Patrick Craine

,

‘Catholics for Choice’ World Youth Day condom ads rejected

Patrick Craine
Patrick Craine
Image

MADRID, Spain, July 14, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The efforts of the U.S.-based pro-abortion group ‘Catholics for Choice’ to subvert Catholic sexual teaching at next month’s World Youth Day in Madrid experienced a major setback this week when their ads were rejected by a local advertising company.

At previous World Youth Days in Toronto and Cologne, Catholics for Choice has spread its message of dissent and distributed condoms to the young pilgrims.

The group had planned to run their Condoms4Life advertising campaign again on Madrid’s transport system, with a deceptive message thanking Pope Benedict XVI for “acknowledging that condoms save lives.”

But they say Publimedia, a Madrid advertising company, rejected the ads, which has the group now crying “censorship.”

“It appears that pressure has been applied to ensure these advertisements don’t run,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, in a press release.  “Whether that pressure came from the church hierarchy, conservative politicians or other forces, it is an outrageous infringement on free speech.”

“As Catholics, we were supporting Pope Benedict’s claim that condoms can save lives. This was a major breakthrough in the hierarchy’s position on the use of condoms,” he added.  “How can it be offensive for Catholics to support the position of the pope?”

The claim capitalizes on the confusion among the faithful in November after Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on condoms appeared in Peter Seewald’s book-length interview, “The Light of the World.”

Contrary to Catholic for Choice’s assertion, however, the pope insisted that condoms are not a “real or moral solution” to the AIDS crisis, defending his 2009 statement in Africa that condoms are, in fact, detrimental to the fight against AIDS.

At the same time, the pope mused that the use of a condom by a male prostitute to avoid infecting his client could be “a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.”

The world’s media took the latter phrase as a sign that the pope was relaxing the Church’s traditional teaching against contraception, running headlines such as “Pope endorses limited use of condoms.”  International bodies like the World Health Organization and UNAIDS praised the pope for making “a positive step forward.”

But in December, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterated that the pope did not approve the use of condoms for any reason, whether to prevent the spread of AIDS or for contraception in any circumstances.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Appeals court creates ‘right to marry by everyone and to anyone’ in Virginia: dissent

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

RICHMOND, VA – Virginia's constitutional marriage amendment lost a divided decision Monday before a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, on a 2-1 margin.

Judge Henry Floyd, appointed by President George W. Bush and elevated by President Barack Obama, wrote the opinion in Bostic v. Schaefer on behalf of himself and Judge Roger L. Gregory, originally a controversial Clinton recess appointment adopted by Bush-43. Their decision upholds a ruling by U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, who was appointed by President Obama.

Virginia voters adopted a constitutional marriage protection amendment, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, in 2006 with 57 percent of the vote.

Judge Floyd blamed the state's decision not to elevate gay unions to the level of traditional marriages on the majority's “inertia and apprehension.”

In his dissent, Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, a Reagan appointee, called the majority ruling “fundamentally flawed,” saying his colleagues “failed to conduct the necessary constitutional analysis.”

The other two judges erred by “concluding simply and broadly that the fundamental ‘right to marry’ – by everyone and to anyone – may not be infringed,” because the ruling fails to address “why this broad right to marry, as the majority defines it, does not also encompass the ‘right’ of a father to marry his daughter or the ‘right’ of any person to marry multiple partners.”

“If the majority were to recognize and address the distinction between the two relationships – the traditional one and the new one – as it must, it would simply be unable to reach the conclusion that it has reached,” he wrote.

Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council's senior fellow for policy studies, agreed with Niemeyer. “The court ruling defines the 'right to marry' so broadly that it raises the question whether the logic would allow society to maintain any coherent definition of marriage," he said in a press release.

In a statement, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, who co-authored the amendment, asked, “Will three lesbian women in Massachusetts, a 'throuple,' move to Virginia to have their aberrant 'marriage' relationship sanctioned by Judges Gregory and Floyd?”

Marriage redefinition proponents have held that excluding homosexuals is a new legal stratagem, and concerns about the well-being of children serve only to hide lawmakers' “animus” against homosexuals.

But Niemeyer quoted state marriage laws, in some cases stretching back more than 100 years, which affirm marriage as the “mutual agreement of a man and a woman to marry each other” for the purpose of “establishing a family, the continuance of the race, the propagation of children, and the general good of society.”

“Virginia’s laws have always rightly reflected the true and complementary nature of marriage,” Victoria Cobb, president of The Family Foundation of Virginia, said in a statement. “It’s unfortunate that the court rejected the right of Virginians to define marriage consistent with their concern with what’s best for children and society as a whole” and “chosen to disenfranchise the 1.3 million Virginians who legally voted to amend our constitution.”

The case was left to Norfolk clerk George Schaefer III, after newly-elected state Attorney General Mark Herring refused to defend the law in court. Virginia's Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe, who defeated former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in the 2013 governor's race, celebrated the legal imbalance.

“I want to thank Attorney General Mark Herring for his leadership in this case, and all of the men and women who fought for years to make this day a reality,” the governor said in a statement. “Progress does not always come as quickly as we hope it will, but today is yet another example of how justice, equality, and the people who fight for those values will always persevere in the end.”

Despite a string of rulings invalidating voter-backed amendments across the nation, traditional marriage supporters refuse to concede.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Byron Babione, who is representing Prince William County Clerk of Court Michéle B. McQuigg, said in a press release, “Ultimately, the question whether the people are free to affirm marriage as a man-woman union will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the high court remains consistent with its acknowledgment in its Windsor decision of the right of states to define marriage, the states will ultimately be free to preserve man-woman marriage, should they choose to do so.”

Marshall hoped the justices will not impose their social views on the nation at large. “If judicial elites impose a radical and immoral marriage regime on American citizens in defiance of the 'Laws of Nature and Nature's God,' the result would be to tear the social fabric in ways that can scarcely be imagined,” he said.

Sprigg disagreed that even a Supreme Court's ruling would settle the issue. “While the Left continues to use the federal courts as the means to fulfill their radical social agenda, the courts will not have the final say,” he said. “They cannot change natural law and the fact that society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad.”


Advertisement
Featured Image
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

If you find this filthy book in your home, burn it

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

I don’t believe in book-burnings, but for the 50 Shades of Grey Trilogy, I’ll make an exception. I prefer charred books to scarred people.

The 50 Shades of Grey Trilogy, for those of you living outside “civilization,” is a repulsive and poisonous stack of porn novels that celebrates the seduction and manipulation of an insecure girl by a powerful businessman who happens to like spending his recreational time engaging in what is now popularly known as “BDSM.” For those of you who are fortunate enough never to have heard of this glorification of sexual assault, the acronym stands for bondage, domination, sadism, and masochism. In 50 Shades of Grey, the man in question inflicts all sorts of pain on the girl, because he is a sadist, which used to be a bad thing. (How utterly confusing it is to see the “feminists” of Planned Parenthood and elsewhere celebrating this phenomenon—wasn’t domination something they sought to subvert? Didn’t bondage used to be something one wanted to be freed from? And sado-masochism—I could vomit.) And now this trash has been developed into a film, the trailer of which is all over Facebook.

50 Shades of Grey and the new “BDSM” phenomenon are nothing more than the celebration of pain, rape, and destruction.

A lot of people seem to be taken with these books, especially based on the number of people I’ve seen unashamedly reading it at airports. These porn novels are “hot,” many reviewers tell us confidently. Yes, hot as Hell and halfway there, I think.

Consider this, for just a moment: In a culture where broken families are often the norm, we have a generation of girls often growing up without fathers, never receiving the paternal love and affection that they need. Thus the famous “Daddy Issues” that so many comedy sitcoms repulsively mock, as if hurting girls seeking love and affection in all the wrong places is some sort of joke. Conversely, boys are also growing up without fathers, never having a positive male role model in the home to teach them how to treat women with love and respect. And what is teaching them how to treat girls? At an enormous rate, the answer is online pornography, which increasingly features vicious violence against girls and women. The average first exposure of boys to pornography is age eleven. It is an absolutely toxic mess—insecure and hurting girls seek love from boys who have been taught how to treat them by the most vicious of pornography.

Introduce into this situation a book, written by a woman, glorifying the idea that girls should expect or even enjoy pain and torture inside of a sexual relationship. How does a girl, insecure and unsure, know what to think? The culture around her now expects her not to need a safe relationship, but a “safe word” to employ in case her sadist partner gets a bit too carried away in the pain-making. Boys who might never have dreamed of asking a girl to subject herself to such pain and humiliation are now of course emboldened to request or even expect this fetishized sexual assault as a matter of course in a relationship. After all, much of pornography now features this degradation of girls and women, and a woman wrote a book celebrating such things. It might seem sadistic and rapey, but hey, sexual freedom has allowed us to celebrate “bondage” and sexual liberation has allowed us to liberate our darkest demons from the recesses of our skulls and allow them out to play in the bedroom. Boys used to get taught that they shouldn’t hit girls, but now the culture is telling them that it’s actually a turn-on.

I genuinely feel sorry for many teenage girls trying to navigate the new, pornified dating landscape. I genuinely feel sorry for the legions of fatherless boys, exposed to pornography before they even had a chance to realize what it was, enfolded by the tentacles of perverted sexual material before they even realize what, exactly, they are trifling with. It brings to mind something C.S. Lewis once wrote: “Wouldn't it be dreadful if some day in our own world, at home, men start going wild inside, like the animals here, and still look like men, so that you'd never know which were which.”

50 Shades of Grey and the new “BDSM” phenomenon are nothing more than the celebration of pain, rape, and destruction. Find out if the “sex educators” in your area are pushing this garbage, and speak out. Join campaigns to make sure that promotion of this filth isn’t being funded by your tax dollars. And if you find these books in your home, burn them.


Advertisement
Featured Image
13-year-old Zoe Griffin Courtesy of Stand True
Bryan Kemper Follow Bryan

A 13-year-old on the day her mom told her she had an abortion

Bryan Kemper Follow Bryan
By Bryan Kemper

Stand True recently published a story about a mom telling her children about her past abortion.  Today we are sharing that story from one of her daughters about the day she found out. Zoe had been working on this story to e-mail to her mom when her mother walked in and told her to clean her room. That is when Zoe clicked send.

———–

We had just dropped my brother and sisters off at Faith Formation. It was a Wednesday evening: January 8, 2014. I would be 13 in just over two weeks.

My mom said, “Zoe, I need to talk to you. Let’s go in the meeting room.” I thought we were going to talk about puberty. I got nervous and fidgety. “Mama,” I kept saying, “I’m not ready for this talk. I don’t want to know about it.” We got to the conference room and Mama sat down. I sat a few chairs away. “Sit here please, Zoe,” she said. “I don’t want to,” I whined. “Zoe,” she said firmly, “sit next to me.” I reluctantly sat down next to her, dreading what she had to say. What she said next would change my life forever. “Zoe,” she said, “in December of 1998, I had an abortion.” I felt like I had been slapped in the face. My whole world was rocked. I wanted to puke, I wanted to cry, I wanted to run away and hide. This amazing person, someone I have looked up to my whole life, my pro-life inspiration, had had an abortion.

I stared at the glassy table where we were sitting. Mama was crying now. She told me how her boyfriend at the time had had a pregnant girlfriend before and how he said that he would “take care of it”. She told me how she had woken up after the abortion and thought how lucky she was to have such a great boyfriend. She told me she had gone crazy in the days after the abortion. She explained everything.

“Do you have any questions?” she asked. “No,” I said. “Do you forgive me?” she asked. “Yes,” I said. “Your big brother’s name is David,” she said. Big brother. For years I had been saying, “I wish I had an older brother or sister!” Now I knew that I had one. We sat in silence for a while. Mama called Fr. Rossi, our parish priest, and he joined us in our little meeting. This was when I learned that a lot of people had heard her testimony before. He told us that now would be a great time to visit Jesus in Adoration. I was so thankful it was Wednesday! We went into Adoration and prayed. We prayed and prayed and prayed. I’m not sure what Mama prayed about, but I prayed for understanding about what had just happened. I prayed a Rosary for David, that he was in Heaven praising God. That night, when everyone was at home, my mom was on her computer. She had just let me read her testimony, which had been published online. Jackson, my 7-year-old brother, saw the picture of Mama holding a sign that said, “I regret my abortion”. “Wait,” he said, “you had an abortion?” Mama’s face paled. “Yes,” she said. Then, returning to his homework, he asked, “How do you spell ‘Guido’?” Mama went along with it. “G-U-I-D-O”, she said. “I’m done with my homework!” Jack said, and he rushed upstairs. Later that night, Lily and Bella, my two sisters, were downstairs. Jack came downstairs and said, “Hey! Did you guys know Mama had an abortion?” “No she didn’t,” Lily said, “she just got her tubes tied!” She turned to Mama. “Wait,” she said slowly, “did you have an abortion?” Mama then started to have the same conversation with them she had had with me earlier. Jack started crying and ran upstairs. Lily and Bella were tearing up, too, but they listened to Mama’s story. I followed Jackson upstairs. I found him in bed, his head buried in his pillows, crying. I sat next to him, held him, tried to comfort him. Mama came in and took over for me.

The five of us were all in one place, everyone crying except for me. We prayed a little together, and then we went to bed. I was shaken for the next few days. I will never forget that experience, but I am kind of glad it happened. I have taken the pro-life movement even more seriously than before.

I want to be able to say I avenged my big brother David by abolishing abortion, and I am confident that I am part of the generation that will do that.

This is what I was doing when you told me to clean my room.

Zoe

———-

We know how much abortion hurts men and women but we don’t often think of the sibling effect of abortion. I remember many years ago, a young woman approached my booth at a music festival. She explained how she had bought a pro-life t-shirt from me the year before and wore it home from the festival. When her mom saw the shirt, she decided to tell her daughter that she had had an abortion many years ago. They were able to seek counseling and the mother found healing as did her daughter. She thanked me for the work we were doing and bought another t-shirt.

There are some amazing resources for anyone who is hurting from abortion.

Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries

Silent No More Awareness Campaign

Reprinted with permission from StandTrue.com.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook