Now here's a pastor with nerve. Tom Crouse of the Holland Congregational Church is promoting a "Mr. Hetero" contest, to take place on Feb. 4. Crouse has been an outspoken advocate for traditional marriage, and hosts a talk show on Worcester station WVNE 760AM.
Now whether or not this is an effective ploy, we'll leave to others to decide. But why can't Pastor Tom have a little fun, while also pointing out the absurdity of such events as "gay games" or "gay pride days"? Consider the "Gay Games 2006" coming this summer to Chicago. Special hotel deals, promises of great social opportunities with one's fellow athletes.
The American Family Association reported Dec. 8:
"Massachusetts Pastor has Contest for Mr. Straight"
In reaction to Gay Promotions, like Mr. Gay International, this one will find Mr. Hetero. The homosexual community has flooding the marketplace with products and opportunities exclusively for gays and lesbians. Now a talk show host in Massachusetts is turning the tables. Tom Crouse, pastor of Holland Congregational Church and host of the radio program “Engaging Your World” is launching a “contest” to name the most heterosexual guy in Massachusetts.
“We’re just looking for tolerance for heterosexuals.” Someone should stand up for heterosexuality, someone should stand up and celebrate how God’s made us and I said, ‘I’m gonna!’, so I think I’ll have a Mr. Heterosexual Contest!”
[Crouse wrote on his blog back in November:]
The goal is to bring the celebration of God' design to the forefront. To hopefully give Christians some courage, to see unbelievers come to Christ and to glorify God. And finally isn't it time that heterosexuals were shown some tolerance?
His event has apparently bubbled up to LGBT internet awareness, then on to regional newspapers (Springfield Republican). Even Salon.com readers have been spreading rumors about the sexual identity of the pastor! Go after the messenger if you can't deal with the message...
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Level of Discourse, Part IV
When we first started MassResistance, we included a little personal touch in our profile, noting that one of our favorite authors was George Eliot. After a few weeks, we decided to keep this blog issue-centered, and remove personalized information. Well, one of our "lurkers" apparently had noted this favorite author...
And recently, this person sent us an email, printed below -- which they signed "George Eliot". It's typical of the pseudo-"respectful" stuff that gets sent. But in fact, it reveals the obsession that the homosexual community has about this subject. We also include the response to "Alias George Eliot" from one of our contributors, John.
From alias_george_eliot@yahoo.com:
I am contacting you with regard to your blog, MassResistance. You recently noted your dissatisfaction with the level of discourse of your opponents, and cited this as a reason not to open your site to comments. As such, I am addressing some specific aspects of your most recent posts in the hopes that you really are as reasonable as you purport to be. I can only assume that if you are truly intent upon rational discourse, you will answer my inquiry with forthrightness and respect.
First, I want to address your latest post, which makes reference to the "crystal clear" connection between pro-choice groups and pro-equality groups. You state that this connection exists, but you never explain how or why. Moreover, the links you provide do not contain any explanation of this connection. As an individual who is both pro-choice and pro-equality, I can state that I do see a connection--respect for the individual and a belief in self-determination. To me, these are the beliefs that are at the heart of both movements. I suspect, however, that the connection you are drawing is very different from mine (as evidenced by your false syllogism of "culture of death = abortion + homosexuality"). What is this dangerous connection that you have discerned? Aside from pointing out that some feminist groups support marriage equality, what evidence do you see?
You next report a story about hate speech in Sweden, and threaten that this trial portents the end of religious freedom in the United States. Frankly, I cannot see any connection between the two. I know that you are aware of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because I have seen you laud its protections in your blog. As such, I don't believe you can, in good conscience, report that the end of religious freedom is nigh. You know as well as I do that all political speech, including hateful speech, is protected by the First Amendment. It is only when that speech encourages, incites, and results in violent acts that it may be prosecuted. Following this to its natural conclusion, it means that no preacher or priest in the U.S. could be tried for hateful speech unless that speech directly advocated violence. Certainly you would not defend a priest who specifically instructed his congregation to commit acts of violence against homosexuals in the name of the Lord. (I attended sixteen years of Catholic schools, and could therefore identify scores of Biblical passages which call for the love, respect, and forgiveness of one's opponents.) With this being the case, I simply don't see what it is that you fear.
In this same vein of religious freedom, I note a distinct tone in your blog which seems to hold that, because your interpretation of the Bible condemns homosexual acts, homosexuals in Massachusetts do not deserve equal rights. Clearly, religious freedom is very important to you, and rightly so. The separation of Church and State is crucial to this nation's democratic structure. However, the same First Amendment which guarentees your freedom to worship as you see fit, *also* guarentees that citizens of this country will not be governed by the strictures of any one of this country's many religions. How is it, then, that you will accept only the first portion of the First Amendment (the portion which protects you), and reject the portion which protects the rest of us from establishment of a governmental religion? Do you not see, as I do, that the right to religious freedom necessarily includes the right to freedom from someone else's religion? You believe the edicts of the Catholic church which condemn homosexuality. This is your right, both according to your conscience and according to the Free Exercise Clause. However, homosexual individuals also have the right not to be governed by your interpretation of the Bible.
Lastly, I noted a discrepancy in your discussion of the media's treatment of Catholicism. For instance, on November 21, you criticized the Boston Herald for failing to challenge the Catholicism of certain individuals. You seemed to state that you believed people who encourage respect for homosexual individuals could not truly call themselves Catholics...and you expect the Boston Herald, a mainstream periodical, to enter into a theological analysis of what it means to be Catholic. Yet, on November 28 and 29, you criticized the Globe and Herald for--in editorials--"challenging the Archbishop on Catholic doctrine." Even if this characterization of the editorials were correct, I don't see how you can hold this position. One week you tell Herald that it's not wading deeply enough into Catholic dogma, and the next week you criticize it for doing that very thing. This position is untenable. Moreover, your discussion makes me wonder whether you realize that the Globe and the Herald are not, in fact, Catholic organizations. Perhaps you mistakenly believe these newspapers to be mouthpieces of the Catholic church?
I am genuinely interested in your responses to my queries, and I hope that you will reply with the same amount of respect with which I have addressed you.Thank you for your time.
MassResistance understands that it is the Catholic Church as an institution which defines Catholic doctrine -- not the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, Mayor Menino, or homosexual activists. Our friend John responds to "George Eliot" in more detail:
You have not signed your name or given a town of residence. You select an alias for reasons that we both understand to have sinister intent. Thus, you mock your own posture of "forthrightness and respect." Why waste my time with non sequiturs and hypocrisy?
Your love of "self-determination" stops short of human infants in their mothers' wombs, whom you arbitrarily de-humanize as if you are some sort of divinity or as if the burden of proof of its humanity is on the baby in the womb. Your claimed dedication to "self-determination" also does not stop you from endorsing forced indoctrination of other people's children into your worldview, your politics, your ethical nihilism and your sexual and moral suicide.
Religious freedom? Freedom of speech? A person of your interests cannot be unaware that in countries such as Canada, with laws similar to ours, a modern update of an ancient, relentless and militant homo-fascism has settled over the land and people are dragged before neo-Stalinist "human rights tribunals" to be punished for uttering "homophobic" religious speech. Is anyone threatening to criminalize your views? To force public schoolchildren to accept my views? Are major corporations and universities and government agencies firing and disciplining people for pushing homosexuality? No. It is my views that are routinely punished in these places.
You know well that this is the exact purpose and effect of your thinly disguised "hate crimes" legislation and politically-correct corporate and university policies. Can you deny the joy that this repression gives you? Can you deny the thrill you feel that multiple portions of the Massachusetts state constitution have been quietly suspended in order to create the illusion that homosexual "marriage" -- a contradiction in terms if ever there was one -- is now "legal"? Can you deny the thrill you get by knowing that breaking into the home of a leader of the Resistance causes children to fear for their safety?
And, "respect for homosexual individuals"...? Hmm, if you can't avoid the cheap rhetorical trick of equating "respect" with total ideological, political and moral surrender, then you really need to grow up and look in the mirror. Since you have not surrendered to my views on these issues your own logic makes you a bigot, a hater, and a fanatic, right?
And we both know you're beyond the pale with this claim: "One week you tell the Herald that it's not wading deeply enough into Catholic dogma, and the next week you criticize it for doing that very thing. This position is untenable."
No. Actually, it's not untenable, as you know. We do have to take for granted that you can see the hypocrisy in a newspaper which:
a. by avoidance of the flagrant theological contradictions, intentionally provides cover for self-proclaimed "Catholics" who aggressively subvert Catholicism;
b. suddenly ventures into theology and doctrinal questions only to distort and to be a mouthpiece for those whose passion is to hijack the name and institutions of Christianity for a "religion" that Caligula and Nero would endorse.
So the untenable position is yours, as we both know. You applaud the Herald for "wading into church dogma" to condemn -- by transparently false logic -- those whom you hate, but you applaud the Herald for avoiding dogma when it would expose your heroes as using pseudo-Catholicism to destroy Catholicism.
And try to make sense of the non sequitur in this beauty (you wrote it): "...scores of Biblical passages which call for the love, respect, and forgiveness of one's opponents. With this being the case, I simply don't see what it is that you fear."
Okay, so, one more time: How do Christian love, forgiveness, and respect magically get reasonable people to agree with you and start pretending that your agenda is no threat to democracy and to the moral development of children? Are there no steps in between, like you respecting those who (without hating you at all) objectively regard your choices and your worldview as tragically dysfunctional? Before demanding more "respect", shouldn't you demand an end to forced indoctrination of other people's children into blind acceptance of a lifestyle that shortens men's lives by twenty years on average? Shouldn't you demand that fundamental changes in law and society be implemented, if at all, without striking down a constitution and the right of self-government? If not, then you admit to endorsing the fascist route to power.
You have still more writing to be ashamed of: "Perhaps you mistakenly believe these newspapers to be mouthpieces of the Catholic church?"
No, we both know they are mouthpieces for moral nihilism and increasingly for authoritarian repression of the religious foundation that provides the only philosophical soil for inalienable, God-given human rights. Buy and read David Barton's book "Original Intent" before you talk silliness about the First Amendment and what it means. You owe all of your rights to the Christian tolerance (the authentic kind) that produced modern democracy. "Original Intent" will be a revelation to you, if you have the guts to read it.
All of the political values that you claim to honor are not only manifestly contradicted in your politics, but as even Marxist historians admit, are rooted firmly in a political culture that could only have arisen from Biblical Christianity -- which you seek to banish by progressively outlawing its public expression, brainwashing all children against its moral code and by diluting it from within through dishonest claims of alternative "interpretations" of scripture. Language is not infinitely malleable -- nor is reality.
As for equal rights, the rights of homosexuals do not extend to imposing on children a freakish, revolutionary kind of childhood that all psychological, sociological and pedagogical evidence reveals to be contrary to their innate needs. No honest person denies that every child needs one father and one mother. If you can't handle that, please don't bother writing any more. Surely there is some aspect of your social, sexual, theological, political and constitutional revolution that you have doubts about. Surely. If not, then an intelligent mind is going to waste for the sake of a cause that is consuming your conscience.
Peace, not hatred,
John
And recently, this person sent us an email, printed below -- which they signed "George Eliot". It's typical of the pseudo-"respectful" stuff that gets sent. But in fact, it reveals the obsession that the homosexual community has about this subject. We also include the response to "Alias George Eliot" from one of our contributors, John.
From alias_george_eliot@yahoo.com:
I am contacting you with regard to your blog, MassResistance. You recently noted your dissatisfaction with the level of discourse of your opponents, and cited this as a reason not to open your site to comments. As such, I am addressing some specific aspects of your most recent posts in the hopes that you really are as reasonable as you purport to be. I can only assume that if you are truly intent upon rational discourse, you will answer my inquiry with forthrightness and respect.
First, I want to address your latest post, which makes reference to the "crystal clear" connection between pro-choice groups and pro-equality groups. You state that this connection exists, but you never explain how or why. Moreover, the links you provide do not contain any explanation of this connection. As an individual who is both pro-choice and pro-equality, I can state that I do see a connection--respect for the individual and a belief in self-determination. To me, these are the beliefs that are at the heart of both movements. I suspect, however, that the connection you are drawing is very different from mine (as evidenced by your false syllogism of "culture of death = abortion + homosexuality"). What is this dangerous connection that you have discerned? Aside from pointing out that some feminist groups support marriage equality, what evidence do you see?
You next report a story about hate speech in Sweden, and threaten that this trial portents the end of religious freedom in the United States. Frankly, I cannot see any connection between the two. I know that you are aware of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because I have seen you laud its protections in your blog. As such, I don't believe you can, in good conscience, report that the end of religious freedom is nigh. You know as well as I do that all political speech, including hateful speech, is protected by the First Amendment. It is only when that speech encourages, incites, and results in violent acts that it may be prosecuted. Following this to its natural conclusion, it means that no preacher or priest in the U.S. could be tried for hateful speech unless that speech directly advocated violence. Certainly you would not defend a priest who specifically instructed his congregation to commit acts of violence against homosexuals in the name of the Lord. (I attended sixteen years of Catholic schools, and could therefore identify scores of Biblical passages which call for the love, respect, and forgiveness of one's opponents.) With this being the case, I simply don't see what it is that you fear.
In this same vein of religious freedom, I note a distinct tone in your blog which seems to hold that, because your interpretation of the Bible condemns homosexual acts, homosexuals in Massachusetts do not deserve equal rights. Clearly, religious freedom is very important to you, and rightly so. The separation of Church and State is crucial to this nation's democratic structure. However, the same First Amendment which guarentees your freedom to worship as you see fit, *also* guarentees that citizens of this country will not be governed by the strictures of any one of this country's many religions. How is it, then, that you will accept only the first portion of the First Amendment (the portion which protects you), and reject the portion which protects the rest of us from establishment of a governmental religion? Do you not see, as I do, that the right to religious freedom necessarily includes the right to freedom from someone else's religion? You believe the edicts of the Catholic church which condemn homosexuality. This is your right, both according to your conscience and according to the Free Exercise Clause. However, homosexual individuals also have the right not to be governed by your interpretation of the Bible.
Lastly, I noted a discrepancy in your discussion of the media's treatment of Catholicism. For instance, on November 21, you criticized the Boston Herald for failing to challenge the Catholicism of certain individuals. You seemed to state that you believed people who encourage respect for homosexual individuals could not truly call themselves Catholics...and you expect the Boston Herald, a mainstream periodical, to enter into a theological analysis of what it means to be Catholic. Yet, on November 28 and 29, you criticized the Globe and Herald for--in editorials--"challenging the Archbishop on Catholic doctrine." Even if this characterization of the editorials were correct, I don't see how you can hold this position. One week you tell Herald that it's not wading deeply enough into Catholic dogma, and the next week you criticize it for doing that very thing. This position is untenable. Moreover, your discussion makes me wonder whether you realize that the Globe and the Herald are not, in fact, Catholic organizations. Perhaps you mistakenly believe these newspapers to be mouthpieces of the Catholic church?
I am genuinely interested in your responses to my queries, and I hope that you will reply with the same amount of respect with which I have addressed you.Thank you for your time.
MassResistance understands that it is the Catholic Church as an institution which defines Catholic doctrine -- not the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, Mayor Menino, or homosexual activists. Our friend John responds to "George Eliot" in more detail:
You have not signed your name or given a town of residence. You select an alias for reasons that we both understand to have sinister intent. Thus, you mock your own posture of "forthrightness and respect." Why waste my time with non sequiturs and hypocrisy?
Your love of "self-determination" stops short of human infants in their mothers' wombs, whom you arbitrarily de-humanize as if you are some sort of divinity or as if the burden of proof of its humanity is on the baby in the womb. Your claimed dedication to "self-determination" also does not stop you from endorsing forced indoctrination of other people's children into your worldview, your politics, your ethical nihilism and your sexual and moral suicide.
Religious freedom? Freedom of speech? A person of your interests cannot be unaware that in countries such as Canada, with laws similar to ours, a modern update of an ancient, relentless and militant homo-fascism has settled over the land and people are dragged before neo-Stalinist "human rights tribunals" to be punished for uttering "homophobic" religious speech. Is anyone threatening to criminalize your views? To force public schoolchildren to accept my views? Are major corporations and universities and government agencies firing and disciplining people for pushing homosexuality? No. It is my views that are routinely punished in these places.
You know well that this is the exact purpose and effect of your thinly disguised "hate crimes" legislation and politically-correct corporate and university policies. Can you deny the joy that this repression gives you? Can you deny the thrill you feel that multiple portions of the Massachusetts state constitution have been quietly suspended in order to create the illusion that homosexual "marriage" -- a contradiction in terms if ever there was one -- is now "legal"? Can you deny the thrill you get by knowing that breaking into the home of a leader of the Resistance causes children to fear for their safety?
And, "respect for homosexual individuals"...? Hmm, if you can't avoid the cheap rhetorical trick of equating "respect" with total ideological, political and moral surrender, then you really need to grow up and look in the mirror. Since you have not surrendered to my views on these issues your own logic makes you a bigot, a hater, and a fanatic, right?
And we both know you're beyond the pale with this claim: "One week you tell the Herald that it's not wading deeply enough into Catholic dogma, and the next week you criticize it for doing that very thing. This position is untenable."
No. Actually, it's not untenable, as you know. We do have to take for granted that you can see the hypocrisy in a newspaper which:
a. by avoidance of the flagrant theological contradictions, intentionally provides cover for self-proclaimed "Catholics" who aggressively subvert Catholicism;
b. suddenly ventures into theology and doctrinal questions only to distort and to be a mouthpiece for those whose passion is to hijack the name and institutions of Christianity for a "religion" that Caligula and Nero would endorse.
So the untenable position is yours, as we both know. You applaud the Herald for "wading into church dogma" to condemn -- by transparently false logic -- those whom you hate, but you applaud the Herald for avoiding dogma when it would expose your heroes as using pseudo-Catholicism to destroy Catholicism.
And try to make sense of the non sequitur in this beauty (you wrote it): "...scores of Biblical passages which call for the love, respect, and forgiveness of one's opponents. With this being the case, I simply don't see what it is that you fear."
Okay, so, one more time: How do Christian love, forgiveness, and respect magically get reasonable people to agree with you and start pretending that your agenda is no threat to democracy and to the moral development of children? Are there no steps in between, like you respecting those who (without hating you at all) objectively regard your choices and your worldview as tragically dysfunctional? Before demanding more "respect", shouldn't you demand an end to forced indoctrination of other people's children into blind acceptance of a lifestyle that shortens men's lives by twenty years on average? Shouldn't you demand that fundamental changes in law and society be implemented, if at all, without striking down a constitution and the right of self-government? If not, then you admit to endorsing the fascist route to power.
You have still more writing to be ashamed of: "Perhaps you mistakenly believe these newspapers to be mouthpieces of the Catholic church?"
No, we both know they are mouthpieces for moral nihilism and increasingly for authoritarian repression of the religious foundation that provides the only philosophical soil for inalienable, God-given human rights. Buy and read David Barton's book "Original Intent" before you talk silliness about the First Amendment and what it means. You owe all of your rights to the Christian tolerance (the authentic kind) that produced modern democracy. "Original Intent" will be a revelation to you, if you have the guts to read it.
All of the political values that you claim to honor are not only manifestly contradicted in your politics, but as even Marxist historians admit, are rooted firmly in a political culture that could only have arisen from Biblical Christianity -- which you seek to banish by progressively outlawing its public expression, brainwashing all children against its moral code and by diluting it from within through dishonest claims of alternative "interpretations" of scripture. Language is not infinitely malleable -- nor is reality.
As for equal rights, the rights of homosexuals do not extend to imposing on children a freakish, revolutionary kind of childhood that all psychological, sociological and pedagogical evidence reveals to be contrary to their innate needs. No honest person denies that every child needs one father and one mother. If you can't handle that, please don't bother writing any more. Surely there is some aspect of your social, sexual, theological, political and constitutional revolution that you have doubts about. Surely. If not, then an intelligent mind is going to waste for the sake of a cause that is consuming your conscience.
Peace, not hatred,
John
Friday, December 16, 2005
Companies Caving to Radical Homosexuals
Here's the latest catalog of big corporations paying protection money to LGBTQIP radicals: The so-called "Human Rights Campaign" has released its update on which companies give them every crazy thing they demand.
HRC says their "Corporate Equality Index is a tool to measure how equitably companies are treating their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors."
Bay Windows reports on the updated list of "gay friendly" companies:
Among the perfect scorers are such well known companies as Sears, Best Buy, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Estee Lauder, Johnson & Johnson, Whirlpool, the New York Times, AT&T, American Airlines, the Ford Corporation, and The Gap. Among the worst scorers are such well known companies as Kmart, H.J. Heinz, Nestle Purina, Bayer, Maytag, Rubbermaid, Nissan, and Exxon Mobil.
According to Bay Windows, the HRC index:
...researches only companies with 500 or more employees on the Fortune 500 and Forbes 200 indexes. It also ranks corporations - and therefore their products - based solely on corporate workplace policies. The seven criteria include:
* whether the company has a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation,
* whether the policy also prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and expression,
* whether the company provides parity in health benefits to employees' domestic partners,
* whether the company recognizes an in-house GLBT employee group,
* whether the company's diversity training includes sexual orientation,
* whether the company has a corporate giving policy that provides donations to GLBT charitable groups, and
*whether the company gives to groups which oppose equal rights for gays.
The scoring does not consider whether a corporate political action committee contributes money to gay friendly or gay hostile candidates.
HRC says their "Corporate Equality Index is a tool to measure how equitably companies are treating their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors."
Bay Windows reports on the updated list of "gay friendly" companies:
Among the perfect scorers are such well known companies as Sears, Best Buy, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Estee Lauder, Johnson & Johnson, Whirlpool, the New York Times, AT&T, American Airlines, the Ford Corporation, and The Gap. Among the worst scorers are such well known companies as Kmart, H.J. Heinz, Nestle Purina, Bayer, Maytag, Rubbermaid, Nissan, and Exxon Mobil.
According to Bay Windows, the HRC index:
...researches only companies with 500 or more employees on the Fortune 500 and Forbes 200 indexes. It also ranks corporations - and therefore their products - based solely on corporate workplace policies. The seven criteria include:
* whether the company has a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation,
* whether the policy also prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and expression,
* whether the company provides parity in health benefits to employees' domestic partners,
* whether the company recognizes an in-house GLBT employee group,
* whether the company's diversity training includes sexual orientation,
* whether the company has a corporate giving policy that provides donations to GLBT charitable groups, and
*whether the company gives to groups which oppose equal rights for gays.
The scoring does not consider whether a corporate political action committee contributes money to gay friendly or gay hostile candidates.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Weigel on Menino; Globe's Advocacy Journalism
Surprising to see a column by conservative Catholic writer George Weigel in the Boston Globe today. "Menino's Catholic fallacies" fleshes out the points we made a few days ago. Weigel is a little kinder to Menino, simply saying "cartoon Catholicism and the crudest caricatures of Catholic belief are often promoted today by Catholic political leaders. Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino is a case in point." (Now MassResistance basically called Menino himself the cartoon.) Weigel writes:
So it seems that Menino knows neither the Bible, nor the catechism, nor the teaching of popes and bishops. Why should anyone beyond Catholics care? Because Americans will continue to debate the role of religiously informed moral reason in public life. That debate can be intelligent or dumb; it can strengthen democracy or weaken it; it can build bridges of understanding through serious conversation or fracture communities and stoke animosities. If political leaders like Mayor Menino continue to promote caricatures and cartoons of Catholic conviction, the debate will be unintelligible and fractious. And American democracy will be the weaker for it.
In yesterday's Globe, we had another example of their advocacy journalism, calling dissenting protesters of Catholic doctrine "advocates". (D0 they ever refer to abortion protesters as "pro-life advocates"?)
The Dec. 12 headline blares, "Advocates protest ban on gay priests; Rallies denounce Vatican policy." The group calling itself "Voice of the Faithful" held a protest on the steps of Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Sunday. U.S. Rep. William Delahunt took part.
"We're going to stand for what we consider great priests. Gay or not gay, who cares?" said a spokesman. These people are simply dissenters. If they want to be advocates for gay priests, women priests, married priests or whatever, they should leave the Catholic church and join the Metropolitan Community Church -- established by queer activists and their allies especially to promote such nonsense.
Fr. Bob Carr addresses the demonstration on his blog, Catholicism Anew. He writes of the complicity of the Massachusetts Democrat Party apparatus and leaders in this all-out attack on the Catholic church. (For more on Carr, see Carol McKinley's blog Dec. 14.) Here's part of his letter to Rep. Delahunt:
I see that you were outside the Cathedral during the latest Voice of the Faithful attack on Catholics claiming to show your acceptance for all priests. Give me a break!
Mr. Delahunt, your party worked to take down our church, period! Barney Frank and friends declared war on Catholics in 2003 and you and the rest of the Massachusetts delegation, et. al. are part of that war.
You stood last night with people who were previously part of a protest against faithful laypersons inside the Roman Catholic Church in June of 2003. These protesters disturbed innocent faithful people seeking only to worship at their parish church. They have been actively involved in harassing faithful innocent Catholics for several years. Yet, on that day, they with the full blessing of the media who supported you so well on Sunday night, were even more intimidated. That is a felony in this country, sir. Would you be so comfortable and happy standing next to the convicted felons you put in prison as DA of Norfolk County Now you stand up for all priests? No you don't.
It took us a while to figure out who was behind this attack on the Church. We eventually did and we know that one of the groups out trying to silence us was the Massachusetts wing of the Democratic party and their friends from Vermont, headed up by ex-Catholic Howard Dean and his strategists over at the JFK School of Government.
The DNC lost the Catholic vote in 2004 and can assume most of it is gone forever. Nice try on the damage control, but your ship already sunk. ...
So it seems that Menino knows neither the Bible, nor the catechism, nor the teaching of popes and bishops. Why should anyone beyond Catholics care? Because Americans will continue to debate the role of religiously informed moral reason in public life. That debate can be intelligent or dumb; it can strengthen democracy or weaken it; it can build bridges of understanding through serious conversation or fracture communities and stoke animosities. If political leaders like Mayor Menino continue to promote caricatures and cartoons of Catholic conviction, the debate will be unintelligible and fractious. And American democracy will be the weaker for it.
In yesterday's Globe, we had another example of their advocacy journalism, calling dissenting protesters of Catholic doctrine "advocates". (D0 they ever refer to abortion protesters as "pro-life advocates"?)
The Dec. 12 headline blares, "Advocates protest ban on gay priests; Rallies denounce Vatican policy." The group calling itself "Voice of the Faithful" held a protest on the steps of Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Sunday. U.S. Rep. William Delahunt took part.
"We're going to stand for what we consider great priests. Gay or not gay, who cares?" said a spokesman. These people are simply dissenters. If they want to be advocates for gay priests, women priests, married priests or whatever, they should leave the Catholic church and join the Metropolitan Community Church -- established by queer activists and their allies especially to promote such nonsense.
Fr. Bob Carr addresses the demonstration on his blog, Catholicism Anew. He writes of the complicity of the Massachusetts Democrat Party apparatus and leaders in this all-out attack on the Catholic church. (For more on Carr, see Carol McKinley's blog Dec. 14.) Here's part of his letter to Rep. Delahunt:
I see that you were outside the Cathedral during the latest Voice of the Faithful attack on Catholics claiming to show your acceptance for all priests. Give me a break!
Mr. Delahunt, your party worked to take down our church, period! Barney Frank and friends declared war on Catholics in 2003 and you and the rest of the Massachusetts delegation, et. al. are part of that war.
You stood last night with people who were previously part of a protest against faithful laypersons inside the Roman Catholic Church in June of 2003. These protesters disturbed innocent faithful people seeking only to worship at their parish church. They have been actively involved in harassing faithful innocent Catholics for several years. Yet, on that day, they with the full blessing of the media who supported you so well on Sunday night, were even more intimidated. That is a felony in this country, sir. Would you be so comfortable and happy standing next to the convicted felons you put in prison as DA of Norfolk County Now you stand up for all priests? No you don't.
It took us a while to figure out who was behind this attack on the Church. We eventually did and we know that one of the groups out trying to silence us was the Massachusetts wing of the Democratic party and their friends from Vermont, headed up by ex-Catholic Howard Dean and his strategists over at the JFK School of Government.
The DNC lost the Catholic vote in 2004 and can assume most of it is gone forever. Nice try on the damage control, but your ship already sunk. ...
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Boston Globe Normalizing the Abnormal Again
Read this from the Boston Globe and tell us you're not disturbed by the picture of this "happy family": Two "married" dads and their newly adopted baby girl home for Christmas. (WHO is running the adoption agencies?!)
From the Globe Sunday Magazine (Dec. 11), in their series called "COUPLING" ...(Now what vision does that conjure up, speaking of homosexual men?) ... "Home Alone: Three's company when a new family settles in for a quiet holiday":
Despite what gay-marriage foes say, we're hardly extremists at my house - more Waltons than Weather Underground. But we are, nonetheless, about to stage a truly radical action: We're staying home for the holidays....
We will gather our small family around our own tree on Christmas Eve and sleep in our own beds as Santa spreads consumerism from chimney to chimney. On Christmas Day, we will sip cups of espresso (or formula, depending on the age of the Valdes Greenwood involved) and loll about in our living room, refusing to dress for the day....
The only hitch in this plan was revealing it to the people we love. You'd think, what with our having a newborn, we'd get a free pass this once, but no...
We could easily have been swayed by the lure of picking out Baby's First Holiday Outfit - think red velvet - in which to display our girl. But we also knew that the party (indeed fabulous, but very loud) would begin just as our daughter would normally go to sleep; trust me, there isn't enough velvet in the world to soothe our gal if she is awake when she wants to be sleeping. We declined, envisioning instead a night at home that suits her needs. This engendered a sniff of weary disapproval: If we wanted to warp our baby by regimenting her so tirelessly, well, that's our choice. Indeed it is.
From the Globe Sunday Magazine (Dec. 11), in their series called "COUPLING" ...(Now what vision does that conjure up, speaking of homosexual men?) ... "Home Alone: Three's company when a new family settles in for a quiet holiday":
Despite what gay-marriage foes say, we're hardly extremists at my house - more Waltons than Weather Underground. But we are, nonetheless, about to stage a truly radical action: We're staying home for the holidays....
We will gather our small family around our own tree on Christmas Eve and sleep in our own beds as Santa spreads consumerism from chimney to chimney. On Christmas Day, we will sip cups of espresso (or formula, depending on the age of the Valdes Greenwood involved) and loll about in our living room, refusing to dress for the day....
The only hitch in this plan was revealing it to the people we love. You'd think, what with our having a newborn, we'd get a free pass this once, but no...
We could easily have been swayed by the lure of picking out Baby's First Holiday Outfit - think red velvet - in which to display our girl. But we also knew that the party (indeed fabulous, but very loud) would begin just as our daughter would normally go to sleep; trust me, there isn't enough velvet in the world to soothe our gal if she is awake when she wants to be sleeping. We declined, envisioning instead a night at home that suits her needs. This engendered a sniff of weary disapproval: If we wanted to warp our baby by regimenting her so tirelessly, well, that's our choice. Indeed it is.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Polygamy -- Again
For a while, the homosexual activists tried to ridicule the fears of the traditional values supporters that same-sex "marriage" would put us on the road to legalizing polygamy. But more and more stories are coming out that show this is, in fact, where we're headed. And it's harder and harder for them to deny the ultimate goal of their movement. After all, their more open radicals now include "P" in their acronmym ("GLBTQIP").
Yesterday's Washington Times ran a story by Cheryl Wetzstein, "The Marriage of Many" (Dec. 11). Note that the ACLU and Libertarian Party support polygamy. So it's coming our way ... unless we roll back the insanity of same-sex "marriage".
Polygamy has been outlawed in the United States since Colonial days, and despite the notable detour of America's home-grown Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it seems likely to remain so. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected polygamy in its 1878 decision in Reynolds v. United States, which said government can enforce anti-polygamy laws even if they run counter to people's religious beliefs. Utah's Constitution outlaws polygamy "forever" and, in 2001, the state's anti-polygamy laws were upheld when Thomas Green, a fundamentalist Mormon man with five wives, was sent to prison for bigamy and related crimes.
In recent years, the federal government and 40 states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts and/or constitutional amendments that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But two 2003 court rulings changed the legal landscape on sex and marriage: The Lawrence v. Texas decision by the U.S. Supreme Court disallows states to criminalize private sexual behavior among consenting adults, such as sodomy between homosexual men. The Goodridge decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which legalized same-sex "marriage" in that state, says "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice."
Taken together, these rulings appear to support a right to polygamy by consenting adults, according to pundits such as conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. "[I]f marriage is redefined to include two men in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to three men in love?" Mr. Krauthammer has asked....
Polygamy is supported in principle by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Libertarian Party. In a 2004 commentary in USA Today, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said anti-polygamy laws are hypocritical and that Green's 2001 bigamy conviction was "simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law."
Yesterday's Washington Times ran a story by Cheryl Wetzstein, "The Marriage of Many" (Dec. 11). Note that the ACLU and Libertarian Party support polygamy. So it's coming our way ... unless we roll back the insanity of same-sex "marriage".
Polygamy has been outlawed in the United States since Colonial days, and despite the notable detour of America's home-grown Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it seems likely to remain so. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected polygamy in its 1878 decision in Reynolds v. United States, which said government can enforce anti-polygamy laws even if they run counter to people's religious beliefs. Utah's Constitution outlaws polygamy "forever" and, in 2001, the state's anti-polygamy laws were upheld when Thomas Green, a fundamentalist Mormon man with five wives, was sent to prison for bigamy and related crimes.
In recent years, the federal government and 40 states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts and/or constitutional amendments that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But two 2003 court rulings changed the legal landscape on sex and marriage: The Lawrence v. Texas decision by the U.S. Supreme Court disallows states to criminalize private sexual behavior among consenting adults, such as sodomy between homosexual men. The Goodridge decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which legalized same-sex "marriage" in that state, says "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice."
Taken together, these rulings appear to support a right to polygamy by consenting adults, according to pundits such as conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. "[I]f marriage is redefined to include two men in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to three men in love?" Mr. Krauthammer has asked....
Polygamy is supported in principle by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Libertarian Party. In a 2004 commentary in USA Today, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said anti-polygamy laws are hypocritical and that Green's 2001 bigamy conviction was "simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law."
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Maine's Slippery Slope
2005: The year Maine was lost. Soon many of its beautiful cities and towns will be like Provincetown, so lost to depravity you dare not go there.
We've noted the tragedy of the Nov. 8 vote in Maine, which gave the state over to the most radical queer/transgender "rights" bill in the nation. Recently, the Christian Civic League of Maine has posted other very disturbing news stories. Their slippery slope is looking very steep right now.
Just in the past few weeks, semi-nude models were prancing in store windows in Augusta, modeling lingerie. The local press was ga-ga at how "New York" this was, but there was not a word of alarm over where this Maine's public life is trending. Also, a pro-family activist was verbally pummeled -- just for advocating a boycott of a supermarket chain promoting the homosexual agenda. Check out the CCL reports on Nov. 30 and Dec. 5:
Within this year of transformation was a week of shame, a week in which even the most jaded, apathetic citizens were forced to acknowledge that a moral calamity has overtaken Maine.
On Saturday, the Kennebec Journal reported that semi-nude lingerie models were peddling their wares in the window of a store in downtown Augusta. On Monday, the story was picked up by the national news media, and on Tuesday the story had traveled as far as Europe and Australia. The reaction of our state and local lawmakers was a collective snicker, as if nothing bad could ever result from the goings-on at a store named "Spellbound".
On Friday, the Kennebec Journal ran an editorial which praised the store in the highest possible terms. The editorial said that the behavior of the store was "sassy" and "so New York" and that it "spiced up a bit of downtown Augusta that needed improving." Emboldened by the press, the owner of the store promised to add male models; and by Friday, scantily-clad young women were dancing in the store window.
All the while, the media, the Governor's Office, and state and local legislators said nothing about the importance of public morality. Their silence proclaimed to the entire state that lewd and lascivious behavior is now acceptable in public.
We've noted the tragedy of the Nov. 8 vote in Maine, which gave the state over to the most radical queer/transgender "rights" bill in the nation. Recently, the Christian Civic League of Maine has posted other very disturbing news stories. Their slippery slope is looking very steep right now.
Just in the past few weeks, semi-nude models were prancing in store windows in Augusta, modeling lingerie. The local press was ga-ga at how "New York" this was, but there was not a word of alarm over where this Maine's public life is trending. Also, a pro-family activist was verbally pummeled -- just for advocating a boycott of a supermarket chain promoting the homosexual agenda. Check out the CCL reports on Nov. 30 and Dec. 5:
Within this year of transformation was a week of shame, a week in which even the most jaded, apathetic citizens were forced to acknowledge that a moral calamity has overtaken Maine.
On Saturday, the Kennebec Journal reported that semi-nude lingerie models were peddling their wares in the window of a store in downtown Augusta. On Monday, the story was picked up by the national news media, and on Tuesday the story had traveled as far as Europe and Australia. The reaction of our state and local lawmakers was a collective snicker, as if nothing bad could ever result from the goings-on at a store named "Spellbound".
On Friday, the Kennebec Journal ran an editorial which praised the store in the highest possible terms. The editorial said that the behavior of the store was "sassy" and "so New York" and that it "spiced up a bit of downtown Augusta that needed improving." Emboldened by the press, the owner of the store promised to add male models; and by Friday, scantily-clad young women were dancing in the store window.
All the while, the media, the Governor's Office, and state and local legislators said nothing about the importance of public morality. Their silence proclaimed to the entire state that lewd and lascivious behavior is now acceptable in public.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Menino: "Jesus didn't make holiness the big thing."
Is there a public official anywhere in the country more intellectually challenged than Mayor Tom Menino of Boston? Or a newspaper more biased and stubbornly ignorant on matters of faith than the Boston Globe?
The Globe's coverage of last night's Catholic Charities dinner honoring pro-abortion, pro-sodomitic-"marriage" Menino, is a sad excuse for impartial reporting. But most alarming are the quotes from Menino, which bare his lack of understanding of his reputed faith.
According to Menino, Jesus "did not tell us to go around talking up God." Jesus "didn't make holiness the big thing." What Bible is he reading?! What church is he attending? (Maybe the one with the rainbow balloons?)
The Globe seems to think dissenters should be defining Catholic values. And Peter Meade, powerful chairman of the charity, has apparently excommunicated the protesting conservative Catholics from the "family" of caring Catholics.
From the Globe ("Menino fires back at critics over issues of faith, politics", Dec, 10):
Mayor Thomas M. Menino, responding to critics who have questioned his Catholicism, last night offered an unusually pointed and personal address, saying that Jesus didn't showcase his piety or ''tell us to go around talking up God."
As a dozen pickets protested against him in front of the Catholic Charities Greater Boston Christmas dinner, Menino distanced himself from Christian politicians who seek to put God ''on courtroom walls." He said that ''a lot of political God talk makes me a little uneasy."
But the mayor, as the dinner's keynote speaker, put forward his own notion of what it means to be a Catholic in public life, saying that he draws on the values of humility and mercy in his daily work as an elected leader. ...
''And what moves me most about being a Christian is what Jesus taught us about being religious," Menino said. ''He did not give priority to piety. He didn't make holiness the big thing. And he did not tell us to go around talking up God, either." ...
The speech was a relatively rare discussion of faith for Menino. It also underscored the intensifying debate nationally and in Boston about the role of faith in politics and recent efforts by more liberal and moderate Catholics to counter conservatives' success in defining Catholic values.
Conservative Catholics locally have been protesting the decision by Catholic Charities to honor Menino at the $500-per-plate event, because of the mayor's support for gay rights and abortion rights. They have also hit Catholic Charities for allowing 13 children to be adopted by gay or lesbian couples in the past two decades. The agency's president, the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, has said his agency had to comply with state regulations that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Just before Thanksgiving, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley announced that he would not attend, citing a policy adopted by US bishops against Catholic organizations honoring those who do not support church teachings. ...
Nationally, more moderate and liberal Catholics are trying to reassert their values publicly, with some expressing frustration that conservatives have dominated public debate over social issues. ...
After the protest group quietly disbanded at about 7:15 p.m., Catholic Charities chairman Peter Meade said that the people both inside the event and outside had much in common. ''Despite a few folks outside who have some differences, this is a family," Meade said. ''There shouldn't be a belief that the archbishop somehow isn't an ally and an advocate for Catholic Charities."
The Globe's coverage of last night's Catholic Charities dinner honoring pro-abortion, pro-sodomitic-"marriage" Menino, is a sad excuse for impartial reporting. But most alarming are the quotes from Menino, which bare his lack of understanding of his reputed faith.
According to Menino, Jesus "did not tell us to go around talking up God." Jesus "didn't make holiness the big thing." What Bible is he reading?! What church is he attending? (Maybe the one with the rainbow balloons?)
The Globe seems to think dissenters should be defining Catholic values. And Peter Meade, powerful chairman of the charity, has apparently excommunicated the protesting conservative Catholics from the "family" of caring Catholics.
From the Globe ("Menino fires back at critics over issues of faith, politics", Dec, 10):
Mayor Thomas M. Menino, responding to critics who have questioned his Catholicism, last night offered an unusually pointed and personal address, saying that Jesus didn't showcase his piety or ''tell us to go around talking up God."
As a dozen pickets protested against him in front of the Catholic Charities Greater Boston Christmas dinner, Menino distanced himself from Christian politicians who seek to put God ''on courtroom walls." He said that ''a lot of political God talk makes me a little uneasy."
But the mayor, as the dinner's keynote speaker, put forward his own notion of what it means to be a Catholic in public life, saying that he draws on the values of humility and mercy in his daily work as an elected leader. ...
''And what moves me most about being a Christian is what Jesus taught us about being religious," Menino said. ''He did not give priority to piety. He didn't make holiness the big thing. And he did not tell us to go around talking up God, either." ...
The speech was a relatively rare discussion of faith for Menino. It also underscored the intensifying debate nationally and in Boston about the role of faith in politics and recent efforts by more liberal and moderate Catholics to counter conservatives' success in defining Catholic values.
Conservative Catholics locally have been protesting the decision by Catholic Charities to honor Menino at the $500-per-plate event, because of the mayor's support for gay rights and abortion rights. They have also hit Catholic Charities for allowing 13 children to be adopted by gay or lesbian couples in the past two decades. The agency's president, the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, has said his agency had to comply with state regulations that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Just before Thanksgiving, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley announced that he would not attend, citing a policy adopted by US bishops against Catholic organizations honoring those who do not support church teachings. ...
Nationally, more moderate and liberal Catholics are trying to reassert their values publicly, with some expressing frustration that conservatives have dominated public debate over social issues. ...
After the protest group quietly disbanded at about 7:15 p.m., Catholic Charities chairman Peter Meade said that the people both inside the event and outside had much in common. ''Despite a few folks outside who have some differences, this is a family," Meade said. ''There shouldn't be a belief that the archbishop somehow isn't an ally and an advocate for Catholic Charities."
Friday, December 09, 2005
N.Y. State Court AGAINST Judicial Tyranny!
The New York state Supreme Court Appellate Division ruled 4 to 1 that a lower judge in NYC was in error, ruling in favor of homosexual couples wanting to "marry" in that city. There's hope yet that reason will triumph.
According to an AP story ("N.Y. ruling allowing gay nuptials voided", 12-9-05):
A state appeals court threw out a ruling yesterday that would have allowed gay couples to marry in New York City, saying it is not the role of judges to redefine the terms ''husband" and ''wife."
The state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled 4 to 1 that Justice Doris Ling-Cohan erred in February when she held that the state's domestic relations law is unconstitutional since it does not permit marriage between people of the same sex.
The appeals court added: ''We find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right."
Ling-Cohan barred the city clerk from denying marriage licenses to gay couples. Her decision was the first of its kind in New York City. In her ruling, she said the words ''husband," ''wife," ''groom" and ''bride," as they appear in the domestic relations law, should be defined to apply equally to men and women.
But the appeals court said this ''was an act that exceeded the court's constitutional mandate and usurped that of the Legislature." The court said it is not up to judges to redefine terms that are given clear meaning in a statute. Also, the appeals court said state laws regarding marriage do not violate the state constitution.
According to an AP story ("N.Y. ruling allowing gay nuptials voided", 12-9-05):
A state appeals court threw out a ruling yesterday that would have allowed gay couples to marry in New York City, saying it is not the role of judges to redefine the terms ''husband" and ''wife."
The state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled 4 to 1 that Justice Doris Ling-Cohan erred in February when she held that the state's domestic relations law is unconstitutional since it does not permit marriage between people of the same sex.
The appeals court added: ''We find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right."
Ling-Cohan barred the city clerk from denying marriage licenses to gay couples. Her decision was the first of its kind in New York City. In her ruling, she said the words ''husband," ''wife," ''groom" and ''bride," as they appear in the domestic relations law, should be defined to apply equally to men and women.
But the appeals court said this ''was an act that exceeded the court's constitutional mandate and usurped that of the Legislature." The court said it is not up to judges to redefine terms that are given clear meaning in a statute. Also, the appeals court said state laws regarding marriage do not violate the state constitution.
Attack Dogs Frothing at the Mouth?
What really worries the Boston Globe is that "no one really knows how many conservative activists there are." (Let's keep them guessing!)
This according to today's front-page article on C. J. Doyle and the conservative Catholic protest over the Catholic Charities dinner tonight honoring Mayor Menino ("Conservatives gain visibility on charity; Catholic Group targeted Menino").
The truth is that the conservatives HAVE been there all along (in large numbers), but the Globe has simply chosen not to cover their viewpoint. But the Internet has changed that. Various blogs and websites are spreading the word to the faithful and moving them to speak out. Why, there's even a MassResistance radio show on WTTT (Horrors!), which has proudly hosted C. J. Doyle and Bill Cotter of Operation Rescue in recent weeks!
The Globe quotes a dissenting Catholic who employs the usual ad hominem attacks:
James E. Post, president of Voice of the Faithful, said he was shocked when the conservative activists ''began whacking us as dissenters, but I came to understand that they have a very large political agenda" that is helpful to antireform church officials.
''Some of the bishops and cardinals find these people useful as pit bulls, attack dogs," Post said. ''Bishops won't do this, it's unseemly, but they don't mind having a C. J. Doyle or a Carol McKinley out there frothing at the mouth. The attacks on Mayor Menino and Father Hehir clearly are in this pattern."
And Larry DiCara (formerly on Boston City Council) stubbornly refuses to get the point that there are plenty of non-Catholic charities he can donate to ... but Catholic Charities should by definition adhere to Catholic belief. DiCara is attending the dinner just to send a message:
"I'd rather be home reading to my kids, but I think people have to show their faces on this one. The fundamental principles of the church are that those of us who have should help those who have not," DiCara said. ''C. J. Doyle and that crowd are taking food and shelter from the poor because of their political agenda."
That's the old liberal line: Conservatives are starving the children!
Meanwhile, the head of Catholic Charities, Fr. Hehir, is revealed to be a Harvard professor. (That may help explain Catholic Charities' recent direction.) He said that controversies don't affect him too much. Maybe a little talk with the Archbishop would?
This according to today's front-page article on C. J. Doyle and the conservative Catholic protest over the Catholic Charities dinner tonight honoring Mayor Menino ("Conservatives gain visibility on charity; Catholic Group targeted Menino").
The truth is that the conservatives HAVE been there all along (in large numbers), but the Globe has simply chosen not to cover their viewpoint. But the Internet has changed that. Various blogs and websites are spreading the word to the faithful and moving them to speak out. Why, there's even a MassResistance radio show on WTTT (Horrors!), which has proudly hosted C. J. Doyle and Bill Cotter of Operation Rescue in recent weeks!
The Globe quotes a dissenting Catholic who employs the usual ad hominem attacks:
James E. Post, president of Voice of the Faithful, said he was shocked when the conservative activists ''began whacking us as dissenters, but I came to understand that they have a very large political agenda" that is helpful to antireform church officials.
''Some of the bishops and cardinals find these people useful as pit bulls, attack dogs," Post said. ''Bishops won't do this, it's unseemly, but they don't mind having a C. J. Doyle or a Carol McKinley out there frothing at the mouth. The attacks on Mayor Menino and Father Hehir clearly are in this pattern."
And Larry DiCara (formerly on Boston City Council) stubbornly refuses to get the point that there are plenty of non-Catholic charities he can donate to ... but Catholic Charities should by definition adhere to Catholic belief. DiCara is attending the dinner just to send a message:
"I'd rather be home reading to my kids, but I think people have to show their faces on this one. The fundamental principles of the church are that those of us who have should help those who have not," DiCara said. ''C. J. Doyle and that crowd are taking food and shelter from the poor because of their political agenda."
That's the old liberal line: Conservatives are starving the children!
Meanwhile, the head of Catholic Charities, Fr. Hehir, is revealed to be a Harvard professor. (That may help explain Catholic Charities' recent direction.) He said that controversies don't affect him too much. Maybe a little talk with the Archbishop would?
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Vatican Clamps Down on Mass. Adoptions by S-S Couples
In a spate of articles in the Boston Herald, the scandal at Catholic Charities is still front and center. In addition to the controversy over Boston Mayor Menino being honored at their annual dinner, now Catholic Charities is again in trouble -- this time with the Vatican -- over its placement of adopted children with same-sex couples.
Today's Herald has two articles on the dispute between faithful Catholics and the dissidents running some of their institutions:
"Catholic cross purposes: Church tries to help, but torn by beliefs, laws" (Dec. 8). Note the implication that efforts to "help" are hindered by old-fashioned beliefs. This article includes the Church's stand against "emergency contraception" drugs and gay activist activities at Catholic Boston College as examples of good things blocked by the traditionalists.
"Agency’s adoption efforts could be squashed" (Dec. 8) rehashes the story from yesterday's Herald (Dec. 7): "Church takes aim at same-sex adoptions:Letter urges Hub archbishop to end Catholic Charities connection"
A top church official in Washington is urging Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley tostop Catholic Charities of Boston from brokering adoptions unless same-sexcouples are excluded, a source close to the hierarchy in the capital told the Herald. The recommendation was contained in a letter sent recently from the officeof Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo Higuera, the papal nuncio, the source said oncondition of anonymity.
The archdiocese, asked about the letter, issued a statement saying, "As amatter of course, the archdiocese does not comment on any privatecommunications it might receive from the Holy See."
"The dioceses of Massachusetts are currently reviewing the issue of CatholicCharities having facilitated adoptions for same-sex couples," the statementcontinues. "The bishops expect to receive a recommendation concerning this matter early in the New Year."
Today's Herald has two articles on the dispute between faithful Catholics and the dissidents running some of their institutions:
"Catholic cross purposes: Church tries to help, but torn by beliefs, laws" (Dec. 8). Note the implication that efforts to "help" are hindered by old-fashioned beliefs. This article includes the Church's stand against "emergency contraception" drugs and gay activist activities at Catholic Boston College as examples of good things blocked by the traditionalists.
"Agency’s adoption efforts could be squashed" (Dec. 8) rehashes the story from yesterday's Herald (Dec. 7): "Church takes aim at same-sex adoptions:Letter urges Hub archbishop to end Catholic Charities connection"
A top church official in Washington is urging Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley tostop Catholic Charities of Boston from brokering adoptions unless same-sexcouples are excluded, a source close to the hierarchy in the capital told the Herald. The recommendation was contained in a letter sent recently from the officeof Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo Higuera, the papal nuncio, the source said oncondition of anonymity.
The archdiocese, asked about the letter, issued a statement saying, "As amatter of course, the archdiocese does not comment on any privatecommunications it might receive from the Holy See."
"The dioceses of Massachusetts are currently reviewing the issue of CatholicCharities having facilitated adoptions for same-sex couples," the statementcontinues. "The bishops expect to receive a recommendation concerning this matter early in the New Year."
Monday, December 05, 2005
Culture of Death = Abortion + Homosexuality
Our recent conversations with C. J. Doyle (Catholic Action League of Mass.) and Bill Cotter (Operation Rescue Boston) have made crystal clear the connection between supporters of abortion and homosexual "rights". The culture of death embraces both of these movements, as they embrace each other.
The overlap between the two activist groups is significant. It's no coincidence that State House hearings on parents' rights or homosexuality teachings in the schools, for example, attract testimony from both Planned Parenthood (and other abortion advocates) and homosexual activist groups.
Often, we see a powerful figure such as Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston who brings it all together in one unsightly package. Other examples are Gov. Schwarzenegger's new chief of staff, and "married" lesbian who is also a leading pro-abortion advocate. In our own circles, we know "liberals" who mindlessly swallow both viewpoints in the hopes of looking or feeling "progressive".
See WorldNetDaily : "The abortion-homosexual connection" by Robert Knight (Dec. 2); also "Abortion increases suicide risk" (Dec. 2).
The overlap between the two activist groups is significant. It's no coincidence that State House hearings on parents' rights or homosexuality teachings in the schools, for example, attract testimony from both Planned Parenthood (and other abortion advocates) and homosexual activist groups.
Often, we see a powerful figure such as Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston who brings it all together in one unsightly package. Other examples are Gov. Schwarzenegger's new chief of staff, and "married" lesbian who is also a leading pro-abortion advocate. In our own circles, we know "liberals" who mindlessly swallow both viewpoints in the hopes of looking or feeling "progressive".
See WorldNetDaily : "The abortion-homosexual connection" by Robert Knight (Dec. 2); also "Abortion increases suicide risk" (Dec. 2).
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Level of Discourse, Part III
Some may still wonder why MassResistance doesn't post comments. Or why we don't broadcast our name and personal information. Or why we only recently posted -- as an experiment -- a way to email us.
Well, the events of the past month have confirmed our hunch in the worst way. Hate emails, a home break in, stolen credit cards... There is simply no rational communication with the extremist queer activists. They are angry, they act outside of the law, and they speak the devil's language.
Here is a recent communication to MassResistance's email. Typical of their level of discourse:
You f***ing c*nt, why don't you just shrivel up and die?
The world will be a better place without your hate & lies.
bitch!
Ryan P******
Ryan, we wish you well. That's why we're withholding your name, email, etc.
Well, the events of the past month have confirmed our hunch in the worst way. Hate emails, a home break in, stolen credit cards... There is simply no rational communication with the extremist queer activists. They are angry, they act outside of the law, and they speak the devil's language.
Here is a recent communication to MassResistance's email. Typical of their level of discourse:
You f***ing c*nt, why don't you just shrivel up and die?
The world will be a better place without your hate & lies.
bitch!
Ryan P******
Ryan, we wish you well. That's why we're withholding your name, email, etc.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Chief Justice Marshall's Ethical Violations Are No Joke
Why can't the Boston Globe ever get to the real story about Chief Justice Marshall's ethical violations?
Today we see a perfect example of the Boston Globe's bias. They try to look like they're being fair and balanced, with a page-one story on SJC Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's stupid political joke at the Brandeis commencement last spring. Seems someone filed a complaint that she made a "political" statement. But it's really a trivial incident, which proves only that she's not the brightest bulb in the Commonwealth.
Now if you read all the way to the end of this article, you come to a quote from Brian Camenker of Article 8 Alliance. Brian tried to focus the reporter on the REAL story -- he spelled it out in detail for the Globe reporter -- but of course the Globe let it go. They quoted only part of what Brian said:
Brian Camenker, director of Article 8 Alliance, a Waltham group founded to remove Marshall and the other three justices who legalized same-sex marriage, said her remark was ''pretty undignified." But it was insignificant compared to her actions on the court, he said. ''I don't think I would have complained about a remark like that in light of everything else," he said.
The curious reader would wonder what "everything else" refers to. But you'll never learn this from the Boston Globe!
The serious ethical violation committed by Empress Margaret was her appearance as keynote speaker at the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Association annual dinner in May 1999, when she made it clear that she favored the extension of homosexual "rights". This clearly included homosexual "marriage". [The Mass. Lesbian & Gay Bar Assoc. still proudly posts their newsletter covering this event, complete with photo of Marshall standing before their banner.] She later wrote the decision that forced homosexual "marriage" on the Commonwealth (Goodridge, Nov. 18, 2003).
Here are her significant violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct that the Boston Globe REFUSES to report: Judges may not appear as keynote speakers at any organization's dinner, and they must not rule on issues on which they have a clear bias or have taken a public stand. But Empress Margaret did both. Article 8 Alliance even held a press conference at the State House in April 2004 on her ethical violations. BUT NOT ONE STORY RESULTED IN THE MASSACHUSETTS OR NATIONAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
And still, the Boston Globe ignores this highly significant story, even though Brian just had a conversation with their reporter! Hundreds of formal complaints were filed in 2004 concerning Marshall's clear violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
We understand the Globe is compromised, but why have the Governor and Legislature let this pass? On the basis of these ethical violations alone, Empress Margaret should be forced to resign!
The Bill of Address has been filed (H652) to remove the tyrannical SJC4. We wish the press -- and our elected officials -- had the courage to pay attention.
Today we see a perfect example of the Boston Globe's bias. They try to look like they're being fair and balanced, with a page-one story on SJC Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's stupid political joke at the Brandeis commencement last spring. Seems someone filed a complaint that she made a "political" statement. But it's really a trivial incident, which proves only that she's not the brightest bulb in the Commonwealth.
Now if you read all the way to the end of this article, you come to a quote from Brian Camenker of Article 8 Alliance. Brian tried to focus the reporter on the REAL story -- he spelled it out in detail for the Globe reporter -- but of course the Globe let it go. They quoted only part of what Brian said:
Brian Camenker, director of Article 8 Alliance, a Waltham group founded to remove Marshall and the other three justices who legalized same-sex marriage, said her remark was ''pretty undignified." But it was insignificant compared to her actions on the court, he said. ''I don't think I would have complained about a remark like that in light of everything else," he said.
The curious reader would wonder what "everything else" refers to. But you'll never learn this from the Boston Globe!
The serious ethical violation committed by Empress Margaret was her appearance as keynote speaker at the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Association annual dinner in May 1999, when she made it clear that she favored the extension of homosexual "rights". This clearly included homosexual "marriage". [The Mass. Lesbian & Gay Bar Assoc. still proudly posts their newsletter covering this event, complete with photo of Marshall standing before their banner.] She later wrote the decision that forced homosexual "marriage" on the Commonwealth (Goodridge, Nov. 18, 2003).
Here are her significant violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct that the Boston Globe REFUSES to report: Judges may not appear as keynote speakers at any organization's dinner, and they must not rule on issues on which they have a clear bias or have taken a public stand. But Empress Margaret did both. Article 8 Alliance even held a press conference at the State House in April 2004 on her ethical violations. BUT NOT ONE STORY RESULTED IN THE MASSACHUSETTS OR NATIONAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
And still, the Boston Globe ignores this highly significant story, even though Brian just had a conversation with their reporter! Hundreds of formal complaints were filed in 2004 concerning Marshall's clear violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
We understand the Globe is compromised, but why have the Governor and Legislature let this pass? On the basis of these ethical violations alone, Empress Margaret should be forced to resign!
The Bill of Address has been filed (H652) to remove the tyrannical SJC4. We wish the press -- and our elected officials -- had the courage to pay attention.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Picket Catholic Charities Dinner Dec. 9 Honoring Menino
There will be a picket of Catholic Charities annual dinner, for its choice to honor Boston Mayor Tom Menino, on Friday, Dec. 9, 5:15-6:45 p.m. at the Boston Harbor Hotel, 70 Rowes Wharf (big archway) on Atlantic Ave.
For more information, see Operation Rescue's web site, www.ORBoston.org.
C. J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts has catalogued Thomas M. Menino's adversarial role towards the Catholic Church, as an opponent of Catholic morality and a supporter of the culture of death: He's pro-abortion, pro-homosexual "marriage", pro-domestic partners, sponsors a "gay" prom for teenagers, marches in the annual "Gay Pride" parade, etc. Menino "has carried on a campaign of aggressive de-Christianization in the municipal government of Boston," said Doyle.
For more information, see Operation Rescue's web site, www.ORBoston.org.
C. J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts has catalogued Thomas M. Menino's adversarial role towards the Catholic Church, as an opponent of Catholic morality and a supporter of the culture of death: He's pro-abortion, pro-homosexual "marriage", pro-domestic partners, sponsors a "gay" prom for teenagers, marches in the annual "Gay Pride" parade, etc. Menino "has carried on a campaign of aggressive de-Christianization in the municipal government of Boston," said Doyle.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
LGBT Activist Bans Pilgrim Painting in P'town
It's offensive. It's disturbing. It's sexist. (But wait...are there two sexes, or more? What exactly is meant by "sexist" these days? Who cares... just...) BAN IT!
Sarah Peake, openly lesbian losing candidate for State Rep in 2004, was disturbed by a painting in her town hall in Provincetown depicting the Pilgrims landing there. This very "Selectwoman" (isn't that sexist? shouldn't it be "Selectperson"?) was so disturbed she got the painting removed.
First noted by Brian McGrory in the Boston Globe, Brit Hume also reported this story tonight on Fox News Special Report:
Sexist Painting?
A century-old painting commemorating the Pilgrims' landing in Provincetown, Massachusetts, no longer hangs in the town hall after city officials voted that it was discriminatory against women. The Boston Globe reports that town Selectwoman Sarah Peake said she found it "disturbing" that the large oil painting — depicting the Pilgrims voting on the Mayflower Compact — didn't include a single woman. Despite the fact that only male colonists actually signed the historic document, three of the four selectmen agreed to remove the painting, which had hung in the town hall for at least 60 years.
Now we recall something about this same "Selectwoman" advocating nudism on the public beaches on byways of P'town. So it figures that she just can't stand the sight of clothed male Pilgrims.
From McGrory's column:
[W]hat Peake didn't like was that the painting didn't include any women. That and the fact that the painting's only Indian -- Native American, I'd better call him -- wasn't holding a ballot like everyone else.
If you don't believe me, let's go straight to Cheryl Andrews, the chairwoman of the Board of Selectmen. She also happened to cast the only vote against the painting's removal, making her a rare voice of sanity on the board.
''There's this lovely oil painting," she said yesterday. ''The thing is huge. It's been up there since forever. It was painted by Max Bohm, who's considered quite something in local art circles.
''And Sarah Peake turns around and faces it, and it's government. They're voting. She says, 'I'd like to talk about this painting. I find this painting disturbing.' That's a quote. She said it's disturbing to her because there are no women in the painting and the only one not holding a ballot is the Native American Indian. And I thought, 'Here we go.' "
Sarah Peake, openly lesbian losing candidate for State Rep in 2004, was disturbed by a painting in her town hall in Provincetown depicting the Pilgrims landing there. This very "Selectwoman" (isn't that sexist? shouldn't it be "Selectperson"?) was so disturbed she got the painting removed.
First noted by Brian McGrory in the Boston Globe, Brit Hume also reported this story tonight on Fox News Special Report:
Sexist Painting?
A century-old painting commemorating the Pilgrims' landing in Provincetown, Massachusetts, no longer hangs in the town hall after city officials voted that it was discriminatory against women. The Boston Globe reports that town Selectwoman Sarah Peake said she found it "disturbing" that the large oil painting — depicting the Pilgrims voting on the Mayflower Compact — didn't include a single woman. Despite the fact that only male colonists actually signed the historic document, three of the four selectmen agreed to remove the painting, which had hung in the town hall for at least 60 years.
Now we recall something about this same "Selectwoman" advocating nudism on the public beaches on byways of P'town. So it figures that she just can't stand the sight of clothed male Pilgrims.
From McGrory's column:
[W]hat Peake didn't like was that the painting didn't include any women. That and the fact that the painting's only Indian -- Native American, I'd better call him -- wasn't holding a ballot like everyone else.
If you don't believe me, let's go straight to Cheryl Andrews, the chairwoman of the Board of Selectmen. She also happened to cast the only vote against the painting's removal, making her a rare voice of sanity on the board.
''There's this lovely oil painting," she said yesterday. ''The thing is huge. It's been up there since forever. It was painted by Max Bohm, who's considered quite something in local art circles.
''And Sarah Peake turns around and faces it, and it's government. They're voting. She says, 'I'd like to talk about this painting. I find this painting disturbing.' That's a quote. She said it's disturbing to her because there are no women in the painting and the only one not holding a ballot is the Native American Indian. And I thought, 'Here we go.' "
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Disinvite Menino! Contact Info
The call has gone out to faithful Catholics: Work to DISINVITE Menino!
You can thank Archibishop O'Malley for bowing out of the Catholic Charities dinner (because of Catholic Charities' plans to honor Menino). But also ask the Archbishop to use his influence to get Menino DISINVITED!
We are happy to lend our friends at Catholic Action League and Faithful Voice a hand. Let's force Mayor Menino to go out to Wendy's for dinner on December 9, instead of disgracing the Catholic Charities dinner with his presence. Here is helpful contact info:
Archbishop O'Malley at the Boston Archidiocese office:
phone 617-782-2544
fax 617-782-8358
2121 Commonwealth Ave., Boston 02135
Also, contact Catholic Charities and tell them to DISINVITE Menino!
phone 617-482-5440
fax 617-451-0337
You can thank Archibishop O'Malley for bowing out of the Catholic Charities dinner (because of Catholic Charities' plans to honor Menino). But also ask the Archbishop to use his influence to get Menino DISINVITED!
We are happy to lend our friends at Catholic Action League and Faithful Voice a hand. Let's force Mayor Menino to go out to Wendy's for dinner on December 9, instead of disgracing the Catholic Charities dinner with his presence. Here is helpful contact info:
Archbishop O'Malley at the Boston Archidiocese office:
phone 617-782-2544
fax 617-782-8358
2121 Commonwealth Ave., Boston 02135
Also, contact Catholic Charities and tell them to DISINVITE Menino!
phone 617-482-5440
fax 617-451-0337
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Just a Few More Years Before We're Jailed for Hate Crimes?
Well, maybe we have just a few years of religious freedom yet. At least the Swedish pastor charged with hate crimes for preaching against homosexuality has been acquitted. But it was a close call. The prosecuting attorney had the gall to challenge the pastor's interpretation of the Bible in court! (This is reminiscent of the Boston Globe and Herald challenging the Archibishop on Catholic doctrine!)
This case is a wake-up call. Now that "homosexual marriage" is supposedly legal in Massachusetts, the activists can claim that it must be taught in the public schools and preached from pulpits, and anyone objecting -- whether parent, religious leader, writer, or elected official -- is guilty of "hate speech"! Churches daring to hold seminars on the Christian message on homosexuality are already harassed by permitless demonstrators (with police complicity). How much longer do we have before "hate crimes" prosecution is turned on us dissenters here in Massachusetts?
From WorldNetDaily:
The Swedish Supreme Court has acquitted a pentecostal minister of charges he violated the nation's hate-speech laws when he labeled homosexuality a "deep cancer tumor" on society during a sermon two years ago.
The court ruled Ake Green was free to espouse his religious views even if they were deemed offensive by some, though prosecutors said the high court's decision will not lead to acceptance of "gay bashing." ... [How is that defined?]
They noted the court recognized Green's comments were made during a religious sermon and did not incite others to take harmful actions against homosexuals....
Green, pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal Church congregation in Kalmar, Sweden, initially was convicted by a lower court for violating the country's laws against hate speech in 2004. Green, 64, was the first pastor to be convicted under the new laws, which were amended in 2003 to include homosexuals....
In testimony before the Supreme Court, Green said his sermon was meant as a warning to homosexuals that if they continued their lifestyle they would suffer "eternal divorce" from God. "If two men sleep with each other, or if two women do so, it is abnormal, just like pedophilia," he said.
This case is a wake-up call. Now that "homosexual marriage" is supposedly legal in Massachusetts, the activists can claim that it must be taught in the public schools and preached from pulpits, and anyone objecting -- whether parent, religious leader, writer, or elected official -- is guilty of "hate speech"! Churches daring to hold seminars on the Christian message on homosexuality are already harassed by permitless demonstrators (with police complicity). How much longer do we have before "hate crimes" prosecution is turned on us dissenters here in Massachusetts?
From WorldNetDaily:
The Swedish Supreme Court has acquitted a pentecostal minister of charges he violated the nation's hate-speech laws when he labeled homosexuality a "deep cancer tumor" on society during a sermon two years ago.
The court ruled Ake Green was free to espouse his religious views even if they were deemed offensive by some, though prosecutors said the high court's decision will not lead to acceptance of "gay bashing." ... [How is that defined?]
They noted the court recognized Green's comments were made during a religious sermon and did not incite others to take harmful actions against homosexuals....
Green, pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal Church congregation in Kalmar, Sweden, initially was convicted by a lower court for violating the country's laws against hate speech in 2004. Green, 64, was the first pastor to be convicted under the new laws, which were amended in 2003 to include homosexuals....
In testimony before the Supreme Court, Green said his sermon was meant as a warning to homosexuals that if they continued their lifestyle they would suffer "eternal divorce" from God. "If two men sleep with each other, or if two women do so, it is abnormal, just like pedophilia," he said.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Boston Globe and Herald: More Catholic Than the Archbishop?
It's hilarious that the Boston Globe and Boston Herald think their editorial pages have a role in the Catholic argument over Mayor Menino's invitation to the Catholic Charities dinner, and the Archbishop's decision not to attend. They charge that the Archbishop doesn't see the big picture! The Globe editorial states:
By snubbing the annual Christmas dinner for Catholic Charities, Archbishop Sean O'Malley seems to be saying that believers like himself must sometimes turn their backs on the common good if there is conflict with the church's strict religious tenets. Such a narrow, polarizing view could hardly serve the city well and is especially disappointing during a season associated with tolerance and good will. [emphasis added]
So the Archbishop is the one with the "narrow, polarizing view"?! As we see it, it is the faithful Catholics have the broad view and get the big picture. There's more to be concerned about than hunger, poverty, and material well-being. Of course those issues are important. But equally important are the Church's moral teachings on life and sexuality. Combine all these issues, and you get the real big picture.
Who's the most Catholic here? The Globe and Herald Editorial boards, or the Archibishop? Now if some non-Catholic group wants to honor Menino for feeding the poor, fine. But true Catholics have to look at the whole package. And Menino is one ugly package.
A column by Frank Mazzaglia in the Metrowest Daily News ("Rein in rebellious Catholic Charities") yesterday provides some balance:
The problem, in a nutshell, is this: Catholic Charities exists as an arm of the Archdiocese of Boston. Somehow, its governing body seems to have reached the pompous point where it now believes that the Archdiocese is an arm of Catholic Charities. It has an agenda which is not always in harmony with the Roman Catholic faith.
The latest flap is the strange decision to invite Mayor Thomas Menino to be guest speaker at an important fund-raising event. Menino likes to begin his most controversial public policy positions by claiming to be a Catholic. He then launches into his own version of faith by contradicting some of the most basic precepts of Catholic doctrine including, but not limited to, his support for abortion and same-sex marriage.
For weeks, leaders of the Catholic Action League and Faithful Voice pleaded with Catholic Charities to re-think their invitation to Menino. They might as well have been talking to a brick wall. Finally, Archbishop Sean O'Malley had no choice but to step away from the event.
This is hardly the first time that Catholic Charities has deliberately placed the Archdiocese in an awkward position. So what's to be done?
The Board of Directors of Catholic Charities reads like a virtual Who's Who. All of them hold distinguished reputations for public service. However, it is now clear that the majority of the governing body of Catholic Charities does not care one whit about the doctrines of the church to which it is connected.
Surely then, there is a choice to be made. If the members of the governing body of Catholic Charities cannot be loyal to the Archdiocese, there must be other ways that these wonderful people could continue to perform their good works outside of their participation as members of the governing body of Catholic Charities. In such a strongly Catholic Boston Archdiocese, there must be equally successful men and women who could replace them. The difference being that the replacements would be expected to remain loyal to central precepts of the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals....
The Archdiocese is reluctant to take on Catholic Charities directly. It's not because of the money, but rather because of the good that money can do for the desperately poor.
Sooner or later, Catholic Charities is a problem that cries out for resolution. Let's hope it's sooner.
By snubbing the annual Christmas dinner for Catholic Charities, Archbishop Sean O'Malley seems to be saying that believers like himself must sometimes turn their backs on the common good if there is conflict with the church's strict religious tenets. Such a narrow, polarizing view could hardly serve the city well and is especially disappointing during a season associated with tolerance and good will. [emphasis added]
So the Archbishop is the one with the "narrow, polarizing view"?! As we see it, it is the faithful Catholics have the broad view and get the big picture. There's more to be concerned about than hunger, poverty, and material well-being. Of course those issues are important. But equally important are the Church's moral teachings on life and sexuality. Combine all these issues, and you get the real big picture.
Who's the most Catholic here? The Globe and Herald Editorial boards, or the Archibishop? Now if some non-Catholic group wants to honor Menino for feeding the poor, fine. But true Catholics have to look at the whole package. And Menino is one ugly package.
A column by Frank Mazzaglia in the Metrowest Daily News ("Rein in rebellious Catholic Charities") yesterday provides some balance:
The problem, in a nutshell, is this: Catholic Charities exists as an arm of the Archdiocese of Boston. Somehow, its governing body seems to have reached the pompous point where it now believes that the Archdiocese is an arm of Catholic Charities. It has an agenda which is not always in harmony with the Roman Catholic faith.
The latest flap is the strange decision to invite Mayor Thomas Menino to be guest speaker at an important fund-raising event. Menino likes to begin his most controversial public policy positions by claiming to be a Catholic. He then launches into his own version of faith by contradicting some of the most basic precepts of Catholic doctrine including, but not limited to, his support for abortion and same-sex marriage.
For weeks, leaders of the Catholic Action League and Faithful Voice pleaded with Catholic Charities to re-think their invitation to Menino. They might as well have been talking to a brick wall. Finally, Archbishop Sean O'Malley had no choice but to step away from the event.
This is hardly the first time that Catholic Charities has deliberately placed the Archdiocese in an awkward position. So what's to be done?
The Board of Directors of Catholic Charities reads like a virtual Who's Who. All of them hold distinguished reputations for public service. However, it is now clear that the majority of the governing body of Catholic Charities does not care one whit about the doctrines of the church to which it is connected.
Surely then, there is a choice to be made. If the members of the governing body of Catholic Charities cannot be loyal to the Archdiocese, there must be other ways that these wonderful people could continue to perform their good works outside of their participation as members of the governing body of Catholic Charities. In such a strongly Catholic Boston Archdiocese, there must be equally successful men and women who could replace them. The difference being that the replacements would be expected to remain loyal to central precepts of the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals....
The Archdiocese is reluctant to take on Catholic Charities directly. It's not because of the money, but rather because of the good that money can do for the desperately poor.
Sooner or later, Catholic Charities is a problem that cries out for resolution. Let's hope it's sooner.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
"Rent" -- The Latest Hollywood Propaganda
Popular entertainment plays a huge role in romanticizing homosexuality for the younger generation. The latest craze at the movies is "Rent" (from the long-running Broadway show). High school chorus directors across the country promote this musical by programming its theme song, "Seasons of Love". (Get the kids so worked up they just have to see the movie!)
Supposedly a take-off on Puccini's opera "La Boheme", "Rent" employs the cheap emotion of doomed, dying lovers -- all that's needed to wrench young people's hearts in the cause of "homosexual rights". In "Rent", the characters are drug addicts, strippers, drag queens, and lesbians dying of AIDS. It goes beyond romanticizing AIDS victims, however. The drinking song, "La Vie Boheme", has upbeat lyrics praising "leather, dildos, masturbation, bisexuals, trisexuals, sodomy, S&M". Fun fun fun! Can't wait to go to New York and be part of that scene...
The Boston Globe's review is critical only of the lighting and the staging of the production numbers in the movie. The Globe seems to miss the hideous transformation of a classic love story (between a seamstress dying from consumption and a poor poet, in the original) into needless, preventable deaths resulting from drug use and sexual perversion. From the Globe review:
It's taken them nine years to get there, but the award-winning collection of junkies, drag queens, and activist urchins from the East Village have finally made it to Hollywood. And in the movie version of ''Rent," they are such a cute and cuddly bunch it's easy to leave the theater thinking you've just seen ''Muppets Take Manhattan," instead....
Holding the story lines together are Mark ... and Roger ..., roommates in an illegal industrial loft. One's a filmmaker, the other an ex-junkie rock songwriter. Their professor friend, Collins ..., gets mugged and is rescued by Angel ..., a benevolent drag queen. They both happen to be HIV-positive and fall in love.
Mimi is the stripper junkie who lives downstairs from Roger. They fall in love, too. Also in love are Mark's ex, Maureen ..., and Joanne.... People bicker, they dance, they die.
Excerpts from lyrics to one of the songs in "Rent", "La Vie Boheme" (and we've read this was a toned-down version!):
Wine and beer!
To hand-crafted beers made in local breweries
To yoga, to yogurt, to rice and beans and cheese
To leather, to dildos, to curry vindaloo
Emotion, devotion, to causing a commotion
Creation, vacation
Mucho masturbation
Compassion, to fashion, to passion when it's new
To Sontag
To Sondheim
To anything taboo...
La vie Boheme
Bisexuals, trisexuals, homo sapiens,
Carcinogens, hallucinogens, men,
Pee Wee Herman...
To apathy, to entropy, to empathy, ecstasy ...
The Sex Pistols, 8BC,
To no shame - never playing the Fame Game
To marijuana
To sodomy,
It's between God and me
To S & M ...
Supposedly a take-off on Puccini's opera "La Boheme", "Rent" employs the cheap emotion of doomed, dying lovers -- all that's needed to wrench young people's hearts in the cause of "homosexual rights". In "Rent", the characters are drug addicts, strippers, drag queens, and lesbians dying of AIDS. It goes beyond romanticizing AIDS victims, however. The drinking song, "La Vie Boheme", has upbeat lyrics praising "leather, dildos, masturbation, bisexuals, trisexuals, sodomy, S&M". Fun fun fun! Can't wait to go to New York and be part of that scene...
The Boston Globe's review is critical only of the lighting and the staging of the production numbers in the movie. The Globe seems to miss the hideous transformation of a classic love story (between a seamstress dying from consumption and a poor poet, in the original) into needless, preventable deaths resulting from drug use and sexual perversion. From the Globe review:
It's taken them nine years to get there, but the award-winning collection of junkies, drag queens, and activist urchins from the East Village have finally made it to Hollywood. And in the movie version of ''Rent," they are such a cute and cuddly bunch it's easy to leave the theater thinking you've just seen ''Muppets Take Manhattan," instead....
Holding the story lines together are Mark ... and Roger ..., roommates in an illegal industrial loft. One's a filmmaker, the other an ex-junkie rock songwriter. Their professor friend, Collins ..., gets mugged and is rescued by Angel ..., a benevolent drag queen. They both happen to be HIV-positive and fall in love.
Mimi is the stripper junkie who lives downstairs from Roger. They fall in love, too. Also in love are Mark's ex, Maureen ..., and Joanne.... People bicker, they dance, they die.
Excerpts from lyrics to one of the songs in "Rent", "La Vie Boheme" (and we've read this was a toned-down version!):
Wine and beer!
To hand-crafted beers made in local breweries
To yoga, to yogurt, to rice and beans and cheese
To leather, to dildos, to curry vindaloo
Emotion, devotion, to causing a commotion
Creation, vacation
Mucho masturbation
Compassion, to fashion, to passion when it's new
To Sontag
To Sondheim
To anything taboo...
La vie Boheme
Bisexuals, trisexuals, homo sapiens,
Carcinogens, hallucinogens, men,
Pee Wee Herman...
To apathy, to entropy, to empathy, ecstasy ...
The Sex Pistols, 8BC,
To no shame - never playing the Fame Game
To marijuana
To sodomy,
It's between God and me
To S & M ...
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Archbishop O'Malley Scrutinizes Mayor Menino's Public Sins
The Boston Globe reported on Thanksgiving some news to be thankful for: Archbishop Sean "O'Malley won't attend charities' dinner", specifically the Catholic Charities Christmas dinner honoring Boston's Mayor Tom Menino. Menino, though nominally Catholic, supports abortion and the radical homosexual agenda.
In addition to asking the Archbishop not to attend this function, C. J. Doyle of the Catholic Action of League of Massachusetts has been urging Catholics to boycott the event . Faithful Catholics are also demanding that Catholic Charities disinvite Menino, or feel the consequences.
The weekend before O'Malley's announcement, Doyle appeared on the MassResistance radio show on WTTT 1150 AM to alert the Catholic faithful to call the Archdiocese. Doyle is scheduled to be on the show again this weekend (Dec. 3 & 4) for an update. (MassResistance radio is heard Saturdays at 10:00 a.m. and Sundays at 7:00 p.m. on WTTT 1150 AM.)
Menino is in tight with the queer activists in Boston, most recently letting them run wild (without a permit) on Tremont Street, disrupting a Focus on the Family religious event at the Tremont Temple on October 29. He's raised the rainbow flag over Boston City Hall, hosts a youth queer prom each year in May, and declared a "Queer Eye" day in Boston last spring. That's just a taste of his perfidy.
For a great catalog of Mayor Tom Menino's anti-Catholic public sins, we are printing a letter from C. J. Doyle to Archbishop O'Malley. Long, but worth it.
Friday, November 18, 2005 :::
From the Catholic Action League:
On Friday, December 9th, Catholic Charities will be honoring Boston Mayor Thomas Menino at its Annual Christmas Dinner for Catholic Charities.
The following is a memo, written by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, which was hand delivered to His Excellency, Archbishop O'Malley, this morning during a meeting. The memo details relevant information concerning Mayor Thomas Menino concerning why he is a highly inappropriate honoree at any Catholic event, particularly one in which the Archbishop has been invited.
After reading this memo, please call the Chancery office and urge His Excellency NOT TO ATTEND this event. The Chancery office phone # is (617) 782-2544. If you care to write or fax him, the fax # is (617) 782-8358, and the mailing address is 2121 Commonwealth Avenue, Brighton, MA 02135.
Ideally, Mayor Menino should be disinvited from this event. If not, however, His Excellency should not be giving scandal by his presence. In addition, if you have been invited to attend this fundraiser for Catholic Charities, please read the memo and then decide if, as a faithful Catholic, you should attend either.
FROM: C. Joseph Doyle, Executive Director, Catholic Action League of Massachusetts
SUBJECT: Mayor Thomas M. Menino
DATE: 17 November 2005
Per your request, I submit the following information on Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the Catholic Church.
It would be difficult to identify another nominally Catholic political figure in the United States who, on such a broad range of issues, has, in both his rhetoric and public policy decisions, engaged in such relentless opposition to the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. A compilation of Mayor Menino's positions on Catholic questions includes, but is not limited to the following:
Since an abortive run for Congress in 1992 while still a City Councillor, Thomas Menino has supported legal abortion and the public funding of abortion. In his first campaign for Mayor in 1993, he indicated that he would continue the practice of taxpayer financed abortions at Boston City Hospital.
On May 17, 2004, the first day that same-gender marriage ceremonies could be legally performed in the Commonwealth, Mayor Menino, a supporter of same-sex marriage, personally welcomed homosexual and lesbian couples to Boston City Hall amid much fanfare and media attention.
From 1996 to 1998, Mayor Menino lobbied the Massachusetts Legislature to pass a home rule petition which would allow the Boston City Council to enact a domestic partners ordinance. In August, 1998, when Acting Governor A. Paul Cellucci vetoed the measure, Mayor Menino, against the advice of his own corporation counsel, arbitrarily and unlawfully instituted a domestic partners benefits program for municipal employees by executive order. This order was challenged in Suffolk County Superior Court by the American Center for Law and Justice and the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. On July 8, 1999, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth, in a unanimous decision written by then-Associate Justice Margaret Marshall, overturned the executive order in Connors vs. the City of Boston.
Since 1994, Mayor Menino has boycotted Boston's Saint Patrick's Day Parade because the organizers, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, have refused to allow a militant homosexual group, including participants in the infamous 1990 condom throwing incident at Holy Cross Cathedral, to march in the parade. Mayor Menino has also in the past forbidden Boston Police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians from marching in the parade, describing it as "a discriminatory event."
In June of each year, Mayor Menino leads Boston's Gay Pride Parade, welcomes marchers to Boston, and allows Boston Police officers, in uniform, to march in the parade.
In 2001, Mayor Menino;s Fire Commissioner, Paul Christian, ordered the Boston Fire Department to remove all shamrocks and other expressions of Irish-Catholic identity from Boston fire apparatus, deriding them as "symbols of tribalism."
Each year in June, Mayor Menino allows the pink triangle homosexual flag to be flown over Boston City Hall Plaza as part of Gay Pride celebrations, often personally participating in the flag raising ceremony.
Each year during Gay Pride Week, Mayor Menino sponsors a gay prom for teenagers at Boston City Hall, where condoms have been distributed.
In January 1994, Thomas Menino became the first Boston Mayor to appoint the members of the Boston School Committee. Among his initial appointees was Dr. Elizabeth Reilinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of Crittenton Hastings House, then a major Massachusetts abortuary, which performed over 4000 abortions per year. Since 1998, Dr. Reilinger has been the Chairwoman of the School Committee. Another original appointeee by Mayor Menino was the pro-abortion left-wing activist Felix Arroyo, now a member of the Boston City Council.
In March 1994, in its first significant order of public business, Mayor Menino' appointed School Committee instituted a condom distribution program in the Boston Public Schools.
Under Mayor Menino's appointed School Committee, the Boston School Department has embraced such homosexual programs as the Safe School Initiative and Gay/Straight Alliances, which teach that homosexual relationships ought to be affirmed. During this same period, the School Department reprimanded and eventually terminated former Boston Latin School teacher Owen O'Malley, a Catholic critic of homosexual ideology.
Mayor Menino is a supporter of needle exchange programs.
Mayor Menino declared June 3, 2005 to be Queer Eye Day in the City of Boston.
Mayor Menino is a supporter of both gay rights and transgendered rights, whereby sexual orientation and identity are included in the protected categories of civil rights legislation. In 2002, Mayor Menino signed into law a City Council ordinance which would force homeowners, including Catholics with children, to rent apartments in their homes to transvestites and persons who have surgically mutilated themselves through so-called sex change operations.
Mayor Menino has maintained at public expense a gay and lesbian liaison office at Boston City Hall.
In 2005, Mayor Menino castigated th Archdiocese of Boston for the closing of Our Lady of Presentation School in Brighton, calling the actions of the Archdiocese "unconscionable" and "reprehensible." Mayor Menino went on to hold a sham graduation cermeony for Our Lady of Presentation students at Faneuil Hall.
Mayor Menino is a longstanding opponent of tuition tax credits and publicly funded tuition vouchers for the parents of Catholic school students.
Mayor Menino's spouse, Mrs. Angela Menino, has publicly criticized the Catholic Church, telling The Boston Globe that she opposes what she describes as the Church's "unjust treatment of women."
Thomas M. Menino is an adversary of the Catholic Church, an opponent of Catholic morality, and a supporter of the culture of death, who has carried on a campaign of aggressive de-Christianization in the municipal government of Boston. Under Mayor Menino's anti-Catholic and family-unfriendly policies, the flight of the Catholic middle class and the Catholic working class from Boston has continued. By the time Mayor Menino completes his fourth full term in January 2010, the Catholics of Boston, who once comprised a 72% majority, will likely be reduced, for the first time in more than a century, to the status of a minority in this historically Catholic city.
Why any organization which bears the name Catholic would wish to honor such an apostate is as incomprehensible as it is outrageous. In my judgement, it would be a grave scandal, profoundly demoralizing to faithful Catholics, for the Archbishop of Boston, particularly one known for his pro-life commitment, to participate even passively in an event in which Catholic principles are to be so shamefully betrayed.
--CJD
In addition to asking the Archbishop not to attend this function, C. J. Doyle of the Catholic Action of League of Massachusetts has been urging Catholics to boycott the event . Faithful Catholics are also demanding that Catholic Charities disinvite Menino, or feel the consequences.
The weekend before O'Malley's announcement, Doyle appeared on the MassResistance radio show on WTTT 1150 AM to alert the Catholic faithful to call the Archdiocese. Doyle is scheduled to be on the show again this weekend (Dec. 3 & 4) for an update. (MassResistance radio is heard Saturdays at 10:00 a.m. and Sundays at 7:00 p.m. on WTTT 1150 AM.)
Menino is in tight with the queer activists in Boston, most recently letting them run wild (without a permit) on Tremont Street, disrupting a Focus on the Family religious event at the Tremont Temple on October 29. He's raised the rainbow flag over Boston City Hall, hosts a youth queer prom each year in May, and declared a "Queer Eye" day in Boston last spring. That's just a taste of his perfidy.
For a great catalog of Mayor Tom Menino's anti-Catholic public sins, we are printing a letter from C. J. Doyle to Archbishop O'Malley. Long, but worth it.
Friday, November 18, 2005 :::
From the Catholic Action League:
On Friday, December 9th, Catholic Charities will be honoring Boston Mayor Thomas Menino at its Annual Christmas Dinner for Catholic Charities.
The following is a memo, written by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, which was hand delivered to His Excellency, Archbishop O'Malley, this morning during a meeting. The memo details relevant information concerning Mayor Thomas Menino concerning why he is a highly inappropriate honoree at any Catholic event, particularly one in which the Archbishop has been invited.
After reading this memo, please call the Chancery office and urge His Excellency NOT TO ATTEND this event. The Chancery office phone # is (617) 782-2544. If you care to write or fax him, the fax # is (617) 782-8358, and the mailing address is 2121 Commonwealth Avenue, Brighton, MA 02135.
Ideally, Mayor Menino should be disinvited from this event. If not, however, His Excellency should not be giving scandal by his presence. In addition, if you have been invited to attend this fundraiser for Catholic Charities, please read the memo and then decide if, as a faithful Catholic, you should attend either.
FROM: C. Joseph Doyle, Executive Director, Catholic Action League of Massachusetts
SUBJECT: Mayor Thomas M. Menino
DATE: 17 November 2005
Per your request, I submit the following information on Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the Catholic Church.
It would be difficult to identify another nominally Catholic political figure in the United States who, on such a broad range of issues, has, in both his rhetoric and public policy decisions, engaged in such relentless opposition to the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. A compilation of Mayor Menino's positions on Catholic questions includes, but is not limited to the following:
Since an abortive run for Congress in 1992 while still a City Councillor, Thomas Menino has supported legal abortion and the public funding of abortion. In his first campaign for Mayor in 1993, he indicated that he would continue the practice of taxpayer financed abortions at Boston City Hospital.
On May 17, 2004, the first day that same-gender marriage ceremonies could be legally performed in the Commonwealth, Mayor Menino, a supporter of same-sex marriage, personally welcomed homosexual and lesbian couples to Boston City Hall amid much fanfare and media attention.
From 1996 to 1998, Mayor Menino lobbied the Massachusetts Legislature to pass a home rule petition which would allow the Boston City Council to enact a domestic partners ordinance. In August, 1998, when Acting Governor A. Paul Cellucci vetoed the measure, Mayor Menino, against the advice of his own corporation counsel, arbitrarily and unlawfully instituted a domestic partners benefits program for municipal employees by executive order. This order was challenged in Suffolk County Superior Court by the American Center for Law and Justice and the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. On July 8, 1999, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth, in a unanimous decision written by then-Associate Justice Margaret Marshall, overturned the executive order in Connors vs. the City of Boston.
Since 1994, Mayor Menino has boycotted Boston's Saint Patrick's Day Parade because the organizers, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, have refused to allow a militant homosexual group, including participants in the infamous 1990 condom throwing incident at Holy Cross Cathedral, to march in the parade. Mayor Menino has also in the past forbidden Boston Police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians from marching in the parade, describing it as "a discriminatory event."
In June of each year, Mayor Menino leads Boston's Gay Pride Parade, welcomes marchers to Boston, and allows Boston Police officers, in uniform, to march in the parade.
In 2001, Mayor Menino;s Fire Commissioner, Paul Christian, ordered the Boston Fire Department to remove all shamrocks and other expressions of Irish-Catholic identity from Boston fire apparatus, deriding them as "symbols of tribalism."
Each year in June, Mayor Menino allows the pink triangle homosexual flag to be flown over Boston City Hall Plaza as part of Gay Pride celebrations, often personally participating in the flag raising ceremony.
Each year during Gay Pride Week, Mayor Menino sponsors a gay prom for teenagers at Boston City Hall, where condoms have been distributed.
In January 1994, Thomas Menino became the first Boston Mayor to appoint the members of the Boston School Committee. Among his initial appointees was Dr. Elizabeth Reilinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of Crittenton Hastings House, then a major Massachusetts abortuary, which performed over 4000 abortions per year. Since 1998, Dr. Reilinger has been the Chairwoman of the School Committee. Another original appointeee by Mayor Menino was the pro-abortion left-wing activist Felix Arroyo, now a member of the Boston City Council.
In March 1994, in its first significant order of public business, Mayor Menino' appointed School Committee instituted a condom distribution program in the Boston Public Schools.
Under Mayor Menino's appointed School Committee, the Boston School Department has embraced such homosexual programs as the Safe School Initiative and Gay/Straight Alliances, which teach that homosexual relationships ought to be affirmed. During this same period, the School Department reprimanded and eventually terminated former Boston Latin School teacher Owen O'Malley, a Catholic critic of homosexual ideology.
Mayor Menino is a supporter of needle exchange programs.
Mayor Menino declared June 3, 2005 to be Queer Eye Day in the City of Boston.
Mayor Menino is a supporter of both gay rights and transgendered rights, whereby sexual orientation and identity are included in the protected categories of civil rights legislation. In 2002, Mayor Menino signed into law a City Council ordinance which would force homeowners, including Catholics with children, to rent apartments in their homes to transvestites and persons who have surgically mutilated themselves through so-called sex change operations.
Mayor Menino has maintained at public expense a gay and lesbian liaison office at Boston City Hall.
In 2005, Mayor Menino castigated th Archdiocese of Boston for the closing of Our Lady of Presentation School in Brighton, calling the actions of the Archdiocese "unconscionable" and "reprehensible." Mayor Menino went on to hold a sham graduation cermeony for Our Lady of Presentation students at Faneuil Hall.
Mayor Menino is a longstanding opponent of tuition tax credits and publicly funded tuition vouchers for the parents of Catholic school students.
Mayor Menino's spouse, Mrs. Angela Menino, has publicly criticized the Catholic Church, telling The Boston Globe that she opposes what she describes as the Church's "unjust treatment of women."
Thomas M. Menino is an adversary of the Catholic Church, an opponent of Catholic morality, and a supporter of the culture of death, who has carried on a campaign of aggressive de-Christianization in the municipal government of Boston. Under Mayor Menino's anti-Catholic and family-unfriendly policies, the flight of the Catholic middle class and the Catholic working class from Boston has continued. By the time Mayor Menino completes his fourth full term in January 2010, the Catholics of Boston, who once comprised a 72% majority, will likely be reduced, for the first time in more than a century, to the status of a minority in this historically Catholic city.
Why any organization which bears the name Catholic would wish to honor such an apostate is as incomprehensible as it is outrageous. In my judgement, it would be a grave scandal, profoundly demoralizing to faithful Catholics, for the Archbishop of Boston, particularly one known for his pro-life commitment, to participate even passively in an event in which Catholic principles are to be so shamefully betrayed.
--CJD
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Thanksgiving
"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor."
--George Washington, October 3, 1789
Proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
MassResistance will return in a few days.
--George Washington, October 3, 1789
Proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
MassResistance will return in a few days.
MassResistance: The Radio Show
Don't miss our new MassResistance radio hour.
It's broadcast twice every weekend on WTTT 1150 AM, Saturdays at 10:00 a.m. and Sundays at 7:00 p.m.
It's broadcast twice every weekend on WTTT 1150 AM, Saturdays at 10:00 a.m. and Sundays at 7:00 p.m.
Monday, November 21, 2005
You're Only Catholic if You're Catholic
Dissenting "Catholics" from a Newton parish demand their dissenting liberal priest Walter Cuenin be returned to their church. They make their dissenting views and protest the focus of a mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston. Next, they'll be throwing condoms at the Archbishop.
It's fine with these protesters that Fr. Cuenin takes part in "gay pride" marches and "gay awareness day" at the local high school. The Boston Herald plays right along with them, and refers to them as "Catholic". (How many of the protesters weren't even parishioners, we wonder?) From the Herald, "Cloaked in red, Catholics protest ouster":
Hundreds of Newton Catholics – already seeing red over the ouster of their popular priest – yesterday tried wearing it.
Several busloads of Our Lady Help of Christians parishioners, outraged by the removal last month of their pastor, the Rev. Walter Cuenin, showed up for Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston decked out in scarlet outfits in protest.
The contingent of about 200 people sat quietly, allowing their crimson clothes to shout defiance.
Archbishop Sean O’Malley asked for Cuenin’s resignation in September after an audit revealed he took a leased Honda Accord and a $500-a-month stipend from the church.
“He clearly violated archdiocese policy,” church spokesman Terrence Donlan said, adding, “We certainly appreciate the heartache people are feeling. He was a beloved pastor.”
But outraged parishioners claim Cuenin got the heave-ho for signing a letter critical of the archdiocese’s handling of the clergy abuse scandal and because he openly ministered to gays.
It's fine with these protesters that Fr. Cuenin takes part in "gay pride" marches and "gay awareness day" at the local high school. The Boston Herald plays right along with them, and refers to them as "Catholic". (How many of the protesters weren't even parishioners, we wonder?) From the Herald, "Cloaked in red, Catholics protest ouster":
Hundreds of Newton Catholics – already seeing red over the ouster of their popular priest – yesterday tried wearing it.
Several busloads of Our Lady Help of Christians parishioners, outraged by the removal last month of their pastor, the Rev. Walter Cuenin, showed up for Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston decked out in scarlet outfits in protest.
The contingent of about 200 people sat quietly, allowing their crimson clothes to shout defiance.
Archbishop Sean O’Malley asked for Cuenin’s resignation in September after an audit revealed he took a leased Honda Accord and a $500-a-month stipend from the church.
“He clearly violated archdiocese policy,” church spokesman Terrence Donlan said, adding, “We certainly appreciate the heartache people are feeling. He was a beloved pastor.”
But outraged parishioners claim Cuenin got the heave-ho for signing a letter critical of the archdiocese’s handling of the clergy abuse scandal and because he openly ministered to gays.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
"Straight Talk Radio" with Stephen Bennett
Check out ex-gay Stephen Bennett's new radio show, "Straight Talk Radio", which he produces with his wife Irene. You can play archived shows right from their website. Also check out their other site, Stephen Bennett Ministries.
Subjects of recent programs include David Parker; the untold story of a "hate crime" murder a Christian woman in Chicago (and the truth about the Matthew Shepard case); "Seven Myths about Homosexuality"; and "Children and Gender Confusion".
From Stephen's website:
Stephen Bennett Ministries, Inc. (SBM) has several purposes. First and foremost, SBM encourages men and women to successfully and permanently overcome their unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA.) SBM firmly believes no one is born homosexual; that unnatural homosexual attractions tragically develop early on in the childhood; and by biblically dealing with the root cause(s) of one's same-sex attraction, homosexuality can be completely overcome - just as drug addiction, alcoholism or any other sinful behavior. Men and women can then effectively move on to healthy heterosexuality - as part of God's natural, perfect design and plan for man and woman....
Stephen’s story and music have touched the hearts of millions worldwide - offering a real message of hope and love to those struggling with same-sex attraction, as well as family and friends of those who are involved in or struggling with homosexuality. If you are not familiar with Stephen Bennett's story, we ask that you first read it by clicking here.
Stephen Bennett struggled with homosexuality until he was 28 years old. Alcoholic, bulimic and a drug addict, his destructive life style nearly killed him. Over 11 years actively as a promiscuous homosexual man with countless male partners, many of Stephen's homosexual partners and friends are tragically dead from AIDS. Finally, one day while happily involved in a long term, committed relationship with a man he was in love with, Stephen was confronted by a Christian woman knocking at his door with a Bible in her hand. He would never be the same again.
Subjects of recent programs include David Parker; the untold story of a "hate crime" murder a Christian woman in Chicago (and the truth about the Matthew Shepard case); "Seven Myths about Homosexuality"; and "Children and Gender Confusion".
From Stephen's website:
Stephen Bennett Ministries, Inc. (SBM) has several purposes. First and foremost, SBM encourages men and women to successfully and permanently overcome their unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA.) SBM firmly believes no one is born homosexual; that unnatural homosexual attractions tragically develop early on in the childhood; and by biblically dealing with the root cause(s) of one's same-sex attraction, homosexuality can be completely overcome - just as drug addiction, alcoholism or any other sinful behavior. Men and women can then effectively move on to healthy heterosexuality - as part of God's natural, perfect design and plan for man and woman....
Stephen’s story and music have touched the hearts of millions worldwide - offering a real message of hope and love to those struggling with same-sex attraction, as well as family and friends of those who are involved in or struggling with homosexuality. If you are not familiar with Stephen Bennett's story, we ask that you first read it by clicking here.
Stephen Bennett struggled with homosexuality until he was 28 years old. Alcoholic, bulimic and a drug addict, his destructive life style nearly killed him. Over 11 years actively as a promiscuous homosexual man with countless male partners, many of Stephen's homosexual partners and friends are tragically dead from AIDS. Finally, one day while happily involved in a long term, committed relationship with a man he was in love with, Stephen was confronted by a Christian woman knocking at his door with a Bible in her hand. He would never be the same again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)