Roman Catholic Blog

Bella's Eduardo Verastegui On Abortion, Obama & Proposition 4

[Warning] The video immediately below is graphic (those below it are not)...

Barbara Kralis Asks An Excellent Question In Her New Article...

Click here to read Barbara Kralis' article: How many times do we have to say 'NO' to same-sex marriage?

Click here to read this recent Time Magazine story: The Gay Mafia That's Redefining Liberal Politics

Food For Thought...

See also: What Could Be Scarier Than Halloween? Two Orange County Pastors Donating To Obama

What Could Be Scarier Than Halloween? Two Orange County Pastors Donating To Obama

(Above) Mission San Juan Capistrano Basilica Pastor, Fr. Art Holquin

(Below) Corpus Christi Parish Pastor, Fr. Fred Bailey

Mission San Juan Capistrano Basilica Pastor, Fr. Art Holquin, gave money to Barack Obama's campaign.

Click here: Holquin Donation

So did Fr. Fred Bailey, pastor of Corpus Christi parish in Aliso Viejo, of Halloween Mass & Barney blessing fame.

Click here: Bailey Donations

Click here to learn about Fr. Fred Bailey's "wife" Helen: Corpus Christi FAQ

Flashback Video Links:

Halloween Mass Video #1

Halloween Mass Video #2

Halloween Mass Video # 3: The Barney Blessing

See also:

California Priest, Fr. Art Holquin, Gave Money To Obama Campaign

Fr. Art Holquin: Homosexual Priests Are A Gift To The Church

More On Holquin: An Observation from the Diocese of Orange....

Open Letter To Tod Brown, Bishop Of Orange

A Good First Step: Archbishop Chaput Corrects Senator Biden On Abortion

Here's the link: Archbishop Chaput Corrects Senator Biden on Abortion

My thoughts:

This is good, but the fundamental problem is with Catholics thinking that remaining within a political party that supports abortion as a civil right and attempting to dismiss this fact by pointing to conservative support for things like specific wars (or war in general) or the death penalty neutralizes the scandal involved in belonging to such a group is a moral option.

When will Church leaders tell Catholics that it's as wrong to belong to organizations that support the culture of death, most notably through support for the legal option to kill preborn babies, as it is to belong to a Masonic lodge?

And when will so-called Catholic politicians who support legal abortion be told, without equivocation, by all bishops (including the Holy Father) that, by supporting the culture of death, these so-called Catholic politicians are not in union with Rome, may not receive Holy Communion, and will be excommunicated if they persist in supporting legal abortion?

Any thoughts?

See also: Can Catholics Support Obama?

Partisan Pastor?

Archbishop Charles Chaput has been very open about his commitment to the Democrat party, even going so far as to admit having voted for, and even having worked for pro-abortion candidates.

A recent article by Catholic author, Barbara Kralis, brought attention to the issue: Will Denver Catholic Archbishop finally enforce Canon 915?

Archbishop Charles Chaput's history has troubled many of the faithful, and some of them have attempted to encourage the archbishop to exercise his duty to teach, govern, and sanctify by denying pro-abortion politicians (regardless of political affiliation) access to the Holy Eucharist.

More after the jump...

Dennis Prager: California Decision Will Radically Change Society

Here's the link: California Decision Will Radically Change Society

Here's a quote:

Americans seem mesmerized by the word "change." And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.

Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.

Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.

And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it's no big deal. Hey, it doesn't affect any heterosexuals' marriage, so what's the problem?

This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate supporters -- allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays.

Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.

That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.

Be sure to read the rest at the link.

Also worth reading:

Pope restates gay marriage ban after California vote

Bishop Vigneron To The Faithful Of The Oakland Diocese On The California Supreme Court Decision Allowing Same-Sex Marriage

No wiggle room: Vatican says no exceptions to ban on homosexuals in seminaries

Any thoughts?

"It's Perfectly Normal" – Sex Education For Ages 10 & Above

Any thoughts?

California Supreme Court Overturns Homosexual "Marriage" Ban

Dante and Virgil in Hell by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1850)

Here's the story: California Supreme Court Overturns Homosexual "Marriage" Ban

Quote:

The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry. The case involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter- approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

"What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

My thoughts:

This isn't really surprising. This is typical liberal activity, using courts to accomplish what can't be done by allowing people to vote on the matter. Hopefully, this will wake people up and provoke a movement to return to sanity that will include a reversal of this foolish decision, which essentially amounts to judicial legislation and circumvented the will of the majority of California voters.

Catholic Answers has an excellent article, titled, Gay Marriage, which is well researched and discusses in detail the various diseases and pathologies associated with homosexuality. The article gives many reasons why society, as a whole, should seek to protect marriage as a union between one man and one woman and not grant legal protections for homosexual unions, as such.

See also:

Procter & Gamble Promotes Explicit Open-Mouth Homosexual Kissing

You Decide: Has "The Cafeteria Is Closed" Blog Reopened The Cafeteria Over The Issue Of Legal Recognition For Homosexual Unions?

Any thoughts?

Obamanation - The Cult Of Barack Hussein Obama

It's nice to see that Barack Obama's supporters have reasonable expectations, rooted in a firm grasp of his personal and political background; as evidenced by the devotional artwork above and the images found here: Reach Out and Touch Faith

Note: I'm pretty sure NRO got their title idea from this song: Depeche Mode - "Personal Jesus"

More evidence of the disturbing religious fervor many of Obama's supporters have for him, despite (or perhaps, because of) his consistent pro-abortion record, can be seen in these videos produced by will.i.am of Black Eyed Peas: "Yes We Can" and "We Are The Ones"

This video parodies the fantasies of Obama supporters: Video: “Obamatopia” [Warning: The Lord's name is taken in vain once, but it's done to illustrate how Obama's supporters view him.]

As I've said before, the Obama's followers have a view of him that is essentially consistent with the song below, which should be his campaign theme song:

Obama's supporters don't care that he doesn't have the experience necessary to be President of the United States. They don't care that he's never been elected to an executive office (like state governor). They don't care that Obama has been connected, for over 20 years, to a church that promotes racism, or that he's friends with murdering terrorists. They don't care that his wife constantly complains about America. They don't care that Obama has been endorsed by Hamas. They don't care that Obama doesn't respect the religious beliefs of Christians who don't share his views.

To quote Rush Limbaugh: "Obama has become, to a lot of people, an idea of what they want him to be. So they project their perceptions onto him, and that's exactly what he wants." (From: Obama is Damaged Goods, but Radical Hillary Can't Close the Deal)

Barack Obama, ladies and gentlemen, is a blank canvas upon which anybody can project their fantasies, or their desires. You look at Democrats in the audience, and they're swooning. He's saying nothing. He's saying nothing better than anybody in my lifetime ever has. The reason he says nothing so well is because everybody thinks that he's saying what they want. So they're able to project onto Obama their fantasies. If they believe in allowing somebody to marry a dog, they think Obama will support it. Therefore, I would like today to announce a tentative decision, I'm stilling thinking about it, to endorse Barack Obama, since everybody is asking who am I going to endorse, and here's why. Barack Obama is pro-life. Barack Obama is a Constitutionalist. Barack Obama believes in limited government. Barack Obama is in favor of health care savings plans. Barack Obama loves free markets and wants to protect them. Barack Obama is strong on national defense. Barack Obama is a tax cutter extraordinaire. Barack Obama makes my leg tingle when I hear him speak. Barack Obama will end the designated hitter rule. Barack Obama will establish a college football playoff once and for all so we will genuinely have a champion. Barack Obama will get to the bottom of Spygate. Barack Obama will offer free beer Fridays. Whatever you want Obama to be, folks, he's a blank slate, he's an empty canvas, and this is the nature of his appeal. Whatever people fantasize about, whatever they want, they are confident Obama supports it, too.

(From: Rush Endorses Obama Because He Is Anything You Want Him to Be)

See also:

Barack Obama: There Will Be Bamboozling

Obama’s biggest general election liability: His bitter half

Video: Gazans running phone bank for Obama

Obama: I want to be president of all 57 states

Rush Limbaugh: Let's Tweak The Media: Obama to Campaign in 57 Islamic States

RUSH: Hey, folks, you want to tweak the Drive-By Media with me right now? Want to participate in tweaking the Drive-By Media? You are aware, probably, that Barack Obama lost his bearings recently and said that he was going to campaign in all 57 states. You heard this? And everybody chalked it up to, "Well, he's tired." You know, this is a Dan Quayle moment. I mean, Dan Quayle goes out there and misspells potato, and we still get jokes about it. Barack Obama says he's gonna go out and campaign in 57 states, he was just tired, you know, it's been such a long campaign, he's been so many places, he probably thinks there are 57 states. Well, I have here a printout from a website called the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And here is how the second paragraph of an article on that website begins. "Every year from 1999 to 2005 the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic states presented a resolution to the United Nations commission on human rights called combating --" yes, H.R., get ready for the phone calls up there.

We're participating here in a tweak of the media. Obama said he's going to campaign in 57 states, and it turns out that there are 57 Islamic states. There are 57 Islamic states. "Every year from 1999 to 2005, the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic states," this is from the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And the title of the piece here is, "How the Islamic states dominate the UN human rights council," and there are 57 of them. So did Obama just lose his bearings, or was this a more telling slip, ladies and gentlemen? Obama's 57 states, not just a simple gaffe. He might have been thinking of the 57 Islamic states when he said he was going to campaign in all 57 states. (laughing) Can't wait 'til the Drive-Bys hear about this.

Rush Limbaugh: Separating Obama's Followers from the Movement Won't Be Easy

Any thoughts?