Marginalizing Catholic Teaching One Grant at a Time

Foundation Graphic

George Soros’ Open Society Institute is most often blamed for attempting to neutralize the abortion issue for Catholics by donating large amounts of money to progressive organizations like Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to promote pro-choice politicians. Yet the recent attack on San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Codileone by Faithful America demonstrates that the real assault on the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is now coming from two gay billionaires—Tim Gill and Jon Stryker—who are doing everything they can to discredit Church teaching on sexual morality by directly attacking the Magisterium.

Unlike Soros, whose attack on the teachings of the Church was indirect and somewhat secretive, Stryker’s Arcus Foundation and the Gill Foundation have made their aims explicit in their grant making materials and on their IRS 990 reporting forms. In their 2012 filing to the IRS, the Arcus Foundation described itself as a private grantmaking foundation that supports nonprofit organizations around the world working in two areas: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights; and conservation of the world’s great apes.

In the former area, Arcus provides money to those organizations—including Catholic colleges as well as progressive faith-based organizations—who are working toward “full inclusion” of gays and lesbians, including access to same sex marriage. For example, hundreds of thousands of dollars has been awarded to Women’s Alliance for Theology Ethics for seeking to achieve social justice through the Arcus LGBT Rights Program. The goal of the $70,000 grant to Women’s Alliance for Theology Ethics in 2010 was identified by Arcus as intending to “create a cadre of Catholic, lesbian, bisexual and transgender women and their allies that would assume a leadership role within the Catholic community.” Escalating their attack in 2011, in their IRS 990 form, filed on December 31, 2012, Arcus disclosed that the $180,000 awarded to the Women’s Alliance for Theology and Ethics that year was to be used to: “Identify, network, train and amplify the voices of lesbian feminist Catholics and in so doing, create a counter-voice to the Catholic hierarchy that respects, values and affirms people of all sexual orientations and gender identities.”

Arcus Buys a “Counter Voice” to the Catholic Hierarchy
The Arcus strategy is to help progressive Catholic organizations to convince Catholics of the goodness and morality of gay and lesbian behavior by providing large sums of money to them. For example, Fairfield University was a perfect choice for funding from Arcus since it houses theology professors like Paul Lakeland, an embittered ex-priest, and current head of Fairfield’s Catholic Studies Department. Lakeland, whose books Liberation of the Laity, and Catholicism at the Crossroads, demand dramatic changes in the Church—including the abolition of the College of Cardinals, and changes in Church teachings on reproductive rights, women’s ordination, and the inclusion of gay and married priests—received a $100,000 grant from the Arcus Foundation in 2010 “to hold and disseminate information from a series of forums at four academic institutions in order to expand the current discussion on homosexuality within Roman Catholicism to include the diverse opinions of progressive Catholic thought leaders and theologians.”

In 2011, Arcus provided $37,938 to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation for a project entitled “Roman Catholic Thought Leaders Convening.” The goal of the project was “to strengthen and expand a network of pro-LGBT Catholic thought leaders working to promote the moral and civil equality of LGBT people.”

A few years ago, Thomas Peters documented how Stryker’s Arcus Foundation had already spent more than $700,000 by 2010 to subvert the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and same sex marriage by funding organizations including New Ways Ministries, WATER, Fairfield University, Dignity, and the Mainstream Media Project. The targeting of the Catholic Church by Arcus has increased exponentially since then.

“Speeding Equality” by Marginalizing the Bishops
While Stryker uses a more subtle strategy of attacking Church teachings through persuasion and conversations on campuses like Fairfield University, Tim Gill’s Foundation directly attacks the Magisterium with systematic assaults on individual bishops through organizations like Faith in Public Life and its subsidiary, Faithful America. Last week’s media attack on, and petition against, Archbishop Cordileone was funded in large part through Gill’s Movement Advancement Program—a program that is described in Gill’s IRS filings as helping to “speed equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. MAP’s work helps educate and persuade public audiences (such as policymakers, allied organized funders, media and the American public) and helps to support LGBT movement audiences.”

Toward the goal of educating the American public on the goodness of homosexual acts and same sex marriage, the Gill Foundation provides hundreds of thousands of dollars to organizations like the Center for American Progress, and Media Matters. But, Gill knows that the biggest stumbling block to “speeding equality” for the LGBT community is the Catholic Church. To neutralize the teachings of the Church on sexual morality, he employs organizations like Catholics United and Faithful America.

According to Guidestar, Gill awarded $100,000 to Catholics United in 2011 to help meet the goal of changing Catholic views of homosexuality—including same sex marriage. Last month, Catholics United, which has also received funding from George Soros through its sister organization, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, called on Macon, Georgia Catholic high school Mount deSales Academy to reinstate a gay employee who had posted on his personal Facebook account his intention to marry. Calling such an action “discriminatory” Catholics United claimed the Macon school was “at odds with the leadership of Pope Francis.”

As funding from Gill and the Arcus Foundations increase, we can expect an expansion of such attacks from Catholics United. On April 28, 2014, the organization announced their intention to hire a full-time organizer for Pennsylvania as they expand what they call their “faith-based organizing work in Pennsylvania.”

Still, the attacks on the teaching authority of the Church from Catholics United are insignificant compared with the newest attacks coming from Faith in Public Life/Faithful America. Soros and Gill money has enabled Faith in Public Life to expand as they have stacked their Board and their staff with those who had been part of the Soros supported Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and disgruntled former employees of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, including John Gehring, Tom Chabolla, and Fred Rotondaro. Unhappy that their progressive policies may be losing favor with some of the bishops at the USCCB, these individuals are paid to do all they can to destroy the teaching authority of the bishops on sexual morality.

As mentioned in an earlier Crisis article, Gehring, a former media office employee of the USCCB, has been especially aggressive in his attacks on individual bishops like San Francisco’s Archbishop Cordileone, Bishop Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin, Bishop Jenky of Peoria, Illinois, and New York City’s Cardinal Dolan.

In 2012, the bishops responded to Gehring’s earlier attacks in a press release—identifying him by name—alleging that Gehring had juxtaposed “fact with fiction” in his description of the actions of the bishops. Since that time, Gehring has actually escalated his attacks on the Church. Faithful Catholics need to extend the bishops’ response to Faithful America—refusing to be silenced by well-funded bullies who are determined to diminish the teaching authority of the bishops—and mounting their own response to the lies that are bought by those who want to discredit and marginalize Catholic moral teaching.

Anne Hendershott

By

Anne Hendershott is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Veritas Center at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. She is the author of Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education; The Politics of Abortion; and The Politics of Deviance (Encounter Books). She is also the co-author of Renewal: How a New Generation of Priests and Bishops are Revitalizing the Catholic Church (2013).

  • Hank Kaczmarek

    The Catholic Church isn’t the Boy Scouts of America. Throwing money (or withholding it by pressure in the case of the BSA) is NOT going to further their aims.

  • ForChristAlone

    “Soros and Gill money has enabled Faith in Public Life to expand as they have stacked their Board and their staff with those who had been part of the Soros supported Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and disgruntled former employees of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, including John Gehring, Tom Chabolla, and Fred Rotondaro. Unhappy that their progressive policies may be losing favor with some of the bishops at the USCCB, these individuals are paid to do all they can to destroy the teaching authority of the bishops on sexual morality.”

    This only confirms what I have been saying for years: that the USCCB is infiltrated with staffers violently opposed to Church teaching and actively seeking to undermine her authority. This extends through the USCCB, Catholic Relief Services, Catholic
    Campaign for Human Development and all the others. It is no different on the local diocesan and parish level: no effort is exerted to insure that only faithful Catholics are hired to engage in the ministry of the Church. If you do not believe all that the Catholic Church teaches – meaning you are not evangelized and catechized – then how can you participate in the mission of the Church?

    The bishops will need to get their house in order if they are going to truly shepherd their dioceses. Enough with the platitudes. The war has been engaged with Satan; meanwhile the bishops are sleeping.

    • Guest

      The question is why decade after decade passes and the house is never cleaned?

      • ForChristAlone

        Excellent question. You have my permission to ask your bishop this question. When you get your reply, request the CrisisEditor for you to write a piece about it here. It would prove instructive to us all.

        I have no idea what the fellas are thinking these days. They might be totally consumed with taking up their special collections for the various USCCB causes. They might also have too little time since I notice that Bishop Pates is in Iran working on some foreign policy initiative which I am certain are central to the mission of the Catholic Church.

        • Jeanettel

          Unfair potshot.
          “Special collections for the vafirous USCCB causes,” such as its anti-trafficking program? http://www.usccb.org/about/anti-trafficking-program/
          As for Bishop Pates’ work in Iran — why do you make negative assumptions? Are you unaware of the repression and killing of Chaldean Catholics in the Middle East?
          Recall what the bible says about sowing dissension and strife, “ForChristAlone”:
          Avoid strife and your sins will be fewer,
          for the hot-tempered kindle strife;
          The sinner disrupts friendships
          and sows discord among those who are at peace.
          -Sir. 28:8,9

    • Jeanettel

      The wolves infiltrate in sheeps clothing.
      The bishops are not sleeping; the battle is being fought on so many fronts that they are reduced to putting out fires. If you hadn’t noticed, the U.S. government is engaged on its own taxpayer-funded bullying effort in opposition to traditional biblical beliefs for which the Catholic Church stands. Hello, HHS Mandate.

      • ForChristAlone

        I’ll give you a pass this time and presume you have just crawled out from under a rock.

        • Jeanettel

          Why the hostility? Hmmm, non-Catholic? “My preference,” giving me an “assignment,” “inform the rest of us,” “my opinion” . . . it’s seems to be all about you. And you assume the worst about everyone, including Bishop Pates. How is what he is doing any of your business?
          Whoever says he is in the light, yet hates his brother, is still in the darkness. 1 John 2:9

          • somnipod

            How is what he is doing any of our business? ? Ummm. .. he is our bishop and his first duty is protecting the flick.
            Instead, like many in the USCCB (an utterly useless creation) he is too wrapped up in his pet social justice projects.

          • ForChristAlone

            Time to get busy with the assignment I gave you.

        • Luket

          LOL. It must be heaven on earth for you, knowing what the Will of God is for each of our Bishops and how the Holy Spirit wants to lead them! You really need to contact some one at the Vatican and let them know your available to the Bishops for spiritual direction. Obviously the Holy Spirit counldn’t possibly be leading Biship Pate to Iran to help rescue fellow Catholic Christians from torture and death. You presume too much.

          • ForChristAlone

            Some of us have the gift of prophesy and some of us don’t. You make an excellent point.

          • Jea

            As a bishop he was assigned to care for his particular geographical area. If he want to do the job of a bishop in Iraq instead he should leave the diocese he’s currently responsible for and go to Iraq.

        • Ann Saunders

          Man, you are showing a mean spirit! You need to remove the splinter from your own eye. I agree with some of what you have said , but to give assignments, lol, and to judge what this Bishop has taken on just because it is overseas is counterproductive. Are we not all one in the Lord?

          • ForChristAlone

            A bishop is ordinary in his own diocese. The problem with some bishops is that they are meddlesome. They get involved in matters that are not their concern and outside their jurisdiction. When a bishop can say that all is well in his own diocese as far as the faithful being prepared to heed Christ’s call to “proclaim the gospel to all nations,” then he might widen his concerns. Until then, “Feed my sheep.”
            I would like to see a report diocese by diocese that gives stats for how many new ADULT baptisms and confirmations there are as a percentage of the registered Catholics in that jurisdiction. My guess is that there is a very low rate of evangelization among all dioceses in the US – meaning that the very mission and purpose of the Church is not being effected. It is each bishop’s responsibility to lead when it comes to the Church’s mission.

    • Ann Saunders

      Yes, nice to hear the truth, always. So many are unaware and so many don’t care enough. The lukewarm will be ashamed of themselves when the meet with God , if they do, in the world to come.

  • Pamela

    We are battling renegade priests in our diocese whose rant against our bishop has made it into the local media, who in turn have called on “Voice of the Faithful” and “Call To Action”, two uber liberal so-called “Catholic” organizations, to comment on the situation — as if they represent the views of true, properly formed Catholics! Meanwhile, the pew sitters don’t know better and don’t ask questions … they just file this nonsense away as status quo and think everything is just fine. A sorry state of affairs, indeed. Please pray the Relay Rosary for our priests on World Priest Day, June 27. (Google it for more specifics)

    • somnipod

      I’m so sorry to hear about your diocese, Pamela.
      Whenever there is open fighting among prelates and “discussion” around items that are clearly sinful (ie homosexual activity/marriage, abortion, contraception, divorce/remarriage, abortion).
      I’m forced to remember our blessed mother’s words at Fatima, akita, etc.
      There will be much confusion and bishops will argue with bishop in the open over things that just a few years ago were accepted everywhere as objectively sinful and evil. Satan himself will have entered the sanctuary.

      • Ann Saunders

        Satan in the sanctuary? Hmm, thought that was impossible…

    • Magdalen

      “Call To Action” has operatives in my parish! I read Call to Action or Called to Apostasy; what an eye-opener.

      Call to Action or Call to Apostasy?: How Dissenters Plan to Remake the Catholic Church in Their Own Image

      Paperback

      – January 1, 1997

      by

      Brian W Clowes

      (Author) (Amazon.com)

      Book Burro

  • WalterPaulKomarnicki

    have they not heard of conflict of interest? the money should be returned forthwith.

    • Anne Hendershott

      Actually, groups like Sojourners, Faith in Public Life and FAithful America share the goals of Soros, Gill and Stryker – They all want to silence the Church – while still retaining the “front” of Christianity. What the real scandal to me is why is Jim Wallis personally attacking the teachings of the Catholic Church through Sojourners and his role in Faith in Public Life? He started Faith in Public Life just to do that.

      • hombre111

        Jim Wallis is a modern saint who long ago made his preferential option for the poor. Unlike many a bishop, he will not be going off to some mansion when he retires.

        • Guest

          Do saints contradict Christ? Must be that “new” morality.

          • hombre111

            I am rereading Humanae Vitae for the umpteenth time. To claim that its tortured biological reasoning represents the Gospel is a stretch.

            • Guest

              Are you the authority?

              The logic is clear and cogent.

              • hombre111

                Like I said, I am reading it again. A virgin, non-marked up copy, preceded by a prayer to the Holy Spirit to grasp the truth. Maybe, this time, a lightning bolt will descend and I will see the light.

                • John200

                  If it does not work this time, then get a faithful Catholic to lead you through it.

                  Let us know your results. Many of your interlocutors know what to do for you and stand ready to do it.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    If his parish operates a school, he might ask one of the 1st graders to walk him through it.

                • ForChristAlone

                  Please just go ahead and admit the idiot you really are.

                • lifeknight

                  Father, I pray for you every night. You need to reaffirm your vocation.

                  • hombre111

                    :>) Thanks! I am enjoying priesthood like no other time in my life! Fifty years and still asking God what he wants next. So far, prison ministry, Retrouvaille (chaplain in program flowing from Marriage Encounter, which helps people contemplating divorce), helping out at the parish on Sundays. I am so happy and pleased that I stuck through it through thick and thin. Four of us left out of fifteen ordained. Life has been a blessing.

                  • lifeknight

                    Please read HV with an open mind and heart. You must have some aspect of your vocation that seeks the Truth because you are on this website– defending topics that are not in line with Magisterial teaching. It takes a sincere heart to become a priest and to stick with it for a lifetime.

            • ForChristAlone

              BS X 1,000!

            • asmondius

              Such as……?

            • DE-173

              “They have eyes, but see not. “

        • Art Deco

          Jim Wallis is a modern saint who long ago made his preferential option for the poor.

          By editing an insipid magazine and acting as a Democratic Party operative?

        • ForChristAlone

          “He questions the Bishops’ campaign for religious liberty, which is actually a debate about contraception. ”

          You really ARE an idiot!

        • DE-173

          “preferential option for the poor”

          An incredibly vacuous term if there ever was one.

          • Art Deco

            There’s a man in my hometown named Fox who’s spent years running a shelter for vagrants. Wallis is actually a magazine editor and letterhead organization impresario. Hombre says
            ‘preferential option for the poor’ and what he has in mind is…Peggy Steinfels.

            • Guest

              And other dissenters.

          • hombre111

            Considering the fact that the phrase has been used by popes and bishops, your usual snide comment is laughable.

            • DE-173

              Oh bovine excrement. You couldn’t give rat’s backside on far clearer and better defined Papal and Episcopal pronouncements.

              Anybody who is at all familiar with your slithering, will shake their heads the next time you tell us how the Church’s position on contraceptives and homosexuality isn’t ill-defined but wrong.

              You really are without socially redeeming merit.

              • hombre111

                Get a thesaurus. New adjectives there.

                • DE-173

                  For somebody that peddles hackneyed clichés like a hot dog seller at a ball game, you might want to take your own advice.

                  • hombre111

                    As usual, a snide reply. Have I ever seen you put down in a few paragraphs how an issue looks to you? That is what I do, and then I wait for DE-173/TheAbaum/Abaum to come back with his one liners.

                    • DE-173

                      Snide: Pinata111 can’t answer.

                      Here’s a one-liner for you. Brevity is the soul of wit.

                      Oh and buy a thesaurus, to expand your vocabulary.

                    • hombre111

                      As the old lady in the advertisement said, long ago, where is the beef? Where is the cogent philosophy that underlies every nasty little thing you say. Spell it out, as I have done. Do it briefly, if you cannot develop a thought past 24 words.

                    • DE-173

                      Where is the cogent philosophy that underlies every nasty little thing you say. Spell it out, as I have done. Do it briefly, if you cannot develop a thought in less than 224 words.

                      Clara Peller was endearing. You are merely annoting.

            • ForChristAlone

              We are fully aware who most of these bishops are who dance around promoting the preferential option for the poor. We don’t need bishops of the post Vatican II ilk to remind us of the patrimony of the Church which prominently features assistance to the poor; it’s been happening for 2,000 years and not a new invention (despite what Bernardin said)

              • hombre111

                “Assistance to the poor.” Have you been listening to any of the popes? They talk, not about handouts, but about justice. Changing the social order that keeps cranking out so many poor.

                • ForChristAlone

                  In that case, how about the line, “the poor you will always have with you?” What’s your interpretation here, oh sage?

                  • hombre111

                    Keep reading the passage, which continues, “And you can help them if you wish.” Conservatives, with their hard nosed, patriarchal family view on life, clearly do not wish. Oh, yes. Give charity to the “deserving” poor. But even the Mormons, with the most impressive charity machine among all the religions of America, say that they cannot begin to help all the deserving poor among their own members, let alone among the other poor who live in their communities. Only Justice can do that. But that means a change in the structures that relentlessly create more and more poverty. Here, more than anywhere, conservatives have absolutely no wish to help the poor. This is what makes Jim Wallis so interesting. Coming from a conservative Evangelical background, his own studies of the Good News caused him to join the forces pushing for justice, along with charity. In reward, he is vilified by good conservatives everywhere.

                    • DE-173

                      “But that means a change in the structures that relentlessly create more and more poverty.”
                      You really should make an attempt to hide your post-modern Marxism.

                    • hombre111

                      Chuckle. Just in time for me to quote something I just read in “On Heaven and Earth,” a dialogue between Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, and Abraham Skorka, a Jewish rabbi.

                      p. 151 ff., in the midst of a discussion about Marxism. “The capitalist system has its own spiritual perversion: to tame religion. It tames religion so that it does not bother Capitalism too much; it brings it down to worldly terms…in both antagonistic systems, there is a vision of what opium is…. The capitalist system…tolerates a kind of tame transcendence that manifests in a worldly spirit. For religious people, the act of adoring God means to submit to his will, TO HIS JUSTICE, TO HIS LAW, AND TO HIS PROPHETIC INSPIRATION. On the other hand, for the worldly who manipulate religion, it is not too hot or too cold. Something like; “Behave yourselves, do some crooked things, but not too many.” There will be good manners and bad customs: a civilization of consumerism, of hedonism, of political arrangement between the powers or political sectors, the reign of money.”

                      As the voice of the capitalist oriented Acton Institute, Crisis often represents “tame religion,” “tamed transcendence,” and “good manners” toward the dominant cultural and economic force of our day. Maybe…maybe…Crisis will find some writer who has the guts to take the teaching of Popes John Paul, Benedict, and Francis as they really are when they speak about capitalism. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Socialism is not a worthy matter discussion. It is the capitalistic market system, where everything is for sale, which invades every corner of our world and helps create the values conservatives like to blame on liberals.

                    • DE-173

                      You really do need to stop imaging I take your posts as anything serious.

                      The real chuckle is that you think I take the new School Phd as a serious credential.

                    • hombre111

                      Then our conversation is over. Yap away

                    • DE-173

                      Finally!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      “conservatives have absolutely no wish to help the poor.” you’ve obviously disregarded the facts, my boy.

                    • hombre111

                      :>(Yeah, that was an overstatement. What I meant was, conservatives think charity is the way to help the poor, and usually ignore the interests of justice, which demand a change in the unjust social structures which create poverty.

                • ForChristAlone

                  Besides, speak to your boy in the WH about “cranking out so many poor.” In this case, he really DID build that (more poverty, that is).

                  • hombre111

                    This nonsense reply tries to turn Obama into some sort of omnipotent king. But he is president in a system which deliberately separated the powers. I would say that he was fairly impotent in the face of deliberate Rebublican effort to block everything he ever tried, and the massive machinery of Wall Street. He could fashion no major change without the help of congress. Since the House consistently refused to go along, it is idiotic to blame him for something he was unable to do by himself. Look how the Repubs are squawking now about the efforts he was able to accomplish with executive decisions, which did not begin to solve the problem.

                    • DE-173

                      I have a pen and a phone. However, it looks like the SCOTUS just clipped his wings.
                      In a just world, you’d be rotting in the same cell with the CORPSE-MAN from 57 states.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Very deft at deception. Defend Obama by attacking Republicans. You’ve got the meme down well. Good work! (but you DID forget to attack Bush).

                    • hombre111

                      Just look at the Obama years and his relationship with the Repubs, especially after the Tea Party victories. The president is not a king, as this most recent Supreme Court decision made clear. He has to work with Congress, and so Congress and the Republican attitude in the House are a HUGE part of the story. But you blame him as if he alone were the one in charge.

        • Karen

          I’m always hearing (recently from Melinda Gates, and now you) that “most Catholics do not agree with Church teaching on contraception.” Really? How do we know? How is that determined? They cannot even get accurate surveys on who voted for president. A much more personal, and in some ways medical, issue between husband and wife, or for a single woman, is really not known.

          I have never heard of any statistically valid study of Catholics to measure their views and practices (2 different things right there) on contraception.

          As for “agreeing” with the authors (I’m sure you know there are two) of H.V., 50 years is short in the life of the Church and it’s also been half a century of moral decay.

          Things may easily turn around yet and Pope Paul be proven right. It is true that once a person finally reads this short encyclical, they tend to see the light, at least in theory. It has virtually never been taught, preached or printed. It’s infallible, anyway, I think we can give it some time.

          • asmondius

            Phone Interviewer: Doing a Catholic survey. Are you Catholic?

            Respondent: Well, uh, my Mom was but we never really practiced at home….

            Phone Interviewer: Too bad – five bucks today for Catholics answering the poll.

            Respondent: The Holy Ghost just descended upon me!!! Ave’ and all that stuff!

          • hombre111

            I have always admired people who practice NFP. The best article I have seen on the subject recently is by a young female moral theologian writing in a site called Catholic Moral Theology. I follow this site because it is by the new wave of Catholic moral theologians, the majority of them now lay people.

            Theologians argue about whether or not a pope can every make an infallible statement based purely on Natural Law arguments, which is what Humanae Vitae does. As I have stated time and time again, rational, universal statements are the riskiest statements you can make. They can fall if: 1) New facts appear. 2) Someone has better logic. 3) Someone has a better perspective. 4). Someone offers a more adequate solution. On the minimum, a prayerful, well educated, Catholic couple sincerely trying to live their sacrament has a better perspective than a celibate male who has never really been acquainted with the questions married couples face every day.

            Pope John Paul poisoned the whole thing by associating birth control with the culture of death, a calumny leveled against countless Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic, who are trying to live as loving couples in a loving family. At the beginning of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul did the same thing by refusing to discuss the question within the larger context of the whole climate of the marriage, reducing it instead to a matter of biological function.

            As for how many Catholics practice birth control, an article in Reuters talks about a 2011 survey by the Guttmacher Institute, and an earlier study by the National Survey of Family Growth, which has tracked Catholic patterns for a long time.

            I agree that we are living within a moral sump. But I put that down to individualism, which is a much larger cultural question afflicting the Western world. Within that individualism, a person can justify anything. But the sincere Catholic couples I know do not have that kind of attitude. What they do, they do out of a sense of responsibility to their family, hoping to see it thrive. Like you, they are appalled by the selfishness they see around them.

            At the same time, they could use the witness, but not the boast of moral superiority, they find in Catholics who practice NFP. That is why that article by the young moral theologian cited above does such a good job.

            • jonnybeeski

              “. . . within the larger context of the whole climate of the marriage . . . ” Why should we evaluate this aspect of marriage based upon the whole climate of the marriage, but not, say, the promise to be faithful upon ‘the whole climate of the marriage’? Ponder this: ‘On the whole, honey, I have been faithful . . .’ – – does that make any kind of sense? Of course not.

              • hombre111

                :>) Good challenge, jonnyb. Go back to Genesis. The unitive role of marriage is mentioned first, which makes man and woman in the image and likeness of God. And THEN God blesses the couple and says “be fruitful and multiply.” Infidelity goes against the very nature of marriage. But limiting the number of children? For thoughtful reasons, after much conversation and prayer? That does not attack the nature of marriage. Otherwise, every marriage without children would be no marriage, and the Church should never celebrate the marriage of an older couple.

                • ForChristAlone

                  Ever hear of Elizabeth and Zechariah? Abraham and Sarah?

                  A couple enters into a true marriage when they understand the very end of marriage is for the procreation of children. Doing so does NOT guarantee that children will result. It must be your intention.

                  • hombre111

                    Just read Genesis again. Only those already blinded by the post-Augustinian mindset will not notice that Unity came first. After that, the blessing of children. For centuries, the Church said that the purpose of marriage was, first, blessing. Very little was even said about unity in Christ.

                    • jonnybeeski

                      See my earlier comment. How could there be a command to be fruitful until there was a complementary spouse? I do not think the order in which the purposes of marriage are set out is relevant, and I do not think such a distinction even makes sense, for the reason set forth in my second sentence here.
                      Nonetheless, the creation account in Gen 1 addresses the creation of male and female in God’s image, and then the command to be fruitful and multiply; the creation account in Gen 2 addresses the “flesh of my flesh/man leaves parents and clings to wife” part. By your logic, the command to be fruitful comes in Gen 1, and the flesh of my flesh part in chapter 2, so procreative is more important than unitive QED, no?

                • jonnybeeski

                  good morning, hombre, and thanks for your reply. I actually agree with almost everything you have written. However, that does not address my first comment, which concerns the morality of individual acts being, as far as I know, traditionally the only way to evaluate morality – – as opposed to the “whole life” standard you seem to suggest.
                  With respect to the “unitive first, procreation second” paradigm you have suggested, I submit that rather than an ordinal relationship, the two are inseparably intertwined, as God created us and as the Church, I believe, teaches. Plus, until a complementary spouse exists, there would have been no procreation to addres via the command to be fruitful. And really, it is not a “duty” in the sense of a burdensome obligation; what a gift to be entrusted to be co-creators of a new life with the Father!
                  I do think it is good to go back to Genesis. Male and female were created in God’s image. I suggest we most closely image the Trinity in our sexual complementarity within marriage in the marital act – the free, total, fruitful donation of self to the spouse. How one can see contraception – -the intentional blocking of part of that complete self-donation – -as consistent with our creation in that Trinitarian image is beyond me; it seems completely inconsistent and dis-integrated to me.

                  • hombre111

                    Excellent. Excellent. I think we differ on individual acts for a couple of reasons. First, I simply cannot buy a moral theory that reduces the complexity of a loving marital relationship to a pure biological moment. The fate of a sperm decides everything? It becomes, as Pope John Paul said, spousal adultery? The very use of the term adultery is so huge, implying so much infidelity to love and trust, that it is simply grotesque, a calumny.

                    Secondly, I have come in my own philosophical search, to an understanding that our core reality is cumulative. I guess I finally took a stand I wanted to take when I first began my philosophical studies, and learned that, at the very beginning, there was this argument between Parmenedes, who said that being was the basic reality, and Heraclitus, who said that becoming was the basic reality. I was struck by Heraclitus’ statement, which struck me as simply so true: “You cannot step in the same stream twice.” Parmenedes won the argument, and for thousands of years, philosophers have come down on the side of being. But then the problem becomes, how do you account for change?

                    In our modern era, when things are changing so fast, people desperately cling for something solid, and I understand that. I do not think that substance philosophy, which is behind so much natural law thinking, does the job. I have come to prefer, instead, the thinking of Charles Sanders Peirce and Donald Gelpi, S.J.. Substance thinking succumbs to the essence fallacy, which posits all these unchangeable realities. Peirce and Gelpi agree with the existence of law, but they are “humbly fallible.” They understand that our proclamation of unchangeable realities is very risky. I see this in the teaching that a biological reality, the unbroken passage of a sperm to an egg, decides the morality of the relationship between a man and a woman, and God.

            • Guest

              What rubbish. You make yourself an authority over Christ. Such faulty reasoning is not from the Holy Spirit. Shame.

        • asmondius

          There is no ‘debate’ about contraception – it is wrong, period. The only possible debate is for each individual as to whether they will follow the Church’s teaching or not. Considering the woes contraception has brought to Western societies, there isn’t much incentive to consider the teaching to be incorrect.
          The government’s attempt to force the support of contraception upon Catholicism is no different in practice or principle than attempts to force support of homosexual practices, abortion, etc.. That is the underlying reason for supporting religious liberty.

        • Percy Gryce

          Wallis is no saint. He is an admitted liar and calumniator:

          http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/44-41.0.html?paging=off

          • hombre111

            And you are intimately familiar with Sojourner and the Sojourner community.

          • DE-173

            Interesting. Hombre is an admitted liar as well. He recently claimed to be a Monsignor, only to retract the assertion with an admission that it was a bald-faced lie.

        • Jeanettel

          “Unlike many a bishop claiming moral superiority over a mere Protestant” — reference, please?

          • hombre111

            The fact that the Magisterium rejects arguments by solid Protestant moral theologians out of hand. Too often, Catholics are only the teachers when it comes to moral thinking, never the learners. This would be wonderful if the Magisterium was the first to oppose slavery, for instance. They weren’t. The Quakers were. Nor were they first to oppose war. The First Christians, and then the Quakers were. Nor was the hierarchy the leader the fight for civil rights. My bishop, whose rule went on and on, had nothing to say. Some bishops, liked the Archbishop of New Orleans finally entered the fray, but he was in the middle of the crowd, not in the front.

            • Jeanettel

              Your point remains unproved (“Unlike many a bishop claiming moral superiority over a mere Protestant”) by vague opinions which you assert as facts.
              Pope Eugene IV condemned slavery in the Canary Islands in 1435 and ordered immediate manumission (within 15 days). Other Popes condemning slavery included Gregory XIV (1591); Innocent XI (1686); Benedict XIV (1741), and Pius VII (1815). In 1838, Pope Gregory XVI condemned all forms of colonial slavery and the slave trade. Bam.
              Read about Archbishop Joseph Francis Rummel and his desegregation of parishes in the early ’50s, when it was quite controversial. “Had nothing to say”? Quite the contrary. Read his pastoral letter “Blessed Are the Peacemakers,” in which he declared “the unacceptability of racial discrimination.” Even led to threats of excommunication of some, according to http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1993-4/Smestad.html and who cites writer J. Edgar Bruns as summing up Rummel’s role quite well: ‘He is an unsung hero of the civil rights movement.’ ”
              When Freedom Riders were brutally beaten in Montgomery, Alabama, only Catholic St. Judes Hospital would treat wounded Riders of any color.
              Now, how is “not (being) the leader in civil rights” the equivalent of “claiming moral superiority over a mere Protestant”?
              ” . . .and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32

              • ForChristAlone

                good for you, Jeanettel! Your specifics should shut him up for awhile.

              • hombre111

                Nice reply, really. But the Church never made anti-slavery its moral position until the 1800’s, and, when I was a seminarian in the 1950’s, our ultra-orthodox moral theology manual even made a Natural Law argument that slavery could be an acceptable alternative.

                I am proud of Bishop Rummel and St. Jude’s Hospital. But there was no official position from the American Catholic bishops during this time. The few who spoke out were on their own. Unlike the Quakers and some Protestant churches at this time, who did take this risky stand.

            • Guest

              Do you believe all your propaganda and revisionist history? Really? All your heroes are kooks who made their reputations on dissent. That is what they are about- dissent.

              • hombre111

                Yep. Those dissenting pacifists the Quakers, who saw before the Church did that ” wars create more harm than good” (Pope John Paul) and fought against slavery before the 1820’s. And then that dissident Jim Wallis, who disagrees with America’s disinterest in the fate of its poor, especially the children.

                • Guest

                  Kung, Rahner, and all the rest you look to. Give it a rest. 1968 is long gone.

  • Fred

    Thanks Anne for yet another wonderful article on a difficult subject which appears to be the challenge of our time, along with the culture of death. Satan is certainly cunning and clever in his mission to destroy the church. There have been a great many articles written here in Crises on the broader subject with so many good points made that I would do a disservice to try and recant now. Why doesn’t anybody ask why these atheists and agnostics are funding so called “religious front organizations” to advance their perversions, and why is their money accepted? It seems to me though that we collectively need to find our spines and shake off our own timidity to defend the truth and strike at the tentacles before they take further root. Yes it would be helpful to rally behind strong leaders as well, and there are many, but many more may find their voice if they felt broader support. It’s easy to live in present and forget the past in realizing that crises are the history of the church in terms of defending Christ’s message throughout time, however, we do live in the present so this is the challenge for us in our day. Having said that, I am comfortable in the truth and sad for the state of our culture, yet uncertain how best to evangelize other than living my faith so I recognize that it is far easier to write than it is to do. God bless.

    • Anne Hendershott

      I agree – it is far easier to write than to do – I admire those who are out in the trenches – the faithful men and women who pray and witness out in front of abortion clinics – they are the real heroes. Thank you for your response.

  • Art Deco

    Chuckles. What these homosexual big swinging dicks don’t get is the shmucks their buying are salable for chump change.

  • cestusdei

    The devil is working overtime.

    • DE-173

      A lot of hairless bipeds are burning the midnight oil, as well.

  • Jhawk77

    Thanks, Anne, for a good article and for being a proper journalist. Keep ‘em coming!

    • Bill

      I’ll thank Anne also, but what good is coming out of articles like this? I, for one, have never heard my pastor(s) speak on this issue. The evidence is for all to see: the Washington Post conducted a poll in March, 2011 and found 63% support “gay marriage”; in October 2012 the Catholic National Reporter reported a poll showing 73% approval. These numbers should have been an alarm bell for every priest in the nation to issue a homily on the evils of same-gender marriage and explaining why in terms of Catholic moral doctrine. That should have been followed by a dire warning; that continue support of this evil was putting their immortal souls in serious danger of condemnation. The hell-fire homilies I’ve experienced in years past (I am 84 now) surely are not so out of fashion so as never to be heard. Scripture is full of such warnings. So, what is it that we average Catholics can do to stir our priests to do their sacred duty? Individual letters to the USCCB are not having any effect. I have often thought that if I were a priest and failed to inform the members of my parish about this and other evils I would be certainly terrified knowing that I must make an account of my inactions to Jesus after death.

      • Jhawk77

        Point taken and well made, Bill. The millstones may be getting heavier for many clerics, but the faithful also have a responsibility to nurture their faith and knowledge after confirmation, which many consider as some sort of a “graduation.”

        • Luket

          Amen. If I’m not mistaken one of the most profound renewals the Church has ever seen was led by a lay person, St. Francis (Assisi) You find this often throughout the history of the Church that renewal/revival is usually from the ground up, not the other way around. If your brothers and sisters in the pews (or not in them) are struggling in their faith it’s kind of silly to think that if only the Bishop would do/say something it would change their hearts. That, after Jesus himself told us “even if someone was to come back from the dead to tell them they wouldn’t change” No, the onus is on each of us

      • somnipod

        There is no doubt that things won’t be pretty for silent cowardly bishops at their judgement.
        Things will look even more grim for the active homosexual priests and bishops that purposely lead their flocks astray and other forms of scandalous behavior (something about a millstone being tied somewhere and the sea).

      • Ann Saunders

        Do you really think those sources the bastion of the truth? Yes, let us let them turn us into reactionaries, and their opinions mandate the sermons from now on!

  • Pingback: 10 Ways to Fall in Love with the Eucharist - BigPulpit.com

  • Bruno

    Trying to bribe us away from Christ is it? Nothing new. You won’t succeed.

  • fredx2

    I remember an article in the Atlantic several years ago, where Tim Gill was featured. The article claimed that he and several other gay billionaires had decided to pour money into state legislative campaigns, because they found that on average, a state leglislative seat could be bought for around $10,000. This was because most state legislative seats merely go to the person who has the most lawn signs. Most people pay little or no attention to who their state rep is.

    So, for a relatively low amount, they could change the entire makeup of a state legislature.

    This appears to be what happened in Minnesota. The gay marriage ban was put on the ballot by the republican state legislature. However, a lot of money flowed into the state. There were constant TV ads by the pro gay marriage forces. There were little or no counter ads by the anti gay marriage forces. They were grass roots and had no money.

    Before the election, no one predicted the state legislature would turn Democratic. All analysts expected it to stay republican. However, when the election was over, suddenly there were Democratic majorities in the House, Senate and Governor. The gay marriage ban amendment failed, and suddenly the media started pushing for allowing gay marriage. Then, pretty much the first thing the new legislature did was pass gay marriage.

    I heard more than one person ask “how in the world did we suddenly get gay marriage in Minnesota?” The answer appears to be “Because gay billionaires wanted it”

    • Art Deco

      If I am not mistaken, the position the Republican Party has in state legislatures is as good as it has been since the 1920s. It would seem their strategy has its limits.

  • fredx2

    The very troubling thing is this: Why are people who are not even Catholic funding massive efforts to change the doctrines of Catholicism? Isn’t this fundamentally immoral?

    “According to Guidestar, Gill awarded $100,000 to Catholics United in 2011 to help meet the goal of changing Catholic views of homosexuality—including same sex marriage. ”

    So a billionaire is trying to change the doctrines of the church to fit his own personal ideas?

    What would they say if he went out to change the doctrines of Islam? The progressives would roast him alive as a “proselytizer” and that he had no business interfering, unless he is a Muslim.

    So he is basically HIRING ostensibly Catholic organizations (That usually represent a tiny, tiny percentage of Catholics but have names that sound like they represent large swaths of Catholicism.) to do his work for him. They will ignore the march for Life each year, but every tiny Catholic howling group gets ten or 20 news articles a year.

    • Art Deco

      So a billionaire is trying to change the doctrines of the church to fit his own personal ideas?

      Well, he’s accustomed to getting what he wants.

      • DE-173

        He’ll also enjoy immunity from the sort of public criticism that normally accompanies being “rich”. You’ll note the absence of incoherent stammering from the resident institutional parasite.

  • tamsin

    “a private grantmaking foundation that supports nonprofit organizations around the world working in two areas…”

    Which are in fact one area: man is just another animal swinging through the trees…

    • DE-173

      Brilliant, just brilliant.

  • hombre111

    Hey, thanks, Anne. You gave me two more sites to add to my bookmarks column.

    • Guest

      Which sites? The ones that promote evil?

      • hombre111

        The two sites Anne mentioned. Did you go to them to find out what they are really saying, or did you just take her word for it? If you didn’t check them out, you are lazy.

        • Guest

          I know there propaganda well. Why would any god Catholic
          affirm nonsense?

    • somnipod

      ?? what a strange thing to say? ?

      • hombre111

        Not really. Just go to Faithful America, or especially to Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and actually read what they have to say and how they say it. I will return often to Catholics in Alliance, which writes out of a sincere Catholic perspective.

        • Salvelinus

          None of those groups are actually Catholic. They regularly dissent from teachings on morality (homosexual lifestyle acceptance, divorce and remarriage, contraception, female “ordination”) and disregard of the law (support of illegal immigration – Ignoring that its – ILLEGAL)

          Their thinly veiled support abortion and population control is also very troubling but gets the attention of George Soros and his blood money.

          Sadly, when a Catholic story makes the mainstream media, anti-catholic organizations like CNN turn to these progressive groups.

          The word “catholic” in their name allows them to be the “voice of Catholicism” and their heresy is transmitted across the world by given the microphone by secular media.
          The scandal comes from the fact that nothing they speak is actually Catholic. Their version of Catholicism is nothing more than worldly “social justice” tripe, and the worst garbage that sprang forth since Vatican II. “Spirit of Vatican II” goblygook….

          They will have much to answer for in the end.

          • hombre111

            It is obvious you still haven’t gone to the website.

          • DE-173

            “None of those groups are actually Catholic. They regularly dissent from teachings on morality (homosexual lifestyle acceptance, divorce and remarriage, contraception,”
            Piñata111 is just proving the old adage about “birds of a feather”…

        • Guest

          What propaganda. Anti Catholic nonsense.

    • ForChristAlone

      Are you some kind of idiot?

      • DE-173

        Just a fraud.

  • Cincinnatus1775

    It is well past time for the Bishops to begin imposing consequences on nominally Catholic individuals and organizations that persist in actively opposing the Magisterium. Their failure to do so up to now has sown scandal and confusion and demoralizes faithful Catholics.

    While all Catholics should pray that Nancy Pelosi see the error of her ways, repent and return to full communion with the Pope, it was important that Cardinal Burke recently invoked Canon 915 in her case. Nominally Catholic universities and organizations that persist in rebelling against the Church should likewise feel consequences. For starters, they not be allowed to call themselves Catholic, and individuals who lead or support such organizations should be subject to Canon 915.

    Anyone who is half paying attention to current events is aware that these are dangerous times for Christians in general and Catholics in particular. A great sorting out is coming, and Christians will soon have to decide whose side they are on. Anthony Esolen’s excellent June 15 piece on Lifesite entitled “Christians are Born for Combat:don’t run from that calling” is germane. The enemies of the Church state openly and frequently their desire to destroy it. They have declared war on the Church, and as Esolen says, “It does not matter whether we wish it or not. The war is here. We can no longer harbor any pleasant illusions about it.”

    The war is here, and it would be helpful if the Bishops would do what they can to remove at least a few of the most egregious traitors from our ranks. I pray some would repent, but I would rather go into a fight with 10 people I can count on than with 100 of dubious loyalty.

  • Pingback: What’s Behind Pelosi’s Attack on Archbishop Cordileone? | Presentation Parish Right to Life (R2L)

  • tamsin

    How does promoting LGBT rights help the poor?

    Does the preferential option for the poor include not just the materially poor, and the spiritually poor, but also those who feel poor in social affirmation of their sexual expression? Not getting it.

    I just don’t see how abolishing the communal ideal of fertile, faithful, forever marriage… helps the poor.

    Does eliding the commitment of a man to a woman to their child somehow free up money for the government to use to parent poor children, better?

    • DE-173

      “I just don’t see how abolishing the communal ideal of fertile, faithful, forever marriage… helps the poor.”

      The weaker the family, the weaker the Church, the more disordered society, the more the individuals stands alone against the world, and the more people sing these verses from the theme song by Remy Zero from Smallville.

      feel the waves crash down inside
      And, they pull me under
      I would give you anything you want, oh
      You are all I wanted
      All my dreams have fallen down
      Crawlin’ around and around and around…

      Somebody save me
      Let your warm hands break right through it
      Somebody save me
      I don’t care how you do it, just stay, stay
      C’mon, I’ve been waiting for you

      All my dreams are on the ground
      Crawlin’ around and around and around…

      Somebody save me
      Let your warm hands break right through
      Somebody save me
      I don’t care how you do it just stay (stay with me)

      The third, tenth, next to last and last lines are the most important.

      • tamsin

        Yes. We are all to be wards of the State, rescued and tended by experts.

        How exactly does a Catholic square that circle? Biblical literalism? “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” ? The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth is a giant orphanage run by Government?

        “Government is the only thing we all belong to.”

  • bill b

    Excellent research and reporting by Anne.

  • somnipod

    Great article.
    In this clear time of battle the traitors and turncoats should either repent our be removed from the ranks of “Catholicism”.

    Before the enemies of the Church (yes, the ones that are inside the Vatican) water down Canon law even more, Nancy Pelosi catholics (and their mouthpieces like Commonweal and national catholic reporter) should have the distinction of “Catholic” removed from their name.
    For heaven’s sake, Mike Voris was forced to remove “Catholic” from Real Catholic TV. And the good stuff Mike Voris and his group puts out is thoroughly Catholic!

    So yes, bishops have the ability to “urge” dissenting groups, but it tends to be the progressive dissenting ones that do it

  • BillinJax

    As far as our Bishops behavior is concerned we should admit that we have too few who act like bishops as Fulton Sheen charged us to make sure we have, aka Archbishop Chaput and some others.
    There are too few Generals of the Gospels like Paul who by faith are bold
    enough and self assured enough to go to the front lines of the fight and lead
    the church militant faithful against those who are attacking the foundations of
    our teachings.
    There are, unfortunately, too many Lieutenants of the liturgy who lack the courage to venture
    beyond the comfort of their prestigious positions within the hierarchy and ponder only our actions and customs within the pews.

  • rod mason

    My burning question to whoever CAN answer it would be: Who is providing the necessary foundational research to the often quoted statistic that upwards of 80% of Catholic married women in the U.S. use contraception, including abortifacient contraception, on a regular basis? If that stat is true, we’re in a profound cultural pickle. So just WHO has the actual facts to support this assertion? From where are they derived? Just aking.

  • Captain America

    I am a Hendershottian; good column! Vastly important in helping show how the Big Gay Propaganda Bandwagon is actually being driven by just a few individuals.

  • Mary Wert

    I find this sentence hilarious in its grammatical structure because as written it states what is true. Of course it is the opposite of what they intended to say: “Identify, network, train and amplify the voices of lesbian feminist Catholics and in so doing, create a counter-voice to the Catholic hierarchy that respects, values and affirms people of all sexual orientations and gender identities.”
    We know it is true that the Catholic Hierarchy respects, value and affirms people of all sexual orientation and gender identities because the Catholic Church loves and values all of God’s people.

  • Vinnie

    The Mass reading the day after this was published –

    Jesus said to his disciples:“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing,
    but underneath are ravenous wolves.
    By their fruits you will know them.
    Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
    Just so, every good tree bears good fruit,
    and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
    A good tree cannot bear bad fruit,
    nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
    Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down
    and thrown into the fire.
    So by their fruits you will know them.”

  • http://freedomfromdemocracy.blogspot.com/ InTheCampofSaintMichael

    The homosexual lobby is the greatest threat we face in America and the Church today.

  • shieldsheafson

    IMHO this is a loss of the gift of faith: In this case, from organisations calling themselves ‘Catholic’.

    This loss of faith frequently transforms their intellectual conclusions into convictions they believe to be in harmony with Christian doctrine. And it seems to affect clergy more than most. Pride and carelessness prevents seeing where this type of thought is leading: Modernist conclusions to unsound theology which were bound to be condemned – as soon as anyone bothered to look at them. Eventually, the mind is completely out of sympathy with Catholic teaching.

    To those whose job it may be to explain Catholic theology to people outside the Church, should ask themselves the question; Can I trust the Catholic Church as the final repository of revealed Truth? – then they might not get themselves into such a pickle.

    If they don’t, it makes no difference what they believe or disbelieve.

  • tamsin

    From How The Trans-Agenda Seeks To Redefine Everyone,
    If we agree to change language to suit the [gay and] transgender lobby, we ultimately agree to destroy in law the entire basis (sex distinctions) for the only union that can result in autonomously formed families.

    If you think you’ll be able to cultivate and preserve strong personal relationships in this new matrix, you are mistaken. That can’t easily happen in a system in which your familial relationships are not acknowledged or respected by the State. This gender-neutral scheme obliterates the template for the family as a unit. And if the family is no longer accepted as a union that originates through the union of male and female, there is no real basis for the State to recognize any family as an autonomous unit. Without any such obligation, children become more easily classified as state property and our personal relationships are more easily controlled by the state. If that sounds totalitarian, that’s because it is.

    Why do Social Justice Catholics want this?

    • Mal

      It eases their conscience.

  • Florian

    I wonder if these groups are paying Nancy Pelosi to continue to attack the Bishops and the teachings of the Catholic Church while aggressively promoting the mass slaughter of babies in the womb? She claims to be a faithful Catholic…this undermining of Church teaching is confusing for those who do not know the truth and so hopefully the Bishops will come together and make a strong statement about all this before it’s too late!

  • faithandfamilyfirst

    Pray, fast, and give alms for the protection and preservation of our holy priests.

  • Pingback: 30 Pieces of Silver: Marginalizing Catholic Teaching One Grant at a Time | Catholic Canada

  • Pingback: Why We Need Catholics For Ohio! | Catholics for Ohio

  • Jcar

    The gates of hell are on the move.

  • Pingback: Vox's White Martyrdom | Catholic Canada

  • Dagnabbit_42

    Question: Do the bishops have the power to do anything about the disobedience of the colleges?

    I mean, if it was a job requirement for all the administrators and faculty of a Catholic institution of higher learning that they either (a.) be a Catholic in good standing and a regular communicant; and/or (b.) have a temporary, annually-renewed charter from the bishop to teach or administrate at any Catholic institution within that bishop’s diocese, then the matter would be quite simple. Whenever a person demonstrated that they held heretical opinions, the bishop could either (if they were Catholic) designate them as “not in good standing” or simply fail to renew their charter to teach or administrate, and, hey presto! They don’t work there anymore!

    (I’m sure they’d quickly obtain sinecure from some lefty foundation…but, then, it wouldn’t hurt the world at all if lefty foundations quickly found their finances stretched by the cost of keeping heretical professors afloat while they sought new employment.)

    So, when I’m asking, “Do the bishops have the power to do anything?” I’m trying to find out whether it’s the bishops who’re to blame for doing nothing, or if they really can’t do anything.

    For example, if a college calls itself “Catholic” but its finances and administration and hiring decisions are not in any way dependent on the approval of the bishop, then the bishop is without power…and honestly, that should never, ever happen. There SHOULD NOT BE, within the diocese, any person or thing calling themselves Catholic without being in good standing with their bishop (yes, yes, with the proviso that “their bishop” might not be the local ordinary but may come from some other structure like a personal ordinariate or whatever).

    Perhaps the most the bishop can do, for a particular university, is simply revoke that university’s authority to use the label “Catholic.” But that is no power at all, really: They’ll just alter their branding to call themselves a university “within the ancient Catholic tradition” or some such mealy-mouthed loose equivalent sufficient to deceive the masses.

    At any rate, let’s not accuse bishops of failing to shepherd their flocks if the institutions of higher learning are entirely outside the practical reach of their shepherds’ crooks.

    But if that’s the case, then perhaps the Church worldwide needs a bit of reform in how it relates to institutions of higher learning: Anything “Catholic” really ought to be within the disciplinary reach of a bishop’s crozier.

MENU