British Professor says sterilize the undesirables

From LSN:

LONDON, August 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The mentally and morally “unfit” should be sterilized, Professor David Marsland, a sociologist and health expert, said this weekend. The professor made the remarks on the BBC radio program Iconoclasts, which advertises itself as the place to “think the unthinkable.”
Pro-life advocates and disability rights campaigners have responded by saying that Marsland’s proposed system is a straightforward throwback to the coercive eugenics practices of the past.
Marsland, Emeritus Scholar of Sociology and Health Sciences at Brunel University, London and Professorial Research Fellow in Sociology at the University of Buckingham, told the BBC that “permanent sterilization” is the solution to child neglect and abuse.
“Children are abused or grossly neglected by a very small minority of inadequate parents.” Such parents, he said, are not distinguished by “disadvantage, poverty or exploitation,” he said, but by “a number or moral and mental inadequacies” caused by “serious mental defect,” “chronic mental illness” and drug addiction and alcoholism.
“Short of lifetime incarceration,” he said, the solution is “permanent sterilization.”
The debate, chaired by the BBC’s Edward Stourton, was held in response to a request by a local council in the West Midlands that wanted to force contraception on a 29-year-old woman who members of the council judged was mentally incapable of making decisions about childrearing. The judge in the case refused to permit it, saying such a decision would “raise profound questions about state intervention in private and family life.”
Children whose parents are alcoholics or drug addicts can be rescued from abusive situations, but, Marlsand said, “Why should we allow further predictable victims to be harmed by the same perpetrators? Here too, sterilization provides a dependable answer.”
He dismissed possible objections based on human rights, saying that “Rights is a grossly overused and fundamentally incoherent concept … Neither philosophers nor political activists can agree on the nature of human rights or on their extent.”
Complaints that court-ordered sterilization could be abused “should be ignored,” he added. “This argument would inhibit any and every action of social defense.”
Brian Clowes, director of research for Human Life International (HLI), told LifeSiteNews (LSN) that in his view Professor Marsland is just one more in a long line of eugenicists who want to solve human problems by erasing the humans who have them. Clowes compared Marsland to Lothrop Stoddard and Margaret Sanger, prominent early 20th century eugenicists who promoted contraception and sterilization for blacks, Catholics, the poor and the mentally ill and disabled whom they classified as “human weeds.”
He told LSN, “It does not seem to occur to Marsland that most severe child abuse is committed by people he might consider ‘perfectly normal,’ people like his elitist friends and neighbors.”
“Most frightening of all,” he said, “is Marsland’s dismissal of human rights. In essence, he is saying people have no rights whatsoever, because there is no universal agreement on what those rights actually are.”
The program, which aired on Saturday, August 28, also featured a professor of ethics and philosophy at Oxford, who expressed concern about Marland’s proposal, saying, “There are serious problems about who makes the decisions, and abuses.” Janet Radcliffe Richards, a Professor of Practical Philosophy at Oxford, continued, “I would dispute the argument that this is for the sake of the children.
 
“It’s curious case that if the child doesn’t exist, it can’t be harmed. And to say that it would be better for the child not to exist, you need to be able to say that its life is worse than nothing. Now I think that’s a difficult thing to do because most people are glad they exist.”
But Radcliffe Richards refused to reject categorically the notion of forced sterilization as a solution to social problems. She said there “is a really serious argument” about the “cost to the rest of society of allowing people to have children when you can pretty strongly predict that those children are going to be a nuisance.”
Marsland’s remarks also drew a response from Alison Davis, head of the campaign group No Less Human, who rejected his entire argument, saying that compulsory sterilization would itself be “an abuse of some of the most vulnerable people in society.”
 
Marsland’s closing comments, Davis said, were indicative of his anti-human perspective. In those remarks he said that nothing in the discussion had changed his mind, and that the reduction of births would be desirable since “there are too many people anyway.”
Davis commented, “As a disabled person myself I find his comments offensive, degrading and eugenic in content.
“The BBC is supposed to stand against prejudicial comments against any minority group. As such it is against it’s own code of conduct, as well as a breach of basic human decency, to broadcast such inflammatory and ableist views.”

And the Nazis said the same things against not only the disabled, but also the Jews and other minorities.  Horrifying.

Cardinal Danneels betrayed us

As Catholics, we must be willing and able to defend our faith whenever it is attacked, and do so with zeal and charity.  Such as when Holy Mother Church was being bombarded on all sides by a hostile media and money hungry attorneys looking to cash in by portraying her as a worldwide network of child rapers and falsely accusing our beloved Pope of cover-up and crime.

But we must also not lose sigh of the fact that abuse, though a minority of priests, did happen, that there were real live victims who were hurt, and that there were real live abusers who went unpunished, either because no one said anything or the truth was never told.

Such was the case of Cardinal Danneels, the former leader of the Church in Belgium, when he counseled a genuine victim of sex abuse to keep silent in order that his friend, the man's uncle and a bishop, could retire without the black mark on him.

This is not Catholicism.

Our Holy Father has stressed that their is filth in the Church that needs cleaning up, and God willing, it will be.  A perfect example is Cardinal Danneels.  This man betrayed our faith, our Church, and a victim who had been hurt and needed help, only to be told to keep silent.  A massive conspiracy isn't to blame, liberalism isn't to blame, clerical celibacy isn't to blame.  The only thing to blame here is a cardinal who betrayed his office, his Church, his Pope, his flock, and most importantly, his Lord.

I will pray that Danneels repents of this sin and seeks forgiveness and performs appropriate penance.  I pray that the victim will find healing in the Sacred Heart of our Lord and the Eucharist.  I pray that our Holy Father is successful in dealing with this filth.

Pax Christi, and stay strong in the faith.

Novena Against the Hatred of Religion

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

Prayer
Remember, O Father, those who so ardently reject you, and in so doing, hate and despise those who believe in you.  Have mercy on them all and in your loving kindness, extend to them the gift of faith and increase their love for You and for all mankind.  Through Christ our Lord.  Amen.

1 Our Father, 1 Hail Mary, 1 Glory Be 

Life Site News weighs in on new heretic group

James Tillman Life Site news has printed a very good article on the  new pro-homosexuality group "Catholics for Equality" (you don't know how much it pains me that they use the word "Catholic" in their name):

WASHINGTON, August 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A cadre of homosexualist activists are preparing to launch a new group, Catholics for Equality, whose self-proclaimed mission is to lead lay Catholics away from the institutional Church's teaching on sexuality and encourage support for homosexual "marriage."

The Catholic News Agency broke the news of the nascient group Sunday. Although Catholics for Equality will not officially launch until September 14th, and their  website is still under construction, their goals are already quite clear. 

The group proclaims that American Catholic laymen support “LGBT equality,” and deplores that the "official voice of the hierarchy is increasingly one favoring discrimination and opposing just, humane, and reasonable efforts to secure legal equality for LGBT Americans."
"We believe this trend is a repudiation of Catholic teaching about the equal dignity of every person as well as the American and constitutional values of fairness and equality under the law," it states.
While the Vatican has often insisted that homosexual individuals must be treated with love and equal dignity as human persons, Church teaching has been unanimous in rejecting homosexual acts themselves, and the new "rights" that are demanded on their account, as immoral and illegitimate.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, contrary to the natural law, and presented in Sacred Scripture as "acts of grave depravity."
"Under no circumstances can they be approved," it states.  The Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has also affirmed that legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" is never to be condoned, as have the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Catholics for Equality, however, plans to hold campus outreach and help support lectures at “Catholic colleges and universities and at Newman Centers across the country” to promote the idea that “LGBT Equality is an American Catholic value.” They have also announced their intent to find “pro-equality Catholics in the entertainment, civic, business and sports worlds” and use them to promote their agenda.
Their plan of action also includes methods explicitly designed to counteract the influence of bishops upon those within their dioceses.
For instance, Catholics for Equality's webpage contains an under-construction page on which people will be able to "report anti-equality activity."  The page states that "our church hierarchy is becoming increasingly aggressive in forcing priests at the parish level to distribute anti-equality materials and deliver anti-equality sermons from the pulpit.

"It is important for these activities to be reported so that pro-equality Catholics can respond." A request by LifeSiteNews.com for comment from Catholics for Equality went unanswered Monday.

According to the March edition of the group's online newsletter, several well-known dissidents and homosexualist activists met in Washington, DC, on January 30-31, 2010, for an organizational meeting that gave birth to the new organization.

Mark Matson, president of the dissident Catholic group Dignity USA, attended the meeting.  Dignity USA defies the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the objective disorder of homosexuality and runs projects such as the "Leather Ministry," which has as a self-proclaimed goal "intergrating leather sexuality with Christian spirituality."

Matson  described the new organization "as a Catholic equivalent to HRC (Human Rights Campaign)."  The HRC is notorious for pushing an extreme homosexualist agenda. Sharon Groves, the Deputy Director of the Religion and Faith Program at the HRC, was also present at the organizational meeting.
Matson said that the meeting was convened by Phil Attey, a Washington attorney and homosexualist activist, and Fr. Joseph Palacios, an openly gay Georgetown University professor. Attey has previously been the "Obama Pride" DC coordinator, and founded a website devoted to uncovering homosexual priests to help bring them to campaign for the homosexualist agenda. Both Attey and Palacios are now members of the board of Catholics for Equality.
Other notorious dissidents attending the meeting included Sr. Jeannine Gramick, a cofounder of the homosexualist “Catholic” organization New Ways Ministry; she represented the National Coalition of American Nuns, which advocates for abortion and homosexuality. Sr. Gramick was silenced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in 1999 for her work with homosexuals, although she refused to obey the order. 
New Ways Ministry has also been denounced by Cardinal Francis George, head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), as a pseudo-Catholic organization.

The USCCB had not responded to LifeSiteNews.com’s request for comment on Catholics for Equality at press time.

The heretics are back in town

From CNA:

Washington D.C., Aug 22, 2010 / 06:12 pm (CNA).- Prominent Catholic dissenters have created an organization to promote homosexual political causes and to change Catholic opinion through coordination with other activists. Organized explicitly to oppose the U.S. bishops, the group’s website asks for reports of “anti-equality activity” in Catholic parishes.
The group Catholics for Equality’s website, which is still under construction, reports that the organization is dedicated to “support, educate, and mobilize equality-supporting Catholics to advance LGBT equality at federal, state, and local levels.”
The group claims the “official voice of the hierarchy” favors discrimination and opposes “just” efforts to secure “legal equality for LGBT Americans.” This “anti-equality voice” is “far too often” portrayed as representative of American Catholics, according to the website.
One page on the site, titled “Report anti-equality activity!” contains an incomplete template for a submission form. It asks informers to describe the purported anti-equality activity and to categorize whether it took place in the parish, diocese or community “so that pro-equality Catholics can respond.”
The information generates an e-mail sent to the organization and also “an entry into private ‘report’ database,” the website says.
Mark Matson, president of the dissenting Catholic group DignityUSA, reported in a March 2010 newsletter on the group's website that an organizational meeting for Catholics for Equality took place on January 30 and 31 in Washington, D.C.
He said the meeting was convened to address the “increasing role” of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and state bishops’ conference in opposing “LGBT” political causes. Another purpose of the meeting was to “coordinate efforts to shift Catholic public opinion and voter behaviors.”
Matson said he attended in lieu of executive director Marianne Duddy-Burke because the meeting was held on short notice. He added that other DignityUSA attendees included its board members Mark Clark and Tom Yates, both from Dignity/Washington (District of Columbia), and Ray Panas, president of Dignity/Washington.
According to Matson, Catholics for Equality will “focus on influencing legislation and the behavior of Catholic voters in a way that DignityUSA cannot” because of its tax designation. It will also develop an outreach strategy to include “influential theologians.” In his words, the new group “complements” DignityUSA’s mission and will be a counterpart to the homosexual advocacy group Human Rights Campaign (HRC). He and Duddy-Burke will hold two seats on the group’s board of advisors.
Also in attendance at the organizing meeting were Frank DeBernardo and Matthew Myers of New Ways Ministry. Sr. Jeannine Gramick, co-founder of the group and present co-director of the National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), also attended.
In a recent interview with a Dallas-based homosexual paper, Sr. Gramick claimed that there was a disconnect between the Catholic hierarchy and the laity on homosexual issues. She also estimated that about half of Catholic priests were homosexual.
In its interview with the religious sister, the Dallas Voice reported that New Ways Ministry is experimenting with a new program to target legislators as well as Catholic grassroots voters in Maryland.
According to Matson, Catholics for Equality’s organizational meeting was convened by Washington attorney Phil Attey and Rev. Dr. Joe Palacios, described as a Jesuit priest from Los Angeles who is currently on the Georgetown University faculty.
Last year Attey created a website to “aggregate reports on every gay priest” in the Archdiocese of Washington to help them “stand up to the church hierarchy” on homosexual issues. According to a WhoIs lookup, the website shares the same 12th Street, NW D.C. mailing address as Catholics for Equality.
In the 1990s Attey served as HRC’s electronic media manager. According to the gay publication Metro Weekly, he also co-chaired the Obama Pride Metro D.C. group to support the current U.S. president’s election bid.
For his part, Palaicos is a board member of Catholics for Equality and also political co-chair of the HRC’s D.C. Steering Community. According to his biography at the Georgetown University website, in 2009 he was appointed by the White House to serve on the board of visitors supervising what is commonly known as the School of the Americas, a U.S. training facility for Latin American military officers which has been criticized for its alumni’s alleged participation in human rights violations.
Issues listed on the Catholics for Equality website include “marriage equality.” Claiming that same-sex “marriage” does not coerce any religious faith, it invokes the “separation of Church and State” and says “we affirm civil marriage for same-sex couples throughout the United States.”
The group criticizes the U.S. bishops’ opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and advocates opening military service to open homosexuals.
“Catholics in the United States live in this social context that allows the free exercise of conscience rather than enforced scriptural fundamentalism or bishops’ and pastors’ exhortations in making decisions regarding homosexuality and gay rights— as is often exercised in Protestant fundamentalist and evangelical denominations and now by increasingly doctrinaire Catholic bishops,” the website argues.
It also claims that Catholic priests rarely mention homosexuality or homosexual issues in sermons “except when forced to by the bishops,” saying this coercion happened during the campaign to pass California’s Proposition 8 and Maine’s Proposition 1. Both successful ballot measures restored the definition of marriage to be a union of a man and a woman.
Other attendees at the Catholics for Equality organizing meeting included Joanna Blotner, coordinator of the HRC’s Religion and Faith Program; Sharon Groves, deputy director for the HRC’s Religion and Faith Program; Chuck Colbert, a journalist and contributor to the National Catholic Reporter; Shiva Subbaraman of the Georgetown LGBTQ Resource Center; and Peter Montgomery, a senior fellow at People for the American Way who facilitated the discussion.
The homosexual blogger Anthony Adams, who was ordained as a Catholic priest, attended the meeting as did Anne Underwood of Catholics for Marriage Equality in Maine and Charles Martel of Catholics for Marriage Equality in Massachusetts. California priest Fr. Geoffrey Farrow, who was disciplined by his bishop for opposing Proposition 8, also attended.
According to DignityUSA’s Matson, Cathy Renna, media relations director of Renna Communications, advised attendees on communications strategy. She praised Duddy-Burke’s lobbying related to the sexual abuse scandal.
While Catholics for Equality is a 501(c)(4) non-profit which can lobby on political issues, it has also planned a parallel non-political foundation to engage in campus outreach and to reach out to “prominent pro-equality Catholics in the entertainment, civic, business and sports areas, providing them a national platform as leading American Catholics to voice their support for LGBT equality.”

Yes, I said back there in the title that the heretics were back in town.  Yes, heretics.  There's no other real word to describe them, IMO.  "Dissenter" just doesn't quite cover it.

And what's this about "reporting anti-equality activity"?  What, now we're supposed to snitch on people who are faithful to the magisterium?  So much for being freethinkers, eh?  Freedom of thought for me, but not for thee; the mantra of the modern heretic.

CNA: Catholic Dissenters Back Empire State Building Building's Refusal to Honor Mother Teresa

From CNA:

New York City, N.Y., Aug 21, 2010 / 08:21 pm (CNA).- In another development in the dispute over the Empire State Building’s refusal of a request to honor the 100th birthday of Mother Teresa in its lighting scheme, a coalition of Catholic dissenters has issued a statement affirming the decision and characterizing advocates of the honor as serving “the radical right.”
The head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights responded by noting the variety of people who support the honors, including some bishops of India.
The Catholic League had asked the building to light up the skyscraper in the blue and white colors of Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, but the operating company of the building declined the request.
Led by the Catholic League, objectors to the decision pointed to the landmark’s previous lighting scheme honors for the 60th anniversary of the communist revolution in China, the 125th anniversary of the Salvation Army, and the deaths of Cardinal John O’Connor and Pope John Paul II.
Now backing the Empire State Building management is a coalition of dissenting Catholic groups including Catholics for Choice, Call to Action, DignityUSA, the National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), New Ways Ministry, and the Women’s Ordination Conference.
The group praises Anthony E. Malkin, head of the company which operates the building, for opposing what the letter calls “the bullying tactics” of the Catholic League and its president Bill Donohue.
“The Catholic League serves as an attack dog for the radical right, helping to promote its misogynist and homophobic agenda,” the letter claimed, accusing Donohue of seeking publicity.
The letter claimed that Mother Teresa rarely celebrated her birthday and would be “appalled” to hear it had become a source of controversy.
Donohue responded to the letter in a Friday statement, claiming the membership of the coalition’s organizations was so small their members “would easily fit into a phone booth” if gathered together.
“No matter, these ex-Catholics are so pro-abortion that they are now on record of wanting to deny Mother Teresa a tribute on the 100th anniversary of her birthday,” he charged.
Donohue reported that a rally on behalf of Mother Teresa would proceed outside the Empire State Building on August 26. He also claimed support from people “all over the world” and from all religions.
The Catholic League president also noted that he would meet with Bishop A.A.S. Durairaj of Khandwa, India. “Like all the other bishops from India that have contacted us, he supports our campaign to honor Mother Teresa,” Donohue remarked.
“Even those who are not pro-life are on our side, which just goes to show how extreme the dissenters are,” his Friday statement concluded. “But as long as they remain marginalized, they are of no historic moment.”

Let's take a look at this.

I haven't been following this story much, but I felt this piece deserves a comment.  A quick glance at the organizations backing the owners of the Empire State Building show the who's-who of dissenter groups in the US.

Catholics for Choice:  Pro-abortion, pro-contraception group; the USCCB has repeatedly stated that the group is not Catholic, with Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln going as far as to issue an interdict forbidding Catholics in his diocese from joining or supporting them.

Call to Action:  Probably one of the most well known dissenter groups in the country; advocates women's ordination, end to priestly celibacy, a change in the Church's teaching on sexuality (especially in regard's to homosexuality and contraception), etc.  Also under Bishop Bruskewitz' interdict in Lincoln.

DignityUSA:  Homosexualist group; works to change the Church's 2,000 year old teaching on homosexual acts as a grave sin and force the acceptance of homosexual acts in the Church.

New Ways Ministry:  Another pro-homosexuality group; refuses to assent to Church teaching on homosexuality.

Women's Ordination Conference:  Works for the ordination of women in the Church in defiance of magisterial teaching on the matter (see Ordinatio Sacerdotalis);  some of it's members who have participated in "ordinations" of women have been subject to latae sententiae excommunication.

They claim that Blessed Teresa would be appalled that her birthday has become a politically charged event.  Perhaps, but I think she would be even more appalled (and rightly so) that groups which promote dissent and heresy would claim to speak for her.  Blessed Teresa was a tireless advocate for the poor and helpless, especially the sick and unborn, and did everything she could to ensure that those with no one to care for them in their dying days were comforted and cared for.  What have any of these groups done in that regard?  From what I can tell, nothing.

I pray that these groups realize the error of their ways, and may the Lord grant them the grace of repentance and conversion, and may they be reconciled with the Church.

"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
- Blessed Teresa of Calcutta

Mexican Archdiocese Hits Back

From CNA:

Mexico City, Mexico, Aug 20, 2010 / 05:50 pm (CNA).- The spokesman for the Archdiocese of Mexico City, Father Hugo Valdemar, has refused to retract his statement that the city's mayor, Marcelo Ebrard, has done more harm to the Mexican capital than the drug cartels. The priest also claimed that the lawsuit Ebrard filed against him is evidence of the mayor’s “fascist” actions.
In an interview with the Archdiocese of Mexico City’s news service, Fr. Valdemar said the law on abortion in the Mexican capital, supported by Ebrard and passed by the Legislative Assembly in 2007, is a sign of the harm he has caused the city.
“Ever since the criminal law on abortion was passed,” more than 42,000 innocent human beings have been killed in Mexico City, he said. “This is double the number that have died in the war against the drug cartels, and yet these crimes are even worse, because the children killed are unable to defend themselves.”
Fr. Valdemar said the lawsuit filed against him by Ebrard has revealed the mayor's true nature as an “intolerant governor with great hatred for the Catholic Church, her pastors” and that he is “consumed by vengeance.”
On Wednesday, the mayor filed a defamation lawsuit against Fr. Valdemar as well as Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez for accusing Ebrard of bribing the country's Supreme Court justices to allow the adoption of children by same-sex couples.
Fr. Valdemar added that Catholics in Mexico City are enduring a sophisticated religious persecution that is aimed at repressing freedom of expression. “Ebrard has made public his fascist style of governing and his undeniable desire to persecute the Catholic Church,” the priest said, underscoring that the governor is acting like another “Francisco Franco or Augusto Pinochet.”

 Harsh words, but certainly justified.  From what I've been reading, the whole thing smacks of an attempt to silence the Archdiocese over the issue.  Unfortunately for the government, they've come out swinging.

Fake Catholic Groups to Protest Pro-Life Tour

From Politico via the American Papist blog:

The vitriolic abortion debate sparked by President Barack Obama’s health reform plan is playing out again on the campaign trail.
The Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports female candidates who oppose abortion rights, has spent most of August on a bus tour of swing districts, protesting anti-abortion Democrats who voted for the bill — and the tour has drawn noisy counterprotests from Catholic groups and pro-abortion-rights organizations. SBA stopped in Pennsylvania to take aim at Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-Pa.), an anti-abortion Democrat who voted for health reform.

Catholics United, a group that aired ads thanking anti-abortion Democrats for voting “yes” on health reform, protested Monday at SBA List stops in Pennsylvania cities including Erie, Meadville, Grove City and Butler.

“They have one goal, and that is to perpetrate the lie that the executive order really did prohibit government funding of abortion,” said former Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, now a spokeswoman for SBA List. “We are exposing the hypocrisy of these so-called pro-life Democrats. Catholics United was trying to give them cover, and it doesn’t work.”
The sweeping health reform plan passed the House in March after successful last-minute negotiations with a group of anti-abortion Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan. Stupak had lent his name to an amendment that would have explicitly prohibited abortion funding but ultimately agreed that an executive order from Obama would accomplish the same goal.
“The Susan B. Anthony List is little more than a partisan front group, which uses issues like abortion to confuse voters and to score cheap political points,” said Dave Robinson, executive director of the Erie-based Pax Christi USA, which was involved in the protests. “The health care reform bill that Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper voted for is a huge victory for the pro-life cause.”
The change sparked an angry backlash that led Stupak to announce his retirement. SBA List and other anti-abortion groups promised retribution against the other Democrats who also supported the executive order, which in addition to Dahlkemper included Reps. Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Baron Hill (Ind.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.).
American Catholic groups have long supported universal health care coverage, but the Democratic-backed bill that passed this year split church groups because of its language on abortion. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the law because of concerns that it would allow some taxpayer-funded coverage of abortion within federal insurance exchanges. Other groups, including Catholics United and the Catholic Health Association, supported the bill and said it included adequate restrictions on abortion financing.
Musgrave said the Catholics United protesters yelled and waved signs that read “Lie.” She said previous stops on the tour — including ones in Indiana and Ohio — drew protesters from the National Organization for Women.
Catholics United has also aired TV ads supporting anti-abortion Democrats who backed health reform. They have pledged to spend $500,000 defending Dahlkemper and Driehaus as well as Virginia Rep. Thomas Perriello and Ohio Rep. John Boccieri.
A call to the Washington office of Catholics United was not immediately returned. A call to the NOW offices was also not immediately returned.

Catholics United is simply another item on a long list of organizations that use the Catholic name to promote liberal social agendas while dissenting from Church teaching.  This group apparently is dedicated to telling Catholics that it's A-OK to vote for Obama and his anti-life policies, including his abomination of a health care bill, which DOES in fact provide funding for abortions.

If they think they can stop the tide of pro-life activism, they're sadly mistaken.  More and more Americans are realizing the truth; the abortion is the deliberate murder of an innocent child, and is not worthy of anyone's support.  The fight for life will continue, with young people taking it up, while the aging members of these "Catholic" groups will fade into obscurity.  All I can say is, God bless you at the Susan B. Anthony list and all others who fight for the lives of the innocent unborn.

Stolen Relic Recovered

From CNA:

Boston, Mass., Aug 16, 2010 / 07:54 pm (CNA).- The Archdiocese of Boston declared Monday that the prayers of its faithful were answered after a relic of the True Cross that was stolen from the Cathedral of Holy Cross earlier this month was found in rural Vermont.
“Our prayers have been answered as the Relic of the True Cross has been recovered,” the Archdiocese of Boston said in its statement. “God has blessed us with His love and capacity to forgive.  We prayerfully carry on His call for forgiveness for those responsible.”
The splinter of wood from the cross, encapsulated in a brass and glass reliquary, was discovered missing on July 1.
The archdiocese also expressed gratitude for the diligent work of the Boston Police Department as well as the Vermont State Police, who were instrumental in the recovery of the relic.
According to the Pilot, the newspaper for Boston's archdiocese, the Vermont State Police were called about a domestic dispute on August 9. When they arrived on the scene, Earl Frost, a 34-year-old Vermont resident told the police he had a relic stolen from a church in Boston and wanted to return it to a church. Frost added that he received the relic from an unidentified man in Rhode Island.
He surrendered the relic at the Royalton Barracks of the Vermont State Police, but was not arrested due to a lack of evidence. The relic was identified by an official from the Archdiocese of Boston a week later.
When the police went back to look for Frost, he had disappeared.
The relic is still in the possession of the Vermont police, who are seeking a warrant for Frost’s arrest on the grounds of possession of stolen property.
The Archdiocese of Boston will hold a prayer service on Wednesday, August 18 at 7:30 p.m. to welcome the return of the relic of the True Cross to the cathedral.

All I can say is; Deo gratias!

Oremus Pro Pontifice

Reading the news can be depressing; reading the comment section can be even worse.

Especially when reading articles about the Holy Father and the Church; the venom can be downright horrific, to the point where it can shake faith.  Believe me, it's happened, but thankfully the Lord was there to help me through it. 

It's quite obvious though, that our beloved Holy Father still needs our prayers.  So, let us pray for Benedict, our Pope.

V. Let us pray for our Pontiff, Pope Benedict.
R. May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and bless him upon earth, and deliver him not to the will of his enemies.

Our Father.  Hail Mary.

Let us pray.

O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Benedict, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church. Grant him, we beseech Thee, that by his word and example, he may edify those over whom he hath charge, so that together with the flock committed to him, may he attain everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

A partial indulgence is attached to this prayer for those who recite it with filial devotion.

Time for some good news: Dolphins visit VA Beach

Courtesy of the Virginian Pilot:

The Virginian-Pilot
© August 13, 2010

Dolphins swing among surfers off the coast of Virginia Beach on Wednesday. The surfers, about 30 yards offshore, are members of the Shadowlawn Surf Club. The group meets every Wednesday, and veteran members said they’d never seen dolphins so close. The animals even swam between surfers, delighting those in attendance. (Terril Jones | Special to The Virginian-Pilot)


At bottom left, Maika Jones, 10, of Virginia Beach, keeps a close eyes on the visitors. (Terril Jones | Special to The Virginian-Pilot)

Being the nature buff that I am, dolphins visiting our waters is always a welcome sight.  I thank God for all of His Creation, especially these whimsical sea creatures.

Pax Christi.

Lousy Lawmakers and Out of Control Spending Created Economic Woes

From the Washington Examiner comes this piece on the economic crisis:

You can have low taxes, or you can have an economic recovery, but you can’t have both. That’s the message the administration is hammering this summer.

Democrats argue in particular that extending President George W. Bush’s rate cuts on people in the top tax brackets will damage the budget to such an extent that our economy will suffer.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, for example, said that sustaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would “hurt economic recovery by undermining confidence that we are prepared to make a commitment today to bring down our future deficits.”

Some centrists, and even a few conservatives, are talking a similar line. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said all the Bush tax cuts, even those for lower earners, should expire as scheduled at year’s end since it is wrong to live “on borrowed money.”

The argument that we have to choose between keeping the Bush rates on the one hand and achieve an economic recovery on the other is hypocritical.

The tax cuts Geithner would like to see expire cost taxpayers by his own estimate $700 billion over 10 years. Plenty of other items in the federal budget cost $700 billion over 10 years, or a much shorter period. Yet you don’t hear the administration positing apocalyptically that those outlays will darken the future.

When politicians first announced the entitlement of prescription drugs for seniors, they said it would cost $700 billion over 10 years, for example. President Obama’s stimulus package prices out at about $819 billion. The Democrats’ health care legislation is supposed to cost $940 billion.

In the 1980s, 1990s and the early part of this decade, the supply-siders who advised President Reagan made the case that tax cuts would be partially or completely offset by growth. That turned out to be true.

The Reagan tax cuts may have contributed to the deficits of the period, but they more than compensated by speeding growth overall and restoring U.S. competitiveness around the world.

Democrats are willfully overlooking a general record that shows that tax cuts can increase revenue. The last two times the U.S. trimmed the capital gains rate, in the late 1990s and under Bush in the early 2000s, the lower rate generated extra activity and the Treasury Department saw more cash flow in than predicted.

Unfortunately, Republicans liked their tax cuts too much. They failed to use their political capital to control spending and push through entitlement reform.

Even Greenspan played a role. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it was already clear that Social Security was out of balance. Congress appointed several commissions to fix the program. One of them, headed by Greenspan, was charged with focusing on short-term fixes.

Greenspan’s Social Security commission recommended that higher tax rates kick in sooner and called for postponing the retirement age and other revenue-saving measures. With the commission’s blessing, the so-called FICA tax rose to 7.65 percent for employees in 1990 from 6.7 percent in 1983. The retirement age also went up. This shored up the budget temporarily. But neither step addressed the long-term shortfall caused by the country’s demographics.

In other words, the Greenspan fix was a poison pill of its own. It didn’t prevent huge cash deficits in the long run. To use Greenspan’s own phrase, the commission itself and the politicians who implemented its short-term fixes borrowed from the future. Those are the deficits that are in the news in 2010, the first year Social Security will pay out more than Americans paid into it.

Had the Greenspan commission come up with a long-term reform, and had other reformers come up with better formats for our other entitlements, Greenspan wouldn’t need to talk about “borrowed money” as a rationale for preventing tax cuts today.

The nation’s real ailment comes from having swallowed those entitlement poison pills, not annual budgeting or even financial crises. Yet lawmakers and commentators are not talking about fundamental entitlement reform. Democrats are scolding tax cutters in the hope of diminishing Republican chances in the next election. What a shame. Taxes aren’t the economy’s big problem.

I would also throw in that out of control spending under both the Bush and Obama administrations created the economic crisis by saddling us with a massive deficit.  It's a simple concept really; you can't spend money that you don't have.  Obama is gonna find out the hard that spending us out of an economic crisis is not the way to go, and he's going to find it out the hard way.

But really, low taxes and low spending really do work.  Just look at my home state of Virginia.  We had been shouldered with a $1.8 billion deficit, one of the worst we've had, so I've heard.  Then Bob McDonnell was elected on a fical conservative platform, and six months later that deficit turned into a $220 million surplus by cutting back spending.

I think more than a few folks in Washington can take a lesson from him.

Costa Rica Denies the People their Rights

Via LSN comes this lates outrage:

SAN JOSÉ, August 11, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Costa Rica's Constitutional Court, the nation's highest tribunal, has ruled that citizens cannot vote on the issue of homosexual "civil unions" because "people who have relations with the same sex are a disadvantaged group that is the object of discrimination."
Rejecting the arguments of pro-family groups and the nation's Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the court voted 5-2 to prohibit such a vote, claiming that it would "deepen and aggravate discrimination" against homosexuals.
The Court's decision cancels a referendum on the matter previously scheduled for December, for which over 150,000 signatures were gathered in recent months.  The referendum was called in response to proposed legislation to create "civil unions" for homosexual couples, which would give them the same rights normally reserved for married couples.
The bill, which is known as Legal Project 16390 and not yet been subject to a final vote, has been condemned by the Costa Rican Catholic bishops' conference, whose flock includes the vast majority of Costa Ricans.
Denouncing the legislation in September of last year, the Costa Rican bishops wrote that "we are facing a bill that intends in practice to equalize" homosexual unions, which, "is manifestly against articles 51 and 52 of the Constitution, in which matrimony is the essential base of the family, and has the right to the special protection of the government.  The equalization of unions of people of the same sex with matrimony is therefore unconstitutional."

This is outrageous.  Since when did the people not have the right to vote on decisions that affect their daily lives?  Well, the homosexual lobby has gotten their wish; another bunch of judges rules that their disordered condition makes them a protected class.

Please pray for Costa Rica.

List of Corporate Supporters of Planned Parenthood Released

Via LSN comes a list of companies released by Life Decisions International that support Planned Parenthood and their slaughterhouses.

The list includes

- AOL
- Darden Restaurants (Bahama Breeze, The Capital Grille, LongHorn Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Season 52)
- Franchise Services (PIP, Signal Graphics, Sir Speedy)
- Hilton Worldwide (Conrad Hotels, Doubletree, Embassy Suites, Hampton Inns/Suites, Hilton Garden Inn, Hilton Hotels, Homewood Suites)
- Ignite Restaurants (Brickhouse Tavern+Tap, Joe's Crab Shack)
- ING
- Kohl's
- Mrs. Fields
- Staples
- Toys "R" Us
- Trader Joe's
- The Gap
- Freddie Mac
- AlphaGraphics
- Wells Fargo
- Nike
- Time Warner
- Walt Disney
- Johnson & Johnson
- Lost Arrow (Patagonia, etc.)
- Chevron
- Nationwide Insurance
- PayPal (and Ebay)

Charities that made the list include

- Lions Club
- American Cancer Society
- Easter Seals
- Boys & Girls Clubs
- Ronald McDonald House Charities
- Camp Fire Girls Inc.
- Girl Scouts
- Kiwanis Clubs
- March of Dimes (ironic, since they purport to help babies yet fund to have them murdered)
- Muscular Dystrophy Association
- Rotary Clubs
- Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (of Race for the Cure fame)
- Salvation Army (another irony, they're a church)
- YWCA
- America Gives Back
- YMCA

Don't give a dime to any of these until they renounce Planned Parenthood and it's agenda.  This isn't an option; giving money to an organization that funds abortions, directly or indirectly, is cooperating with evil.  Don't do it.

Pro-homosexual "marriage" blogger throws a nutty

http://themoderatevoice.com/82420/a-case-for-religious-history-classes/

So, the whole institution of marriage is an invention of the Catholic Church as a tool to defend itself from the Protestant Reformation?  That would be news to just about every single married couple in the history of the world, and not just Christians.

Ignorance of history serves no one, and certainly not this poor soul.

Here's a gem for fiscal conservatives

Browsing the Washington Examiner website, I came across this little bit of information about a project conducted by the National Science Foundation.

WHO: The National Science Foundation
WHAT: NSF granted Cornell University researchers a $1.2 million grant to simulate the sounds of objects being smashed. The project will make the sounds of things breaking in movies or video games much more lifelike.
WHY IT'S AN OUTRAGE: We should spend more time making the economy more lifelike.
WHERE TO VENT: NSF at 703-292-5111.

$30,000 on a toilet seat anyone?

Your tax dollars at work.

Now this one just boggles my mind

Courtesy of Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch blog:

Canadian Council of Muslim Women opposes addition of honor killings to Criminal Code

Now wait a minute: the mainstream media has told us, whenever an honor killing has taken place in North America or Europe, that honor killing is a cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam -- despite the fact that Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. What's more, a manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. Nonetheless, the media drumbeat is constant: honor killings have nothing to do with Islam. And so if honor killings have nothing to do with Islam, why should the Canadian Council of Muslim Women think that a law against honor killing have anything to do with them?
"Muslim women's group opposes addition of honour killings to Criminal Code," by Juliet O'Neill for Postmedia News, August 5 (thanks to Twostellas):

OTTAWA -- The Canadian Council of Muslim Women opposes the addition of "honour killings" to the Criminal Code on the grounds "murder is murder" and a special category could stigmatize new immigrants and some ethnic or religious groups.... "We as an organization don't want the term honour killing used in Canada because it's making it exotic, something alien, and foreign, and people are using that as a rationale to understand the murders," said Alia Hogben, a social worker and executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, a national non-profit voluntary organization.
"Let's not go that route. A murder is a murder. Let's not separate us as new immigrants or ethnic groups from the rest of Canadian women. It doesn't matter which culture, which religion or which ethnic origin we come from, the same laws should apply to us."
Law professors Isabel Grant of the University of British Columbia, Debra Parkes of the University of Manitoba and Elizabeth Sheehy of the University of Ottawa all said the Criminal Code already contains tools to deal with "honour killings" and said it would be difficult to define it in law....
Sheehy said creation of a separate crime would embed in the law the erroneous notion that murders of wives and daughters only happens in minority groups.
"It would be racializing the crime to consider honour killing as a different form of murder," she said.
In response to public outrage, Grant said governments have a record of adding to the kinds of murders -- related to stalking, terrorism, and organized crime for example -- that must be considered first-degree murder.
But in this case she wondered how it would be defined.
"How would you draft one that wasn't discriminatory against certain ethnic communities?" she asked. "I think that would be really tricky."...

Why? What does this have to do with ethnicity at all? Islam is not a race, and in any case, an honor killing law doesn't have to make any mention of Islam at all. But I have an idea for how Canada can formulate an honor killing that doesn't "discriminate" against "certain ethnic communities." Syria recently scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'" And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."
So Canadian lawmakers can simply study the Syrian and Jordanian laws that mandate relaxed penalties for honor killings as compared to other murders, and formulate their own honor killing law based on the definitions made in those legal codes as to what constitutes an honor killing.
And as a lagniappe, since the new Canadian law would be modeled after the Syrian and Jordanian codes, no one could legitimately charge Canada with "discriminating" against any particular "ethnic community" by legislating against honor killing.
Problem solved!

 Let's see, most victims of honor killings are women, usually teenage girls who become too Western and therefore insult their family's "honor", and yet we have a women's group opposing the addition of this abominable crime in the criminal code.

Le bon sens, s'il vous plaît?

ALERT: Pro-Death Judge Gets the Nod

Courtesy of the Washington Examiner:

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Elena Kagan Thursday as the Supreme Court's 112th justice and fourth woman, selecting a scholar with a reputation for brilliance, a dry sense of humor and a liberal legal bent.
The vote was 63-37 for President Barack Obama's nominee to succeed retired Justice John Paul Stevens.
Five Republicans joined all but one Democrat and the Senate's two independents to support Kagan. In a rarely practiced ritual reserved for the most historic votes, senators sat at their desks and stood to cast their votes with "ayes" and "nays."
Kagan watched the vote with her Justice Department colleagues in the solicitor general's conference room, the White House said.
Kagan isn't expected to alter the ideological balance of the court, where Stevens was considered a leader of the liberals.
But the two parties clashed over her nomination. Republicans argued that Kagan was a political liberal who would be unable to be impartial. Democrats defended her as a highly qualified legal scholar.
She is the first Supreme Court nominee in nearly 40 years with no experience as a judge, and her swearing-in will mark the first time in history that three women will serve on the nine-member court together.
Her lack of judicial experience was the stated reason for one fence-sitting Republican, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, to announce his opposition to her confirmation Thursday, just hours before the vote.
Though calling her "brilliant," Brown — who had been seen as a potential GOP supporter — said she was missing the necessary background to serve as a justice.
"The best umpires, to use the popular analogy, must not only call balls and strikes, but also have spent enough time on the playing field to know the strike zone," Brown said.
Democrats said Kagan could help bring consensus to the polarized court and act as a counterweight to the conservative majority that's dominated in recent years.
With her confirmation, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said near the end of a three-day debate, "average Americans will be a step closer to once again having their voices heard in the highest court in the land."
Most Republicans portrayed Kagan as a politically motivated nominee who would allow her liberal views to interfere with her rulings, and use her post to push the Democratic agenda from the bench.
Kagan "is truly a person of the political left — now they call themselves progressives — one who has a history of working to advance the values of the left wing of the Democratic Party, and whose philosophy of judging allows a judge to utilize the power of their office to advance their vision for what America should be," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
A handful of Republicans broke with their party to back Kagan. They argued that partisanship should play no role in debates over the Supreme Court and have called Obama's nominee qualified.
Still, it was clear that unlike in past decades — when high court nominees enjoyed the support of large majorities on both sides — party politics was driving the debate and vote on Kagan, much as it did last year when the Senate considered Obama's first pick, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and former President George W. Bush's two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
GOP senators have criticized Kagan for her decision as dean to bar military recruiters from the Harvard Law School career services office because of the prohibition against openly gay soldiers. Republicans spent the last hours of debate accusing her of being hostile to gun rights, and they have also spent considerable time criticizing her stance in favor of abortion rights.
Kagan revealed little about what kind of justice she would be in weeks of private one-on-one meetings with senators and several days of testimony before the Judiciary panel, despite having famously penned a law review article blasting Supreme Court nominees for obfuscating before the Senate. She dodged questions about her personal beliefs on a host of hot-button issues and declined repeatedly to "grade" Supreme Court rulings.
But her public appearances and documents unearthed from her time serving as a Clinton administration lawyer and domestic policy aide painted a portrait of the kind of personality she'll bring to the bench. She came across as a sharp intellect who enjoys the thrust and parry of legal debate, someone who's willing to throw elbows to make her opinions heard but nonetheless eager to facilitate consensus.
Kagan will be no stranger to the eight justices she is to join on the Supreme Court, having served as the government's top lawyer arguing cases before them in a post often referred to as the "10th justice." She's already friendly with a number of them, not least Antonin Scalia, the conservative justice who is her ideological opposite.
Kagan's nomination to a lifetime seat on the nation's highest court has drawn relatively little notice this summer, with the public and elected officials preoccupied by bad economic news and the Gulf oil spill, and many lawmakers nervously eyeing the November midterm congressional elections.
But senators used the debate to press dueling visions of the Supreme Court. Democrats say Kagan would be a mainstream, moderate counterweight to a conservative majority they say has defied Congress and ignored the Constitution in its rulings on issues such as workplace rights and campaign finance.
Republicans argued that Obama's choice of Kagan reflects Democratic attempts to pack courts with liberals who will mold the law to their agendas.
When sworn in, Kagan will join two other women on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sotomayor, who was Obama's first nominee. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the court, by President Ronald Reagan. She served from September 1981 to January 2006.

As if the Prop 8 disaster in California was bad enough, now Obama is succeeding in taking the SCOTUS to the far-left.  Hey you 54% of "Catholics" who voted for him, feel like suckers yet?

Any appeal of the heinous Prop 8 ruling is now in serious jeopardy.  It's time to hit the devotionals and start praying hard and often for this nation.

ALERT: Federal Judge Overturns Proposition 8

Courtesy of MSNBC, to my shock:

SAN FRANCISCO — In a major victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriage.

In a landmark case that could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, violates due process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. He said that "moral disapproval" alone is not a basis to deny rights to gays and lesbians.
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote in the conclusion of the 136-page opinion.
His ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.
Outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco, a cheer went up among a group of about 70 same-sex marriage supporters carrying small U.S. flags, as a large rainbow-striped flag — the symbol of the gay rights movement — waved overhead.
California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. praised the decision. "In striking down Proposition 8, Judge Walker came to the same conclusion I did when I declined to defend it: Proposition 8 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry, without a sufficient governmental interest."
Opponents of same-sex marriage derided the ruling.                                                                      
South Carolina Republican Sen. James Demint called the decision "another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage." 
"Traditional marriage has been the foundation of civil society for centuries and we cannot simply toss it aside to fit the political whims of liberal activists with gavels," Demint said.
Prop 8, which outlawed gay marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them, passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008 following the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.
Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.
Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married.
The ruling puts Walker at the forefront of the gay marriage debate. The longtime federal judge was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
The verdict was the second in a federal gay marriage case to come down in recent weeks. A federal judge in Massachusetts decided last month the state's legally married gay couples had been wrongly denied the federal financial benefits of marriage because of a law preventing the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex unions.
The plaintiffs in the California case presented 18 witnesses. Academic experts testified about topics ranging from the fitness of gay parents and religious views on homosexuality to the historical meaning of marriage and the political influence of the gay rights movement.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson delivered the closing argument for opponents of the ban. He told Judge Walker that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.
Olson teamed up with David Boies to argue the case, bringing together the two litigators best known for representing George W. Bush and Al Gore in the disputed 2000 election.
Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because U.S. Supreme Court precedent was on their side. The attorneys also said gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject.
Former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Charles Cooper, who represented the religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said cultures around the world, previous courts and Congress all accepted the "common sense belief that children do best when they are raised by their own mother and father."

In an unusual move, the original defendants, Brown, the state attorney general, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to support Proposition 8 in court.
That left the work of defending the law to Protect Marriage, the group that successfully sponsored the ballot measure that passed with 52 percent of the vote after the most expensive political campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.
Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

This is an outrage.  The citizens of California had every right to amend their Constitution, and they had a moral duty to defend God's plan for marriage.  And now, this black-robed tyrant thinks he can override this right by imposing this ruling.

An abuse of federal power?  You bet it is.  Our founders had no intention of the federal judiciary having the authority to overturn an amendment to a state constitution.  Yet, here we are!  As if we needed another excuse to throw out the bums in 2010 and 2012. 

I urge everyone to write to the Congressional representatives and urge them to support an appeal of this abominable ruling.  I also urge everyone to pray for those who challenged Proposition 8 and to pray for our nation to regain its moral compass.  It's time to stand up and say we're not going to take it anymore.

To the people of CA, you will be in my prayers and may God bless your state abundantly.  Peace.

                                                             

ACIVAB Kudos: Chilean Bishop Defend's God's Plan for Marriage

Courtesy of CNA:

Santiago, Chile, Aug 4, 2010 / 01:51 pm (CNA).- This week, Auxiliary Bishop Fernando Chomali of Santiago spoke up in defense of marriage and remarked that all laws must be founded in reason, according to the truth about man.
The bishop made his statements after Chilean Senator Fulvio Rossi announced his plans to introduce legislation that would permit same-sex “marriage.”
Bishop Chomali underscored that public policies ought to ensure the good of the country and must conform to the truth about man. For this reason, he continued, politicians must reflect on the meaning of humanity and on man’s deepest longings.
“Public policies must stem from reason and not feelings, emotions or the opinions of the day.  They must not be subjected to the latest fad or what is taking place in other countries,” he added.
Public policy cannot be tailored to suit merely the needs of minority groups or special situations, the bishop continued. Proponents of same-sex “marriage” are “saying that in the end, getting married and staying married is irrelevant and that lawmakers must simply rubber-stamp whatever personal desires people have and grant them legal status,” he said.  This is an erroneous view of the human person and of the purpose of legislation, he warned.
Bishop Chomali went on to say that altering the institution of marriage in order to satisfy the demand for rights is wrong, arguing that there would be no end to the different scenarios that could be conceived. “Should each and every situation be given legal stature? Why can’t we recognize that we already have legal solutions for non-marital unions?” the bishop asked.
“The law cannot address all of these different scenarios to the point of denying its own reason for existence, which is to watch over the common good,” he continued. “Today more than ever, what we need is conceptual clarity and profound reflection on which direction we wish our beloved country to take,” the bishop said.
He called on lawmakers to consider the consequences and reflect on what they want for their own children. “Those who promote these laws impoverish the efforts of thousands of parents who day in and day out teach their children with their testimony and life of sacrifice, the value of marriage and fidelity,” he added.

A big ACIVAB kudos to His Excellency Fernando Chomali for his defense of marriage.

ACIVAB Kudos: Father Rodriguez Reminds Catholics of their Duties as Catholics

Courtesy of CNA:

El Paso, Texas, Aug 3, 2010 / 06:01 am (CNA).- Warning of the possibility of a corrupt democracy, Texas priest Fr. Michael Rodriguez has written that Catholics have the “absolute duty” to oppose abortion and all government attempts to legalize same-sex unions.
The parish priest of El Paso’s San Juan Bautista Catholic Church, Fr. Rodriguez published a short essay in the Sunday El Paso Times urging all Catholics to take the teachings of the Catholic Church to heart.
Every Catholic, out of “fidelity to charity and truth,” must oppose “the murder of unborn babies” and the legalization of homosexual unions, he said.
“Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church,” the priest wrote. Those Catholics who neglect actively to oppose the “homosexual agenda” on the grounds of equal rights and tolerance would be guilty of “a most grievous sin of omission.”
Fr. Rodriguez quoted the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) November 2009 pastoral letter on marriage, noting it was endorsed by the Bishop of El Paso Armando X. Ochoa. That document said the idea that people of the same-sex can “marry” is “one of the most troubling developments in contemporary culture” and is an attempt to “redefine” marriage and the family.
This harms both the intrinsic dignity of every person and the common good of society, the bishops said, adding that justice requires denying legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not “marital.”
Fr. Rodriguez urged Catholics to treat homosexuals with “love, understanding and respect” without forgetting that genuine love requires seeking the salvation of souls.
“Homosexual acts lead to the damnation of souls,” the priest warned.
Criticizing several El Paso Times letter writers who claimed that in a democracy the majority decide between what is right and wrong, he said this logic is “not only false” but “ludicrous.” Majority decisions have no bearing on an actions’ intrinsic morality, he explained.
This morality, established by God, can be known through reason, he said. As an example of intrinsic morality, the priest noted that if a majority voted to allow rape this could never make rape morally right.
“There is such a thing as a corrupt democracy, you know!” commented Fr. Rodriguez. “Frighteningly, if the majority chooses to deny the objective moral order, then we will all suffer the pestiferous consequences.”

A big ACIVB kudos to Fr. Rodriguez.  In a world where namby-pamby homilies from priests are the norm, it's refreshing to see a priest who preaches the truth about abortion and homosexual "marriage".  In a day and age where 54% of Catholics voted for Obama despite his anti-life agenda and his beholding to the homosexual agenda, we need more priests like this one.  Our hats (and for any priestly readers of this blog, birettas ;) ) are off to him.

Pax Christi.