Santorum: Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Have Faced Persecution in California

Former pro-life, pro-family Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, has a terrific piece today in the Philadelphia Inquirer revealing the campaign of hate and intimidation waged by the pro-gay marriage community in California against supporters of Proposition 8.  In the November 2008 election Prop 8 was reaffirmed by a vote of 6,838,107 / 52.3% Yes votes to 6,246,463 / 47.7% No votes. 

Sen. Santorum reports:

The reaction of some Prop 8 opponents – the self-proclaimed champions of tolerance – was swift and fierce. They moved to harass and persecute Prop 8 supporters. 

Groups such as the misnamed “Californians Against Hate” published blacklists of Prop 8 backers that included supporters’ names and addresses. Prop 8 advocates became the target of harassing protests, phone calls, e-mails, and mailings.

A flier distributed in one town featured a photo of one Prop 8 backer, his name, the amount of his donation, and the name of his (Catholic) church. Next to his photo was the word “Bigot.”

Some Prop 8 campaign donors had to resign from their jobs or take leaves of absence to protect their employers and colleagues. Top officials of California Musical Theatre and the Los Angeles Film Festival were forced to resign just because they had donated in support of Prop 8.

That wasn’t all. These warriors for the oppressed also made a point of going after pro-Prop 8 Mormons and their church.

Despite having passed twice in California including by 61% of the vote in the 2000 election, the pro-gay marriage movement continues to try to reject the will of the people.

To learn more about the ongoing fight to defend marriage in California and throughout the country, you can visit www.nationformarriage.org.

Share

Good News and Bad News on the Marriage Front

The good news is that NY became the latest in a series of states rejecting legalized so-called gay marriage

The bad news is that the DC City Council voted in favor of a measure that would legalize same-sex marriage in the district.  This isn’t the end of the story for DC as there are a couple more hurdles that the measure has to jump through before it becomes law, but it will be a tough battle for people who are against this redefinition of marriage as the media in DC has been relentless in its attacks against groups like the Catholic Church who are fighting the measure.

SMS will keep you updated on these state battles over marriage, so check back often for the latest – especially as the DC situation moves ahead.  And don’t forget to read the US Bishops’ approved statement on marriage from their fall meeting.  It provides a tremendous defense of marriage as well as useful explanations for the Church’s position.

 

Join Our Mailing List
Email:


For Email Marketing you can trust

Share

DC City Council Playing Politics with the Poor and Trampling on Religion

by Patrick Looby

 

Suppose Governor George Wallace of Alabama had told the Catholic Archdiocese of Mobile that as a condition of receiving state aid for social services it had to stop performing interracial marriages – compelling it to accept his view that blacks and whites should remain segregated.  Then, suppose that the Archdiocese responded by stating that since such an imposition would violate their beliefs about marriage that they would be forced to stop receiving state aid and would then have to close down some of its services to the poor. 

 

No one would have seen this as the Church playing politics with the poor, but rather as Governor Wallace using the poor in order to push an agenda of segregation onto the Church.  No one in their right mind would have said something inane like “the message that the Church is sending with its action is wrong, and has left me and countless other Catholics heartbroken.”  Rather, the Church would have been praised for sticking to its fundamental beliefs in the face of government pressure to redefine its creed. 

 

This is the hypothetical example that Bill Donahue of the Catholic League gives in his response to those who object to the decision of the Archdiocese of Washington to close some of its social services if the city attempts to compel them to accept the idea of same-sex marriage as a result of receiving state aid for those services.  And despite the ramblings of the left-leaning media, this is a clear case of the DC City Council playing politics with the poor and trampling on the free practice of religion. 

 

Yet, this doesn’t stop people like Petula Dvorak  of the Washington Post from accusing the Church of unjust discrimination and being on the ’wrong side of history.’  In typical liberal fashion, Dvorak’s revisionist history ignores the fact that the Catholic Church was a lone voice for the proper treatment of homosexuals back in the 1980′s at the height of the AIDS crisis.

 

Writing an instruction to Bishops in 1986, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) pleaded with Americans to remember that “it is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

 

 

So,while Catholics may disagree with Dvorak’s conclusions about same-sex marriage, it is very nice to see that she and her friends in the liberal media have finally caught up to the Catholic Church’s 25 year plea for an end to the maltreatment of homosexuals in society – even if it’s only because it is now fashionable for them to do so.

 

Though she appears to care only for the poor and is not interested in making “an argument in favor of same-sex marriage,” Dvorak’s feigned emotional plea for the poor is nothing more than spin and an obvious tone-deafness in regard to Catholic theology.mother theresa

 

 The bottom line is that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization because it believes in certain truths – truths that come directly from the teaching of Christ. And those truths are intimately wrapped up into seven simple, yet profound, acts called the Sacraments. It is from the grace received in these sacraments that the Church is driven to build more hospitals, staff more homeless shelters, provide more crisis pregnancy centers, and run more schools than any other organization in the history of the world.

 

And so it shouldn’t surprise anyone to learn that if the state ever attempted to force the Church to change how She views or defines one of these seven sacraments, that the Church would have no choice but to object and possibly close operations. In fact, what secularists don’t understand is that if the Church allowed such a change the operations would eventually close anyway.

 

Why? Because making such a change would force the Church to behave as a secular organization.  And when was the last time you went to a non-profit hospital that was established by a secular humanist organization? When was the last time you saw a group of secular humanists volunteering at a secular humanist soup kitchen that they set up with donations from secular humanists? When was the last time you saw a secular humanist charity run a food drive, or provide volunteer counseling to unwed mothers?  When was the last time that you saw a bunch of secular humanists take a vow of lifelong poverty and celibacy in order to free themselves to serve in the poorest parts of the world?

 

The point is that the government and all of these well-meaning secularists miss a crucial point about the human spirit. Yes, we all have an altruistic streak. We all know that something has to be done to help the poor and those less-fortunate.  But, it is one thing to know this, and something entirely different to actually do something about it. And when it comes to the latter, it is the people of faith who do it much more frequently and much more efficiently.  That is exactly why the Church has the overwhelming charitable presence in the world.

 

The fatal error of people like Petula Dvorak – whose depth of Catholic experience she summarizes as ‘bike rides with Fr. Joe’ – is the false pelagian notion that the Church can still be the Church if She is forced to let go of Her most basic teachings. That somehow the selfless giving that has built hospitals and homeless shelters for 2000 years will continue if it is divorced from its source of grace in the seven sacraments.

 

But the Church knows better. She knows that allowing the state to dictate what the Church must support in the way of marriage or any other sacrament, would effectively reduce the Church to a secular humanist insititution. 

 

So, the Church is fighting for the poor when She stands up to the state in these matters. For if the state is allowed to strip religious organizations of their creed which drives them to service in the first place, then that will effectively eliminate their service to the poor altogether.  If the DC City Council wants to defund these charities because the Church doesn’t support same-sex marriage that is their choice.  But the Church will not change Her beliefs.

 

-  Mr. Looby is a graduate of Wadhams Hall Seminary and has been teaching Theology and Philosophy for 13 years.  In addition, he is a freelance writer and speaker on issues pertaining to the Catholic faith.

Share

DC to Catholics – Celebrate Homosexuality or Leave

With their vote last night D.C. Council members are forcing Catholics in DC to abandon their faith teachings.  Supported by a hostile anti-Church media, the facts concerning the legislation are muddled.  The city is saying in order to operate in DC, institutions need to be secular.

Take a moment and learn the truth.  http://www.adw.org/family/marriage_ssm.asp

Marr_JamWr09_web

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More information on Catholic Church and marriage – http://www.foryourmarriage.org/

 and here  -http://www.adw.org/family/marriage.asp

Join Our Mailing List
Email:


For Email Marketing you can trust

Share

Some thoughts about public discourse, by Fr. Thomas Berg

Taking a step back from the healthcare debate

Readers will forgive me for waxing philosophical for just one column. But let’s take a step back from healthcare reform, unemployment, the economy, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Gitmo, water-boarding, gay marriage and stem cell research to think for a minute about just how the exchange of ideas is faring in the public square these days.

It is Christopher Tollefson, professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina, who has me thinking about this. His recently published and timely thoughts on the nature of public discourse are well worth a read. Tollefsen explains that public discourse is crucial to the common good and should transpire precisely in public forums where the general populace can have access to the exchange of ideas and even participate. As to the meaning of ‘discourse’, Tollefson continues:

“Discourse” indicates the crucial means by which [consideration of public issues] is to be pursued. Proponents of competing positions must communicate — not just to those who already share their views, but to those who don’t; they must be part of a public conversation. This conversation is not just, however, an exchange of views. It must be an exchange of reasons. It must have the character of a public argument.

So, public discourse achieves its common-good purpose most effectively when it entails, above and beyond a mere exchange of views or beliefs, actual argumentation.

Now, we are in fact absolutely afloat in public argumentation these days, perhaps like never before in American history. As Robert T. Miller, assistant professor at the Villanova University School of Law, has observed:

Generally speaking, our society is more concerned with producing and responding to arguments than probably any other in the history of the world. Whether the issue is abortion or gay rights, tax policy or the trade deficit, global warming or third-world debt, everyone seems ready to adduce arguments in support of some position or other.

So, does the fact that we are awash in argumentation on pressing moral issues bode well for the moral health of our nation? I think we can be cautiously optimistic. Granted, the mere abundance of argumentation in the public square does not, in and of itself, assure a healthy moral fabric. It all depends on the kind of argumentation we should be demanding of those who debate moral issues in the public square.

First, we should demand that it unfold in genuine civility. Furthermore, our exchanges should obey the rules of logic and avoid linguistic fallacies. Most of all, we should insist that our exchanges get down to the level of first principles. In other words, our public discourse should require each side to articulate the most fundamental assumptions on which a particular argument is based. When discourse fails to do so, opposing sides all too often end up talking past each other and never explaining the reasons for the positions held.

If, for instance, the issue is embryonic stem cell research, the public interest would be best served if both sides articulate the reasons for asserting the personhood of the embryo or denying it. If the issue is euthanasia, both sides should articulate the meaning of human personhood, how body relates to self, and what ‘quality of life means’, and so on. The common good is not served when public discourse ignores sharp disagreements at the level of first principles.

Alexis de Tocqueville once famously asserted that “in the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.” Sadly, this parroting of the opinions of others is another major pitfall of public discourse, and a further consequence of failing to argue at the level of first principles. Such unreflective repetition of argumentation can give the impression of robust public discourse, but in reality if falls painfully short.

We can and should do our part to ensure that public discourse is vigorous and healthy by striving to avoid such pitfalls. In so doing, whether over the dinner table, on e-media, or in our town halls, we strengthen the moral fiber of our nation.

Fr. Thomas Berg is Executive Director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person.

Share