Bishop Thomas J Paprocki on troubling issues of Democratic Party Policy

Bishop Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, (watch video above or read his article) addresses the "platforms" of the Democratic and Republican Parties. He points out the following intrinsic evils in the platform of the Democratic Party:

• Abortion should be safe and legal and should be a right "regardless of the ability to pay", which can only happen if taxpayers are required to fund abortion, or insurance companies can will be required to pay for them, or hospitals will be forced to perform them for free.
• support for same-sex marriage, recognizing that "gay rights are human rights", calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

He also addresses the troubling conflict over whether or not the name of God should be included in the party platform, pointing out that if it was only included at the will of the The Party Leader, then it could also just as easily be removed at the will of The Leader, which does not bode well for democracy in the Democratic Party.

Bishop Paprocki looks at the Republican Party platform and finds party support for no intrinsic evils.

On other matters, a Catholic can hold a variety of opinions, such as how "to address the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, solve the problems of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils."

Bishop Paprocki is concerned for the salvation of the souls of his flock when he concludes his piece as follows:

I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.

I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices.

May God give us this grace. Amen.

The War on Families

Mass Resistance photo

A concerted campaign is under way to portray being pro-family, pro-marriage as "anti-gay" and pro-family, pro-marriage groups as "hate groups". Chick-fill-A has been caught in the midst of this. Today I received an email from a pro-family group with the subject header:

Chick-fil-A caves in to gay movement - disgraceful!

And the text was headlined:

Chick-fil-A caves in to homosexual pressure. Agrees not to donate to pro-family groups in exchange for permission to put restaurant in Chicago. Slap in the face to pro-family supporters.

And it went on to describe Chick-fill-A's apparent betrayal of marriage and the family.

I found this volte-face difficult to comprehend. So, following the advice in that same email, I emailed info@winshape.org, the charitable wing of Chick-fill-A asking "Is it true?"

I wrote:

That Chick-fill-A and you have caved in to pressure and renounced support of pro-family organizations to secure permission to open your restaurant in Chicago? Pro-family is not "anti-gay".

Please let me know the truth on this. Our families are being made to feel very vulnerable. If being "pro-family" is going to be equivalent to be "anti-gay" we will be living in a dangerous world.

If you have caved in to political pressure when setting up a restaurant is a perfectly legal thing and should not involve politics, then a dangerous precedent has been set. Even "gays" should be worried, for any group will be able to threaten law abiding individuals and businesses who do not happen to conform to the latest politically correct fad.

Which group of people behaved more agreeably when families flocked to your restaurants in large numbers and just a few engaged in a public display of behavior that should be kept to the private sphere, if carried out at all?

Yous sincerely

Within minutes I had a reply. They had obviously been receiving many enquiries. And here is text of the reply:

Thanks for your interest and concern.

Despite recent mischaracterizations in the media, neither Chick-fil-A nor WinShape Foundation has changed our giving strategy. We will continue to focus our efforts on programs that educate youth, strengthen families and enrich marriage, and support communities.  Chick-fil-A plans to release the information below to the media.

Chick-fil-A, Inc. – Who We Are

For many months now, Chick-fil-A’s corporate giving has been mischaracterized. And while our sincere intent has been to remain out of this political and social debate, events from Chicago this week have once again resulted in questions around our giving. For that reason, we want to provide some context and clarity around who we are, what we believe and our priorities in relation to corporate giving.

A part of our corporate commitment is to be responsible stewards of all that God has entrusted to us. Because of this commitment, Chick-fil-A’s giving heritage is focused on programs that educate youth, strengthen families and enrich marriages, and support communities. We will continue to focus our giving in those areas. Our intent is not to support political or social agendas.

As we have stated, the Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. 

This reply satisfies me.

We can wait and see if they are playing with words - will their promotion of programs that "enrich marriage" be broadened to include any modified definition of marriage? I trust not. And I hope not.

But let us make no mistake about it: supporters of marriage according to the natural law can expect to be treated by a minority as bigots and haters. Be prepared.

The hypocrisy of dictating to a private business whom they should and shouldn't give money to, and labeling pro-marriage and pro-family groups as holding "political agendas" defies reason. Do those groups promoting "marriage equality" not hold a "political agenda"? And yet the pro-gay lobby praises Microsoft and other corporations for supporting them.

Franciscan University in hot water over course on "deviant" behaviours

It was reported on Public Radio this week that the Franciscan University of Stubenville, Ohio, is to have its Social Studies program examined following protests from alumni who count themselves amongst the Franciscan Gay Alumni and Allies Facebook group.

The offending course description reads:

“Deviant behavior focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior, such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory and phenomenological theory,” states the course description. “The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior.”

As one can read at the National Catholic Register:

Up until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a mental disorder.

“It strikes me that the gay alumni group, as so often happens, are overreacting to the word ‘deviant,’” said Phil Sutton, a psychologist and psychotherapist in South Bend, Ind., who launched Franciscan University’s master’s degree program in counseling 23 years ago. “Whereas in psychology we talk about ‘abnormal’ or ‘dysfunctional’ behavior, sociologists talk about ‘deviant’ behavior, meaning self-defeating behavior that is outside the norm. Franciscan’s use of the word is consistent with sociology, and, in that sense, they are not wrong to use it.”

“The research shows that same-sex behavior is medically, psychologically and relationally harmful,” added Sutton. “So there is nothing in the ‘deviant’ definition that is unrealistic. There is no doubt that you can talk about those who engage in that behavior as psychologically distressed, and there is no doubt that, in a secondary sense, it’s harmful to those who participate in it.”

I couldn't help checking St Paul's list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God:

Neither the immoral (literally "fornicators", according to a footnote), nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (footnote: Greek has "effeminate nor sodomites." The apostle condemns, not the inherent tendencies of such, but the indulgence of them.), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 RSVCE Ignatius Bible edition)

So St Paul groups active homosexuals in with other "deviant" kinds of behaviour. The DSM can change its classification for proper scientific reasons or for politically correct reasons. The Word of God is eternal, however. Note that St Paul continues:

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

So it's possible to change, by the grace Jesus pours out upon us at our conversion and Baptism and subsequently through the reception of the Sacraments, and openness to the Holy Spirit! Another thing the "gay" lobby considers anathema.

Chick-fill-A funds hate groups?

So the protestors in this video allege. But I couldn't see the hate group. Could you? All I could see was a never ending line of people showing their appreciation for Chick-fill-A's pro-family stance.

Here's what Dan Cathy, president of Chick-fil-A, famously told the Baptist Press on June 16:
"Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of  the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Attribution: MassResistance email update.

Cardinal Dolan - Presidnet Obama's affirmation of homosexual marriage "deeply saddening"

Cardinal Dolan has issued the following comments on President Obama's assertion that people of the same sex have the right to marry:

President Obama’s comments today in support of the redefinition of marriage are deeply saddening. As I stated in my public letter to the President on September 20, 2011, the Catholic Bishops stand ready to affirm every positive measure taken by the President and the Administration to strengthen marriage and the family. However, we cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better. Unfortunately, President Obama’s words today are not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage. I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. May we all work to promote and protect marriage and by so doing serve the true good of all persons.

Source: USCCB.

St Philomena's Catholic School, Carshalton, in gay marriage row

Well, that's how Your Local Guardian puts it. The article is self-explantory.

Some students at this Catholic High School for Girls in Carshalton, Surrey, sported Gay Pride badges in protest at the school's teaching on the nature of marriage and the importance of defending it in the political arena.

We cannot assume that parents and pupils in our Catholic Schools will agree with what our schools are teaching.

Meanwhile, the BBC reports that the Catholic Education Service in the England and Wales is to be investigated after it emerged that the CES wrote to nearly 400 state-funded Roman Catholic schools inviting them to back a petition against gay civil marriage.

As the CES points out, Catholic views on marriage are religious, not political.

Homosexuality is proving to be the current testing of Catholics of their fidelity to the law of God. Upholding the natural law in this matter is not intolerance, and making our views known is taking our place in society. But there are those who are intolerant of that view.

London Mayor accused of Censorship by Anglican Mainstream

Anglican Mainstream is accusing London Mayor Boris Johnson of censorship by his decision to pull adverts from London buses even after they had been approved by advertising standards watchdogs.

They claim that even Stonewall admits censorship is wrong:

Dr Sugden claimed even Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive of Stonewall, admitted censorship was wrong. Since the ban, the group told us they are delighted the issues surrounding homosexuality and the extension of same-sex marriage are being addressed in the public square. However they are concerned debate on therapeutic and other forms of help for those with same-sex attraction is continually ruled out because it is deemed politically incorrect.

I like the way the promoters of these ads are using the politically correct language that others use in promoting their causes (my emphasis added):

Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust believe it is important to help those unhappy with their homosexual feelings to ‘develop their heterosexual potential’.

And further:

Director of Core Issues, Dr Mike Davidson, disagreed with Stonewall’s reaction to the proposed legislation on marriage: “Their campaign rides roughshod over individuals who by conscience reject the simplistic notion that their choice to move out of homosexuality is because of internalised prejudice taught by society.. 

If you can't beat them, join them!

By the way: I have it on good authority that my blog has been blocked in a certain area because of comments concerning homosexuality deemed unacceptable. So much for free speech.

Laurel and Hardy on Gay Marriage

This found at Catholic and Loving It.

Austrian Priest resigns after Cardinal Schonborn overrules him on homosexual parish council member

LifeSiteNews reports the resignation of Father Gerhard Swierzek, the pastor of a parish in the Archdiocese of Vienna, who refused to allow an active homosexual, Florian Stangl, who is living in a legal registered partnership with another man, to sit on the parish council in the town of Stützenhofen. Stangl had received 96 out of 142 votes in the parish council elections.

Eminent canonist and blogger Dr Ed Peters wrote about the affair a little while ago in Sorting out the latest from Vienna.

Here's a little summary of the Canon Law on Parish Pastoral Councils.

Can. 536 §1. If the diocesan bishop judges it opportune after he has heard the presbyteral council, a pastoral council is to be established in each parish, over which the pastor presides and in which the Christian faithful, together with those who share in pastoral care by virtue of their office in the parish, assist in fostering pastoral activity.
               §2. A pastoral council possesses a consultative vote only and is governed by the norms established by the diocesan bishop.

That's all the Code of Canon Law says.

Some points to note.

1. Parish Pastoral Councils are not mandated by the Code but need only be established if the diocesan bishop judges it opportune.
2. The Pastor presides over the Council. He is in charge. This is not something that anyone - even the bishop - can change. No meetings can be held, no decisions taken, without the presence and approval of the Pastor.
3. The role of the members of the Council is to foster pastoral activity. In other words, they are to facilitate the work of shepherding the souls in the parish which is the exclusive and proper role of the Pastor. If they are not assisting him, they are not effective members of the Pastoral Council.
4. The Pastoral Council makes no decisions. It advises - that's what is meant by possesing a consultative vote. The Pastor consults the members, they make their advice known to the Pastor, even by voting on a subject, and then the Pastor prays about it and accepts or rejects the advice. If the members are faithful Catholics with a clear love for God and the Church, their advice should be taken very seriously.
5. But here is the difficult part: the Pastoral Council is governed by the norms establish by the diocesan bishop. "Norms" implies law. How binding are these norms? Obviously, they cannot contradict the universal law of the Church, but can the diocesan bishop mandate the establishment of parish pastoral councils? Can he establish norms concerning appointment, election, etc? Can the bishop confer membership of a parish pastoral council on any of the faithful? Can the bishop overrule a pastor who decides that a particular person is unsuitable for membership of a parish council? I very much doubt it.
6. Accodring to Dr Peters, membership of a Pastoral Council constitutes the holding of an Ecclesiastical Office (see Title IX of Book I of the Code of Canon Law). To hold ecclesiastical office one must be in communion with the Church as well as "suitable". Being in a sinful state does not, of itself, rupture communion with the Church, but it might well make one unsuitable if this state is publicly known.

One way to make a pastoral council ineffective is for the pastor not to attend. The council has no authority and without the pastor presiding it is rendered ineffective.

I am writing from a position of ignorance concerning the facts of this particular case but with my own experience of parish pastoral councils which has been altogether positive. I have never held elections and always appointed members. I have also asked members whom I did not consider helpful in fostering my pastoral work to stand down.

I hope Fr Swierzek had/has a good canon lawyer to advise him. On the basis of the very little known to me about this case, given that the Cardinal Archbishop had overruled his decision, I would probably advise him to simply insist that Stangl's election to the pastoral council had not been ratified by him. Since he as Pastor presides over the Council, Stangl could not therefore be considered as having been appointed as a member. The ball would then be in the Cardinal's court to either insist on Stangl's appointment or to accept the Pastor's decision. If the Cardinal were to take action against the pastor, there would be options available, from throwing in the towel (one doesn't want to spend one's priestly life fighting battles and one would hesitate before entering into a conflict with one's Cardinal Archbishop) and resigning, to having recourse against any decisions made by the Cardinal.

As Dr Peters rightly says, Pastoral Councils are new in the Church and so it will take some time to develop the law in this area.

In the meantime, I am praying for Fr Swierzek and for the Church in Austria which is in dire need of prayers. (See Pope Benedict's Chrism Mass homily in which he explicitly refers to rebellious priests in Austria.) None of us likes battles and it could be that Fr Swierzek just doesn't want to fight this one. He may have found the parish to be ungovernable.

Tolerance, Diversity. But the "post-gay", "ex-gay" may not be publicly acknowledged

Some Orwellian quotations from today's London Daily Mail

 The ASA [Advertising Standards Authority] said the Core Issues Trust campaign 'does not infringe any advertising rules in the UK'.

yet

Mr [Boris, former London Mayor] Johnson, who is chair of Tfl (Transport for London), was described as being 'very strongly of the view that the Core Issues' advert shouldn't run'. He said: 'London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance.

Andy Wasley, from Stonewall, [leading homosexual rights lobby organisation] said: 'We are delighted by TfL's clear commitment to diversity.

TfL's spokeswoman said: '... We do not believe these specific ads are consistent with TfL's commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London.'

99.98% of Priests Are Innocent

There is not a great child abuse problem in the Church! Of course, every child abused is huge crime. Were mistakes made? Certainly. But the Church is not infiltrated by child abusers. Recently in a local paper there was a paragraph (yes, one paragraph) reporting to the sentencing of a Baptist minister who was found guilty of child abuse, but no outcry against the Baptist church was heard.

Here is an article posted yesterday at the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights commenting on the 2011 annual report on child abuse published by the US Episcopal Conference:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the findings of the 2011 Annual Report on priestly sexual abuse that was released by the bishops’ conference; the survey was done by a Georgetown institute.

The headlines should read, “Abuse Problem Near Zero Among Priests,” but that is not what is being reported.

According to the 2011 Official Catholic Directory, there are 40,271 priests in the U.S. The report says there were 23 credible accusations of the sexual abuse of a minor made against priests for incidences last year. Of that number, 9 were deemed credible by law enforcement. Which means that 99.98% of priests nationwide had no such accusation made against them last year. Nowhere is this being reported.

Here are more data from the report that won’t appear elsewhere: almost all the offenses involve homosexuality. Indeed, 16% of the credible allegations made against priests who work in dioceses or eparchies, and 6% of religious order priests, involved pedophilia. In the former category, 82% of the alleged victims were male; in the latter, the figure is 94%. In other words, we are not talking about kids as victims, and we are not talking about females: we are talking about postpubescent males who were allegedly violated by adult males. That’s called homosexuality.

When did these alleged offenses take place? Overall, 68% took place between 1960 and 1984; 1975-1979 being the most common period (among religious order priests, 33% took place before 1960, and another 40% took place between 1960-1980). In 75% of all the cases, the accused priest is either dead or has been dismissed.

Since more than 10% of the credible allegations were found to be false or unsubstantiated, it makes one wonder how many of the total number of accusations are bogus. The bishops should commission a study of those priests whose reputations have been ruined by cash-hungry liars and their rapacious lawyers; the looters should also be studied. The Catholic League would be happy to make a generous donation.

Whilst every sympathy and assistance should be extended to the victims of abuse, now it is time to address the case of priests whose lives have been ruined by this. The bankrupting of the Church and its charitable works is unjust.

The Gay Mass Scandal in London

Like my friend Father Ray Blake, I was sent a link to this video and hesitated before publishing it. I do not want to unnecessarily scandalise my readers. I think particularly of some of my younger readers. But Father Blake and Father Finigan, who has also published it, are priests whose judgement I respect highly and trust implicitly. They have published it, and so do I.

"God", not "Lord", and prayers that the Church may change teachings she cannot change. References to the "season of Pride" as if a liturgical season rather than a one-day secular rally. This is a clear politicization of the Mass and must come to an end.

A correspondent has also sent me a link to the following video which he made, interviewing one of the prominent parishioners, who openly advocates homosexual relationships.



The interviewee is in fact Martin Pendergast, who entered into a civil partnership with Julian Filochowski, former head of the English and Welsh Bishops major overseas aid charity CAFOD (Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, mentioned elsewhere in this blog here). Father Finigan refers to the Pendergast/Filochowski union at his blog. Pendergast wrote in The Guardian on April 28, 2009:

Marriage is a variable and culturally conditioned social institution with no inherent religious inspiration, but subsequently clothed with meaning by various faiths. In many cultures it was rooted more in property contracts or ways of social engineering through annexing others into extended family networks.

which tells you all you need to know about his understanding of Christian marriage and how it is totally at odds with the Church's understanding.

A worrying claim by Mr Pendergast is that the Vatican is aware of these Masses and seems to think fit not to intervene. The teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality and chastity is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ##2357-2359:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Pendergast clearly equates homosexual unions with marriage. He says that those who enter into such unions are prayed for at these Masses and on their anniversaries. He distinguishes between celibacy and chastity in the homosexual, as if one in a homosexual union is not called to live in the celibate state. This is contrary to Church teaching. One thing is clear: if you are a "liberal" in the terms described by the interviewee, you do not hold the Catholic faith.

You either get it or you don't - Rick Santorum on marriage

Go to Catholic Bandita for further comment.

St Andrew's Day pro-marriage rally in Edinburgh

BBC News carries this report on a rally protesting against same-sex marriage held today outside the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. Cardinal O'Brien's stance seems to be somewhat different than that of a prelate in a neighbouring episcopal conference. Let's not kid ourselves about civil partnerships being different from same-sex marriages. They amount to the same thing and those promoting civil partnerships clearly want to move in the direction of "marriage."

The cardinal said: "As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government.

"It was not created by government and should not be changed by them. Instead, recognising the innumerable benefits which marriage brings to society, they should act to protect and uphold it, not attack or dismantle it."

Archbishop of Westminster backs civil partnerships

“We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,” Archbishop Vincent Nichols said at a press conference after the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales’ meeting last week.

and

“As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life … The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give. Stability in society depends upon the reliability of commitments that people give. That might be in offering to do a job but especially in their relationships with one another. Equality and commitment are both very important and we fully support them.”

As quoted in The Tablet, London, UK.

He's wrong. Civil partnerships are deeply discriminatory. A brother may not enter into a civil partnership with a brother, or a sister with a sister. Or a man may not enter into one with a woman. The impediments of consanguinity to entering into a partnership are analogous to, if not exactly the same as, those of marriage.

Let us keep the question of chastity out of it for a moment. Let us not even enquire into the nature of the relationship between the parties to a (potential) civil partnership. Why do these need the protection of the law? One can be in a committed and stable relationship of friendship which, it could be argued, is good for society. But these neither need nor merit any legal recognition.

As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith pointed out in its 2003 document Considerations regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:

By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties. The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it. (No. 8)

If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment. (No. 10)

See comment by William Oddie of the Catholic Herald, and Father Ray Blake, and His Grace's interventions in the following interview:

I'm not ashamed to publish this email regarding Tesco and Gay Pride

But I'm not going to watch the videos. Even if children are being exposed to this sort of evil (and I know they are) I don't want to watch it myself - I saw a bit of one from another website and found it offensive and disturbing - spiritually! But if you are not aware that this sort of thing happens, then maybe you should take a look. Ensure, however, you pray before, during, and after to Our Lady conceived without sin that she might keep your body pure and your soul holy, to St Michael the Archangel to safeguard you against evil, and to your Guardian Angel.

Since making the Conscecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary last Lent and since being in this remote part of the world, I have found it a great grace to have been protected from this sort of stuff for so long. There are those called to fight the battles, and this part of the world is not without them, but there is great wisdom - if I may venture to suggest - in keeping a wall around one's mind, one's heart, one's will, one's passions, and have Our Lady keep you as an enclosed garden. I think I have reached the stage in life where I do not need to see the evil to be able to know it exists.

Parents need all the support they can get to keep their children protected also.

(Since publishing and after a comment from Damask Rose, I took a look at the three videos. I had to stop the reading of the poem: not only blasphemous but pornographic. And the others just made me think: what has London come to? There is nothing benign in this at all: it is in-your-face exhibitionism.)


Parents: exercise your discretion.

Dear Friends

I am writing again to Tesco about its links with London and World Pride.  Complaint has thus far been futile.

By Tesco leading this year’s London Pride, with Tesco staff carrying the rainbow flag and promising money and resources for next year ---  providing a “safe, relaxed and chilled out place with family-friendly entertainment and activities aimed at younger children” --- it may attract the Pink pound, but badly damages its public image.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060559/Outrage-Tesco-backs-gay-festival--drops-support-cancer-charity-event.html

The public will soon need to accept not just homosexuality but an increasingly extreme range of sexual orientations. The main resistance to this pressure to conform comes from Christians who, apart from losing their jobs, having their businesses shut down, being dragged through the courts and threatened with physical violence, are being held up for public ridicule.

It seems that Tesco is already experimenting with this tactic. The Head of Research and Development at Tesco.com, Nick Lansely, did a dramatic reading of  James Kirkup’s “The Love That Dares to Speak its Name”, videoed and posted it on Youtube.

It is a description of a necrophilial (an ‘orientation’) soldier having sex with/on the crucified body of Christ. [WARNING EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE; but remember before you avert your eyes, judging by what  our children are already exposed to in schools, this, in time, is what they will be led to accept.]

“The Love That Dares to Speak its Name”

http://annoy.com/history/doc.html?DocumentID=100045

Nick Lansely, Head of R&D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG7lf2tlkKk

Nick Lansley, reading the Blasphemous poem on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=0mGBJsTJDbs

Nick Lansley is on the team of Out at Tesco that organised Tesco’s leading this year’s London Pride 2011

http://home.outattesco.com/newsletter/index.php?page=newsletter-manua

Nick Lansley is clearly visible at the 2-minute mark on this Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOYJhMSZjA

Nick was also on hand to record an event held in June 2008, when the National Secular Society (NSS) gathered in a London restaurant to celebrate the repeal of the Blasphemy Laws. Here Sir Ian McKellen OBE gave a spirited rendition of the above poem and boasted of ripping pages from the Bible – something he proudly confesses to doing whenever he finds one in a hotel room. At the bottom of the NSS web site we read:  “Nick Lansley recorded the event.” http://www.secularism.org.uk/bbbpartyreport.html

Had McKellen distributed cartoons of the dead body of Mohammed being sodomised, whilst tearing pages out of the Q’ran all hell would have been let loose - globally. 

Why is it that Christian employees and customers don’t have the same human right to feel that they are victims of incitement to religious hatred as are Muslims? Why are Muslims protected from such hatred by Tesco and Sir Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and yet the sensibilities of Christians can be openly mocked and trampled on?

Why can Nick be publicly identified with promoting Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual and Transsexual (LGBT) rights whilst  simultaneously encouraging what many people of faith (and others) would consider profoundly blasphemous --- even an incitement to religious hatred?

Other Tesco employees, especially Christians cannot make a critical remark of the LGBT for fear of being sacked. I received this recently from a concerned Tesco employee:

“Let me open by apologizing for my going through the absurd necessity of using a fake email address – my employer (Tesco) has been known to take action against members of staff who are identified as making any remarks online which could be considered derogatory. (This is advice handed out by our union, USDAW – never, ever mention Tesco on Facebook, Twitter, etc). I simply cannot run the risk that my real name would be associated with the comments I am about to make. (which is not meant to question your personal integrity, it is simply a risk I cannot take).”

Tesco should be in the business of providing essential goods and services. Homosexuality is not a state of being like being black; it is an emotional and psychological disorder. When a black woman goes to sleep she is no less black than when she is awake. There is nothing that a black woman can do to make herself either less or more black. On the other hand a homosexual is only homosexual when his imagination leads his emotions, desirers, actions, habits and character to become homosexual.  This orientation can either become stronger or weaker. Movement into and out of homosexuality can and does travel in both directions. But it seems that this travel is only allowed in one direction: from heterosexuality to homosexuality – never the reverse.

In 2 Peter2 it describes how God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly. It says that “He  rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless, for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard.” Are we prepared to be distressed or do we wish to bury our heads in the sand?

Please write to Tesco letting them know your views and intentions:

richard.broadbent@tesco.com: Chairman of Tesco

philip.clarke@tesco.com: International and IT Director

richard.brasher@tesco.com: Commercial and Marketing Director

Andrew.higginson@tesco.com: Chief Executive of Retailing Services and Group Strategy

cr.enquiries@uk.tesco.com

customer.service@tesco.co.uk

ceo.customerservice@tesco.co.uk

I am

Yours in Jesus Christ

David Skinner

http://www.notashamed.org.uk/

Young people witnessing to their faith - and being harrassed for it

I am impressed by the lively faithfulness of the young Catholics in my parish. Those who come to Mass bear joyful witness to life and love of God. In the church it is easy - they are welcomed, their families encourage them. Out in the world, they are challenged - those who are not home schooled attend the state schools where the expression of religious practice - by and large - is not permitted due to the separation of church and state.

Our young people need to be prepared for tough times. They will face ridicule, hatred and persecution for their beliefs.

Father Zuhlsdorf (MUST READ: Young person’s account of harassment and violence at WYD) describes what some young people experienced in Madrid at the recent World Youth Day. Some people hate the Catholic Church. Catholics hate no one - they love all mankind, especially those who hate them! Young people: trust in the Lord.

Father Ray Blake (The Illiberality of a Local MP, Hatred?)is also receiving hate messages because of his faithful and compassionate teaching on marriage. Go and express your prayerful support of this good priest.

All faithful Catholics are bigots - according to CNN's Piers Morgan

If, like me, you accept the Church's teaching that homosexual activity is immoral and that the orientation itself is disordered (prepare for hateful comments now - in spite of the fact that homosexual orientation is not the only disordered orientation: so is paedophilia, addictions to alcohol, drugs, temptations to beat your spouse, or to kill your unborn child, or to steal - these are all disordered in need of healing and amendment of life), you're a bigot.

CNN's Piers Morgan: “I guess one of the reasons it’s troubling and difficult for people to come out [as gay] is because of the level of bigotry that’s out there against them. I have to say that your views you espoused on this issue are bordering on bigotry, aren’t they?” Morgan asked the candidate.

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum: “Are you suggesting that the Bible and that the Catholic Church is bigoted? Well, if that’s what you believe, fine. I think that—I shouldn’t say ‘fine!’ ... Saying a church is bigoted because it holds that opinion that is Biblically based I think is in itself an act of bigotry”

And this after the following exchange when Santorum demonstrates the true charitable attitude that all should have - far from bigoted:

MORGAN: How many sons do you have?

SANTORUM: We have four boys and three girls. [Large family by many standards. Presumably he knows a thing or two about bringing up a family.]

MORGAN: How would you feel if one of your sons turned around one day and said, "Dad, I'm gay"?

SANTORUM: I would embrace them, love them and try to help them through what I would see as a very difficult and troubling time in their lives. I know a lot of gay people. I know a lot of the folks that I've talked to who have gone through this, go through a lot of very difficult times in their life in coming to that decision and struggling with it even after admitting it. So, this is a difficult issue. I understand it's difficult issue. And my job as a father is to love my son unconditionally which I do and would do, and would continue what I could do to support him so he could live a good, a healthy and decent and faithful life.

For a CNN interviewer (who himself professes to be catholic) to be allowed to get away with calling his interviewee - and, by implication, all faithful catholics - bigots is, unfortunately, not beyond belief. It's the age we live in . Freedom of speech if you espouse the relativistic politically correct policies of the day, but not if you hold views that correspond to eternal truths, in this case concerning marriage.

As long as we know, that's fine. We can be prepared for martyrdom, if the Lord considers us worthy of such an honour.

See Lifesitenews.

"Who knows what's down the road?"

Ss Charles Lwanga and Companions, Ugandan Martyrs

From the Universalis About Today page for June 3rd:

Saint Charles Lwanga and his companions (- 1885/7)

Many Christians, Catholic and Protestant, were killed by the Ugandan king Mwanga. Some of them were servants in the king’s palace or even his personal attendants. Charles Lwanga and his twenty-one companions (the youngest, Kitizo, was only 13) were executed for being Christians, for rebuking the king for his debauchery and for murdering an Anglican missionary, for “praying from a book,” and for refusing to allow themselves to be ritually sodomised by the king. They died between 1885 and 1887. Most of them were burned alive in a group after being tortured.

Within a year of their deaths, the number of catechumens in the country quadrupled. St Charles Lwanga is the patron of Catholic Action and of black African youth, and the Ugandan martyrs’ feast day is a public holiday in Uganda.