ADF Email: Ninth Circuit Hits the Brakes

Just got the following in an email from Alliance Defense Fund:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Monday put the brakes on an Aug. 18 implementation date for U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s order overthrowing the will of 7 million California voters with regard to marriage.

The court granted a motion filed by the ProtectMarriage.com legal team, including attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, that asked the court to stay the judge’s Aug. 4 decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger until the appellate court has time to hear the case.

“It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard, so the 9th Circuit’s decision is clearly the right call,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Jim Campbell. “Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending. This case has just begun. ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.”

As part of its order, the 9th Circuit also issued an expedited appeal schedule in the case, with the opening brief due Sept. 17 and oral argument to be heard the week of Dec. 6.
----------
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy training funding and litigation.

Copyright © 2010 Alliance Defense Fund. All Rights Reserved 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Here's ADF's pitch for a donation:

Your prayers and financial support enable ADF to fight – and WIN – in the battle to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Please continue to join us in prayer and consider giving a generous $35, $50 or $100 donation to help preserve marriage and religious freedom in America.

Here's ADF's donation link.

Cat people need not apply

Barb the Evil Genius points out a dubious home sales technique.

I read this and weep

Marjorie Campbell's article "The New Sexual Predator" rings all too true to me. I have five boys and I almost despair when I see girls just 5 or 6 years older than my oldest who is 8. I never had to deal with this shit. Sluts used to be marginalized; now they are getting to be mainstream. Excerpt:

I first noticed this alarming social dynamic in our parochial middle school here in San Francisco. Our son, encouraged by a romantic interest in one of his classmates, secretly placed a white, long-stemmed rose in the young girl's desk. When the object of his affection opened her desk, she coughed loudly to get the class's full attention, stared at my son, and ripped the flower to shreds, slowly dropping the destroyed petals to the floor.

"Well, yes," I was later told by a teacher. "Girls can be a bit mean at this age. They are experimenting and testing boundaries that, for them, tend to be social. They experiment with attracting and rejecting boys' attention."

"Experiment?" I wondered at the time, marveling at this vacuous defense. My son's school, like every Catholic middle and high school, has firm, well-enforced boundaries to control boys' bullying each other and in any way harassing girls. No boy would dare similarly humiliate a girl -- much less touch, push, or harass a female peer -- without fully anticipating swift, certain, and painful consequences, including expulsion. Nevertheless, I have watched girls throw themselves against boys, shove and trip them, rumple their hair and tug their clothing, whisper derogatory, stinging insults -- all with no consequence, no correction. Experiment? How about "bullying without compassion or correction"?

Yeah, guys get hardons a lot, but we also have hearts. Also:

Second, in California, the radical feminist agenda has pushed for a host of laws that allow girls to obtain confidential "reproductive health" care. Internet sites like www.teensource.org and Planned Parenthood's "Teen Talk," aimed at teenage girls, explicitly and enthusiastically encourage girls to engage in aggressive sexual activity by "taking control" and viewing sex as yet another hobby, not an emotionally defining interaction between feeling persons. This is but one consequence of the Pill, now celebrating its 50th anniversary.

I'm telling you, this stuff is scary.

Dawn Eden Thesis Now Available

Here's Dawn Eden's Masters Thesis which she has again made available, this time for free. I had read an earlier edition and blogged about it back in April when she first made it available, before she withdrew it to make some changes. It's worth reading, there are many insights within which shed light on the Christopher West controversy. I found her response to one of the criticisms leveled at her to me very good and enlightening for many discussions, i.e., her response to the question "Isn’t it unfair to criticize West when I have not met him personally?"

People who make this claim are assuming that since I do not mention having had personal contact with West in my thesis, I have not made any attempt to reach him. In fact, I have corresponded privately with him on more than one occasion prior to writing my thesis, offering fraternal correction. I did not mention this correspondence in my thesis because it was private.

This is in fact often the case when academics criticize one another publicly, particularly in the relatively small community of Catholic scholars. They do not mention the personal communication in their critiques, because to do so would violate confidentiality, or it might seem petty (“I told X that he was wrong, but he refused to change his position”). It is wrong to assume that public criticism is for them anything but a last resort.

See, reading this response is a great example of how Ms. Eden is such a class act. I would have merely quoted the famous saying "You know what you do when you assume..."

Hat tip to Mark Shea.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

"This feels real good"

Emphasis mine. It's from a guy named Bob Kloos from Cleveland Heights mentioned in this article about a new micro-schismatic group in the Cleveland Diocese, and the line pretty much sums up the justification for defying an order from Bishop Lennon. Excerpt:

Defying the authority of their bishop, parishioners and their priest from the closed St. Peter Catholic Church in downtown Cleveland celebrated Mass Sunday in leased commercial space they transformed into a church independent of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese.

The move by the new Community of St. Peter puts members in danger of excommunication because they had been warned by Bishop Richard Lennon, who shuttered St. Peter's in April, not to hold worship services in places without his approval.

Still, about 350 people, joined by their spiritual leader, the Rev. Robert Marrone, gathered for their first Mass and communion in their new home ― a newly renovated, century-old building on Euclid Avenue and East 71st Street.

"This feels real good," said parishioner Bob Kloos of Cleveland Heights. "This is the handiwork of hundreds of people over many, many months."

Uh, huh. The article gets even goofier. These people are called traditional Catholics several times, which makes these two paragraphs fairly laughable:

At the opening hymn, the standing-room only crowd, joined by a choir and classical musicians, sang "Christ be our light. Shine in your church gathered today. . ."

Following the closing hymn, the crowd burst into an extended applause as the faithful hugged each other and cried tears of joy.

I must be losing my memory. In my many years attending a traditional Latin Mass I don't recall group hugs afterward nor ever once singing "Christ Be Our Light." The photo further down in the article of a smiling lady "pass[ing] out communion" was also a sight I missed in my old Trad circles.

Also, check out this related morsel from a sidebar about schismatic groups on the same page by the same author:

The irony is most who splinter off are actually more Catholic in their beliefs than main-stream Catholics.

Well, yeah, this is what I've had preached to me over and over again ever since running into my first schismatic acquaintance years ago. He also informed me that everything the Church has taught for the last 60 years is untrustworthy and the Pope is probably a phony. Plus I heard from another that the authority of the bishops doesn't exist and that all Novus Ordo Masses were invalid. And from a third I learned that anyone not folding their hands properly at Mass is going to hell. We used to call this "more Catholic than the Pope"; I'm guessing he qualifies as "mainstream".

Then we get some more "feelings" from Ms. Joseph of Shaker Heights:

"I feel wonderful at this moment," said parishioner Suzanne Joseph of Shaker Heights. "It's a little scary. We're kind of going into a new way of being within the Catholic church, but I'm very happy we're on this journey."

It's called a honeymoon, sweetie. Wait until the arguments begin about what to do next. Then everyone will really be feeling the love.

The St. Peter rebellion is unique because unlike in Boston, where five congregations, in defiance of the archdiocese, have been illegally occupying closed churches for up to five years, the Cleveland group has created its own worship space complete with a new altar, baptismal fount and sacred icons.

Like the coining of "St. Peter rebellion". Kind of Star Wars-y. Note the absence of the word "protest" in the article. Advice: call these people "protestants" at your own peril. My friend did this once; I don't think the guy ever talked to him again. It's funny―they don't know anything more about what Protestants believe than what the Catholic Church teaches about it's own authority. What they do know is that they are most definitely not Protestant―that is NOT cool, whatever it means.

The new space, unlike the classic cathedral structure of the closed St. Peter's, is a huge, brick-walled room painted white and lighted with rows of overhead spot lights and glass sky lights above exposed steel rafters.

It is very sad to note that the writer of this piece, Michael O'Malley, is the Plain Dealer religion writer. Seriously, does he know that the word "cathedral" does not designate a type of architecture? Must have gone to school with Nancy Pelosi.

I don't suppose there will be any weddings at the newly formed St. Peter More-Catholic-Than-You church. Brides favor that "classic cathedral" look over the "steel rafters".

If you read the rest of the article it gets more and more depressing. This thing has been done so many times before. Of course it's schismatic. Of course it will be short-lived. And, of course, it is an example of blatant ignorance and naivete on just about everyone's part except for the priest. Father Marrone likely knows better; hopefully he will repent of this action.

Update: What do you know? Huffington Post reports that Bob Kloos gave $325 to Barack Obama's Presidential campaign in 2008 and $765 to Dennis Kucinich's 2004 campaign. Thanks for the clarification, Arianna.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

Bill Donohue on Anne Rice

I have a lot of opinions on events in the news, big or small. I don't always blog on them for one reason or another. Either I'm too busy, too lazy or just too something else or whatever. But on matters of slinging mud at the Church I barely ever need to go farther than the Catholic League and Bill Donohue who nearly always shares and expresses my exact opinion in precise and succinct language. His summary of Anne Rice's latest temper tantrum is no exception; here are some excerpts:

Rice said this week that when the American bishops opposed homosexual marriage, that was the "last straw." She offered, "I didn't anticipate in the beginning that U.S. Catholic Bishops were going to come out against same-sex marriage." Did she think they would be silent on one of the most contentious moral issues of our day? Or that they were silently cheering for gay marriage all along? Either way, her virginal views are startling.

Yeah; I wonder if she knows how to say the Our Father yet.

Last night, Rice told Joy Behar "I myself am anti-abortion." It didn't take long before the pro-abortion and anti-Catholic Behar snapped, "You would deny other women the choice to have an abortion?" To which Rice said, "I would not deny them the choice." Yet in the same breath she added, "I do think it's the taking of a human life."

Wow, not above her pay grade, I guess, to say that unborn humans are actually human. Didn't even need Mr. Spock's tricorder. But "go ahead and kill 'em anyway" seems to be her position, at least when around Joyless Behar.

Rice came back to the Catholic Church in the 1990s, but only the day before yesterday did she learn that the bishops are not fond of guys marrying. She said in 2008 that Catholicism is not anti-gay, but in 2010 it was so anti-gay she had to quit. She is pro-life, knows abortion kills, but sides with the agenda of Planned Parenthood. She wants Christ without the Christianity. This is more than an odyssey—it's a tragedy.

Well, her odyssey is not over yet, odd and dizzying as it may be. My advice is that when and if she does come back to the Church that she does it quietly. I suppose I'd advise any other authors known for noisy conversions to do the same. You're welcome in the church, but please shut the hell up. We'll listen to people who know what they are talking about. Those of us who want to read cheesy novels will make sure you can afford your big mansions and whatnot.

Morgan Freeman Solves the "Race Problem"

Hat tip and thanks to Mark Shea for this beautiful and sensible video.

"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery,
None but ourselves can free our mind...." - Bob Marley

Thomas Messner on the Moral Arguments in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

I always feel blessed to meet—seemingly at random—great people in my travels in this great country and this great state. A few weeks back I was fortunate to meet Tom Messner, the author of this fine piece which he wrote for the Heritage Foundation. "A chance meeting, as we say in Middle-Earth." (Or something like that.)

What Tom succeeds in doing here is to demonstrate the selectivity of those defending same-sex marriage by which they either dismiss or "harness" (his word) religious and moral arguments in the debate. So he effectively demonstrates that the question is to which morality do we appeal not do we appeal to morality. He quotes an unlikely source to emphasize this: President Obama.

More pragmatically, everyone has a worldview and everyone inevitably brings that worldview to bear on issues of public policy, including marriage. Therefore, as Barack Obama stated when he was still a U.S. Senator, “[S]ecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square…. [T]o say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality . . . .”

I think that this is a really good read, and I'm hoping some of those students of law and history who hang out here can comment on it. Roger, Kathleen, Paul Z et al.