Dr Alveda King, Niece of Martin Luther King, for Marriage

I was honored to meet Dr Alveda King when she was in Oklahoma for our annual pro-life event at the state capitol, Rose Day.

Dr King is a Pastoral Associate and Director of African-American Outreach for Priests for Life.

She is the niece of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, and the daughter of his brother, Reverend AD King. Her mother is Naomi Barber King.

Her family home in Birmingham, Al was bombed during the Civil Rights Movement, as was her father’s church in Louisville, Ky. Alveda was jailed for her Civil Rights activities. she is the author of How Can the Dream Survive If We Murder the Children? 

YouTube Preview Image

Bishop Jugis Says He Supports Sister Jane — UPDATED

Bishop Jugis

David Hains, who is the person LifeSiteNews quotes in the article on which I based this post, left a comment in Public Catholic’s combox. In the comment, he says that he did not make the statements that LifeSiteNews attributes to him. I called Mr Hains to verify that he had actually left the comment, and during our conversation, he told me that Bishop Jugis (no r) is going to issue a statement concerning Sister Jane soon. 

This post incorrectly spells of the name of Bishop Jugis both in the headline and several times throughout the article. As the Bishop’s spokesman I can assure you that he has not issued a statement on the matter at this time, 4/9/2014. The statement you are quoting came from Father Roger Arnsparger, Vicar for Education in the Diocese of Charlotte. Thank you for your interest in covering this story. 

Hooray and Huzzah!!

Bishop Jugis, of the Diocese of Charlotte, has finally issued a statement through his communications director in support of Sister Jane Dominic Laurel.

“Nothing in Sister’s talk opposed Church teaching,” Diocese of Charlotte Communications Director David Hains said in an interview with LifeSiteNews. Hains also said that “Sister would be welcome to speak in the diocese in the future.”

According to Hains, Bishop Peter Jugis is expected to make a public comment on the situation soon.

Sister Laurel withdrew from her position at Aquinas College and has taken a sabbatical in response to what sounds like abusive behavior from a mob. At the time, the Diocese did not support her. The bishop’s spokesman who came to a meeting which was attended by a large crowd tried to parse the situation by at least partially acceding to the crowd’s criticism of the sister.

I’ve read that as many as a thousand people attended that meeting. If this is true, and if the school in question is typical of most Catholic High Schools, there were almost certainly a large number of people at that meeting who were not affiliated with the school. This points to a basic problem, which is mob action that is incited and fed by people outside a community who have specific political and social agendas. In this case, the agenda is to silence the Catholic Church concerning its own moral teachings.

When the bishop’s spokesman walked into that room, he probably was unprepared for what he met there. It is entirely possible that he spoke out of fear and confusion or just plain being over-awed by the emotional violence facing him. It would be completely understandable if he stuttered a bit under these circumstances. However, throwing the sister under the bus should not have happened, no matter how much the crowd scared him.

The subsequent cashiering of Sister Jane also should not have happened. I am way past glad to hear that the Diocese has decided to take a more faithful stand in this matter. Hopefully, Bishop Jugis will say something that is clear-cut and settles the situation in favor of Sister Jane.

However, bishops all over the country should look at this and learn from it. These are perilous times for the Church. When a nun can be attacked by a mob in this manner for simply teaching Catholic morality, the message is clear that the Church is under attack.

The worst possible thing a bishop can do is accede to mobs that are attacking his own faithful people because they are being faithful.

I’m glad the Diocese has finally decided to issue a statement in support of Sister Jane. They should have done it the first day. Hopefully, Bishop Jugis’ statement will be clear-cut. Also hopefully, this will not signal a move toward parsing and fearfully choosing every word when teachers in that diocese teach the faith. We are called to proclaim the faith, not dip and dodge and try to make it fit in with the world.

In the future, I hope that bishops who are faced with this situation will not wait so long or let things get so out of whack before they do the right thing.

From LifeSiteNews:

The bishop of Charlotte is backing a Dominican nun who has been at the center of a fiery controversy since last month when she gave a speechpromoting Catholic teaching on sexuality to students at Charlotte Catholic High School.

After a public meeting with diocesan and school officials turned ugly, with parents and students alike shouting at administrators over what they perceived as “hateful” remarks criticizing homosexual behavior, divorce and extra-marital sex, a spokesman for the diocese told LifeSiteNews that the nun in question, Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel, did nothing wrong and will be welcome to speak on the issue again if she chooses.

Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel

“Nothing in Sister’s talk opposed Church teaching,” Diocese of Charlotte Communications Director David Hains told LifeSiteNews in an email. “Sister would be welcomed to speak in the diocese in the future.”

Hains said Bishop Peter Jugis is expected to make further public comment on the situation soon.

Sr. Laurel’s critics have complained about a section of her talk in which she discussed scientific findings related to the causes of homosexuality. According to the Charlotte Observer, she was accused of using “suspect anecdotes, antiquated data and broad generalizations to demonize gays and lesbians as well as divorced and single parents.”

But one Catholic scientist says he recently heard the sister give the exact same speech she delivered to the students, and in his opinion, there is nothing in it to which a practicing Catholic could possibly object.

“I was in attendance at the same presentation when given on Long Island, NY a few months ago,” Dr. Gerard Nadal told LifeSiteNews.  “In that meeting, Sister Jane gave medical and scientific data that came from reputable sources and were presented as examples of the consequences for human behavior that contravenes the moral magisterium of the Church. As a Ph.D. in medical science, and as a Catholic schooled extensively in my faith, I saw no contradictions, but rather a seamless presentation.”

Still, in light of all the controversy, Aquinas College announced in a press release Friday that Sr. Laurel has asked to take a sabbatical from her teaching and speaking duties for an indefinite amount of time.

Mozilla Faces Negative Reaction to CEO Ouster

Mccarthy

Are we facing a new kind of McCarthyism that is run by mobs?

 

Mozilla ran into a bit of chop because of the ouster of its high-profie CEO.

Brendan Eich, the inventer of JavaScript and all-around tech icon, was forced to resign his position as CEO of Mozilla and his membership on the Mozilla Foundation board because it was discovered that he had made a completely legal donation of $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign in 2008.

Mozilla tried to paint a self-righteous gloss over the whole thing by issuing a statement that sounded, oddly enough, like it was written by a computer. The statement contained vague references to “people who were hurt” and how Mozilla hadn’t been faithful to its “values.” Then there was an icing of claptrap about inclusiveness and diversity.

This latter is especially gag-inducing, considering that claims of “inclusiveness” and “diversity” are being use to justify big-brotherish group think and ruthless enforcement of lock-step conformity.

It turns out that at least 7,000 people were outraged enough to write about their non-support of Mozilla’s behavior on the Mozilla web site. Prominent gay marriage activist Andrew Sullivan also spoke out against what happened.

From the perspective of Mozilla itself, throwing Eich under the bus (It’s getting rather crowded under that bus, btw.) isn’t quite as high-profile as firing Steve Jobs from Apple was, but it’s just as stupid. Dump the guy who invented JavaScript and has ably led the company to challenge the big boys in the tech world because of completely legal, entirely private, low-profile political activity? Now that’s thinking.

I want to emphasize that this donation was so low-profile that it took six years for it to become an issue. They had to do research to find out about it.

Is that the new world of “inclusiveness” and “diversity?” Does diversity and inclusiveness mean you are free to think what you want as long as it agrees with the gay rights movement and you don’t do anything in your private life that someone can dig up and use against you to prove that you don’t agree with the gay rights movement?

Are people who support traditional marriage supposed to hide their beliefs and be afraid to exercise their right as free Americans to engage in political action on behalf of those beliefs for fear of losing their livelihood?

If this can happen to someone like Brendan Eich, is anyone in this country really free?

From The DailyCaller:

Mozilla, the company that operates the web browser Firefox, experienced its highest level of negative customer feedback the day after its embattled co-founder Brendan Eich resigned as CEO after gay rights activists objected to his appointment.

On Thursday, Mozilla forced Eich to resign just two weeks after hiring him. At issue was a $1,000 donation Eich gave in 2008 in support of California’s Proposition 8, a successful ballot initiative which banned gay marriage.

The decision to remove the man who invented the web scripting language JavaScipt did not sit well with many customers — many of them pelted Mozilla’s website with a surge of negative feedback.

On Friday, 94 percent of the sentiments registered on the site were “sad,” while six percent were “happy.” That translates to about 7,000 negative responses, compared to nearly 500 positive responses.

“Your abject and pathetic condemnation of an individual’s right to hold and support their own view on the world is simply unbelievable,” read one user’s feedback at the Mozilla site.

 

 

 

 

I Wish I had a Dime …

TorchMob

I wish I had a dime for every time someone has maliciously lied about me during my 18 years in office.

I could retire the national debt.

If I took every instance of people with an agenda in the culture wars who lied about things I’ve supposedly done or things I’ve supposedly said and wrote them each on a separate piece of paper and laid those papers end to end, I could make a trail of lies that would go from here to Kansas.

When I was pro choice, the pro life people lied about me.

When I was pro life, the pro abortion people like about me.

I’ve had people put stories on the internet about how they heard me say something or other at speeches I never gave in places I’ve never been. I’ve had people I’ve never met give long, detailed descriptions of things I never said in conversations I never had.

The people who seem to know the most about me, including my deepest motivations, desires, and beliefs, are almost always people who’ve never met me.

I’ve been the object of witch hunts. Not once. Not twice. But as a way of life.

Why?

Because I was pro choice.

Because I am pro life.

Because I believe the Bible.

Because I do what I think is right and let the blamed chips fall.

So.

Do I believe that what has happened to Sister Jane in North Carolina and what happened to the priest who refused communion to a woman in Washington state are part of a widespread and systemic pattern of hazing and witch hunting against traditional Christians who support traditional marriage?

You bet I do.

Do I think we need to stand behind our own people when they are attacked in this manner?

Absolutely.

I can tell  you from personal experience that the people who are the best at standing with their own are the pro abortion, pro gay marriage crowd.

Those of us who favor traditional marriage and are pro life, have a real tendency to either stand back and watch while our people get machine-gunned, or to join in with the attackers by (1) believing their lies, (2) passing on their lies, (3) dumping our people and running away from them when they get in trouble.

I said it last night, and I’m going to say it again. If the bishop and priest who cashiered Sister Jane had my back, I would stand against a wall.

Sister Jane, Cowardly Clergy and Martin Niemoller Moments

79623

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

Pastor Martin Niemoller

Sister Jane Dominic Laurel is the latest victim of the group-think, all-things-homosexual movement. Her oppressor isn’t an amoral corporation. It’s the Catholic Church.

Sister Jane gave an hour-long presentation to students at Charlotte Catholic High School in North Carolina titled “Masculinity and Femininity: Difference and Gift”

Sister Jane is a member of the Dominican Sisters of Cecilia, which is known for its fidelity to the Magisterium. She has a doctorate in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St Thomas Aquinas in Rome. Her presentation was based on a series of instructional videos created for Aquinas College in Nashville, where she is an associate professor.

The resulting uproar caused by this faithful Catholic nun faithfully teaching Catholic morality to a group of high school students in a Catholic High School immediately moved from disagreement to nasty confrontation.

In a meeting with “outraged” parents, the Rev Matthew Kauth, the school chaplain, apologized to parents and promised that the high school would develop “new policies that would better scrutinize visiting speakers in the future.”

Now, Sister Jane is “taking a sabbatical from teaching and canceling her other speaking engagements.”

After the fold-up of the Catholic Bishops in England, when they were scolded by a powerful British politician, I began to wonder exactly what’s with this all-male priesthood of ours. The craven behavior of the English bishops raised the question, at least in my mind, as to who is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church; the bishops or powerful politicians.

The situations in both Seattle and North Carolina make me wonder if the new teaching authority resides in angry mobs with tuition money.

Why are we bothering with an all-male priesthood, if the priests and bishops won’t act like men?

We. Need. Leadership.

We already have all the examples of collusion, running away, (what we call “crawfishing” here in Okieland) and back stabbing that anyone could want.

What those of us in the pews would like to see is active examples of manly defense of the Gospels and the Church by stand-up men of the cloth.

Scape-goating a nun during Lent, when we are remembering the sacrifice made by the Ultimate Scapegoat when He died on Calvary, is perhaps more apt than the boys in collars really want to be.

Are the men in our all-male priesthood men enough for these times? Are they men enough to pay the price of real leadership in ugly times when the Church is attacked, or are they going to sell the Gospels down the drain?

In politics, we have a saying, “I have your back.” That means that you are dealing with someone who will watch and not allow you to be blindsided; someone who will stick with you when things get dicey.

I have often criticized my fellow elected officials for certain behaviors, but I can tell you that I have not seen such a case of obvious cowardice as this from any elected official I ever served with.

The priests and the bishop put Sister Jane out on the ice and let the bears have her. How inspiring for the rest of us.

Why did they tuck tail and run away?

I don’t know.

Anyone can see that when the bears get through with her, they’re still going to turn and attack the boys in black. The only way to delay that is if they do sell out the Gospels, which, based on the comments by the school chaplain, is exactly what they plan to do.

Of course, the problem with that is that a lot of the rest of us aren’t going to trust them or follow them later, when they might need us; like when those bears come for them.

This was a Martin Niemoller moment. And they blew it.

When Pastor Niemöller was put in a concentration camp we wrote the year 1937; when the concentration camp was opened we wrote the year 1933, and the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers.
Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians – “should I be my brother’s keeper?”
Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. – I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it’s right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn’t it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? — Only then did the church as such take note. Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren’t guilty/responsible? The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers
I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out. From Wikipedia.

 

For more information, check out Deacon Greg Kandra, Katrina Fernandez, Jennifer Fitz, and Get Religion.

Resisting the New Blacklist

BkYlpjCCQAAxncT

There’s a new blacklist.

Its members are anyone who dares to oppose gay marriage, or gay behavior of any sort. The punishment, even for icons of the tech industry, is to have their careers deep-sixed; all in the name of “inclusiveness” and “tolerance.”

We have reached the point that these very fine words, inclusiveness and tolerance, have become the tools of a new totalitarianism that strikes at freedom of expression, freedom of political action and freedom of religion for every American.

This blacklist is the opposite of freedom. It is absolute intolerance. It is the apogee of exclusiveness.

It is bigoted, biased, hate-filled, discriminatory and totalitarian.

It is the ghost of Jim Crow, the shade of McCarthy, walking alive again among us today.

It has no place in a free society.

I’ve written numerous blog posts decrying it, including this one yesterday. Elizabeth Scalia wrote a post yesterday, calling on the gay community to speak out in support of freedom. Hopefully, at least a few people in that community will have the courage to break ranks and do so.

I deleted Mozilla Firefox from my computer.

I am going to get a lot more active in working for the First Amendment rights of Christians, but I need to pray and think before I decide exactly how. I will do this after session adjourns this year. It will almost certainly mean that I take a few days off from blogging.

I made a small donation to the National Organization for Marriage. It’s the first of a recurring donation.

I urge you to consider how you can take a stand against the blacklisting of people for their religious beliefs and completely legal, private and peaceful political activities. At the very least, take Firefox off your computers and donate a few dollars to the National Organization for Marriage. Even a $10 donation helps, especially if you give it every month.

Thank you copy

 

 

 

Mozilla CEO Steps Down Over Donating $1,000 for Prop 8

Brendan Eich mozilla ceo 700x423

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned from his position with Mozilla. He also resigned from his position as board member of the corporate foundation.

The crime which forced his resignation? He donated $1,000 to the 2008 campaign to pass Proposition 8.

Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot?

What if, say, a Vice President at a Catholic school was asked to resign because he had “married” his male partner in direct violation of the contract he had signed with the school; a school he presumably knew was Catholic when he went to work there?

These “haters,” meaning the Catholic school, would be lambasted, excoriated, picketed, petitioned and, of course sued.

But a private citizen who is the CEO of a publicly held corporation who exercises his free right to participate in a public election by making a legal donation of what, for him, is the minuscule sum of $1,000?

Nope.

Huh-uh.

Not having it.

As Mozilla put it in its pretentious little press release,

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views.

Mozilla supports equality for all.

Yeah Mozilla, you support inclusiveness. And the Titanic sails into New York Harbor tomorrow morning.

The Mozilla in question is Mozilla Firefox.

You know.

The web browser that can be replaced by a whole host of other browsers.

The web browser I’ve deleted from my computer in the name of free elections.

This isn’t about gay marriage, per se. The computer I’m typing on is made by Apple, and they came out against Prop 8 on their web site. I never considered switching to another computer because of it. I didn’t agree with them about Prop 8, but it was their right to disagree with me and I knew it.

The issue here is the First Amendment right of Americans to petition their government, including by means of making donations to causes and issues they believe in, without fear of organized reprisals from a bunch of — here comes the word folks — haters.

This whole thing is getting awfully close to pressuring, bullying and threatening people about how they vote in an election. In fact, I’m pretty sure that if it wasn’t for the secret ballot, that’s exactly what the “equality” for us, “inclusiveness” for us, but not for anyone else crowd would be doing right now.

I am making a donation to the National Organization for Marriage after I publish this post. It’s a matter of protest in one of the two ways that I can protest. I’ve already done the other by removing Firefox from my computer.

If you want to harass me about it, you can find me at this blog, or just look for my name at the Oklahoma House of Representatives. If you do decide to harass me, you won’t get much for your time. You see, I don’t care.

Who has Teaching Authority in the Church? The Bishops, or High-Profile Catholic Politicians?

Communion custom 83d172b92393fc611561b4eb5ab3f792f702c3d7 s6 c30

How do Catholic politicians come to the conclusion that it’s A-Ok for them to vote, speak and advocate for abortion?

How do Catholic politicians decide that it’s not a big deal for them to vote for discriminatory laws against whole swaths of humanity?

How do Catholic politicians develop the belief that they can vote and speak for the HHS Mandate and not be attacking their own Church?

How on earth do Catholic politicians come to believe that, even though John Paul II expressly wrote a whole letter telling them flat out that politicians who vote for gay marriage are committing grave sins, that it’s still ok for them to vote for gay marriage and that they can march right up to the front of the church and take communion afterwards?

Where do these elected officials get the gas to denounce a bishop for having the temerity to teach the teachings of the Church? What is the source of the arrogance that allows a member of the Catholic laity to proclaim that a bishop’s teaching, which is based on papal documents and the constant teaching of the Church, is “a tragedy?”

Where do politicians who essentially tell bishops of the Church to “mind your place” when they teach Church teaching acquire their overbearing attitudes towards their religious leaders? Where did the princes and princesses of Western democracies get the nerve to lecture the Church on what constitutes a state of grace and who would be taking communion unworthily? 

It has grown past scandal and become a broad cultural reality that dissenting high profile Catholics deliberately and publicly thumb their noses at Church teaching by deciding, with a clear knowledge of what they are doing, to cast votes, make speeches, accept awards and publicly advocate for abortion and gay marriage. These actions have been specifically defined as mortal sins by the popes. 

Who brought this beast of arrogant Catholic politicians who oppose and attack their own Church to life? Who feeds it? 

While there are multiple factors and causes involved in the exploits of such a large group of people, one thing that stands out in my mind is the actions of the Bishops themselves. I understand that telling a group of people that they may not take communion unless they repent, as in the situation of politicians who cast a certain vote, is a difficult call, primarily for reasons of justice. 

Votes can be misleading simply because there are procedural methods of killing a piece of legislation or of working to get at it, which can look one way to the outsider and are really another thing altogether to someone who understands the process. Lawmaking in a democracy is a wild West process where anything that works, goes. 

Added to this is the fact that the bishops themselves seem to have little more than a high school political science understanding of how legislating works. A few years ago, I watched an EWTN broadcast of a meeting of the USCCB as they tried to iron out what would have been simple parliamentary procedures for an elected official. It was funny stuff. But it also taught me that these guys don’t understand what politicians do for a living.

That is why these cases have to be taken individually and why a repeated practice of voting a certain way, added to public statements is the best method for a bishop to determine if he is dealing with an elected official who just fell off the horse, or who even may be doing the right thing with a confusing procedural move, or, if the politician in question is a hardened dissenter who is committing mortal sins without compunction.

Even though examples of obvious, high-profile cases of the latter are easily found in American politics, both at the federal and the state level, I do not want to see star chamber Catholics with their desire to use communion as a club to beat people they don’t like to rule the day. I appreciate the caution of good bishops in a matter as serious as telling someone to refrain from taking communion. 

But if they want to lead their people, the bishops are going to have to get together and do something. They should have done something a long time back. It needs to be consistent, cohesive and understandable. It also needs to occur in non-election years so that there is no taint of electoral politics to it. 

This penchant for openly committing grave sins and then denouncing anyone who says that it is, in fact, a sin, has become a mass revolt in the public at large, and it is being led by large numbers of Catholic politicians.

I know that it is difficult for a bishop to talk to each one of these offending politicians personally and advise them of the gravity of their situation. I also understand that a certain number of the politicians in question will make the whole thing public and milk it for all it’s worth. There will inevitably a public outcry and excoriation of the bishops for their “intolerance” when they advise someone to refrain from taking communion until they repent and go to confession.  

But the fact is that the reason there are so many Catholic politicians doing this is that the bishops have failed Catholic elected officials in this matter for a long time.

Elected officials are not just things with power. They are human beings. They are immortal souls. If they are Catholic, their religious leaders are their pastor and their bishop. If both these men do not take note of public dissent against Church teaching in grave matters when it is manifesting and step in to advise the person of the danger to their soul in what they are doing, then that pastor or bishop is failing this person. 

It really is as simple as that. Bishops who allow high profile Catholics to run amuk and commit equally high-profile mortal sins without at least making sure that their pastors talk to them about it are failing these people. What’s more, they are failing them in an area which strikes to the core of what a bishop is, which is their role as the shepherd of souls.

If the pastor or bishop allows this behavior to continue unchallenged until it becomes a public scandal — as it will — then they have not only failed this one individual, they have failed all those who observe this politician’s defiance and decide that it must be ok for them to defy the Church in matters of mortal sin, as well. 

In this way, the pastor and bishops are training both elected officials and the rest of the laity to defy the Church and ignore its teachings. The bishops are indirectly teaching that mortal sin is not mortal sin and the Eucharist is simply a social rite which may be taken by the force of public approbation and criticism. 

We’ve just been given a startling example of this by the Catholic Bishops Conference of England.

The Catholic Bishops Conference of England basically did exactly what I’m talking about in a recent letter in which they made it clear that, insofar as the Church is concerned, the Catholic MPs who voted for gay marriage did not commit a serious sin with that vote. 

They didn’t say this explicitly, of course. What they said was that there were no plans to deny communion to those MPs who had voted for gay marriage. So far as the public is concerned, this is the bishops’ imprimatur on the power of Catholic politicians to commit any sin they chose with their offices and not have to count it as sin. 

Again, the bishops didn’t explicitly say that, but there is enough past experience here, and they all have to be intelligent well-educated men who are fully aware of the consequences to this sort of thing that I’m certain they know how people will see their actions. They also have to know that the effect of their little letter will be more dissent in the future.

Where do you think dissenting politicians come from? They are empowered and enabled by bishops like these. 

From LifeSiteNews:

LONDON, April 2, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales assured Catholic Members of Parliament this week that there are “no plans” to refuse them Holy Communion after they voted to support the “gay marriage” legislation that came into effect yesterday.

Greg Pope, head of parliamentary relations at the conference and a former Labour Party MP, wrote to MPs assuring them that comments by the bishop of Portsmouth, Philip Egan, on the Church’s Code of Canon Law forbidding Communion to “manifest grave sinners,” would not be applied to them.

Portsmouth Bishop Philip Egan

Today the media office of the bishops’ conference confirmed with LifeSiteNews that the letter was addressed to the Catholic MPs with the bishops’ full authorization. “Many thanks for your mail. Mr. Greg Pope was speaking as a spokesperson for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales,” a spokesman with the bishops’ Catholic Communications Network said.  Greg Pope was chosen as the liaison between the English Catholic bishops and Parliament despite his consistent voting record in opposition to traditional moral teachings. Pope has supported abortion, adoption by homosexual partners, and artificial contraception.

“The statement was approved by the General Secretary of the Bishops’ Conference after appropriate consultation. ‘There are no plans by any Bishops in England and Wales to deny communion to Catholic MPs who voted in favour of same sex marriage legislation last year,’” the spokesman said.

Pope’s letter came in response to a LifeSiteNews interview with Bishop Philip Egan in which he said that denying Communion to someone engaged publicly in grave sin is an “act of mercy” and a “medicinal” remedy for Catholics.

He said, “When people are not in communion with the Catholic Church … in terms of the teachings of the Church on marriage and family life – they are voting in favour of same-sex marriage – then they shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion.”

“When people are not in communion with the Catholic Church on such a central thing as the value of life of the unborn child and also in terms of the teachings of the church on marriage and family life – they are voting in favor of same-sex marriage – then they shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion,” he said.

Bishop Egan refused to be intimidated by the possibility of opposition, saying “Nobody is forced to be Catholic.”

Here is how the discussion began, also from LifeSiteNews:

PORTSMOUTH, UK, April 1, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An openly gay Catholic MP who voted for same-sex “marriage” in Britain has said he “feels unable,” in the words of The Telegraph, to receive Communion after his local bishop said that those who vote for legislation that is contrary to Church teaching on marriage and family make themselves unworthy to receive Holy Communion.

Conservative MP Conors Burns called Portsmouth Bishop Philip Egan’s remarks a “tragedy.”

Portsmouth Bishop Philip Egan

“I have been a practising Catholic and communicant within the diocese of Portsmouth since I arrived at Southampton university in 1991 before anyone in Portsmouth Diocese had ever heard of Philip Egan,” Burns told The Telegraph.

He voted for the same-sex “marriage” legislation that came into effect last month, even though he had voiced prior reservations to redefining marriage.

“If the arrival of this bishop means that I can no longer be a practising Catholic within the diocese, that is a tragedy,” hetold The Tablet last week.

Burns co-chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on Britain’s relations with the Holy See and is considered to be one of the country’s most senior Roman Catholic MPs.

Despite his high ranking, Burns appears to have missed his bishop’s main message.

Egan made it clear in a video interview last month with LifeSiteNews that denying Holy Communion — which Catholics believe to be the body of Jesus Christ —to Catholic politicians not believing and practicing the faith is not a punitive measure, but “always an act of mercy.”

It is done to “encourage someone to come back to seek communion with the Lord with the truth and say I’m sorry I got lost,” he said. It is done “with the hope and prayer that that person can be wooed back into full communion with the Church.”

Canon 915 of the Church’s Code of Canon Law states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

However, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has responded to Egan’s remarks by assuring Catholic politicians that Canon 915 will not be enforced. The bishops’ head of parliamentary relations, Greg Pope, has written to Catholic MPs that Communion will not be denied to those who supported gay “marriage,” reported The Telegraph.

American Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the Vatican’s highest court, known as the Apostolic Signatura, has strongly advocated the use of canon 915 in the case of Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion and same-sex “marriage.”

In a recent interview published exclusively in English by LifeSiteNews, Burke said denying these politicians Communion is a “prime act of pastoral charity,” since it helps the person in question to “avoid sacrilege and safeguard[s] the other faithful from scandal.”

Meet the President They Said …

BjxH9cBCUAAaJbZ

Source: Photobucket

 

This was Pope Francis’ tweet a couple of days after meeting President Obama. I wonder if there’s any connection?

We live in a society that leaves no room for God; day by day this numbs our hearts.

 

1978870 10201677952659888 1857741892 n

Source: Photobucket

It turns out, that the Pope backed the US Bishops in his discussions with our president. Hopefully, something got through.

YouTube Preview Image

Is Religious Freedom Threatened? Duhhh … Is This a Trick Question?

First Amendment on scroll1

When the roll is called down yonder, we’ll all line up according to our politics.

At least that appears to be the situation regarding the answers to the question of whether or not religious freedom is threatened.

There’s a lot of gas expended on this question, and most of it falls so predictably into political camps that the answers look more like responses to a roll call than genuine thinking.

Liberal Democrats, say no, of course not; only ignorant fools think so. Liberal Protestants, who are also almost entirely liberal Democrats, say no; only bigots who want to cling to their bigotry say yes. Conservative Republicans say yes; only liberal flat-liners who’ve sold this country out doubt it. Conservative Protestants, who are becoming more and more a solidified conservative Republican front, say yes; only weak Christians think otherwise.

Catholics? As the religious group that is Liberal Democrats, Conservative Republicans and every single thing in between, all sitting around the same table, we answer, yes/no/what did you say? and whatever.

So what do I, a decidedly liberal Democrat who is also a decidedly devout Catholic, say?

Before I answer that, I’m going to narrow that question to whether or not religious freedom is threatened in United States of America. I think the answer for much of the rest of the world is so obviously yes that those who doubt it fall into the same intellectual space as holocaust deniers.

Even when I narrow the question to the United States, I am tempted to reply … Duhhhh … Is this a trick question?

Rather than go for the golden one-word/one-off, you’ve-got-to-be-kidding answer, let’s review the obvious, public and undeniable facts.

What did the Supreme Court do this week?

It heard three cases brought before it by people who feel so strongly that their religious freedom is being violated that they are willing to risk their businesses and life’s work to stand against it. These are not rabble rousers. They are stable, quiet, pillars-of-the-community types, who normally eschew both litigation and the spotlight. They are the people who are the foundations of this country.

These people didn’t want to be part of a Supreme Court case. They were backed into this position by an overweening government that is so bent on enforcing an agency regulation that infringes on religious liberty that it is willing to precipitate a Constitutional crisis to do it.

What is happening in court rooms all over this country? We have mom and pop businesspeople — again quiet, apolitical, non-litigious, pillars of the community types — who are being forced to risk their livelihoods rather than violate their religious beliefs. This is happening because of overweening government force.

Not one of these people wanted to do this. Not one of them is the type who loves standing in front of microphones and sounding off. Every single one of them is putting their livelihoods on the line to stand for what they believe against a government that has taken hubris as its operating standard.

According to court testimony by administration attorneys, the fiction that is driving these government attacks on religious liberty is a deliberate narrowing of the First Amendment. Instead of religious freedom that applies to every man, woman and child in this great nation, the Obama Administration is seeking to shoe-horn it into the box of a narrow “freedom of worship.” In other words, keep your faith behind the closed doors of church sanctuaries, or suffer government-mandated penalties.

The standard argument against all this is either a stubborn sophistry which simply denies the obvious, or an insulting version of the hayseed argument. The hayseed argument goes like this: We sophisticates in the know understand that these hayseeds out in the hustings are deluded fools for thinking that their rights are being violated. We morally superior denizens of right-thinking also know that the hayseeds in the hustings are so blighted morally that their outdated ideas of religious fealty need to be shut down for a greater good that is defined by — you guessed it — us.

The hayseed argument, stupid and arrogant as it is, is actually the driving argument behind all these initiatives against individual freedom. It is the insider’s view of what they think is outsider foolishness for opposing the obviously higher morality and wisdom of their betters.

A slightly different version of the hayseed argument is the moral ingrate argument. It goes something like this: Moral imperatives which have been discovered in the last five years require that the moral ingrates of this country abandon their claims to religious freedom in order to serve the higher morality that we sophisticates have fashioned for ourselves and which we are going to use government force to enforce on everyone else.

The hayseed and moral ingrate arguments often overlap in actual practice. Sometimes they merge. The subtle difference between them is that one appeals to the pretension of moral superiority on the part of those who purvey it, and the other feeds their pretensions of intellectual superiority. Both arguments are at base a pose and a sham that have far more to do with bell-jar/echo-chamber thinking than anything approaching reality.

There is one other argument that surfaces in these discussions. That is the every-kid-in-China argument. This one is familiar to mothers of previous generations who were faced with recalcitrant children who wouldn’t eat their veggies. You know: The every kid in China would love to have that spinach on your plate, so you’d better eat it argument.

Applied to the question of attacks on religious freedom in America today, it goes something like this. Christians in other parts of the world are suffering real persecution. They are being burnt, beheaded, raped, imprisoned and tortured. So how dare you complain about government oppression of your little rights?

The irony is that this particular argument is usually advanced by someone who, in other contexts, does everything they can to deny and minimize the horror of Christian persecution.

I’m going to circle back here and take another look at the original question: Is religious freedom threatened in America today?

The answer is, of course. That’s obvious. The parsing — and that’s all it is — runs along lines of party affiliation and prejudice.

 

Note: This post is my reply to the discussion about Patheos’ Public Square Question: Is Religious Freedom Threatened? 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X