Here is the full text of Minnesota State Senator Dan Hall's speech on the Senate floor opposing Same Sex Marriage: 5-13-13

Here is the full text of Senator Dan Hall's speech on the Senate floor 5-13-13:

There’s a lot of celebrating going on today but there’s also a lot of grieving going on today. Grieving because there are many people in the state who do not believe this is the right thing to do. I sometimes call this the divine tension. Our constitution has protections for religious freedom—not to protect the government from religion.

I have six key points I’d like to state.

First off, marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, to be the father and mother to any children their union produces.

Second, marriage is based on truth that men and women are complementary. The biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, the reality that children need both a father and a mother—which one would you not have wanted. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of assuring the well-being of children. Marital breakdown weakens civil society.

Government recognizes marriage because it benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Government can treat people equally and with respect and respect their liberty without redefining marriage. Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It weakens monogamy, exclusivity and permanency, the norms to which marriage in our society [inaudible] and it will threaten religious liberty.

I know that, Madam President, you do not allow us to pray in the name of Jesus or the holy spirit while we’re up there, but I ask that the holy spirit be with all of us today in this capitol around Minnesota during this vote. Today we may be changing the course of freedom for our children and our grandchildren in Minnesota. We may be forced to not just listen to someone else’s view—but to accept and then legislate and next, I believe, we will be forced to believe what we don’t.

I have been accused of attacking same-sex marriage because I disagree with the lifestyle. When has disagreeing become an attack? When has taking a stand against something you believe in become a personal attack? Freedom can only be free if we keep our moral compass. If we resolve to strengthen marriage instead of dismantling it. Without strong morals, that which we believe is right or wrong, we lose our freedoms.

Redefining marriage, which has many restrictions—you can’t get married if you’re under 18 without parents’ permission; only two people can get married, not three, not more—is opening that Pandora’s box. If you think marriage, the way it is now, is discriminating, why not add another group? That’s what we’ve done, we’re still discriminating, if that’s what you believe, unless we open it up to all.

But they’ll call me a bigot, they’ll call me a hater, they’ll spit in my face, like they did a friend of mine last Thursday. There are things in life, members, that are worth standing up for, even to be persecuted for.

Many have said to me, ‘Sen. Hall, you don’t understand. You’re married, live in a nice suburb, you’ve got kids, live in a nice house, two-car garage, you’re well educated.’

Most of you don’t know I grew up in the southeast projects, 71 Saint Marys [Avenue] by the U of M. Many of my relatives were addicts, criminals, two sent to prison, more than one child molester. Those that my mother tried to keep us away from were relatives. My mother raised four children in the projects but had an alcoholic husband that she divorced when I was six years old.

Two years later, she married another,  my stepfather who also was a drunk. When he was home, we tried not to be. When I was 12 my mother told him, “You either get on your knees and accept Jesus and have him take over your life and stop drinking or there’s the door, don’t ever come back.’ He did that that day, our life changed, that was a turning point in my history. My father did this 48 years ago today. He’s now in a nursing home, my mother still lives on Lake Nokomis.

But the change of history is like what we’re doing today.  It will forever change the fate of family.

I have family members on both sides of this issue. All of us are not perfect and all of us carry baggage from the past and our families. All have sinned, all have faults, I certainly do. I sin every day. This is not about that. It’s about what’s good for children. The children here in Minnesota. It’s about making the right choice for children’s future. The question is: Are homosexual marriages good for children? Are we as members in this chamber going to change the course of history? As to what the adults, we the caretakers, the public policy holders, leaders of Minnesota—what we think is right for children.

Back to marriage. Marriage is about giving, not taking. It’s about being willing to serve another, giving your affection to no other and, spiritually, marriage is about two becoming one in God’s eyes. A civil union is having a contract to protect yourself from the other that may take advantage of you and legally securing the government and civil benefits that have been reserved for marriage. There are consequences to everything. There will be unintended and, I believe, intended consequences.

Members, God has written his word on your hearts: Don’t legislate what you think personally is wrong. Choose life and life abundantly. Dismantling marriage will bring hurt, shame, confrontation and more indoctrination. Forcing others to give you your rights will never end well. It won’t give you the recognition you desire. That which is right can easily be seen by all. Let me say that again: That which is right can easily be seen by all.

Is this easy for you? Most people know this is not right. You asked for this job, members, when you ran for office. Leading is not easy. Are you still looking for an excuse to vote for it? I’m not giving you that today. I’m here to affirm true beliefs that come from your relationship to your creator.

Do you really want what Europe has? They’re on the verge of civil disaster. Some have said, ‘But don’t you want to be on the right side of history?’ The truth is I’m more concerned about being on the right side of eternity.

In conclusion, let me say this: My desire today is to bring more peace, more justice to all of Minnesota. I propose that we vote “No” on this bill and that we propose a more loving document that will more clearly and more distinctly allow the freedom that both communities would desire.

Don’t fool yourself today and think voting yes on this bill ends the conversation. The great people of Minnesota deserve better than this. This document will bring civil disobedience.

This document will split our schools, our churches, our towns, our counties, our state. It will hurt businesses and confuse children. More than any single issue has ever done since the civil war.

This bill needs to be crafted in such a way that it will not push civil rights back 50 years but bring our communities together. Please think about the devastating repercussions this vote will have on our communities. We must not pass this bill but, rather, we must take one more time to craft a truly bipartisan bill that respects the values of all Minnesotans and where no one feels they’re being shoved into an unwanted world, no one feels their religious liberties are being taken away.

Members, today you must choose who you will serve. May God help us.

The measure passed 37-30.  

Senator Hall represents parts of Bloomington and Burnsville in the Minnesota State Senate , District 63

Annual Candlelight Rosary Procession

Archdiocesan Candlelight Rosary Procession with Danielle Rose – Friday, October 5

 

Gathering at the State Capitol ~ 6:00 p.m.

Procession begins ~ 7:00 p.m.

Minn. Catholic Conference: Take Action For Marriage

.

		MCC Action Alert: 5 Ways to Support Marriage between Now and November 6 Warm greetings! As we get closer to the election (November 6), the Minnesota Catholic Conference would like to share some important ways you and your family can support marriage. We’re asking for your help, to participate in as many of the following activities as possible, between now and November 6. 1.     PRAY Archdiocesan Candlelight Rosary Procession with Danielle Rose – Friday, October 5 Gathering at the State Capitol ~ 6:00 p.m. Procession begins ~ 7:00 p.m. For more details, please visit MCC’s events page: http://www.mncc.org/archdiocesan-candlelight-rosary-procession/ 2.     EDUCATE YOURSELF Canada Day – Monday, October 8 Join us for a series of panel discussions: “What the Future Looks Like if Marriage in Minnesota is Redefined—A Canadian Perspective,” with the Most Rev. Terrence Prendergast, Archbishop of Ottawa, Ontario and other Canadians who will discuss the harrowing impact marriage redefinition has had on Canadians, especially Catholics. From 9:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. University of St. Thomas Law School Atrium 1000 LaSalle Ave., Minneapolis, MN RSVP is REQUIRED to attend this important and informative event. To RSVP and/or ask questions, please email rhuray@mncc.org. 3.     VOLUNTEER Volunteer to phone bank, help “Get out the vote,” make a donation Minnesota for Marriage is a pro-marriage amendment campaign created by a diverse coalition of faith and non-faith based leaders and groups to pass the marriage amendment. Volunteers are needed to staff phone banks at the Minnesota for Marriage office and other locations. It’s very easy, and no debate skills are required! The coalition also needs help in the coming weeks for our “Get out the vote” effort, which will include everything from voter registration to canvassing neighborhoods and going door-to-door.      ·         To volunteer, visit the Minnesota for Marriage website (www.minnesotaformarriage.com) or call (612) 788-4675.      ·         To donate, click here: https://donate.minnesotaformarriage.com/contribute.php. 4.     HAVE A CONVERSATION Be sure you understand what marriage is in the public square and how to explain the Church’s involvement in this important social issue. Pray for the courage to talk to a loved one or neighbor who may misunderstand the issue. Visit our marriage amendment resource page or read our Unique for a Reason: Why Marriage Matters blog to help you find ways to articulate what the Church is and isn’t saying about marriage, and our brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction:              ·         Responding to Common Accusations and Fallacies           http://marriagematters.mncc.org/2012/04/responding-to-common-accusations-and-fallacies/                ·         To My “Catholic Voting No” Neighbor               http://marriagematters.mncc.org/2012/09/to-my-catholic-voting-no-neighbor/              ·         Just “Live and Let Live”: A Conversation           http://marriagematters.mncc.org/2012/09/just-live-and-let-live/ 5.     VOTE YES – Get to the polls on November 6! The Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment reads: Shall the Minnesota constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota? Spread the word to VOTE YES. And remember, a non-vote is counted as a “no” vote!

Marriage: Feminine Slavery or Fulfillment of her Liberation?

.
(by Theresa)

The first wave of feminism at the turn of the century and the early 1900s supported women's equality, wanted to give women the right to vote, and sought to elevate everything feminine. The second wave of feminism around the 1960s pushed forward the plight of women's equality, but there was one very significant divergence from the earlier feminists.

There is a tragically brilliant movie called "Mona Lisa Smile"starring Julia Roberts (2003) that illustrates what I believe is the very crux of this "liberal feminists" divergence. In the movie, Roberts plays a teacher in the 1950s who challenges her female students at a prestigious private college to question "the system. etc.; While watching the film, a woman is moved to rally behind the teacher (even though most of the students in the film resist). And then you see it: the school nurse is giving out the newly created birth control pills to any girl who asks for them. The biggest problem of the feminism of the 1960s is that it happened in the 1960s. The sexual revolution was supposed to free women, to liberate them. (Liberate them from what exactly? Hmmmm We'll get to that.) As much as it saddens my heart to watch, the film perfectly and accurately portrays the reality of what occurred: the fused intertwining between the feminist movement and the sexual revolution. And therein lays the fracture between the first- and second-wave feminists.

Are our bodies really not relevant?

What spurred on this divergence from the earlier feminists was a mindset that our very bodies and our partaking in child birth and child rearing is in itself oppressive to women. They believed (stemming from their own interpretation of Marxist philosophy) that our bodies were not part of our nature. Thinking this way, what you did with the body did not matter. The sexual revolution and birth control pill allowed women to "have sex as men do" and completely disconnect it from any responsibility.

Despite the divergence, the over-arching goal of feminism is the same. "liberal" and "conservative" feminists alike want a society where women are respected as much as men are. It would be a society in which women are highly valued, not objectified (nor used) and are not left to handle the child-rearing alone. Instead, the childrearing would be shared between men and women. It would be a society where women feel free to be themselves and choose any career they wish. The world would praise, support and encourage her to choose her destiny and never block that path nor demean her in any way.

As Christians, we believe that we were made in the image and likeness of God. Instead of our bodies and their sexual expression being irrelevant to who we are, we believe that our bodies are intrinsic to who we are. We are not some vague, non-gender being. We do not want our femininity stripped away from us, but elevated.

We see this truth come to the surface as statistics confirm that "having sex like a man" is unfulfilling to and depressing women. Generally, men experience sex more physically and women experience it more emotionally. Thus, sexual activity for recreation sake without the personal attachment or long commitment slowly eats away at the heart of the woman.

Sexual freedom vs. chastity

Yet, sexual freedom continues to be a rallying cry of liberal feminism. Which scenario is more supportive and honoring of a woman? This first is a young lady who has sexual relationships throughout high school, feels emotionally empty and used, and reaches a point at 18 where she must choose between having a baby or aborting that baby (both options seem horrid to her). The second scenario is a young lady who does not engage in sexual activity and has boyfriends, but retains her chastity, thereby maintaining her self-respect and joy. She meets a boy in college who has waited as well and they get married after they graduate. She is 22 and pregnant. She is overjoyed. She knows she will never have to face parenting alone. She knows that if her husband could control his sexual passion all this time, then he will be able to be faithful to her and love her respectfully and deeply.

The role of marriage in women's liberation

Perhaps when seeking women's liberation, we threw out the baby with the bath water. Marriage and lifelong, monogamous sexual intimacy is not the prison of feminine slavery that it was thought to be. If there was indeed a problem of only allowing women to stay at home, the solution was not to destroy the home. A truly feminist approach would have honored and supported equality whatever choice women chose.

Liberal feminists speak of this ideal society where women are completely respected and men share in child-rearing. Yet, they kick to the curb the one institution that protects women from being exploited and used, and demands men to become responsible: marriage.

Marriage is the key to women's true equality and liberation, not their oppression. Authentic, self-giving marriage creates for her a place of respect, assuring that her sexuality will not merely be used for another's pleasure but will be honored and cherished. This understanding of marriage demands that a man be compelled to participate in child-rearing.

As the state of marriage deteriorates (from the destruction of the nature of marriage as well as the frequency of divorce), woman's true equality lessens. She is objectified and picked apart, judged by her body and her looks, and left alone to raise the next generation. It is common knowledge that single mothers and children disproportionately suffer from poverty in this country. A society without strong marriages is not a place of equality for women, but a place that perpetuates women's degradation.

If we are seeking a society that respects women and demands that men share the burden of child-rearing, self-proclaimed liberal feminists must finally open their eyes. If they do, they will see that the stone they have rejected must become the cornerstone of the ideal society they claim to be promoting.

About Theresa

Wife, mother of four boys, author, artist and New Feminism Rising blogger (newfeminismrising.com). She loves the way God uses family life to stretch her, but also the way good healthy food shrinks her down again. Originally from New Orleans, she's a southern belle bringing a little warmth to Minnesota.

View all posts by Theresa →

MSNBC Poll: Bishops say rules on gay parents limit freedom of religion

.

Go to the MSNBC article and vote in the poll!!!

Bishops say rules on gay parents limit freedom of religion

'In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,' says canon lawyer

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

updated 12/28/2011 5:42:01 PM ET 2011-12-28T22:42:01

WASHINGTON — Catholic Charities in Illinois has served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. But now most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois are closing down rather than comply with a new requirement that says they can no longer receive state money if they turn away same-sex couples as potential foster care and adoptive parents.

For the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, the outcome is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are now the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals.

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services.

Formidable opponents
The Illinois experience indicates that the bishops face formidable opponents who also claim to have justice and the Constitution on their side. They include not only gay rights advocates, but also many religious believers and churches that support gay equality (some Catholic legislators among them). They frame the issue as a matter of civil rights, saying that Catholic Charities was using taxpayer money to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Tim Kee, a teacher in Marion, Ill., who was turned away by Catholic Charities three years ago when he and his longtime partner, Rick Wade, tried to adopt a child, said: “We’re both Catholic, we love our church, but Catholic Charities closed the door to us. To add insult to injury, my tax dollars went to provide discrimination against me.”

The bishops are engaged in the religious liberty battle on several fronts. They have asked the Obama administration to lift a new requirement that Catholic and other religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and charity groups cover contraception in their employees’ health plans. A decision has been expected for weeks now.

At the same time, the bishops are protesting the recent denial of a federal contract to provide care for victims of sex-trafficking, saying the decision was anti-Catholic. An official with the Department of Health and Human Services recently told a hearing on Capitol Hill that the bishops’ program was rejected because it did not provide the survivors of sex-trafficking, some of whom are rape victims, with referrals for abortions or contraceptives.

Critics of the church argue that no group has a constitutional right to a government contract, especially if it refuses to provide required services.

But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed. “It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”

The controversy in Illinois began when the state legislature voted in November 2010 to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples, which the state’s Catholic bishops lobbied against. The legislation was titled “The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act,” and Bishop Paprocki said he was given the impression that it would not affect state contracts for Catholic Charities and other religious social services.

Adoption services jettisoned
Bishops in Washington and Massachusetts had already decided to jettison their Catholic Charities’ adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws.

In New York State, religious groups lobbied for specific exemption language in the same-sex marriage bill. But bishops in Illinois did not negotiate, Bishop Paprocki said.

“It would have been seen as, We’re going to compromise on the principle as long as we get our exception. We didn’t want it to be seen as buying our support,” he said.

Catholic Charities is one of the nation’s most extensive social service networks, serving more than 10 million poor adults and children of many faiths across the country. It is made up of local affiliates that answer to local bishops and dioceses, but much of its revenue comes from the government. Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion. Only 3 percent came from churches in the diocese (the rest came from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees and community donations).

In Illinois, Catholic Charities in five of the six state dioceses had grown dependent on foster care contracts, receiving 60 percent to 92 percent of their revenues from the state, according to affidavits by the charities’ directors. (Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Chicago pulled out of foster care services in 2007 because of problems with its insurance provider).

When the contracts came up for renewal in June, the state attorney general along with the legal staff in the governor’s office and the Department of Children and Family Services decided that the religious providers on state contracts would no longer be able to reject same-sex couples, said Kendall Marlowe, a spokesman for the department.

The Catholic providers offered to refer same-sex couples to other agencies (as they had been doing for same-sex and unmarried couples), but that was not acceptable to the state, Mr. Marlowe said. “Separate but equal was not a sufficient solution on other civil rights issues in the past either,” he said.

Some decide to fight
Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Rockford decided at that point to get out of the foster care business. But the bishops in Springfield, Peoria, Joliet and Belleville decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against the state.

Taking a completely different tack was the agency affiliated with the conservative Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, which like the Catholic Church does not sanction same-sex relationships. Gene Svebakken, president and chief executive of the agency, Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois, visited all seven pastoral conferences in his state and explained that the best option was to compromise and continue caring for the children.

“We’ve been around 140 years, and if we didn’t follow the law we’d go out of business,” Mr. Svebakken said. “We believe its God- pleasing to serve these kids, and we know we do a good job.”

In August, Judge John Schmidt, a circuit judge in Sangamon County, ruled against Catholic Charities, saying, “No citizen has a recognized legal right to a contract with the government.” He did not address the religious liberty claims, ruling only that the state did not violate the church’s property rights.

Three of the dioceses filed an appeal, but in November filed a motion to dismiss their lawsuit. The Dioceses of Peoria and Belleville are spinning off their state-financed social services, with the caseworkers, top executives and foster children all moving to new nonprofits that will no longer be affiliated with either diocese.

Gary Huelsmann, executive director of Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois, in the Belleville Diocese, said the decision was excruciating for everyone.

“We have 600 children abused and neglected in an area where there are hardly any providers,” he said. “Us going out of business would have been detrimental to these children, and that’s a sin, too.”

The work will be carried on, but the Catholic Church’s seminal, historic connection with it has been severed, noted Mr. Marlowe, the spokesman for the state’s child welfare agency. “The child welfare system that Catholic Charities helped build,” he said, “is now strong enough to survive their departure.”

This article, "Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion," originally appeared in The New York Times.

Archbishop Nienstedt issues prayer for marriage

.
Archbishop issues prayer for marriage

To assist statewide efforts to defend and define marriage in the Minnesota Constitution, Archbishop John Nienstedt has issued a prayer intended for use as part of the Prayers of the Faithful at Mass.

The archbishop also encourages use of the prayer in eucharistic adoration chapels so worshipers can pray for the success of the state marriage amendment and all efforts to strengthen marriage, according to a letter posted on the archdiocesan website at http://www.archspm.org. He also is calling on Catholics in the archdiocese to embrace Fridays as a day of prayer and sacrifice for the success of the amendment effort.

The amendment, supported by Minnesota’s Catholic bishops, will appear on the 2012 ballot. It will ask voters: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

“The current struggle to defend and define marriage within our civil constitution demands a three-fold approach,” Archbishop Nienstedt said.

[1] “We must educate our fellow citizens on the meaning and good of marriage.

[2] We must actively and resolutely promote widespread participation among our fellow believers in the support of a marriage amendment.

[3] And, most importantly, we must pray and offer sacrifice for the success of all endeavors that seek to protect and promote marriage.”

Copies of the prayer may be downloaded or ordered from the archdiocesan Office of Worship.

Marriage Prayer

Heavenly Father,

Through the powerful intercession of the Holy Family, grant to this local Church the many graces we need to foster, strengthen, and support faith-filled, holy marriages and holy families.

May the vocation of married life, a true calling to share in your own divine and creative life, be recognized by all believers as a source of blessing and joy, and a revelation of your own divine goodness.

Grant to us all the gift of courage to proclaim and defend your plan for marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman in a lifelong, exclusive relationship of loving trust, compassion, and generosity, open to the conception of children.

We make our prayer through Jesus Christ, who is Lord forever and ever. Amen.

What You Won't See On-Screen in in the now showing film, "Courageous"

.
>by Tim Drake Wednesday, September 28

Sherwood Picture’s “Courageous” opens on 1,200 screens nationwide Friday. In the inspirational film about fatherhood – as told through the story of four police officers – you’ll find no coarse language, no gratuitous violence, no nudity or sexual innuendo. The Lord’s name is not taken in vain. In short, it’s a film you wouldn’t be embarrassed to watch with your family, your parents, your friends and neighbors, or your children.

There’s something else that you won’t see – and that is all of the work, prayer, and dedication that volunteers at Sherwood Baptist Church put in behind-the-scenes to bring this movie to fruition.

Albany, Ga. is home to seven different Baptist churches, a Methodist church, two Episcopal churches, a Catholic Church, a Presbyterian church, and at least four evangelical Christian churches, but only one of them is making movies. That’s Sherwood.

You might be asking yourself, why is a Catholic journalist pushing a film produced by a Baptist church? Would the Baptists promote a film by the Catholic Church?

I’m promoting it because I was touched not only by the dedication and faith of those who made the film, but as a father I was touched by the movie itself. It is Sherwood’s best film to-date, both in terms of cinematography and in terms of story. Like all of their films it crosses the line from story-telling to proselytizing. Some critics will attack the film for this. Yet, there’s still a place for “Courageous.” The film is at its strongest when it is telling a story, and that story will move men.

I’ve written extensively about “Courageous” because I was fortunate to be invited to be on-the-set during some of the shooting. I was able to interview the writers, director, and actors. I was able to attend the Atlanta premiere of the film. I had the opportunity to serve as an extra in the film’s 5K race scene, running beside friend and fellow Catholic writer and blogger Chris Faddis (for those who are interested, we did make the final cut. We can be seen briefly in the race scene on the right hand side of the screen). Most importantly, I was able to witness a community of faith pulling together to produce something inspirational.

While on the set, I couldn’t help but be moved by the vast number of church volunteers who pulled together to make meals, apply makeup, babysit, serve as actors and extras, create sets, deliver people and set pieces to where they needed to be, essentially made everything happen behind-the-scenes that needed to happen to schedule, produce and shoot, and edit a major film like this.

I was also eyewitness and participant in the sheer amount of prayer that went into this film. “Courageous” is surrounded and covered in prayer.

The decision to make the film and its subject is the fruit of prayer. Each day, as the shooting began, cast and crew gathered for prayer. Before meals, there was prayer. Before every scene was shot, there was prayer. I saw individual church members praying with actors before and after specific scenes were shot. At the film’s premiere in Atlanta, it opened with prayer. All along the way, church members, cast and crew have been praying not only for the film, but for all those who will see it on-screen and on DVD. They’ve been praying that the film might have a positive impact upon the viewers, upon our nation, upon fathers and mothers. They know well the power of prayer because they’ve seen the effects from their previous three films, and they’ve heard stories of how “Flywheel” led unscrupulous businessmen to change their ways, or how “Facing the Giants” led not only to prayer, but to couples conceiving children, or how “Fireproof” saved marriages in the U.S. and abroad. If “Courageous” succeeds, and I pray that it does, it will be due to prayer.

One doesn’t have to look far to see that we’re facing many crises in this country. Among them, absentee fathers and fatherlessness ranks among one of the largest. Courageous addresses that topic through its characters – a lazy father, a man who grew up without his father, an absent father. In so doing, it challenges men to embrace their responsibilities as fathers and protectors. Sherwood has partnered with a large number of Protestant and Catholic men’s ministries to provide the tools that men need to learn how to be the husbands and fathers that God intends them to be. It’s clear that the movie-makers want this film to be a movement – a movement of turning the children’s hearts to their fathers, and the father’s hearts to their children.

Do yourself and your family a favor. Go see “Courageous” this weekend and invite and encourage others to do likewise. “Courageous,” in short, is a movie that audiences want, and a film that America needs.

2 Comments out of 25

Posted by Chris Faddis on Thursday, Sep 29:@Linda - I would invite you to take a moment and reconsider the judgement you just placed on those with only two children. I am a father of two - I’m only 32 years old and while my wife and I started out with a plan to have multiple children, that weighs in the balance as my wife battles stage IV colon cancer. We converse regularly about how we hope we will still be able to have more. But the beating that my wife’s body is receiving may prevent that. We plan on trying if we are so blessed - but the truth of the matter is that it may not be in the cards for us.A dear friend of ours, Catholic author and speaker Melanie Pritchard also has two children. She and her husband Doug had also planned to have several children, but Melanie had an amniotic fluid embolism during delivery of her second child, Ella. She coded on the table three times and is a walking miracle today. Though she is alive and very well, she is no longer able to have children.Consider these two stories and ask yourself, “should I judge someone’s level of “courage” based on what I see in a 2 minute clip of their lives?” Sure, this is a movie - but your statement speaks volumes.I agree that our culture does not encourage or support large families. However, to make a judgement about the characters, about the film, or about the makers of the film based on only seeing two children is absolutely uncalled for. What Tim didn’t share in this article but did in another is that while we were on set - we were also running next to the Duggar family, you know 19 and Counting from TLC. They were on set as well at the invitation of Sherwood Pictures. All of those children ran and all of those children stood as an example of a large Christian family.Consider these things before dumping a judgement next time. Sincerely,
Chris Faddis (1 of 7 children and father of 2)

Posted by Tim Drake on Thursday, Sep 29:It’s painful for me to see that the discussion about the merits of “Courageous” got sidetracked to discussing how many children is the perfect number.

Frankly, I have little patience for the “fertility police”. It’s too easy to judge a couple by first appearances, something I humbly admit to doing earlier in my marriage - AND regretfully so. It wasn’t until my wife and I faced primary and secondary infertility, and came face-to-face with other couples facing the same issue, that I understood the tremendous pain that so many couples carry with them.

Even now people could easily look at our family (five living children, one in Heaven) and think we’re somehow complete. We’ve been unable to conceive since the birth of our nearly-nine-year-old son. What they would not see, however, is the pain of desiring additional children who never come; and the pain of having a daughter who continually prays for another baby in the home and who asks why God doesn’t answer her prayer; and the joy coupled with pain every time a friend or relative conceives. It is a pain suffered largely in silence. People do not talk about it because they fear that bringing it up will cause additional pain.

Do not judge what the perfect number is because that number, or the lack of a number, is known only by God. National Catholic Register

Interview: Jason Adkins, Executive Director of Minnesota Catholic Conference

.
In the Catholic Servant newspaper, By David Hottinger
[Editor’s Note: In March of this year, Jason Adkins, J.D., was appointed the executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference. “The Catholic Servant” recently interviewed
him.]

“The Catholic Servant”: Briefly, what is the Minnesota Catholic Conference (MCC)?

Jason Adkins: The MCC is the public policy voice of the Catholic Church in Minnesota. It represents all of Minnesota’s bishops — and by extension, the whole Church in Minnesota— at the Legislature to advocate for laws that promote human dignity and the common good; that defend marriage and family life; and that promote other tenets of Catholic social
doctrine.

“The Catholic Servant”: As an organ of the Church, should you really be meddling with politics?

Jason Adkins: The MCC assists the bishops in their teaching office of transmitting the Church’s social doctrine to the faithful, but also by bringing the Church’s voice into the public arena. The Church’s primary responsibility is not to provide technical solutions to every conceivable public policy problem, but instead to help form the consciences and worldview of Catholics so that they can bring Catholic teaching into the public square.
But oftentimes, the Church will step in and make prudential judgments that certain public policies are necessary to promote the common good of all society, particularly families, which are the first and natural cornerstone of civil society. Still, the bishops’ primary responsibility in the realm of politics is to provide the ethical and moral framework within which the laity and politicians can develop specific answers to difficult public policy questions.
One common misunderstanding among Catholics and the general public alike is why the Catholic Church, a religious institution, has any role or any say in the formation of civil laws. This misunderstanding often generates a certain hostility when the Church participates in the public square.
Yet the Church has a responsibility to society as one of its principal actors to speak out and share its wisdom, collected over the centuries, about the principles that should guide public policy decisions. The Church proposes; she never imposes.
Like any other institution or political actor, the Church must convince the public of the wisdom of her positions. But she is certainly not excluded from participation simply because of her religious identity. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not excluded from speaking about civil rights because he was a Baptist minister and used theological arguments in his quest for a more just society.

“The Catholic Servant”: Is it ever the case that the MCC advocates for a policy which reasonable Catholics could differ over?

Jason Adkins: Often, when the MCC advocates for or against certain public policies, some degree of prudential judgment is involved. But some issues are more clear-cut.
The Church and the bishops have a responsibility to speak whenever the institutional integrity or mission of the Church is threatened. Similarly, it is compelled to speak when there are laws proposed that specifically undermine human dignity or threaten the common good of society.
In any given session of the Legislature, thousands of bills are authored and in the vast majority of instances, the bishops do not take a position for or against them. Yet there are some instances in which the bishops, through the MCC, will counsel legislators and other officials to enact a specific piece of legislation because they deem it so fundamental for promoting human dignity and the common good. Examples of such issues include many types of abortion restrictions;
ensuring that cuts are not made to assistance programs for children, elderly, and the disabled;
comprehensive immigration reform; and seeing that parental choice in education is expanded,
especially for the poor.
When making these determinations, the bishops and conference staff must view each piece of legislation in light of the principles of Catholic social doctrine, specifically the protection of human dignity, promoting the common good, along with the twin principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.

“The Catholic Servant”: You mentioned the “M” word: Marriage. With the Marriage Amendment on the ballot next fall, what will the MCC do in the interim?

Jason Adkins: The MCC is supporting a statewide ballot campaign called Minnesota for Marriage which seeks to encourage other Minnesotans to vote for an amendment to the Minnesota constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The MCC will be working with other organizations supporting Minnesota for Marriage to build a statewide, grassroots campaign composed of many volunteers who will register voters, knock on doors, and seek to convince others to vote for the amendment. The MCC, for its part, will be working with Catholics of every diocese to help build this campaign.
We know it is not enough for us to simply get enough votes to pass the amendment. We also have to educate Catholics about the vital role that marriage plays as a cornerstone of a healthy society. If we don’t take this opportunity to educate and inform Catholics of the importance of the institution of marriage and the role it plays in nurturing healthy families and healthy children, then over the long term we will not be able to sustain laws protecting traditional marriage.
Therefore, it is absolutely vital that Catholics take on their responsibility as faithful citizens to educate themselves about the issue and help in whatever way they can with the marriage amendment campaign.

“The Catholic Servant”: And why should Catholics— why should anyone—be concerned about preserving traditional marriage?

Jason Adkins: Fundamentally, what’s at stake are two competing arguments about the nature of marriage. There is a movement around the country and around the world to redefine civil marriage laws. The public needs to be well aware that those seeking to promote what’s called same-sex marriage are not out to create a separate institution that same-sex couples can enter into. Instead, people opposed to traditional marriage seek to redefine marriage for the rest of society.
And despite their very vocal presence in the culture and in the media, the actual number of
these advocates is very small. According to the census, only one percent of all couples in
Minnesota are living together in same-sex relationships. Such a small minority of the population
should not have the ability to redefine a bedrock social institution.
The consequences of redefining marriage will be profound. Redefining marriage redefines
parenthood and the family. By extension, redefining marriage will reshape, in radical ways, civil society.
Marriage as an institution in civil law is ordered toward the nurturing and well-being of children and not around the supposed happiness of adults. When proponents of redefining marriage say that government has no business telling them who they can love, they are absolutely correct. But they have missed the point of the civil institution of marriage altogether. It is not about regulating relationships between consenting adults. It’s about the care and wellbeing of children.
Those who seek to redefine marriage want to turn the institution into a system of government-
sanctioned love licenses. [If that happens] people will quickly see this counterfeit version of marriage for what it is and decline to enter into it. Thus, the practical effect of redefining civil marriage will be to redefine it out of existence.

“The Catholic Servant”: And what can you tell us about our opponents in this fight?

Jason Adkins: Those opposed to the marriage amendment are well-financed and well-organized. The movement to end traditional marriage laws is led by persons whose sexuality, whose very identity, is wrapped up in the issue. So they will focus everything they have on the campaign. They have been working at this for years and already have the framework in place to run a
campaign. Not only that, but their supporters hold the commanding heights of our culture;
in academia, in politics, even in the entertainment industry. It presents quite a hurdle to overcome.
Our side, on the other hand, is disadvantaged in the sense that the groups involved in promoting
the marriage amendment do a lot of other things besides just marriage policy. Additionally, we have the challenge of putting a statewide campaign together from scratch.
But we are confident that we can win because the arguments are on our side. We just have to show the majority of Minnesotans—who know in their gut that just as the sun rises in the east, marriage is between one man and one woman; that supporting traditional marriage is not bigotry or discrimination; that you can be kind to your neighbor without
being forced to redefine the bedrock institution of society. To ultimately succeed, however,
we will need all Catholics’ prayers, hard work, and support.

David Hottinger is a freelance writer from the Twin Cities who is attending the University of Minnesota Law School.

This article was funded by the St. Benedict Chair of Writing sponsored by an anonymous patron of The Catholic Servant.
.

Vatican bank president (and the Population Research Institute agrees): Bigger families are solution to economic crisis

.
President of the Vatican bank Ettore Gotti Tedeschi said July 21 that the best solution to the current economic crisis is for families to have more children.

Developed nations “must invest in the family and in children in order to generate rapid economic growth,” Tedeschi said in an editorial in the Vatican paper L'Osservatore Romano.

The Vatican bank president explained that because there aren't enough young people in society to support the increasing amount of elderly, population aging “can be considered the true origin of the current economic crisis.”

He said that in Western countries, such as the U.S. and Europe in particular, the percentage of the population over 60 years old continues to grow considerably. The “cost of this tendency is not sustainable,” he added.

Steven Mosher, the head of the Population Research Institute based in Virginia, agreed with the Vatican official's take. “Larger families are absolutely the answer to the crisis,” he told CNA on July 21.

“If Americans averaged three children, the Social Security Trust Fund would be solvent forever, without recourse to raising taxes, postponing the age at retirement, or reducing benefits,” Mosher said.

“America would possess a more robust economy and our standard of living would be higher.”

Tedeschi warned in his editorial that within the next decade, the ever-increasing percentage of people who retire will become more of a fixed cost that will be impossible to absorb and sustain by younger workers.

“In addition, increasingly fewer people are entering into the production cycle and when they manage to, they do so very slowly,” he said. “Not to mention the factor of the changing concept of employment, which had been stable until some time ago.”

Tedeschi also noted that the economic cycle of production and savings is in “decline and destined to crumble” because of the drastic reduction in income.

Faced with this reality, he said, it is more necessary now than ever “to have the courage to address the theme of births and aging of the population.”

“To ignore it is dangerous and it has become unavoidable to define a strategy to concretely support families in their natural vocation to have children.”

“Only in this way can real economic recovery be triggered,” the bank president emphasized.

Tedeschi said that a two-income family today earns less than the same family earned 30 years ago with only one income. This, he explained, is the consequence of growing taxes on the GDP in developed countries, which are intended to absorb the consequences of aging due to decreased births.

“In the end,” he said, “nature itself teaches us that if a man and a woman do not generate children it is difficult that someone takes care of them when they age. The State can try, but at a very high cost.”

Mosher added that “human beings are the ultimate resource,” and one “that you absolutely cannot do without, and for which there is no substitute.” Catholic News Agency

Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children

.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 2,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

Catholic News Agency

The original article by Dr. Trayce Hansen can be found by following this link: http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html

NY archbishop worried polygamy, infidelity will be next step in redefinition of marriage

.

NY archbishop worried polygamy, infidelity will be next step in redefinition of marriage

By Archbishop Timothy Dolan

July 7

Archbishop Dolan, formerly of Milwaukee, reflects in his blog on the passage of the same sex marriage legislation in the state of New York and the past fifty years of American political life that led to that event.

This is a somber reminder for those of us facing the Minnesota Marriage Amendment referendum in 2012, defining it constitutionally, as being between one man and one woman.

---

Almost two weeks ago — hauntingly, on the Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist, whom King Herod would behead because the saint dared to defend the God-given truth about marriage — our state sadly attempted a re-definition of marriage. Is there anything left to say?

Yes.

For one, thanks to those courageous millions who valiantly fought this unfortunate project of social engineering. You can hold your heads high. Sanely, civilly, thoughtfully, vigorously . . . you did not cave-in. The forces on the other side were a Goliath indeed — with tons of money, “glitterati” from entertainment circles, political powerbrokers, and the media — but you proved a worthy David.

You will understand my special word of gratitude to people of faith — evangelicals, Mennonites, Jews, Moslem, Catholics, Amish, and so many more, led often by African-American and Latino believers — who simply believe that marriage is a given, at the very foundation of civilization, which the state has the duty to defend and protect, not to mutate.

My brother bishops of New York were particularly prophetic. When I arrived here a little over two-years ago, they told me realistically that we faced a looming battle over the defense of marriage. They advised me that the odds were not in our favor, and that some experts were even suggesting that we give-in and not put up a fight.

But they were also resolute in their conviction that such would have been a dereliction of duty. As Blessed John Paul II often commented, the Church is “counter-cultural,” like Jesus, often at odds with what passes as chic, enlightened, and progressive. In their writings, sermons, personal lobbying, interviews, and our common statements — backed up by indefatigable efforts by our New York State Catholic Conference, bolstered by ecumenical and inter-religious cooperation, and, especially, supported by countless thousands of our faithful Catholic people (one legislator told me he received 47,000 e-mails against the measure from the Catholic Advocacy Network) — the bishops were on the frontiers. We have been bloodied, and bruised, and, yes, for the moment, we have been defeated. But, we’re used to that. So was the Founder of our Church.

Two, the Church neither has nor wants political “clout.” As Cardinal John O’Connor commented, “The only ‘clout’ the Church really has is God’s Truth, the assurance of His grace, and the simple yet sincere conviction of our people.” Blessed John Paul II again reminds us that “The Church never imposes, she only proposes.” And as our current Holy Father has often observed, all the Church wants is its freedom to serve humanity by bringing the light of the gospel to the world.

But, three, we do worry indeed about this freedom of religion. Editorials already call for the removal of guarantees of religious liberty, with crusaders calling for people of faith to be coerced to acceptance of this redefinition. If the experience of those few other states and countries where this is already law is any indication, the churches, and believers, will soon be harassed, threatened, and hauled into court for their conviction that marriage is between one man, one woman, forever, bringing children into the world.

Four, the real forces of “intolerance” were unmasked here. The caricature, of course, is that those defending traditional marriage were the right-wing bigots and bullies. However, as one out-of-state journalist, who was following the debate closely, commented to me, “From my read of the columns, blogs, and rhetoric, it’s not your side that’s lobbing the grenades.” A Catholic who wrote to criticize me for my defense of marriage still conceded, “But I must confess that I am sickened by the amount of anti-Catholic venom that has surfaced in this debate.” As one respected columnist has observed, the problem is not homophobia but theophobia — a hatred by some of God, faith, religion, and the Church.

Five, though, if we did hurt anybody in our defense of marriage, I apologize. We tried our best to insist from the start that our goal was pro-marriage, never anti-gay. But, I’m afraid some within the gay community were offended. As I replied recently to a reporter who asked if I had any message to the gay community, “Yes: I love you. Each morning I pray with and for you and your true happiness and well-being. I am honored that so many of you are at home within our Catholic family, where, like the rest of us, we try, with the help of God’s grace and mercy, to conform our lives to Jesus and His message. If I have offended any of you in my strenuous defense of marriage, I apologize, and assure you it was unintentional.

Point six, the Church has always stood-up for marriage — one man and one woman, united in lifelong and faithful love, leading to new life in children – whenever and wherever it was in danger. Veterans my age and over can remember sixty years ago when we fought widespread, no-fault divorce, convinced it would lead to a cheapening of the marriage bond and harm our kids (as, of course, scholarly studies now report has, indeed, happened). Recall how the Church resisted the “contraceptive mentality,” fearing it would rupture the sacred bond between love and the procreation of children. Then, remember how the Church sounded the alarm over rising rates of promiscuity, adultery, pre-marital sex, and cohabitation prior to or instead of marriage. And now we ring the steeple bell again at this latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, worried that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity. If you think I’m exaggerating, within days of the passage of this bill, one major newspaper ran a flattering profile of a proponent of what was called “nonmonogamy.” Apparently, “nonmonogamy” is the idea that society is unrealistic to think that one man and one woman should remain faithful in marriage, and that openness to some infidelity should be the norm!

Let me say it again. None of this is anti-anybody, but simply pro marriage.

(By the way, as Professor Robert George at Princeton University eloquently points out, in warning about promiscuity, divorce, cohabitation instead of marriage, adultery, and “same-sex marriage,” the Church is hardly some shrill, bitter, reactionary, naysaying prude, but actually prophetically right-on-target. Recent studies by people such as Myron Magnet and Kay Hymowitz show that the weakening of stable marriage and families is the cause of most social and cultural woes, especially burdensome on poor women and children.)

Finally, last point, for us in the Church, not much changes. We continue to hold fast to the God-given definition of marriage, and acknowledge that no unfortunate legislative attempt can alter reality and morality. Yes, we have a big catechetical challenge, in that we have to admit that quite a few people no longer hold to this timeless moral truth. (Although I still believe most people do; thus the fear of a referendum on the issue by those who still claim this is a “grassroots movement” sweeping the nation.) Yes, we do have our work cut out for us, as even some Catholics, and, scandalously, even political leaders who claim to be Catholic, tell us the Church is “out of it,” and has no claim on truth.

So, we try our best to witness to the truth, encouraging our married couples and their kids to be loving, radiant, “lights to the world.” We acknowledge that, as St. Augustine taught, if something is wrong, even if everybody else is doing it, it’s still wrong; and, if something is right, even if nobody else is doing it anymore, it’s still right. Like St. Thomas More, we’re willing to take the heat and even lose our head from following a conscience properly formed by God’s revelation and the teaching of His Church, even if it is politically incorrect, and clashes with the King’s demands to re-define marriage.