NEWS

ARTICLES

LETTERS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC







Contents © 2005
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

NEWS
October 2005

---

WELCOME TO THE ASYLUM. A homosexual Mexican national suffering from AIDS could claim political asylum in the United States because he feared persecution in his homeland, the ninth circuit U.S. of appeals in San Francisco ruled on August 12. José Boer-Sedano came to San Francisco in 1990 on a six-month visa, according to an Associated Press report. He re mained, claiming that in the late 1980s a police officer in Mexico stopped him nine times over three months, demanding oral sex; the officer, said Boer-Sedano, threatened to "out" him if he refused, even once holding a gun to Boer-Sedano's head. Boer-Sedano also claimed that his family and friends in his hometown of Tampico, in the state of Tamaulipas, ostracized him for his homosexuality and that co-workers harassed him. In 1997, a U.S. immigration judge ruled that such harassment did not amount to persecution.

LOCKYER MUST WAIT. Though California attorney general Bill Lockyer wanted the state supreme court to bypass the appeals court and decide the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, the supreme court on August 10 refused. In March, San Francisco superior court judge Richard Kramer ruled that forbidding marriage to same-sex couples violated the California constitution. The supreme court said it would not hear the appeal of the same sex case decided by Kramer until it had passed through the lower court of appeal. This means the supreme court will not be able to decide the case for at least a year.

NO REASON? The California supreme court ruled on August 22 that both members of a lesbian couple have parental rights over the children birthed by one of them, even after the couple breaks up. "We perceive no reason," the supreme court ruled, "why both parents of a child cannot be women." In three decisions, answering to three different cases, the court ruled that parental rights belong to both members of a couple, even where an adoption or a legal domestic partnership are lacking. In one of the cases, a lesbian, "K.M.," sought parental rights over her former partner's children who were conceived using K.M.'s ova. But K.M. had signed a waiver of parental rights when she donated the ova. In another case, two lesbians went to court in Los Angeles County to declare joint parental status over one partner's unborn children. After the women split, the mother successfully challenged the pre-birth agreement in court. In the third case, a lesbian mother demanded child support from her former lover who helped raise her children and even claimed them as dependents for taxes and insurance.

These decisions may presage how the supreme court will rule on the status of homosexual marriage in California. "If these cases are any indication," Mathew Staver of the Libery Counsel told the August 23 New York Times, "it makes it look like they're tending toward recognition of gay marriage."

A BILL THAT WOULD LEGALIZE same-sex marriage was approved by the California state senate on September 1 and the state assembly five days later. AB 849, sponsored by Assemblyman Mark Leno, changes the legal definition of marriage from "a civil contract between a man and a woman" to "a civil contract between two persons." Though through Proposition 22, California voters in 2000 said that marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman, Assemblyman Leno has said that such language only applies to marriages contracted outside the state. Given their respective votes, a majority in both the senate and the assembly agree with the San Francisco assemblyman.

In June, a similar bill, sponsored by Leno, was defeated by four votes in the assembly. In late June, Leno used the gut-and-amend process in which an older bill can become the vehicle for another bill it closely resembles in content to reintroduce his same-sex marriage bill, this time in the state senate. The old AB 849, which was before the senate, dealt with marine fisheries research. Leno told the August 26 San Francisco Chronicle that he thought his bill had a better chance of passing than it did in June, especially because of the recent supreme court decision granting homosexual couples equal guardianship of children. Homosexual couples "are considered no different than married couples with regards to responsibility for children," Leno said.

Leno's bill passed the senate 21 votes to 15. In the Assembly, no Republican voted for the bill while 41 Democrats supported it. Four Democrats opposed the bill, while two abstained. Two key votes in favor of the bill came from Tom Umberg (a Catholic) of Anaheim and Gloria Negrete-McLeod of Chino. Both had abstained in June.

VETO. Soon after the assembly vote, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's office would not say what he would do if the bill reached his desk. But a day after the senate voted to approve the same-sex marriage bill, the governor's spokeswoman Margita Thompson announced in a prepared statement that Governor Schwarzenegger would veto it. "The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action -- which would be unconstitutional -- but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state,"said the statement. "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote." But, said the statement, the governor "believes that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against."

Assemblyman Leno was not pleased with the governor's statement. "The only reason that he could be doing this is that he is pandering to the far right," said the openly homosexual lawmaker (who doubtless panders to no constituency). But Karen England of the Sacramento-based Capitol Resource Institute told the September 8 Los Angeles Times, the governor had "kept his word against the runaway Legislature.... As a social conservative, I never thought I'd see the day when I said I was glad Arnold Schwarzenegger was the governor."

Schwarzenegger's popularity has been plummeting of late, according to polls. Whether his veto will help him with any but his Republican base remains to be seen. According to an August poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, 68 percent of Republicans in California oppose same-sex marriage (56 percent of Democrats support it.) But, the public at large, is divided, the poll indicated; of those who will vote in November, 46 percent support legalizing same-sex marriage while 46 percent oppose it.

SPONSORS OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE that proposes a state constitutional amendment to protect marriage filed a lawsuit against state attorney general Bill Lockyer over the title and summary provided for the initiative by his office, the August 3 San Francisco Chronicle reported. Sponsors of the initiative have called it the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative; however, on July 25, Lockyer's office dubbed it, "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights." Lockyer's summary says that the measure calls for the sole recognition of marriage between a man and a woman. The summary then proceeds to say that the initiative would repeal or restrict several existing civil rights accorded by California to same-sex domestic partnerships, including property, inheritance, child care, health benefits, and hospital visitation rights. A lawyer with the Liberty Counsel, Mathew Staver, who represents initiative sponsors, said that Lockyer's title and summary are biased. The initiative, said Staver, would not hinder individuals from joint property ownership, from leaving property to whomever they wish in their wills, and from hospital visitations. Supporters of the initiative filed suit in Sacramento county superior court on August 2.

On August 18, Sacramento judge Raymond Cadei ruled that Lockyer's summary was "overly broad" and "misleading," meaning that the attorney general would have to rewrite it.

THE LAWSUIT AGAINST LOCKYER was filed by a coalition calling itself VoteYesMarriage.com, led by Assemblyman Larry Bowler, Ed Hernandez, and Randy Thomasson. According to the August 12 San Francisco Chronicle, the coalition's initiative has drawn endorsements from the Traditional Values Coalition and Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority Coalition. The initiative reads, "only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or bestow statutory rights or incidents of marriage on unmarried persons, or require private entities to offer or provide rights or incidents of marriage to unmarried persons. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable."

This initiative, however, has competition. Another coalition, ProtectMarriage.com, has put forward another measure, which simply reads, "a marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized by the state." ProtectMarriage.com is led by Gail Knight, the widow of the late Senator Pete Knight, who wrote Proposition 22, the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The shorter initiative has the support of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, as well as the endorsement of the state senate Republican caucus. If both initiatives appear on the ballot and pass, a court will have to decide on their compatibility. If the court deems them inconsistent, the one with most votes will become law.

THE COALITIONS sponsoring the contending ballot measures originally sought a common measure but could not agree on its language, said the August 21 Sacramento Bee. Randy Thomasson of Vote YesMarriage.com contends that the shorter initiative does not clearly spell out what it means by "legal union," and thus could be challenged in court. The initiative's "language is so poorly drafted it will confuse the courts, and courts will not go beyond what is plainly written in the initiative," said Thomasson; other unions, including labor and credit unions, are also "legal unions," Thomasson pointed out. However, Andrew Pugno, legal adviser to ProtectMarriage.com, said, "Mr. Thomasson's interpretation of our measure suggests that he has not even read the legal explanation for what we have provided." "Legal Union," said Pugno, "is a term used in the domestic partner ship act and is a term used by the courts. It is a well-defined term in the area of domestic relations."

Republican state senator Dennis Hollingsworth (Riverside County) also defended the measure. "We think it's crucial that the language in the initiative be very self-explanatory, very straightforward," he said. "This reserves marriage and marriage facsimiles to one man, one woman. It will protect traditional marriage." But, said Thomasson, ProtectMarriage.com's measure is "fatally flawed. I wish that weren't the case, but it is. The California courts have made it crystal clear that to protect marriage rights, you have to say you're protecting marriage rights in your text."

SOMEONE NAMED COOKIE GAMBUCCI served Archbishop William Levada a subpoena shortly before he was to celebrate his farewell Mass at St. Mary's cathedral in San Francisco on August 7. According to the August 8 San Francisco Chronicle, Gambucci, who runs a court support services company in Martinez, told Levada that he could receive the subpoena there and then or she would serve it to him at the altar during Mass. According to Cookie, Levada accepted the subpoena, saying, "this is a disgrace to the Church."

The subpoena ordered Levada to be deposed in sexual abuse lawsuits against the archdiocese of Portland concerning over 250 alleged victims. Levada was archbishop of Portland from 1986 to 1995. Maurice Healy, spokesman for the San Francisco archdiocese, wondered to the Chronicle why Gambucci waited for the farewell Mass to serve the subpoena. But Erin Olson, an attorney who represents 15 plaintiffs in the Oregon abuse cases, claimed that the archbishop had been avoiding the subpoena since May.

As prefect for the Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Levada could claim diplomatic immunity and refuse to testify in the Portland cases. However, on August 10, Levada agreed to waive his diplomatic immunity and testify in court. He will be deposed in January.

IN ADDITION TO SERVING as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop William Levada will be a member of the Congregation for Bishops, Catholic News Service reported on August 25. The Holy See announced the papal appointment on August 24.

ADVOCATES FOR VICTIMS of sexual abuse by priests have criticized Archbishop Levada for his handling of abusive priests in both Portland and San Francisco, the August 3 Los Angeles Times reported. Another case has recently stirred up more criticism of Levada. In 1991 a Redemptorist seminarian, Arturo Uribe, had an affair with a woman, Stephanie Collopy, while he served at a Portland parish. Collopy became pregnant, and the affair ended; but the then-26 Collopy went to court seeking child support from Uribe and to sue the archdiocese of Portland for $200,000 because Uribe, as a seminarian working in an archdiocesan parish, had, she claimed, breached the fiduciary duty he owed to someone who "performed pastoral duties for the archdiocese." The archdiocese, then under Archbishop Levada, had the case thrown out of court; in legal documents it said it had never directly employed Collopy and noted that she and Uribe alone were responsible for the child. In particular, said the archdiocese, Collopy was negligent since she engaged in "unprotected sex."

Did Levada suggest that Collopy should have used birth control? No, said Richard Kuhn, a Portland lawyer who handled the case for the archdiocese of Portland. According to an August 11 Associated Press report, Levada, said Kuhn, simply signed paperwork; the birth control defense, Kuhn said, was his own. "It certainly had nothing to do with the archbishop at the time, and nothing to do with church doctrine," said Kuhn. "It was just a defense I raised." Kuhn said he doubted that the archbishop had received a copy of the pleading and that, to the best of his knowledge, Kuhn worked entirely with the archdiocese's risk management department. "The archbishop shouldn't be criticized for something I did that didn't have anything to do with Catholic doctrine," Kuhn said. "It would be a different story if we sat down together and said, 'Let's do this.' " Bud Bunce, director of communications for the Portland archdiocese, agreed, saying Levada "had no input" in the legal arguments.

"I CAN SAY honestly that when I became a priest it was not to get a job as a prefect for a congregation in Rome. It just wasn't on the screen. It's astonishing to me." Thus Archbishop William Levada concluded an interview he gave the San Francisco Chronicle on August 14. According to the Chronicle, Levada, though looking anxiously ahead to his responsibilities as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, thought that his reign in San Francisco had prepared him for this position. "We had domestic partner issues. We had strikes. I tried to look at the issues in a way that would not betray our church principles," said Levada. Still, "as a busy archbishop here and for nine years before in Portland," Levada said, "I could not give attention to every aspect of what the Congregation was doing. So, it's like going back to school and finding out everything that has happened over the last 25 years. It's challenging. You certainly don't want to be a failure."

"I'm not Dianne Feinstein representing California in the Senate," replied Levada, when asked whether "he felt pressure to represent American Catholics." "I'm an American but I'm not chosen to represent America," he continued. "I'm chosen to do a job for the universal church. Of course I will be influenced by my culture and my experiences."

IN A DECISION that may have effects on dioceses throughout the United States, the Holy See issued a preliminary ruling that the archdiocese of Boston was wrong in seizing parish assets to pay for molestation claims, Religious News Service reported on August 18. Boston Church officials on August 10 acknowledged receipt of the ruling. In Boston, Archbishop Sean O' Malley had seized and sold off parish assets, saying they belonged to the archdiocese. O'Malley also closed over 60 parishes on account of deteriorating finances, a declining number of parishioners, and fewer priests. Though, according to the Boston archdiocese, O'Malley handled the closures of the parishes and their reconfiguration well, disagreement arose over the question of who owns parish properties. Eight parishes appealed their closures to the Vatican, which has still to issue a final decision.

The Vatican's decision speaks to the archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, which named 124 parishes and their parishioners in a class-action lawsuit to determine property ownership. The archdiocese of Portland has declared bankruptcy because of molestation claims.

HOWEVER, A BANKRUPTCY COURT in Spokane, Washington, on August 26 came to a different conclusion than the Vatican on the disposition of Church properties. According to the August 28 Los Angeles Times, Judge Patricia Williams ruled that churches, parochial schools, and such assets as cemeteries belong to the diocese, not to parishes. The Spokane diocese, which declared bankruptcy last December over claims of alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse, has argued that it only controls $10 million in real estate, including its offices. Lawyers for alleged victims, on the other hand, said that, since parishes, parochial schools, and other property, belong to the diocese as well, its assets exceed $80 million. This means the diocese, according to the court, has vastly more assets to use in paying off abuse claims. Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane said that since Judge Williams' decision "has national consequences," he felt he was obligated to appeal it.

SACRED AND/OR PROFANE. St. Brigid's church at the corner of Van Ness and Broadway in San Francisco has found a buyer, the Academy of Art University, the August 13 San Francisco Chronicle reported. The archdiocese of San Francisco closed the 141-year-old church in 1994, citing declining attendance and seismic retrofitting costs. The archdiocese wanted to use the proceeds of the sale to pay for clergy abuse settlements and for social services for the poor. The Committee to Save St. Brigid, formed to preserve the church, has fought to save the structure from demolition; original plans were to sell the land to a developer. The purchase price for the church has not been disclosed, though the Academy of Art said it would spend $7 million on restoration and a seismic retrofit. In a statement, outgoing archbishop William Levada praised the sale, saying the academy has a "proven track record in preserving a number of San Francisco historic buildings and using them for purposes that benefit the entire community."

But Joe Dignan, head of the Committee to Save St. Brigid, said he was "flabbergasted" by news of the sale, and asked, "what about the religious use of the building?" Dignan said he hoped the academy would preserve the church's "religious character." "There is a feeling inside that church," continued Dignan. "It is a resonance that comes from generations of San Franciscans who have called St. Brigid their spiritual home. So, will the Academy of Art wipe that away? Or do they intend to keep it as a sacred space and give it the respect it deserves?" Robert Bryan, former head of the committee, said of the deal, "I never got the impression the bottom line for the archdiocese was doing the right thing. To the contrary, it was money, money, money. There was a total disregard for the community, the history and the people of San Francisco."

THE DIOCESE OF OAKLAND announced on August 5 that it has settled all the claims of sexual misconduct brought against it, the August 6 San Francisco Chronicle, reported. Alleged victims will receive $56,358,000, of which the diocese itself will pay $25,318,000; the rest being provided by insurers. The settlement covers 56 lawsuits that involve 13 diocesan priests, seven of whom have died. Initially, the diocese will obtain a loan to pay its share of the settlement; eventually it will sell diocesan assets. Parishes, however, will not be affected, the diocese says, nor will funds set aside for specified purposes.

THE SAN FRANCISCO ARCHDIOCESE settled four lawsuits filed against Monsignor Patrick O'Shea by alleged victims of priest molestation, Associated Press reported on August 2. O'Shea, 72, who has been defrocked, has admitted in civil depositions to molesting boys, though he has denied any wrongdoing toward one of the plaintiffs in the settlement, Kenneth McDonald, who received the single largest settlement, $1.7 million. The four victims together received $4 million from the archdiocese.

Sixty sexual abuse cases have been filed against the archdiocese since 2003. To date, of these, 31 have been settled for a total of $41 million. Insurance payments cover about two-thirds the cost, archdiocesan spokesman Maurice Healy told Associated Press.

U.S REPRESENTATIVE TOM LANTOS (D-San Mateo and San Francisco counties) on August 2 took Pope Benedict XVI to task for the pope's "omission of Israel from the list of nations recently hit by terror attacks." In a late July address, Pope Benedict deplored terrorist attacks, and mentioned those in Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, and Great Britain. Israel's foreign ministry objected to this, saying the pope had failed to mention a July 12 suicide bombing in Netanya in which five Israelis were killed. According to the foreign ministry, the pope's failure to mention this incident could be construed as "granting legitimacy to ... terrorist attacks against Jews." But in response, the Vatican issued a statement, saying, "it's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation" because "the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law. It would thus be impossible to condemn the first [Palestinian attacks] and let the second [Israeli retaliation] pass in silence." Also, said the Vatican statement, "the Holy See cannot take lessons or instructions from any other authority on the tone and content of its statements." (Over the weekend of August 27-28, Israeli officials said Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon was too aggressive in his response to the pope's July homily, the August 29 JTA, Global News of the Jewish People reported. According to the same report, "in return, the Vatican apologized for the omission, which it called unintentional, and admitted that it could have been more sensitive."

In his letter, Representative Lantos said attacks like those in Netanya "cannot be left without condemnation by any peace-loving person, especially not by the spiritual leader of more than a billion Catholic Christians around the world." Saying he is "the only Holocaust survivor ever to serve in the United States Congress," Lantos said he knows "from personal experience the dangerous consequences when the world selectively ignores atrocities done under the guidance of a murderous ideology; I had hoped that those days were behind us."

Lantos objected to the Vatican's initial attempts to explain the omission of Israel from its terrorist victims' list, calling them "confused." The Vatican, said Lantos, first suggested that the Netanya tragedy was somehow less recent than the other tragedies you named" and then raised "an issue of Israeli retaliation that did not even occur after Netanya." Lantos told the pope that he "always admired" Pope John Paul II's "deep commitment to protecting human rights, his lack of tolerance towards violence, and his efforts to encourage peaceful solutions to violent conflicts." To the current Holy Father, he said, "I deeply hope you will adhere to his legacy in this regard."

AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL teacher who sued the Cupertino school district last year because he alleged it discriminated against him as a Christian reached a settlement with the district, the August 12 Los Angeles Times reported. Stephens Creek Elementary School Fifth grade teacher Stephen Williams in his history classes had supplemented approved textbooks with handouts featuring quotes from the founding fathers of the United States that show, according Williams, the importance of the Christian religion in the founding of the United States. When some parents complained, Stephens Creek principal Patricia Vidmar told Williams not to hand out certain supplements. In November 2004, Williams filed suit, charging that school administration was "systematically rejecting" all references to God or the Christian faith in his handouts and that his academic freedom was being restricted "because of its religious content and viewpoint." Williams was represented by the Alliance Defense Fund.

On April 24, a judge in Northern California dismissed all but one of Williams' claims. Williams, the judge said, sufficiently alleged that he had been discriminated against because of his religion. However, on August 11, U.S. district judge James Ware dismissed Williams' suit after the teacher had reached an agreement with the school district. According to a statement released on August 11, "both sides came to the agreement that the policy the Cupertino Union School District has had in place allows for the teaching of religion, provided it is age-appropriate and consistent with the district's state-approved curriculum." According to the district, Williams could continue on as a teacher, though he would not teach at Stephens Creek.

However, on August 17, Williams announced that he had resigned from the Cupertino school district and he and his wife were moving to Bend, Oregon. "My wife and I have been praying about it for a while," Williams said.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD is proposing to set up shop in a building next door to Merced High School in Merced, LifeNews.com reported on August 2. Planned Parenthood already has a facility in downtown Merced but will move the operation to the new building. The proposed move has stirred protest from pro-life advocates, who object to an abortion clinic being set up so close to a high school. But Kathy Bright of Planned Parenthood told ABC News 30 that no abortions will be performed at the new facility. "Abortion is not a service provided by [our] Planned Parenthood," said Bright, "and hasn't been in the last 22 years. And we have no plans for providing that service."

YOU OWE. The wife of a U.S. navy man must repay the $3,000 the federal government spent on her abortion, the ninth circuit U.S. court of appeals in San Francisco ruled on August 18. According to LifeSiteNews.com, the woman, identified in court papers as "Jane Doe," aborted her child after he was diagnosed with anencephaly. The military paid for the abortion. The woman's constitutional right to an abortion, the court said, was not violated by having her reimburse the government for the operation, said the court, because the military only pays for abortions if a woman's life is deemed in danger, not for therapeutic purposes.

RECENT POLLS have indicated that voters are nearly evenly divided on Proposition 73, the "Parents Right to Know" initiative. A poll conducted in August asking prospective voters how they would vote on Proposition 73, the "Parents Right to Know" initiative, which would require a 48-hour waiting period to inform parents if their minor, unmarried daughter is seeking an abortion, shows state citizens nearly evenly divided on the issue. The Public Policy Institute of California conducted a survey of 2,004 California adult residents, August 8-15, and found that, of those surveyed, 48 percent oppose the measure, 44 percent support it, and eight percent are undecided. The poll had a two-percent margin of error.

A Field Poll conducted from August 19-29 found that 45 percent of Californians support Proposition 73, another 45 percent oppose it, and ten percent are undecided. The survey was based on interviews with 325 likely voters and had a 5.8 percent margin of error. Another Field Poll conducted in June found that 48 percent of potential voters backed Proposition 73, while 42 percent opposed it.

SOME PRO-LIFE GROUPS charged that the Public Policy Institute's polling questions were biased, according to an August 25 LifeSiteNews.com report. Pollsters, say the pro-life activists, informed those they questioned that under the proposition abortions would be "prohibited" until the notification process is completed and that it would cost the state "several million dollars annually." The measure allows for a judicial waiver of the notification requirement and does not require notification if a physician deems that the abortion is necessary due to a medical emergency. The measure defines "medical emergency" as "a condition which, on the basis of the physician's good-faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant unemancipated minor as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

The Field Poll said Proposition 73 "amends the state constitution defining and prohibiting abortion by minors under the age of 18 until 48 hours after a physician notifies the minor's parent or legal guardian, except in cases of a medical emergency or with a parental or judicial waiver. It also mandates reporting requirements and authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation." The Field Poll question said nothing of the proposition's potential costs to the state.

BISHOPS GIVE THUMBS UP. California's Catholic bishops on August 29 urged Catholics across the state to promote Proposition 73. In a statement, the bishops said they approved the initiative, which would "ensur[e] that parents are properly informed of potential health-related risks to their children and promoting parent-child communication and parental responsibility." The bishops said they "hold that both the young woman's welfare and society's common good are best served when family communication is promoted in public policy. A minor faced with a serious emotional, psychological and medical decision needs her parents -- their love, their wisdom, their counsel. In addition, society's common good is enhanced when family integrity is honored and parental responsibility is respected."

According to the September 3 Catholic Herald, the newspaper of the diocese of Sacramento, the public policy office of the California Catholic Conference is providing educational materials about the initiative to pastoral leaders in all the state's dioceses. The materials are available at www.cacatholic.org.

PRIESTS FOR LIFE has also endorsed the Parents Right to Know initiative. In an August 30 statement, Father Frank Pavone, national director of the pro-life organization, wrote that Priests for Life would "assist the residents of California to understand and vote for Proposition 73, the Parental Notification Act. We will communicate with Churches, send our speakers into the state to rally voters, and communicate with the media."

A BALLOT MEASURE that would force pharmaceutical companies to discount drugs for many Californians faces a competing measure, the Associated Press reported on August 23. Proposition 79, supported by labor unions and consumer groups, would require the discounting of drugs to those making four times the federal poverty level -- about $38,000 for an individual and $77,000 for a family of four. Drug companies participating in the state Medicaid program which do not provide the discount drugs would be penalized by making it more difficult for doctors to prescribe drugs these companies manufacture. The competing measure, Proposition 78, would establish a discount drug program for Californians making up to three times the federal poverty level -- about $28,000 for an individual and $58,000 for a family of four -- but would not require pharmaceutical companies to participate. Proposition 79 would cover an estimated ten million people; Proposition 78, five million.

The drug industry supports Proposition 78, its chief lobbyist being the Pharmaceutical Research and Manu facturers of America. The measure's supporters as of August had raised $72 million to promote it and oppose Propo sition 79. Proposition 78 supporters had raised only $10 million. A television spot for the drug manufacturers-supported measure claims that its rival "creates a costly new bureaucracy that imposes government restrictions on pharmaceutical companies that could limit patient access to discounted prescription drugs." Proposition 78, on the other hand, "will provide discount medicine for millions of Californians without red-tape or restrictions." But, say supporters of Proposition 79, since Proposition 78 allows doctors participating in state programs to continue to prescribe drugs manufactured by non-compliant companies, there is little reason to think the companies would proffer their non-required participation in a state drug-discount program.

"WE'RE GOING TO FORCE a constitutional crisis," 29-year-old Cory Burnell told the August 28 Los Angeles Times. "If necessary," he continued, "we will secede from the union."

Burnell, who resides in the Calaveras County town of Valley Springs, was not speaking of California. A Protestant, he is the founder of Christian Exodus, an organization whose goal is to get Christians to go out from the Egypt of their current homes and settle in a common area. For Christian Exodus, the Promised Land is a two-county upstate region of South Carolina. So far, of the 950 members of Christian Exodus, only five families have moved to South Carolina. Burnell hopes that by September 2006, 2,500 Christian Exodus settlers will have made the move.

Once in place, the settlers, it is hoped, will influence local politics by securing Republican nominations to candidates of their own choosing. The Republican Party is quite popular in South Carolina. "All we have to do is put our guy on the ballot with an 'R' sign," said Burnell. "It could be a corpse and they'll vote for him." Once in office, Christian Exodus-supported lawmakers will pass laws in accord with Christian, biblical principles. And if the Supreme Court says anything about it, the lawmakers will defy it. Eventually Burnell hopes Christian Exodus will take over the government of South Carolina.

Calling itself a "non-denominational Christian organization," Christian Exodus will only accept members who subscribe to a statement of faith which, the organization says, "includes only those truths upon which Christians agree." Whether "Christians" here includes Catholics is open to question, for the statement of faith includes an affirmation of "salvation by faith alone in Christ alone."

HOLLYWOOD DIRECTOR Rob Reiner began circulating petitions during the last week of August for a ballot measure that would call for state-provided, voluntary pre-school, the August 29 Capitol Journal reported. If he gathers the required 600,000 signatures by January, the measure could be on the June ballot. Under Reiner's initiative, every four-year-old would be eligible for free, half-day preschool beginning in 2010, while children in the lowest-performing school districts would be eligible in the fall of 2006. For Reiner, free pre-school is the first step to educational reform. "The jury definitely is in on quality preschool," Reiner said. "It gives young kids a chance to enter school ready to succeed. It levels the playing field. [Ultimately] it reduces remedial education costs, crime costs, welfare costs...,"Reiner claims.

How does Reiner hope to raise the money for this endeavor? By raising the income tax rate from 9.3 percent to 11 percent on the top one percent of Californians -- individuals making over $400,000 a year and couples earning over $800,000 a year. This would generate $2.3 billion in revenue each year for the pre-school program.

FATHER LOUIS VITALE on September 1 retired from being pastor of St. Boniface Church in the Tenderloin. The 73-year-old Franciscan has been well known around San Francisco for his presence at peace protests. He has been several times arrested during these demonstrations, the latest -- a 2001 protest at Fort Benning, Georgia -- resulting in a three-month prison sentence for trespassing. During his 12-year stint as pastor, Father Vitale oversaw a $12 million renovation of the 103-year-old parish church and the De Marillac Middle School, a parochial school serving needy students. He also, during the past two years, has allowed homeless to sleep in the pews of St. Boniface during the day hours.

Father Louis said he does not know what he will do in retirement; but, he told the August 31 San Francisco Chronicle, "this isn't the end of my work for God. I will still be working for peace and justice, I just don't know where. This sort of dedication never ends." He said he would spend time in Nevada and at a monastery in Big Sur to discern what to do next.

TOP