December 10, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Wednesday evening I attended a debate on gay “marriage” proudly hosted by Catholics for Equality at Georgetown University. Broadcast as a “family conversation,” the gig pitted Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage against Atlantic writer and gay Catholic Andrew Sullivan.

By the end, moderator E.J. Dionne politely concluded that dialogue had been successfully engaged. I doubt that most people in the audience agreed.

That’s because the event wasn’t about marriage, and it wasn’t about homosexuality, either.

The entire setup was not for the sake of dialogue, but was simply one of the nascent group’s first forays into mushing together the ideas of Catholicism and the gay agenda, and making them stick, inside young brains.

The tone for a not-so-honest discussion was set even before the fact. Another illegitimate gay “Catholic” group, the Rainbow Sash Movement, had proudly tooted the event’s horn in a press release claiming that Cardinal Wuerl had a “change of heart” by allowing the group on campus. The archdiocese angrily denied the claim.

Of course, the battlefield was largely won to begin with. The room at the Intercultural Center was full of mostly Georgetown students, the vast majority of whom, when polled on their support for same-sex “marriage,” shot up their hands. The cheers and howls that ensued trended decidedly in Sullivan’s favor.

The debate was mostly civil, and completely disjointed. Gallagher explained the rational basis for legal marriage as a manifestation of the state’s interest in procreative unions, a point altogether undermined by Sullivan’s heartfelt plea for a truly Catholic and inclusive love for gays, which delighted his audience.

In fact, Sullivan’s talking points were very similar to the position of the Church, whose teachers have held that a sincere love for gay persons is the only proper response to them. However, the Church’s view is that such love also forces us to confront homosexual activity as truly degrading and harmful to those who practice it - a notion too large to do justice to here.

The Atlantic writer’s intent, on the other hand, was not to agree with Catholic teaching, but to redefine it, and in so doing he offered a description of his personal “conversion” to the lifestyle as a prayerful Catholic experience.

“The first person I came out to was God,” said Sullivan, who also declared that, “I’m openly gay because I’m a Catholic.” After all, the Church, he said, was always in pursuit of “new data” and a truly dynamic church would recognize that “the world is bigger and wider than we once believed.” He ended by “prais[ing] God for the great phenomenon of homosexuality” and condemning discrimination against homosexual relationships, a deed he called “wicked.”

It was only when Sullivan talked about any Catholic other than himself that the warm rhetoric surrounding Catholicism began to grow ice cold.

The vast majority of the Catholic hierarchy, Sullivan asserted, cruelly suppress homosexuals (and “the reason they’re not OK with gay people is because they’re gay.”) Thanks to them, the hierarchy is rife with pedophiles - which, Sullivan acknowledged, were homosexual priests with a more twisted appetite.

As for the pope, words appeared not to be strong enough to express Sullivan’s anger. “The current pope, knowing that a child under his auspices had been raped by a priest under his authority, covered it up and sent that rapist to go rape other children,” he stated, referring to media accusations against Joseph Ratzinger regarding Rev Huellerman of Munich. The room, in a moment that will forever blacken the history of Georgetown, erupted in applause.

In any event, the lesson appeared to be that the pope, hierarchy, and the dogma they taught were far less Catholic than Sullivan himself.

I wondered what it was that defined Sullivan’s idea of “Catholicism.” It was unlikely to be the Bible, given Paul’s statement to Roman Christians that God punished mankind with “degrading passions” in which “their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another.”

So who decides what Catholicism is? After reducing the name “Catholic” to a mere shell (not unlike “marriage,” which Sullivan tellingly asserted “is what you believe it is”), why even keep the name? That, it seems, was the unasked question at the crux of the show.

The answer is easy from a historical point of view, as this same drill has been acted out over and over by upstart social movements since the turn of the 20th century or so. Social reformers, such as those behind liberation theology and feminist theology, understand the power behind the name “Catholic:” fusing a new idea to the old Catholicism, or replacing one with the other, is now an almost textbook procedure for gaining trust on a large scale. 

In a relativistic world, what was once a measure of truth works awfully well as a hollow stamp of approval. It was only a matter of time before the gay rights movement became “Catholic.”

I ran into the same train of thought at the Women Deliver conference in June, when Elfriede Harth of Catholics for the Right to Decide explained with great ease how abortion is not only permitted by the God of Catholicism, but that a woman should feel guilty for not aborting her child if it would threaten the wellbeing of herself, a child of God, in any way.

“They [the hierarchy] are always trying to say we’re not real Catholics, which is wrong, because the criterion to say you’re Catholic is that you’re baptized. That’s all,” she explained. “And I don’t accept that other people pretend that they define what is Catholicism. You know? The way the Vatican presents Catholicism is incomplete.” I could easily imagine these words at last night’s “family conversation.”

After Wednesday’s event concluded, I had only one thought. I approached the stage to offer Sullivan, as a journalist and a fellow Catholic, more information on the media accusations against the Holy Father. Sullivan’s presentation had been even-tempered and rational for the most part, so I expected a polite, if not enthusiastic reception.

I was wrong. In a bizarre exchange, I found myself defending against, among other things, the accusation that I denied that the sex abuse scandal ever occurred, which of course I don’t. Why Mr. Sullivan appeared so defensive against an exchange of information I honestly couldn’t conceive.

“I don’t believe, I know,” he told me firmly of his conviction of the Holy Father’s guilt. Respectfully, and especially since nothing but circumstantial evidence was ever brought against the pope in the case, I was forced to wonder how the New York Times ended up more infallible than Sacred Scripture.

I hope that one day, someone will get a straight answer from Catholics for Equality and their ilk about exactly why they cling to the name “Catholic” while emptying it of recognizable meaning. They might learn a lesson about honesty from the 16th century Protestant reformers.

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 6, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Congress has officially voted to eliminate most of Planned Parenthood's federal funding and repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act.

And while President Obama is expected to veto the legislation, Republicans are declaring victory and a campaign promise upheld. The vote was 240-181 along partisan lines.

“Many of my constituents have told me, ‘We gave you the House majority in 2010, what have you done? We gave you the Senate majority in 2014, what have you done? Why can’t you get something to the President’s desk,’” said Illinois Rep. John Shimkus on the House floor shortly before the vote. “Well today we do. We send a bill to the President’s desk that repeals Obamacare and defunds Planned Parenthood. And it’s about time.”

The bill used reconciliation to get through the Senate without facing a Democratic filibuster. It pulls 80 percent of Planned Parenthood's federal funding and shifts it to federally qualified health centers, many of which offer the same screenings, contraceptives, and other services supplied by Planned Parenthood supplies. However, none of them conduct abortions.

Pro-life leaders outside of Congress were also pleased. “We applaud the United States Congress for putting the bill to defund Planned Parenthood on the President’s desk,” said Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund. “The decision to continue using taxpayer money to fund the abortion industry now rests with President Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood."

"This historic vote recognizes the many issues of a scandal-plagued organization with a long track record of abusive and potentially fraudulent billing practices, caught in authenticated undercover videos trafficking aborted babies’ body parts, and that has repeatedly failed to report the sexual abuse of girls," said Alliance Defending Freedom's Casey Mattox. "For the first time, a bill will reach the president’s desk that will end taxpayer subsidies of an abortion business that has enjoyed nearly a billion dollars in profits over the last decade while taking more than $4 billion from American taxpayers."

Live Action president Lila Rose said, “It’s no surprise that President Obama has threatened to veto this bill, as Planned Parenthood spent over $12 million to re-elect him in 2012. We urge the president to acknowledge the extensive evidence that shows Planned Parenthood covering up sex trafficking and the sexual abuse of minors, misleading women about the complications of abortion procedures, harvesting baby parts, and promoting race- and sex-selective abortions."

Defunding Planned Parenthood might be a top priority of the pro-life movement in 2017, but electoral politics may make accomplishing the goal difficult. Not only is the 2016 presidential election wide open, but Republicans are defending 24 seats in the U.S. Senate, compared to just 10 for Democrats.

Even if Republicans win the White House and keep both chambers of Congress, reconciliation requires 51 votes for passage. Last year, several Senate Republicans voted against their colleagues in the upper chamber's reconciliation vote, leading to a close vote for the GOP to pass the bill through the Senate.

January 6, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Norway’s Barnevernet, or child welfare service, has begun the process of adopting out the five Bodnariu children it seized from their Pentecostal parents Marius and Ruth in November, according to the children’s uncle, Daniel Bodnariu.

Bodnariu told LifeSiteNews that Barnevernet intends to adopt out the children, who range in age from nine years to four months, but that the agency must first “take away the parents’ rights” in a “fylkesnemdna,” or county council hearing, the date of which has not been set.

He stated that Marius and Ruth’s lawyer plans to challenge Barnevernet’s decision in Norway’s Superior Court, but that no trial date has been set.

Meanwhile, international protest on behalf of the beleaguered family is building via Facebook. Demonstrations at the Norwegian embassies are planned in 24 countries so far, including Russia, Poland, India, Slovakia, Denmark, Ireland, Romania, as well as in the USA and Canada, where rallies are scheduled in Washington DC on January 8, 2015, and in Ottawa on January 9.

As well as street protests, a petition organized by Pastor Christian Ionescu of Chicago’s Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church has been signed by 48,683 to date.

The Naustdal regional Barnevernet seized the Bodnariu children, whose father Marius is a Romanian citizen and IT engineer working in Norway, and whose mother Ruth is Norwegian, on November 16 and 17, according to Daniel Bodnariu’s reports, posted online by Ionescu.

According to that account, the principal of the school attended by the two oldest children, Eliana, 9, and Naomi, 7, called Barnevernet and reported the girls told her they were being disciplined at home.

She also mentioned that the parents are “very Christian” and that “the grandmother has a strong faith that God punishes sin, which, in the Principal’s opinion, creates a disability in children,” Bodnariu reported.

According to the Christian Post, the principal wanted counseling for the girls, but Barnevernet took custody of all five children, including the infant Ezekiel, on grounds that they were being physically abused.

Daniel Bodnariu attests that the agency found no evidence of any kind of abuse and that Barnevernet officials relied on the stories of the two eldest girls, who reported that their parents slapped them occasionally, which he described in the Post as “light punishments.”

It is illegal in Norway to slap or physically punish a child.

The children were placed in three different foster homes, the Post reports. The parents can visit their infant son, whom Ruth was nursing when he was seized, only twice a week, and their two sons Matthew, 5, and John, 2, once a week. They are forbidden to see their daughters.

Daniel Bodnariu told LifeSiteNews in an email that Barnevernet plans to do a psychological evaluation of his brother and sister-in-law in February.

Several sources report that Norway’s Barnevernet is notorious for seizing children on the slimmest of pretexts, frequently from families where both or one of the parents is non-Norwegian.

According to the London-based Christian Today, in May 2015, an estimated 3,000 children from immigrant families were in Norwegian state custody.

It cited as notable examples of Barnevernet practices its infamous 2012 seizure of two children from Indian couple Anurup and Sagorika Bhattacharya, which the Indian government fiercely protested, as well as an April 2015 seizure of a two-and-a-half month old daughter of a Slovakian father and deaf Norwegian mother, for, among other reasons, “lack of eye contact between girl and her parents.”

The Norwegian online magazine NewsinEnglish reported that an estimated forty percent of children in Barnevernet custody are from immigrant families.

One frequent cause for Barnevernet taking children from their parents is the Norwegian prohibition against physical punishment of children, it noted.

The agency has been criticized by India, Sri Lanka, and eastern European countries such as Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia for its actions, NewsinEnglish reports, as well as for placing children from immigrant families in Norwegian-speaking homes, which some countries claim violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Barnevenet did not respond to several emails from LifeSiteNews.

Elisabeth Johansen, spokesperson for Norway’s Minister of Children and Equality Solveig Horne, told LifeSiteNews in an email that “the government does not have the authority to comment on or intervene in individual cases.”

She noted that “the County Governor at regional level inspects the work of the child welfare services. Additionally, child welfare cases are subject to a strict duty of confidentiality. Only the parties to the case have access to the case documents.”

Pastor Ionsescu told Christian Post that because the Bodnariu family has many members in both Romania and the United States, the case is a good opportunity to bring awareness of the Barnevernet’s “abuse of power.”

“This is an issue that is not going to die down for us,” Ionsescu said, adding that the community is prepared to fight until the Bodnariu children are returned to their parents. “If it takes year, then so be it – we are not going to stop.”

For information on the demonstrations, or to sign the petition, go here and here.

Note: The video is below. 

PHOENIX, Arizona, January 6, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- Porn. Fornication. Prostitution. Loving and leaving. Creating children and then abandoning them. Is this the greatness of men? The answer is a resounding ‘no’ according to a powerful short film titled “A Call to Battle” which was released yesterday by the Catholic bishop of Phoenix. 

The short, created by Blackstone Films, outlines how an epic battle is being waged for the souls of men. At stake is love and relationships, the family, and the very survival of society itself. 

Drawing upon his landmark letter issued last September on the same topic, Bishop Thomas Olmsted is specifically summoning the men of his diocese to become the men that God created them to be and to “stand in the breach” against a raging enemy seeking to destroy.  

“Men, do not hesitate to engage in the battle that is raging around you,” Olmsted encouraged in his September Apostolic Exhortation to Catholic Men.

“The battle that is wounding our children and families, the battle that is distorting the dignity of both women and men. This battle is often hidden, but the battle is real. It is primarily spiritual, but it is progressively killing the remaining Christian ethos in our society and culture, and even in our own homes,” he wrote. 

The film makes it clear that there is a huge problem in the way men today live out their manhood, especially as fathers. 

“The average boy will spend more time watching television by the time he turns six years old then he will spend talking to his father over the course of his entire earthly life,” states one man at the opening of the film. 

“The responsibility that is really the man's responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the family has been abdicated. We tend not to fulfill our roles as Christian men,” states another. 

The film posits that to be a man means to lay down one’s life, to be willing to die for those whom one loves, to love self-sacrificially. 

The film posits that to be a man means to lay down one’s life, to be willing to die for those whom one loves, to love self-sacrificially. 

“Love is sacrifice. If you want to know that I love you, try to see my sacrifice,” states one man in the film. 

It is Jesus Christ from the cross who reveals to men the way they are called to love. 

“From the cross, Christ reveals man to himself. He shows us how to love. He shows us how to die to ourselves so that others might have life,” states another man in the film.

A man becomes who he is truly meant to be and discovers his greatness when he lives out his role — be it biological or spiritual — as “father,” namely of being a caregiver, provider, protector, and defender. 

“Fatherhood isn't so much what we're supposed to do, it's what we are,” states a man in the film. 

But a man can only truly live out his role as father when he is master of himself, and not a slave to things like pornography or masturbation. 

“What makes a man a man and what separates him from all the other animals in the world is that he can order his passions. So, man is always called to have self-mastery,” states one speaker in the film. “When a guy gets hooked on [pornography,] and his passions take dominion over him, he ceases to be the spiritual head of his family, because if he can’t guard his own soul, and lead that soul to heaven, how is he going to guard the innocence of the family that's been entrusted to him?”

“And so, the man’s work of self mastery is the foundational work for being able to give himself away.”

Self-mastery is not merely for the sake of saying ‘no’ to the manifold temptations against manhood, but for the sake of men “harnessing their power for Christ,” to do the work of God, the film argues. 

Bishop Olmsted concludes the film by asking men to read his letter “Into the Breach” so that they “will discover the battle that we are engaged in.” 

“Be confident! Be bold! Forward, into the breach,” he said. 

Bishop Olmsted's letter, "Into the Breach," is published here.