Are Novus Ordo Bishops becoming Catholic?

[Mornac]

• Tweet

USCCB Condemns New Ways Ministry; Gay Ministry Responds

2010-02-06
James Martin, S.J.

Francis Cardinal George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, has denounced New Ways Ministry, a national organization based in Mt. Rainier, Maryland, which reaches out to gay and lesbian Catholics, runs conferences on issues concerning gay and lesbian Catholics, and sponsors regular retreats for that same population.  (It also offers a variety of resources on its websites, such as a list of Catholic parishes where gays and lesbians would feel welcome.)  Valued among the gay and lesbian Catholics, the organization and its founders (Sister Jeanine Gramick, SL, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS) have often found themselves at odds with the Catholic hierarchy.  Sister Gramick and Father Nugent have been for some years officially barred "from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons," as the USCCB statement affirms.  New Ways Ministry, which includes on its board and advisory board both priests and religious, said in a statement today that it was not contacted by the USCCB to explain its positions before the bishops' statement was released.  Here is part of Cardinal George's statement, dated yesterday.

New Ways Ministry has recently criticized efforts by the Church to defend the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and has urged Catholics to support electoral initiatives to establish same-sex "marriage." No one should be misled by the claim that New Ways Ministry provides an authentic interpretation of Catholic teaching and an authentic Catholic pastoral practice. Their claim to be Catholic only confuses the faithful regarding the authentic teaching and ministry of the Church with respect to persons with a homosexual inclination. Accordingly, I wish to make it clear that, like other groups that claim to be Catholic but deny central aspects of Church teaching, New Ways Ministry has no approval or recognition from the Catholic Church and that they cannot speak on behalf of the Catholic faithful in the United States.  The full text of Cardinal George's statement is here.

Today Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways, responded, in part:

We are astonished that Cardinal George released such a statement, since New Ways Ministry has never been contacted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to discuss the nature of our work. We were not even extended the basic courtesy of being informed of the statement as it was being released to the press. Instead, we learned about it only by reading a press account.

When dealing with such a sensitive topic as homosexuality, it is not surprising that questions will arise from individual Church leaders. Yet, for more than three decades, New Ways Ministry has had its programs reviewed by scores of Catholic bishops, theologians, and pastoral leaders, and we have always been found to be firmly in line with authentic Catholic teaching. If the USSCB had concerns about our ministry, why didn’t they contact us before a judgment was made? Why was New Ways Ministry not given an opportunity to explain our positions?

http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=48484462-3048-741E-4923023233951164

[Mornac]

Published: April 7, 2010

“Perfect choice”
What to expect from Archbishop Gomez when he takes over in Los Angeles

During his tenure as Archbishop of San Antonio since 2005, soon-to-be Archbishop of Los Angeles José Gomez has distinguished himself as a theologically solid Catholic leader unafraid to step into controversy whenever the need arises.

Most recently, Archbishop Gomez issued a statement on March 18 expressing his opposition to the then-pending Senate version of healthcare reform. “As a community of faith the Catholic Church supports true health care reform ensuring that health care is accessible and affordable for all,” wrote the archbishop. “However, we have consistently communicated to our elected officials our support for a morally responsible bill, consistent with our values, that would protect human life at all stages, include full conscience protection and assure that health care is available for everyone, including our immigrant brothers and sisters.”

On March 31, 2009, Archbishop Gomez wrote a letter to Fort Wayne-South Bend Bishop John D’Arcy regarding the Indiana bishop’s refusal to attend last year’s Notre Dame commencement exercises after President Obama was invited to speak during the graduation ceremonies. “President Obama has made it clear that his policies on abortion and the general protection of innocent life are in dramatic opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church,” said Archbishop Gomez in his letter, which was published on the archdiocesan website. He told Bishop D’Arcy he was “in total support of your action and its motives.”

On May 19, 2009, Archbishop Gomez delivered his own address to graduates of the University of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio. "Pilate was not uneducated,” the archbishop told the graduates. “But he was educated in such a way that he could not recognize the truth -- even when the truth was standing right in front of him. Our society today is a lot like Pontius Pilate -- it doesn’t recognize the truth… Our culture believes instead that there are many truths -- as many different truths as there are individuals, and that it’s wrong to try to decide or judge among these… My friends, part of what God is calling you to do with your higher education is to restore the sense of truth to our society -- especially the truth about the sanctity and dignity of human life. You have to help our society see that truths and moral absolutes do exist. That the truth is always true, no matter whether any one believes it or not. That we need to conform our lives -- and our laws -- to these truths."

In 2008, when then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was invited to speak at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, Archbishop Gomez made national headlines by expressing his disapproval. “I was surprised to learn of Senator Hillary Clinton’s appearance at St. Mary’s University,” said the archbishop in a statement published on the archdiocesan website. “I was neither advised nor consulted by the university before the decision was made to have Senator Clinton speak at the university. Catholic institutions are obliged to teach and promote Catholic values in all instances. This is especially important when people look to our Catholic universities and colleges to provide leadership and clarity to the often complicated and conflicting political discourse. It is clear that the records of Senator Clinton and some of the other candidates for president on important life issues are not consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church.”

In the lead-up to the November 2008 election, Archbishop Gomez wrote a letter to the San Antonio Express-News expressing his dismay that the newspaper did not include life issues in its coverage of candidates. “People need to know the positions of the candidates on the key issues that protect the right to life such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and capital punishment,” wrote Gomez in the letter, published Oct. 29, 2008 by the newspaper. “Voters also would have been better served if they had been provided information about the candidates' positions on the definition of marriage, the basic cell of society as a union between a man and a woman. The ‘culture of life’ issues, and I include in that the preservation of the very foundational definition of the human family, often are dismissed as purely religious issues. This characterization is inaccurate. These issues deal with the most fundamental concerns of human civilization. The strong moral teaching at the foundation of these issues does not disqualify them from deserving serious public discussion, nor deny the impact they have on the common good.”

Documents of great import to Catholics are also posted on the archdiocesan website in a section entitled “The Archbishop’s Page.” Under the subheading “Official Statements,” Archbishop Gomez includes the full text of Pope Benedict’s July 2009 motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, which greatly expanded the use of the extraordinary rite of the Mass in Latin, as well as a November 29, 2005 Instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education regarding the impermissibility of ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood.

The San Antonio archdiocesan website also includes a feature allowing a search for Masses by language – including Latin. Currently there are three parishes in the archdiocese that offer the extraordinary rite in Latin every Sunday – some of them more often.

The blogsite Whispers in the Loggia had this to say of Archbishop Gomez in an entry yesterday: “Humble and reserved, theologically conservative and spiritually fervent, Benedict's choice is both a Roman embrace of and evolution from the legacy of the epochal Mahony -- the longest-reigning US cardinal named after Vatican II, whose quarter-century at his hometown church's helm has been marked by a uniquely progressive streak that's made him, depending on who you're talking to, a folk icon or lightning rod amid the ever-polarized American Catholic discourse.”

Continued the Whispers entry, “Among other contrasts, while Gomez's record echoes Mahony's commitment to an energized, prominent lay role in the church, the incoming archbishop's focus has largely centered more on the pews' witness in the public square as opposed to the cardinal's strong emphasis on a heavy lay role in ecclesial ministry. Elsewhere, it bears noting that the 850,000-member San Antonio church's current contingent of 28 seminarians is double what Gomez found on his 2005 arrival; the appointee's tenure in Texas saw a sizable boom at his archdiocese's Assumption Seminary -- home to a celebrated bi-lingual formation program -- which opened a new wing at mid-decade as its overall student population boomed from 34 in 2000 to almost 100 in 2007, a figure that's seemingly kept pace since.”

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, who ordained Gomez as an auxiliary bishop in Denver in 2001 and under whom Gomez served until being named to lead the Archdiocese of San Antonio, called the pope’s decision to name Gomez as Archbishop of Los Angeles “the perfect choice.” While in Denver, Gomez served as rector of the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, Moderator of the Curia, and Vicar General

“Archbishop Gomez will serve the Catholic people of Los Angeles with character, courage and good will,” said Archbishop Chaput. “He has one of the best minds in the Church in the United States and a great capacity for work, but he combines those qualities with a personal warmth and respect for other people that make him a very effective leader.”


http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=8e64a6d7-237d-4259-a54b-c26bf5c3e05f

[Mornac]

Catholic Archbishop Tries to Stop Pro-Gay Military Policy

By Cliff Kincaid  |  June 7, 2010


Reacting to passage of pro-gay military legislation in the Congress, the Catholic Archbishop for the Military Services says repeal of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy would sanction “immoral activity” and “jeopardize morale, good morals, unit cohesion and every other factor that weakens the [military] mission.”

In a late-breaking development that could imperil the ultimate passage of legislation to open the military to open and active homosexuals, Archbishop Timothy Broglio, the chief shepherd of Catholics in the United States Armed Forces, has issued a powerful statement saying that the Bible demands disapproval of homosexuality and that “Under no circumstances can they [homosexual acts] be approved.”

Appointed as Archbishop of the Military Services on November 19, 2007, by Pope Benedict XVI, Broglio is in charge of certifying Roman Catholic chaplains to the United States government.

Refusing to beat around the bush in regard to the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, Broglio says in his statement that, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law.”

Broglio’s June 1 statement has been ignored by the pro-homosexual media, which want to create the public perception of overwhelming public support for the presence of homosexuals in the military. But his statement, issued just a few days ago, is starting to get the attention of Catholic news organizations and bloggers.

The authoritative statement not only has the potential to stop repeal of the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” (DADT) in its tracks, but it puts Catholic politicians such as Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania on notice that they are promoting an immoral policy that jeopardizes their standing in the Catholic Church.

Murphy, the main sponsor in the House of the repeal legislation, has claimed that, as an Iraq war veteran, he knew gays who have served the military and that they should be able to do so openly.

But Broglio, issuing his statement in response to chaplains and commanding officers expressing “concerns about the effects of a change,” makes it clear that a vote for repeal violates church teaching and would put Catholic chaplains and troops in a situation in which their own rights to religious freedom would be violated.

The implication is that Catholic chaplains who remain true to the Bible and church teaching could be forced out of the services or silenced if DADT is repealed.

In this regard, Broglio is raising an issue that was highlighted in a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates from more than 40 retired military chaplains. Their letter asserts that DADT repeal would not only threaten the religious liberty of chaplains but service members as well.

We saw how the pro-gay policy would be exercised in practice when Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, an ordained minister and a Marine Corps veteran, was disinvited to a military prayer breakfast because of his opposition to homosexuals in the military.

Perkins asked, “If I was blacklisted merely for supporting existing law, what will happen to those who oppose the new, politically correct law?”

Despite what may be required under repeal of DADT, in terms of discrimination against Christians and the banishment of Biblical notions of morality, Broglio warns political authorities that “unions between individuals of the same gender resembling marriage will not be accepted or blessed by Catholic chaplains” and that “no restrictions or limitations on the teaching of Catholic morality can be accepted.”

He adds, “First Amendment rights regarding the free exercise of religion must be respected.”

The statement sets up a potential confrontation, if DADT repeal is ultimately adopted, with the 285 Roman Catholic priests serving the active-duty military service.

Broglio is extremely concerned about the impact on the troops themselves and raises concern in his statement about disruptions to military order and readiness if open and active homosexuals are forced into the ranks. He accuses members of Congress voting for repeal of putting the demands of a special interest group, the gay lobby, above the well-being and security of our soldiers.

“The effect of a repeal of the current legislation has the potential of being enormous and overwhelming,” he says, adding that “Sacrificing the moral beliefs of individuals or their living conditions to respond to merely political considerations is neither just nor prudent especially for the armed forces at a time of war.”

Those “political considerations” were an obvious factor when the House voted 234-to-194 on May 27 to repeal DADT. Only five Republicans, including libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, voted for gays in the military. In a flip-flop, Paul had previously been in favor of the ban on open and active homosexuals. He said calls from gay constituents had changed his mind.

In addition to sanctioning discrimination against Christian chaplains and soldiers, repeal of DADT would give special rights to homosexual, bisexual, and even “transgendered” military personnel. Indeed, there is a “Transgender American Veterans Association” in existence that is devoted to “educating the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense on issues regarding fair and equal treatment of transgender and transsexual individuals.”

Under repeal of DADT, transgendered soldiers could demand access to therapy, hormone treatment and sexual reassignment surgery.

Although some news organizations have suggested that repeal of DADT is a done deal, the repeal legislation has passed the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee but must still be acted upon by the full Senate. A vote there faces a possible filibuster, while the House bill with the repeal amendment still faces various difficulties in eventually being enacted into law.

Broglio’s powerful statement, if it is given the publicity it deserves, has the potential to turn the debate in favor of supporters of the current policy.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/catholic-archbishop-tries-to-stop-pro-gay-military-policy/

[JC]

Your church needs to concentrate less on gays and more on pedophiles. There is a difference between the two and the problems in your church have to do with priests buggering children and the covering up, denial and lack of action.

 Why don't don't you take your catholic church bullshit somewhere else? AFAIC, with your constant posting of daily catholic bullshit you are asking for a daily slapdown. If it weren't so sad it'd be hilarious- the fact that you can't even sell the bullshit that is your catholic pedophile enabling religion to your own wife. Talk about not being on the same page...

 Why don't you sell this shit to your wife and get her to sign on and climb aboard your church of pedophiles and enablers FIRST before you post your garbage around here. YOUR OWN LIFE PARTNER does not believe your bullshit.

And does your wife know you are so gay obsessed? It's gotta be hell to be you. You can't even get her on the same page with you....

[johnhp]

Let's not forget what Mornac means by Catholic:




This is also a guy who wrote the following:

CONGREGATIO PRO CLERICIS

The Vatican, 8 September 2001

Most Reverend Excellency

I write to you as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy entrusted with aiding the Holy Father is his responsibility for the priests of the world.

I congratulate you on not denouncing a priest to the civil authorities. You have acted wisely, and I am delighted to have a fellow member of the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of other bishops, would prefer to go to prison rather than denounce his priest-son

For the relationship between priests and their bishop is not professional but a sacramental relationship which forges very special bonds of spiritual paternity. The matter was amply taken up again by the last Council, by the 1971 Synod of Bishops and that of 1991. The bishop has other means of acting, as the Conference of French Bishops recently restated; but a bishop cannot be required to make the denunciation himself. In all civilised legal systems it is acknowledged that close relations have the possibility of not testifying against a direct relative.

In this regard we remind you of the words of Saint Paul "So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear" (Philippians 1, v 13-14)

This Congregation, in order to encourage brothers in the episcopate in this delicate matter, will forward a copy of this letter to all the conferences of bishops.

Assuring you of my fraternal closeness in the Lord, I send my greetings to you, your auxiliary and your whole diocese

(Castrillón's signature)

To His Most Reverend Excellency
SE Mgr Pierre Pican
Bishop of Bayeux-Lisieux

[Mornac]

Cardinal George: Sr. Keehan chose Obama over Catholic bishops

St. Petersburg, Fla., Jun 16, 2010 / 02:04 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Sister Carol Keehan, CEO and President of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) openly acted in favor of President Obama’s health care reform and in opposition to persistent requests from the bishops, said Cardinal Francis George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), during their spring meeting in St. Petersburg, Florida.

During the bishops' executive session held Tuesday morning to address the fallout of CHA’s support for the health care legislation despite the bishop's opposition, Cardinal George recounted the events that took place prior to President Obama's signing of the health care reform. The prelate then concluded his remarks by criticizing CHA and Sr. Keehan, saying they have created the dangerous precedent of a parallel magisterium to the bishops.

In the events leading up to the final health care vote, the USCCB president presented arguments on how the bishops' conference “remained consistent to the two guiding principles throughout the whole process: number one, everyone should have access to health care; number two, no one should be killed.”

The consistent moral position of the bishops, Cardinal George explained, centered around protecting life, conscience protections and the inclusion of immigrants.

“The Conference never backed down on these issues,” he forcefully stated.

According to the Archbishop of Chicago, when the Stupak Amendment was defeated in the Senate in December 2009, “everything went south.”

That is when “the Catholic Health Association and other so-called Catholic groups provided cover for those on the fence to support Obama and the administration.”

Cardinal George clearly remarked that “Sr. Carol and her colleagues are to blame” for the passage of the health care bill. He continued by revealing that the bishops repeatedly tried to reach out to Sr.  Keehan both before and after the vote. “I personally met with her in March to no avail,” the cardinal reported.

In April, three bishops of the USCCB ad hoc Health Care Concerns Committee, Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Kevin Vann of Fort Worth and Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, also met with Sr. Keehan to try to make her understand the bishop's concerns and thus bring CHA back in line with Church teachings, however the meeting concluded with “the same frustrating results.”

The president of the USCCB reiterated the bishop's fundamental opposition to the health care reform. “The bill which was passed is fundamentally flawed. The Executive Order is meaningless. Sr. Carol is mistaken in thinking that this is pro-life legislation,” Cardinal George emphatically said.

The cardinal also expressed disappointment with CHA “and other co-called Catholic groups” because, “in the end, they have weakened the moral voice of the bishops in the U.S.”

In that regard, Cardinal George highlighted that the USCCB and CHA’s positions on Obama’s health care are not just “two equally valid conclusions inspired in the same Catholic teaching,” and reiterated that what the bishops said on May 21 in their statement “Setting the record Straight” is and will remain the official position of  the USCCB on the contentious issue.

The document, presented  by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities; Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice, Peace and Human Development, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Immigration, says: "As Bishops, we disagree that the divergence between the Catholic Conference and Catholic organizations, including the Catholic Health Association, represents merely a difference of analysis or strategy (Catholic Health World, April 15, 2010, “Now That Reform Has Passed”).  Rather, for whatever good will was intended, it represented a fundamental disagreement, not just with our staff as some maintain, but with the Bishops themselves.

“As such it has resulted in confusion and a wound to Catholic unity."

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-george-sr.-keehan-chose-obama-over-catholic-bishops/

[Mornac]

The Blame Game	Small | Large

[johnhp]

Let's not forget what Mornac means by Catholic:




This is also a guy who wrote the following:

CONGREGATIO PRO CLERICIS

The Vatican, 8 September 2001

Most Reverend Excellency

I write to you as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy entrusted with aiding the Holy Father is his responsibility for the priests of the world.

I congratulate you on not denouncing a priest to the civil authorities. You have acted wisely, and I am delighted to have a fellow member of the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of other bishops, would prefer to go to prison rather than denounce his priest-son

For the relationship between priests and their bishop is not professional but a sacramental relationship which forges very special bonds of spiritual paternity. The matter was amply taken up again by the last Council, by the 1971 Synod of Bishops and that of 1991. The bishop has other means of acting, as the Conference of French Bishops recently restated; but a bishop cannot be required to make the denunciation himself. In all civilised legal systems it is acknowledged that close relations have the possibility of not testifying against a direct relative.

In this regard we remind you of the words of Saint Paul "So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear" (Philippians 1, v 13-14)

This Congregation, in order to encourage brothers in the episcopate in this delicate matter, will forward a copy of this letter to all the conferences of bishops.

Assuring you of my fraternal closeness in the Lord, I send my greetings to you, your auxiliary and your whole diocese

(Castrillón's signature)

To His Most Reverend Excellency
SE Mgr Pierre Pican
Bishop of Bayeux-Lisieux

[IM2]

I agree with JC.

[JC]

Some questions:

How many catholics are there here at newsrake?

How many people-catholic or not-really give a shit about the daily catholic bullshit that Mornac bildges forth?

Why should we care or be subjected to it?

I don't see anyone here begging him for these daily offerings. If anything I see more objections to it, yet it continues. At some point this nuisance should go where it is more welcome. i'm curious why Mornac doesn't post his bullshit videos at headbutters daily instead of here?

 Nobody except Mornac denies that the Catholic church has been a breeding ground and safe haven for pedophilia and sexual abuse. Nobody is interested in Mornac's daily catholic bulletins here at newsrake.

Correct me if I am wrong, please. Is anyone here really interested in Mornac's Catholic bullshit?  Anyone,please?

 Not an issue of free speech-I'm asking if anyone here really wants his bullshit here.

[IM2]

Again, I agree with JC. NO one wants to know what catholics think on things. What I want to see is catholics cleaning up their church. Posting up vortex propaganda is not doing that. I am not going to convert to catholicism no more than I would expect Mornac to convert to the baptist faith if I were to inundate this site full of baptist utubes.

I thin Mornacs crap should be put in the twilight zone. There he can pontificate all he wants.

Catholicism is not the truth, nor is it the only way to truth.

[JC]

What Mornac does is not just religious propaganda, it's downright spamming the board. Religious porn spam...

[Mornac]

August 12, 2010

“Is it really all that difficult to fathom?”
Another bishop speaks out on Prop. 8 ruling, says decision puts culture’s sanity at risk

Phoenix, Ariz., Aug 10, 2010 (CNA/EWTN News) -- Weighing in on what he called the “misguided” ruling by a federal judge who struck down California's Proposition 8 last week, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix, Arizona, declared on Tuesday evening that what “is at stake here is cultural sanity and viability.”

On Aug. 4, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, an initiative amending California’s constitution to prohibit same-sex “marriages” that passed in November 2008 with the support of 7 million Californians, both “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The constitutionality of Prop. 8 was challenged immediately after it was approved in 2008. Last week's ruling was appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by traditional marriage supporters, and may even reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a statement released on the Diocese of Phoenix's website on Tuesday, Bishop Olmsted wrote that the “misguided decision of Judge Vaughn Walker, striking down as unconstitutional the California Marriage Law called Proposition 8, cannot be passed over in silence.”

“Labeling homosexual 'marriage' as 'a right' is not an enlightened idea of the 21st century,” the bishop asserted. “It is a novel form of a resurrected falsehood from more than 2000 years ago. It will not stand the test of time, just as it cannot withstand popular opinion now.”

“In every state in our nation where this issue has been put to a vote of the people (31 of the 50), traditional marriage has won,” Olmsted noted. “It is only some activist judges, exercising raw judicial power over and against the will of the people, who have pushed their agenda of so-called 'homosexual marriage.'”

The bishop also warned that what “is at stake here is cultural sanity and viability. Defending the clear nature and purpose of marriage is not discrimination against homosexual persons.”

“Why did God create both men and women, not just one sex?” the bishop asked. “Is it really all that difficult to fathom that God had a plan for marriage, which He wove into the very fabric of human nature? This plan is so deeply embedded in our human nature that every culture in history has recognized it and enshrined and protected it in law and custom.”

“Marriage being exclusively between a man and a woman was not an idea created by these cultures but, rather, a truth received by them as something handed down from a higher authority,” the prelate underscored.

“We need to again recall the key distinction, when considering homosexuality, between the homosexual inclination on the one hand and homosexual acts on the other,” Bishop Olmsted said.

The Phoenix bishop also clarified that although Scripture and Christian tradition hold that homosexual acts are sinful, “persons with homosexual inclinations but who do not engage in homosexual acts are not guilty of sin at all. No more or less than other persons, Christ calls them to holiness of life, inviting them as He invites us all to take up our cross each day and follow after Him.”

“All who follow Christ are given the grace to live the virtue of chastity; and they can joyfully do so with a clean heart.”

“Love and truth go hand-in-hand,” the bishop continued. “Everyone who experiences true love knows this – we want those we love to know the truth. As Catholics, we want to love people authentically and not in a mediocre way that would ignore dangers in a person’s life out of a shallow concern for political correctness.”

“We need never worry that speaking the truth clearly and charitably is a violation of love,” he stressed.
“Both Church teaching and the study of reality, the natural law, show that homosexuality is an objective disorder – that is, it does not correspond to the God-given reality of the sexually differentiated human being.

“Therefore, to condone the homosexual lifestyle is never a move in favor of a person’s true happiness,” Bishop Olmsted wrote. “Moreover, to change the legal and societal definition of the fundamental institution of marriage in order to suit an adult sexual preference is a selfish and irresponsible corruption of the truth.

“The truth is that the reason why the state cannot redefine marriage is because it never defined it in the first place; it is a truth received, not created. It is God who defined marriage.

“For the state to redefine marriage will certainly have a negative impact on love, especially for children, who suffer most when marriage is weakened,” he warned.

http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=1dd8ba40-cb70-4f55-949d-9398dac2b331

[Mornac]

Catholic Leaders Refute Judge’s Ruling Overturning Proposition 8
 
August 18, 2010
By Jane McGrath

(CNSNews.com) -- Catholic leaders refuted Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling earlier this month that California must stop enforcing Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and which blames religious institutions’ beliefs, including those of the Catholic Church, for harming homosexuals and lesbians.
 
Cardinal Francis George, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), rejected Walker’s claims, stating that “no court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”
 
The Aug. 4 ruling, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put an emergency stay on this week, stated that, “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
 
This finding cited, among other things, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith’s Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.
 
When asked for comment on the judge’s ruling, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), said in an e-mail to CNSNews.com that, “Judge Walker, in his decision, backed his bigotry with errors, including the misstatement that the ‘Catholic Church views homosexuality as sinful.’ The fact is, the Catholic Church sees homosexuality as a condition, an inclination in a person, something not intrinsically sinful.”
 
“The church calls for pastoral support, not condemnation, for people with this inclination,” said Sister Walsh. “The Catholic Church makes clear that it is homosexual activities it deems sinful, because it holds that all sexual activity belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.”
 
Sr. Mary Ann defended the Church against the judge’s claim that its religious teachings  “harm” gays and lesbians, saying, “the Catholic Church opposes all unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians and abhors violence against them.”

But, admitting that anti-gay bigots exist, she added, “bigoted people are an unfortunate result but not a reason to upend the U.S. Constitution.”
 
Fr. Francis de Rosa, parochial administrator of two parishes in Virginia, responded to the judge’s ruling in an e-mail to CNSNews.com. “We are not opposed to the human rights of someone with same-sex attraction,” he wrote. “Rather, we assert that there is no such thing as a special category of ‘gay’ rights. Why? Because homosexuality is a pyscho-sexual disorder that harms the person and society.”
 
“Condoning such behavior and encouraging people to engage in it by the passage of permissive and protective laws does the real harm, not the position that warns people of the destructive consequences and nature of homosexual acts,” wrote Fr. De Rosa.
 
The judge’s ruling concluded that “moral disapproval alone” was an “improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.”
 
William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, told CNSNews.com: “Law is only the imposition of morality. That the law requires you to wear seatbelts is the imposition of morality, but this is a bogus argument to suggest that one side is imposing morality and the other side is not.”
 
Judge Walker also wrote in his decision that, “In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.”
 
Walker continued, “Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.”
 
In response to Judge Walker’s statement that, “A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature,” Donahue said that the state does indeed have an invested, secular interest in upholding traditional marriage.
 
The traditional family is the anchor of society and teaches children citizenship, said Donahue. “All the psychological data show that children need a father and a mother.”
 
Other Catholic clergy have made public statements disapproving of Judge Walker’s decision. Calling heterosexual marriage “the bedrock of any society,” Cardinal Francis George said, “It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”

And Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, who chairs the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, joined Cardinal George in his statement and added, “Citizens of this nation have uniformly voted to uphold the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman in every jurisdiction where the issue has been on the ballot.”
 
The archbishop also said, “Marriage is more fundamental and essential to the well being of society than perhaps any other institution. It is simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution.”
 
Supporters of Proposition 8 cite that voters have upheld traditional marriage in all of the more than 30 opportunities to vote on it throughout the United States. However, Judge Walker wrote in his ruling that without “some support in evidence,” voters’ “conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough.”
 
He continued, “Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.”
 
Fr. de Rosa, also addressed this, saying, “Vaughn Walker’s ruling asserts that the Catholic argument against homosexual acts is without a ‘rational basis,’ yet that teaching is not based solely upon principles of faith. It is certainly possible to argue from pure reason that it is against the nature of the human person to engage in homosexuality.”
 
“One very obvious point is the manifest lack of bodily and sexual complementarity in homosexual acts,” said Fr. De Rosa. “Furthermore, there is plenty of clinical psychological data to show that same-sex attraction is the result of a developmental disorder. Were one to make an argument from the theory of evolution, homosexuality is most certainly an inferior, dead-end phenomenon.”
 
Bishop Jaime Soto of the Diocese of Sacramento has also weighed in on the issue. He decried the “hysteria” that, he says, “has, unfortunately, become the hallmark of California discourse. … It is important for the Catholic community and all Californians of good will not to be intimidated into silence and accommodation.”
 
In 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then-headed by Cardinal Josepf Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, issued a letter on homosexual unions that was cited by Judge Walker as harmful to the social progress of  homosexuals. The letter, in part, states,  “No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman” who “mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.”

“Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition,” states the letter. “Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. … Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. … If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible for of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good.”
 
Proposition 8 was passed after a fierce political battle in California in 2008. Although Judge Walker’s ruling, handed down earlier this month, had been scheduled to go into effect on Wednesday, Aug. 18, an emergency stay was imposed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday. The Associated Press reported that oral arguments begin in the appeals court on Dec. 6.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71235

[Mornac]

Bold words at last	Small | Large