Wow. Check out the trailer.
To learn more. or schedule a screening near you, go here:
http://restlessheartfilm.com/
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Oakland Diocesan Newspaper to Articulate Teaching on Natural Family Planning
In the August 20 issue of the Catholic Voice, the newspaper of the Diocese of Oakland, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone introduces the first of a new series of article on Natural Family Planning. (His Excellency will continue to serve as Apostolic Administrator for the Diocese of Oakland until a new Bishop is appointed--even as he takes over his new responsibilities as the Archbishop of San Francisco.)
The first article in the series is here. Another article in the issue, "10 Reasons to Use NFP" is here.
Here is an excerpt from His Excellency's column:
Time to dispel myths around NFP
By Most Rev. Salvatore J. Cordileone
This year the question of religious liberty has emerged as a central issue far beyond what any of us would have imagined just a couple of years ago. I am grateful to all of our pastors who promoted the US bishops' call for the "Fortnight for Freedom" and have continued to educate our people on this very important challenge to us at this time, and for all of our people who have been actively engaged in advocating for this God-given and constitutional right of ours.
Of course, it is the mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services that all employer-provided insurance coverage include contraception, with only the narrowest of exceptions for religious organizations, that has brought this issue to the fore with fever-pitch intensity. This, though, is only the latest and most blatant challenge in the area of freedom of the exercise of religion and of conscience.
Surveys that ask people their opinion on whether insurance providers should include contraception in their coverage are missing the point. We would certainly hear different results if, instead, the pollsters asked: "Who should decide for a religious organization what its mission is, the religious organization itself or the government?"; "Who should define for a religious organization the people to whom it is to extend health, education and social services, the religious organization itself or the government?"; "Who should define for a religious organization who its members are, the religious organization itself or the government?"
While the leadership of faith communities throughout the country has rightly kept the focus on religious liberty and freedom of conscience, nonetheless, the HHS mandate has put the Church's teaching on responsible parenthood and the legitimate regulation of birth front and center.
Another question lurking in the background in this whole debate is this: Why would the government require, for the sake of women's health, insurance coverage of a medication the World Health Organization classifies as a Class 1 carcinogen? Yet, this is exactly what the WHO has done after dozens of studies over a period of many years have demonstrated a link between hormonal contraceptives and increased risk of breast and cervical cancer (as well as heart disease) in women (cf.www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf).
This is just the starting point — i.e., physical health — to understanding the wisdom of the Church's teaching in this area. In accordance with the principle of human ecology so well articulated by Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical on the Church's Social Teaching, "Charity in Truth," all of the various dimensions of the meaning of conjugal love in marriage are interrelated, each one affecting all the others: the physical, the emotional, the psychological, the sociological, the economic, the environmental, the relational, the moral, the spiritual, and the theological and mystical. If any one of these is corrupted, it will impoverish all of the others.
This HHS mandate controversy, then, calls us to take advantage of this moment to educate our people on all the various aspects of the Church's teaching that, for grave reasons, a married couple may have recourse to the infertile periods of the woman's cycle in order to delay the begetting of new offspring. Sadly, there is much ignorance about natural family planning, even among medical professionals, and many people make very serious decisions about their own lives and those of others out of this ignorance.
We are sometimes even mocked for our belief by those who do not understand it, and, likely, don't want to, despite the fact that the physical practice of NFP is thoroughly based on science. We will, then, seize this opportunity in The Catholic Voice by publishing a series of articles, beginning with this issue, about the multi-faceted reality of Natural Family Planning and the Church's teaching on responsible parenthood, authored by people with expertise in these respective areas pertaining to this teaching of the Church....
By Most Rev. Salvatore J. Cordileone
This year the question of religious liberty has emerged as a central issue far beyond what any of us would have imagined just a couple of years ago. I am grateful to all of our pastors who promoted the US bishops' call for the "Fortnight for Freedom" and have continued to educate our people on this very important challenge to us at this time, and for all of our people who have been actively engaged in advocating for this God-given and constitutional right of ours.
Of course, it is the mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services that all employer-provided insurance coverage include contraception, with only the narrowest of exceptions for religious organizations, that has brought this issue to the fore with fever-pitch intensity. This, though, is only the latest and most blatant challenge in the area of freedom of the exercise of religion and of conscience.
Surveys that ask people their opinion on whether insurance providers should include contraception in their coverage are missing the point. We would certainly hear different results if, instead, the pollsters asked: "Who should decide for a religious organization what its mission is, the religious organization itself or the government?"; "Who should define for a religious organization the people to whom it is to extend health, education and social services, the religious organization itself or the government?"; "Who should define for a religious organization who its members are, the religious organization itself or the government?"
While the leadership of faith communities throughout the country has rightly kept the focus on religious liberty and freedom of conscience, nonetheless, the HHS mandate has put the Church's teaching on responsible parenthood and the legitimate regulation of birth front and center.
Another question lurking in the background in this whole debate is this: Why would the government require, for the sake of women's health, insurance coverage of a medication the World Health Organization classifies as a Class 1 carcinogen? Yet, this is exactly what the WHO has done after dozens of studies over a period of many years have demonstrated a link between hormonal contraceptives and increased risk of breast and cervical cancer (as well as heart disease) in women (cf.www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf).
This is just the starting point — i.e., physical health — to understanding the wisdom of the Church's teaching in this area. In accordance with the principle of human ecology so well articulated by Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical on the Church's Social Teaching, "Charity in Truth," all of the various dimensions of the meaning of conjugal love in marriage are interrelated, each one affecting all the others: the physical, the emotional, the psychological, the sociological, the economic, the environmental, the relational, the moral, the spiritual, and the theological and mystical. If any one of these is corrupted, it will impoverish all of the others.
This HHS mandate controversy, then, calls us to take advantage of this moment to educate our people on all the various aspects of the Church's teaching that, for grave reasons, a married couple may have recourse to the infertile periods of the woman's cycle in order to delay the begetting of new offspring. Sadly, there is much ignorance about natural family planning, even among medical professionals, and many people make very serious decisions about their own lives and those of others out of this ignorance.
We are sometimes even mocked for our belief by those who do not understand it, and, likely, don't want to, despite the fact that the physical practice of NFP is thoroughly based on science. We will, then, seize this opportunity in The Catholic Voice by publishing a series of articles, beginning with this issue, about the multi-faceted reality of Natural Family Planning and the Church's teaching on responsible parenthood, authored by people with expertise in these respective areas pertaining to this teaching of the Church....
Revealing Take on the Most Holy Redeemer "No Drag Queens" Policy.
Ross Murray, Director of Religion, Faith, and Values at the homosexual activist group GLAAD offers his opinion on the recent ban on "drag performers" at San Francisco's Most Holy Redeemer parish. He writes:
"This action will determine how the Roman Catholic Church treats LGBT Catholics."
The Roman Catholic Church has always treated "LGBT" Catholics as Catholics. But that's precisely what the activists object to.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Federal Judge Rules Same-Sex "Marriage" is "Not a Fundamental Right"
This is from William Duncan, writing at The Corner. The great Ed Whelan calls it "A Stroke of Judicial Sanity." All emphases are added.
"There has been a well-publicized string of cases lately in which federal courts have struck down marriage laws like the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. It remains to be seen whether a decision issued yesterday by a federal District Court in Hawaii will be treated as newsworthy.
In this case, the court comprehensively rejected the claim that the U.S. Constitution mandates same-sex marriage in the State of Hawaii.
From the court’s synopsis (I’ve omitted the citations):
Carefully describing the right at issue, as required by both the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit, the right Plaintiffs seek to exercise is the right to marry someone of the same-sex. The right to marry someone of the same-sex, is not “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and thus it is not a fundamental right.
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden [of showing that Hawaii had no rational basis for its marriage definition].
Specifically, the legislature could rationally conclude that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman provides an inducement for opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby decreasing the percentage of children accidently conceived outside of a stable, long-term relationship. The Supreme Court has stated that a classification subject to rational basis review will be upheld when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not.” It is undisputed opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate and same-sex couples cannot. Thus, allowing opposite-sex couples to marry furthers this interest and allowing same-sex couples to marry would not do so.
The legislature could also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex. Under rational basis review, as long as the rationale for a classification is at least debatable, the classification is constitutional. Both sides presented evidence on this issue and both sides pointed out flaws in their opponents’ evidence. Thus, the Court concludes this rationale is at least debatable and therefore sufficient.
Finally, the state could rationally conclude that it is addressing a divisive social issue with caution.
Mr. Duncan then continues:
What explains the different outcome? As a legal matter, it was more careful attention to the actual Constitution and relevant precedent. This case may also be a better indicator of the validity of these claims. The other cases have been brought in carefully selected jurisdictions by national activist groups with any eye on strategy. The Hawaii case seems to have developed somewhat spontaneously and so may give us a better indication of what courts might do that are not predisposed to the same-sex marriage conclusion. Dale Schowengerdt and the attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom are to be congratulated for stepping in to defend the case when the governor refused to do so.
"There has been a well-publicized string of cases lately in which federal courts have struck down marriage laws like the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. It remains to be seen whether a decision issued yesterday by a federal District Court in Hawaii will be treated as newsworthy.
In this case, the court comprehensively rejected the claim that the U.S. Constitution mandates same-sex marriage in the State of Hawaii.
From the court’s synopsis (I’ve omitted the citations):
Carefully describing the right at issue, as required by both the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit, the right Plaintiffs seek to exercise is the right to marry someone of the same-sex. The right to marry someone of the same-sex, is not “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and thus it is not a fundamental right.
***
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden [of showing that Hawaii had no rational basis for its marriage definition].
Specifically, the legislature could rationally conclude that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman provides an inducement for opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby decreasing the percentage of children accidently conceived outside of a stable, long-term relationship. The Supreme Court has stated that a classification subject to rational basis review will be upheld when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not.” It is undisputed opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate and same-sex couples cannot. Thus, allowing opposite-sex couples to marry furthers this interest and allowing same-sex couples to marry would not do so.
The legislature could also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex. Under rational basis review, as long as the rationale for a classification is at least debatable, the classification is constitutional. Both sides presented evidence on this issue and both sides pointed out flaws in their opponents’ evidence. Thus, the Court concludes this rationale is at least debatable and therefore sufficient.
Finally, the state could rationally conclude that it is addressing a divisive social issue with caution.
Mr. Duncan then continues:
What explains the different outcome? As a legal matter, it was more careful attention to the actual Constitution and relevant precedent. This case may also be a better indicator of the validity of these claims. The other cases have been brought in carefully selected jurisdictions by national activist groups with any eye on strategy. The Hawaii case seems to have developed somewhat spontaneously and so may give us a better indication of what courts might do that are not predisposed to the same-sex marriage conclusion. Dale Schowengerdt and the attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom are to be congratulated for stepping in to defend the case when the governor refused to do so.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
A Black Man's Trojan Horse
By Lloyd Marcus
As millions of my fellow Americans, I am outraged, devastated and extremely angry by the democrat's unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming "no" from the rooftops, they forced Obamacare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. "Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining." Democrats say their mission is to give all Americans health care. The democrats are lying. Signing Obamacare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama's promise to fundamentally transform America.
I keep asking myself. How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.
Ironically, proving America is completely the opposite of the evil racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America 's goodness, guilt and sense of fair play against her. In their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted golden shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lauded Obama as the first clean and articulate African American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said Obama only uses a black dialect when he wants.
White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man naively believing they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America 's sins of the past.
Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, "I'm votin' for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me."
Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressive's young, handsome, articulate and so called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusation of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.
Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious bloody slaughter of every value, freedom and institution we Americans hold dear; launching the end of America as we know it. Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of back door deals, the democrats landed a severe death blow to America and individual rights by passing Obamacare.
The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black tea party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question. "Why are you siding with these white racists against America 's first African American president?" I defend my fellow patriots who are white stating, These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama's skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama's race is not an issue."
Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama's race not being an issue. In reality, Obama's presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator's virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into Obamacare. Obama's race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate and most recently even the Constitution of the United States . Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health care which is clearly unconstitutional.
No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said "No" to both presidents' proposals and it was the end of it.
So how can Obama get away with giving the American people "the finger?" The answer: He is black.
The mainstream liberal media continues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution and planned destructive legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.
My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be "played" and intimidated by Obama's race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America , the greatest nation on the planet, Obama must be defeated.
As millions of my fellow Americans, I am outraged, devastated and extremely angry by the democrat's unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming "no" from the rooftops, they forced Obamacare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. "Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining." Democrats say their mission is to give all Americans health care. The democrats are lying. Signing Obamacare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama's promise to fundamentally transform America.
I keep asking myself. How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.
Ironically, proving America is completely the opposite of the evil racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America 's goodness, guilt and sense of fair play against her. In their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted golden shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lauded Obama as the first clean and articulate African American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said Obama only uses a black dialect when he wants.
White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man naively believing they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America 's sins of the past.
Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, "I'm votin' for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me."
Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressive's young, handsome, articulate and so called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusation of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.
Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious bloody slaughter of every value, freedom and institution we Americans hold dear; launching the end of America as we know it. Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of back door deals, the democrats landed a severe death blow to America and individual rights by passing Obamacare.
The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black tea party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question. "Why are you siding with these white racists against America 's first African American president?" I defend my fellow patriots who are white stating, These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama's skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama's race is not an issue."
Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama's race not being an issue. In reality, Obama's presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator's virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into Obamacare. Obama's race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate and most recently even the Constitution of the United States . Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health care which is clearly unconstitutional.
No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said "No" to both presidents' proposals and it was the end of it.
So how can Obama get away with giving the American people "the finger?" The answer: He is black.
The mainstream liberal media continues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution and planned destructive legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.
My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be "played" and intimidated by Obama's race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America , the greatest nation on the planet, Obama must be defeated.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
New Archdiocesan Policy: No Drag Queens at Most Holy Redeemer
This is a battle we have been fighting for a long time. From a long article (read the whole thing) in today's Bay Area Reporter:
"A local gay recovery group will not be holding its annual fall fundraiser in the social hall of the Castro neighborhood's Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church after officials said that no drag queens would be allowed.
For the past couple of years the Castro Country Club has held its event in the church's social hall and had drag queens as entertainment.
As a statement issued by the country club's board of directors explained, the new no-drag-queen policy at the church is simply unacceptable.
'The Castro Country Club had planned to hold our third annual Harvest Feast on October 20, 2012, at Most Holy Redeemer Church, where we have held this and other events in the past,' the directors said in a statement.
But that changed when the club was notified by the church last week that they would not be able to hold the dinner if any drag queens were part of the program, the board said.
'In previous years, we have had Ivy Drip and Heklina, both well-known entertainers and community fundraisers, serve as emcees of the event, and we felt we could not in good conscience abide by the church's new policy,' the board said.
'It is our organization's policy to be inclusive and welcoming to all. Drag queens are no exception. We are currently seeking an alternative venue for the Harvest Feast, which provides an important source of revenue for our annual budget,' the board added.
Individual members of the country club declined to comment and referred to the board's statement.
Most Holy Redeemer's new pastor, the Reverend Brian Costello, confirmed over telephone on Monday, August 6, that drag queen performers and emcees are no longer permitted to participate in events at the church.
Costello said that during a telephone conversation with a Castro Country Club representative, when the topic of drag queens came up, he told the person, 'That is not going to work under the present circumstances.'
'I said work with me. You can still have the dinner. You can have a regular emcee, but not drag queens on church property,' Costello said."
"During Sunday Mass on Sunday, October 7, 2007, Archbishop George Niederauer gave communion to two members of the activist group and drag troupe Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, an indecent that angered, hurt, and even horrified some conservative Catholics, as well as it grabbed local and national headlines.
Called to task locally by the California Catholic Daily and a '90 years young' priest, the Reverend John Malloy, on A Shepherd's Voice blog, Niederauer apologized for giving communion to gays dressed as nuns.
Attempts to reach the Sisters for comment on the recent change of policy at Most Holy Redeemer were unsuccessful.
Meanwhile, as recent as April 29, in a Shepherd's Voice post Malloy blasted the 'gay parish' for hosting an April 14 'drag show' to benefit the Castro Country Club, 'a substance abuse treatment organization.'
'Hosting a drag show at [Most Holy Redeemer] is the equivalent of sending a case of wine to Castro Country Club,' wrote Malloy. 'It is beyond irresponsible for the Archdiocese of San Francisco to allow it.'"
"A local gay recovery group will not be holding its annual fall fundraiser in the social hall of the Castro neighborhood's Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church after officials said that no drag queens would be allowed.
For the past couple of years the Castro Country Club has held its event in the church's social hall and had drag queens as entertainment.
As a statement issued by the country club's board of directors explained, the new no-drag-queen policy at the church is simply unacceptable.
'The Castro Country Club had planned to hold our third annual Harvest Feast on October 20, 2012, at Most Holy Redeemer Church, where we have held this and other events in the past,' the directors said in a statement.
But that changed when the club was notified by the church last week that they would not be able to hold the dinner if any drag queens were part of the program, the board said.
'In previous years, we have had Ivy Drip and Heklina, both well-known entertainers and community fundraisers, serve as emcees of the event, and we felt we could not in good conscience abide by the church's new policy,' the board said.
'It is our organization's policy to be inclusive and welcoming to all. Drag queens are no exception. We are currently seeking an alternative venue for the Harvest Feast, which provides an important source of revenue for our annual budget,' the board added.
Individual members of the country club declined to comment and referred to the board's statement.
Most Holy Redeemer's new pastor, the Reverend Brian Costello, confirmed over telephone on Monday, August 6, that drag queen performers and emcees are no longer permitted to participate in events at the church.
Costello said that during a telephone conversation with a Castro Country Club representative, when the topic of drag queens came up, he told the person, 'That is not going to work under the present circumstances.'
'I said work with me. You can still have the dinner. You can have a regular emcee, but not drag queens on church property,' Costello said."
We applaud Fr. Costello's action, and we pray for him as he shepherds his flock. His love for his parishioners seems clear. So does his understanding of his duty towards them.
The BAR article continues:
"It seems the directive is the result of several factors.
'I am the new pastor,' Costello added. 'There is a new archbishop. The archdiocese told me straight out, 'No drag queens.'"
"It seems the directive is the result of several factors.
'I am the new pastor,' Costello added. 'There is a new archbishop. The archdiocese told me straight out, 'No drag queens.'"
The response of LGBT activists to the action of Fr. Costello and the Archdiocese speaks volumes. Dignity SF, the "Rainbow Sash" movement, and New Ways Ministry all objected. Joe Murray, a founder of the Rainbow Sash Movement told BAR: "Either gay and lesbian people are welcome at Most Holy Redeemer or they are not. It's that simple." That's utter nonsense. The new policy says nothing about same-sex attracted persons. It deals with drag queens. Mr. Murray is saying that same-sex attracted persons and drag queens are identical.
The article also mentions this website:
"During Sunday Mass on Sunday, October 7, 2007, Archbishop George Niederauer gave communion to two members of the activist group and drag troupe Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, an indecent that angered, hurt, and even horrified some conservative Catholics, as well as it grabbed local and national headlines.
Called to task locally by the California Catholic Daily and a '90 years young' priest, the Reverend John Malloy, on A Shepherd's Voice blog, Niederauer apologized for giving communion to gays dressed as nuns.
Attempts to reach the Sisters for comment on the recent change of policy at Most Holy Redeemer were unsuccessful.
Meanwhile, as recent as April 29, in a Shepherd's Voice post Malloy blasted the 'gay parish' for hosting an April 14 'drag show' to benefit the Castro Country Club, 'a substance abuse treatment organization.'
'Hosting a drag show at [Most Holy Redeemer] is the equivalent of sending a case of wine to Castro Country Club,' wrote Malloy. 'It is beyond irresponsible for the Archdiocese of San Francisco to allow it.'"
We are glad to see that the Archdiocese now shares this view.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
AMTRAK Supports Abominations, Attacks Family
Amtrak, a taxpayer-funded government company, attacks the family with your money. This is what you get when the Democrats are in power.
This is what they consider to be "a family":
A boy who will never know a mother.
h/t The Blaze
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
This is what they consider to be "a family":
A boy who will never know a mother.
And a girl who will never know a father.
It is absolutely obscene, and as you can see, this is offered as something good. Amtrak even has a website promoting sodomy: "Ride with Pride"--you can see it here.
h/t The Blaze
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Fr. Frank Pavone "We don't Need a year, we don't need a moment...You don't adapt to injustice; you oppose it!
Fr. Frank Pavone, of Priests for Life, throws down the gauntlet on the HHS Mandate, which went into effect yesterday. That is the example that needs to be imitated by every Catholic. From LifeSiteNews:
Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said that while that organization “advocates the observance of all just laws…I want to make it clear to you today that we will disobey this mandate.”
In a letter setting forth official policy on the matter, Fr. Pavone wrote, “Neither Priests for Life as an organization, nor any one of our administrative team or Board of Directors, nor I personally, consent to provide, pay for, advocate, counsel, refer, or in any way tolerate or cooperate with any process, plan, exchange of money or services, or any other activity that would enable a person to engage in the use of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, or sterilization.”
The group does not qualify for a one-year exemption available to religious organizations to “adapt” to the mandate. “We are not ‘religious’ enough for this administration,” he said.
Faced with the option of violating its conscience or incurring fines up to $100 a day per employee beginning today, Priests for Life is standing by its convictions.
“Whether or not the government decides to eventually impose fines on us when our health insurance policy is renewed in a few months is not the issue,” Fr. Pavone wrote. “The issue is that as of today, as far as the government is concerned, we have to provide health insurance coverage for practices that are morally objectionable.”
The pro-life Catholic group had long signaled its impending defiance of what it considers an unjust and unconstitutional law.
“We don’t need a year, nor do we need a moment, to determine what we are going to do, or to ‘adapt’ to the rule,” Fr. Pavone said early this year. “You don’t adapt to injustice; you oppose it.”
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said that while that organization “advocates the observance of all just laws…I want to make it clear to you today that we will disobey this mandate.”
In a letter setting forth official policy on the matter, Fr. Pavone wrote, “Neither Priests for Life as an organization, nor any one of our administrative team or Board of Directors, nor I personally, consent to provide, pay for, advocate, counsel, refer, or in any way tolerate or cooperate with any process, plan, exchange of money or services, or any other activity that would enable a person to engage in the use of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, or sterilization.”
The group does not qualify for a one-year exemption available to religious organizations to “adapt” to the mandate. “We are not ‘religious’ enough for this administration,” he said.
Faced with the option of violating its conscience or incurring fines up to $100 a day per employee beginning today, Priests for Life is standing by its convictions.
“Whether or not the government decides to eventually impose fines on us when our health insurance policy is renewed in a few months is not the issue,” Fr. Pavone wrote. “The issue is that as of today, as far as the government is concerned, we have to provide health insurance coverage for practices that are morally objectionable.”
The pro-life Catholic group had long signaled its impending defiance of what it considers an unjust and unconstitutional law.
“We don’t need a year, nor do we need a moment, to determine what we are going to do, or to ‘adapt’ to the rule,” Fr. Pavone said early this year. “You don’t adapt to injustice; you oppose it.”
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Speaking of Chick-Fil-A....
They are apparently doing an incredible business today. Here is a shot outside the Chicago Chick-Fil-A. It's from Legal Insurrection:
This picture, from a Chick-Fil-A outlet in Tennessee, is posted by Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit.
And go here for a post from Texas, where the local outlet has recorded a ten-fold increase in business.
This picture, from a Chick-Fil-A outlet in Tennessee, is posted by Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit.
And go here for a post from Texas, where the local outlet has recorded a ten-fold increase in business.
Academic Enemies of the Church
Via Fr. Z, we post this excerpt from a post by The Motley Monk. The Monk's post was entitled "A seamless garment: "The Vatican, the LCWR, and U.S. Catholic higher education…" He nails the academic camoflauge with which we are all too familiar:
The Motley Monk would note, there’s a vast gulf demarcating “belief seeking understanding” (“I believe in the virgin birth and am questioning what I believe in order to understand better what it really means in the modern world”) from “understanding seeking belief” (“I question the virgin birth and will not believe in it until I have sufficient proof using my standard for determining the truth of the matter”). The former reveals a sincere questioner—a person of faith—while the latter reveals a petulant ideologue—a closed-minded bigot.
Or, more pointedly, about the issues of concern to the LCWR:
The Motley Monk would note, there’s a vast gulf demarcating “belief seeking understanding” (“I believe in the virgin birth and am questioning what I believe in order to understand better what it really means in the modern world”) from “understanding seeking belief” (“I question the virgin birth and will not believe in it until I have sufficient proof using my standard for determining the truth of the matter”). The former reveals a sincere questioner—a person of faith—while the latter reveals a petulant ideologue—a closed-minded bigot.
- “I believe that God has ordained complementary roles for women and men, with the priesthood reserved to men and I am questioning that tenet in order to understand better what that means in the modern world” vs. “I question the Church teaching about an all-male priesthood and will not change my mind until I judge that teaching’s validity using my standard of judgment.”
- “I believe that God has endowed nature with a law that governs all of nature and violating that law is immoral and I am questioning that tenet in order to understand better what that means about the use of artificial forms of birth control in the modern world” vs. “I question the Church’s teaching about the use of artificial forms of birth control and will not change my mind until I judge that teaching’s validity using my standard of judgment.”
- “I believe that God has ordained marriage to be a sacred union between one male and one female for the purpose of begetting families and I am questioning that tenet in order to understand better what that means about homosexuals who want to attempt marriage in the modern world” vs. “I question the Church teaching about marriage, am open to homosexual marriage, and will not change my mind until I judge that teaching’s validity using my standard of judgment.”
Party of Death Adds Counterfeit "Marriage" to Their Plank
There's just no excuse for a Catholic to vote Democrat.
And today is Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. More than 600,000 people have expressed their support for Chick-Fil-A, after their president, Dan Cathy, came under assault from the forces of evil for publicly stating his support for (horrors!) natural marriage.
Bless you, Mr. Cathy!
And today is Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. More than 600,000 people have expressed their support for Chick-Fil-A, after their president, Dan Cathy, came under assault from the forces of evil for publicly stating his support for (horrors!) natural marriage.
Bless you, Mr. Cathy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
