Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Can anyone tell us what’s going on at Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL) lately?  Years ago, when MCFL endorsed a political candidate you  could be very confident the candidate was 100% pro-life and supportive of marriage between a man and woman.  And when they held an event, you could be certain all of the speakers had Catholic/Christian values consistent with life, family, and the teachings of the Church. Neither of those are true any more, as exemplified by MCFL’s plans to have the frequently anti-Catholic columnist, Howie Carr, as featured speaker at their January Assembly for Life event.

Under MCFL President, Anne Fox, now we never know what to expect from MCFL.  Are Fr. Bryan Hehir’s tentacles of relativism somehow extending beyond the Archdiocese of Boston to MCFL?

  • MCFL’s PAC endorsed pro-abortion candidate, Tim Cahill for Governor, saying, “Tim Cahill will be an outstanding advocate for the unborn,” despite the minor matter of fact that Cahill was on the record saying, “I believe in and support a woman’s right to choose.  I also believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.”  Huh?  Here’s a links to the RedMassGroup that shows where that statement had appeared on his website until shortly before MCFL came out with their endorsement, when it was mysteriously scrubbed.  Later, when MCFL had to clarify the endorsement under pressure from pro-lifers, they acknowledged Cahill was not totally on-the-mark, but was simply better than the other pro-abortion candidates, Deval Patrick and Charlie Baker.  Why did MCFL feel they HAD to endorse someone?  And if they felt they HAD to, why did they mislead people at first?  Why didn’t they say he was at best, OK on a couple of issues, in the wrong place on other important issues, and overall, just nominally better than the others who were totally against pro-life, pro-family positions?
  • Strong pro-life Catholics like Phil Moran and Marie Sturgis have apparently been pushed out by President Anne Fox, or they quit on their own.  Stalwart defender of life, Phil Moran, is now off the Board of Directors.  Marie Sturgis was the long-time executive director of MCFL and she’s gone. In 2002 and 2005, she had no problem publicly questioning Gov. Mitt Romney’s supposed “pro-life” credentials and saying MCFL saw him as a supporter of abortion who was “not pro-life and does not meet their requirements” for an endorsement.  In 2005 in this Boston Globe article, Marie publicly questioned Fr. Bryan Hehir’s appointment of Ed Saunders to head the Mass Catholic Conference because of Saunders’ past donations to pro-abort and pro-gay politicians:
Marie Sturgis, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said the group is ”investigating” Saunders’s background. ”I realize lobbyists do what they have to do, but we’re talking about principles here, and strong beliefs in some fundamental human rights,” she said. ”There’s a side of me that wonders, if there are personal contributions given to lawmakers or political candidates who are not in synch with what the church teaches, then doesn’t that call into serious question the motives of this individual?”
  • Fr. Bryan Hehir has responsibility over Pro-Life Ministries in the Archdiocese of Boston, and those ministries are headed by Marianne Luthin, whose husband, Henry Luthin, is Chairman of the Board of MCFL. Whatever Marianne says and does in her official role in the archdiocese needs to comply with what Fr. Hehir wants to do.  So, if Fr. Hehir is opposed to a program like the 40 Days for Life running in the Archdiocese of Boston or if he were to stonewall moving ahead with it, Marianne would be in the awkward position of having to acquiesce to Hehir’s opposition.  Everything we hear about Marianne and Henry says they are very solid pro-life Catholics.  We’re not into conspiracy theories here and don’t know if Hehir’s influence over Marianne is extending to influence her husband Henry as well.  So what’s up with Henry allowing the absurdity of what Anne is doing at MCFL and allowing his good name to be sullied?
Below is the letter from C.J. Doyle at the Catholic Action League to Anne Fox regarding the planned appearance by Howie Carr.  Although we find Howie’s criticism of corruption in government worthwhile and his criticism of liberal Democratic politicians often amusing, his slams against Catholics, ethnic minorities, and those less fortunate in society are offensive, intolerable and not consistent with the values MCFL should be promoting.

=============

December 17, 2010

Anne Fox, President
Massachusetts Citizens For Life
The Schrafft Center
529 Main Street
Charlestown, MA 02129

Dear Anne,

We were astonished to learn that Howie Carr will be featured at MCFL’s Annual Assembly For Life on January 16th.  Carr is a notorious Catholic-basher with a long record of vicious and gratuitous attacks on the Catholic Religion.

On April 8, 1998 — Wednesday in Holy Week — in response to a decision by the Red Sox to forgo alcohol sales in Fenway Park because Opening Day would fall on Good Friday, Carr hosted a segment on his program in which he invited listeners to comment on selling “Catholic Eucharists for $3.49 a bag” as a substitute for beer.  The result was a half hour of offensive slurs profaning the Blessed Sacrament.

In one particularly vile episode later in 1998, in a conversation between Carr and his producer Doug Goudie evidently intended to disparage Arabs, it was asserted that shepherds in the Middle East had unnatural relations with the animals in their flocks.  Into this depraved subject the name of Saint Joseph — the Virgin Spouse of the Virgin Mother of God — was introduced.  Saint Joseph was then misidentified as a shepherd.

In an interview with Malachy McCourt, Carr laughed and snickered over McCourt’s assertion that the late Francis Cardinal Spellman was not only a homosexual but a pedophile.  Carr went on to recount a story alleging that an episcopal ring was found by police in a homosexual brothel, implying that the ring belonged to Spellman.

In January, 2002, Carr hosted a segment in which he asked his listeners ” Are you ashamed to be a Catholic?”, during which he boasted that he never went to Mass.  All throughout the molestation crisis of 2002, Carr contemptuously referred to the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston as “Bernie Law”, and on November 29th of that year the Boston Herald published a column by Carr in which he described the Cardinal as “a Bulger bum kisser.”

Hispanic Catholics, with their large families and culture of life, are the future of the Church and the Pro-Life movement in America.  Howie Carr however, is not only an anti-Catholic but a crude nativist.  One of the recurring themes of his program is the attempt to link illegal immigrants to crime.  A particularly offensive gimmick is his habit of playing Mexican music while reading the names of criminal suspects with Hispanic surnames.  This hostility to Hispanics and immigrants places Cardinal O’Malley, or whoever represents him from the Archdiocese of Boston, in the embarrassing position of sharing a stage with someone who boorishly castigates some of the neediest members of his flock.

In a Catholic community which has a significant number of Eastern Rite Catholics of Lebanese and Syrian descent (the Melkite Cathedral is in West Roxbury) it is unimaginable that MCFL would actually provide a platform to a rabble rousing shock jock who has described Arabs in the past as “towelheads”.

Inviting Howie Carr to address the Assembly for Life is an act of monumental ingratitude to elected officials who defended the right to life and came to the aid of MCFL in difficult times.  Men such as William Bulger, Ray Flynn, Thomas Finneran, and the late Jim Craven have been the victims of vulgar insults, venomous denunciations, and malevolent diatribes by this spiteful demagogue.

A larger issue here is why an organization with a predominantly Christian membership would want to showcase a public figure whose life and career embody such a cynical negation of Christian values.  Howie Carr is infamous for his uncharitableness of speech, his lack of compassion, and his sneering contempt for the objects of his scorn.  He preys upon the vulnerable, exploits the misfortunes of others, incites rancor and envy, and has grown rich by his indifference to the Eighth Commandment.  He mocks the Church, derides the poor, maligns men who have more integrity than he does, and has ridiculed the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Inviting such a miserable creature to address an organization dedicated to the sanctity and dignity of human life is an affront to the Christian religion and everything the Pro-Life movement professes to uphold.

We urge you to reconsider this improvident decision and cancel the invitation to this inappropriate choice for a speaker.

Sincerely,

Daniel T. Flatley                                  C. J. Doyle
Chairman Emeritus                           Executive Director

=============
We are totally supportive of Mass Citizens for Life’s mission: “to promote respect for human life and to defend the right to life of all human beings, born and preborn.”  They have a lot of great, hard-working solid pro-life people involved in the organization. But they’re losing site of that mission and losing supporters by a series of ill-conceived decisions lately that reek of the kind of relativism that characterizes Bryan Hehir’s approach to Church teachings and public policy.
We hope the Board at MCFL does something about both this event, and what seems like the increasingly misguided leadership of President Anne Fox.  The credibility of the organization amongst Massachusetts pro-lifers and their ability to accomplish their mission are dropping like a rock.

Read Full Post »

Meet the Liberal Elite

Sorry for the long lag in our posts.  We’ve not forgotten about you, but have been busy working on our next campaign.  In the meantime, we just came across this video called, “Meet the Liberal Elite.”   Imagine replacing the “liberal elite” person in this video with a certain priest we have been writing about for a while.  Enjoy!

Read Full Post »

This is our first year blogging, and though it would be a bit presumptuous of us to assume that people will listen to everything we say, there’s a lot of confusion about who to vote for and how to vote on the ballot questions, so we thought we would share how we are viewing a number of candidates as well as the ballot questions.

As you will see below, we are highly influenced by both Bill Cotter at Operation Rescue and MassResistance.

Attorney General: Martha Coakley (D) vs Jim Mckenna (R)

We are voting for Jim McKenna.

There has been some confusion about Jim in recent days, the guy running against pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Attorney General Martha Coakley.  McKenna was reported to have made statements in Bay Windows that he was opposed to DOMA, but MassResistance reports that they personally  spoke with McKenna over the weekend–he never spoke with the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows and the allegations that he’ll work to strike down DOMA aren’t true.

Governor: Deval Patrick (D) vs Charles Baker (R)

Either leave it blank, or consider writing in Lively and Davis. MassResistance says they have been asked to encourage people to write in “Scott Lively and Keith Davis” (without the quotes) for Governor / Lt. Governor on your Mass. ballot if you can’t deal with any of the official candidates and you want to vote for someone. As we’ve reported, both Scott Lively and Keith Davis are first class individuals that you can be proud to vote for. (Just the names as indicated above are probably sufficient, without addresses.)

Secretary of State: William Galvin (D) v. William Campbell (R)

We are voting for William Campbell

Operation Rescue reports, “Galvin is pro-life by reputation.”  Mass. Resistance reports that Campbell is, “to the best of our knowledge, pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.” He is also for the very important principle of requiring voter ID on Election Day.

Auditor: Suzanne Bump (D) v. Mary Connaughton (R)

We are voting for Mary Connaughton

Mass. Resistance: “Suzanne Bump proudly marches in the Gay Pride parade and is proud of her support of same-sex ‘marriage.’ Besides that, she’s basically another hack Democrat politician.” Mary Connaughton is actually an auditor and “has a record of fiercely defending the taxpayers interests against fraud when she was on the Mass. Turnpike Board, and she also goes to Tea Parties!” Also, Mary gave pro-life answers to MCFL’s questionnaire. Operation Rescue and Mass Resistance concur on voting for Mary.

Ballot Questions

We are voting YES on all 3, following the suggestions/advice of MassResistance and Operation Rescue.  By the way, NARAL  urges a “No” vote on questions 1 and 3.  NARAL says a “Yes” vote (which will cut taxes) could have a devastating impact on access to reproductive health services in the Commonwealth.  Bummer.  Though we are concerned about cuts in aid to the poor, we agree with the positions of MassResistance described below.

Question 1: Repeal the sales tax on alcoholic beverages, recently passed by the Legislature.

Our vote: YES:

Last year the Legislature passed a 6.25% sales tax on beer, wine, and liquor. But it’s a “double tax” imposed on citizens. And it puts Massachusetts businesses at a disadvantage over businesses across the border in neighboring states. Massachusetts consumers already pay a substantial excise tax on alcoholic beverages, and this tax is on top of that one! It’s just another way to pad the state budget. They should either do one tax or the other, but not both.

This is being opposed by special interest groups claiming that the money is needed for alcohol treatment programs. But in fact, as we found with the cigarette taxes, that money rarely goes where it’s supposed to. It just goes into the general fund. This wasn’t passed to fund treatment of alcoholics. It was passed to get more money for the budget.

Question 2: Repeal the 40B law regarding permits for low-income housing.

Our vote: YES

This terrible law allows speculators to buy up land in any community and easily build subsidized, high-density housing — without regard to local zoning regulations. It adversely affects the communities, costs taxpayers extra money to support, and the towns have no control over it while the developers make lots of money.  The Massachusetts Inspector General has called this law a “pig fest” that “represents one of the biggest abuses in state history.”

The truth is that the biggest impediments to normal low-income housing are the state and local governments — with their overbearing regulations and oppressive housing laws, and general hostile attitude toward landlords. In other parts of the country the private market creates an ample supply of low-income housing.

Sadly, this is being opposed by a number of misguided religious groups on both the left and the right, as well as the usual left-wing special interests.

Question 3: Reduce the sales tax to 3%

Our vote: YES

Recently the Legislature RAISED the sales tax from 5% to 6.25%. Anyone who actually reads the huge annual Massachusetts state budget would be outraged at the enormous special-interest pork, pet projects, special-interest programs, pensions (sometimes at early retirement ages), union demands, and general waste of hard-earned taxpayer money.  We’re not exaggerating. One tiny example: This month the Boston Herald reports that the state pays $6.4 million hiring less than 100 people for “PR services” for government agencies. Overall, the state budget grows each year faster than inflation (often double the rate of inflation).

The usual pro-tax groups and labor unions are claiming that “essential services” would be immediately cut if this were to pass and that cities and towns would not get their state aid. The truth is that the Legislature has never been forced to say “no” to the special interests. It’s about time they started.

It’s been estimated that approximately 30,000 jobs would be created in the private sector (mostly in small businesses) if the measure passes.

Recently a business group headed by the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce announced it was opposing this tax rollback. However, news reports also reveal that it’s a group of big businesses that use state-funded services. “It goes too far. It’s extreme,” they say.  That’s always the mantra: Every time taxes are raised, it’s to cover needs, but every tax rollback “goes too far.”

Governors Council

See here for the MassResistance choices (green are preferred, red are not preferred).

U.S. Congressional Seats

See here for the MassResistance choices (green are preferred, red are not preferred).  This is pretty simple to explain. In Massachusetts’ Congressional delegation all of the incumbents are horrible, arrogant pro-Obama liberals who need to be thrown out. (The tenth district is an open seat, and the Democrat candidate is just as bad as the other incumbents.)  All of the Republican candidates are worth voting for (although Golnik in the 5th is not 100% pro-life).  Those in bold below are preferred.

FIRST DISTRICT

D -*JOHN OLVER, Amherst

R – WILLIAM GUNN, Ware

I – MICHAEL ENGEL, Southampton

Columnist Howie Carr often compares John Olver to an oak door. That’s about right.

SECOND DISTRICT

D -*RICHARD NEAL, Springfield

R – TOM WESLEY, Hopedale

We’ve liked Tom Wesley since the beginning — solid on all the issues.

THIRD DISTRICT

D -*JAMES McGOVERN, Worcester

R – MARTY LAMB, Holliston

I – PATRICK BARRON, Worcester

Marty Lamb is aggressive and is certainly working hard. He’s had more press releases, more events, more emails, and more endorsements than anyone, it seems. James McGovern is not well known but trust us on this: He’s worse than anyone in the delegation except Barney Frank.

FOURTH DISTRICT

D -*BARNEY FRANK, Newton [GVF]

R – SEAN BIELAT, Brookline

I – SUSAN ALLEN, Brookline

T – DONALD JORDAN, Wareham

Barney Frank needs no introduction to anyone in America, and is our first choice to be thrown out of office. Bielat looks like he’s poised to do it.

<!–Sean Bielat has an impressive political team, and is successful at triangulating when necessary, telling the press he’s not a Tea Party candidate but getting big Tea Party support anyway. Good practice for being in Congress, we suppose.

–>FIFTH DISTRICT

D -*NIKKI TSONGAS, Lowell

R – JON GOLNIK, Carlisle

L – DALE BROWN, Chelmsford

C – ROBERT CLARK, Berlin

Golnik is pro-choice but supports traditional marriage. He’s still a thousand percent better than Tsongas, who’s behind every nutty left-wing cause there is. Dale Brown is pro-life and good on most other issues but supports gay rights.

SIXTH DISTRICT

D -*JOHN TIERNEY, Salem

R – BILL HUDAK, Boxford

Hudak can’t shake the wrath of the Boston liberal media because he once had an anti-Obama yard sign, and also asked about Obama’s birth certificate. All the more reason to vote for him.

SEVENTH DISTRICT

D -*EDWARD MARKEY, Malden

R – GERRY DEMBROWSKI, Woburn

Gerry Dembrowski has the best campaign YouTube video of the year: “Ed Markey: The Undocumented Congressman” where Gerry goes to Markey’s neighborhood and asks his neighbors if they’ve ever actually seen him.

EIGHTH DISTRICT

D -*MICHAEL CAPUANO, Somerville

Capuano is an obnoxious hard-core leftist, but in Somerville he fits right in.  It’s still too bad he has no opposition.

NINTH DISTRICT

D -*STEPHEN LYNCH, Boston

R – VERNON HARRISON, Braintree

I – PHILIP DUNKELBARGER, Westwood

Vernon Harrison is the real thing. He’s a passionate social conservative and is 100% pro-life. He came out nowhere and won the primary and has the momentum to possibly pull it off, given the dynamics this year. As we’ve said before, Stephen Lynch started out many years ago as a pro-family  state rep. Now he prides himself on being among the homosexual movement’s best friends in Congress.

TENTH DISTRICT

D – WILLIAM KEATING, Quincy

R – JEFFREY PERRY, Sandwich

I – MARYANNE LEWIS, Scituate

B – JOE VAN NES, West Tisbury

I – JAMES SHEETS, Quincy

This is about as conservative a district as there is in Massachusetts, so on paper Jeffrey Perry should take it, even though the polls show it’s a tight race now. Let’s hope so. Marianne Lewis is a former Democrat state rep who decided to run for Congress at pretty much the last minute. Most people have no idea who she is.

This week the Democrats have begun a vicious and obviously well-funded attack-ad campaign against Perry in the Boston media. Let’s hope he has the resources to fight back and win!

Massachusetts House

Click here for the MassResistance guide.

Massachusetts Senate

Click here for the MassResistance guide

 


Read Full Post »

Response to the “Big Picture on Catholic Education” has been
extremely positive!  We understand the essay is making the rounds across the Boston archdiocesan hierarchy and presbyterate, as well as other dioceses and conservatives across the country.  One of the topics covered in the “Big Picture”–false compassion–merits further discussion because unfortunately, you’re going to hear more stories in the coming weeks about the gay agenda advancing in Catholic schools.

ThrowtheBumsOutin2010 cited how several Catholic school teachers at Trinity Catholic in Newton (on the grounds of the same church whose parishioners marched in Boston’s Gay Pride Parade a few years back) along with a gay sex activist are representing “Catholics United,” who is pushing for unconditional admission of children of gay couples in Catholic schools.   Further below we will share Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s 2005 statement about false compassion for homosexuals in its entirety, but first we’d like to feature the video referenced in our previous post by the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who is on the path to sainthood.

The video is divided into two parts on YouTube.  Part I talks about true compassion.  Archbishop Sheen says, “Compassion is a sympathy, a pity, an affinity to be wounded when others are wounded…There’s always been a right kind of compassion.”

In Part II, Archbishop Sheen talks about false compassion in a rather hard-hitting way.

False compassion which is gradually growing in this country is a pity that is shown not to the mugged, but to the mugger…There are some judges..some social workers (not all), there are sob sisters, the social slobberers who insist on compassion being shown to the mugger, dope fiend, beatnicks, prostitutes, homosexuals, punks…For that today, the decent man is practically off the reservation.  This is a false compassion.”

To be fair, when he says “to the homosexuals,” he might have more appropriately said “to those persons who engage in (and continue to engage in) homosexual acts.”

Here is the Letter from Cardinal Sean O’Malley on Homosexuality, issued November 23, 2005.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

The Church’s efforts to defend the institution of marriage has been interpreted by some as an indication of the Church’s hostility toward homosexual persons. The way that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts framed the issue is unfavorable to Catholics or others who do not oppose anyone, but rather support an institution which is the cornerstone of society.

Right from the beginning of this controversy I have called on all Catholics to rally behind the cause of marriage. It is encouraging that a number of Catholics who are homosexuals have expressed to me their conviction that marriage between a man and a woman is important for children and therefore for society.

The Church’s position is not based on an animus against people with a homosexual orientation. Each and every member of the Church is called to holiness regardless of their sexual orientation. The Church has often warned against defining people by their sexual orientation in a way that diminishes their humanity. Each person is a mystery, an irreplaceable treasure, precious in God’s eye. We are God’s creatures and in baptism we are His sons and daughters, brothers and sisters to one another.

The extreme individualism of our age is undermining the common good and fractionalizing the community. The Church wishes to call people to unity based on mutual respect and a commitment to the common good. We do not want Catholics who have a homosexual orientation to feel unwelcomed in the Catholic Church. We remind them that they are bound to us by their baptism and are called to live a life of holiness. Many homosexual persons in our Church lead holy lives and make an outstanding contribution to the life of the Church by their service, generosity and the sharing of their spiritual gifts.

We must strive to eradicate prejudices against people with a homosexual orientation. At the same time the Church must minister to all people by challenging them to obey God’s commands, the roadmap for a meaningful human life that allows us to draw near to God and to one another.

In the Gospel when the self-righteous Pharisees bring the adulteress to be stoned, Jesus says let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Then to make sure they got the point Jesus wrote their sins on the ground. The stones fell from their hands and they fled. Jesus said: “Neither do I condemn you”, but He added, “Go and sin no more.”

If we tell people that sex outside of marriage is not a sin, we are deceiving people. If they believe this untruth, a life of virtue becomes all but impossible. Jesus teaches that discipleship implies taking up the cross each day and following Him with love and courage.

It is never easy to deliver a message that calls people to make sacrifices or to do difficult things. Sometimes people want to punish the messenger. For this reason we priests at times find it difficult to articulate the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. We must never deliver the message in a self-righteous way, but rather with compassion and humility. It is important to express the moral teachings of the Church with clarity and fidelity. The Church must be Church. We must teach the truths of the Gospel in season and out of season. These recent times seem to us like it is “out of season”, but for that very reason it is even more urgent to teach the hard words of the Gospel today.

We know that friends and relatives of homosexual Catholics sometimes feel torn between their allegiance to Christ and their concern for their loved ones. I assure them that these goals are not incompatible. As Catholics we profess a firm belief in the dignity of each person and in the eternal destiny to which God calls us. Calling people to embrace the cross of discipleship, to live the commandments and at the same time assuring them that we love them as brothers and sisters can be difficult. Sometimes we are told: “If you do not accept my behavior, you do not love me.” In reality we must communicate the exact opposite: “Because we love you, we cannot accept your behavior.”

God made us to be happy forever. That true and lasting happiness is accessible only by a path of conversion. Each of us has our own struggles in responding to the call to discipleship and holiness. We are not alone. Christ promised to be with us and has given us His Church and Sacraments to help us on the road.

At every Mass we pray that beautiful prayer before the sign of peace: “Lord…look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom.” May God grant us that grace of peace and unity.

Devotedly yours in Christ,

Seán P. O’Malley
Archbishop of Boston

False compassion–as demonstrated in the Hingham school situation by Fr. Bryan Hehir, superintendent of schools Mary Grassa O’Neill, Jack Connors, Michael Reardon and others–fails to challenge people to obey God’s commands and  embrace the cross of discipleship, and it also sends a message that the lifestyle and behavior of the gay couple is to be respected and esteemed by the Catholic Church.  Instead as Cardinal O’Malley wrote, we need to say, “Because we love you, we cannot accept your behavior.”

Finally, the Vatican’s own “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons” authored by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2003 under Pope John Paul II, also cautioned about recognizing homosexual unions and making them a model in society.

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

Readers, this issue will not be going away.  Everyone will need to be armed with tools and the right theological arguments to counter school principals, administrators, gay activists, as well as bishops and cardinals.  If you haven’t yet read the “Big Picture” please do check it out and pass it along to your local priest, local Catholic school, and to Cardinal O’Malley via our Take Action page.

The battle is not nearly over on this issue, and is in fact just beginning.

Read Full Post »