Students For Life And New York Times

When I last wrote about the attempt by Students for Life to meddle in the affairs of the Heritage Academy, I ended it with a question regarding the role of the New York Times in bringing undue pressure upon the school administration.  I'd like to continue with that thought, for reasons that will be made clear as this post progresses.

First, here is the original SFL post.  Now here is the NYT article.  Please notice that both of these were published to the internet on May 20.  However, the SFL post mentions the NYT article.  Was the SFL piece published as a response to the NYT article?  I may be incorrect, but that SFL post seems like it was written in advance, given the work that had to go into the content, layout, etc.

Now look at the NYT article.  Kristan Hawkins is quoted as saying, "she made the courageous decision to choose life, and she definitely should not be shamed."  I don't see that statement anywhere else: not on the SFL post..nowhere.  If that exact quote does exist elsewhere and that quote originated before May 20, please advise via the comments section.  Assuming that it doesn't, then I think it reasonable to assume that Hawkins granted an interview to the New York Times regarding the Heritage Academy situation.

Let that sink in for a moment.  The New York Times has made no secret of its hostility towards Christians, especially conservative and pro-life Christians.  Yet it appears that the New York Times was brought into this situation to put more pressure on the school administration to do the bidding of Maddi Runkles and Students for Life. Because of its own animus towards Christianity, NYT could have been only too willing to take a swipe at Heritage Academy.  Was that NYT attitude exploited by SFL to garner some publicity?

On Monday, David Hobbs, president of Heritage Academy, issued a statement regarding the situation on the HA site.  He stated the reasons that the administration acted as they did.  Kristan Hawkins yesterday issued her response on the SFL site.  Basically she said that Hobbs' statement didn't cut the mustard for her.  Well, so what?  Who appointed her to a position of oversight for the school?

To the right is an opinion of another faithful Catholic whose opinion on the matter differs from that of SFL.

One might ask me for my opinion on the matter.  I decline to give it for it is irrelevant to the deliberations of the HA administration.  So too is the opinion of Students for Life and all those who might be clamoring for HA to back down.  Suffice it to say any decision is that of the school administration and it should be respected.

I'm going to propose a course of action.  You have the HA site.  Why not pop them an email suggesting that they tune out all the noise and flak that they are receiving as a result of this SFL-instigated barrage?  Assure them of your prayers and encourage them to proceed as they deem best.

More Info On Why Companeros Forfeited CCHD Funding

The situation first came into the limelight due to an article in the April 5th edition of the New York Times.  Naturally this is no less biased than is the US Catholic piece mentioned two days ago.  The article portrays Companeros's affiliation with "an immigration rights coalition that joined forces with a statewide gay and lesbian advocacy group" as being rather informal and casual.  In fact, the NY Times is so intent on this portrayal that it doesn't see fit to name either the "coalition" or the "advocacy group"!  Now why - oh, why - do they commit this omission?  After all, is this not the much-vaunted New York Times?  Do they really engage in such sloppy journalism on a routine basis (a purely rhetorical question)?  Now doesn't this just have you scratching your heads, wondering what they're trying to hide??  Well, thanks to us "conservative Catholics with the help of search engines", such glaring deliberate omissions teensy inadvertent oversights can be set aright.

The "immigration rights coalition" is Colorado Immigration Rights Coaliton (CIRC) and the "advocacy group" is One Colorado.  But CIRC itself advocates for homosexual marriage.  But let's be clear about the relationship between Companeros and CIRC.  The former is a founding member of the latter, per this donation solicitation put forth by CIRC.  In that solicitation, they complain of the CCHD funding cut-off.   To their credit, they do make clear that CCHD gave to Companeros the choice of abiding by CCHD guidelines (to which they originally assented to receive funds in the first place) or the forfeiture of the funding.  They freely chose the latter.

But let's take a very close look at that first paragraph.  This is written by CIRC to solicit donations for Companeros.  Yet the first paragraph uses "first-person" language.  CIRC is saying that they - not Companeros - had to make the choice.  CIRC says they - not Companeros - sent "a clear message" to CCHD.  That is not merely sloppy language construct.  I think whoever drafted this solicitation may have tipped their hand a bit.  (By the way, my dear trolls!  I did cache this, so don't bother to try to change it on us!)

Note that Nicole Mosher, executive director of Companeros, is a current member of CIRC's board of directors.  She has a say in the direction that CIRC takes and the activities in which it participates.  So what are some of these activities?

• Taking a stand against the Defense of Marriage Act.
• Participating in local gay pride parades.
• Supporting transgenderism
• In 2007, CIRC held a "community organizing" retreat.  It was co-sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Fund (see page 2) and Companeros was one of several participants (see page 3)

Mosher, who is both executive director of Companeros and board member of CIRC, says "we have no reason to believe that we are in any way going against Catholic teachings" according to the NY Times article. In light of the above evidence, I find her statement to be impossible to believe.

Companeros made their decision.  Now they will accept the consequences.

From The "Get Your Hankies" Department

Yes, according to some who tilt to the left when it comes to the slaughter of babies, it is time to shudder and to shed a tear (and maybe some donation dollars).

First, let's look at a New York Times piece that appeared last Sunday.  There's a reason that some call this paper the "New York Slimes", and I think we see it now. At least they're putting this particular piece in their editorial section.  They should do the same for many of their pieces, but I digress.  As you read it, you can just see the angst and the fear as they see that the dear little baby butchers are being hindered from their baby-killing. That's what is entailed in what they call "termination of pregnancy".  Notice the first paragraph opines that we refuse to "accept the law of the land" and that we attempt to change it.  Excuse me, but since when are pro-life people to be considered excluded from the political process which is, by definition, the changing of law?  More hypocrisy is evident as they belittle the "onerous safety regulations like hallway width".  (By the way - that's to accomodate ambulance stretchers, should they be needed).  Would they be so dismissive of these regulations for a podiatrist office, or that of an oral surgeon?  I thought they wanted abortion to be a "safe" procedure - oh wait!  My bad!  They're after the safety of the money stream. 

Of course what they're trying to do is to gin up the usual pro-abortion activists to oppose the pro-life efforts.  We'd do well to make sure that we don't take too much comfort in this snivveling and to never relax our baby-saving efforts.

Speaking of snivveling, that is the modus operandi lately of Nancy Pelosi.  Read this snippet of an interview in which she referred to the House proposals to cut Planned Parenthood funding a "horror".  Got that?  She's HORRIFIED, I tell you!  Actually I can see her point.  If PP funding dries up, why, their PACs might have to cut back on their endorsements, donations and support of Pelosi's political hide.

However, I think her "horror" pales in comparison with what 3500 babies feel every day, no thanks to Pelosi, New York Times and the rest of the pro-baby-murder cabal.  By the way - listen to what the Vortex has to say about "horror".  Click here if you cannot see embedded video.

Maureen Dowd Gets It Right??

Well, stranger things have happened!  To put it in context, she was arguing against the Church's opposition to gay "marriage", but she did make clear that the hierarchy's harboring of gay priests compromised their moral authority.  On that last point, I must agree.  So does the Vortex.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.

"Stop Thinking Of Her As A Person"

Thus wrote one Andrew Limbong in a New York Times Op-Ed piece as he documented his "struggle to overcome his Christian upbringing" and commit the mortal sin of fornication with his girl friend.  Lifesite News has more insight here; they reveal that Planned Parenthood posted it to their Facebook page, and called Andrew's moral degradation "staying true to one's self and moving forward when you're ready."

Well, not really, PP!  Andrew was doing the exact opposite of staying true to one's self - and he struggled mightily at it, which is some testament to the decent job his parents must have attempted..  And about "moving forward".. to where?  Hell is a terrible reality and Andrew is veering quite close to it.  But let's look at another peculiar aspect of this.

I'm old enough to remember the feminist movement in its nacient days in the 1960s.  Back then, the feminists were up in arms about overgrown oafs using them as "sex objects".  Well, what is Andrew saying when he said "stop thinking of her as a person... people are animals".  If that is not a deliberate objectification of his girl friend, what is?  And this is what Planned Parenthood calls "staying true to one's self"?   Again, going back to that era, do you remember the Virginia Slims cigarette commercial that capitalized on the feminist movement with its slogan, "you've come a long way baby"?  Well, Planned Parenthood and the feminist movement have done precisely that -brought women a long way towards being treated as objects.  Turn them into little toys to be used for pleasure, and when the natural effects of such exploitation make themselves apparent, bring the little toys into Planned Parenthood and other mills, and for a few hundred bucks, the baby is murdered, the woman scarred, but ready for "use"!  Nice going, feminist movement!  Nice going, Planned Parenthood!

Fr. Fessio on the New York Times Scam-Slander Against the Pope

I do urge you to read what Fr. Fessio has to say in its entirety.  I point out a few of the key concepts that stood out to me as being key.  He rightly describes as slander what the Times et al are doing.  Then he points out some similarities between slander and the sexual abuse: "I'm sure many will disagree with such a harsh assessment, but perhaps they need to contemplate more seriously the parallels between molestation and slander, parallels that are real enough regardless of differences in degree and kind. (Most of us, I think, would rather be slandered than sexually violated. I am not at all making light of rape, molestation, or abuse, which are despicable and vile sins.) Both sexual molestation and public slander are violations of a person's dignity and innocence. Both isolate the victim from good and healthy relationships. Both destroy or seriously harm a person's ability to function properly, to live a full life." 

Then he states succinctly what the Times is attempting: "Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!"   Again, I urge you to read the whole thing.

Now can we say out loud, "New York Times!  Give it up already!  The gig is over!  You have been exposed for the anti-Catholic bigots that you are!  No wonder your subscriptions are in a steady state of decline!"

New York - Former Mayor Ed Koch Rebukes the Times' Anti-Catholic Bigotry

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch posted an article in the online edition of the Jerusalem Post defending the Holy Father and the Catholic Church against the bigotry-motivated attacks of the New York Times.  He hits the nail on the head quite a few times.  One of the key points that he spells out clearly is the motivation behind these unabashed attacks: "The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce. My good friend, John Cardinal O'Connor, once said, "The Church is not a salad bar, from which to pick and choose what pleases you." The Church has the right to demand fulfillment of all of its religious obligations by its parishioners, and indeed a right to espouse its beliefs generally."  He mentioned his own disagreement with Church beliefs, but did acknowledge the Church's right to its tenets.

He then directly rebuked the Times' duplicity: "Of course, the media should report to the public any new facts bearing upon the issue of child molestation, but its objectivity and credibility are damaged when the New York Times declines to publish an op-ed offered by New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the issue of anti-Catholicism and offers instead to publish a letter to the editor, which is much shorter and less prominent than an op-ed."

He then acknowledged his belief that the Church is a "force for good".  I thank the former mayor for coming to the defense of the Church (more than some Catholics have done).  I pray that he be fortified against the rancor that his article undoubtedly inspired.  More importantly, I pray that the glimmer of light that he has obviously received increase and that he himself will find his way to Christ and the Church.

Why The Holy Father Is In The Mass Media's Crosshairs

Again, American Papist and others have also done great work in exposing the coordinated plot of the New York Times and others in their efforts to discredit the Holy Father and all those who hold and teach proper morality as taught by the Church.