won’t be homosexual relations that are ennobled by the new PC code; rather, the term 'marriage,' and all the social appurtenances thereto, will be debased, in exactly the way that currency is debased by artificial inflation."

It's the argument we have been making for years. It remains to be seen if counterfeit marriage becomes the law of the land, of course. If so, not only does the term marriage 'and all the social appurtenances thereto' become debased, the law itself becomes debased, just as the term 'American' is becoming debased.

Speaking of Law, a sad story with a very nice aspect

From Lenore Skenazy, writing at Reason.com:


Pedophile Panic at the Salvation Army: No Teen Boys Allowed-Too Dangerous

"When it comes to helping families in need, the Salvation Army turns a cold shoulder to one class of people: Teenage boys. A family in Johnson City, TN, found this out recently when, on a freezing cold night, they asked the organization for shelter. But because their family of five contained a 15-year-old boy, they were turned down.

As the dad, Tim Lejeune, explained to WMC Action News 5:

'They said he's too old to stay on the women's side, because of the women running around in their pajamas and they said he's too young to stay on the men's side in case some pervert wants to do whatever,' Lejeune said.

Lejeune says his wife, their 15 year-old son, 16 year-old daughter and five year-old son, all down on their luck, have been living in their car for the last several weeks.

So instead the family headed to their car. The temperature: 18 degrees.

Somehow, local police officers came upon them and brought them to the Johnson Inn. The officers then pooled their money to pay for a room. When the night clerk figured out what was going on, he comped the room, so the officers' money went to groceries for the family.

Meantime, 911 dispatchers who had been in on the action pooled their money to provide the Lejeunes some more food.

And after that, the Salvation Army did take the family in—minus the teen boy.

He's not sleeping on the streets. He's now in a mental health facility. He had a breakdown, his dad says, because he thought it was his fault the family was turned away from shelter.

I blame a society so obsessed with sex crimes and predators that it has lost its mind. It cannot imagine a 15-year-old male, chilled to the bone, simply and gratefully sleeping through the night. In our worst-first fantasies, which we give the weight of fact, all young men are either innocent victims about to be violated by predators, or predators eager to prey upon innocent victims.

The Salvation Army told WMC it is now reconsidering its longstanding prejudice against teen boys.

That should make us all sleep a little easier."

Emphasis added. God bless the good police officers, the good motel clerk, and the good 911 operators!

Now that the Feruson dust has settled...

MICHAEL BROWN WAS NOT A VICTIM.

Steve Sailer reflects on the 2014 elections

The interesting Steve Sailer analyzes the recent elections, and the direction American society is taking.


Core Vs. Fringe, Cont'd: Media Starts To Catch Up On Sailor Strategy

"I’ve been analyzing elections since 2000, [GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote.November 28, 2000] and, ever so slowly, some of my insights are starting to become conventional wisdom.

For example, following the 2014 elections and the sputtering of the Democrats’ 'Republican War on Women' strategy, it’s not quite as much of a secret anymore that the little known Marriage Gap is usually larger than the celebrated Gender Gap. George Hawley, a professor of political science at the U. of Alabama, writes in his informative new book White Voters in 21st Century America:

'Steve Sailer is one of the few journalists who began writing extensively on the marriage gap long before the 2012 presidential election.'[P. 125]

(I find Sailor's novel breakdown of statistics to be fascinating. Example: following the 2004 elections, David Brooks, writing in the New York Times, said "As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates.")

Moreover, it may finally be sinking in that the Hispanic Tidal Wave doesn’t really look like the one in Interstellar.

What other ideas might pop up next? Perhaps the inherent fragility and divisiveness of the Democrats’ Coalition of the Diverse? ...."

Read the whole thing.

Supreme Court justices wash hands over fate of family

What an abdication of responsibility. Our good Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chairman of the USCCB’s Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, and Bishop Richard J. Malone, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth released this statement today.

Their Excellencies highlight the justices abdication of responsibility, and articulate the truth of what marriage is.

"Upholding the inviolable dignity of every human person is a duty for all, and this duty entails the defense of the unique meaning of marriage as between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up any of the cases striking down state laws reflecting the authentic meaning of marriage in five states is extremely disappointing and surprising. All of these state laws were democratically enacted, including most by the direct vote of large majorities within just the last decade. Millions of Americans had looked to the Court with hope that these unjust judicial decisions might be reversed. Instead, as a result of the Supreme Court’s action today, those decisions are allowed to take effect. Furthermore, marriage laws in six other states are now in jeopardy.

Marriage is and can only be between a man and a woman—a unique relationship in which the state has a vested interest. It is the only institution that unites a wife and a husband together for life and unites them to any children that come from their union. This truth presumes and supports the equal dignity of all people, especially of children whose right to a mother and a father deserves the utmost legal protection. The Supreme Court’s action fails to resolve immediately the injustice of marriage redefinition, and therefore should be of grave concern to our entire nation.

Globally, we are at a time of recognizing the decisive importance of marriage and the family when it comes to addressing challenges of poverty and serving the good of all. This is a time when marriage needs to be strengthened, not redefined. Our young people need encouragement to embrace the gift and responsibility of marriage as it truly is—a permanent, faithful, and fruitful gift of self between a man and a woman. May all of us continue to work to strengthen and protect marriage and stand for justice for all, especially children, who are the most vulnerable."

Knights of Columbus Promise Matching Funds for People of Iraq!

Displaced Christians in Iraq.
Photo/Khalid Mohammad/AP.

God bless the Knights! From Catholic News Agency:

"New Haven, Conn., Aug 12, 2014 / 02:54 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Knights of Columbus have established a matching fund to assist Christians and other religious minorities facing severe persecution or displacement in Iraq and nearby countries.

“The unprovoked and systematic persecution and violent elimination of Middle East Christians, as well as other minority groups, especially in Iraq, has created an enormous humanitarian crisis,” Supreme Knight Carl Anderson said Aug. 12.

“It has shocked the conscience of the world that people are systematically being purged from the region where their families have lived for millennia – simply for their faith,” Anderson continued.

“It is imperative that we stand in solidarity with them in defense of the freedom of conscience, and provide them with whatever relief we can.”

In addition to an initial pledge of $500,000, the Catholic fraternal organization will match another $500,000 in donations from the public.

Militants with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL or ISIS, have seized large areas of Iraqi territory. They took the country’s largest Christian city, Qaraqosh, on the night of Aug. 6, forcing tens of thousands to flee.

The militants have ordered Christians and other minorities to convert, pay a tax known as a jizya, or be killed.

Anderson cited Pope Francis’ request that the world pray and support those affected by the “terrible persecution.”

“We are asking our members, and all people of good will, to pray for those persecuted and support efforts to assist them by donating to this fund,” the head of the Knights of Columbus said.

Donations may be made through the webpage www.kofc.org/Iraq or via check or money orders sent to K of C Christian Refugee Relief, Knights of Columbus Charities, P.O. Box 1966, New Haven, CT 06509-1966.

The Knights of Columbus said that 100 percent of all donations will be used for humanitarian assistance.

Knights of Columbus Charities, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) organization and donations are tax-deductible."

Second SF Demonstration for Iraqi Christians: Press Shows Up

Today, American Assyrian Christians and their supporters marched in solidarity with the Christians and other abused minorities in Iraq and Syria. The demonstration began at 11AM at San Francisco's UN Plaza, followed by a march to the Federal Building.

This time the press covered the event, something they did not do (except for an article we wrote, published by the good people at California Catholic Daily) at Saturday's larger demonstration. The San Francisco Chronicle covered the event, and Mark Matthews from NBC Bay Area was there too. That will probably appear on this evenings newscast. Here are some pictures from the event:

Mark Matthews of NBC Bay Area intervieing His Excellency Bishop Royel.

The people are very passionate--many have relatives there.

An older lady with family in Iraq. She was mad at the UN, the Pope, and President Obama for not doing enough. It's easy to understand her anger.

More protesters arrive at the plaza.

The demonstrators were of all ages.

The crowd grew--I'd say about 300 people, a lot smaller than last Saturday's demonstration. It's easier to get people on the weekend, of course.

Sr. Ignatius, RSHM, with some young women from USF.

Another shot of His Excellency Bishop Royel.

Ron Konopaski, the leader of San Francisco's 40 Days for Life campaign.

More media. Not sure who they were.

Preparing to march to the Federal Building.

A reminder from Our Lord.

Photos from the SF Rally for Iraqi Christians

On Saturday, August 2, at least 2,000 people gathered in San Francisco's Justin Herman Plaza as part of the worldwide day of solidarity with the persecuted Christians in Iraq. Many of those gathered were Assyrian Christians, with family still living back there. A number of Assyrian bishops and clergy were at the rally, as well as Congressman Jeff Denham, who represents California's 10th District in Washington DC.



Here are some pictures I took with my smart phone--clicking on a picture will give you the larger version. The rally was scheduled for 10AM, but people were still arriving right up until after 11.

His Grace Bishop Mar Awa Royel, the California bishop of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, gave the invocation. That's him in the yellow circle in the photo below.

His Grace was followed by Congressman Jeff Denham, who pleaded for Democrats and Republicans in Washington to put aside their differences, and to help the people of Iraq. The congressman i9s in the yellow circle in the photo below.

Below is another eastern Bishop who was at the rally--I did not get his name.

There were lots of very moving signs:

 

Latin Rite Catholics were there to show support for their Assyrian brothers and sisters:

That's Sr. Ignatius, and Mr. Franco Reguzzoni, a teacher from De La Salle High School in Concord holding the flag with the "We Are N" symbol attached. A shining example for his students!

And the Catholic Military families were there, too!

After the rally, our shepherds took the lead in the March to Union Square

The demonstration more than filled Union Square.

There will be another demonstration supporting the Assyrian Christians this Friday at San Francisco's United Nations Plaza. It will begin at 11:00 AM. You can find more details here:



https://www.facebook.com/events/502162026581181/

Solidarity with Iraqi Christians THIS Saturday in San Francisco

On Saturday, August 2, at 10AM in Justin Herman Plaza, Bay Area residents will join people around the world in demonstrations of solidarity with the suffering Christians in Iraq.

Iraqi Christians have been given an ultimatum by the ISIS terrorists: convert to Islam, leave Iraq, or die. (They had originally been “offered” the alternative of paying the jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslims, but that was later withdrawn.). Many are fleeing the place that has been there home for 2000 years. Men are being killed, women raped, churches far older than the United States are being destroyed. Last Saturday, ISIS blew up the Church of the Virgin Mary in Mosul:

They have also destroyed the tomb of the prophet Jonah, and even blown up mosques belonging to members of the Shia sect of Islam, with whom they disagree.  The U.S. Bishop have urged our government to take action to help our brothers and sisters in Christ: 

“The Islamic State has taken control of large swaths of territory in northern Iraq, leaving a trail of destruction, burning and looting ancient churches and mosques, homes and businesses...Thousands have fled with little more than the clothes on their backs, often being robbed of their few personal possessions as they ran.” -Bishop Richard E. Pates, the U.S. bishops’ chairman of International Justice and Peace, letter to U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice, July 25.

The worldwide protest includes London, New York, Los Angeles, Australia, many places. In San Francisco, the demonstration of solidarity will take place at 10AM, this Saturday, August 2, at Justin Herman Plaza. —here is our chance to show our support. Details may be found here.

Hobby Lobby's "Landmark victory for freedom" clarifies sides in Culture War

More positive fallout from the Hobby Lobby ruling are being noticed. Dennis Saffran, writing at City Journal calls it "a landmark victory for freedom" and notes that it may be used to defend "creative professionals" (read: bakers and photographers who do not want to be forced into supporting counterfeit "marriages").

Saffran writes:

"In sum, the immediate impact of Hobby Lobby—providing a religious accommodation to a handful of covered employers who object to a handful of covered contraceptives—will almost certainly be negligible. No hands will 'reach into a woman’s body,' and no one will be denied their free IUDs. Yet the decision may nonetheless prove a landmark victory for freedom, especially if it helps bring an end to other coercive efforts, such as the cases involving the creative professionals. At the least, Hobby Lobby carves out space for objections to modern political orthodoxy, thus infusing real meaning into the progressive mantras of 'tolerance' and 'diversity.'” 

Saffran seems to be correct--or at least some people are acting as if he is.

Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle reported:

Alarmed by Hobby Lobby, LGBT groups dump job-rights bill

"Several leading gay advocacy groups said Tuesday they are abandoning the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, commonly known as ENDA, following the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision last week."

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are moving to pass a bill that would reverse the Supreme Court's ruling, according to Talking Points Memo:

"Senate Democrats are poised to introduce legislation as early as Tuesday to reverse the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling which exempted for-profit corporations with religious owners from the Obamacare mandate to cover emergency contraceptives in their insurance plans.

The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO). According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception, to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don't permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement.

The legislation also puts the kibosh on legal challenges by religious nonprofits, like Wheaton College, instead declaring that the accommodation they're provided under the law is sufficient to respect their religious liberties. (It lets them pass the cost on to the insurer or third party administrator if they object.) Houses of worship are exempt from the mandate."

Catholics who support the Democratic Party face an irreconcilable conflict between being Catholic or a member of that party. In my opinion, that's been the case for a long time.

"Growing state absolutism" leaves "no room for the moral authority of the Church"

The great James Kalb nails it, over at Catholic World Report:

"Carrying on the Battle"

To deal with the current situation we must abandon comfort, mediocrity, and the habit of blurring our views on fundamental issues 

"The issues that now put Catholics in opposition to secular public thought are too basic to ignore. The Church accepts God as our reference point, and views freedom to develop our relation to Him and act by reference to it as basic to our good and our dignity. In contrast, secular society has made our own outlook and desires our reference point. Those things make us what we are, or so it is thought, and freedom to follow them is considered the key to a good and dignified life.

That opposition leads to views of morality and justice in which drastically different claims and authorities carry weight. The Church values conscience, and accepts 'this is right'—in general, this expresses the moral nature of a world that after all is God’s creation—as a claim that normally overrides other considerations. Today’s secular world values individual autonomy instead, and prefers the authority of claims such as 'I want this' or 'this is part of my identity as I define it.'

The contradiction is sharpened by conflicts in institutional loyalty. The Church accepts its hierarchy as the authority that defines, protects, and furthers the most fundamental human concerns. Secular society rejects that authority in favor of that of the state, with its courts, constitutional law, experts on human rights, and system of education and social welfare. At one time it was possible to reconcile the two by saying that they dealt with different matters, the Church hierarchy with fundamental spiritual and moral principles and the state with worldly practicalities and standards of conduct generally accepted as a matter of vernacular natural law (otherwise known as common sense).

That view no longer works because of growing state absolutism resulting from the decline of transcendent religion and the sense of a natural moral order. All social institutions, including the family, are now viewed as state creations, so that determining what they should be in light of ultimate values such as equality and personal autonomy is considered a basic function of government. On such an understanding there is no room for the moral authority of the Church...."

Read the whole thing.

Yuval Levin on the Hobby Lobby Case

Lots of commentary is being written on yesterday's Hobby Lobby ruling. The learned and always interesting Yuval Levin, writing at National Review, places part of the decision in a context he has written about before: how religious tolerance developed in this country and how it applies to institutions (not just individuals). This, of course, ties in to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which is in complete opposition to the totalitarianism implicit (& explicit) in today's Democratic Party. 

Here's a long excerpt from today's column (emphases added):

"The element of the Court’s decision that most perturbed many liberals—the suggestion that corporations could effectively be bearers of rights—was actually the least controversial question among the justices themselves. Only two of the nine justices, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, argued that for-profit corporations could not be considered legal persons capable of exercising religion for purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The other two liberal justices, Breyer and Kagan, declined to join that part of the dissent written by Justice Ginsburg (though they articulated no view of their own on the question), and the remaining five justices affirmed the view that rights could indeed be mediated, and so in effect put into practice, through and by for-profit corporations. .

In one sense, this is a rather obvious point. As Justice Alito argued forcefully in his majority opinion, there is no reason why people should be expected to give up their basic rights when they incorporate a business. And Justice Ginsburg’s attempt to distinguish between profit-seeking and non-profit corporations on this front, made necessary by the fact that the administration did recognize the religious-liberty claims of some corporations and not others in this case, was the very model of a muddle. (It wasn’t as disturbing as her shockingly thin idea of what constitutes religious practice, though, and of what religious institutions are for.)

But in another sense, the standing of institutions, as opposed to individuals, as bearers of rights in our civil society is a complex and much-contested question, and a very important one. This is particularly so with regard to the exercise of religion, where we are the inheritors of a long tradition—the English common-law tradition of religious toleration—that has a very mixed record when it comes to protecting institutions rather than individuals.

I’ve taken up this question a couple of times around here in recent years, but to put matters very (very) simply, that tradition was born of efforts to find a way to provide protection for Jews and protestant dissenters in a nation with an established church but specifically not to provide much protection for Catholics. It did this in large part by distinguishing between individuals and institutions. Catholicism is an exceptionally institutional religion, with massive charitable and educational arms that are Catholic but are not houses of worship and that not only employ but also serve non-Catholics. Such arms are much more rare in other religious traditions, and used to be even more so. This distinction therefore in effect once allowed for broad toleration of just about all religious minorities in Britain except Catholics. It was supported by a line of reasoning evident over centuries, and given expression even in John Locke’s great Letter Concerning Toleration, which is one of the foundational documents of the intellectual tradition of liberal toleration.

The American offshoot of this tradition of toleration has tended to think a little differently about this question, above all because we have not had an established church in the United States. We have tended to take the absence of an Anglican monopoly on legitimate religiously-rooted social institutions to mean not that there could be no such institutions at all but rather that different communities of faith could build out different institutional forms and stake out for themselves a variety of roles in civil society and the private sphere. This has meant seeing some groups of people working together, and not just individuals alone, as protected by the various forms of the right of conscience and accepting as legitimate the idea that groups of people, as well as individuals, should whenever possible be protected from forms of coercion or restraint that violate their religious beliefs. And the extension of this attitude to corporations owned and run by people with religious convictions and in the service of those convictions has been perfectly natural.

The Obama administration has been pushing up against this American form of the tradition of religious toleration (which, being Americans, we tend to call “religious liberty”) in an effort to establish a public monopoly on the aims of social action. American progressivism has always wanted to clear out the space between the individual and the state and to confer rights only on individuals, rather than encouraging people to form complex layers of interacting institutions with diverse views of the good that each pursues with vigor and conviction. The HHS mandate, like so much of the administration’s domestic agenda, is intended to turn the institutions in that space, including private corporations, into arms of the government, carrying out the will of those in power."

Hobby Lobby Ruling: "The end of the beginning."

Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious liberty, one of the foundations of our teetering civilization. Certainly we are happy with the ruling--because anything else would have been catastrophic.

But let's step back a little, historically. The fact that a government of the United States could blithely, without a second thought, compel U.S. citizens to violate their deeply held religious convictions, is outrageous. And remember: the HHS mandate not only violates the First Amendment, but threatened conscientious objectors with fines of $100 per day per employee. And for what? Free contraceptives.

Rush Limbaugh put this in perspective today:  

"In the Hobby Lobby case, narrow though it may be, the Supreme Court, by 5-4 majority decision, defended liberty. And it should be noted that even after this decision, birth control remains widely available. It is dirt cheap no matter where you want to go get it. The fact is, if you wanted to be entirely -- well, not entirely -- if you wanted to be somewhat negative about this, you could say that the most appalling thing about today's decision is that we had to even endure it, that we had to even go through this.

We had to sit on the edge of our seats to find out if people who own a for-profit company will also be allowed to exercise their religious views under our laws. The fact that that was up for grabs is an indication of where we are nationwide and where we're heading. I think it's just amazing, given that we're supposed to have freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution, it should never have been an issue. The only reason it is is because we have a political party today conducting an all-out assault on the Constitution because they don't like it."  Emphases added.

I think that is the correct way to view today's decision. Yes, it is a victory--but we are taking back ground that should never have been lost in the first place. Our situation reminds me of Churchill's statement after the second battle of El Alamein. The Nazis still held most of Africa and continental Europe, so the great Englishman, while happy with the victory, knew it needed to be put in perspective:

"This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Supremes Uphold First Amendment, End "Buffer Zones"

Good news for those of us who peacefully witness in front of abortion businesses, and for anyone who values freedom of speech. We'll see how wide the 9-0 decision can be applied.

The full opinion can be read here.

Congratulations to the attorney's who argued the case, and to our dear friend Walter Hoye, unjustly imprisoned under just such a law. Walter's attorneys had filed an amicus brief in the case.

SF Politicians try to dissuade Archbishop Cordileone from attending Marriage March

Good luck with that.

A group of San Francisco politicians is trying to convince Archbishop Salvatore Cordleone, the USCCB's point man for the defense of marriage, from attending June 19's March for Marriage in Washington, DC. The San Francisco Chronicle ran a story about it this morning, and NBC Bay Area News did a segment on it, too, in which reporter Mark Matthews interviewed me.

They cropped my segment radically, which is a pity. They asked what the feeling about same-sex marriage was at Saints Peter and Paul, and I said that “the feeling here is the feeling of the Catholic Church in general: That marriage is only between a man and a woman, anything else is not marriage.” They only aired the last sentence. You can watch the story below.

They did not air the part where Mr. Matthews said he'd spoken to people at "100 Diamond Street" (which is the address of Most Holy Redemeer) who had said that the Holy Father said not to worry about marriage, and "Who am I to judge?" I put that in context for Mr. Matthews, and added that the Holy Father had said same-sex marriage is a tool of the devil, and that Holy Father, the Bishops of the Church, and Archbishop Cordileone are all on the same page.

NBC's lack of objectivity is non-existent: their text version of the story contains a link to the petition that asks the Archbishop not to attend the March. You can learn more about the March for Marriage by visiting www.marriagemarch.org/

UPDATE: His Excellency is promoting the march in New Orleans.

From LifeSiteNews:

Defending marriage tops agenda on first day of US Bishops spring meeting

Much of the opening day of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 2014 Spring General Assembly on Wednesday was devoted to the defense and promotion of marriage.

Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee on the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, led the charge by telling his brother bishops: “We are at a critical point in this country as it comes to defense of marriage in the law.”

Archbishop Cordileone outlined the rave situation for the defense of traditional marriage and resulting threatsto religious freedom. He noted that if the Supreme Court takes up one of the state marriage amendment cases, by next June 2015 we could have a decision.

“A negative decision by the Supreme Court would undoubtedly have a profound impact on the nation,” he said. The archbishop ended by promoting the March for Marriage in Washington, DC on June 19.

Pope Francis: The Devil Wants to Destroy the Family

All on the same page...

In our last post, Bishop Paul Loverde quoted Pope Francis on the defense of marriage and the family. And here is what the Holy Father said on June 1 to 52,000 Catholics in Rome, from Vatican Insider:

Francis at Rome’s Olympic Stadium: “The devil wants to destroy the family”

"'Married couples are sinners just like everyone else, but they want to continue with love, in all its fecundity. They continue in the faith, bearing children.' This was Francis’ response to the words pronounced by a young bride who greeted Francis on behalf of all families. 'Let us pray to the Lord and ask him to protect the family in the crisis with which the devil wants to destroy it,' the Pope said. 'Families are the domestic church where Jesus grows in the love of a married couple, in the lives of their children. This is why the devil attacks the family so much,' Francis explained. The devil doesn’t want it and tries to destroy it. The devil tries to make love disappear from there.'”

The family is the image of the Blessed Trinity. We've all heard that at many homilies. That's why the devil hates it so much. He can't do anything about the Trinity, so he tries to destroy it's image, the family. And Pope Francis has been very clear from the beginning on the demonic nature of counterfeit, same-sex "marriage." Remember what he said in 2010, when same-sex "marriage" was being debated in Argentina:

"In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

Cardinal Bergoglio continued: “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

People don't like to hear that, it hurts, but it is true, despite those who have attempted to spin his "who am I to judge" statement. Let's also remember that in 2009, a year before then-Cardinal Bergoglio's statement our own good Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone (then-Bishop of Oakland) said:

"'The ultimate attack of the Evil One is the attack on marriage,' he said. 'If you take marriage apart, everything comes unraveled. It's been frayed at the edges, and now moving more and more toward the center. But you take marriage out, it all comes unraveled. It all comes tumbling down. And again, the evangelicals, they understand that. They understand this is an attack of the Evil One at the core institution.'"

Pope Francis, Archbishop Cordileone, Bishop Loverde, Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Paprocki...they're all on the same page.

Bishop Loverde of Arlington on Marriage and the Defense of the Family

Our Catholic Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome, our Holy Father Pope Francis) are united in defense of marriage and the family, God bless them! Here is a May 28 column by Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, VA:

Stand for Marriage, Stand for Faith

"Eight years ago, the will of the people of Virginia was expressed clearly and decisively as citizens cast their ballots to safeguard in the state constitution the age-old definition of marriage as between one woman and one man. At that time, along with Richmond Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo, I wrote to you about 'the unique and vital role the institution of marriage has in society' and how the result of the referendum would have 'profound significance for the future of the family, the most fundamental social structure of our society.' We noted that marriage 'had a design and purpose long before any nation, religion, or law was established,' and that 'the proper role of both church and state is one of stewardship, to preserve our Creator's great gift of marriage from one generation to the next.' Now, these words are all the more true as the challenge seems ever greater.

In the time since the vote here in Virginia, when only Massachusetts, under pressure by state court order, had redefined its marriage law, seventeen states and the District of Columbia have legalized marriage between individuals of the same sex. It is true, we have seen public opinion shift to some degree under the relentless advocacy of those who would change marriage from its basic meaning and purpose. This is all the more reason for us to make the case for marriage and its importance to children, society, and, yes, God’s plan for us.

St. John Paul II spoke of the transcendent role of marriage this way:

'In a marriage, a man and a woman pledge themselves to one another in an unbreakable alliance of total mutual self-giving. A total union of love.

Love that is not a passing emotion or temporary infatuation, but a responsible and free decision to bind oneself completely, 'in good times and in bad,' to one's partner. It is the gift of oneself to the other.
The love of husband and wife in God's plan leads beyond itself, and new life is generated, a family is born. The family is a community of love and life, a home in which children are guided to maturity.'

And Pope Francis affirms this basic teaching:

'Marriage now tends to be viewed as a form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will. But the indispensable contribution of marriage to society transcends the feelings and momentary needs of the couple,' (“Evangelii Gaudium,” n. 66).

These words truly convey the Lord’s plan for those called to marriage. It is the ideal, yes, and one we pray that all who enter into this union may achieve. Of course, there are failings sadly visible all around us — adultery and high rates of divorce, broken and suffering families — but that does not change the intrinsic worth of marriage and family willed by the Lord and proclaimed by the Church. Further, we know that traditional marriage bolsters society and is best for children. The social science is clear that children do best when raised by a mother and father in a stable marriage.

I know that some of you have resigned yourselves to the redefinition of marriage, or perhaps are not convinced that defending the true definition of marriage is essential to the well-being of society, but I urge you, by example and prudent and thoughtful words, to stand for marriage at this critical time in our history. This is a fight worth having, and the time is now! As I wrote to you when we voted on marriage here in Virginia, 'Preserving and promoting marriage is an integral component of our shared civic responsibility.'

Finally, I would encourage you to participate in the March for Marriage 2014 in Washington, D.C., being held this year on June 19th. The unchanging reality of marriage is being tested right now, perhaps to the point of no return, and our diocesan participation is very necessary. To learn more, go to marriagemarch.org."

Yale Students Throw Pro-Life Group out of "Social Justice Network"

Legalized abortion undermines the structural integrity of any system of human rights or social justice.

************************************

On April 17, the Yale Daily News reported:

"After spending the year as a provisional member of Dwight Hall, Choose Life at Yale (CLAY) — Yale’s pro-life student organization — was denied full membership status in Dwight Hall’s Social Justice Network for the upcoming school year.

The approximately 90-member Dwight Hall Cabinet, which comprises member group leaders and executive committee members, gathered Wednesday night to vote on CLAY’s status within Dwight Hall. After deliberation, they denied the organization membership, blocking further access to Dwight Hall’s resources, including funds, cars and printing services...."
Two days earlier, on April 15, 2014 Andre Manuel wrote an op-ed in the Yale Daily News:

"To allow CLAY into the Social Justice Network would signal that we consider its work social justice, and would compel Dwight Hall to divert funds away from groups that do important work pursuing actual social justice and helping communities in New Haven and around the world. Social justice means fighting injustice and discrimination, and working to provide everyone with the chance to live a full and enriching life."

"The chance to live a full and enriching life." It is not the first time Americans have defended injustice by an inversion of reality. Here's a little free education for the Yale kids, more, apparently, than they are getting at their university.  Mr. Manuel's statement is startlingly reminiscent to those made by supporters of slavery. One such was Senator John C. Calhoun:

"Slavery is indispensable to a republican government. ... There cannot be a durable republican government without slavery." (The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun; Merrill D. Peterson, 1987)"

The proper response  to Calhoun was given by one man who did get it, Abraham Lincoln:

 "The Democracy (Lincoln was here referring to the Democratic Party) of to-day hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another man's right of property." (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II; Roy P. Basler, Editor)

Lincoln understood that what we had in conflict in the battle over legalized slavery were two rights: the right to property and the right to liberty. He also understood that you can't have a right to property unless you have liberty. The two rights are not equal. One comes first, the other can only follow.

Today what we have in conflict in the battle over legalized abortion are two rights: the right to liberty and the right to life. What the young people at Yale's Social Justice Network need to learn is that you cannot have a right to liberty unless you have life. One comes first, the other can only follow. If you believe a woman has the right to have an abortion, you have already conceded she has a right to life. If you are willing to deny her the right to life, you are at the same time taking away any and all other rights she has, including the "right" to an abortion. 

Legalized abortion undermines the structural integrity of any system of human rights or social justice. And such rights always exist in a system, never by themselves. 

Welcome to Obamacare: "What good is coverage if you can’t use it?"

Do tell.

"What good is coverage if you can’t use it?" That's the question asked by a lady named Thinn Ong, who signed up for Obamacare. From San Francisco's CBS News affiliate:

"MOUNTAIN VIEW (KPIX 5) – While open enrollment for coverage under the Affordable Care Act is closed, many of the newly insured are finding they can’t find doctors, landing them into a state described as 'medical homelessness.'

Rotacare, a free clinic for the uninsured in Mountain View, is dealing with the problem firsthand.

Mirella Nguyen works at the clinic said staffers dutifully helped uninsured clients sign up for Obamacare so they would no longer need the free clinic.

But months later, the clinic’s former patients are coming back to the clinic begging for help. 'They’re coming back to us now and saying I can’t find a doctor,' said Nguyen.

Thinn Ong was thrilled to qualify for a subsidy on the health care exchange. She is paying $200 a month in premiums. But the single mother of two is asking, what for?

'Yeah, I sign it. I got it. But where’s my doctor? Who’s my doctor? I don’t know,' said a frustrated Ong.

Nguyen said the newly insured patients checked the physicians’ lists they were provided and were told they weren’t accepting new patients or they did not participate in the plan..."

"Dr. Kevin Grumbach of UCSF called the phenomenon 'medical homelessness,' where patients are caught adrift in a system woefully short of primary care doctors.

'Insurance coverage is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to assure that people get access to care when they need it,' Grumbach said.

Do tell, again. Gee, you mean the magic word "insurance" does not mean people will get health care? The poor lady is worse off than before: FORCED to pay 200 bucks a month for nothing. Welcome to Obamacare. I do like that "necessary but not sufficient", though. Sounds like the good Doctor studied with the Angelic Doctor.

Those who can’t find a doctor are supposed to lodge a complaint with state regulators, who have been denying the existence of a doctor shortage for months.

Meanwhile, the sick and insured can’t get appointments.

'What good is coverage if you can’t use it?' Nguyen said."