Uncatholic Charities
A Shepherd's Voice blog posts that Catholic Charities will host its annual Red House Fundraiser on June 3, 2008 with the following guests..
This year's event is especially interesting because of its proximity to the recent California Supreme Court's decision on same-sex "marriage." Honorary Committee Members for this year's event (and their reactions to the court's decision) include:
• Mayor Gavin Newsom: "What a day in San Francisco! What a day for equality! Who among us was prepared for this extraordinary moment and extraordinary time," said Newsom, who cut short a trip to Washington, D.C. to return home Wednesday night to await the court's ruling. "I can't tell you how proud I am to be a San Franciscan....It's an affirmation of the gay and lesbian community and an extraordinary day for all of us as Americans," Newsom told the Bay Area Reporter in a Thursday phone call.-Bay Area Reporter; May 15, 2008
• Supervisor Bevan Dufty: "I think it is a win for justice and a win for California and a win for the future." -Bay Area Reporter; May 15, 2008.
• Rebecca Rolfe, Executive Director, San Francisco LGBT Center: "This is the best day of my professional life." -San Francisco Bay Times; May 22, 2008.
Another Honorary Committee Member is, once again, transvestite entertainer "Donna Sachet," who is a Board Member of the Equality California Institute. "Equality California" was one of those represented in the case before the Supreme Court.
Also posted is the contrast of the statements of the Honorary Committee members with the position of the Catholic Church, as enunciated by Archbishop George Niederauer (here), Bishop Allen Vigneron (here), and the Vatican (here).
Known as 
Sad. But not terribly surprising. Our local Catholic Charities is also the same group who raised concerns about the number of children we have (which is six) during our current adoption of a single baby girl--from Ethiopia--who is orphaned--and needs medical treatment. Clearly, the concern should be to find her a family with less children so that she can have her own iPod when she grows up.
God Bless,
Jane
Is the Vatican document referenced above, I wonder, to be considered infallible?
I certainly don't disagree with the Vatican that homosexuality is gravely immoral, nor that laws can influence the way people think.
But I have certain disagreements based merely on feasibility -- I don't think that in a pluralistic society that the government ought to enact laws based purely on morality; a utilitarian metric must be employed, i.e. that laws ought to aim only to protect the rights of citizens. I have outlined my thoughts more extensively here.
Mr. Kramer,
You might be right... Nowadays laws have a purely utilitarian basis and have nothing to do with being "right" or "wrong" (beyond the fact that any law that is "discriminative" is "wrong").
that's because we live in a post-Christian society which doesn't understand anything but the "I" and "me first". Once we have bought into it like Mr. Kramer (who obviously has since he doesn't see the point of standing up for truth even if it won't convice society) has then there's no return and I don't think there's much we can do about it at the democratic level.
For my part I'll keep opposing any movement towards further evilness and relativism in our society, because it's the right thing to do, even if I know we will be persecuted again as in the past and that our culture is pretty much done for.
I have faith in God and His salvation, not man... Since man has decided He knows better about marriage, sex, etc... we know how the story will end... Sad really
"Catholic" Charities would be more aptly named "Leftist Charities". I don't give that organization any money, time or consideration.
If we look at history over the last few centuries we can see many failed attempts at making things relative. National Socialism was an attempt to make everything relative to my Fatherland. It had to be right because it was MY fatherland. Marxism attempts to make everything relative to (and subservient to) the State. (The collective) Unrestrained Capitalism makes everything relative to monetary gain for myself or my company or my stocks. Each of these claims to be for a greater good and hence A-moral.
One of the hallmarks of the current relativism of adoration of self is the loss of the concept of individual self-sacrifice in the pursuit of a greater truth. People who worship the god of self worship a god too small for me. An attempt to make the actions taken in this narcisism appear A-moral is to frame them in terms of "feelings". Why? Because we all know that "feelings can have no moral value". True, But actions do.
An item for thought: There exists an entire class of non living "persons" under the law. These persons are corporations. If the definitions of marriage be too throughly eroded, it is not too far fetched an idea for a corporation to demand their "rights" as a person (and as corporate citizens.) Unintended consequences - you bet!