Jack Fonseca

,

Gay teens will die, but who is to blame?

Jack Fonseca
By Jack Fonseca
Image

Oct. 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Over the past year, Ontarians have been inundated with media allegations about an “epidemic” of gay teens being bullied in school and this is the reason why every high school, including Catholic ones, must have Gay-Straight Alliances.

However, hard data did not support this claim, and in fact, legitimate studies show that the #1 cause of bullying in schools is body size/shape.  For example, in a 2006 study done by a consultancy firm for the Toronto District School Board, sexual orientation was not even mentioned in the top 6 reasons it found for why kids are bullied in school.

Media Alleges Schoolyard ‘Homophobia’ is the Source of Gay Suicide “Epidemic”

The media also claimed, without any hard data whatsoever to back it, that there is an epidemic of same-sex attracted youth taking their lives as a result of the “homophobic bullying” supposedly rampant in schools.  If one reads between the lines, those ultimately responsible for this gay suicide ‘epidemic’ are - wait for it – Christians, of course.  Here’s the twisted logic: the belief that God designed sex as proper to a man and woman within the marriage covenant for the purpose of babies and bonding, somehow creates a “climate of hatred and violence” towards people who experience same-sex attraction.

I don’t buy the theory that magic “pixie dust” emanating from Christians is killing gay youth.  You see, Christianity teaches that we must love our neighbor (including those who identify as ‘gay’) and that hating anybody will land us in hell. So the ingredients for the pixie dust ‘hate cloud’ simply aren’t present. Of course, I condemn all forms of bullying, including for reasons of a perceived same-sex attraction. But common sense tells us that if a kid is bullying a kid with same-sex attraction, it’s because he’s being a mean kid, not because Christianity compels him.

However, the media is half right - people who identify as ‘gay’ are indeed dying at a staggering rate in comparison to the general population, most strikingly, the males.  And someone is to blame for their deaths, but the culprit is neither school bullying, Christianity nor ‘homophobia’.

Stunning Stats on HIV

I recently discovered a shocking epidemiological study on the prevalence of HIV amongst men who have sex with men (MSM) in Ontario. This infection rate is shocking.  The study was done in collaboration with the Ontario Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care. Yes, that does mean the McGuinty government!

The report is based on 2008 data from Ontario’s Public Health Units, the most current data year.

It shows that almost 1 in 4 MSM in Toronto are living with HIV. That’s a real epidemic! Not one fabricated to advance a political agenda.

Please - let that fact sink in for a couple of seconds… We’re talking about a government admission that almost one in four actively homosexual men who live in Toronto, have HIV.

These guys have a uniformly fatal disease that will eventually kill them.  That is heart-breaking, but it gets worse.

Extrapolating the current growth rate for infection tells us that by the time 2012 public health data becomes available, almost 1 out of every 3 actively gay men in Toronto will have HIV. 

Outside the big city, the situation is a little less severe, but still an epidemic.  The average HIV prevalence rate amongst MSM for all of Ontario is 1 out of every 6.

Government Epidemiologist Admits the Health Risk

During the course of subsequent research, I was directed to an article by the Christian Heritage Party which referenced an earlier version of the same study.  The CHP apparently contacted the lead epidemiologist and asked why active homosexual men had a rate of HIV infection that was radically higher than the rate amongst heterosexual men.  His response to them was:

“The higher HIV infection rates among MSM are likely due to the greater efficiency of HIV transmission through anal intercourse compared to vaginal intercourse and the higher number of sexual partners among MSM compared to heterosexuals.” (emphasis added)

The reason for this is structural.  It’s because the rectum is significantly different from the vagina. The vagina was designed for friction. It has lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles that allows it to endure friction without damage. In comparison, the anus is the ‘exit only’ end of the digestive system and was not designed for friction. It is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that can be easily damaged and give infections access to the bloodstream. Furthermore semen has immunosuppressive chemicals which trick the body’s immune-defense system into letting foreign organisms pass, including the HIV virus.

The truth is that anal sex is the most efficient method of transmitting HIV, bar none.  Gay-activists try to distract from this reality by saying that we just need more condoms and more “safe sex” education.  But we’ve had “safe sex education” for decades, and it hasn’t helped. These so-called solutions try to mask the real problem. In fact, they have exacerbated the spread of AIDS.  Condoms are not very effective in stopping the transmission of HIV.  What we know is that condoms are perhaps 60 to 80% effective in stopping the transmission of HIV.  When you’re talking about catching a fatal disease, 60 to 80% protection is nowhere close to being “safe”.  Even the term “safe sex” lulls people into the false belief that the behavior they’re engaged in is “safe” when in fact, it is extremely dangerous.

Male on male sexual activity is a public health crisis that is killing men in their prime of life. Shouldn’t genuine compassion involve warning people against behaviours that could cause their death?  So, why is nobody warning MSM about the high risks of this behavior in the stark terms necessary?

Connection to GSA School Mandate

Let’s bring this back to Premier McGuinty’s imposition of homosexual clubs in schools, as mandated by Bill 13.

GSAs, which are already popping up as early as grade six, will encourage same-sex attracted youth to embrace a “gay” identity. The clubs will send kids the message that the gay lifestyle is just as normal, natural and healthy as heterosexuality. This lesson will also be reinforced by the pro-gay curriculum changes inherent in Bill 13.  What we know is that if a child embraces a gay identity, it is inevitable they will eventually enter the gay lifestyle and seek same-sex ‘love’.  For the male students, that means one day they’ll be engaging in the risky practice of anal sex.

Essentially, the government is encouraging same-sex attracted male youths to embrace a lifestyle that it has already proven will cause one in six of them to contract a fatal disease.

What business does the government (or a school board) have to push kids into a lifestyle that carries a real risk of causing their early deaths? If an obligation rests anywhere with the State, it is to warn children against behaviours that will cause high rates of suffering and death.

Years from now, this is going to blow up in the faces of school boards and the Ontario government, in the same way that pushing cigarettes onto kids eventually blew up in the face of Big Tobacco. I predict that infected men will sue the school boards and the Ontario government for pushing them into a deadly lifestyle ... and for not advertising the truth about the risks of anal sex.

Who Is To Blame For Gay Teen Deaths?

This is a bit of a trick question. They likely won’t die as teens (although they could contract the virus at this time), but rather as adults.  Signs of HIV infection take 7 to 10 years to develop, and with the advent of anti-retroviral drugs, full-blown AIDS can be forestalled for many years.  But there is no cure for AIDS and we don’t know if there ever will be. Eventually, the disease will prematurely end their lives. For some, it will be in the prime of life.  Even for those on anti-retroviral drugs, it is not a pleasant existence. They have to take $10,000 to $15,000 worth of drugs each year. It is not without multiple infections and multiple hospitalizations.

Who is to blame? First, the government is to blame for casting overboard its obligation to defend the common good, just so it curries favour with the powerful gay lobby and its allies in the mainstream media.  Secondly, school boards for going along with this social engineering experiment.  Third, the militant gay-activist organizations who don’t really care whether people with same-sex attraction live or die, so long as their sexual revolution is successful.  These radical activists are using people with same-sex attraction as pawns in their war against the Judeo-Christian world view.  They actively deny that AIDS is a gay disease when almost 70% of new AIDS cases come from less than 2% of the population – that is, gay males.  The mounting body count does not seem to matter at all to these sex-activists. Only the goal of sexual revolution.

Higher Standard for Catholic Bishops and Trustees

As for Catholic trustees and Bishops, they have a higher moral obligation given their religious character. In my view,  for these Catholic leaders to permit GSAs and the resulting high rates of disease and death amongst a portion of its students, represents material cooperation with evil.

For this reason alone, never mind the spiritual harm, Ontario’s Catholic Bishops need to reject McGuinty’s GSA mandate and Bill 13 altogether.  They have the constitutional power to do so under Section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 and they should not delay in using it. Children’s lives are at stake.

Now, let’s stop talking about the imaginary epidemic of gay suicides caused by ‘homophobic bullying’.  Let’s start talking instead about the real epidemic of HIV infecting men who have sex with men and whether it’s appropriate for schools to encourage children into that lifestyle.

Jack Fonseca is the project manager for Campaign Life Coalition. This piece is republished with permission.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Jeb Bush has already ‘evolved’ on marriage, and his advisers are at war with social conservatives: analysts

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 3, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The fact that Jeb Bush has surrounded himself with campaign advisers who have been hostile to social conservatives is just one sign that the former Florida governor has secretly “evolved” in his views of gay “marriage,” according to several figures who have spoken with him privately.

Bush, a leading candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, has been hiring national staffers who have actively campaigned for the GOP to capitulate and embrace the redefinition of marriage or at least capitulate to judicial rulings that overturn the will of voters.

“When Bush officially launches his presidential bid later this year, he will likely do so with a campaign manager who has urged the Republican Party to adopt a pro-gay agenda; a chief strategist who signed a Supreme Court amicus brief arguing for marriage equality in California; a longtime adviser who once encouraged her minister to stick to his guns in preaching [marriage redefinition] for same-sex couples; and a communications director who is openly gay,” writes McKay Coppins in BuzzFeed.

The Bush 2016 campaign staffers include:

“In a word, if personnel is policy, Jeb is telling the pro-family community to drop dead,” said Bryan Fischer, host of Focal Point on AFR Talk.

Campbell told Buzzfeed that the staffing decisions reflected Jeb Bush's ideas of who would be best for the position, and “Gov. Bush’s position on gay marriage is clear. If he pursues a run, it will be premised on his agenda and views, not anyone else’s.”

But insiders say it is not merely his closest advisers and operatives who embrace a redefinition of marriage; several people who have spoken with Jeb say he secretly supports gay “marriage” or, at least, will offer no opposition to it.

One such donor, namely David Aufhauser, who signed the amicus and has co-hosted a fundraiser for Bush in Virginia, said, “His thinking [on marriage equality] appears to have evolved.” Other donors, who preferred to remain anonymous, agreed.

Bush's public stance has certainly shifted. As a conservative candidate running for governor of Florida in 1994, Jeb Bush wrote that he opposed conferring special rights on homosexuals: “[S]hould sodomy be elevated to the same constitutional status as race and religion? My answer is No.”

But according to the New York Times, Sally Bradshaw “helped recalibrate Mr. Bush as a more moderate candidate” in 1998. Today, donors who have spoken with Bush tell Buzzfeed they have walked away convinced that he quietly supports same-sex “marriage” or is ambivalent on the subject. They hope he will announce his support for redefining marriage after the Supreme Court issues its ruling on the subject this summer.

A senior Republican fundraiser said fleeing any opposition to homosexual “marriage” is a necessity to get any funding from the party's donor class. Although support for redefining marriage “hasn’t become a litmus test yet,” a senior Republican fundraiser said prospective candidates “have to be approaching the LGBT issue with a new mindset in order to be taken seriously” by the party's megadonors.

Sen. Rob Portman, as vice chairman of finance for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, announced his newfound support for gay “marriage” shortly after holding a dozen meetings with major campaign donors in New York who were unhappy with the party's pro-family platform.

Bush, who hopes to raise as much as $100 million before he formally enters the presidential contest, is the elite contributors' favorite now that Mitt Romney has declined a third presidential bid and Chris Christie stumbled during a meeting with billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Billionaire Paul Singer, who has devoted more than $13 million of his own money to promote homosexual "marriage" in the GOP, is said to view Bush in a positive light.

Bush has also attracted the support of former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a pro-abortion Republican who ripped pro-life and pro-family conservatives as “narcissists and ideologues” imbued with an “unacceptable rigidity and self-righteousness on social issues” and who secretly promote “tyranny.”

The split between the Republican Establishment and its grassroots conservative base foreshadows a harder than expected fight for Jeb Bush in the primaries. “Endorsing gay marriage would make it difficult to win Iowa, even with Kochel on board,” conservative political analyst Jim Antle writes at The Week, “and would probably prevent Bush from emulating his brother's 2000 nomination strategy: combining establishment and evangelical support to prevent the emergence of a viable conservative alternative.”

But others warn it forebodes something more serious – yet another Republican presidential loss in 2016. Mike Huckabee and Gary Bauer, among others, have threatened to leave the Republican Party if it abandons its support of traditional marriage – one of two reasons the GOP was founded in the 1850s.

“Not all social [conservatives] will feel that way but a few hundred thousand spread across swing states are potentially the difference between winning and losing,” the blogger Allahpundit wrote at HotAir.com. “The right’s perennial fear of 'moderate' Republicans is that they campaign as conservatives and govern as independents. Jeb’s not even campaigning as a conservative.”

Fischer foresees another Bush candidacy depressing voter turnout and handing the election to a Democrat like Hillary Clinton.

“If conservatives want to save their party, and more importantly save America, step one is stopping Jeb Bush dead in his tracks,” he said. 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Kindred Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

,

When he began shooting a film on a pastor saving disabled babies, he had no idea God was planning to save him

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
Image
Babies Pastor Lee has brought into his home through the drop box. Arbella Studios

March 3, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Brian Ivie, 25, grew up in California dreaming about making movies. He loved making homemade movies with his friends and eventually went to school to learn how to make them professionally. He was always on the lookout for that one story that he would turn into a movie that would be his ticket to the Sundance Film Festival and rocket him to fame and fortune.

While flipping through the L.A. Times one morning in June 2011, Brian came across the story of a man in Korea who saved unwanted babies by having a baby box installed on the side of his home where parents could drop them off anonymously.

“That alone was compelling to me, the fact that this existed at all,” he told LifeSiteNews in a telephone interview.

Brian immediately saw the story’s potential. Here was the golden opportunity he had been looking for. He contacted the reporter who put him in touch with Pastor Lee Jong-Rak of Seoul, South Korea, the man behind the drop box.

Six months later he was flying to Korea with a team of friends to film a documentary.

“I went to Korea, planning to use this family to be my golden ticket to Sundance,” he said.

Before leaving, Brian picked up a cheap cross necklace so he could wear it to create “some sort of trust between me and this Pastor.”

“I didn’t really know what the cross meant. I just knew that it was this rallying cry for Christendom,” he said.

Brian had grown up thinking he was basically Christian, but having a real relationship with God was something that he had never factored into his life.

“I honestly thought I was a Christian, because I wasn’t a Muslim. I thought I was a Christian because, you know, it’s like you’re American, you’re a Christian, like apple pie and the Bible.”

“I just figured I was a Christian because I didn’t smoke cigarettes, and I watched Fox News with my mom. It was a very cultural label for me. It was a very decorative thing, like a decorative cross you put in the house, but you have no understanding of what it is.”

“My understanding of God, because of the media, was very warped,” he said.

When Brian arrived at Pastor Lee’s home in Seoul, what he experienced made him rethink his entire life. In Pastor Lee, Brian encountered a man who had been rescued out of the gutters of alcoholism and rage to do a work that most people would recognize as utterly selfless and heroic.

“He was not a natural born hero. This is an ordinary man who made a lot of mistakes and needed forgiveness, and once he received that and was saved from his own sin and from hell, then he went out and saved and rescued other kids,” Brian said.

Pastor Lee created the baby box because of the number of babies being abandoned on the streets, many of them dying from exposure before help arrived. The baby box would be a safe harbor to welcome and care for these babies. More than 600 babies have now come through the baby box.

“They’re not the unnecessary ones in the world. God sent them here for a purpose,” Pastor Lee says in the film.

Brian returned to California with his footage, but he was constantly haunted by what he had witnessed in Pastor Lee. He felt like something was missing from his own life, but he could not put his finger on it. Then one day while listening to a podcast about why Jesus died, he suddenly realized what that was.

“This podcast was all about how Jesus Christ took our place. When I heard that, it was like a movie through my own head.”

Brian started imagining Jesus suffering in his place for the six years he had been addicted to pornography, for his abusive relationships with girls, and for his loud and violent outbursts of anger toward his friends, girlfriends, and co-workers. He saw Jesus take it all upon himself and suffer for it all on the cross.

“So, I broke down. I started crying. All I could say was: ‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry.’ Even for a guy who didn’t lead some extreme life — I wasn’t the leader of some Mexican cartel, I didn’t almost overdose on heroine, I didn’t murder anybody in cold blood — but I needed to be forgiven, because I had done some shameful things, especially towards God. I realized all that, and knew that I needed to be saved too.”

“I hated myself for a while. But what changed all that was the Father’s love which said ‘I still want you, and in fact, I want you so much that I sent my Son because I’m willing to give everything for you, even though you don’t deserve it.”

Brian began connecting the dots between his filming in Korea about the drop box for babies and his own need to be saved.

“The drop box is the place we all belong. It’s the place we find ourselves when we go: ‘You know, gosh, I need to be saved. I need to be rescued from sin and from this place I’m running to which is called hell, which is the place where I am separated from God. I’m running there and Jesus can save me.”

“The drop box symbolized that to me because it’s the place where you are bound up in the dark, totally helpless and incapable of doing anything about it, and you need a father to come pull you out through the laundry room and into the light,” he said.

With his new spiritual insight, Brian traveled back to Korea in August 2012 to retell the story, this time from the perspective of love.

“The goal was to tell the story that I had experienced of the Father’s love as shown through this man, Pastor Lee.”

Brian’s film The Drop Box, released through Focus on the Family and Pine Creek Entertainment, has already won numerous awards at film festivals. It is opening this week in 800 theaters across North America.

Brian now realizes that his biggest mistake in life is thinking he was too good to need God’s forgiveness.

“My hope is that people realize that they need to be saved and that they would see themselves in these kids and God as Pastor Lee. Because to me, he's living proof of a loving God, and God is putting himself on display through this man.”

“What I see in this film is a man who has given up everything in his life for these children who have been lost on the street. I hope what people see is a picture of something much higher than that, which is really God giving everything on the cross for all of us lost people,” he said.

The Drop Box opens in U.S. cinemas today and in Canada tomorrow. Find a list of U.S. theaters here. Find a list of Canadian theaters here

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

San Francisco archbishop under attack: critics of Catholic school reforms hire high-profile PR guru

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Public relations specialist Sam Singer

SAN FRANCISCO, March 3, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Critics of San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone have raised the stakes in their opposition to improving the Catholic identity of the city’s Catholic high schools by hiring a high-profile PR strategist.

“Concerned parents are footing the bill” to hire “media relations heavyweight” Sam Singer, reports SF Weekly.

Singer specializes in crisis communication for high-profile figures and describes himself as The Fixer and Top Gun for Hire on his website. He’s also been called The Master of Disaster for his public relations work, which includes representing the San Francisco Zoo in the 2007 killing of a young man by the zoo’s Siberian tiger, and where, according to the news outlet, Singer “shaped hearts and minds to sympathize with the tiger.”

While media reports are not clear about who specifically is behind hiring Singer, the move shows the broad nature and depth of the battle against the archbishop’s efforts to uphold Church teaching.

At the same time Singer told SF Weekly, “he hopes the archbishop sees that the ‘loyalty oath’ he's asking of teachers does 'not keep with Catholic values'," he also said he didn’t accept the job of countering the archbishop’s efforts to maintain Catholic identity because “he himself is religious, necessarily.”

"I'm half Catholic, half Jewish," Singer said. "I like to say I'm the most guilty, most worried man alive." 

The archdiocese announced February 3 that they would add statements on morality to faculty handbooks, as well as three new clauses to teacher contracts, all derived from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Archbishop Cordileone explained at the outset that the intent was not to target anyone, but rather to clarify Church teaching and the long-established expectation of Catholic school employees to not publicly contradict the faith.

It is something he has continued to emphasize, along with the need for Catholic schools to be clear in imparting Catholic principles.

“We’re not on a witch hunt; we’re not looking to terminate teachers,” Archbishop Cordileone told the New York Times this week.

He said he was introducing the new language because “young people are under intense pressure today to conform to certain standards that are contrary to what we believe,” and he had focused on “hot-button issues” to clear up “the confusion.”

The archbishop also told the newspaper that he knew that not all teachers at the schools were Catholic, and he affirmed again that a teacher’s private life would remain private. He said his concern was that in their public lives faculty “don’t do anything to compromise the mission of our schools.”

Eight Democrat California lawmakers wrote a letter February 17 pressuring the archbishop to back down on the efforts. But the archbishop responded, “Would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for, and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general?” 

“My point is: I respect your right to employ or not employ whomever you wish to advance your mission,” he said. “I simply ask the same respect from you.”

Two of the lawmakers then called for an investigation of working conditions at high schools administered by the archdiocese by the state’s Assembly Labor and Employment Committee and Assembly Judiciary Committee.

“California cannot become a laboratory for discrimination under the guise of religion,” the two Democrats told CBS San Francisco.

They said the archbishop’s measures to uphold Church teaching “set a dangerous precedent for workers’ rights through manipulations of law that deprive employees of civil rights guaranteed to all Californians.”

After a meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board on February 24, the paper reported that Cordileone was backtracking, but the archdiocese denied it in a follow-up statement.

The archbishop did agree, however, that they would not classify teachers as “ministers,” which teachers feared would remove them from federally-recognized civil rights protection.

“The Archbishop has not repealed anything,” Father John Piderit SJ, Vicar for Administration for the archdiocese and Moderator of the Curia said in the statement. “He is adding explanations, clarifications, and material on Catholic social teaching, via a committee of religion teachers he is establishing.” 

“The committee is to expand some areas of the material to be included in the faculty handbook, and clarify other areas by adding material,” said Father Piderit, who was also present at the meeting. “Nothing already planned to go in is being removed or retracted or withdrawn.”

The archdiocese stated the word “ministers” is no longer being considered to classify faculty, however the word “ministry” remained part of the language, and the archbishop was working to identify language that satisfies two needs, one to protect teachers’ rights and the other the right of the archdiocese to run Catholic schools that are faithful to its mission.

“Even if a substitute for ‘ministry’ is found,” Father Piderit said, “the substitute must guarantee that the teachers in the Catholic archdiocesan high schools promote the Catholic mission of the institutions."

Singer persisted in the apparent push for the archbishop to back down after the meeting.

“The proof is in the pudding,” Singer told the online magazine Crux. “So we’ll have to take a look at what the archbishop comes back with. But this is certainly a step in the right direction, and is welcomed by many of the parents, teachers and alumni. But there is still much work to be done.”

The Chronicle subsequently made a video of the meeting available, which was published by the archdiocese.

“The point I want to emphasize most of all though, is that everything that we do is for our students,” Archbishop Cordileone said in the meeting with the newspaper. “My primary concern and the most important thing, and that of everyone involved in the educational ministry of our archdiocese, is for the good of our students.”

Media reports also continue to highlight resistance to the archbishop’s efforts, and misunderstanding of Church doctrine in the moral issues the Church statements concern, such as homosexuality.

The Church teaches that while all people are deserving of respect as children of God, homosexual acts immoral and can never be accepted.

“We pray for the archbishop that his heart is changed,” Gus O’Sullivan told the New York Times. The openly gay senior at one of the schools spoke at a candlelight protest, reportedly part of the Singer campaign.

Michael Vezzali, a teacher at one of the schools and a union official, said the archbishop was “a very wise man,” but “we feel our schools are places where we’re supposed to share the gospel of Jesus and love, no matter what.”

“Our community is in pain; our teachers are scared,” said Jessica Hyman, another senior at one of the archdiocesan high schools.

“We sent our kids to these schools because they uphold the fundamental principles of our faith of love, acceptance and respect,” said Kathy Curran, a mother of freshman. “This language says some people are not O.K. — and that’s not O.K.”

Archbishop Cordileone’s language “is very, very hurtful,” but “he is representing exactly the Roman Catholic sexual doctrine,” Santa Clara University Associate Professor of Moral Theology Lisa Fullam told the New York Times. “Bishops do have a lot of authority in their own diocese.”

Michele Dillon, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire, and co-author of the book American Catholics in Transition, which chronicled changes in Catholics’ attitudes and behavior from 1987-2011, said what’s happening in San Francisco reflects the attitudinal wavering among Catholics.

“The church wants people to be aware of official church teachings because they think there is confusion in the culture,” Dillon told the New York Times. “A lot of Catholics aren’t confused. They simply ignore the church’s teachings.”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook