West Coast Walk for Life: Archbishop Cordileone Asks Young People to Defend Life and Marriage

SJC photo resized

Archbishop Cordileone called on young people at the West Coast March for Life to defend both the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage.

His message is especially powerful, coming as it does from an area of the country in which much of the population appears to be hostile to traditional values.

I see Archbishop Cordileone’s statement as the first of what will grow into a movement in the future. Promoters of gay marriage often tell us that in a few years, people will look back on those of us who support traditional marriage and say that we were on the wrong side of history.

Not so, my friends.

In future years, the struggle for traditional marriage will still be on-going. Like the pro-life movement, it will grow stronger as the debacle we have brought on ourselves becomes more apparent.

The first step is for Christian people to reclaim the sanctity of marriage in their own lives. This means that Christian spouses should keep their vows to love and cherish one another, forsaking all others.

From The National Catholic Register:

SAN FRANCISCO — A massive crowd stretching out for a mile in sunny downtown San Francisco showed the growing momentum of the Walk for Life, which celebrated its 10th anniversary for participants from across California and neighboring states.

On Jan. 25, more than 50,000 people gathered in front of San Francisco City Hall, and the diverse crowd included a mix of ages and ethnic and religious groups, with songs and prayer in English and Spanish.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, during hishomily at the Mass proceeding the rally, congratulated the young people present for embracing the pro-life movement and for joining the hundreds of lay activists, priests, women and men religious and seminarians at St. Mary’s Cathedral.

“The steadily expanding presence of young people at the Walk for Life, he said, underscored a new generation’s awareness that abortion harms rather than helps women.

“Forty years and 58 million abortions later, the very painful truth has come to light: Yes, abortion does hurt women,” said Archbishop Cordileone.

The San Francisco Church leader credited an older generation of pro-life activists with helping to change the nation’s view of abortion and demonstrating “heroic virtue” during past decades when those who challenged the legalization of abortion were stigmatized. Now, he warned the students at the cathedral, they must help enlighten their own peers about the central role of marriage as the sanctuary of life.

“The pro-life movement is about more than saving the life of the baby,” said Archbishop Cordileone.

“It’s especially about connecting that baby to where he or she came from: the mother and the father. …There is no other institution that does that.”

… Archbishop Cordileone urged the young Catholics at the cathedral to stay “close to Christ” as they seek to present the truth about marriage.

“Future generations will understand that the natural truth of marriage benefits everyone and discriminates against no one,” he predicted.

“But prepare yourselves: It will require heroic virtue, for there is a lot of reverse bullying going on these days.”


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-cordileone-asks-young-pro-lifers-to-defend-life-and-marriage/#ixzz2riMUp6do


Breaking: Federal Court Forces Notre Dame to Follow HHS Mandate
ISIS Claims Full Control of Syrian City of Palmyra
Senate Punts on Obama Trade Deals. The people Lose Again.
Dems for Life Calls on Hillary to Open Up Democratic Party to Pro Life People
  • kenofken

    By linking the fight against abortion with an anti-SSM position, and essentially mandating pro-lifers to fight gay marriage, the archbishop will marginalize and discredit the pro life cause among virtually everyone in this country under 30. On a nationwide basis, that demographic polls at something like 73%, and that figure may be a little outdated. Its almost certainly much higher than that on the West Coast. Few of those who are opposed to gay marriage really want to hang their names and public reputation on that cause anymore. Even the LDS and GOP really don’t want their brands strongly associated with that cause. When all the dust settles, the contingent of teens and 20-somethings who turn out for His Excellency’s crusade is going to be small enough for him to know on a first name basis. If the message is that you have to oppose SSM to be a good prolifer, he’s writing three quarters of young people (and more, over time), out of that movement.

    • hamiltonr

      Times change Ken. Gay marriage is a bubble of trouble. I don’t know how deep the social/cultural dissolution will have to go before it happens, but people will sicken of this.

      • kenofken

        I’m not seeing any significant signs of discontent, certainly nothing likely to produce a full 180 on public opinion within the lifetimes of anyone around now.

        The only people claiming real harm as a result of SSM are the relative handful of wedding vendors who don’t want to serve them, and they were never in favor of it to begin with. LGBT orientation and SSM is a complete non-issue among young people, certainly millenials. Even Evangelicals in that age group support SSM, and Catholics as a whole do as well in numbers higher than the general population.

        SSM, while new to many of us, is not a brand new phenomenon. It’s been around in some form in the West for a quarter century and under the name “marriage” for going on 14. Here in Illinois, the sun kept rising after gay marriage passed, and life rolls on.

        Could this all radically change someday? Sure. If we project out at the span of, say, a century or more, it’s possible that some sort of major political or environmental collapse could fundamentally reorder society, maybe even producing some sort of theocratic state or consensus.

        The problem for the archbishop is that he’s gambling an awful lot on some distant multigeneration “someday” scenario. He doesn’t have 100 years to play with, nor even 50. He’s got 20, at the most. The whole prolife movement in essence hangs on today’s 15 year olds. If they don’t take up the cause en-masse and own it enough to become its leaders when they form “real” lives post-college, you don’t have a pro-life movement in 20 years. Wiring the anti-SSM cause to the pro life one is going to make the latter a non-starter for most young people and the society they hope to evangelize against Roe.

      • Donalbain

        Sicken of WHAT exactly? What has happened in the many places that have gay marriage that people would be “sick of”?

    • FW Ken

      1. You assume the kids he was talking to are part of the pro-ssm contingency. I would expect pro-choice and pro-ssm advocates to overlap, as would the anti groups.

      2. Young people are remarkable conformists. SSM is the current fad.

      3. People change. When I was young, ssm was not a topic, but I took a live and let live attitude to lots of things, including gays. Then I got to know lots of them and found that gay life and gay rights advocacy have a serious disconnect. Honest queer theorists admit tm it, too. More significantly, I found that gay rights advocates have intention of letting people live with their own integrity. Tolerance is not enough: we must approve, affirm, and accept.

      Twenty-somethings are never a good group to guage social trends. Marketing, yes, since they have more discretionary money. But do you really want to associate gay rights with a marketing campaign?


    Won’t post my comments, but you’ll post nonsense. What is one to assume?

    • hamiltonr

      Fred, I deleted your previous comments because you called people names, said that people should be sent to mental institutions and other things I don’t allow. Try framing your ideas without attacking other people.


        Okay, fair enough. Please post my link for everyone who wants to protect the institution of marriage. I’ve argued it out from a legal standpoint. tradmarriage.blogspot.com

        • hamiltonr

          Make a comment here Fred. Don’t just link. I’ll allow it since you’re new to Public Catholic. But from now on, make your comments here.

          • FRED DOUNING

            Okay. Our Constitution does not provide for the egregious violations of law that have been committed against the American people.

            • hamiltonr

              I don’t understand what you’re saying Fred. We do have a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We also have Constitutional provisions for impeachment. Can you explain more?

              • FRED DOUNING

                You misunderstood what I said. The crimes that are being committed against Americans are extra-constitutional.
                Beyond the scope of law.

                • FRED DOUNING

                  Thank you for allowing me to post the comments above. I appreciate it. All the best.