May 15, 2008

Calif. supreme court trashes voters' will, okaying imitation-marriage

The California supreme court, by a 4-3 vote, today overturned California voters' affirmations that marriage can take place only between a man and a woman.

For an AP report on the literally tyrannical ruling, albeit one containing some pro-homosexual-agenda propaganda, click on this post's title.

The four judges who voted anti-Christian morality and pro-homosexual-agenda are chief justice Ronald George, who wrote the opinion, and Carlos Moreno, Kathryn Werdegar and Joyce Kennard.

The three judges who voted for California voters' affirmation of true marriage are Marvin Baxter, who wrote the dissent, and Carol Corrigan and Ming Chin.

We should hope that Joyce Kennard's pro-homosexual-agenda vote will cool the ardor of some conservatives who want her on the U.S. supreme court.

Major pro-family, pro-Christian morality groups have already issued press releases, and held press conferences, against this raw judicial usurpation of the voters' will and rights.

The California Catholic Conference this afternoon has posted a statement ripping the ruling, at http://www.cacatholic.org/

Every pro-family activist, though, will immediately notice that a fuzzy term in it, "the family of domestic partners," is open to the interpretation that two homosexuals can constitute a family, which of course is an impossibility.

Cardinal Mahony should now personally and loudly blast the California supreme court's evil ukase, and so should every California bishop, individually.

These bishops, individually and through their conference, should also now strongly support the new pro-marriage ballot initiative for this November.

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

May 15 - A very sad day in California. I even saw the LA mayor on the news supporting the legalization of gay marriage. Is he really catholic? Let us pray for the conversion of sinners! To Cardinal Mahoney: if you read this, PLEASE HELP DEFEND THE FAITH!! PLEASE BE AN EXAMPLE TO ALL CHRISTIANS THAT THE PARTICIPATION IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES IS MORALLY WRONG AND IS AGAINST THE TEACHING OF CHRIST (THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATES IT). YOU CAN MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE CARDINAL IF YOU STAND UP TO DEFEND THE FAITH AND WHAT IS SAID IN THE BIBLE! I HAVE HOPE THAT YOU CAN DO IT! ALTHOUGH I MAY NOT AGREE WITH SOME OF YOUR ACTIONS IN THE PAST, I KNOW YOU STILL HAVE GOODNESS IN YOU CARDINAL. PLEASE LET YOUR DEDICATION TO THE CHURCH BE SHOWN THROUGH YOUR HOLINESS AND ACTIONS! PLEASE HELP ME TO LOOK UP TO YOU AGAIN CARDINAL, JUST LIKE WHEN I DID WHEN I WAS LITTLE. YOU WILL BE IN MY PRAYERS AND I HOPE YOU DO THE RIGHT THING AND BE A TRUE SHEPHERD FOR YOUR FLOCK. GOD BLESS!

12:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NEWS RELEASE

CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE


1119 K STREET, 2ND FLOOR SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-3904 OFFICE: (916) 443-4851 FAX: (916) 443-5629

Catholic Bishops React to CA Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Ned Dolejsi
Thursday, May 15, 2008 916/313-4011
Carol Hogan
916/313-4019
SACRAMENTO – Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic
Conference, released the following statement on behalf of California’s Bishops and the
California Catholic Conference, following the California Supreme Court’s decision
declaring the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (Proposition 22) unconstitutional, thus
allowing same-sex marriages to take place in California:

“The California Catholic Conference of Bishops must express its disappointment in the
California Supreme Court decision to declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional.
“Proposition 22, which states, ‘Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid
and recognized in California,’ passed eight years ago by a vote of 61.2 to 38.8 percent. That
statute reflected the wisdom of the voters of California in retaining the traditional definition of
marriage as a biological reality and a societal good. Unfortunately, today, the Court saw fit to
disregard the will of the majority of people of California.
“Catholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union
between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love—a union
instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife as well as for the
procreation and education of children.
“Partnerships of committed same-sex individuals are already legal in California. Our state
has also granted domestic partners spousal-type rights and responsibilities which facilitate their
relationships with each other and any children they bring to the partnership. Every person
involved in the family of domestic partners is a child of God and deserves respect in the eyes of
the law and their community. However, those partnerships are not marriage—and can never be
marriage—as it has been understood since the founding of the United States. Today’s decision
of California’s high court opens the door for policymakers to deconstruct traditional marriage
and create another institution under the guise of equal protection.
“Although we strongly disagree with the ruling, we ask our Catholic people, as well as all
the people of California, to continue to uphold the dignity of every person, to acknowledge
individual rights and responsibilities, and to maintain support for the unique and irreplaceable
role of traditional marriage as an institution which is fundamental to society.”

9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pope restates gay marriage ban after California vote
By Philip Pullella
Reuters
Fri May 16, 2008

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church's position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.

Benedict made no mention of the California decision in his speech to family groups from throughout Europe, but stressed the Church's position several times.

"The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions," he said.

The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, "founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life".

10:15 AM  
Blogger Viator Catholicus said...

Isn't it great to live under a dictatorial oligarchy of unelected radical liberals?

All this is cause for reflection. Our will as the people should only matter when it supports the radical anti-social agendas of the illuminati judges. These judges who are infinitely more intelligent and sophisticated than us, know what's best for us. We need they rule over us because as one presidential candidate noted all we know how to do is to cling to our guns and religion. But, I am shocked to find that some of the judges sided with the will of us ignorant people. Obviously, they are not as enlightened as those of the majority.

Although we the people are so hopelessly pathetic, as these judges have so generously made known to us by their ruling, we can still elect leaders who will ensure that more anti-social liberals get on the courts to recreate our society as they see fit!!! Then, one day when all judges are so enlightened, they can rule that our federal and state constitutions are antiquated and that we the people are too incompetent to vote for anything!

10:36 AM  
Blogger Scott said...

Yes because everyone really needs to ask your permission to marry.

11:17 AM  
Blogger Paul said...

Although my expectations are extremely low, I still can't believe this story has not made it on to the Tidings website yet. Does anyone know if the Cardinal has made any public comment? What about the auxiliaries? Is it too much to ask for these bishops to start leading?

Paul in Long Beach

12:17 PM  
Anonymous More Catholic Than the Pope said...

Oh no, Mr. Bill!! Cardinal Mahony not doing what you tell him to do again? How frustrating it must be for our bishops not to march lock-step with your directives.

12:28 PM  
Anonymous Catholica Australia said...

CARDINAL MAHONY BANS BISHOP ROBINSON FROM SPEAKING IN L.A.

Catholica Australia
May 15, 2008

The Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles, Roger Mahony, has written to Bishop Geoffrey Robinson denying him permission to speak on Church property in his territory and has endeavoured to urge Bishop Robinson to cancel his speaking tour in North America. Catholica has received this news, and the text of Cardinal Mahony's letter via Robert Blair Kaiser and Frank Douglas. Mr Kaiser, who is the author of the controversial novel, "Cardinal Mahony", also responds. This news story has partly been triggered because Robert Kaiser is in the course of preparing a promotional trip to Australia for the Australian release of his book, "Cardinal Mahony — A Novel" and he came across this sensational story in the course of preparing for his trip to our country.

May 9, 2008

Most Reverend Geoffrey James Robinson
Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of Sydney
Archdiocese of Sydney
133 Liverpool Road
Sydney NSW 2000
Australia

Dear Bishop Robinson,

I am writing once again in reference to your planned speaking engagement in the Archdiocese of Los Angelese on June 12, 2008.

Your letter informing me of your coming appearance made it clear that you were not seeking my permission or approval, that you were planning to come regardless.

Since your communications, I have come to learn that you new book is being investigated by the Australian Bishops' Conference because of concerns about doctrinal errors and other statements in the book contrary to Church teaching.

I have also learned that His Eminence, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the Prefect for the Congregation of BIshops, has urged you to cancel your visit to the United States.

Consequently, I am hereby requesting that your cancel you visit to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles now set for June 12, 2008. Canon 763 makes it clear that the Diocesan Bishop must safeguard the preaching of God's Word and the teachings of the Church in his own Diocese. Under the provisions of Canon 763, I hereby deny you permission to speak in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

As a brother Bishop, I urge you to cancel the entire speaking tour and to work closely with your own Bishops' Conference on their investigation. I would surely expect you to follow exactly their recommendations in thiis matter.

With every best with, I am
Sincerely yours in Christ,

His Eminence
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony
Archbishop of Los Angeles

Comment from Robert Blair Kaiser…

Friends, here is a statement by the Australian Bishops Conference calling down Bishop Robinson and his new book (See: www.acbc.catholic.org.au/bishops/confpres/20080508514.htm). Also copy of a letter sent by Cardinal Mahony denying Robinson permission to speak in Los Angeles, a permission he never sought. Both docs attached. I understand Bp. Robinson will be going ahead with his tour, visiting in LA today but headed to Philadelpia tomorrow, and may be preparing a response to Mahony and to his Aussie bishops.

My own comment: the Australian bishops say that R's book "casts doubt" on the Church's teaching. No, not really. Those who read the book carefully conclude that he doesn't cast doubt on the teachings, but on the way those teachings are taught -- some of them so unconvincingly that we can hardly call them teachings at all. When teachings are not "received" by the people, there is no learning. And therefore the people are being given no real teaching, just being treated like children by someone who isn't making any sense at all.

As for Cardinal Mahony's letter, I have problems with
1) the tone of the letter and
2) its substantial charges.

1. The tone is that of a superior to a subordinate. Or, to put it in the vernacular, "Cardinal Mahony talks to Bp. R. like a boss." He is not R's boss, but a brother bishop, no more, and, I hope, no less. If he were a true brother bishop (all the bishops of the world have the same authority as successors of the Apostles) he would not urge R. to cancel his book tour. He should recognize R. is saying some things for the good of the entire Church and he dearly wants people to know about the book, and read it. It obviously means a great deal to him, and a brother bishop should respect his feelings. Furthermore, he not only urges R. to cancel his book tour, but to "follow exactly the recommendations of his fellow bishops in Australia in this matter." The word "exactly" gives the game away. Is Bishop R. a naughty boy, now being told to stand in the corner until he is told it is okay to come out? The whole tone says worlds about this still top-down Church in a bottom up kind of world -- for whom authority means everything. The exasperated tone of Mahony's letter is just a step up from a fatwa by any ayatollah. I will bet Mahony sent a copy of his letter to Cardinal Re in Rome.

2. The substantial charges are vague. R. is being "investigated" by the Australian Bishops Conference "because of concerns about doctrinal errors and other statements in this book contrary to Church teachings." But that's not a crime, not even in our totalitarian Church, where we are supposed to have something called "due process." This is not due process. It's just a flat accusation without any proof, not even a citation or quote from his book that can show R. is saying anything contrary to "Church teaching." There are a wide variety of Church "teachings." They call for varying kinds of consent. Some of them are only "pious beliefs." Some are "defined by faith." What Church teachings is R. denying? The teaching of Pope Pius X, for instance, that has never been officially rescinded, that the only duty of a layman is absolute obedience to the hierarchy of the Church? Or the teaching of Vatican II that everyone of the faithful are full and equal members of the Church?

4:28 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Anonymous 12:32 a.m.,

Thank you for reminding us all to pray for the conversion of sinners, and thank you for your heartfelt open-letter plea to the Cardinal that he remind his flock that acts of sodomy are grave sins.

12:43 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Anonymous 9:50 a.m.,

Thank you for posting the Calif. bishops' statement that I linked to. It's pretty good, except for its ambigious phrase, "the family of domestic partners."

What does that mean? We know that so-called domestic partners are not families and cannot be.

12:48 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Anonymous 10:15 a.m.,

Thank you for posting the news story about Pope Benedict XVI's ringing defense of marriage and family. He said these things just one day after the Calif. supreme court's evil ruling. Bravo!

12:51 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Viator Catholicus,

Thank you for your excellent comment on the utterly dictatorial mindset of the liberals. You are absolutely right.

12:53 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Scott,

Nobody needs Ole Q's permission to marry, but the point is, marriage is possible ONLY between a man and a woman, not between homosexuals.

Just because some court insanely votes 4-3 to say otherwise doesn't make it so at all.

12:58 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Paul in Long Beach,

Thanks for writing! The website of the archdioces did post the California Catholic Conf.'s statement yesterday.

That's good, but the Cardinal and the rest of our bishops could do a lot more. For instance, they could hold a press conference, so all L.A. would hear them.

No doubt next week's issue of The Tidings will cover the story. Let's hope the Cardinal and all our bishops will speak out.

My expectations for outstanding vocal leadership on such issues aren't real high, either, based on past sad experience.

1:05 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear More Catholic Than the Pope Said...,

Now that the Pope has spoken out once more in defense of marriage and family, you can't call Ole Q more Catholic than him, can you!

If the Cardinal and other members of the hierarchy and clergy stay silent about this and similar issues, they don't harm Ole Q, they harm their flock, by not leading them and teaching them.

1:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter