NEWS

ARTICLES

LETTERS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC







Contents © 2004
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

NEWS
May 2004

---

SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM was honored as a "distinguished leader" at the American Ireland Fund's annual dinner at the St. Francis Hotel on March 13, said the San Francisco Chronicle. Though the "Bay Area's Irish Catholic old guard," including a "bunch of priests," attended the event that honored Newsom and his father, retired appellate court judge the Hon. William Newsom, the Chronicle noted that the phrase "'same-sex' was not mentioned in the program." To a joking threat that the group might rescind his reward, Mayor Newsom said that, having grown up in an Irish Catholic family, he had "been given a lot of lectures" in his life. "I certainly don't expect everyone to share the same values," said Newsom. "But I feel strongly that my values are consistent with the Catholic values of openness, diversity and forgiveness."


BUT ONE CATHOLIC PRIEST has publicly taken Newsom to task for permitting same-sex marriages. In an editorial published in the March 16 San Francisco Chronicle, Father John Malloy, pastor of Saints Peter and Paul parish in San Francisco, said it was a "disappointment to learn ... that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom would be so hostile to marriage as to promote a concept that has been repudiated for thousands of years, not just by the Catholic faith in which he was baptized, but also historically by all other groups and civilizations -- except those that became nonexistent as they promoted homosexual acts." Newsom's attempt to change the definition of marriage, said Father Malloy, "thwarts the purpose for which marriage was instituted by the Almighty." Malloy called "naïve" Newsom's opinion that forbidding same-sex marriage is discrimination and so in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution, said Malloy, allows discrimination: "you cannot allow a woman to join a men-only club. You can discriminate against a woman who wants to play for the Giants. Discrimination, according to Webster, 'is the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently.'"

"When I voted for the mayor," said Father Malloy, "I did so because I thought he was a man with the ability to discriminate -- that is, discern the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, law and lawlessness." Not only has Newsom violated the will of the people of California, he has been "discriminating against marriage, by changing the very definition of the term as employed for a few thousand years and embodied in the law of the land."


IN HIS ARTICLE, Father Malloy quoted Stanley Kurtz, a fellow of the Hoover Institute: "In the American context, [homosexual marriage] is a disaster. Beyond raising rates of middle-class family dissolution, a further separation of marriage from parenthood would reverse the healthy turn away from single-parenting that we have begun to see since welfare reform. Cross-class family decline would bring intense pressure for a new expansion of the American welfare state."

"It's the children," said Malloy, "who will pay the price of this disregard of the natural law."


THE PROMINENCE of the homosexual marriage issue has taken both opponents and proponents by surprise, said a March 5 San Francisco Chronicle story. Just four years ago, Vermont's move merely to recognize civil unions between homosexuals was considered radical; now, even "conservative" defenders of marriage, such as President George W. Bush, are willing to countenance civil unions. The epidemic of cities recognizing homosexual marriages, and the Massachusett high court mandating their recognition by the state, has brought the hitherto unthinkable (even by homosexual activists) to the fore. For many, the fight for homosexual marriage is another step in the civil rights struggle for equal protection under the law.

Analyses differ as to what brought about the change. Some say it was President Bush's pledge to defend traditional marriage in his January state of the union address. Others cite the November 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts high court as the beginning of the change. The Chronicle article, however, opines that "the debate began with June's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws and, for the first time, ruled that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to private sexual relationships."


END OF THE CULTURE WARS? According to the Chronicle, even conservatives see the handwriting on the wall as far as homosexual marriage is concerned: "conservatives contend the judiciary will inevitably strike down traditional marriage definitions in state laws and constitutions, and eventually the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act" -- an act which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, prevents "same-sex" couples from receiving federal marriage benefits, and allows states to protect marriage by law. Up till the present, no challenge of this federal act was possible; homosexual marriage did not exist in the United States.

According to a February 27 Chronicle story, conservative leaders are lowering their expectations. David Horowitz of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture told the paper, "as far as adults are concerned, there is no culture war anymore." Horowitz said, though, that conservatives can make an argument "about process" -- making sure mayors like Gavin Newsom cannot take extralegal steps, for instance. William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the Chronicle, supports President Bush's proposed amendment to ban homosexual marriage; but, the article said that Donohue does not think it will "prevent same-sex civil unions, which he now supports," but merely keep homosexual couples from claiming the status of marriage. "I don't like all-or-nothing approaches anymore," said Donohue. Jim Backlin of the Christian Coalition said his organization still rejects homosexual marriage and civil unions; "but, realistically," he said, "we gave up on civil unions. We know that we would lose that. It's not worth fighting over." Backlin said that still "there are major battles going on" in the culture wars.


NOBLE FUTILITY, OR POLITICAL CYNICISM? The March 5 Chronicle story noted that President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage has little prospect of passing. "Republican members of Congress," said the article, "privately concede there is little chance that amendments under consideration can pass the difficult threshold of two-thirds approval in both houses, and they are wrestling with alternatives." Patrick Guerriero of the pro-homosexual rights Log Cabin Republicans group noted that with opposition to the proposed amendment by prominent Republicans as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudolf Giuliani, its future looks dim. David Horowitz said he thought Bush "has allowed himself to focus on the wrong target;" rather, the president should propose an amendment that prevents judges from legislating.

But, Jim Pinkerton, an advisor to the first George Bush, said that no matter the outcome, George W's proposed amendment can only help him with his political base. The debate over it can only help the president in the next election. "An amendment doesn't have to pass," said Pinkerton. "It's like abortion. The right-to-lifers have been flaying away for 30 years and never notice that they don't win. The Republicans get their energy and the right-to-lifers never get a victory. You get the energy out of a political movement by losing, not by winning."


A BILL IN THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY may undercut Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and woman, said a March 5 Catholic San Francisco story. The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco, would remove the terms male and female, man and woman from the California Family Code and replace them with "person" and "persons." The new language would apply to all but one section of the code (section 308.5) which deals with marriages performed out of state, where language from Proposition 22 appears. The proposed bill, the California License Nondiscrimination Act (AB 1967), also declares, "where necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, gender-specific terms shall be construed to be gender-neutral, except with respect to Section 308.5." Leno explained that this section will remain untouched because "Proposition 22 amended section 308 of the family code which specifically deals with how marriages performed outside of California are defined. I am not trying to touch Section 308."

The bill's critics say that Leno's contention that Proposition 22 only amended Section 308 is wrong; the proposition affected the entire family code, not just that part dealing with out-of-state marriages. Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said the conference opposes the Leno bill. "It flies in the face of state law -- the people passed Proposition 22 by an overwhelming majority," said Dolejsi.


SULPICIAN FATHER GERALD COLEMAN, rector of St. Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park, provided "A guide to protecting marriage" in the February 27 Catholic San Francisco. In his piece Father Coleman said he wished "to transpose" the basic ideas of a February 5 Wall Street Journal editorial, written by the governor of Massachusetts.

For various reasons, Father Coleman was critical of redefining marriage to be other than the union of a man and a woman. For one, he said, marriage "is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society;" since it "was not created by government," it "should not be redefined by government." Marriage, too, said Coleman, "is the foundation of family life, a basic building block of society." For society to grant it special benefits "is not discrimination. Rather, it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation." Father Coleman said that state laws on marriage should be strengthened by "Defense of Marriage legislation. A patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws among the States is harmful to a unified country."

Father Coleman asserted that "heterosexual marriage provides the normative link to procreation and a child binds together husband and wife and places them in a critical relationship to themselves and their child. Society cannot separate heterosexual intercourse, marriage, procreation and child care/nurture."


BUT DEFENDING MARRIAGE, wrote Father Coleman, "is not an attack on gay people; or single people; or nontraditional couples." Without specifically saying he supported state-recognized civil unions between homosexuals, Coleman asserted that "essential civil rights and appropriate social benefits must be afforded to every citizen, be they single or in a nontraditional relationship." Further asserting that "any violence or malice in speech or act against gay persons is discrimination and is always unwarranted and contemptible," Coleman said, "protecting marriage is never an excuse for discrimination against homosexual persons." Discourse on the issue of marriage, said Coleman, "should be conducted with decency and respect, as the lives of many people and differing views are involved and affected: e.g., gay couples, traditional and nontraditional couples, and children."

In the past, Father Coleman has defended domestic partnerships, including those among homosexuals. In a 2001 "Open Letter" to the San Francisco Faith, the Los Angeles Mission, and San Diego News Notes, Coleman said homosexual relationships should be "chaste;" but he equated this modifier with "committed," leaving it unclear whether, in the term "chaste," he included refraining from genital activity. Coleman, as well, voiced his support for civil recognition of "committed, life-long homosexual partnerships," which, he said, should have "an important status, deserving our respect and protection."


FATHER COLEMAN will step down as rector of St. Patrick's seminary at the end of May. His replacement, according to the March 29 Oakland diocese Catholic Voice, will be Sulpician Father Gerald Brown. Chosen by Archbishop William Levada, Father Brown has been rector and president of Assumption Seminary in San Antonio, Texas since 1999. Having served in other seminaries (he was president and rector of the now-defunct St. Joseph's seminary in Los Altos from 1978 to 1985), Brown has been superior of the U.S. Sulpician province from 1985 to 1997 and a board member and president of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men.


TOTALLY BOSS AND GROOVY. The March 29 Catholic Voice announced the performance of the musical Godspell by seventh and eighth grade students from St. Paul School in San Pablo and St. Patrick School in Rodeo on April 2 and 3 at St. Patrick's church in Rodeo. According to the Voice, the musical is "based on the Gospel of Matthew" and "presents the parables in a very playful manner featuring early 1970s rock n roll music." Doubtless an exercise in Lenten piety, this performance of Godspell would, nevertheless, end with the resurrection of Christ -- which, said musical accompanist Sarah Barrett, "is not always shown but always assumed in productions of the show."


PLANNED PARENTHOOD NEGLIGENT. The California Department of Health Services ruled on February 24 that Planned Parenthood of Hayward had failed to report to state authorities the death of 18-year-old Holly Patterson as an unusual occurrence, said a February 26 LifeNews.com report. Patterson died September 17, 2003 of septic shock after the Hayward clinic had administered to her the abortion drug RU-486 and another drug, misoprostol, to induce uterine contractions. Planned Parenthood, said the report, had also failed to have Patterson sign one of three forms that the abortion provider claims it normally requires chemical abortion patients to sign and had improperly informed Patterson on how to use the abortion drug. The spokeswoman for Valley Care Medical Center, where Patterson died, however, told the February 27 San Francisco Chronicle, that he did not think Patterson's death met the criteria for an "unusual occurrence." Though Campbell said the hospital would revise its policies, it, "reported the death to the coroner's office as required by law." The Planned Parenthood clinic said it was not bound to report the death because it had occurred at a hospital.


"WE ARE APPALLED by the lack of reporting and accountability of Planned Parenthood and Valley Care Medical Center to report Holly's death to the State of California DHS," Holly Patterson's parents said in a February 25 statement. Monty and Helen Patterson asked, "if hospitals and abortion clinics don't feel they should be responsible to report a death to the state, what makes the FDA or the drug manufacturer believe they will consistently and accurately receive reports on adverse events or deaths related to drugs?" The Pattersons noted that "the FDA needs this reporting information to monitor and evaluate the safety of the drugs they have approved."

Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life, said the Hayward clinic's failure to report was typical. "Abortion clinics fight 'Women's Right to Know' laws," said Foster. "They resist clinic inspections, regulations and reporting requirements. Abortion providers oppose parental notification. The state of California -- and other states -- should inspect these clinics and see what else is going on wrong before more families lose their vulnerable young daughters."


NO BUCKS WITHOUT BALLOONS. The National Abortion Rights Action League, now known in this state by the more friendly name, "NARAL Pro-Choice California," sent out a March 26 alert to its supporters that the Schwarzenegger administration may censor "vital health information about contraception" in California. Governor Schwarzenegger, it seems, is set to accept federal funds for "abstinence-only" sex education programs. The NARAL alert claimed that, upon accepting these federal funds, a state "must agree to CENSOR vital health information about contraception. Under this program, teachers are forbidden from teaching about the benefits of contraception -- even if a young person asks a direct question." Dire consequences await "California's young people," said NARAL, if the governor "moves ahead with this plan;" they will be "in danger -- of disease, unintended pregnancy, and even HIV infection." Though total abstinence from sexual congress would save anyone from these dread fates, NARAL declared that "studies show that the most effective sex-ed programs teach BOTH abstinence AND contraception."

NARAL urged its supporters to write members of the Schwarzenegger administration to tell them "that Californians simply can't afford this risky proposition."


VICTORY FOR JUSTICE. The board of immigration appeals was in error when it refused asylum to a man whose wife fled China after undergoing a forced abortion there, said the United States ninth circuit court of appeals, according to a March 15 Associated Press report. The board of immigration appeals had ruled that Kui Rong Ma could not be given asylum under an act of the U.S. Congress that grants asylum for up to 1,000 victims of forced abortion and sterilization. Why? Because the government of China does not recognize Ma's marriage to Liu Chiu Ma, who was forced to have an abortion in 1999. Chinese law lays down a marriage age requirement of 20 for women and 22 for men; Ma and Chiu, who were married in a traditional ceremony in their village, were 19 and 21 respectively. It was on account of her age that the Chinese government ruled Chiu had to have an abortion. Ma and Chiu fled to Guam, a U.S territory. There immigration officials apprehended Ma.

In its ruling, the U.S. circuit court said, the board of immigration appeals' "refusal to grant asylum to an individual who cannot register his marriage with the Chinese government on account of a law promulgated as part of its coercive population control policy, a policy deemed by Congress to be oppressive and persecutory, contravenes the statute and leads to absurd and wholly unacceptable results." The court sent the case back to the board for reconsideration.


A LETTER PUBLISHED in the San Jose Diocese's Valley Catholic (February 17) commended "the courageous priests of the St. Paul, Minneapolis Archdiocese for asking for a discussion of priestly celibacy by the U.S. bishops." The letter writer opined that the "imposition" of priestly celibacy is "a violation of the basic human right to participate in God-ordained procreation. Jesus made no such conditions to the first leaders of his Church, and indeed, most of them were married." The Valley Catholic provided no editorial reply or rebuttal to this letter.

Another letter writer objected to what he called the Valley Catholic's "apparent slant," saying its January edition "highlights the headline theme of Church language being 'unwelcoming,' 'vile and toxic language' while supporting the 'sacred ... personal integration of sexuality.'" The paper's "presentation," said the letter writer, "gives the illusion that priests generally disagree with the (archaic) language still found in Church writings.... Your sympathies were obviously with the protesting priests and practicing homosexuals." The letter writer thought it "would be greatly appreciated to have a diocesan paper which supported Catholic teaching instead of continuing to create dissension and confusion by promoting positions contrary to Catholic teaching."

This second letter did receive an editorial response. The paper, said the response, "does not 'slant' stories. It reports the news." The stories the writer questioned were "provided by the national Catholic News Service, which is owned and operated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops." Further, the Valley Catholic does not promote 'positions contrary to Catholic teaching.' It is, in fact, the official publication of the Diocese of San José whose bishop is the publisher."


DEMOCRATIC STATE SENATOR Debra Bowen (Marina Del Rey) has proposed a bill in the state legislature the would remove from the legislature the task of choosing which charities qualify for tax-exempt donations, said the March 13 Sacramento Bee. Bowen charges that currently the process to choose such charities is too subject to political pressures and should be placed with the states Franchise Tax Board. "Legislators are asked to pick and choose among charitable organizations," said Bowen. "That's really not fair to everyone who's not chosen." And, it might also be illegal.

Bowen based her contention on a February federal court decision that barred the legislature from issuing special interest plates. The court said that the legislature's refusal to approve a "Choose Life" plate was a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Bowen claimed the same violations are found in the process to choose which charities qualify for special status on California's income tax forms. She proposed that a group which desires special tax status would submit financial information to the Franchise Tax Board, collect signatures from registered voters, and provide services "that are consistent with the policies and programs of the state."


IT'S ALL ABOUT CHOICE. Leilani Birely was raised Catholic but now worships goddesses. According to a March 4 Oakland Tribune story, Birely said, though she loved Catholic rituals, she "felt" they had too much emphasis on masculine energies. Her journey to goddess worship began with the La Leche League, an organization (founded by Catholics) that encourages breastfeeding. "I started helping women reclaim their bodies," said Birely. "It seemed sacred, that we have everything we need to feed our babies. I did feel a yearning connected to sisterhood and community, and I was looking more for that than I was looking for a religion." Taking a class on female shamanism at San Francisco's New College, Birely learned of goddess worship and decided she wanted to lead other women to the knowledge of goddess. Today, she is the priestess of the Daughters of the Goddess Temple, which holds goddess events throughout the Bay Area. During these events, Birely and about 40 to 50 women meet to honor "She of Infinite Names." Among the infinite names are those of the Egyptian goddess Isis; the Greek Artemis or Diana; the Buddhist mother goddess Kuan Yin; and Kali, the Hindu goddess of destruction and rebirth.

Birely asserts, however, that she doesn't reject the monotheistic God. "It's not that I'm looking for something other than the masculine," she told the Tribune. "However, I do feel that as women it's important for us to be intimately in touch with our roots and our heritage and our past, and the goddess is part of that." For Birely, her religion is about "expanding the level of options that we have in finding spiritual guidance, and I do think the female deities offer a lot more choices than we're given in most male-centered traditions."


GOOD NEWS: NO RULES. Fr Edward Holterhoff, scripture scholar and parish administrator at St Timothy's Catholic Church in Morro Bay, composed a meditation on "contemporary morality" that appeared in the September 21, 2003 edition of the parish bulletin. Quoting the Dalai Lama, as his authority Holterhoff stated, "we must 'find a way to serve all humanity without appealing to religious faith.' It is imperative, therefore, to develop a basic moral consensus on which everyone can agree if we hope to promote a universal ethical approach to living. Individual faith communities certainly will be able to affect this agenda but not dominate it."

Father Holterhoff seemed to attack the concept of moral standards. He wrote, "from a Christian point of view, Jesus had no interest in rules, and, in fact, is seen as consistently breaking them. Thus, there is no theological foundation for a rule-based morality in Christianity." Addressing the question of the inherent moral quality of our actions, Holterhoff went on to say, "should we use terms such as wrong, bad, evil? Are not categories like 'harmful or helpful' more simple and inclusive?" Near the end, Holterhoff stated for his readers what he thinks should be the purpose of the Catholic Church. "The mission of Jesus, simply described," wrote Holterhoff, "was to foster happiness and to minimize suffering." Holterhoff justified the last statement saying it is in perfect accord with Sermon on the Mount.

TOP