Parishioners from St. Andrew Catholic Church, which has a longstanding commitment to social justice issues, will march in Sunday’s Portland Pride Parade with a banner proclaiming their parish identity, despite the wishes of Archbishop Alexander K. Sample.

At least four Catholic parishes are expected to participate in the parade, according to the Rev. Tara Wilkins, executive director of the Community of Welcoming Congregations. Members of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Philip Neri  and St. André Bessette  (the Downtown Chapel) also are expected to march. In the past, they have carried parish banners, Wilkins said.

Monsignor Dennis O’Donovan, vicar general of the Archdiocese of Portland, called St. Andrew’s pastor, the Rev. Dave Zegar,  on May 31 on behalf of Sample, parishioners say. O’Donovan relayed the message that individuals could walk in the parade but that the archbishop did not want St. Andrew’s members to walk as a community. (Source)

I must say I am shocked. Shocked at such a low turnout from Portland parishes.

First off, what is up with a “gay” pride parade on Father’s Day? Irony there on a couple of levels.

So you can walk in a parade supporting a distorted view of the human person, just as long as you don’t do it as a parish group? So help me out with the moral theology involved since I just don’t get it. Is the difference only that in one case you don’t embarrass the diocese? Still I should not discount that the reportage on this is not accurate.

St. Francis of Assisi was the parish I had my first experience of Catholicism as an atheist teen. A version of Catholicism that put no demands on me since I could believe the same things they espoused as an atheist and a flaming liberal. About the theological density of universalism.

Apparently nothing has changed. I had previously looked to try to find pictures of the interior to jog my memory with no luck. This time around I found one to bring my memories rushing back as a member of the small ensemble choir. An altar on a tree trunk. No Catholic statues, but a banner of Martin Luther King. Not sure if that is a boxy baldacchino or something else. I really wonder what is going on with the pile of rocks where I suppose a high altar use to be. As a cruciform church with a wooden interior it is rather nice and it wouldn’t take too much work to make it into a much more beautiful parish. I would love to have seen a picture of the parish prior to the stripping of the high altar and Communion rails.

When looking for pictures of my old parish I found the Portland Catholic Churches blog from someone who is slowly visiting Catholic churches in Portland and writing up posts describing them and including photographs. This is a rather cool idea for a blog. Part of the description of the Mass for this parish.

The “Our Father” was sung with the entire congregation holding hands across the aisles. The line, “Our Mother, who art in Heaven” was added to the prayer.

I can certainly remember the whole holding hands across the aisles and often an accompanying swaying to the beat. If they did the “Our Mother” then I don’t remember, but I wouldn’t have known it wasn’t correct.

The Battle Begins in Portland, OR a Catholic blog in Oregon reporting on this story.

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 13, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In response to a question today from a reporter about a late-term abortion ban that is being proposed in Congress, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that the issue of late-term abortion is “sacred ground” for her.

“As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this,” Pelosi said. “This shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.”

A Weekly Standard reporter had pointed out that the bill was proposed by legislators in response to the horrific case of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who was found guilty of murder for “snipping” the spinal cords of three babies born alive.

“They argue that there really isn’t much of a moral difference between what someone like Dr. Gosnell did to infants born at 23, 24, 25 weeks into pregnancy, and what can happen [legally] at a clinic down the road in Maryland where a doctor says he’ll perform an elective abortions 28 weeks into pregnancy,” asked the reporter. “So, the question I have for you is what is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?”

Pelosi responded by saying that what Gosnell did was “reprehensible,” but then said that the bill is also “reprehensible,” suggesting that it shows “disrespect” to “a judgment a woman makes about her reproductive health.” (source)

Whenever Nancy Pelosi refers to her faith it is much like “Bertie” Wooster’s prideful remembrance of his “Scripture Knowledge Prize.” This was kind of a running joke in P.G. Wodehouse’s Wooster and Jeeves novels.

Still once again Nancy Pelosi says more than she intends. When she talks about abortion and sacred ground I am reminded of:

And the LORD said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. Genesis 4:10

There was a good deal of coverage regarding the recent case of a court awarding a women with SSA $170,000 after she was fired from a Catholic school for using IVF.

The case gained attention partly because opposition to IVF has remained largely a Catholic distinctive. While supposedly the U.S. has become more pro-life in regards to abortion, there has not been the same followthrough in regards to opposition to IVF. The poison of the support of contraception within most of Protestantism led also to IVF hardly being controversial.

I am reminded of this because of Rebecca Taylor’s recent story on New IVF Embryo Quality Control

In manufacturing, quality control (QC) is very important. A manufacturer always wants to put out the best product and eliminate defective merchandise.

The same is true of IVF. With as many as 30 embryos created for every live birth, doctors are always on the look out for ways to separate the robust embryos from the “defective” ones to improve their success rates. Previously this was achieved by preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD.) In PGD, a single cell is removed from the days old embryo and tested for genetic anomalies. The ones that pass the test get a chance at being transferred to their mother’s womb. The others…well they are defective so no need to mention what happens to them, right?

The idea of “30 embryos created for every live birth” is so hard to fathom as something that happens. There is a mighty corruption at work that can transform the natural desire to have a child to allow the sacrifice of 29 siblings for that one child. The idea of life being from conception seems to get lost on people that might be otherwise pro-life when it comes to IVF. Part of this is from the push to make implantation the start of life instead.

I am reminded of the 1973 movie “Soylent Green” where the Policeman played by Charleston Heston wants to spread that word about the food source “Soylent Green”, that “Soylent Green is people!”

Well in this case I want to spread the word that “Embryos are people!” There is an attempt to take a word for a stage of life regarding the human person and to use the term to dehumanize. The false dichotomy between embryo and human person or the same regarding the word fetus.

Embryos are people!

Getting back to the article:

You may think I am being harsh comparing this new technique to manufacturing QC. That is until you read this comment by the chair of the British Fertility Society:

Allan Pacey, lecturer in andrology at Sheffield University and chair of the British Fertility Society, said: “This paper is interesting because we really do need to make advances in selecting the best embryos created during IVF.”

Mass produce, screen the product, choose the best and cull the rest. Above all, NEVER mention that these are actual human beings.

As a side-note, I would avoid the book Soylent Green was based on, “Make room, Make Room” by the recently deceased Harry Harrison. It was motivated by the doom and gloom of the late 1960’s and the chicken little-ing regarding the “Population Bomb” with some anti-Catholicism thrown in. I actually liked the movie much more. It was campy, but added the whole Soylent Green plot and unlike the book did not end in a total lack of hope.

Over and over we are seeing with Pope Francis that some of the more interesting things he says are the things we don’t have transcripts for. What he has to say in public shows his frank style and this is even more so in more relaxed settings.

The latest dust-up is over reports that he said:

"In the Curia there are holy people, truly, there are holy people. But there’s also a current of corruption – there’s that, too, it’s true…. The ‘gay lobby’ is spoken of, and it’s true, that’s there… we need to see what we can do.”

I would highly suggest reading Jimmy Akin’s analysis on this. Jimmy Akin’s guess is that the Pope did indeed say this based on the supposed quotation not being out of character with the way he speaks. Although there is a statement from the group he spoke to that these comments “cannot be attributed with certainty to the Holy Father.” Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, had previously declined to affirm the accuracy of the quote “(t)he meeting between the Holy Father and the presidency of CLAR was a meeting of a private nature.

There has long been some reportage of a so-called “gay lobby” within the Vatican. It is easy to go all Dan Brown about what this “gay lobby” is doing. If seen as a coordinated group of people within the Vatican pushing for a change in the Church’s teaching they have to be the most ineffective lobby ever. As Jimmy Akin points out:

An obvious long-term goal might be trying to influence Church teaching on homosexual behavior.

If that’s their goal, they haven’t met with a lot of success. The Church has been quite firm on this subject.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued multiple documents dealing with this subject and maintaining the Church’s traditional teaching in spite of mounting cultural opposition.

They might also try to influence policies such as, for example, the admission of people with a homosexual orientation to the priesthood.

If that’s what they’re tying to do, they also haven’t met with a lot of success.

Just after Pope Benedict became pope, the Holy See issued a policy that people with stable, fixed homosexual orientations should not be admitted to the priesthood.

A plausible avenue where they might have had some success is influencing the outcome of individual cases—e.g., looking out for each other, seeking to mutually advance their careers, seeking to promote their members to positions of influence, seeking to bring people they know on the outside into the Vatican, and working to promote homosexuals to influential positions outside the Vatican.

Jimmy Akin also gives some analysis on the possible size of such a group.

As we said, any sizable group of people is going to have some within it who suffer from same-sex attraction (SSA), just as any sizable group of people will have some within it who suffer from any given temptation.

If the group is sizeable enough, it will have some who give in to that temptation.
The Vatican City State employs about 2,000 people, and with a group that size, it’s bound to include some people with SSA, including some who have acted or are acting on it.

How many is an interesting question, but there isn’t much of a way to know.

I would add that it is possible for there to be larger distribution of those with SSA at the Vatican then in the the general population percentage-wise. We have seen many reports in the past regarding this in the seminaries of a “gay” subculture with a disproportional number of priests having some level of SSA.

It will be very interesting to see how Pope Francis responds to this situation and to whether it will be a more public cleanup or a diminishment due to a general restructuring of the Roman Curia.

As usual Eye of the Tiber posts a hilarious parody on this news.

VATICAN–Being interviewed via Skype hours ago, Spokesman for the Vatican Press Office Monsignor Bernard Hopkins clarified recent remarks made to a Latin American Church group by Pope Francis admitting the existence of a ”gay lobby” in the Vatican. ”It is true what the Holy Father said about there being a gay lobby in the Vatican, but it is not as many have speculated,” Hopkins told Eye of the Tiber from inside the site of the gay lobby in question. “The Holy Father was literally complaining about the posh, overly-decorated, overly-flamboyant lobby located at the southwest entrance of the Vatican where we meet many foreign dignitaries. As you can see there is just too much pink…too much pizazz, as they say. This has bothered the Holy Father who much prefers pastels and neutrals.” Hopkins went on to point out a couple of examples of dazzling chandeliers, glamorous floor-to-ceiling mirrors, and a painting of Liberace. “Of course he wants to destroy the gay lobby. You know how embarrassing it is for him to greet the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church while standing on a plush pink carpet?”

It is interesting how the “safe-sex” advocates have been much less vocal. Sure you hear it discussed still, but nowhere like before.

Previously I noticed in the whole free birth control pill debate that condoms and safe-sex seemed to fall off the radar. We were constantly told how sex was so safe with condoms. That they were effective for both disease protection and birth control. Yet here was a giant push for free birth control pills.

A big part of the whole safe-sex spinup was of course HIV/AIDS. So with this topic not being such a frenzied concern now you would think that all threats of sexually-transmitted diseases were gone.

I was listening to Al Kresta’s show recently where he talked with Dr Meg Meeker about the human papilloma virus. This was spurred by actor Michael Douglas’s admission that his throat cancer was caused by this sexually spread virus.

Yet the community that spread the false gospel of safe-sex are not again at the forefront considering the increase of STDS and threat to life.

So what has changed from the previous threat? I think the simple answer is that they don’t have the band-aid of condoms this time around since the human papilloma virus is spread by skin-to-skin contact including oral sex.

Almost all of the safe-sex promotion was about justifying a sexually-promiscuous lifestyle and not about changing behavior. Whatever the actual failure rate of condom use is, it was acceptable to their risk analysis. You wouldn’t walk into a poison gas filled room with a mask that had half of that failure rate.

So now the situation regarding STD’s is much worse and prevention actually means changing your lifestyle. They had long inferred this was impossible and against human nature. “They are going to do it anyway” from teens up. Planned Parenthood and similar groups have been supporters of recommending oral sex and this has reached down to many schools. Again Planned Parenthoods suggestion now regarding STD’s in this regard is once again condoms and this time actually “Saran Wrap”.

Funny how the idea of abstinence and sex only between a married couple is roundly mocked, but suggesting Saran Wrap is full of good sense.

Time and time again we have heard how this-or-that pope was responsible for so many deaths for not approving condoms, yet those promoting activities that can lead to death are not responsible for those who die from following what they in-fact suggest. But again this has always been about justifying sexual promiscuousness and not about an actual concern for the human person. A pursuit of pleasure overriding any other concern. If a solution actually matches up with what the Catholic Church has to teach, well that just can’t be allowed to happen.