Tuesday, 22 January 2013

Del Shannon may have looked and sounded like a lumberjack ...

 
'Del Shannon may have looked and sounded like a lumberjack but he cracked like a sodajerk. He was incessantly on the run, broke and alone and his trueloves all betrayed him. In the naked city there was an eternal thunderstorm and his teardrops mingled with the rain.'

Rock Dreams   ...  Nick Cohn
 

Saturday, 19 January 2013

Here’s What Will Happen if Marriage is Redefined…

Here’s What Will Happen if Marriage is Redefined…

Jennifer Morse
by Jennifer Morse on January 18, 2013
Editor’s Note: The following are the prepared remarks given by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. on January 15, 2013 to the Rhode Island legislature during hearings on the proposed redefinition of marriage. It is provided by The Ruth Institute.

Almost two years ago, I came to this place to plead with you not to remove the gender requirement from marriage.[1] I predicted that children would have three legal parents[2] and that custody disputes would involve three or more adults.[3] I predicted greater attacks on religious liberty for those who resist your war against the gendered nature of the human body.[4] I predicted the systematic removal of gendered language from the law. No more husbands and wives, only spouses. No more mother and father. Only Parent 1 and Parent 2.[5]
All of these things have come to pass in other places.
Tonight, I have returned.
You will little note, nor long remember what I say here. The rich people in our country have decided that we are going to have what you call same sex marriage.[6] You will do what you have come to do.
So tonight, I have a few more predictions.
Some of you are in this fight for power, some for love.
For those of you who are in it for the power: I predict that even if you do not have enough votes this time, you will keep coming back until you do.
I predict that you will continue to remove any recognition of sex differences from the law. The very bill you are considering tonight replaces “husbands” and “wives” and leaves only “parties.” Banning a father daughter dance will seem like child’s play,[7] by the time you and your allies are done using the law to purge every last hint of sex differences from society.
I predict that you will grow more aggressive in attacking the natural bonds between parents and children. You will continue to blur the distinction between “parent” and “non-parent.”[8]
But some excluded fathers will want a relationship with their children.[9] Some mothers will find sharing their child with another woman to be far more difficult than they expected.[10] And some children will want to know their missing parent.[11]
No matter. Genderless marriage commits the state to taking sides against the natural parent and in favor of the socially constructed parent.
I predict that you will block any meaningful reform of the IVF Industry. The IVF industry is guilty of grotesque exploitation of the poor by the rich, including the outsourcing of surrogacy to India.[12] I predict you will turn a blind eye to this and other abuses.
I predict that you will follow Quebec in its attempts to prohibit the belief that heterosexuality is normal.[13] Wiping out a belief in something that is actually true will certainly open up vast vistas of government involvement in civil society. Redefining marriage opens the door to increases in government power that could never be achieved any other way.
I do not know if any of these things are your intent or your wish. But I predict they will be the outcome, the logical result of your marriage policy.
For those of you who are in it for the love, I have a few predictions for you too.
Many of us in the marriage movement are survivors of earlier phases of the Sexual Revolution. We found that it didn’t work for us, the hook-ups, divorce, single motherhood, marital infidelity, cohabitation, as well as the contraception and abortion that made it all appear to be possible. Only a few of us were wise enough to see from the beginning that this would end badly. And those who did see it, drew on the wisdom of the ancient Christian churches, churches that take a far longer view of things than most people do.
It would be astonishing if the steps you are contemplating tonight will work any better for you than the earlier stages did for us.
I predict that none of it will make you happy. Not redefining marriage. Not the attempts to smother sex differences and biological connections. Not the further suppression of churches, religious organizations, and faith-filled private citizens. If normalizing homosexual activity were going to make you happy, it would have done so long ago. You would not be so desperate today for affirmation from strangers.
And if any of you come to realize that the Sexual Revolution has been one empty promise after another, we will embrace you. We will welcome you to our ragtag ranks of refugees, defectors and displaced persons from the great social civil war of our time.
Perhaps I will be mistaken, and you will never have a moment’s doubt for the rest of your lives. In that case, we must continue to oppose you, to try to contain the damage we believe you are doing.
Even if we should lose this particular fight on this particular evening, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on the airwaves, we shall defend our beliefs, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight in the churches, we shall fight at the ballot box, we shall fight in the schools and in the courts, we shall fight on the web; we shall never surrender.
As for me, I shall sleep soundly tonight, knowing that I have done my duty to God and my country and to future generations. And with that, I wish you all, a good night.

[1] My testimony from February 2011 is available on-line at the Ruth Institute Marriage Library, http://www.marriagelibrary.org/2011/02/dr-morse%E2%80%99s-testimony-to-the-rhode-island-legislature-regarding-same-sex-marriage/.
[2] California passed a bill permitting a child to have three legal parents if in the opinion of the judge, it was in the child’s best interest. This particular law did not require the consent of any of the parents. Governor Jerry Brown vetoed this bill, saying, “I am sympathetic to the author’s interest in protecting children. … But I am troubled by the fact that some family law specialists believe the bill’s ambiguities may have unintended consequences. I would like to take more time to consider all of the implications of this change.”
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/09/jerry-brown-vetoes-bill-allowing-more-than-two-parents.html See my analysis of this bill, and the situation that gave rise to it, “Why California’s Three Parent Bill was Inevitable,” The Public Discourse , September 10, 2012. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/09/6197/For a shorter analysis, see “A Little Girl Named M.C.,” available on-line at: http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/20383/20
[3] For a Canadian case involving three parents see here: http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/10/19/groundbreaking-ruling-in-gay-custody-case
For a British case involving four parents, see here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047671/High-Court-judges-blast-gay-parents-fighting-little-sisters.html#ixzz1buTCawCX
[4] For example, an innkeeper in Vermont, http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/08/24/vermont-innkeepers-settle-discrimination-case/ , a minister in Ontario, Canada, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-christian-minister-forced-to-conduct-same-sex-marriages-or-get-sack. For more complete analysis of the religious liberty implications of this bill, I defer to my learned colleague from the Alliance Defending Freedom, Ms. Kellie Fiedorek.
[5] Washington State’s new marriage bill replaces “husband” and “wife” with generic “spouses” throughout the law. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6239.pdf
The U. S. State Department attempted to introduce Parent 1 and Parent 2 on US Passports. After a public outcry, the attempt was abandoned. But the attempt is still significant because it illustrates the momentum for removing gender-specific language from the law. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010706741.html
[6] To cite just a few examples, in New York, Wall Street Republicans contributed the money necessary to redefine marriage in the legislature. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1 In Washington state, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos contributed $2.5 million to pass the referendum redefining marriage. Contributions of this magnitude made it possible for the proponents of genderless marriage to outspend the advocates of conjugal marriage many times over.
[7]The Cranston, Rhode Island school district banned a father daughter dance, under pressure from the ACLU, that such a dance would be improper gender discrimination. ” Father-daughter dances banned in R.I. as ‘gender discrimination’” Los Angeles Times, September 18, 2012, http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-father-daughter-dances-gender-discrimination-20120918,0,2172144.story
[8] Family law radicals are already paving the way for the redefinition of parenthood, to go along with the redefinition of marriage. One way to blur the distinction between parent and non-parent, and to break down “bionormativity,” is to create and/or expand the concept of “de facto parent,” in which a judge can decide whether someone unrelated to child either through biology or adoption, can nonetheless count as a parent. “Court upholds woman’s ‘de facto’ parental rights,” Delaware on-line, April 18, 2011, The Delaware statute ”is not specific to same sex couples, but applies to other unmarried partners and stepparents.” http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110419/ NEWS01/104190347/Court-upholds-woman-s-de-facto-parental-rights?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Home|s; State of Minnesota, A05-537, May 10, 2007, In re the Matter of Nancy SooHoo, Respondent, vs Marilyn Johnson. See also, In re parentage of L.B., a Washington case creating a four part test for definition of de facto parents.
For an academic defense of multiple party parenting by contract, see Associate Professor at Michigan State University College of Law, Melanie B. Jacobs, “Why Just Two? Disaggregating Traditional Parental Rights and Responsibilities to Recognize Multiple Parents,” 9 Journal of Law and Family Studies 309 (2007). The media are also attempting to normalize the redefinition of parenthood. See this puff piece, “Johnny has two mommies—and four dads,” in the Boston Globe, October 24, 2010,http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/10/24/johnny_has_two_mommies__and_four_dads/
[9] The In re M.C. case arose in part because the biological father came forward to try to care for his daughter after the birth mother went to jail for accessory to attempted murder of her former partner. “Why California’s Three Parent Bill was Inevitable,” The Public Discourse , September 10, 2012. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/09/6197/
[10] This is probably a factor in the drama in the background of the in re M.C. case. It is surely a factor in the celebrated Miller-Jenkins custody dispute. “FBI arrests Tenn. Pastor in Vt.-VA custody case,” Sign On San Diego, April 22, 2011. http://www.signonsandiego.com/ news/2011/apr/22/fbi-arrests-tenn-pastor-in-vt-va-custody-case/ “Vermont: ruling in Lesbian Custody Case,” New York Times, January 22, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/us/23brfs-RULINGINLESB_BRF.html
[11] See the many blogs and websites started by Donor Conceived Persons, such as http://www.tangledwebs.org.uk/tw/, http://www.anonymousus.org/index.php, http://donorconceived.blogspot.com/
[12] On the outsourcing of surrogacy to poor countries, see the following articles, which vary in their approval of the practice. Forbes considers it just another business. “The Newest Wave in Outsourcing to India: Surrogate Pregnancies,” Forbes, July 23, 2012.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2012/07/23/the-newest-wave-in-outsourcing-to-india-surrogate-pregnancies/
The Center for Bioethics and Culture considers it exploitation. “Biological Eugenic Colonialism,” citing a story from May 2012, http://www.cbc-network.org/2012/05/biological-eugenic-colonialism/
WebMD just reports, “Womb for Rent: Surrogate Mothers in India,” http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/features/womb-rent-surrogate-mothers-india
[13]“The Quebec Policy Against Homophobia,” also pledges to eliminate “heteronormativity,” which is the belief that heterosexuality is normal. http:// www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/ministere/dossiers/homophobie/homophobie-a.htm

Catholic priests are right to express fears over Government marriage

Catholic priests are right to express fears over Government marriage

'Love is Love' Gay Marriage Contest Ceremony - New York

I just read this quote from the Caelum et Terra blog: “It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendour of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion – its message becomes meaningless.” Abraham Joshua Heschel, “God in search of Man: a Philosophy of Judaism.”
There is a lot of truth in this. It is too easy to blame “modern society” for the collapse of religious belief in this country. We should look in the mirror and ask ourselves the question “If I were arrested today for being a Christian, what proofs would be found to convict me?”
Tim Stanley said much the same thing in his article, “Christians need to find some old-time zeal” in the Telegraph on Wednesday. After describing the de-Christianisation within Britain today, he concludes: “In our new consumer-driven, postmodern order, Christians have to compete with people pushing other religions or no religion at all. We no longer enjoy a privileged status in the popular imagination. And while it’s easy to blame politicians and courts for this, responsibility ultimately lies with the true believers. The only thing that will renew British Christianity is to drop all the lazy presumptions that Britain is basically Christian, and start again from scratch.”
“To start again from scratch”: I think we are only just beginning to wake up to this truth.
One thing in Stanley’s article I disagree with: when he comments, “Although the Government insists that no church will be compelled to carry out gay marriages, more than 1000 Catholic priests wrote a letter to this newspaper last week protesting that equalities legislation makes a nonsense of this guarantee and that attempts to legalise gay marriage amount to a renewal of historic persecution against Catholics. I, too, am a Catholic – and the idea that the wedding of Adam and Steve can be likened to Cromwell’s rampage across Ireland strikes me as hysterical. But it reflects a wider panic among religious conservatives – the fear that a metropolitan political establishment is conspiring against us.”
I demur for several reasons: equality legislation will certainly undermine the Government’s supposed “guarantee.” Even if the Church wins in the courts when future cases are brought against her, there will be a long, slow war of attrition against those of all faiths and none who believe marriage can only be between a man and a woman. For instance, the Government has said that teachers must continue to uphold marriage: but if the word “marriage” is redefined they will be breaking the law if they don’t uphold the new definition; they won’t be able to uphold the old understanding and the new one at the same time.
Stanley describes the letter of the 1000 priests – including eight bishops and four abbots – as “hysterical.” I would rather describe it as good sense and right judgement. Are the more than 600,000 signatories to the Coalition for Marriage petition (C4M) also “hysterical”? Perhaps the letter reflects justified forebodings at such a fundamental change to the natural order of relationships and is not about “panic” or “fear” or “religious conservatism”. “Marriage” should never have been used as a political issue in this way and it is not “conservative” for Christians and others to champion it. These 1000 priests are not zealots and religious extremists; they are decent, God-fearing men, alongside all the other people who signed the C4M document, who rightly see that there will be far-reaching implications to a change of definition which will, in the course of time, amount to a form of persecution.
You don’t have to refer to Cromwell to realise that persecution need not be bloody or violent; it can simply be quiet, boring, relentless and implacable, fought through the courts and leaving mental and emotional stress and pain in its wake. That is what opponents of a re-definition of marriage will face if the Government forces through this legislation and I am not remotely “hysterical” in pointing this out. So far only individuals have been challenged, such as Christian B+B owners, a Christian registrar, a Christian marriage counsellor, a Christian psychotherapist. If the definition of marriage is changed by law, the whole of society, whether married or unmarried, priest or lay person, will be affected by it.
But to return to Stanley’s main point: there is no use being aggrieved or wringing one’s hands over this approaching confrontation. Those who want to defend marriage must indeed start again from scratch: acknowledge our own lukewarm support for marriage in the past; our tacit acceptance of a widespread contraceptive mentality; our tolerance of cohabitation as an acceptable alternative; and our placid illusion that the comfortable Christian status quo would last forever.

Friday, 18 January 2013

How did we forget about hell?

How did we forget about hell?

Two theologians bear much of the blame, as a new book shows
 
By Piers Paul Read on Wednesday, 16 January 2013
El Greco depicts hell as an animal’s mouth (c 1570s)
El Greco depicts hell as an animal’s mouth (c 1570s)
 
 
In the late 1990s I wrote a history of the Knights Templar and, after a year or two immersed in the Crusades, was struck by how real was the fear of hell among Catholics at the time, and by what extreme measures they were prepared to take to save their souls. So central to their faith was this fear of damnation that present-day post-Vatican II Catholicism seemed in this respect like a different religion.
Six years later, I expressed my perplexity on the subject in an essay published together with other collected writings by Darton, Longman and Todd as Hell and Other Destinations. I asked how it was that the clear teaching of the Church (and of the monks at Ampleforth where I went to school) that those who die in a state of mortal sin would be damned, that many were called but few chosen, that the hard and narrow path leads to salvation and the broad and easy road to damnation, all now seemed to have been replaced by an assumption that salvation is a universal entitlement with hell either empty or reserved for world-historical monsters like Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and, possibly, General Pinochet and Mrs Thatcher.
My essay was an amateur effort and the question I put received no answer. That is, until now. Dr Ralph Martin is an associate professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, director of graduate theology programmes in the new evangelisation and a consultor for the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelisation. He is, in other words, a man at the cutting edge of the current drive to convert non-Catholics to the Catholic Faith. In this endeavour, however, he has clearly faced a problem. What is Catholicism’s unique selling point, other than the conviction of Catholics that what they believe happens to be true? What makes up for its inconveniences such as its strictures on sex and the obloquy Catholics must endure for their perceived misogyny, homophobia, indifference to Aids in Africa and so on if, in the long run, as we now seem to believe, everyone will end up in heaven?
Dr Martin’s book is called Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and its Implications for the New Evangelisation. Theological cognoscenti will recognise the reference to Dare we Hope “That All Men Be Saved”? by Hans Urs von Balthasar, a book in which the Swiss theologian claims not just that we dare hope that no one is in hell but that we should hope that no one is in hell and, in fact, can assume that no one is in hell.
Dr Martin treads carefully with von Balthasar, said to be the favourite theologian of Blessed John Paul II, but his critique of his writing on the subject is devastating. In his book Balthasar “departs from the content of revelation and the mainstream theological tradition of the Church in a way that undermines the call to holiness and evangelisation and is pastorally damaging”. Martin is equally critical of the teaching of Karl Rahner, whose heavy tomes of theology, impenetrable to the lay Catholic, have done much to change our beliefs on the question of salvation. It is Rahner’s concept of the “anonymous Christian” that put the final nail in the coffin of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus – outside the Church there is no salvation.
Both Rahner and Balthasar make much of paragraph 16 of Gaudium et Spes, which teaches that members of other religions, and even atheists, may be saved; but here, says Martin, there is some cherry-picking and sleight of hand. “Rahner’s completely optimistic description of the conciliar teaching on the salvation of non-Christians is only possible when the complete text is ignored…” With great delicacy and repeated protestation of respect Martin shows how both Rahner and von Balthasar have allowed their wishful thinking to distort, even pervert, the teaching of the gospels and the Church.
Paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium states that non-believers who “seek God with a sincere heart” and “do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience” will be saved. So far so good. But, as Martin points out (with the aid of other commentators), both theologians wilfully ignore what follows: “But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie…” Note the “very often”. Note, too, Lumen Gentium’s reference at this point to St Paul’s First Letter to the Romans, in which he uses “unnatural intercourse” as an instance of where such vain reasoning can lead: “men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion”.
Dr Martin is a specialist on evangelisation and at first sight his book is a merely a scholarly contribution to his area of expertise. But, of course, it is much more than that. Evangelising is at the heart of what it means to be a Catholic. Presenting the Catholic faith as “an optional enrichment opportunity”, instead of “a precious and urgent opportunity to find salvation and escape damnation”, is to distort both the gospels and the teaching of the Catholic Church.
A riddle remains. Why, if Martin’s critique is correct, has the teaching on salvation of Rahner and Balthasar not been condemned by the Church? Cardinal Avery Dulles described Balthasar’s position as “adventurous” and the then Cardinal Ratzinger talked of Rahner’s “astonishing optimism”: he also warned Catholics against reading Scripture “contrary to its own intentions”. But these are mild criticisms if the two theologians have got things so wrong. Dr Martin’s book is now endorsed by four cardinals and two archbishops but, given that the subject is of such paramount importance, should there not be a clear statement by Pope Benedict or Archbishop Gerhard Müller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, about what we must do, or not do, to be saved?

Piers Paul Read is a novelist, historian and biographer

Thursday, 17 January 2013

WHILE LOVE MUST PREDOMINATE, FEARS ARE LEGITIMATE THAT GAY 'RIGHTS' COULD LEAD TO PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS


WHILE LOVE MUST PREDOMINATE, FEARS ARE LEGITIMATE THAT GAY 'RIGHTS' COULD LEAD TO PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS
 
We are in a time when we believe there is good in anything that is seen as "progress." We justify all that's "new," that seems "modern." Aren't we so much smarter than everyone else in history?
In reality, of course (see Ecclesiastes), there is little new "under the sun" and this goes for trends like same-sex marriage. Here, there are many precedents. The legitimization of gay relationships may go back to ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman times, according to a Yale study, while open homosexual behavior dates back long before, to (for example) Sodom and Gomorrah.
There's nothing new under the sun even though every era and generation believes there is and (to repeat) believes there's always good in "progress."
When it comes to homosexuality, we can try to rationalize it as moral in public forums (while opposition to it is immoral) and attempt to legalize it in our wayward courts, but here is an inconvenient truth: it is impossible to justify or rationalize it biologically. One man can marry another, or one woman another, but they cannot consummate a marriage. It contravenes the human apparatus. And difficult as it is to say, practicing homosexuality inherently abuses parts of the organism. According to one study the longevity of the average gay man is forty two and of lesbians forty-nine, which are not good fruits. (Source: Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, "The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic," Omega Journal of Death and Dying," 1994.) (Besides AIDS, there are numerous bacterial and parasitic illnesses that are prevalent in this lifestyle; in addition, the study found practicing homosexuals to be ten times more prone to accidents and twenty-six times more prone to suicide.)
A spirit moves here; it is a prayer need.
Rather than condemn, pray. 
Many homosexuals are good, caring, sensitive people (also very talented) who struggle as we all struggle with certain proclivities and if they act on the impulse -- wherever it comes from -- cause themselves problems physically and morally. We are in a time when such conduct is being twisted by the deceptive spirit into being an unavoidable pattern of behavior; it is not. And when those who resist that idea -- who oppose open homosexual behavior -- are considered the abnormal and intolerant ones, there is a threat, a huge potential problem. Suddenly, a major opportunity opens for the persecution of religions (especially Christianity, and in particular Roman Catholicism).
During Christmas, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of protecting traditional marriage from “attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of unions” and mentioned “a crisis that threatens [the family in Western society] to its foundations,” condemning “a new philosophy of sexuality” which teaches that “sex is no longer a given element of nature” but a “social role to choose for ourselves.” In the current climate, it is even a heroic comment. It's astounding how much attention homosexuality receives, given that it comprises two-to-three percent of the population.  A week or so later, the semi-official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano,  likened mandates that homosexual marriage be treated as the equal of heterosexual marriage to Communism,  saying it is similar too “the egalitarian utopia that did so much damage during the 20th Century . . . deceiving humanity as socialism did in the past.”
The Vatican speaks the truth -- but does so (as we all must) without hate.
Homosexuals are often very kind, loving, and as we said talented people who are "gay" for various reasons -- spiritual and temporal (rare is he who acknowledges the "spiritual" part). They are to be loved, not judged. Period.
Here is another truth: Much of the hullabaloo over "gay rights" -- including now the incredible right to "marry" -- comes from the urgent need in practicing homosexuals to convince themselves, via public acceptance, that what they do is justifiable.
That we are at a point where religious leaders must be careful in what they say about gays or they will be accused of "hate crimes" (recently, there was even a petition in the U.S. to declare the Catholic Church as such) is absurd but also chilling. Suddenly, an opening has materialized for de-legitimizing Christian precepts. That can quickly lead to censorship and persecution.
There is no other way of expressing it. We are watching a great danger rise in our midst. Hate crimes? Who is it that holds placards with profane images of Jesus and Mary during the Mardi Gras or in the annual San Francisco pride march, often half-naked but wearing a partial habit or collar? It rises with a speed that is breath-taking. Anyone who detests homosexuals is at fault, as are those who criticize them more than pray for their deliverance. For deliverance is the order of the day.
Despite frantic attempts to convince the public otherwise, homosexuals often can be converted into heterosexuality -- sometimes through psychological and moral counseling but most effectively through deliverance, for various spirits (demonic and disincarnate, as when a deceased female spirit persuades a man) are often involved. Ministries in New York and elsewhere testify to the many homosexuals who have found happiness once they rose from the homosexual temptation and deception. The devil plays on our weaknesses; we all have them. We can be prone to anger. We can be prone to alcohol. We can be prone to perversions that are heterosexual. These are "crosses." There are temptations. They too are sins. We progress in the spirit when we overcome them (carrying them alongside Christ). Instead, our society now nurtures their continuance. It justifies evil. And so we face a new danger. Opposing same-sex marriage is all but a hate crime, and in countries such as England preaching against it or at least disallowing homosexual couples to adopt babies (which has to have a profound affect on the child) could soon be met with legal repercussions, as can refusing to hire practicing ones.
Ironically, the Church has suffered horribly already -- a white martyrdom -- due to abuses perpetrated in main part by homosexual priests.  Where is the media in those cases? Why is nothing said (by those who so stridently claim the oppression of homosexuals) about the thousands of young abuse victims? Don't they count? Haven't their rights (and lives) taken a hit?
This is a very great danger indeed.
Will it one day (soon) be that standing up for the spiritual normality of biology is viewed as a punishable crime? Is there not already more discrimination against those who oppose what the Bible clearly says is a sin than against those who are committing what is defined as that sin?
Very, very dangerous. Last weekend, hundreds of thousands marched against same-sex "marriage" in France. A  thousand priests -- citing persecution fears -- petitioned in England.  It is time for mass rallies in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. It is time for letters to congressmen, to senators, to editors.
Write, dear friends. Make your voices heard. To love one who transgresses can not be to accept the transgression itself. Yet, this is what we are being called -- and forced -- to do by a modern society that can best be described as disoriented.

GENE

Bishops to send out a million postcards on marriage ... GOOD FOR HIM!

Catholic Herald 

Bishops to send out a million postcards on marriage  ... GOOD FOR HIM!

Archbishop Smith has urged priests to do all they can to oppose the marriage Bill (Photo: Mazur/catholicchurch.org.uk)
Archbishop Smith has urged priests to do all they can to oppose the marriage Bill (Photo: Mazur/catholicchurch.org.uk)
 
 
The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales is sending out a million postcards calling on MPs to oppose the Government’s redefinition of marriage.

The postcards will be sent to parishes next week. Each card will have a space for people to sign their name so they can post it to their MP.
The text says that marriage is the “foundation of the family” and upholds the common good. It does not say anything about same-sex relationships.
Accompanying the cards will be a letter to all parish priests signed by Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark, chairman of the bishops’ Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship.
In it, the archbishop says: “My purpose in writing is to ask you to urge the members of your congregation to make their own views known to their MP.
“To assist them in doing that we have printed postcards ‘speak out for marriage’ and a bundle of these are with this letter.
“Parishioners simply need to add the name of their own local MP to the address on the front of the card, and their own name and address below the text on the back. Please can you put up the enclosed posters, let your parishioners know the name(s) of your local MP, and strongly encourage your parishioners to send the cards and to give them to their friends to send in as well.”
Archbishop Smith added: “The first key vote is likely to take place in early February so the time to act is now. We need to encourage as many people as possible to get involved. Please do all you can.”
The postcard campaign follows a letter to the Daily Telegraph signed by more than 1,000 priests arguing that the Government Bill, expected to be published this month, will restrict the freedom of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage.

The text on the postcards

Dear member of Parliament
As a concerned constituent I urge you to vote against the Marriage (same sex couples) Bill.
· Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family and provides the best circumstances in which to raise the next generation.

· This is why society has recognised marriage as having an identity distinct form any other relationship, however much love or commitment may be involved; marriage is about the common good.
· No mainstream political party promised such a radical change in its last election manifesto. There is therefore no mandate for it.
Please vote against it and let me know your views.

'You may have to suffer a bit': a new solution for prescription drug abuse – taking painkillers away from the poor ...'

'You may have to suffer a bit': a new solution for prescription drug abuse – taking painkillers away from the poor ...'

Damian Thompson

Damian Thompson is Editor of Telegraph Blogs and a columnist for the Daily Telegraph.

 
 
The way we take pills has changed (Photo: PA)


Imagine a British politician saying: we're so worried by the abuse of prescription drugs that we're going to reduce the supply of powerful painkillers to our hospitals. And if people in genuine pain suffer as a result, too bad.
The protests from the #WELoveTheNHS lobby would be deafening. The politician who said it would be out of office by the end of the week.
But that's exactly what Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, has just announced. Here's the quote: "… supposing it is really true [that public hospitals run out of painkillers for the poor], so you didn't get enough painkillers and you did have to suffer a little bit. The other side of the coin is people are dying and there's nothing perfect."
As the Daily Mail reports: "Under the new city policy, most public hospital patients will no longer be able to get more than three days' worth of narcotic painkillers like Vicodin and Percocet. Long-acting painkillers, including OxyContin, which is often used to ease chronic backache and arthritis, as well as Fentanyl patches and methadone, will not be dispensed at all."
Bloomberg knows exactly how and why America has a prescription drug epidemic. As he explained on his radio show: "If you break a leg, you're going to be in pain, nothing wrong with getting something that reduces the pain. But if you get 20 days worth of pills and you only need them three days, there's 17 days sitting there. Invariably some of the kids are going to find them, or you're going to take them and get you addicted."
Exactly. You get to like the drugs too much, or they're stolen by kids who know how nice they are. Which takes us to the heart of the problem.
Many prescription drugs are almost as fun to take "recreationally" as illegal narcotics. They may stop short of providing you with a full-scale cocaine high or the warm and woozy euphoria of heroin – but they come damn close. As I explain in my book The Fix – published in paperback this week – opiate-based painkillers such as Oxycontin are so closely related to morphine and heroin that many junkies are happy to use them as a substitute. The effect is weaker, but if the drugs are legit then you have the great advantage of knowing what you're taking, in what dose. Likewise, attention-deficit drugs such as Ritalin and Adderall, prescribed in their millions to children and adults diagnosed with ADD, give you an amphetamine-like high. Hardly surprising, because that's what they are: slow-release speed.
Tranquillisers can be pretty moreish, too. I should know: as I confess in The Fix, I became far too fond of the damn things when I was in the last phase of my heavy drinking. I made the happy discovery (or so it seemed at the time) that zopiclone, Britain's most widely prescribed sleeping pill/tranquilliser ensures a smooth comedown from a jittery, knife-edge hangover.
These days, zopiclone and related drugs serve a slightly different purpose. Here's an extract from The Fix, based on my conversation with this newspaper's brilliant medical columnist, Dr Max Pemberton:
Dr Pemberton’s work as a psychiatrist in the Accident and Emergency department of a London hospital involves asking young patients about their drug and alcohol history. “As soon as they know I’m not going to rat on them, most of them admit to doing something – coke, MDMA, mephedrone, ketamine – in the previous few days,” he says.
“What the older generation doesn’t understand is that combining drugs and alcohol is normal for young clubbers. They might do a bit of coke before they go out, or ‘pre-loading’ with a few drinks, then go to a bar and get drunk, do a line of coke in the loos and stop drinking. If they go on to a club they’ll drop a pill – or maybe pure MDMA, because no one trusts Ecstasy these days. They don’t know what’s in it. The last thing they want to do then is drink and many of the clubs won’t even serve alcohol anyway. Then they go back to someone’s house and want to come down, so they use Zopiclone, Zolpidem or Valium.”
Is this typical behaviour for young people? “Well, let’s say the ones who aren’t risk averse. They know they’re doing something a bit naughty. But now that anyone can buy pills off the internet, the sense of danger is gone. And a lot of these drugs are really, really cheap when they first appear. If it costs literally pennies to get off your face, why spend forty quid or more doing it on booze?
“I used to see long lines of kids queuing outside Fabric [a London nightclub geared towards party-hard middle-class trendies] in the early hours of the morning. It was freezing and they were only wearing T-shirts and I thought: if the police lined them up for a drugs test every single one of them would test positive. But, as I say, that sort of behaviour is normal now. It’s part of taking control of your own psychopharmacology. It’s about wanting everything. And it’s not going away.”
Another way of looking at the situation is to say that pills have subtly changed their status in society: just as hard liquor lost its medicinal label in (roughly) the 16th century and became a took for relaxation, so tablet, though still overwhelmingly associated with medicine, are viewed as mood-fixers.
And, crucially, the distinction between relieving your pain or tension and lifting your mood is beginning to disappear in the public mind.
The British government is worried. As my colleague Alice Phillipson reports:
Doctors have been told they should only issue prescriptions of sleeping pills and tranquillisers in exceptional circumstances after they acknowledged the drugs can be highly addictive.
In a statement led by health professionals including the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), doctors were warned to limit prescriptions of benzodiazepines such as Valium and were told a course of treatment on the drugs should be subject to regular reviews.
Patients coming off the medication are at risk of prolonged withdrawal symptoms, experts said, as they called for greater support for those who discontinue medication.
Almost 18 million prescriptions are written every year for benzodiazepines and for a group of tranquillisers known as z-drugs, which are thought to have similar effects over a number of years.
I've highlighted the word "subjected to regular reviews", because it suggests that the Departments of Health's legitimate fear of growing addiction to tranquillisers and painkillers, to say nothing of the cost to the taxpayer of prescribing them, could eventually lead us to the dilemma outlined by Mayor Bloomberg.
The debate in New York focuses on "the poor", because those are the people who use public hospitals, whereas the NHS treats a much broader demographic.
Even so, a serious crackdown on what you might call feelgood prescription drugs will disproportionately hit Britain's low-income earners. Why? There's no diplomatic way of saying this. On sink housing estates, "pills" are scoffed as readily as smarties not just by youths who can't afford a more concentrated high from a dealer, but also – in many cases – by their parents.
It's easy to condemn "shirkers" who live off incapacity benefits thanks to a non-existent or long-healed back ailment. But – and I have personal experience of this from my years in addiction – it's difficult to do anything but "shirk" if your dealer, otherwise known as your GP, hastily refills your prescription without asking too many questions. A patient who spends 45 seconds in the consulting room and leaves with a smile on their face – perfect!
Psychotropic and analgesic drugs, be they Valium or Nurofen Plus (amazingly, sold over the counter in the UK, to the delight of visiting American junkies) are as insidiously addictive as sugar, another drug-like substance whose addictive properties I discuss in the Fix. Any attempt to cut off their supply to the people who like or need them most will cause far, far more trouble than the Government anticipates. "You may have to suffer a bit." Can you think of a Westminster politician from any party who has the nerve to produce that soundbite?
Me neither.

Click here to buy the new paperback edition of Damian Thompson's The Fix.