Providence College Changes Mind; Dr. Ed Peters Comments

Here's Dr. Ed Peter's take, given after the college had rescinded the invitation to Dr. John Corvino (see previous post), a supporter of counterfeit "marriage." It's valid regardless of Dr. Corvino's being reinvited, disinvited, or never invited. Emphases added:

What was there to debate at Providence?

About Drs. John Corvino and Dana Dillon, and about Providence College, I know next to nothing, and so can say next to nothing; about the ‘gay marriage’ debate—or at least about some Catholic principles applicable to the ‘gay marriage’ debate—I know something and so can say something.

Inviting a speaker to a college campus to address a volatile issue and offering (if belatedly) to provide a rebuttal speaker, but then cancelling the whole event apparently because management doesn’t like the views to be expressed by the original speaker, is the stuff of which higher education public relations disasters are made. But while Providence College works through its image problems (and, given the institutional identification with the Catholic Church, while the Church faces yet another PR mess not of her own making), it might help to step back and ask, what exactly was to be debated at the Providence ‘gay marriage’ debate in the first place?

Considering her age (+2,000 years), her membership (+1,000,000,000), and her range of concerns (eternal salvation and human civilization), the Catholic Church has a remarkably short list of non-negotiable assertions. Some of these non-negotiable assertions deal with dogma (e.g., Jesus is divine and human, or, there are exactly seven sacraments) and some of these non-negotiable assertions deal with doctrines (e.g., the Church has no power to ordain women to priesthood, or Thomas More is a saint) but in both cases, the assertion being made is, Catholics hold, being made with infallible certainty.

Now, among the assertions made by the Church with infallible certainty, I have argued, is this one: God made marriage to exist between one man and one woman. Catholics could debate, say, whether this assertion is a dogma to be believed or a doctrine to be held, or whether the assertion is knowable by reason alone or requires the gift of faith. Catholics could even debate whether civil unions of one sort or another between two persons of the same sex are good for society or bad. But Catholics cannot, I suggest, argue whether true marriage exists only between one man and one woman. To debate whether marriage can exist between two persons of the same sex is to imply that some Catholic non-negotiables can be negotiated by Catholics.

No wonder an event purporting to do exactly that ran aground. Little wonder that the attempt to explain away the shipwreck on grounds of, say, the 2004 USCCB statement or the lack of prep time afforded one participant, rings so badly. Neither of those considerations gets at the heart of the matter: Catholics cannot hold marriage to be other than the union of one man and one woman.

Rainbow Flags and the Russian Anti-Propaganda Law

On August 12, 2013, California’s state senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Resolution 18, which urged CalPERS and CalSTRS not to invest future resources from their pension plans in Russia. On August 26, the resolution passed the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee. From the resolution: “That the Senate strongly encourages the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, whenever feasible and consistent with their fiduciary responsibilities, to cease making direct investments in Russia…” Leno’s resolution was a response to the June 30, 2013 Russian law which bans the “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors.” The text of the Russian law may be found at the “School of Russian and Asiatic Studies” website. In a letter to Leno, Sergey Petrov, the Russian consul-general in San Francisco, defended the law: “Family, motherhood and childhood in the traditional sense are values that lead to the preservation and development” of Russia, and “therefore require special protection from the state.”

Leno’s opposition to the Russian law, which is shared by President Obama and the international homosexualist movement is further evidence, if more were needed, that the war over the family is international and civilizational in scope. Patrick Buchanan succinctly summed up the issue in the title of an August 13 article “Post v. Putin-Whose Side are you On?” The article’s first sentence was “The culture war has gone global.” And war it is. As we have noted before, in the book Debating Same-Sex Marriage, co-authored by John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher, Corvino, who supports same-sex “marriage” wrote: “Whichever side prevails in this debate, the other’s views will be marginalized. There’s no getting around that.”

Corvino’s assertion has been proved. While Leno, President Obama, and others are outraged by the Russian law, retaliation against defenders of natural marriage in the United States and other countries show that the Russian law is justified. Critics of the Russian law say its wording is ambiguous, and “could outlaw activities from kissing or holding hands to wearing a rainbow pin.” But so what? The list of people in the United States and other countries who have already been fined, fired, suspended from their jobs, relieved of their military duties, simply for expressing opposition to same-sex “marriage” is far too long to include here: Canadian sportscaster Damian Goddard fired for expressing opposition to same-sex “marriage”; consultant Frank Turek fired from both Cisco and the Bank of America because he authored the book Not Politically Correct: How Same-sex Marriage Hurts Everyone; Teacher of the Year Jerry Buell suspended for expressing his opposition to same-sex marriage; Air Force Master Sergeant of 19 years Phillip Monk relieved of duty because he disagreed with lesbian commanding officer about same-sex “marriage”; florist Baronelle Stutzmann sued by the attorney general of Washington because she refused to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding”; Sweet Cakes Bakery in Oregon closing rather than provide goods to a same-sex “wedding,” etc. etc.

The contrast between the Russian and American responses to the attack of the international homosexualist movement is disturbing. It may be explained in part by the still existing experience of a Russian identity by the Russian people, and the decayed experience of an American identity among the American people. It raises the question: to what extent does an “American identity” still exist? Since the 1960’s, America has been plagued by an ever-growing number of “group identities” to which many people give primary loyalty. The one commonality among such “group identities” is that much of their meaning is defined by simply being in opposition to the American mainstream. But as “group identities” have grown another question arises: what happens when those professing “group identities” outnumber those who identify simply as Americans?

When one walks around my native city of San Francisco, which Senator Leno, a transplant, represents, the number of homosexualist rainbow flags one sees outnumbers the American flags. It is thought-provoking to see, for instance, on the 3000 block of Pacific Avenue, a large rainbow flag flying just a few doors down from where the Egyptian flag flies in front of the Egyptian Consulate. Ditto for the 3500 block of Clay Street where the Korean flag flies in front of the Korean Consulate and four doors away one sees a large rainbow flag flying in front of a large lavender-colored house. Flags are a public assertion of loyalty. This juxtaposition of flags expressing loyalty to a nation flying next to flags expressing loyalty to a group with similar sexual proclivities should provoke anyone to stop and think about what that means for a society.

The loyalty the rainbow flag expresses is a loyalty to anyone anywhere who shares the same sexual proclivities. That identity is obviously supra-national or sub-national. It is a loyalty based on one of the most fundamental of biological drives: animal sexual desire. It is also sexuality unmoored from both responsibility and sexuality’s primary purpose: children. The simple sense of Consul Petrov’s justification of Russia’s law to Senator Leno then becomes crystal clear: “Family, motherhood and childhood in the traditional sense are values that lead to the preservation and development (of Russia, and) therefore require special protection from the state.”

Catholic Schools Standing With Catholic Church

Good news via the Cardinal Newman Society:

"Fired for same-sex marriage! Fired for scandal!

The recent spate of firings and forced resignations in Catholic schools has people talking. Just this week, we reported on a Montana teacher who revealed her out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and a Massachusetts man whose same-sex marriage was discovered after he was offered a Catholic school position. Both lost their jobs.

What's going on with Catholic schools?

The answer is: nothing new, really, except for a dose of courage and admirable integrity...."

As counterfeit marriage supporter John Corvino said in his debate with Maggie Gallagher: “Whichever side prevails in this debate, the other’s views will be marginalized. There’s no getting around that."

It's good to see Church leaders demand adherence to Church teaching in our own institutions. I expect, as Professor Corvino said, to see much more of this.

Wisdom of Russia's New Law: U.S. Photographers Fined for Refusing to Shoot "Commitment Ceremony"

In our post of August 15 "On Russia's New Law" we expressed support for Russia's new law outlawing homosexual propaganda, and we also noted that supporters of same-sex "marriage" themselves accept the marginalization of those with differing views:

"Back in July 30, 2012 Matthew Franck wrote a piece at Public Interest called Truth and Lies, Nature and Convention: The Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage. Mr. Franck quoted same-sex “marriage” supporter Jon Corvino:

'Whichever side prevails in this debate, the other’s views will be marginalized. There’s no getting around that.' 

So it is a question of which side should be marginalized. One side has built civilizations, the other side has built nothing, and exists parasitically within the civilization built by its enemies. In concrete terms: who will be marginalized, Dan Savage or Baronelle Stutzman? Savage, an ill-mannered lout (caution: link has vile content), is invited to the White House, while Ms. Stutzman is being sued by the state of Washington for refusing to provide flowers for a counterfeit “wedding”--and she's not alone."

Today, LifeSiteNews reports on John & Elaine Hugenin, photographers who live in New Mexico. It shows the wisdom of Russia's law. The Hugenin's refused, out of religious conviction, to photograph a "commitment ceremony" of two same-sex attracted persons:

"The Supreme Court of New Mexico has ruled that Christian photographers do not have the right to decline photographing a gay 'wedding,' even if doing so violates their religious beliefs.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Richard C. Bosson said Christians must 'compromise' their religious beliefs as “the price of citizenship.”

Judge Bosson also wrote: “At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” he wrote. “A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

(For the record, His Honor is on the "wrong side of history." America is no longer a pluralistic society, it is a plurality of societies and cultures living in the same geographical area.)

Read the whole thing.

So, again, the question is, as Professor Corvino stated, which views will be marginalized. That's a question of power. The Hugenin's are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom. You can donate to the organization here.

"You don’t get to pretend to enter into a gay 'marriage' and go on running a Catholic High School"

In Truth and Lies, Nature and Convention: The Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage, professor Jon Corvino, a supporter of same-sex "marriage" wrote: "Whichever side prevails in this debate, the other’s views will be marginalized. There’s no getting around that."

Which brings us to Archbishop Peter J. Sartain of Seattle, God bless him, who realizes what it takes to protect the faith today. A vice-principal at one of Seattle's archdiocesan high schools, is pretending to "marry" another man. In accordance with archdiocesan rules, that is grounds for dismissal. Needless to say, anti-Catholics are upset about this. Mark Shea, who lives in that archdiocese (and whose words we use as the title of this blog post) writes:

Your prayers for our Abp Sartain and the Seattle Archdiocese would be appreciated

"He’s a very good man and a very good bishop and he’s stuck with the crappy, thankless job of having to say to Seattle-style Catholics who see no conflict between the Faith and gay “marriage” that there is in fact such a conflict and you don’t get to pretend to enter into a gay “marriage” and go on running a Catholic High School. Seattle media and a large portion of his flock will treat him like an ogre. A real shame since he’s, you know, right."

One way to help the Archbishop is through the Archdiocesan Crozier Society. They describe themselves "Catholic leaders from around the archdiocese who support the Archbishop, and help fund seminarian formation." Here's a link to their donations page.

Providence College Follows Church, Denies Platform to Counterfeit "Marriage" Supporter

Good to see. From the New York Times:

"Providence College, a Roman Catholic school in Rhode Island, has canceled a lecture in support of same-sex marriage on Thursday by a gay philosophy professor, citing a church document that says that “Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.” 

Excellent. This is why that Church document was written.

"The lecturer, John Corvino, chairman of the philosophy department at Wayne State University, in Detroit, has spoken previously at more than 10 Catholic colleges and often appears in friendly debates with religious opponents of gay marriage. His appearance at Providence College had been co-sponsored by nine departments and programs, and some of the organizers said the cancellation surprised them." 

I'll bet it did. May the surprises increase!

On Russia's New Law

I was working on a post on Russia's new law defending their culture from homosexualist propaganda, but Pat Buchanan beat me to it. Back in July 30, 2012 Matthew Franck wrote a piece at Public Interest called Truth and Lies, Nature and Convention: The Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage. Mr. Franck quoted same-sex “marriage” supporter Jon Corvino:

“Whichever side prevails in this debate, the other’s views will be marginalized. There’s no getting around that.” 

So it is a question of which side should be marginalized. One side has built civilizations, the other side has built nothing, and exists parasitically within the civilization built by its enemies. In concrete terms: who will be marginalized, Dan Savage or Baronelle Stutzman? Savage, an ill-mannered lout (caution: link has vile content), is invited to the White House, while Ms. Stutzman is being sued by the state of Washington for refusing to provide flowers for a counterfeit “wedding”--and she's not alone. We have been covering the events in France. On June 12, 2013 LifeSiteNews ran a story about the Mayor of a French town willing to go to prison rather than participate in the charade (his word) of counterfeit marriage:

“The mayor of a small town in France’s Basque region has announced his refusal to carry out a ‘marriage’ between two men who reside in his jurisdiction, becoming the first mayor to defy the country’s new law that applies the name and rights of “matrimony” to couples of the same sex. 

Jean-Michel Colo, a conservative who heads the town of Arcangues in the southern Basque region of Pyrenees-Atlantiques, faces the possibility of a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of 75,000 euros (100,000 USD), according to French media sources. However, he appears to be unafraid of the consequences of his stand, telling the media that he will ‘go all the way to the gallows’ to oppose the law.

‘I don’t give lessons, I’m not inciting other mayors to follow my example, but I won’t enforce an illegitimate law,’ says Colo. ‘My seven councilmen and I are completely in agreement in saying that we will not participate in this charade.’”

 

So Mayor Colo, too, has been “marginalized.”  That won’t be happening in Russia. Instead, homosexual activists are being marginalized. Mr. Buchanan's article was called "Post v. Putin--Whose Side Are You On?"

"The culture war has gone global.

And the divisions are not only between, but within nations.

“Suddenly, homosexuality is against the law,” wailed Jay Leno. “I mean, this seems like Germany. Let’s round up the Jews. Let’s round up the gays. ... I mean, it starts like that.”

Leno was speaking of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Obama eagerly agreed:

“I have no patience for countries that treat gays or lesbians ... in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them. ... Nobody is more offended than me by some of the antigay and lesbian legislation that you’ve been seeing in Russia.”

(Note: As a commentator to Buchanan's article observed, Obama has endless patience when it comes to Christians being slaughtered in Muslim countries, something which is immeasurably greater than any persecution suffered by homosexuals.) Buchanan continues:

Leno and Obama were referring to a new Russian law prohibiting “homosexual propaganda.” Moscow is also warning foreigners, including visitors to the winter Olympics in Sochi, that propagandizing for gay rights can get them two weeks in detention. No kiss-ins allowed.

“Medieval,” howled The Washington Post. “Mr. Putin’s war” on gays and lesbians is “part and parcel of his lapse into xenophobia, religious chauvinism and general intolerance....

What this reveals is the distance America has traveled, morally and culturally, in a few short years, and our amnesia about who we Americans once were, and what it is we once believed.

Only yesterday, homosexual sodomy, which Thomas Jefferson said should be treated like rape, was outlawed in many states and same-sex marriage was regarded as an absurdity.

Was that America we grew up in really like Nazi Germany?

In the Catholic schools this writer attended, pornography—let alone homosexual propaganda—would get one expelled.

Was this really just like Kristallnacht?..."

 

Pat's last points are important. What has happened to America? How did the moral vacuum come into being? President Putin is a Russian nationalist. That's why he cares about what happens to Russia. Makes sense. But what is President Obama? What about us? We've gone from Jefferson's "We hold these truths..." (an assertion which, as Willmoore Kendall taught, presupposes a belief in Truth with a capital "T") to Anthony Kennedy's "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life..."

In his 1978 autobiography "In Search of History," the legendary liberal journalist Theodore H. White wrote of the changes he had seen:

"The old English political culture had lost control over … the polyglot peoples of America [who] had no common heritage but only ideas to bind them together… What would be really at issue was whether America would be transformed, in the name of Opportunity, simply into a Place, a gathering of discretely defined and entitled groups, interests and heritages; or whether it could continue to be a nation, where all heritages joined under the same roof—ideas of communities within government."

Well, the answer seems pretty clear. America has come to be "a gathering of discretely defined and entitled groups, interests and heritages" and the most politically powerful interest group wins. For now, that group has proved to be homosexual activists.

Barilla Pasta Boss Tells Truth, Gets Hammered

Guido Barilla apparently thinks a culture where "Heather Has No Daddy" is not a desirable state of affairs.

From The Guardian:

"For us the concept of the sacred family remains one of the basic values of the company," he told Italian radio on Wednesday evening. "I would not do it but not out of a lack of respect for homosexuals who have the right to do what they want without bothering others … [but] I don't see things like they do and I think the family that we speak to is a classic family."

Now, of course, he's getting the Maoist/Nazi/Stalinist/Khmer Rouge/Homosexualist re-education, and Barilla officials are grovelling in obeisance to the almighty buck, but the truth can't be untold. The Guardian article goes on to say that he is in favor of counterfeit "marriage" but is against same-sex couples adopting children. You're dealing with a totalitarian movement, Signor Barilla. You won't be allowed to make those kinds of distinctions. As pro same-sex "marriage" supporter Professor John Corvino said “Whichever side prevails in this debate, the other’s views will be marginalized. There’s no getting around that.”

More justification, if more were needed, for the Russian anti-propaganda law.  As Russian Consul Sergey Petrov said “Family, motherhood and childhood in the traditional sense are values that lead to the preservation and development (of Russia, and) therefore require special protection from the state."