Archbishop Chaput on "Renewing the Mission of Catholic Charities"

Here is a long excerpt from the address of Denver's great Archbishop's to the Catholic Social Workers National Association on June 21:

"To put it another way, Catholic ministries have the duty to faithfully embody Catholic beliefs on marriage, the family, social justice, sexuality, abortion and other important issues. And if the state refuses to allow those Catholic ministries to be faithful in their services through legal or financial bullying, then as a matter of integrity, they should end their services.

That brings me to my third point, and it gives context to the other two. A new kind of America is emerging in the early 21st century, and it's likely to be much less friendly to religious faith than anything in the nation's past. And that has implications for every aspect of Catholic social ministry. G.K. Chesterton once described the United States as "a nation with the soul of a Church."1 Another British Catholic, the historian Paul Johnson, noted that America was "born Protestant," but it was never a Christian confessional state. America was something unique in modern history. It was a moral society without an established Church.

In practice, religion has always moderated that individualism. It has given the country a social conscience and a common moral compass.

America could afford to be "secular" in the best sense, precisely because its people were overwhelmingly religious. The Founders saw religious faith as something separate from government but vital to the nation's survival. In the eyes of Adams, Washington and most of the other Founders, religion created virtuous citizens. And only virtuous citizens could sustain a country as delicately balanced in its institutions, moral instincts and laws as the United States.

As a result, for nearly two centuries, Christian thought, vocabulary and practice were the unofficial but implicit soul to every aspect of American life – including the public square. The great Jesuit scholar, Father John Courtney Murray, put it this way: "The American Bill of Rights is not a piece of 18th-century rationalist theory; it is far more the product of Christian history. Behind it one can see, not the philosophy of the Enlightenment, but the older philosophy that had been the matrix of the common law. The ‘man' whose rights are guaranteed in the face of law and government is, whether he knows it or not, the Christian man, who had learned to know his own dignity in the school of Christian faith."[4]

The trouble is that America's religious soul – its Christian subtext – has been weakening for decades. The reasons for that erosion would need another day and another talk. But I do think we're watching the end of a very old social compact in American life: the mutual respect of civil and sacred authority, and the mutual autonomy of religion and state. That's dangerous, and here's why.

American life has always had a deep streak of unhealthy individualism, rooted not just in the Enlightenment, but also in Reformation theology. In practice, religion has always moderated that individualism. It has given the country a social conscience and a common moral compass. Religion has also played another key role. Individuals, on their own, have very little power in dealing with the state. But communities, and especially religious communities, have a great deal of power in shaping attitudes and behavior. Churches are one of those "mediating institutions," along with voluntary associations, fraternal organizations and especially the family, that stand between the power of the state and the weakness of individuals. They're crucial to the "ecology" of American life as we traditionally understand it.

And that's why, if you dislike religion or resent the Catholic Church, or just want to reshape American life into some new kind of experiment, you need to use the state to break the influence of the Church and her ministries."

The full speech is here.

Legislation to Alienate Children from Parents Introduced by Same-Sex "Married" Assemblywoman

In California, there is an ongoing legislative war against the family. It is being led by openly homosexual legislators.

Four times this year we have reported on SB 48, a bill that would change California textbooks and curriculum to bring the sexuality of gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual people to the attention of all students K-12 in social studies classes. Bill May, of Catholics for the Common Good noted that the bill was so bad even the Los Angeles Times editorialized agains it. The bill was authored by openly homosexual state Senator Mark Leno.

Mr. May also notes that SB 48 "...replaces the word 'sex' with 'gender'. This is significant considering that word 'gender' in the Education code is being redefined in AB 887, a bill sponsored by Equality California and authored by gay rights advocate Assemblywoman Toni Atkins of San Diego. In that bill 'gender' is defined as 'sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender expression. ‘Gender expression’ means a person's gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.'”

Today, California Catholic Daily reported on Assembly Bill 499, also introduced by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins. Ms. Atkins is a same-sex "married" open homosexual. AB 499 would allow children 12 years and older to be vaccinated for contagious and specifically venereal diseases without the consent of their parents.

On June 24, the California Catholic Bishops sent out an action alert: “The bill would allow children aged 12-18, access to the HPV vaccine Gardasil without their parents’ knowledge or permission,” said the bishops. The bill is an unfortunate -- but not unforeseen – continuation of California’s trend to diminish parental rights and give teenagers ‘permission’ to keep secrets from their parents.”

The bishops also said "Urging young teens to engage in behavior that is designed to be kept hidden from their parents may cause irreparable harm to the parent-child relationship to say nothing of the exposing children to physical danger from an adverse reaction to the vaccine itself."

We (and certainly not only we) have noted the totalitarianism inherent in the homosexual activist movement. Like all totalitarianism, it is based on alienation from the natural world. They try to make the alienation the reality by forcing others, including our children, to share it.

The Bishops' webpage allows you the opportunity to express your opposition to AB 499.

"The call for gay marriage is a call to reinvent reality to fit an agenda of personal willfulness"

George Weigel writes on the New York legislature's attempt to force its citizens to recognize countefeit "marriage":

“Gay marriage” in fact represents a vast expansion of state power: In this instance, the state of New York is declaring that it has the competence to redefine a basic human institution in order to satisfy the demands of an interest group looking for the kind of social acceptance that putatively comes from legal recognition.

Mr. Weigel also notes the inherent totalitarianism:

"Marriage, as both religious and secular thinkers have acknowledged for millennia, is a social institution that is older than the state and that precedes the state. The task of a just state is to recognize and support this older, prior social institution; it is not to attempt its redefinition. To do the latter involves indulging the totalitarian temptation that lurks within all modern states: the temptation to remanufacture reality. The American civil-rights movement was a call to recognize moral reality; the call for gay marriage is a call to reinvent reality to fit an agenda of personal willfulness. The gay-marriage movement is thus not the heir of the civil-rights movement; it is the heir of Bull Connor and others who tried to impose their false idea of moral reality on others by coercive state power."

SF Mayor Leads "Transgender" March, Wonders Why City Has so Few Kids

On June 25, Mayor Ed Lee leads the "Trans" march.

On June 26, Mayor Ed Lee tries to figure out ways to address the fact that San Francisco has one of the lowest percentages of children in the country.

Mr. Mayor, nowadays you can be the Mayor of San Francisco, or you can support families, but you cannot do both.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn Blasts New York Politicians

This is great to hear. Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn stands up for the truth and the common good. H/T Cleansing Fire, via Curt Jester.

"Today, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have deconstructed the single most important institution in human history. Republicans and Democrats alike succumbed to powerful political elites and have passed legislation that will undermine our families and as a consequence, our society.

With this vote, Governor Cuomo has opened a new front in the culture wars that are tearing at the fabric of our nation. At a time when so many New Yorkers are struggling to stay in their homes and find jobs, we should be working together to solve these problems. However, the politicians have curried favor with wealthy donors who are proponents of a divisive agenda in order to advance their own careers and futures.

What is needed in our state is leadership and not political gamesmanship.

In light of these disturbing developments and in protest for this decision, I have asked all Catholic schools to refuse any distinction or honors bestowed upon them this year by the governor or any member of the legislature who voted to support this legislation. Furthermore, I have asked all pastors and principals to not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration.

The above request is intended as a protest of the corrupt political process in New York State. More than half of all New Yorkers oppose this legislation. Yet, the governor and the state legislature have demonized people of faith, whether they be Muslims, Jews, or Christians, and identified them as bigots and prejudiced, and voted in favor of same-sex “marriage.” It is mystifying that this bill would be passed on the last day of an extended session under the cover of darkness.

This issue has been framed as upholding marriage equality. This is not the case since one of the principal purposes of marriage is to bring new life into the world. This cannot happen in same-sex marriage. It is not a civil rights issue, but rather a human rights issue upholding the age-old understanding of marriage. Our political leaders do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did, how in good conscience could they carve out any exemption for institutions that would be proponents of bigotry and prejudice?

Republicans and Democrats equally share responsibility for this ruinous legislation and we as Catholics should hold all accountable for their actions."

Now that is the voice of the Universal Church!

Big Loss for Marriage in New York

May the voters of New York follow the voters of California, and of Maine, (and of every other state where the question has been put before the people) and rise in defense of natural marriage.

Let us pray that the Archbishop of New York, and the other bishops of the people lead that defense!

"As Bad As Any We Have Seen" ACTION ALERT On Calfornia SB 48

Here's a letter from our friend Bill May at Catholics for the Common Good on the latest California legislation attempting to normalize homosexual behavior.

SB 48 Hearing Wednesday, June 22
Assembly Education Committee
"Not permissible for anyone to remain idle"

When Pope John Paul II wrote the phrase quoted above in 1988, he could not have imagined SB 48, a bill that would change California textbooks and curriculum to bring the sexuality of gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual people to the attention of all students K-12 in social studies classes. This bill is so bad, that even the LA Times has editorialized against it. SB 48 will be heard in the Assembly Education Committee on Wednesday, June 22 at 1:30 PM -- the final step before going to the Assembly floor and to the Governor for signature.

This bill is as bad as any we have seen.

The hearing came up on short notice. As of yesterday, the bill had not even been posted on the Assembly Education Committee’s online agenda. School board members and taxpayer groups that should be concerned with this bill are distracted by budget negotiations. The bill has budgetary consequences, but, on a technicality, legislative leaders have been able to hide them and avoided any scrutiny by fiscal committees. It is presented as an anti-bullying bill, but it is clear it has nothing to do with bullying. It will sexualize California students starting in Kindergarten and contribute to the effort to redefine sexuality, marriage, and family in the minds of children. It is geared to help them identify their parents as old-fashioned at best, more likely as hateful bigots, unless they conform to the radical agenda to redefine marriage.

See the far-reaching consequences of SB 48 in our extensive analysis. We have also included a link to the letter that CCG sent to the Assembly Education Committee yesterday asking them to vote against the bill. You must take the time to understand this bill and share the information with friends and family members.

Action

We have outlined specific, easy to take action on the website that includes contacting members of the Education Committee, particularly if you live in their districts, and sharing the action page on Facebook and through other social media. It is urgent that we spread the word as quickly as possible on this. Please take action immediately.

We also suggest that people within driving range of Sacramento come to the SB 48 hearing and respectfully state your opposition and indicate any group that you might be able to represent. As we have done on a few prior bills, we can gather at 12:30 in the cafeteria in the basement of the Capitol. It will be good to meet you.

The committee is likely to pass the bill. This hearing is critical because it is the last chance for providing testimony and getting expressions of opposition into the record. Please act on this right away.

Please offer prayers for the members of the committee and the respectful advocacy of concerned people from all over California.

For the Common Good,

Bill May
Chairman, Catholics for the Common Good

Same Sex Marriage and Legal Problems

The legalization of same-sex marriage in New York state could have troubling consequences for people of faith that extend far beyond the redefinition of marriage, an archdiocesan expert on legal matters said.

Edward Mechmann, assistant director of the archdiocesan Family Life/Respect Life Office, New York, said that the “real danger” of legalizing same-sex marriage is the effect it would have religious freedom and religious institutions.

Mechmann said it is essential for citizens to be made aware of the consequences of recognizing same-sex marriage. …If marriage between persons of the same sex becomes legal, the Catholic Church and other religious entities and groups that do not recognize those unions as marriages could be subject to sanctions. For example, they could be denied government contracts and licenses to operate charitable agencies.

“Dozens” of laws exist on the state and local level that make distinctions based on marital status. None of those laws were enacted with the expectation that marriage would be redefined, and “all of them will be used against us,” he said.

He also said that individual professionals could face sanctions. “If you are a marriage counselor and you decide you don’t want to treat same-sex couples, you could be found guilty of discrimination or unprofessional conduct,” Mechmann said. “You could be disciplined, or lose your license.”

Licensed day-care providers could be subject to the same sanctions, he added, and so could anyone in any circumstance “where we would distinguish between a same-sex and a married couple in providing services.”

Catholic schools and other faith-based educational institutions could be affected. Religious groups would be restricted by new regulations in hiring. Mechmann noted that the Catholic Church and other religious groups are protected by the “ministerial exemption,” which allows them to hire employees in accord with the group’s religious mission and values. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, there will no longer be an exemption for non-ministerial positions such as secretarial workers, mailroom staff and cafeteria personnel, Mechmann said. Religious groups will not be able to decline to hire persons in same-sex marriages, and will have to provide them with the same benefits given to heterosexual spouses.

This would put the church or religious group in the position of denying its beliefs and acknowledging that same-sex marriage is equivalent to traditional marriage between a man and a woman
Written for Catholic New York (archdiocesan weekly) By CLAUDIA McDONNELL

"Manifestly not true as a matter of elementary recusal principles"

The great Ed Whelan goes to work on Judge Ware's opinion on whether or not Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself in the Proposition 8 case. Judge Ware's ruling will be appealed.

Mr. Whelan has two posts, addressing two aspects of Judge Ware's opinion:

"First, Ware determined that Walker was not required to recuse himself under section 455(b)(4) (of Title 28 of the U.S. Code), which requires that a judge recuse himself from a proceeding when the judge has any “interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” (Ruling at 5-12.) Second, Ware concluded that Walker’s recusal was also not required under section 455(a), which requires that a judge “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” (Ruling at 12-19.)"

Whelan's post dealing with the first question is here, and the post dealing with the second question is here.

On the first question, Whelan writes, in part:

In addressing Prop 8 proponents’ argument that Walker’s long-term same-sex relationship in California meant that he had an actual interest in the case that he was deciding, Ware sets forth this “legal conclusion”:

In a case that could affect the general public based on the circumstances or characteristics of various members of that public, the fact that a federal judge happens to share the same circumstances or characteristic and will only be affected in a similar manner because the judge is a member of the public, is not a basis for disqualifying the judge under Section 455(b)(4). [Punctuation error in original.]

Applying this “legal conclusion” to Walker’s situation, Ware declares: “In particular, in a case involving laws restricting the right of various members of the public to marry, any personal interest that a judge gleans as a member of the public who might marry is too attenuated to warrant recusal.”

Taken on its own terms, Ware’s stated “legal conclusion” would compel the stunning result that a judge need not recuse himself from a case asserting an expanded right to marry even if it is crystal-clear that the judge desires to avail himself of the right that he is deciding whether to create. Under his reasoning, the fact that a judge “gleans” a “personal interest” only “as a member of the public” (rather than, as I understand it, as a party to the very case) somehow dictates the conclusion that his interest is “too attenuated to warrant recusal.”

Ware’s “legal conclusion” makes no sense. I’ve previously offered the hypothetical of a judge who desires to enter into a series of polygamous marriages and who is assigned a case in which plaintiffs are challenging the anti-polygamy laws of the state in which the judge lives. As I stated at the time, legal ethicist Stephen Gillers “acknowledges that the judge’s recusal would be required,” and “I find it difficult to imagine that there would be any legal ethicist anywhere who would maintain otherwise.” But Ware evidently would. Under his “legal conclusion,” the hypothetical case “could affect the general public based on the circumstances or characteristics of various members of that public”—the relevant characteristic of those various members being that they are aspiring polygamists—and the fact that the judge “happens to share” that characteristic “and will only be affected in a similar manner because the judge is a member of the public” (rather than a party to the case) “is not a basis for disqualifying the judge under Section 455(b)(4).”

On the second question, Whelan writes, in part:

"Ware contends that the case for Walker’s disqualification “depends upon the assumption that a judge who is in a relationship has an interest in getting married which is so powerful that it would render that judge incapable of performing his duties.” (Emphasis added.) He adds in a footnote that “the mere fact that an individual is in a relationship with a person does not necessarily imply that that individual is interested in getting married to that person at all.” (Emphasis added.) Indeed, he says that Prop 8 proponents’ supposed contention that “almost two-thirds of committed same-sex couples in California would get married if permitted to do so … suggests that more than one-third of such couples in California have no interest in being married.” (Emphasis added; brackets omitted.)

As the italicized passages show, Ware is blatantly stacking the deck by burying the “might reasonably be questioned standard” of section 455(a) (a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”) and replacing it with a much higher standard of incontrovertible proof of inescapable bias. That is not what section 455(a) says, and it is not what section 455(a) has ever been held to mean.

Most Holy Redeemer Hosts Transvestite Ball (Again)

From today's California Catholic Daily:

“Switch Hitters Ball”
Transvestite event held on property of San Francisco archdiocese -- at Most Holy Redeemer Church, of course

Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church hosted a fundraiser on Saturday, June 11, for the San Francisco Gay Softball League called the “Switch Hitters Ball. The Switch Hitters Ball has been hosted by Most Holy Redeemer each year since at least 2007.....

The number of transvestites exiting cars in front of the church and entering the church hall on June 11 was notable even for a Saturday night in the Castro, and left no doubt as to the nature of the event. By 6:45 p.m., a boisterous crowd, almost exclusively male, had already filled the church hall. The packed room (capacity 325) included a number of male transvestites, as well as at least one apparent member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence...."

Read the whole thing. But since pictures (and video) are worth 1000 words, here is a picture and a link to a video from the "Switch Hitters Ball" held at MHR in 2008. Remember, what you see is taking place in the parish hall of an (ostensibly) Catholic Church on the property of the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

Photo courtesy "Streets of San Francisco."

Video of the same performance may be found here. We await a response from the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

SF Chronicle Covers Fr. Myers Case, Notes Significant Fact "Catholic San Francisco" Ignores

On Wednesday we noted an bizzare omission in the Catholic San Francisco article covering the Fr. William Myers story. Police were called when the pastor of St. Raymond's church in Menlo Park followed a 17 year-old boy into the dressing room at San Francisco's Ross department store. In their 583-word story CSF did not once mention that Fr. Myers had "sexual identity" isues--an obviously significant fact that was mentioned in every single other article covering the case.

Yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle covered the story, and in their short 131-word story managed to make their readers aware of Fr. Myers' "sexual identity" issue.

In their coverage, KTVU News quoted St. Raymond's parishioner Mr. Fred Tiso asking the obvious question: "You can't have someone who's struggling with sexual identity. What's that mean?" And a commentor to the San Francisco Chronicle story, using the handle "arnoldsbicep," had the obvious answer: "after admitting to problems with his 'sexual identity.' In other words, he's gay."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Teachers Union Indoctrination in S.F. & L.A.

"How a Teachers Rally Made me anti-Education"

Check out the photo essay by the invaluable Zombie, covering May teacher's union rallies in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Two samples below.

Update: As these idiot teachers indoctrinate the boy with a picture of Che Guevara, we point out that today more than a dozen ambassadors from former Communist countries laid a wreath today at the "Victims of Communism Memorial Park" in Washington D. C. The wreath-laying, and the park, commemorate the more than 100 million persons killed by communists.

Visit the Global Museum on Communism.