Outing Priests and Bishops

One of my wisest brothers in Christ must surely be Terry Nelson at the Abbey-Roads blog. Following is his post on plans by homosexualists to "out" closeted homosexual priests and bishops. Were such efforts aimed at the defiantly heterodox, we would rejoice that "all things work together for good to them that love God." Indeed, the sodomites would be performing a service to the Church in shining a light on the corruption. But invariably, as Terry points out:

Many same sex attracted men have struggled to live according to the teachings of the Church, and as all of us sinners, many fall - and rise again. Priests are not perfect, to preach the truth about homosexuality is not hypocrisy - even if a priest fails to live up to his vows from time to time. If he repents and strives to live accordingly, in time he will be victorious.

From Abbey-Roads

Activists in D.C. intend to begin outing closeted homosexual priests and bishops in retaliation for Archbishop Wuerl's anti-same-sex marriage efforts as well as a USCCB pastoral letter, which has been perceived as an 'anti-gay attack' - when in actual fact it is a defense of marriage, defining Catholic teaching on issues of faith and morals. From the website,

ChurchOuting.org press release: .

ChurchOuting.org is a clearinghouse for reports of priests who are openly gay men in social settings yet professionally closeted in their parishes. The campaign will also accept reports of heterosexual priests who are involved in romantic or sexual relationships, yet support the Archbishop’s efforts to harm lesbian and gay families. - Source .

Our local gay activist Michael Bayly joins his support to the organization's efforts: .

I should say from the start that I support efforts to out the hypocrisy of those Roman Catholic bishops and priests who live secretive gay lives while at the same time either publicly support the official anti-gay rhetoric and efforts of the church’s clerical leadership to strip gay people of civil rights protections, or remain silent in the face of such un-Christlike behavior. Indeed, I resonate with ChurchOuting.org’s founder Phil Attey’s hope that this campaign in Washington, D.C., will “inspire similar campaigns in every archdiocese across the country.” - Source .

Nothing new. .

Didn't Act Up launch a campaign to out closeted public figures way when? Most recently Larry Craig pretty much outed himself when he was caught with his pants down in a MPLS airport. Gay activists like Michael say that type of behavior wouldn't happen if everyone was out and being gay was on equal terms with heterosexuality. In response I like to cite people such as George Michael who seems to prefer that type of sexual adventure even though he lives in a domestic partnership - he famously and unashamedly defended such behavior saying, "It is what gay people do." Yet activists maintain such sleazy behavior is motivated by shame - although in the case of closeted 'bi-sexual' predators who may struggle against such sins, it is just hypocrisy. .

Washington gay activists may be placing all their bets on these tactics of detraction since they appear to have worked so well in the Church of England:

Furthermore, "outing" (or the threat of "outing") may help persuade some homophobic closet gays to stop doing damage to other gay people, and thereby prevent considerable suffering. It can also very effectively pressure homophobic institutions to reconsider their anti-gay policies. .

This is what happened when OutRage! named ten Anglican Bishops last November. Suddenly, for the first time ever, the Church of England began high-level dialogue with the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. In January, the Bishops held a previously unscheduled re-examination of their stance on homosexuality, which resulted in a strongly-worded condemnation of homophobic discrimination and anti-gay violence. Church officials have privately admitted that none of these developments would have occurred if OutRage! had not "provoked a crisis" by naming the Bishops. .

However, perhaps the most significant effect of calling on the Bishops to "Tell The Truth!" is that the whole homophobic establishment is now aware that "outing" is not just an idle threat. OutRage! has ripped open the closet doors of the Church of England. We can, if we decide to, also expose hypocritical and homophobic closet gays in politics, business, the military, judiciary and the police. These people now understand that all those who abuse their power to harm other lesbian and gay people are potential targets. This will probably encourage at least some of them to think twice about being homophobic in the future. - Source .

I thought blackmail was illegal? .

Well, it is certainly not honorable. I suppose all is fair in love and war, and never forget, this is war. Consider as well that 'the sin of the Gentiles is they lack charity', therefore these kind of threats should not surprise anyone. 'Nothing is hidden that will not be revealed,' right? .

. "Fornicator I always was, heretic I never was." - St. Andrew Wourters, Gorcum Martyr .

The fact is, many same sex attracted men have struggled to live according to the teachings of the Church, and as all of us sinners, many fall - and rise again. Priests are not perfect, to preach the truth about homosexuality is not hypocrisy - even if a priest fails to live up to his vows from time to time. If he repents and strives to live accordingly, in time he will be victorious. On the other hand, perhaps there are 'bad' priests living duplicitous lives, and exposure could perhaps bring them to repentance? I don't know. I do know that some priests will suffer for the faith if this happens. Priests wrongly accused, priests who have reformed their lives, and priests actively struggling, as well as priests who reject their homosexual inclination and who have never acted on it. Priests and Bishops who preach the truth despite their failings are not hypocrites. .

If indeed there are active homosexualist priests living duplicitous lives, I strongly suspect their lifestyle is already known by many of those around them - think liberal priests in liberal parishes - therefore I suspect such outings will have little to no effect. Publicising it will only confirm that Perez Hilton is not some odd aberration of gay culture, but typifies an essential weakness of the immature homosexual personality: to complain, to attack, to wallow in self-pity, to gossip, to detract, to calumniate, to mock, to scorn. .

Jesse Jackson? Color Him Ridiculous!

Day Gardner, National Black Pro-Life Union Comments on Remark Made By Jesse Jackson at Congressional Black Caucus Reception:

At a reception, held by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Foundation as part of a series of events revolving around the 25th anniversary of Jackson's run for president, Jesse Jackson stated: "We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill," He said. "You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man."

What a dumb thing to say. I don't pretend to know the reasons why Rep. Arthur Davis, (D-AL) voted against the health care bill earlier this month and I'm not implying that he is pro-life, but at least he's not drinking the same flavor kool-ade as Mr. Jackson.

All Americans should question the health care monster!

The sad thing is that Jesse Jackson is a man that I once looked up to--way back when he was a power house for human rights, especially the right to life for unborn children.

Jesse once identified himself as a person who would have been aborted if medical counsel had been followed. Jesse Jackson once wrote: "Human life begins when the sperm and egg join . . . and the pulsation of life takes place." He said, "From that point, life may be described differently (as an egg, embryo, fetus, baby, child, teen-ager, adult), but the essence is the same.''

I remember way back--when he spoke at the 1977 March for Life asking the question: ''What happens to the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience.''

Back in the day, in an ''Open Letter to Congress'' Jesse Jackson stated "as a matter of conscience" he must "oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants."

Wow! Where is that guy?

I believe the Jesse Jackson--the civil rights leader from way back--would be leading the pack today against the funding of abortion as health care.

Black children are specifically targeted by the abortion industry which places most of its abortion killing centers in minority and urban neighborhoods. They are denied their civil rights including the most basic right to life; a right which Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, our ancestors and others so proudly worked for, marched for and many of them died for.

Sadly, today, Jesse Jackson is just a mere shadow of the man he once was. He is no longer a power house--instead he is a bought off, shriveled, and empty shell.

I remember a much younger, and wiser "Reverend" Jesse Jackson leading the thunder of children's voices shouting..."I AM SOMEBODY!" And Mr. Jackson, though you have lost your way, I pray that one day you will remember that each and every unborn child is somebody, too!

The National Black Pro-Life Union is an organization founded to serve as a clearing house to coordinate the flow of communications among all African American pro-life organizations and individuals in order to better network and combine resources.

We realize that if we are to be successful, it is necessary to share information and/or resources as well as "who gets the credit." We acknowledge that the real credit for any good thing always goes to GOD-not man.

www.NationalBlackProLifeUnion.com

Will 2010 Be the Perfect Storm?

From American Thinker
By Bruce Walker

Seven different indicators suggest that 2010 will be a very tough year for the Obama administration's plans to turn America into a People's Republic. If some of these indicators pointed one way and others pointed the other way, projections might be murkier. But all the winds seem to be blowing in the same direction, and the result may be a perfect storm to benefit Republicans. What are these seven indicators?

1) Public opinion polls, led by the reputable Rasmussen Poll, have shown in the summer a clear line in the "strongly approve" and "strongly disapprove" of Obama. Although the figures waggle from day to day, the trend is clear: not only is Obama less and less popular, but the intensity of support for and against Obama, which will be critical in the low-turnout midterm elections, shows a huge negative gap for Obama.

The generic congressional ballots, which usually understate the size of the Republican vote in general elections, have shown a consistent Republican lead in Rasmussen since mid-June. This lead has now climbed to six points, and Gallup now shows a four-point lead for Republicans as well.

This dovetails with polls showing Republican candidates doing well in a number of individual races around the country. Almost everywhere and in almost every poll, Democrats are doing worse than in recent history and worse than would have been expected if 2010 was a normal mid-term election.

2) Elections corroborate polling data. This means more than just the dramatic Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey this November. Republicans have been winning special state legislative elections all over the nation, often by wide margins in districts that Democrats had held comfortably for many years. Even recent municipal elections in Democrat strongholds like Albuquerque have produced stunning Republican upsets.

But elections mean more than just the election of candidates for office. Democrats have yet to explain the stunning defeat of the establishment-backed propositions in California in May, which showed the Sacramento politicians losing for some of the propositions in every single county in California. There is a pattern to ballot initiatives. Maine voters surprisingly defeated gay marriage, taking a stand directly contrary to their elected officials'. All this suggests that fiscal and social conservatism are robust and alive in the hearts and minds of voters.

3) The polling data and election results seem to have had an effect on recruiting candidates. Mike Castle, a former governor and incumbent congressman in Delaware, was the only Republican who had a prayer of winning Biden's old Senate seat. Republicans persuaded him to run for that seat in 2010, giving Republicans an excellent chance to pick up a Democrat seat. Mike Kirk, a Republican congressman from the northern metropolitan area of Chicago, is the strongest candidate the GOP could recruit, and Democrats are still floundering for a viable competitor. John Kasich has an excellent chance to recapture the Ohio governorship, having passed up a run for the office in 2006.

4) Recruitment is also helped by the enthusiasm of conservatives. The spontaneous uprisings at Tea Party and other gatherings show that there should be no problem getting campaign workers and small contributors in 2010 for candidates running against Obama. Doug Hoffman's campaign in New York took off largely because of the tremendous grassroots support of conservative voters from throughout the nation. The percentage of Americans, according to Rasmussen, who "strongly disapprove" of Obama is at very high historic levels for this young a presidency.

Leftist advocates, by contrast, see President Obama continuing (as everyone not on the far left understood) the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. They see him compromising on health care issues, perhaps allowing some limitation on abortion in the bill. They listen to his rhetoric, which inevitably is less radical than they had hoped, and their enthusiasm melts noticeably.

5) Closely related to enthusiasm is the composition of the electorate who are supporting Republicans versus the composition of the Obama voters. Senior citizens, who vote in nearly all elections, are alarmed by Obama's plans regarding Medicare. The young voters and the black voters who turned out in record numbers to elect Obama were conspicuously absent in November 2009. Obama will not be on the ballot in 2010. Instead, there will be a lot of old, white, rich Democrat candidates trying to appeal to the center -- trying, in many cases, to sound more Republican than Republicans. As a consequence, the electorate in 2010 will almost certainly be much more conservative than in 2008, and that will affect results.

6) Beyond all these factors, President Obama is showing an increasing tendency to fumble and grope. The inexplicably silly remarks that he made when Cambridge police arrested Professor Gates in July revealed a highly parochial political instinct in which pummeling white police officers is considered good tactics. His bowing before foreign heads of state is another amateurish mistake. Obama went to Copenhagen to get the Olympic Games in Chicago and came back humiliated. The jobs putatively created by his stimulus bill now appear to have manifested in nonexistent congressional districts. The cumulative impact is to make Obama look more and more like Jimmy Carter, a man who could not lead.

7) The seventh and deadliest problem for Obama in 2010 will be that he owns all the bad political problems of our country. Ft. Hood was the first terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001, which means that Obama has not been able to do what Bush did. If there are more attacks, Republicans will force Obama to acknowledge the obvious: he is weaker than Bush on terror. Unemployment is at very high levels. Democrats are increasingly embroiled in scandals.

2008 may well prove to be the perfect storm for Democrats, united as they are behind a smooth, handsome young black man and running against the last dying days of a much-maligned George W. Bush Republican Party. Yes, 2010 may prove to be the complete unraveling of an overstretched Democratic Party who have yet to learn that conservatives are the huge majority of Americans.

Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie and The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.

NJ School Board Halts Student's Pro-Life Ministry as Too "Religious"

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

A New Jersey student is suing the Bridgeton Board of Education after officials at Bridgeton High School prohibited her from expressing a religious viewpoint on the 6th annual Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity.

The lawsuit was filed in New Jersey's U.S. District Court Friday on the student's behalf by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who had distributed a legal memo last month offering to legally defend students across the nation kept from participating in the event by school officials.

"Pro-life students shouldn't be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman.

"The Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity is a non-disruptive, student-led event occurring outside of instructional time. The event provides the opportunity for students to exercise their constitutional right to express their viewpoint on abortion, just as other students have the right to express their views."

The student was prohibited from participating in the Stand True Ministries-sponsored event by distributing pro-life literature during non-instructional times and wearing a red arm band with the word "LIFE" written on it.

According to ADF, school officials told the student that nothing "religious" is allowed in public schools.

"Cumberland County has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the state of New Jersey, yet Bridgeton High School censors students' pro-life speech opposing abortion," commented Cortman. "Government-run schools say that students need to be educated on these issues, but many times they only want to allow one side to be presented."

Michael W. Kiernan of Marlton is serving as local counsel in the lawsuit, C.H. v. Bridgeton Board of Education.

We're Taking Back America in 2010!

Here's hope and a great anthem for freedom fighters. I think we will be hearing this often in the crucial year ahead.

Massive Changes Needed in EU Family Policy to Avoid Demographic "Catastrophe": Report

From LifeSiteNews
By Hilary White

The news about abortion, marriage, divorce and the birth rate in Europe is bad and only getting worse, a report recently presented to the EU said.

According to the report by the Institute for Family Policies abortion rates in Britain have leaped by a third among unmarried teenage girls and abortion is helping to age the population of Europe. Without a massive shift to family-friendly policies, the pattern of increased abortion and increasingly aging population will inevitably lead to the collapse of social welfare benefits, and, ultimately, to the bankruptcy of Europe's cradle-to-grave socialist welfare state.

Presented to the European Parliament on Wednesday, the report said that the situation of the family in Europe is "a desolate panorama."

"Europe is plunged in an unprecedented demographic winter and has become an elderly continent, with a large birth deficit, fewer marriages and more of them broken, homes emptying."

"The aging population, critical birth-rate, escalating abortions, the collapse of marriage, the explosion in family breakups and the emptying of homes are the main problems of Europeans," the 2009 Report on the Evolution of the Family in Europe said.

The study found that the annual number of abortions in the EU equals the entire combined population of its ten smallest member states, with the three top aborting countries being Britain, France and Romania. In Europe there is one abortion every 25 seconds, for a total of more than 1,200,000 abortions a year. 19 percent of all European pregnancies end in abortion and 28 million children have been killed by abortion since 1990, making abortion the main cause of death in Europe.

The population over 65 years in all European states already exceeds the population under 14 years. The EU under 14 population has fallen from 89 million in 1993 to 78.4 million in 2008. Over-65s have risen from 68.3 million in 1993 to 84.9 million in 2008 - an increase of 16.5 million elderly people. The average age of EU citizens is 40.3 years, with Italy and Germany having the highest populations of elderly people.

The dropping European birth rate, the report says, with its concomitant increasing health and pension costs, will lead to increases in public expenditure to care for the aging population and the eventual collapse of public revenues, leading finally to the bankruptcy of the welfare state. The average birth rate of EU countries is now 1.38 per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman, even in relatively fertile countries like France.

Without a significant shift in family policies in all EU countries, the report predicts the result will be "catastrophic." Starting in 2010, the population of Europe overall will begin to fall from 499 million to 472 million by 2050 and every third inhabitant will be over 65.

According to the study, Britain is the "abortion capital of Europe" with rates that last year pulled ahead of France. Its abortion rate is fifth in the world, behind Russia, the U.S., India and Japan. Among these countries, Britain can least afford such a high rate, with a population less than half that of Russia and Japan, a fifth that of the US, and 1/19 that of India. The median age of women in Britain is also rising, at 41.3 years, making recovery even more difficult.

The population of the 27 EU nations reached 500 million last year with most increases in population (78 per cent) attributable to immigration, not births. The natural increase of Europe's population is 12 times lower than the US. Spain has immigration 9 times greater than its internal birth increase and Italy's native population fell (-0.14 million) and had 23 times more immigrants than births (+3.28 million). Poland, Romania and Bulgaria are losing citizens by emigration and Lithuania, Latvia, Romania and Bulgaria have falling populations due to low immigration rates.

Only France, Holland, Finland and Slovakia have internal rates of population increase higher than their immigration figures.

Other indicators show the number of marriages, especially first marriages, is down and divorce rates are up. There are 1 in 4 fewer marriages than in 1980 and the marriage rate has fallen in 9 out 10 countries. One out of every 3 children (36.5 per cent) is born outside marriage. In some countries the fall in marriage rate has been around 50 per cent since 1983 and there are over one million divorces a year, the equivalent to one marital breakdown every 30 seconds.

More people (55 million) are living alone than ever before. One in four households in Europe has a single dweller and two out of three households have no children. Of the households with children, 50 per cent have only one child.

The report recommends the creation of a European Union ministry of the family, laws to increase flexibility of working hours to accommodate families, increases in tax benefits for families and an emphasis on family welfare programs over welfare for individuals.

It calls for governments to recognize the rights of families, including the right of parents to reconcile work and family life; to have the number of children they want; to choose the type of education their children receive and the right of children to live in a stable home.

DC Mayor Refuses Citizens a Vote on Marriage

In a hearing today on "Greater Autonomy for the Nation's Capital," Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty stated he does not believe citizens in his city should have the right to vote on marriage.

Asked if he would be in favor of a vote on a referendum against same-sex "marriage" in the District of Columbia, he responded, "The short answer is 'no.'"

Most states in the U.S. have held referenda on marriage, voted on by the citizens.

The question was posed by Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah,) who reminded Mayor Fenty that 31 states have already allowed citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. In every case, traditional marriage was preserved.

Mayor Fenty went on to say that the D.C. Council was capable of making a decision regarding same-sex "marriage" since the council was elected by the citizens of the District of Columbia.

D.C. Council Chairman Vincent Gray, also on the panel of witnesses, echoed that sentiment.

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, said, "The D.C. Council reeks of rank hypocrisy. For years they have demanded that D.C. citizens should have the right to vote for congressional representation, which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Yet now they are denying D.C. citizens the right to vote on marriage, an institution so fundamental to America's well-being that territories were not allowed to become states unless they kept marriage between one man and one woman.

"D.C. officials are proving, once again, why they need congressional oversight. They need to be reminded that citizens are not serfs."