Here's a short excerpt of a masterful article by Mary Eberstadt
The adversaries of Humanae Vitae also could not have foreseen one important historical development that in retrospect would appear to undermine their demands that the Catholic Church change with the times: the widespread Protestant collapse, particularly the continuing implosion of the Episcopal Church and the other branches of Anglicanism.
It is about as clear as any historical chain can get that this implosion is a direct consequence of the famous Lambeth Conference in 1930, at which the Anglicans abandoned the longstanding Christian position on contraception. If a church cannot tell its flock "what to do with my body," as the saying goes, with regard to contraception, then other uses of that body will quickly prove to be similarly off-limits to ecclesiastical authority.
It makes perfect if unfortunate sense, then, that the Anglicans are today imploding over the issue of homosexuality. To quote Anscombe again: If contraceptive intercourse is permissible, then what objection could there be after all to mutual masturbation, or copulation in vase indebito, sodomy, buggery (I should perhaps remark that I am using a legal term here — not indulging in bad language), when normal copulation is impossible or inadvisable (or in any case, according to taste)? It can't be the mere pattern of bodily behavior in which the stimulation is procured that makes all the difference! But if such things are all right, it becomes perfectly impossible to see anything wrong with homosexual intercourse, for example.
I am not saying: if you think contraception all right you will do these other things; not at all. The habit of respectability persists and old prejudices diehard. But I am saying: you will have no solid reason against these things. You will have no answer to someone who prclaims as many do that they are good too. You cannot point to the known fact that Christianity drew people out of the pagan world, always saying no to these things. Because, if you are defending contraception, you will have rejected Christian tradition.
By giving benediction in 1930 to its married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell her other members — married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual —not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals. Thus in a bizarre but real sense did Lambeth's attempt to show compassion to married heterosexuals advertently give rise to the modern gay-rights movement — and consequently, to the issues that have divided their church ever since. It is hard to believe that anyone seeking a similar change in Catholic teaching on the subject would want the Catholic Church to follow suit into the moral and theological confusion at the center of today's Anglican Church — yet such is the purposeful ignorance of so many who oppose Rome on birth control that they refuse to connect these cautionary historical dots.
Mary Eberstadt is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Marriage Matters to Kids!
Wow! With marriage under attack in California here is a great new website:
MarriageMatterstoKids.org has videos of our Catholic Bishops (Bishop Cordileone of San Diego, Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco, Bishop Vigeneron of Oakland) and others exploring the true meaning of marriage and addressing such questions.
Here's a clip of the concluding segment from youtube:
Go to http://www.marriagematterstokids.org/ to see the full video, plus individual videos of our Bishops.
MarriageMatterstoKids.org has videos of our Catholic Bishops (Bishop Cordileone of San Diego, Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco, Bishop Vigeneron of Oakland) and others exploring the true meaning of marriage and addressing such questions.
Here's a clip of the concluding segment from youtube:
Go to http://www.marriagematterstokids.org/ to see the full video, plus individual videos of our Bishops.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
California Parental Notification Initiative
A syndicated California columnist named Tom Elias ran a column on Tuesday making absolutely outrageous claims about girls dying and being maimed where there are parental notification laws.
He is LYING. He is MAKING IT UP.
Catherine Short, Legal Director for Life Legal Defense Foundation, has responded as follows:In warning his readers about Proposition 4, the parental notification initiative, Tom Elias makes some bold assertions about “case histories” showing girls getting back alley abortions or self-aborting when faced with the prospect of a parent being notified. His claims are pure, unadulterated fiction. There are no case histories, no studies, no support at all for his oh-so-scientific sounding proclamations.
The opponents of Prop 4 are unable to point to a single case of a minor being harmed by a parental involvement law. But with “journalists” like Mr. Elias around to fabricate this stuff, why would they need facts or evidence? It’s in the newspaper; it must be true.Moving from full lies to half-lies, Mr. Elias states that, under Prop 4, a minor from an abusive home could only get a waiver to tell another adult family member if there was a “formal record” or “formal history” of abuse by a parent. That’s incorrect.Prop 4 allows the doctor to notify another adult family member in place of a parent whenever a girl states in writing that she has been the victim.
Check other false statements on ProLifeBlogs. com
He is LYING. He is MAKING IT UP.
Catherine Short, Legal Director for Life Legal Defense Foundation, has responded as follows:In warning his readers about Proposition 4, the parental notification initiative, Tom Elias makes some bold assertions about “case histories” showing girls getting back alley abortions or self-aborting when faced with the prospect of a parent being notified. His claims are pure, unadulterated fiction. There are no case histories, no studies, no support at all for his oh-so-scientific sounding proclamations.
The opponents of Prop 4 are unable to point to a single case of a minor being harmed by a parental involvement law. But with “journalists” like Mr. Elias around to fabricate this stuff, why would they need facts or evidence? It’s in the newspaper; it must be true.Moving from full lies to half-lies, Mr. Elias states that, under Prop 4, a minor from an abusive home could only get a waiver to tell another adult family member if there was a “formal record” or “formal history” of abuse by a parent. That’s incorrect.Prop 4 allows the doctor to notify another adult family member in place of a parent whenever a girl states in writing that she has been the victim.
Check other false statements on ProLifeBlogs. com
Monday, October 6, 2008
Bill Ayers in 2006
This isn't from twenty or thirty years ago--it's from two years ago. Bill Ayers at the World Education Forum, hosted by the dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela:
"President Hugo Chavez, Vice-President Vicente Rangel, Ministers Moncada and Isturiz, invited guests,comrades. I’m honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout Northamerica. Welcome to the World Education Forum! Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana!
This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane."
That's Bill Ayers, with whom Senator Barack Obama was friends and worked with for years. Some of Mr. Ayers "educational" theories in practice:
"President Hugo Chavez, Vice-President Vicente Rangel, Ministers Moncada and Isturiz, invited guests,comrades. I’m honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout Northamerica. Welcome to the World Education Forum! Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana!
This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane."
That's Bill Ayers, with whom Senator Barack Obama was friends and worked with for years. Some of Mr. Ayers "educational" theories in practice:
Friday, October 3, 2008
Now THAT'S A Bishop!
That'd be Bishop Joseph F. Martino, of Scranton, PA. From Catholic News Agency:
Bishop of Scranton pledges vigilance in correcting pro-choice Catholic politicians
Scranton, PA, Oct 2, 2008 / 04:12 am (CNA).- Bishop Joseph F. Martino of the Diocese of Scranton has directed a pastoral letter on pro-life matters to be read at all weekend Masses of the upcoming Respect Life Weekend, saying Catholic efforts on such issues have “more significance than ever.” Discussing the societal breakdown in the wake of the sexual revolution, Bishop Martino explains Catholic teaching, and pledges “vigilance” in correcting Catholic pro-abortion rights public figures..."
Here are excerpts from His Excellecy's letter:
"Another argument goes like this: “As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: The finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide -- the gravest injustice a society can tolerate -- in the name of “social justice.”
Even the Church’s just war theory has moral force because it is grounded in the principle that innocent human life must be protected and defended. Now, a person may, in good faith, misapply just war criteria leading him to mistakenly believe that an unjust war is just, but he or she still knows that innocent human life may not be harmed on purpose. A person who supports permissive abortion laws, however, rejects the truth that innocent human life may never be destroyed. This profound moral failure runs deeper and is more corrupting of the individual, and of the society, than any error in applying just war criteria to particular cases....
While the Church assists the State in the promotion of a just society, its primary concern is to assist men and women in achieving salvation. For this reason, it is incumbent upon bishops to correct Catholics who are in error regarding these matters. Furthermore, public officials who are Catholic and who persist in public support for abortion and other intrinsic evils should not partake in or be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. As I have said before, I will be vigilant on this subject."
In other words:
1) Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi (for example), should not present themselves for Communion.
2) If they do, the Priest or Extraordinary Minister should not admit them.
3) Bishop Martino will be watching to make sure his orders are carried out.
Now THAT'S a Bishop!
All emphases added. The full letter is here.
Bishop of Scranton pledges vigilance in correcting pro-choice Catholic politicians
Scranton, PA, Oct 2, 2008 / 04:12 am (CNA).- Bishop Joseph F. Martino of the Diocese of Scranton has directed a pastoral letter on pro-life matters to be read at all weekend Masses of the upcoming Respect Life Weekend, saying Catholic efforts on such issues have “more significance than ever.” Discussing the societal breakdown in the wake of the sexual revolution, Bishop Martino explains Catholic teaching, and pledges “vigilance” in correcting Catholic pro-abortion rights public figures..."
Here are excerpts from His Excellecy's letter:
"Another argument goes like this: “As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: The finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide -- the gravest injustice a society can tolerate -- in the name of “social justice.”
Even the Church’s just war theory has moral force because it is grounded in the principle that innocent human life must be protected and defended. Now, a person may, in good faith, misapply just war criteria leading him to mistakenly believe that an unjust war is just, but he or she still knows that innocent human life may not be harmed on purpose. A person who supports permissive abortion laws, however, rejects the truth that innocent human life may never be destroyed. This profound moral failure runs deeper and is more corrupting of the individual, and of the society, than any error in applying just war criteria to particular cases....
While the Church assists the State in the promotion of a just society, its primary concern is to assist men and women in achieving salvation. For this reason, it is incumbent upon bishops to correct Catholics who are in error regarding these matters. Furthermore, public officials who are Catholic and who persist in public support for abortion and other intrinsic evils should not partake in or be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. As I have said before, I will be vigilant on this subject."
In other words:
1) Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi (for example), should not present themselves for Communion.
2) If they do, the Priest or Extraordinary Minister should not admit them.
3) Bishop Martino will be watching to make sure his orders are carried out.
Now THAT'S a Bishop!
All emphases added. The full letter is here.
Catholic Charities Adoptions: Reflections
The news of the end of the “partnership” between Catholic Charities of San Francisco and Family Builders by Adoption is good, if belated. The partnership was (and is—it is scheduled to continue until June 2009) totally unsuitable. A quick visit to the websites of Family Builders by Adoptions and their sister organization AdoptionSF demonstrates this. From the point of view of fidelity to Catholic teaching, the partnership was doomed from the beginning. Documentation of this claim can be found here.
The tragedy is that our Archdiocese missed an important teaching moment. Given the nature of the current culture war, not a single such moment can be squandered. Had the Archdiocese chosen to fight on this issue back in 2006, they probably would have lost. But losing a battle is not the same as losing a war. In fighting that battle they would have been able to articulate important elements of Catholic teaching regarding both salvation and the common good of society.
The first and most important element of the issue was and is the spiritual welfare of our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters. When Catholic Charities said it was perfectly happy to allow same-sex households to adopt they were also saying: we see nothing wrong with same-sex households. After all, who would allow a child to be adopted into an unsuitable household?
The Archdiocese in opposing this could have argued: Yes, we do see something wrong with same-sex households, because we see something wrong with homosexual actions. And it is precisely because we love and care about our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters, that we oppose such adoptions. It is because we are concerned for your spiritual welfare that we are opposed to homosexual actions, and we will never do anything to dilute that message. That is a message that is desperately needed in San Francisco, where there are over 60,000 same-sex attracted persons, each a soul infinitely precious to God. And make no mistake, there are plenty of voices in the Archdiocese more than willing to dilute, if not completely refute, that message.
Secondarily, had they fought, the Archdiocese could have based their argument on the common good of society. When they lost the battle, and were defunded, the Archdiocese could have put their case the people of California and said: Look, our interest is in the common good of society. We believe children need a mother and a father, and should be adopted into a family with a mother and father. We understand that maybe that cannot always happen but that is the ideal we aspire to, in the interests of the common good, and we see no reason to change that ideal. Because of this, and in the name of a misunderstood concept of equality and non-discrimination for a very small percentage of the population, we are losing state funding.
Today "equality" and "non-discrimination" are dogmas more binding that any offered by the Church. For many people today discrimination automatically equals injustice. That is not true and this could have been the moment for the Archdiocese to explain why it is not true. Had the Archdiocese offered those arguments two years ago they would have had a wide audience. The arguments would, I believe, have resonated with the people of California. But because those arguments are not “sound-biteable” and run counter to the dogma that discrimination automatically equals injustice it would have taken a while for them to be digested. But finally they would have been, and today, as we are faced with Proposition 8, their relevance to the issue of same-sex “marriage” would have been immediately understood.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
The tragedy is that our Archdiocese missed an important teaching moment. Given the nature of the current culture war, not a single such moment can be squandered. Had the Archdiocese chosen to fight on this issue back in 2006, they probably would have lost. But losing a battle is not the same as losing a war. In fighting that battle they would have been able to articulate important elements of Catholic teaching regarding both salvation and the common good of society.
The first and most important element of the issue was and is the spiritual welfare of our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters. When Catholic Charities said it was perfectly happy to allow same-sex households to adopt they were also saying: we see nothing wrong with same-sex households. After all, who would allow a child to be adopted into an unsuitable household?
The Archdiocese in opposing this could have argued: Yes, we do see something wrong with same-sex households, because we see something wrong with homosexual actions. And it is precisely because we love and care about our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters, that we oppose such adoptions. It is because we are concerned for your spiritual welfare that we are opposed to homosexual actions, and we will never do anything to dilute that message. That is a message that is desperately needed in San Francisco, where there are over 60,000 same-sex attracted persons, each a soul infinitely precious to God. And make no mistake, there are plenty of voices in the Archdiocese more than willing to dilute, if not completely refute, that message.
Secondarily, had they fought, the Archdiocese could have based their argument on the common good of society. When they lost the battle, and were defunded, the Archdiocese could have put their case the people of California and said: Look, our interest is in the common good of society. We believe children need a mother and a father, and should be adopted into a family with a mother and father. We understand that maybe that cannot always happen but that is the ideal we aspire to, in the interests of the common good, and we see no reason to change that ideal. Because of this, and in the name of a misunderstood concept of equality and non-discrimination for a very small percentage of the population, we are losing state funding.
Today "equality" and "non-discrimination" are dogmas more binding that any offered by the Church. For many people today discrimination automatically equals injustice. That is not true and this could have been the moment for the Archdiocese to explain why it is not true. Had the Archdiocese offered those arguments two years ago they would have had a wide audience. The arguments would, I believe, have resonated with the people of California. But because those arguments are not “sound-biteable” and run counter to the dogma that discrimination automatically equals injustice it would have taken a while for them to be digested. But finally they would have been, and today, as we are faced with Proposition 8, their relevance to the issue of same-sex “marriage” would have been immediately understood.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Take the Blinders Off!
What Obama says and what his background affirms is quite contradictory. If we are friends of Obama, do we want to be friends with his associates?
One of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Contrary to his present declarations, he is the most liberal member of the United States Senate. He is more liberal even than the likes of Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is. He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing, but he has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him. “We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
One of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Contrary to his present declarations, he is the most liberal member of the United States Senate. He is more liberal even than the likes of Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is. He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing, but he has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him. “We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
BREAKING: Catholic Charities to Sever ties with Family Builders by Adoption
New York Bishops on Voting--LIFE must come first!
It's an excellent, practical statement from the New York Bishops: "... the destruction of 50 million children and the injury of countless millions of women eclipses any other political issue."
New York Catholic Bishops: Make Pro-Life Issues First Priority When Voting
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor
October 1, 2008
Albany, NY (LifeNews.com) -- The Catholic bishops of New York have released a new statement urging voters to make pro-life issues their first priority when voting. They say the destruction of 50 million children and the injury of countless millions of women eclipses any other political issue.
Edward Cardinal Egan and the Catholic Bishops of New York issued the appeal in statement entitled Our Cherished Right, Our Solemn Duty.
The bishops warn against voting solely out of party loyalty or self interest and say voters should be guided by the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church.
While noting that there are many issues of great importance facing the country, the protection of human life rises above all other issues, the bishops said....
"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all," they add.
“The right to life is the right through which all others flow,” they wrote. “To the extent candidates reject this fundamental right by supporting an objective evil, such as legal abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research, Catholic should consider them less acceptable for public office.”
Read the whole thing.
h/t American Papist
New York Catholic Bishops: Make Pro-Life Issues First Priority When Voting
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor
October 1, 2008
Albany, NY (LifeNews.com) -- The Catholic bishops of New York have released a new statement urging voters to make pro-life issues their first priority when voting. They say the destruction of 50 million children and the injury of countless millions of women eclipses any other political issue.
Edward Cardinal Egan and the Catholic Bishops of New York issued the appeal in statement entitled Our Cherished Right, Our Solemn Duty.
The bishops warn against voting solely out of party loyalty or self interest and say voters should be guided by the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church.
While noting that there are many issues of great importance facing the country, the protection of human life rises above all other issues, the bishops said....
"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all," they add.
“The right to life is the right through which all others flow,” they wrote. “To the extent candidates reject this fundamental right by supporting an objective evil, such as legal abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research, Catholic should consider them less acceptable for public office.”
Read the whole thing.
h/t American Papist
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Defend Marriage: Vote YES on Proposition 8!!!
Our friend Bill May, over at Catholics for the Common Good, had an excellent piece published in today's San Francisco Chronicle. Here are some excerpts:
"... the court elevated same-sex marriage to the highest legal class possible: a protected class. That means when the rights of people opposed to same-sex marriage on moral or religious grounds conflict with the rights of same-sex couples, the courts will almost always side with same-sex couples because of the protected class status conferred by the state Supreme Court. Even expressing a view in opposition to same-sex marriage often exposes people to personal attack, ostracism, and even threats of loss of employment for standing for what they understand to be true about marriage. This goes beyond acceptance and tolerance. Many supporters of Proposition 8 are already experiencing these pressures to some extent, but the ruling of the court clears the way for lawsuits and further legislation to penalize people who do not cooperate with the desires of same-sex couples.
Finally, perhaps the most profound consequence will be to our children. California law provides for the teaching of children about marriage. Under the court's ruling, they would have to be taught that there is no distinction between the same-sex marriage and traditional marriage, and it would be discriminatory to view them otherwise. This interferes with a parent's right to teach their children the true meaning of marriage, which is important to their futures. This is the case in Massachusetts, which also legalized same-sex marriage. In one recent and famous case, a teacher taught a second-grade class using a book recounting the story of a prince marrying another prince, rather than a princess. Instructing young children about same-sex marriage in school undermines the rights of parents to approach this subject with their children on their own timetable and according to their family's values and beliefs, religious or otherwise. This is a major concern to California parents.
These are the issues that are fueling the views of voters on this crucial issue. It is no wonder that supporters in every corner of California are preparing to make their voices heard. Everything we as a people hold dear is on the ballot."
"... the court elevated same-sex marriage to the highest legal class possible: a protected class. That means when the rights of people opposed to same-sex marriage on moral or religious grounds conflict with the rights of same-sex couples, the courts will almost always side with same-sex couples because of the protected class status conferred by the state Supreme Court. Even expressing a view in opposition to same-sex marriage often exposes people to personal attack, ostracism, and even threats of loss of employment for standing for what they understand to be true about marriage. This goes beyond acceptance and tolerance. Many supporters of Proposition 8 are already experiencing these pressures to some extent, but the ruling of the court clears the way for lawsuits and further legislation to penalize people who do not cooperate with the desires of same-sex couples.
Finally, perhaps the most profound consequence will be to our children. California law provides for the teaching of children about marriage. Under the court's ruling, they would have to be taught that there is no distinction between the same-sex marriage and traditional marriage, and it would be discriminatory to view them otherwise. This interferes with a parent's right to teach their children the true meaning of marriage, which is important to their futures. This is the case in Massachusetts, which also legalized same-sex marriage. In one recent and famous case, a teacher taught a second-grade class using a book recounting the story of a prince marrying another prince, rather than a princess. Instructing young children about same-sex marriage in school undermines the rights of parents to approach this subject with their children on their own timetable and according to their family's values and beliefs, religious or otherwise. This is a major concern to California parents.
These are the issues that are fueling the views of voters on this crucial issue. It is no wonder that supporters in every corner of California are preparing to make their voices heard. Everything we as a people hold dear is on the ballot."
Excuses for Obama Melt Away
Today's News & Views
October 1, 2008
-- Part One of Three
Editor's note. I hope you have a chance to read Part Two, which talks about the Knight of Columbus letter criticizing pro-abortion Sen. Joe Biden, and Part Three, which is the full letter. Please send your thoughts to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.
As a non-Catholic, I try to be very cautious when talking about the in-house debate over whether a Catholic can support someone as committed to not only maintaining abortion on demand, but embedding it even deeper in the culture as Sen. Barack Obama. But this topic came up again yesterday when a friend forwarded an entry on the blog of the magazine "America."
The author was Prof. Sidney Callahan, whose work I have admired over the years. In her first paragraph, Mrs. Callahan establishes her credentials, downgrades the importance of abortion, and tells her audience why Obama is her candidate.
When I finished her entry, I was reminded again of the staggering irony that is at the heart of "Catholics for Obama." They seem to believe that Obama is really a reasonable fellow, with no real investment in abortion, and, if given a quarter of a chance, will "do the right thing"--lead the way toward a "reduction in the number of abortions."
The problem is there is absolutely nothing--NOTHING-- in what he's said or done that suggests that Obama would retreat an inch from his extremist position on abortion and lots and lots to show that he's just getting started.
Let me just tick off a couple of items.
Obama is a 100%er in his votes--for all the bad stuff, and against all the good proposals. That includes everything from support for partial-birth abortion to opposition to parental involvement in life-and-death decisions made by their pregnant daughters to making you and me pay for abortions.
And, as you may already know, Obama supporters spend almost as much time as the Obama campaign denying/deflecting his opposition to Illinois' Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). Obama calls us liars for showing his deep involvement in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions. They simply say indignantly that no one could oppose a piece of legislation like BAIPA. The inconvenient truth is that Obama did just that--four times--and then has spent the past four years + covering up what he did.
National Right to Life
Bishop Finn on the "Freedom of Choice Act"
Important article From Jack Smith, over at "The Catholic Key:"
Bishop Finn on FOCA, It's Supporters and Their Apologists
Following is Bishop Finn's column in the next issue of The Catholic Key: "Freedom of Choice Act Would Remove All Limitations on Abortions":
"The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), was first introduced in November of 1989 by Representative Don Edwards (D- Calif) and Senator Alan Cranston (D-Calif). It was proposed to “codify Roe v. Wade,” and was, at that time, opposed by Senator Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill), who argued that it did not go far enough to unleash – on a national level – a complete and unrestricted access to abortion. The first version, according to the Senator, dangerously allowed some conscience protection to health care professionals and did not require states to fund abortions.
The more recent wording of FOCA, introduced last year, is as follows:
“A government may not (1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose – (A) to bear a child; (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
This act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, penalty, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before or after the date of enactment of this act.” Text of H.R. 1964 and S. 1173, introduced on April 19, 2007."
Bishop Finn on FOCA, It's Supporters and Their Apologists
Following is Bishop Finn's column in the next issue of The Catholic Key: "Freedom of Choice Act Would Remove All Limitations on Abortions":
"The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), was first introduced in November of 1989 by Representative Don Edwards (D- Calif) and Senator Alan Cranston (D-Calif). It was proposed to “codify Roe v. Wade,” and was, at that time, opposed by Senator Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill), who argued that it did not go far enough to unleash – on a national level – a complete and unrestricted access to abortion. The first version, according to the Senator, dangerously allowed some conscience protection to health care professionals and did not require states to fund abortions.
The more recent wording of FOCA, introduced last year, is as follows:
“A government may not (1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose – (A) to bear a child; (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
This act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, penalty, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before or after the date of enactment of this act.” Text of H.R. 1964 and S. 1173, introduced on April 19, 2007."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
