Confusion as Maine bishop signals opposition to gay ‘marriage,’ but backs away from political fight
PORTLAND, Maine, March 9, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Following the release of a pastoral letter some interpreted as backing away from Maine’s upcoming marriage fight, the office of Bishop Richard Malone of Portland has said that they plan to “promote the cause of defending marriage” regarding a ballot initiative this Fall. However, unlike in a similar 2009 battle, the diocese said it won’t take an active role in or contribute funds to the political effort to stop the redefinition of marriage.
Homosexual activists last month gathered enough signatures to place a redefinition of marriage on the 2012 general election ballot. The question will first be put to the Republican-controlled Legislature and Republican governor, who are expected to reject it, bringing the question before Maine voters.
Maine Today reports that gay rights advocates spent $5.8 million on the fight for marriage redefinition in 2009.
Malone elicited conflicting headlines in the media over the weekend when he issued a letter that emphasized the Catholic Church’s stance on marriage while announcing that the diocese would take a different approach to the push to redefine marriage than it did in 2009.
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
“I feel compelled to teach and speak about marriage in the fullness of truth and in all charity,” wrote Malone, who called the ballot initiative “another attempt underway in Maine to redefine marriage” away from its true nature. The letter emphasized his “primary responsibility is that of teacher” as bishop, and the Church’s public function as a “prophet of the law,” noting, “The Church’s effort to promote and protect marriage in the public square is not a matter of forcing faith on anyone.”
But media took notice this weekend when Bishop Malone said in a press conference that the diocese wouldn’t take special collections or otherwise join the political campaign to defend marriage, unlike in 2009, when the diocese played a significant role in a successful bid to reverse a new same-sex “marriage” law by voter referendum. Many called the new tack a softening of the diocese’s stance against marriage, a charge Malone’s office denies.
When asked about the change by CNN, Malone said that the diocese would still be “very involved” in the marriage fight but that the focus would be on education.
Suzanne Lafreniere, executive assistant for the diocese’s marriage office, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that the diocese simply decided that active involvement “wouldn’t be the most effective use of the Catholic Church’s influence” in 2012. Asked why, she responded, “there’s no crystal ball, but in 2012 I don’t think it will be the exact same discourse.”
Brian Souchet, director of the Diocese of Portland’s Office for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, told LSN that the letter was not a response to the referendum, and would have been issued even without the political battle. “I think the Church always needs to speak out strongly for the truth [in terms of] entering dialogue,” he said, emphasizing that “nothing’s changed” in terms of Maine voters’ feelings on the marriage issue.
Souchet said the diocese’s 2009 involvement, which included soliciting donations from other dioceses and taking up a second collection for the cause, was “absolutely not” a mistake but that it would not take place again, citing the diocese’s recent financial struggles. Asked why collections wouldn’t be taken, he said, “I don’t think [Bishop Malone] believes we need to be doing that.”
Other sources pointed to the extreme political blowback from the Diocese of Portland’s 2009 involvement as possibly contributing to the new direction this year.
When an effort to overturn the state’s redefintion of marriage was placed on the ballot three years ago, gay rights activists portrayed its opposition as merely an arm of the Portland diocese, pointing to the extent of its financial contributions as well as the role of Marc Mutty, the diocese’s Director of Public Affairs who served as chair of the Yes on 1 campaign.
Mutty was later to turn on his own campaign, telling makers of a documentary last year that he “hate[d]” the work and regretted his role aiding the marriage initiative. “I’m not particularly fond of being remembered as the star bigot in Maine — the one who led the charge to deny gays and lesbians their fundamental rights — which is how it’ll be painted, I fear,” said Mutty, who remains with the diocese.
The diocese nonetheless maintains a strong relationship with marriage defenders in the state, and promised to work with the new ballot committee to offer assistance where needed.
Carroll Conley Jr., executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, told LSN that his group maintains a “close personal friendship” with Bishop Malone. The Christian Civic League is behind the nascent ballot committee to defend the defintion of marriage in November.
“We would prefer they’d be involved in a formal relationship ... but we know how strongly [Bishop Malone] feels about this issue, and we know that he’ll engage Catholics effectively,” Conley said.
Please, enough with the cult of pop stars. Our kids need real heroes.
April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Two things happen each time a significant pop culture figure dies: Christians attempt to dredge up some moderately conservative or traditional thing that figure said at some point during his long career, and mainstream media attempts to convince a society thoroughly bored with such things that the person in question was a ground-breaking radical. The two most recent examples are the androgynous David Bowie—a cringe-worthy and possibly blasphemous video of him dropping to his knees during a rock performance and uttering the Lord’s Prayer circulated just following his death--and the pop star Prince.
I’ve had to suppress my gag reflexes many times as I saw my Facebook newsfeed fill up with memes sporting quotes from Prince about his faith and articles announcing that the musician who “embraced gender fluidity before his time,” according to Slate and “will always be a gay icon” according to The Atlantic, was against gay marriage. Sure, maybe he was. But only a Christian community so shell-shocked by the rapid spread of the rainbow blitzkrieg and the catastrophic erosion of religious liberty would find this remarkable. After all, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said the same thing barely one election cycle ago. As one obituary celebrating Prince’s paradigm-smashing sexual performances written by Dodai Stewart put it:
Dig, if you will, a picture: The year is 1980. Many states still have sodomy laws. The radio is playing feel-good ear candy like Captain and Tennille and KC and the Sunshine Band. TV hits include the sunny, toothy blond shows Three’s Company and Happy Days. There’s no real word for “gender non-conforming.” But here’s what you see: A man. Clearly a man. Hairy, mostly naked body…a satiny bikini bottom. But those eyes. Rimmed in black, like a fantasy belly dancer. The full, pouty lips of a pin-up girl. Long hair. A tiny, svelte thing. Ethnically ambiguous, radiating lust. What is this? A man. Clearly a man. No. Not just a man. A Prince.
Right. So let’s not get too carried away, shall we? I know Christians are desperate to justify their addictions to the pop culture trash that did so much to sweep away Christian values in the first place and I know that latching on to the occasional stray conservative belief that may manifest itself in pop culture figures makes many feel as if perhaps we are not so weird and countercultural, but this bad habit we have of claiming these figures upon their passing is downright damaging.
After all, parents should be teaching their children about real heroes, titans of the faith who changed the world. Heroes of the early church who stood down tyrants, halted gladiatorial combat, and crusaded against injustice in a world where death was all the rage. These men and women were real rebels who stood for real values. If we want to point our children to people they should emulate, we should be handing them books like Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness by the brilliant writer Eric Metaxas rather than the pop albums Purple Rain or Lovesexy by Prince. If parents spend their time glorifying the predecessors of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus instead of highlighting heroes like William Wilberforce, they can hardly be surprised when their children choose to emulate the former rather than the latter.
The mainstream media’s adulation of these pop stars is equally irritating. The unspoken truth of these obituaries is that the flamboyant antics of Prince and the rest of the so-called rebellious drag queens populating the rock n’ roll scene have been mainstream for a long time already. Want to see dozens of bizarre body piercings? Weird hairdos? Purple mohawks? Dudes with nail polish? Strange tattoos? Easy. Just go onto any university campus, or any public high school without a dress code. With headphones wedged firmly in their ear canals, they can pump the cleverly commercialized “counterculture” straight into their skulls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
More than that, some of these courageous rebels have actually sued their employers to ensure that they can let their establishment-smashing freak flag fly at work, too. An Edmonton woman with 22 visible body piercings complained that her employer was unfair because apparently she was being discriminated against “based on body modifications.” Yeah! The Man must be told, after all. And if he doesn’t agree, we will lawyer up. I wonder what the shrieking rebels of the early days would think about the snivelling children of the current grievance culture.
So these days, the media’s eulogizing about aging culture warriors who went mainstream a long time ago rings a bit hollow. After all, most rock n’ roll stars these days look tame compared to what shows up in the children’s section at Pride Week. Freaky is normal now. Normal is radical. Welcome to 2016.
When Christians are posting nostalgic tributes to the rebels who helped inoculate their children against the radical views of Christianity in the first place, you know that the victories of the counterculture are complete and Stockholm syndrome has set in.
Target boycott climbs to over 1 million
April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Over 1 million people have signed a pledge to boycott Target over its new policy allowing men to access women’s bathrooms.
The American Family Association’s Boycott Target petition gained traction immediately, reaching the one million mark in only nine days.
“Corporate America must stop bullying people who disagree with the radical left agenda to remake society into their progressive image,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “#BoycottTarget has resonated with Americans. Target’s harmful policy poses a danger to women and children; nearly everyone has a mother, wife, daughter or friend who is put in jeopardy by this policy. Predators and voyeurs would take advantage of the policy to prey on those who are vulnerable. And it’s clear now that over one million customers agree.”
Target defended its policy in a statement saying that it believes everyone “deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally” and earlier this week, a Target spokeswoman defended the policy as “inclusive.”
The AFA said that unisex bathrooms are a common-sense alternative to allowing men unfettered access to women’s bathrooms.
“Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex option should be provided,” the petition says.
The AFA warned that Target’s new policy benefits sexual predators and poses a danger to women and children.
“With Target publicly boasting that men can enter women's bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?” the petition asked.
There have been numerous instances of predatory men accessing women’s bathrooms and intimate facilities in the wake of “transgender” bathroom policies allowing them to do so.
“We want to make it very clear that AFA does not believe the transgender community poses this danger to the wider public,” said Wildmon. “Rather, this misguided and reckless policy provides a possible gateway for predators who are out there.”
Amazing new video captures the flash of light the moment life begins
CHICAGO, April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Life begins with a spark – literally.
Researchers at Northwestern University have documented the striking event in a new video that accompanies a study published this week.
At the moment of conception, the egg releases massive amounts of zinc, which creates a spark that can be seen with the aid of a microscope.
“It was remarkable,” said Teresa Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University's medical school. “To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”
The research team had noted the zinc sparks before in mice eggs but had never observed the process in human beings.
“All of biology starts at the time of fertilization,” Woodruff said, “yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”
One of the researchers, Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O'Halloran, explained the science behind the process in 2014.
“The egg first has to stockpile zinc and then must release some of the zinc to successfully navigate maturation, fertilization and the start of embryogenesis,” he said. “On cue, at the time of fertilization, we see the egg release thousands of packages, each dumping a million zinc atoms, and then it's quiet.”
“Each egg has four or five of these periodic sparks,” O'Halloran said. “It is beautiful to see, orchestrated much like a symphony.”
Since the amount of zinc in an egg correlates with successful implantation and birth, the Northwestern researchers are highlighting that their research may be used to assist in vitro fertilization.
But that raises concerns given the grave moral issues with IVF, which involves creating numerous embryos that are either killed or frozen. Moral theologians also emphasize that IVF is an injustice even for the children who are born as a result, as they are created in a lab rather than in the union of man and woman.
The study may have far-reaching consequences the research team did not intend, such as strengthening public belief in the longstanding scientific consensus that life begins at the moment of conception/fertilization.
Many of those who saw the Northwestern video said it testifies to the beauty of life and the shallow lies that buttress the argument of abortion-on-demand.
“I saw this, and I was blown away by it,” said Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio program Thursday afternoon. “For anybody in the mainstream media to openly admit that life begins at conception” defies arguments that an unborn child is only “tissue mass.”
Researchers released a separate video of the zinc spark taking place in a mammalian egg more than a year ago:
The paper, which is entitled “The Zinc Spark is an Inorganic Signature of Human Egg Activation,” was published by Scientific Reports on April 26.