SF Democrat: Government will Decide What is Family

Jennifer Roback Morse has an excellent essay on Mark Leno's (D-SF) insane Senate Bill 1436. SB 1436 would allow three (or more) adults to have a legal claim to being a child's parent. SB 1436 is now on Governor Brown's desk, awaiting his signature or veto.

"Can a child have three parents? If California State Senator Mark Leno has his way, children in California will be able to have three legal parents. Before we dismiss SB 1476 as another example of California Weird, we had best look into it more closely. After all, the bill has passed both houses of the California Assembly and is awaiting Governor Brown’s signature or veto.

I believe this development was inevitable, more inevitable in fact than the much-vaunted inevitability of gay marriage. Once we started trying to normalize parenting by same-sex couples and redefine marriage to remove the dual-gender requirement, we had to end up with triple-parenting.

A deeper look at the whole picture surrounding SB 1476 reveals that not only should the three-parent law fail, same-sex “marriage” should fail as well. As we will see, embedded in this bill is an appalling power-grab by the state, and a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts by the bill’s authors."

We have spoken before of the totalitarian nature of the move to redefine marriage. Because it is the attempted redefinition of nature, the enshrinement of a lie, it cannot allow truth to stand. Redefining marriage requires redefining the family--and that is exactly what is happening. We hope our fellow citizens in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, who will vote on whether or not to recognize counterfeit "marriage" in November, are watching.

Once again, we will add a clip from the 2008 "Marriage Matters to Kids" video. This clip, the final portion of the video, features especially chilling and prophetic observations. It is called "What is the Danger of Redefining Marriage?"

Posted by Gibbons

More on Vacating Judge Walker's Ruling

The great Ed Whelan had documented how liberal jurists and reporters have refused to meet the argument for the vacating of Judge Walker's Proposition 8 ruling (see here, here, here, and here), based on the long-term same-sex relationship he is in, and of course was in, at the time of his ruling. The opponents of Prop 8 claim to see this as a motion to vacate based on the fact Walker is same-sex attracted.

Whether Walker's ruling is vacated or not, the refusal is itself telling, and of a piece with the totalitarian structure of homosexual activism. William Duncan of the National Orgainzation for Marriage, also writing in National Review:

"If you want a sense of the degree to which politicians in Sacramento are acting on the principle 'by any means necessary' in their desire to be rid of Proposition 8, the state’s marriage amendment, and their absolute contempt for the people of the state who approved the amendment, you need look no further than the news from yesterday. It reports that California’s new attorney general filed a brief with the California Supreme Court arguing that only public officials can represent the state in defending marriage laws. Conveniently, the attorney general and governor are not willing to defend the marriage law, so if the AG’s proposal is accepted, there would be no defense of Proposition 8.

The real kick in the story is that the brief filed yesterday is an amicus brief — in other words, the AG was not required to weigh in at all, she just chose to express her opinion that the people who put the proposition on the ballot (and convinced a majority of Californians to adopt it) should not get to have a say in its defense. The legislative leadership also jumped in, defeating a bill that would have made clear that initiative sponsors can defend their laws in court, in a committee vote yesterday. So the ruling political class in California is arrayed against a fair hearing for Proposition 8. Let’s hope the California Supreme Court refuses to go along.

With last week’s news about the effort to keep DOMA from getting a lawyer, one could reasonably ask why some influential people believe marriage doesn’t deserve a defense. Maybe they are less sure of their own position than they seem."

Sure. They're "unsure of their position" because it is in opposition to reality. As Eric Voelgelin pointed out years ago, the mark of totalitarian ideology is the unwillingness to discuss, because discussion allows reality to intrude, and the intrusion of reality destroys the dream world.

Part 3 of Valerie Schmalz blockbuster series is up at Catholic San Francisco

This should be an example for every diocesan paper in the country.

Part 3 of Valerie Schmalz's must-read series describing the attack by homosexual activists on the Church continues in the September 26 issue of Catholic San Francisco. The digital version of the paper is already online. The series has been on the paper's front page for 3 weeks straight,  and quickly reached #1 on the website's "Most popular news stories" list. Faithful America, whom Schmalz has exposed, has used the series as a fundraising tool.

This week Ms. Schmalz tackles the phony "hate group" tactic used by homosexual activists. The story begins:

FBI does not support ‘hate group’charge by Faithful America
Pro marriage advocates say ‘hate’ charge a tactic to marginalize

VALERIE SCHMALZ
CATHOLIC SAN FRANCISCO

Many Catholics and other San Francisco Bay Area residents were taken aback when Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone was accused of allying with a “hate group” and others who use “hate speech” by speaking at the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. on June 19.

“Hate group” and “hate speech” are phrases that conjure images of skinhead attacks, Ku Klux Klan lynchings or beating up people because they are gay – all actions that would certainly be serious sins to Christians who believe in Christ’s command to “love one another.”

Because that charge was so incendiary, Catholic San Francisco took a closer look at the charges leveled by Faithful America against the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage, organizers of the June 19 March for Marriage. Catholic San Francisco also examined the groups which leveled those charges…."

Later in the article, Schmalz continues:

‘Hate group’ charge

"The 'hate group' label used in the Faithful America petition and letter was devised by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit group with no official government standing.

Based on interviews with a federal law enforcement official and others, the Southern Poverty Law Center lumps those who oppose same-sex marriage with racist supremacists.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation does not track “hate groups,” but investigates crimes, according to FBI spokesman Chris Allan. 'We are limited to investigate what a federal violation would be. It is not a crime to be part of a hate group it is only the action itself' of a hate crime which the FBI would investigate, said Allan, who also said the FBI had not investigated the Family Research Council for hate crimes…

The Southern Poverty Law Center official who spoke with Catholic San Francisco also said that the Family Research Council was placed on its 'hate map' for what it believes and what it says, not for any crimes"

The Southern Poverty Law Center are phonies with a political agenda. A simple example illustrates this: every year on Easter Sunday in San Francisco the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence conduct the Hunky Jesus contest, an event that mocks the torture and murder of Jesus Christ. That is a expression of hate of Christianity on the holiest day of the year for Christians.

You'd think a group that professes to be "teaching tolerance" might have something to say about this. But I just did a search for 'Hunky Jesus' on the Southern Poverty Law center's website. Here's the result:

Nothing. Nada. I doubt they would be so quiet if someone mocked the murder of, say, Matthew Shepherd. As I said the Southern Poverty Law Center are phonies with a political agenda.

Ms. Schmalz's article closes with two reflection on the ubiquitous lying that is part and parcel of the counterfeit marriage movement

"David is a member of Courage, the faithful Catholic group that ministers to people who experience same-sex attraction. Because he wishes to remain anonymous, in this article he is given a generic first name. He told

Catholic San Francisco the emphasis on hate speech is part of a strategy to demonize those who promote chastity. 'The trick of the enemy is to say the opposite of the truth,' said David, who said Courage relies on anonymity much as Alcoholics Anonymous does. 'The ones who are talking about bullying are running the big bully networks.'

The issue is a fundamental disconnect in world view and of each other, said Robert Reilly, author of 'Making Gay Okay' (Ignatius Press, 2014). 'People who are ruled by their passion which they think is love can only imagine opposition coming from another passion. The opposite is hatred,' Reilly said, but the supporters of marriage between one man and one woman are animated by a belief in a truth, not by hatred, he said.

Reilly quoted George Orwell, author of the novel '1984' which describes a totalitarian future where all thought is controlled and recast: 'The more a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.'

This is the best work Catholic San Francisco has ever done. It should be a model for every other diocesan paper in the country.

"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."

Meanwhile, Illinois Senate Votes to Issue Counterfeit "Marriage" Licenses

The totalitarian media has no trouble covering this story.

The good old Curt Jester, Jeff Miller, puts it all in perspective:

"Historic Vote in the House of Commons

The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to approve a bill redefining poverty in Britain, indicating that the bill is assured of passage as it moves through further legislative stages.

Prime Minister David Cameron had been concerned about the increasing poverty rates and the growing problems poverty entails. The bill changed the definition of poverty to only include those who have less than a shilling and don’t have any family members to support them. Members of The House of Commons are enthused about this historic vote which wiped out poverty overnight.

After the approval of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage David Cameron said “I was thinking if we could change the definition of marriage to mean whatever we wanted it to mean then what is to stop of from doing this in other areas? If we can go from an understudying of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to hardly having a definition at all, then certainly that provides a precedent.” Mr. Cameron has also outlined some other legislative efforts such as redefining illness thus saving millions regarding the National Health Service."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Light From the East

We, and of course others, have often noted the totalitarian nature of same-sex "marriage" activism. When one redefines a part of reality, one cannot stop there.

One group of people who are well attuned to this creeping totalitarianism are the Russians, which is not surprising, given their experience of the 20th century.

Here's is a statement from Kirill, the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, reported on July 22 in Asia News: 

 

"The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Kirill, has spoken out against countries that have approved same-sex marriage - which he has termed as 'dangerous signs of the Apocalypse' - and warns about the risk of dictatorship of free will.

On the occasion of the liturgy held on 21 July in Kazan Cathedral on Red Square in Moscow, the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church denounced the presence of colossal forces which aim to 'convince us all that the only real value is free will, and that no-one has the right to violate this value, even when a person chooses evil or a socially dangerous behavior'. 'Everything goes as long as it does not violate the rules of the civil law,' he added, recognizing how these norms 'easily fool.'

'In recent times, in a number of countries the choice of sin has been approved and justified by the law, and those who in good conscience, fight these laws imposed by a minority, are repressed', denounced the Patriarch. This, he said, is 'a dangerous sign of the apocalypse and we must do everything to ensure that in the area of ​​Holy Rus this sin is never justified by the law, because that would mean that the nation has embarked on the path of' self-destruction".

The good young Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion, about whom we have posted before, echoed the Patriarch--(and both echo Pope Emeritus Benedict's description of "the dictatorship of relativism"), in an article published in Interfax on July 24:

"Modern Western states move to absolute dictatorship, head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate Metropolitan Hilarion believes. 
'Nowadays state sets a principle of secularity, independency from any outside authority that is authorized to point out to violations of morals or rights,' the metropolitan writes in his article published in the Pravoslavnaya Beseda magazine.

"This powerful energy today strives to finally break with Christianity, which controlled its totalitarian impulses during seventeen centuries. Eventually, it unconsciously strives to set up an absolute dictatorship that demands total control over each member of society. Don't we move to it when 'for the sake of security' we agree to obligatory electronic passports, dactyloscopy for everyone, and photo cameras occurring everywhere? All these things can be easily used in other purposes that can also be interpreted as 'strengthening security measures,' Metropolitan Hilarion notes.

He believes that latest developments in the world is 'constituent restoration of Pax Romana, global international supremacy.' The metropolitan also says that if Roman authorities were in certain periods indifferent to immorality, today they strive to make 'immorality normal.'"

Mark Steyn: The Popes versus the "Empire of Lies"

On Saturday, in preparation for the canonization of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II, Mark Steyn published this excerpt from his book Mark Steyn's Passing Parade. The "empire of lies," as Mr. Steyn indicates was not only the Soviet Union, but any totalitarian regime, such as the totalitarian liberalism that now dominates the West.

Truth and Consequences

"How many divisions has the Pope?" sneered Stalin of Pius XII. Uncle Joe's successors lived long enough to find out. John Paul II's divisions were the Poles who filled the streets to cheer him on his return as pontiff to his homeland in the summer of 1979, and the brave men who founded the Solidarity union 18 months later, and began the chain of events that within a decade swept the Communists from power in Central and Eastern Europe and finally Mother Russia itself. One day we will know the precise combination of Bulgarian Secret Service, East German Stasi and Soviet KGB that lay behind the 1981 assassination attempt on the Holy Father. But you can see why they'd be willing to do it. By then the sclerotic Warsaw Pact understood just how many divisions this Pope had.

Twenty-six years ago, one young physics student summed up the hopes he and his compatriots had invested in that Papal visit in this simple declaration: "What I want to do is to live without being a liar." The Soviet Union and its vassals were an empire of lies, and, while you can mitigate (as many Poles and Russians did) the gulf between the official version and grim reality with bleak jokes, living an epic lie day in day out is corrosive of human dignity. That Polish physics student had identified instinctively what would be the great over-arching theme of John Paul II's papacy: to quote the title of his later encyclical, Veritatis Splendor – the splendor of truth.

Too many western politicians of a generation ago – Schmidt, Mitterand, Trudeau – failed to see what John Paul saw so clearly. It requires tremendous will to cling to the splendor of truth when the default mode of the era is to blur and evade.

And in that respect, across a turbulent half-century, there's more continuity between John Paul II and John XXIII than you might expect, and, indeed, with the intervening papacy of Paul VI. Shortly after John XXIII's death, Pope Paul's Humanae Vitae predicted that artificial birth control would lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality," the objectification of women, and governments "imposing upon their peoples" state-approved methods of contraception. You might conceivably claim that the collective damage they have done does not outweigh the individual benefits they have brought to many, but you can't argue that Pope Paul's summation wasn't right on the money - or that either his "liberal" predecessor or his "conservative" successor (after John Paul I's interlude) would have disagreed with him. It fell to John Paul II to defend veritatis splendor not only, politically, in the eastern bloc, but, culturally, in the western world, where it proved a tougher sell:

As The New York Times reported upon his death:

Among liberal Catholics, he was criticized for his strong opposition to abortion, homosexuality and contraception…

Shocking: a Pope who's opposed to abortion, homosexuality and contraception; what's the world coming to? The Guardian's assertion that Karol Wojtyla was "a doctrinaire, authoritarian pontiff" at least suggests the inflexible authoritarian derived his inflexibility from some ancient operating manual – he was doctrinaire about his doctrine, dogmatic about his dogma – unlike the Times and The Washington Post, which came close to implying that John Paul II had taken against abortion and gay marriage off the top of his head, principally to irk "liberal Catholics". But, either way, the assumption is always that there's some middle ground a less "doctrinaire" pope might have staked out: he might have supported abortion in the first trimester, say, or reciprocal partner benefits for gays in committed relationships.

The root of the Pope's thinking – that there are eternal truths no-one can change even if he wanted to – is completely incomprehensible to the progressivist mindset. There are no absolute truths, everything's in play, and by "consensus" all we're really arguing is the rate of concession to the inevitable: abortion's here to stay, gay marriage will be here any day now – it's all gonna happen anyway, man, so why be the last squaresville daddy-o on the block?

When Governor Jim McGreevey announced he was stepping down, he told the people of New Jersey: "My truth is that I am a gay American." That's a very contemporary formulation: "my" truth. To John Paul II, there was only "the" truth. To the moral relativists, everyone's entitled to his own – or, as the Governor continued, "one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world." Among liberal "Catholics" in Manhattan and Boston, the pontiff may be a reactionary misogynist homophobe condom-banner but, beyond those stunted horizons, he was a man fully engaged with the modern world and shrewder at reconciling it with the splendor of the eternal truth than most politicians. Western liberals claim the Pope's condom hang-ups have had tragic consequences in Aids-riddled Africa. The Dark Continent gets darker every year: millions are dying, male life expectancy is collapsing, and such civil infrastructure as there is seems likely to follow. But the most effective weapon against the disease has not been the Aids lobby's 20-year promotion of condom culture in Africa but Uganda's campaign to change behaviour and to emphasise abstinence and fidelity – ie, the Pope's position. You don't have to be a Catholic or a "homophobe" to think that the spread of Aids is telling us something basic – that nature is not sympathetic to sexual promiscuity. If it weren't Aids, it would be something else, as it has been for most of human history. What should be the Christian response? To accept that we're merely the captives of our appetites, like a dog in heat? Or to ask us to rise to the rank God gave us – "a little lower than the angels" but above "the beasts of the field"? In The Gospel Of Life, the Pope wrote:

Sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited: …it increasingly becomes the occasion and instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction of personal desires and instincts. Thus the original import of human sexuality is distorted and falsified, and the two meanings, unitive and procreative, inherent in the very nature of the conjugal act, are artificially separated…

Had the Pope signed on to condom distribution in Africa, he would have done nothing to reduce the spread of Aids, but he would have done a lot to advance the further artificial separation of sex, in Africa and beyond. Indeed, if you look at The New York Times' list of complaints against the Pope they all boil down to what he called sex as self-assertion.

Thoughtful atheists ought to be able to recognize that, whatever one's tastes in these areas, the Pope is on to something – that abortion et al, in separating the "two meanings" of sex and leaving us free to indulge in one while ignoring the other, have severed us almost entirely and possibly irreparably from traditional impulses, like societal survival. Given what Aids has done to African mortality rates and what abortion has done to European demographics, John Paul II's eternal truths look a lot more rational than those of the hyperrationalists at The New York Times. John Paul II championed the "splendor of truth" not because he was rigid and inflexible, but because he understood the alternative was a dead end in every sense. To Karol Wojtyla, truth was not just splendid but immutable: he proved his point in the struggle against Communism; one day the west will recognize that he got it right closer to home, too.

Over 100,000 Rally for Marriage in Puerto Rico!

Ben Johnson over at LifeSiteNews has the story:

More than 100,000 rally to protect marriage in Puerto Rico

SAN JUAN, PR, February 18, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Between 120,000 and 200,000 people blanketed the Capitol Building in San Juan, Puerto Rico, today to encourage the island's lawmakers to defend marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Bearing signs stating “Puerto Rico stands up to defend the family,” tens of thousands of protesters called on the ruling Popular Democratic Party to turn back any measure that would redefine the family unit...."

Of course our totalitarian media is ignoring the event. The only other outlet covering it, so far, is the Caribbean Business News:

Pro-Family Marchers flock to the capitol.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

"The Gospel that once transformed cultures is now in danger of being transformed by them"

Here is the Intervention of Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments, in the ongoing Synod on the Family.

This is so important, so lucid, and so obviously inspired by and faithful to the Holy Spirit, and to Jesus Christ, we reproduce it in full. This is the voice of the Church!

Your Holiness, Your Eminences, Your Excellencies, participants of the Synod,

I propose these three thoughts:

1. More transparency and respect among us

I feel a strong need to invoke the Spirit of Truth and Love, the source of parrhesia in speaking and humility in listening, who alone is capable of creating true harmony in plurality.

I say frankly that in the previous Synod, on various issues one sensed the temptation to yield to the mentality of the secularized world and individualistic West. Recognizing the so-called “realities of life” as a locus theologicus means giving up hope in the transforming power of faith and the Gospel. The Gospel that once transformed cultures is now in danger of being transformed by them. Furthermore, some of the procedures used did not seem aimed at enriching discussion and communion as much as they did to promote a way of seeing typical of certain fringe groups of the wealthiest churches. This is contrary to a poor Church, a joyously evangelical and prophetic sign of contradiction to worldliness. Nor does one understand why some statements that are not shared by the qualified majority of the last Synod still ended up in the Relatio and then in the Lineamenta and the Instrumentum laboris when other pressing and very current issues (such as gender ideology) are instead ignored.

The first hope is therefore that, in our work, there by more freedom, transparency and objectivity. For this, it would be beneficial to publish the summaries of the interventions, to facilitate discussion and avoid any prejudice or discrimination in accepting the pronouncements of the synod Fathers.

2. Discernment of history and of spirits

A second hope: that the Synod honor its historic mission and not limit itself to speaking only about certain pastoral issues (such as the possible communion for divorced and remarried) but help the Holy Father to enunciate clearly truths and real guidance on a global level. For there are new challenges with respect to the synod celebrated in 1980. A theological discernment enables us to see in our time two unexpected threats (almost like two “apocalyptic beasts”) located on opposite poles: on the one hand, the idolatry of Western freedom; on the other, Islamic fundamentalism: atheistic secularism versus religious fanaticism. To use a slogan, we find ourselves between “gender ideology and ISIS”. Islamic massacres and libertarian demands regularly contend for the front page of the newspapers. (Let us remember what happened last June 26!). From these two radicalizations arise the two major threats to the family: its subjectivist disintegration in the secularized West through quick and easy divorce, abortion, homosexual unions, euthanasia etc. (cf. Gender theory, the ‘Femen’, the LGBT lobby, IPPF …). On the other hand, the pseudo-family of ideologized Islam which legitimizes polygamy, female subservience, sexual slavery, child marriage etc. (cf. Al Qaeda, Isis, Boko Haram …)

Several clues enable us to intuit the same demonic origin of these two movements. Unlike the Spirit of Truth that promotes communion in the distinction (perichoresis), these encourage confusion (homo-gamy) or subordination (poly-gamy). Furthermore, they demand a universal and totalitarian rule, are violently intolerant, destroyers of families, society and the Church, and are openly Christianophobic.

“We are not contending against creatures of flesh and blood ….” We need to be inclusive and welcoming to all that is human; but what comes from the Enemy cannot and must not be assimilated. You can not join Christ and Belial! What Nazi-Fascism and Communism were in the 20th century, Western homosexual and abortion Ideologies and Islamic Fanaticism are today.

3. Proclaim and serve the beauty of Monogamy and the Family

Faced with these two deadly and unprecedented challenges (“homo-gamy” and “poly-gamy”) the Church must promote a true “epiphany of the Family.” To this both the Pope (as spokesman of the Church) may contribute, and individual Bishops and Pastors of the Christian flock: that is, “the Church of God, which he has obtained with his own blood” (Acts: 20:28).

We must proclaim the truth without fear, i.e. the Plan of God, which is monogamy in conjugal love open to life. Bearing in mind the historical situation just recalled, it is urgent that the Church, at its summit, definitively declare the will of the Creator for marriage. How many people of good will and common sense would join in this luminous act of courage carried out by the Church!

Together with a strong and clear Word of the Supreme Magisterium, Pastors have the mission of helping our contemporaries to discover the beauty of the Christian family. To do this, it must first promote all that represents a true Christian Initiation of adults, for the marriage crisis is essentially a crisis of God, but also a crisis of faith, and this is an infantile Christian initiation. Then we must discern those realities that the Holy Spirit is already raising up to reveal the Truth of the Family as an intimate communion in diversity (man and woman) that is generous in the gift of life. We bishops have the urgent duty to recognize and promote the charisms, movements, and ecclesial realities in which the Family is truly revealed, this prodigy of harmony, love of life and hope in Eternity, this cradle of faith and school charity. And there are so many realities offered by Providence, together with the Second Vatican Council, in which this miracle is offered.

Translation from Italian by Diane Montagna.

Cardinal Sarah’s Synod: Who was Pope when Athanasius was Bishop?

The recent Synod on the Family will eventually be recognized as an event of supreme importance. The Synod revealed fault lines between Bishops faithful to Jesus Christ, and those whose faith has become distorted through a prism of ideology. That ideology is a heresy of the dying West. It primarily, though not exclusively, infects certain bishops and cardinals from Europe and the Americas.

For a Synod on the Family, the focus of these clergy on divorce (not to mention homosexuality) is both odd and suggestive. I’ll suggest that their concern about divorce is a case of psychological projection: the infected bishops are projecting their unconscious, not-even-to-be-considered fear that they, leaders of the Church, the bride of Christ, have already divorced their bridegroom.

They are masking their feelings of guilt at dumping Jesus Christ by professing concern for laity who have divorced their spouses. Their putative effort to bring these members of the laity “back into the church” indicates a suppressed, un-faceable desire to bring themselves back into communion. But to clearly articulate this reality would bring it into conscious awareness, and would be too painful. Hence the incoherence of focusing on divorce in a Synod on the Family.

The Synod included another event of supreme importance that has been noted by many—the emergence of the sub-Saharan African Church. There is a stark contrast between the incoherence of the infected bishops and the simple and assured clarity of the African bishops. A number of examples could be given, but one will suffice for this article: the masterful Intervention of Cardinal Robert Sarah.

First, Cardinal Sarah noted the infection had reached the highest levels of the Church. Excerpt:

“I say frankly that in the previous Synod, on various issues one sensed the temptation to yield to the mentality of the secularized world and individualistic West. Recognizing the so-called ‘realities of life’ as a locus theologicus means giving up hope in the transforming power of faith and the Gospel. The Gospel that once transformed cultures is now in danger of being transformed by them. Furthermore, some of the procedures used did not seem aimed at enriching discussion and communion as much as they did to promote a way of seeing typical of certain fringe groups of the wealthiest churches. This is contrary to a poor Church, a joyously evangelical and prophetic sign of contradiction to worldliness.”

His Eminence also insisted on a ‘Discernment of History and Spirits.’ He then discerned: 

“A second hope: that the Synod honor its historic mission and not limit itself to speaking only about certain pastoral issues (such as the possible communion for divorced and remarried) but help the Holy Father to enunciate clearly truths and real guidance on a global level. For there are new challenges with respect to the synod celebrated in 1980. A theological discernment enables us to see in our time two unexpected threats (almost like two “apocalyptic beasts”) located on opposite poles: on the one hand, the idolatry of Western freedom; on the other, Islamic fundamentalism: atheistic secularism versus religious fanaticism. To use a slogan, we find ourselves between “gender ideology and ISIS”. Islamic massacres and libertarian demands regularly contend for the front page of the newspapers. (Let us remember what happened last June 26!). From these two radicalizations arise the two major threats to the family: its subjectivist disintegration in the secularized West through quick and easy divorce, abortion, homosexual unions, euthanasia etc. (cf. Gender theory, the ‘Femen’, the LGBT lobby, IPPF …). On the other hand, the pseudo-family of ideologized Islam which legitimizes polygamy, female subservience, sexual slavery, child marriage etc.

Several clues enable us to intuit the same demonic origin of these two movements. Unlike the Spirit of Truth that promotes communion in the distinction (perichoresis), these encourage confusion (homo-gamy) or subordination (poly-gamy). Furthermore, they demand a universal and totalitarian rule, are violently intolerant, destroyers of families, society and the Church, and are openly Christianophobic.”

Cardinal Sarah then insisted that the duty of the Church is first and always fidelity to her bridegroom, Jesus Christ, which in the context of a Synod on the Family means not to make room for divorce, about which Christ has already uttered the last word, but rather to “Proclaim and serve the beauty of Monogamy and the Family’:

“Faced with these two deadly and unprecedented challenges (‘homo-gamy’ and ‘poly-gamy’) the Church must promote a true ‘epiphany of the Family.’ To this both the Pope (as spokesman of the Church) may contribute, and individual Bishops and Pastors of the Christian flock: that is, ‘the Church of God, which he has obtained with his own blood’ (Acts: 20:28).

We must proclaim the truth without fear, i.e. the Plan of God, which is monogamy in conjugal love open to life. Bearing in mind the historical situation just recalled, it is urgent that the Church, at its summit, definitively declare the will of the Creator for marriage. How many people of good will and common sense would join in this luminous act of courage carried out by the Church!

Together with a strong and clear Word of the Supreme Magisterium, Pastors have the mission of helping our contemporaries to discover the beauty of the Christian family. To do this, it must first promote all that represents a true Christian Initiation of adults, for the marriage crisis is essentially a crisis of God, but also a crisis of faith, and this is an infantile Christian initiation. Then we must discern those realities that the Holy Spirit is already raising up to reveal the Truth of the Family as an intimate communion in diversity (man and woman) that is generous in the gift of life. We bishops have the urgent duty to recognize and promote the charisms, movements, and ecclesial realities in which the Family is truly revealed, this prodigy of harmony, love of life and hope in Eternity, this cradle of faith and school charity…”

On October 15, 2014, Zenit published an interview in which Cardinal Walter Kasper, the leader of the divorced faction, who said that the African Cardinals “should not tell us too much what we have to do” and questioned whether they were listened to outside of Africa. It turns out His Eminence was expressing more a wish than an observation. 

The First Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD, was another Church event of supreme importance. Yet who, outside of a church historian, can even recall the name of the Pope at the time of the Nicaea? The pivotal figure at Nicaea was not the then-Pope, but Bishop Athanasius. And any Catholic with even a slight knowledge of the faith, not to mention people outside the faith, knows of Athanasius. Hos Holiness Pope Francis called the Synod on the Family. But a thousand years from now it may well be remembered as Cardinal Sarah’s Synod.

Immigration and Dictatorship

The totalitarian nature of the American left and the Democratic party grow clearer by the day. That clarity is the only upside of the current one-party rule in the White House and both houses of Congress.

We've seen the will of the people overridden by courts time and time again on the issue of same-sex "marriage"--courts forcing a counterfeit version of marriage down the community's throats-- and in Massachusetts and Washington DC refusing to even allow the people to vote on the issue.

Now we're getting the same thing on illegal immigration, with an added twist. As everybody knows, Judge Susan Bolton put Arizona's SB 1070 on hold. Legal scholars have eviscerated her ruling, which is so bad that people like Heather MacDonald and Andy McCarthy are disagreeing over which part to attack first. McCarthy says:

"We are a body politic not a body legal. Federal law is (and is supposed to be) very limited in what it can prevent a sovereign state from doing. Beyond those narrow limitations, the state has discretion to govern itself as its citizens see fit. Similarly, the federal executive branch is vested with vast powers but finite resources, and it has discretion over how it will husband the latter. When a state’s lawful discretionary action conflicts with the president’s lawful discretionary decision not to enforce a congressional statute, that is not a legal issue. It is a political issue.

In such a situation, the job of the federal courts is to stay out of it. Then, in the court of public opinion, Arizona gets to demonstrate why illegal immigration is a huge problem, and the Obama administration can try to defend the de facto amnesty it seeks to confer on the illegal immigrant population. Indeed, it is only when the law throws back its veil and politics is allowed to operate, that we actually get to see that de facto amnesty is the president’s objective. That’s why the administration and its Justice Department want you to think of this as a legal case — if it’s politics, they lose . . . big."

The added twist is the newly discovered memo from Immigration services. Robert VerBruggen, writing in National Review:

"According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.

“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads."

So now you don't even need a judge. Just make law via a group of bureaucrats. Rosemary Jenks, also in National Review, writes:

"The four authors of the memo, titled 'Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform,' are political appointees USCIS chief of policy and strategy Denise Vanison (a former immigration attorney and partner at Patton Boggs) and USCIS chief counsel Roxana Bacon (former general counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association), and two career employees of USCIS director Alejandro Mayorkas, another Obama appointee.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress — and only Congress — the authority to decide federal immigration law, but the Obama administration has come up with an extensive list of ways to ensure that a majority of the illegal aliens in the United States are allowed to remain here."

She then lists a number of the most offensive of the memo's recommendations (follow the link) and which can be summed up "make(ing) sure no illegal alien is left behind."

Gibbons J. Cooney

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."

Gay Activists Shove Old Lady Around, Trample Cross

The little old lady is named Phyllis Burgess. She's pressing charges, as well she should. I love her:

"Despite the attack, Burgess plans to attend future gay marriage rallies. 'To get my remarks across at my city hall where I have lived for 30 years .... if it takes endangerment, should that stop me?' says Burgess with a smile."

And VirtueOnline comments on our mainstream totalitarian media:

"The worst example we've seen of TV reporting on Prop. 8 protests came from the local CBS station in Palm Springs, Calif. On the grounds of City Hall, furious "gay" protesters knocked a Christian cross out of an elderly woman's hands and stomped on it. The woman remained calm and collected. When reporter Kimberly Chang tried to interview her, protesters screamed and blocked the camera with their signs. Hilariously, the station identified the victimized woman as "Phyllis Burgess, Involved in Prop 8 Rally Altercation." That's like saying Poland was involved in a border altercation with Nazi Germany. In a masterpiece of moral equivalence, CBS anchor Kris Long told viewers, "There's a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

h/t Mark Shea

Archbishop: "A major political party that has intrinsic evils among its basic principles"

That would be the Papal Nuncio, His Excellency Carlo Maria Vignano, who also notes that influential "Catholics" and  professors at ostensibly Catholic universities are among the guilty. From Catholic News Agency:

"Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has told the University of Notre Dame that there is a concrete 'menace' to religious liberty in the U.S. that is advancing in part because some influential Catholic public figures and university professors are allied with those opposed to Church teaching.

'Evidence is emerging which demonstrates that the threat to religious freedom is not solely a concern for non-democratic and totalitarian regimes,' he said. 'Unfortunately it is surfacing with greater regularity in what many consider the great democracies of the world.'

The apostolic nuncio, who serves as the Pope’s diplomatic representative to the U.S., said this is a 'tragedy' for both the believer and for democratic society.

Archbishop Vigano’s Nov. 4 speech keynoted the University of Notre Dame’s Institute for Church Life conference. He discussed martyrdom, persecution, and religious freedom, with a particular focus on the United States.

 He cited Catholics’ duties to be disciples of Christ, not elements of a political or secular ideology. He lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting 'a major political party' that has 'intrinsic evils among its basic principles.'"

His Excellency is not talking about the Whigs. Or the Republicans. He's talking about the Democrats, and their allies within Catholic institutions.

 “There is a divisive strategy at work here, an intentional dividing of the Church; through this strategy, the body of the Church is weakened, and thus the Church can be more easily persecuted,” the nuncio said."
 Archbishop Vigano observed that some influential Catholic public officials and university professors are allied with forces opposed to the Church’s fundamental moral teachings on 'critical issues' like abortion, population control, the redefinition of marriage, embryonic stem cell research and 'problematic adoptions.'”

Exposing and combatting this is one of the reasons this blog was created.