From CNA:

Four San Diego firefighters are filing legal claims against the City of San Diego after their superiors forced them to participate in the July 21 San Diego Gay Pride Parade, in full uniform and on their city fire truck.

In the past, firefighters who attended the parade generally did so on a volunteer basis. When the four firefighters protested, their superiors told them they must ride in the parade or face disciplinary action, reported the California Catholic Daily.

A press release from the Thomas More Law Center states that, while on parade, the firefighters were “subjected to vile sexual taunts from homosexuals lining the parade route.”

Some of the comments hurled at the firefighters along the parade route included: you can put out my fire; you’re making me hot; give me mouth-to-mouth. When the firefighters did not respond, some in the crowd turned hostile and started yelling obscenities at them.

Other bystanders directed lewd acts at the firefighters, such as exposing their genitals, grabbing their crotch, and blowing kisses.

And here's the kicker:

San Diego Fire Chief Tracy Jarman has been quoted as saying that the parade is a “fun event and all employees are encouraged to participate.”

San Diego’s Republican mayor, Jerry Sanders, appointed Jarman fire chief in June 2006. According to 365Gay.com, Jarman is “one of only a handful of openly lesbian fire chiefs in the country.”

Labels: moral issues

Peter Meade, one of Cardinal O'Malley's top lay advisors, wrote an editorial published in the Boston Herald supporting same-sex marriage. Dr. Peters weighs in:

Boston politicos Peter & Rosanne Meade woke up one summer morning, saw the sun shining brightly, and concluded that God must have changed his mind about the travesty called "homosexual marriage". The Meades think that because the world did not come to an end when Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, those ignorant Bible-thumpers were wrong about the consequences for societies that continually invent new ways to flout, well, just about everything.

But a pretty sunrise over Boston Harbor is not, in the slightest, a sign that God approves of what the chronically bizarre government of Massachusetts does in regard to "homosexual marriage", or anything else for that matter. Not at all.

The Meades need to read their Bible---no, not the parts about the earth opening up and swallowing sinners or raging floods wiping away the evil, as instructive as those passages might be---but rather, the places where Holy Writ reminds us that, in his wisdom, God lets the sun shine on the good and the bad alike, and that weeds will grow up alongside the wheat until, that is, the Day of Harvest, when the wheat will be gathered into barns, and the weeds torn out and burned.

But the Meades' opinion column, as bad as it is (consider here provisions such as 1983 CIC 225, 227, and 747), provokes a deeper problem for the Church in Boston: Peter Meade is co-chair of the commission advising Cdl. O'Malley about the complex and crucial issue of parish-closings in the archdiocese.

Now, if one cannot think clearly about something as simple, and as obvious, and as anciently and universally honored as the fact that marriage is a "covenant by which a man and woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life" (1983 CIC 1055), then how can he or she can be taken seriously as an advisor to ecclesiastical leaders on any topic requiring the exercise of prudent judgment?

By their own words, the Meades have proclaimed themselves unfit to hold a position of influence in any particular Church, let alone one as prominent as Boston. If he won't resign, Peter Meade should be removed from the cardinal's advisory commission.

Labels: local, moral issues

The Massachusetts Bishops have released a statement on yesterday's vote by the legislature rejecting the marriage amendment:

Ignoring the will of more than 170,000 people who signed the marriage petition and blocking the people from exercising their right to vote is tragic.

In the Commonwealth, our state laws provide for the process whereby the citizens have a right to vote on a constitutional amendment.

However, the leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to allow citizens and elected officials to vote their conscience on social issues. Their ideological positions undermine the common good.

Today, the common good has been sacrificed by the extreme individualism that subordinates what is best for children, families and society.

It is obvious from the unprecedented amount of pressure that was put upon elected officials that opponents of the amendment believed that the voters of the Commonwealth would have voted in favor of the traditional definition of marriage. The pressure tactics were engineered to insure that the will of the people would not prevail.

The question for those elected officials who opposed allowing the marriage amendment to be voted on by the people is: do we live in a country where people are free to vote their conscience or are we controlled by what is viewed as politically correct and by powerful special interest groups?

We extend our sincere appreciation to those members of the legislature who stood firm in their support to allow the people an opportunity to exercise their right to vote on the marriage amendment.

Perhaps in the future legislators will have the courage to let the people vote on an issue so important to the future of families.

Labels: local, moral issues

Remember that study that said that the government is spending money on abstinence programs that should be considered a failure? Well this is a letter to the editor I read this morning from my adopted city's newspaper that I thought was interesting:

After I read the article about the government's failed abstinence programs, I felt very confused. How can a program whose purpose is so devoted to improving the lives of young people around the country be considered a failure? I couldn't help but think that often times it's not the program itself that is at fault.

As a nurse working on a cardiac unit in Massachusetts, I have the opportunity to educate my patients about living a healthier lifestyle. I try to help them understand the importance of taking their heart medication, and the positive affects a heart-healthy diet will have on their current condition. Despite my many efforts, these patients usually return home to their old habits and practices. The fact that some patients choose not to be compliant does not mean that I am failing them as a nurse.

Abstinence programs may not ever yield great compliance, but that doesn't mean they are failing. If we stop providing accurate information, and stop showing young people a better way to live, then we will truly have failed.

JOSEPH BOURASSA Jr.

West Springfield

Labels: moral issues, politics

Will wonders never cease? From CNA:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue has come to the defense of Cardinal Roger Mahony, after the Cardinal was criticized in the Los Angeles Times last week for criticizing a Catholic politician who supports doctor-assisted suicide.

The Cardinal-Archbishop of Los Angeles recently spoke out against proposed legislation that would allow doctor-assisted suicide in the state of California. He also criticized Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, a Catholic, for supporting the bill.

Los Angeles Times writer George Skelton criticized the Cardinal in his April 5 column. In it, he referred to the Catholic Church as “looking like an ugly old political attack dog.” He also accused the Cardinal of violating the American separation of church and state and called for “a bill to reexamine the tax-exempt status of church property.”

“Cardinal Mahony is not going to be intimidated from speaking out about contemporary moral issues,” said Donohue in a statement, also released last week.

“Anti-Catholic bigots have tried before to strip the Catholic Church of its tax exempt status and failed miserably,” he continued.

He noted how an editorial in the Los Angeles Times on March 2, 2006, commended Cardinal Mahony for “reinforcing the right of religious leaders to speak out on the moral ramifications of political issues.” The issue that Cardinal Mahony addressed then was immigration.

“So how can it logically be that Cardinal Mahony is now all of a sudden violating the Constitution when he addresses doctor-assisted suicide?” Donohue wondered.

Donohue suggested that the cardinal’s comments regarding doctor-assisted suicide are in line with the Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees religious liberty and freedom of speech.

I never thought I'd see the day that Mahony and Donohue would be in cahoots.

Labels: moral issues, U.S. Church

From the Providence College paper, The Cowl: (h/t Domini Sumus)

As the mild weather cooled off at sunset yesterday, more than 100 students with red shirts and balloons gathered at the front gates of Providence College, armed with signs saying "We will not stop fighting for an end to sexual assault," and "Vaginas are not vulgar, rape is vulgar." For the second year in a row, PC students protested the decision of Rev. Brian J. Shanley, O.P., president of Providence College, to ban the production of The Vagina Monologues on campus.

Many who saw a similar protest one year ago are asking, is this déjà vu? Perhaps, but the cast and crew of The Vagina Monologues and many other supporters said they will not stop protesting just because the production was banned last year.

"We want the entire administration to know that we're not going to go away," said Francis Ford '07, president of Women Will. She added that educating students about sexual assault is "too important an issue" to give up on.

Father Shanley said he has not changed his position on the Monologues but has come to see why the play is such a passionate issue for the students. He added that the protest does not bother him.

"As an educator, controversies like this are great because they force people to talk about issues," he said. "I admire the passion and determination of the students."

Father Shanley's rejection of the play's performance on campus is due to its incongruity with the Roman Catholic values of the College.

"Roman Catholic teaching sees female sexuality as ordered toward a loving giving of self to another in a union of body, mind, and soul that is ordered to the procreation of new life," said Father Shanley in a statement posted on the Providence College Web site. ". . . Any depiction of female sexuality that neglects its unitive and procreative dimensions diminishes its complexity, its mystery, and its dignity."

In the few dealings I've had with Fr. Shanley, he seems to be a very nice man and extremely personable. What I want to know is this: why is the performance of this play required in order to talk about and discuss female sexuality and sexual abuse? Why is this mandatory? Surely a discussion of Mulieris Dignitatem would work too? Why are these students so focused on just this particular work? Instead of wasting time protesting (let's be honest, their protest made little impact), they could have held a school-sanctioned forum.

Here's a life lesson: very few people in this world do what they want. We all have bosses. Your boss (President Shanley, OP) has given you the parameters. Are they to your liking? Well, no, join the rest of the real world. Instead of whining like little kids, work within the system. Once you're out of the system (that you have freely put yourself in and pay inordinate amounts of money to be in, by the way), then do what you want.

Welcome to grown-up life. Any questions?

Labels: Catholic education, moral issues

This blog is so funny and I think this post is great since my seniors were asking about this situation the other day. Sister Mary Martha explains how serious it is to miss Mass on Sunday. You know you want to click and read the whole thing!

"Sister, how serious is it to miss Mass on Sunday?"

"Did you go to Saturday Mass?"

"No, Sister."

"Were you in ICU, hooked up to monitors?"

"No, Sister."

"Were you struck on the head and had amnesia?"

"No, Sister."

"Then unless you make it to confession before you fall down the basement stairs or your grandmother hits the gas instead of the brake while you're standing behind the car getting the groceries out of the trunk, you can expect to go straight to Hell."

Sorry.

Another gem:

"We were so busy, and everyone was tired, and we looked at the clock and missed the last Mass. We didn't miss Mass on purpose."

Too bad. You'll pay really close attention to the clock in Hell, hoping it will be over soon, but it never will be.

Labels: Church humor, liturgy, moral issues

From New Jersey's bishops:

During the weekend of February 10-11, Catholics and other faith groups throughout the world will mark the 14th annual observance of World Marriage Day. This year, the Catholic Bishops of New Jersey are calling on the more than 3 million faithful in the state to celebrate the Sacrament of Marriage at all liturgies and to work actively to reinforce and strengthen the traditional and historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The Bishops have also designated Sunday, February 25 as a Day of Special Prayer for the Preservation of Marriage.

In a letter to the faithful to be read at all Masses in New Jersey this weekend, the Bishops expressed their grave concerns that the recently enacted Civil Union Act may undermine the institution of marriage, which "has its roots not only in human tradition and history, but also in natural law, which transcends all man-made law."

They also emphasized that "marriage is distinct in essence from every other arrangement." Citing Church teaching and Scripture and emphasizing their roles as teachers of the Faith, the Bishops expressed that this understanding of marriage reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. In a cover letter to pastors that accompanies the letter to parishioners, the bishops stated: "No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely as the union of a man and a women."

Finally, in addition to prayer, the Bishops urge in their letter that all Catholics "reach out to their neighbors, legislators and the Governor with the simple message: ‘preserve the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman."

This comes along with this news:

Gay marriage opponents launched a petition drive Monday in hopes of persuading lawmakers to amend the state constitution to include a definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The drive comes a week before New Jersey begins to allow gay couples to legally unite in civil unions.

Legislative leaders have refused to allow lawmakers to vote on a proposal to amend the state constitution to include the traditional definition of marriage. Unlike other states where citizens can gather petitions and get a measure on the ballot, New Jersey has no referendum provision.

John Tomicki, president of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, said his group will try to get at least 20,000 signatures, hoping to persuade legislative leaders to allow a vote on the proposal.

Labels: moral issues, politics, prayer, U.S. Church

Vatican City may be the smallest sovereign nation in the world but sometimes it seems like its residents couldn't be further apart from each other. From John Allen:

Despite widespread suggestions in the press, and even last April from a Vatican cardinal, that Rome might be on the brink of allowing married couples to use condoms to block HIV/AIDS, a forthcoming document on bioethics from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will not treat this question, that office's number two official has revealed.

The congregation is also working on a project on the subject of natural law, said Archbishop Angelo Amato, the congregation’s secretary.

Amato said that any reconsideration on condoms would have to come from the doctrinal office, and therefore, “Opinions on these issues coming from other institutions or ecclesiastical personalities, however respectable, cannot have the authority that sometimes the mass media seems to want to suggest.”

In part, that appeared to be an indirect reference to comments from April 2006 by Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, President of the Pontifical Council for Health, who told reporters that his office had been asked by Pope Benedict XVI to study the use of condoms by a married couple when one spouse is HIV-positive and the other is not. Barragan made clear that he would be favorable to allowing condoms in that context, though he stressed that a final decision is up to the pope.

While church teaching bans artificial contraception, some bishops and theologians have argued that in the situation described above, the intent of condom use is not to block pregnancy but to block disease, and therefore condoms should be acceptable. The Vatican has never ruled on that question, and Amato’s comments indicate that it will not do so in the forthcoming document.

Several other cardinals, including Jean-Marie Lustiger, the former archbishop of Paris; Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former archbishop of Milan; Swiss Cardinal George Cottier, theologian of the Papal Household under John Paul II; Cardinal Godfriend Danneels of Belgium; and Cardinal Cormac Muphy-O’Connor of Westminster, England, have all supported condoms in the context of AIDS in one fashion or another.

Amato described the document currently under preparation as a way to address new bioethical dilemmas, not to revisit the morality of birth control.

Labels: bioethics, moral issues, Vatican

This just in:

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that it had no authority to order the Legislature to vote on a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, but the justices scolded lawmakers for shirking "their lawful obligations."

The SJC, the same court which legalized gay marriages beginning in May 2004, issued the unanimous ruling this morning in response to a lawsuit spearheaded by outgoing Governor Mitt Romney. The justices wrote that all the legislators took a vote to uphold the Constitution and will "ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them."

Romney and 10 other plaintiffs charged that legislators subverted the state constitution Nov. 9 when they met as a constitutional convention and took no action on the voter-initiative petition. The Legislature voted, 109 to 87, to recess before deciding whether to put the amendment on the 2008 ballot.

In another crazy plot twist:

Governor Mitt Romney may refuse to move ahead on automatic pay raises for lawmakers unless they vote next week on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, a top administration official said yesterday.

The state's 200 House and Senate members are entitled to a raise on Jan. 1, but it is up to the governor to decide the exact amount and give final approval. Romney could act on the pay raises before he leaves office on Jan. 4, or leave the responsibility to Governor-elect Deval Patrick.

Legislators have scheduled a vote on the same-sex marriage amendment for Jan. 2, but many opponents of gay marriage fear lawmakers will recess without taking action. According to a senior Romney administration official, the governor is seriously considering withholding his approval if the Legislature does not act on the amendment.

It will be interesting to see if they vote on Tuesday to say the least.

Labels: moral issues, politics