Tag Archives: california

Santa Cruz: Holy Cross Catholic Church vandalized by bad spirits

Vandals cause widespread damage to historic church in Santa Cruz, California

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

From Catholic Culture:

Shattering windows and spray-painting statues and other areas of the church, vandals have caused extensive damage to Holy Cross Parish in Santa Cruz.

Founded in 1791, Mission Santa Cruz was one of the 21 Franciscan missions founded by Blessed Junipero Serra and his fellow friars. The present parish church dates from 1889.

Among the items damaged was a baptismal font brought to the area in the late eighteenth century by Blessed Serra.

It’s been reported that police are looking into the possibility of this being a hate crime[?].

Well, ya, it’s a hate crime.

Problem is, police will be looking for flesh and blood perps, but this is spiritual evil– bad spirits active within the hearts and minds of the vandals, of which the perps themselves probably aren’t even aware of. It is on behalf of these hearts, I believe, that Christ cries out to the Father from His Cross, “Forgive them, they know not what they do.”

And they really don’t.

We can help them learn, by offering mass this Sunday for that deep interior conversion of heart called for within the Gospel.

Satan has disguised himself as Christians in Humboldt County.

A Facebook friend said it best: “I think now I have met the Antichrist and seen his evil works. Satan has disguised himself as Christians in Humboldt County.”

And he’s right.

Do these people really believe that it pleases Jesus to pray for the death of unborn children in the womb? Or, are they just plain-out bat shit crazy? The story follows…

Life News: A local Planned Parenthood abortion business in California is copycatting the 40 Days for Life campaign, which recently resulted in saving the lives of more than 700 unborn children from abortion. The abortion business has set up its own 40 Days of Prayer for the local abortion center.

“We trust you to decide about your sexuality, having your children, and planning your family,” says a flier promoting the Humbolt County Clergy for Choice event. “We are religious leaders who value all human life. We accept that religions differ about when life begins. We are here to help.”

“We believe that human life is holy. That’s why we believe in your right to choose to be a parent or not,” the pro-abortion religious leaders continue. “It can be helpful to talk with friends you trust, with licensed counselors, and with whatever religious person you choose. Humboldt County Clergy are available to talk with you about the spiritual aspects of choice. Find out more by calling Six Rivers Planned Parenthood.”

“Humboldt County Clergy for Choice invite you to set aside time with your family and community to support women and reproductive justice for 40 days from March 18th through April 27th,” they say.

Read the rest…

END OF POST

What’s up with Fr. Corapi? – Santa Cruz Media Update…

“While we are not at liberty, at this time, to comment on the accusations against Fr. Corapi or the process of the investigation, the future will be, as Fr. Corapi said, “A New Chapter.””

After posting our announcement regarding liquidation of some of our inventory here at Santa Cruz Media, it became apparent from your many questions that a further explanation is in order. While we are not at liberty, at this time, to comment on the accusations against Fr. Corapi or the process of the investigation, the future will be, as Fr. Corapi said, “A New Chapter.” As such, Santa Cruz Media must transition into that new chapter with Fr. Corapi. He is currently working on completion of his autobiography, and we expect to launch his new web-radio broadcast, “The Black Sheep Dog” in the coming weeks. Our goal of preserving our current employees’ jobs here at Santa Cruz Media requires that we begin focusing our attention on new endeavors and that we phase out some aspects of our current operations. Sadly, this will mean that many of Fr. Corapi’s DVD and CD titles will be discontinued over the course of the next several months. Rest assured, our commitment has always been to further Fr. Corapi’s mission, and that remains unchanged.

Bobbi Ruffatto

Santa Cruz Media

40 Years Ago Today — What’s your memory of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake?

The 1971 San Fernando earthquake (also known as Sylmar earthquake) struck the San Fernando Valley near Sylmar at 6:00:55 a.m. PST on February 9, 1971, … It was 6.6 earthquake on the Richter Scale

Wow. I’ve never forgotten this moment in my life– Rosemead, California… Asleep in bed with my younger brother next to me, I woke up to the sight of the chandelier above our heads swinging viciously back and forth-up and down.. Leaping out of bed I ran out the bedroom towards the living room and front door to escape… I remember hearing my mother calling out to me as I ran by, “Get your brother!”, but I was too scared… Opening the front door to make my escape outside I witnessed a large lighted-business sign explode across the 10 freeway–It actually exploded, with sparks falling to the ground… I headed back in to get my brother… That was my first big earthquake, with many aftershocks afterwards… Crazy dangerous moment, which as I recall now, my brother slept through…

There’s a video below (Hat Tip to Helen on Facebook). Now, what was your memory of that day?

END OF POST

Siskiyou Crest National Monument: Stop Siskiyou Land Grab Coalition sponsors community Forum — February 5th at 10 a.m

Facebook Group: People Against the Siskiyou Crest National Monument

Stop Siskiyou Land Grab is a community based coalition dedicated to stopping the Siskiyou Crest National Monument.  This is our backyard.  Our property values are at stake, as well as our usage and access rights.

As residents of this region, we are well aware the SiskiyouCrest is an environmental gem.  We wholeheartedly support sound environmental stewardship, where all constituencies can have a seat at the table.  A national monument designation by the President is a sloppy executive order style creation.  In previous cases, monument designations have failed to fully reflect local community interests.  Sadly, environmental advocacy groups approach the subject from an ideological perspective above all else, often distorting the historical record on the impacts to property value and access and usage rights.

Community Forum:

Join us February 5th at 10 a.m.

Location:  Applegate Community Church at the intersection of North Applegate Road and Highway 238 (18960 North Applegate Road).  Click here for the event flyer PDF.   Feel free to print a few copies for friends.  For driving directions,click here and replace “Medford” with your town and State and click “get directions” to create a personalized route and map.

Stop Siskiyou Land Grab is a new organization.  In the near future our website will host additional information.

If you wish to contact us, email Info@StopLandGrab.Org or call us at (541) 862-1486.     .

END OF POST

New Blog: Teacher Not Teaching

From time to time I spotlight blogs I like or find helpful. Teacher Not Teaching is a new blog that I already know I’ll like, but am sure also that it will be a helpful place to visit for any teacher suffering from current budget cuts, especially in California. Here’s the first post from:

Teacher Not Teaching (Thoughts on teaching in tough economic times and who we are in the classroom and out.)

Thirty-nine months. That’s how long I have until my district, the one I’ve devoted myself to for the past eight years, formally ends my layoff package and wishes me a sad farewell. That’s a long time, but it’s perhaps not long enough to recapture the students lost to the competing charter school (read: we’ll give your kids a laptop and not require that they read anything, so come on down!), not long enough to generate jobs in a local economy of fast food, retail, and…what the heck do people do for a living here? People certainly don’t open new businesses in the 65% of retail space currently unoccupied in our small town.

Therefore, those thirty-nine months may not be enough time for my superintendent to call me one fateful morning with those words I long to hear, “I have good news. We’d like to invite you back.” However, thirty-nine months is plenty long enough to watch Bank of America politely take back my house, and to see my family migrate like modern-day Joads in the opposite direction, in search of work and a new home. Ah, California schools. Livin’ the dream.

It’s probably obvious this is my first blog, but I have time on my hands, so I thought I’d give it a try. If you are an unemployed teacher, join in! Commiserate! If you are still holding onto your job, this blog will make you appreciate your sick leave and prep period, and envy the fact that I’m blogging and not grading poorly written essays about the symbolic significance of card games in Of Mice and Men. Yes, high school English teacher; you got me. You may be surprised to find that this California teacher has just as much frustration for my union as for my administration. The “Public School Question”, like “The Woman Question” in 19th Century England is complicated, and the answers won’t be simple. But, if you’re reading this, you already knew that.

I’m currently subbing in my own district, so after fourteen years of teaching, an M.A. in Education and endless hours of meaningful curriculum development and assessment, I am reduced to taking roll, pushing “Play” on the DVD, and passing out worksheets. You know we can’t be trusted. I understand. I was once you, but now I’m just a…

Teacher Not Teaching.

END OF POST

Prop 8: Federal Decision Pending on Future of Marriage

Federal Case to Overturn Prop 8 Goes to Judge

 

This from Bill May of Catholics for the Common Good Institute followed by story:

On Wednesday, I attended the closing arguments on the federal case to overturn Prop 8. You cannot get a good idea of what really went on from media coverage, so I have provided a summary and analysis on the website at http://www.ccgaction.org/index.php?q=marriage/CA/prop8trialclosingarg.

Charles Cooper did a great job of getting key points into the record that should make it very difficult for the Judge to do anything but uphold Prop 8. Having said that, the decision could go either way. If Prop 8 is overturned, it will be immediately appealed.

I have provided clarity on the most compelling arguments, which should be helpful to you in explaining what happened to friends and family members.

As you will see, a bad discussion on this case could completely remove the definition of marriage from the realm of political debate, just as Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to abortion. This case will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court and could affect the entire nation.

As I noted at the end of the article, conversations between attorneys and the judge highlighted the great amount of confusion there is about what marriage is, and its relationship to children and parenting.

The debate is complicated by many factors, among which are the promotion of alternative families in which depriving children of mothers or fathers is considered normal, redefinition of motherhood and fatherhood as roles rather than biological realities, artificial means of procreation through IVF, and children unwittingly being reduced to objects for adult fulfillment rather than gifts of equal dignity. The fight to protect and promote marriage between a man and a woman cannot be divorced from these factors.

This continues to highlight the need for training large numbers of people in the new and very effective techniques that have been developed in conjunction with the Stand with Children strategy to promote the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society.

***********************************************************

SAN FRANCISCO, June 16, 2010 – The message delivered to Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker by Prop 8 proponents during the closing arguments at the trial to redefine marriage in San Francisco was clear. The voters have overwhelming authority and rational reasons for defining marriage between a man and a woman. The voters’ decision to pass Prop 8 cannot be overturned unless the plaintiffs negate every single claim of state interest for promoting the uniquely pervasive institution that channels procreative activity into a stable relationship.

Judge Walker noticeably stiffened in his chair as Charles Cooper, lead counsel for the defense, further stated that even if he concludes that every claim made by the plaintiffs is true, he could still not rule against Prop 8 unless he found that all of the rational reasons for protecting marriage were false. “It is a judicial tsunami they are asking you to sail into.”

Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed that people who voted for Prop 8 could only have done so “through irrational or dark motive, some animus, some kind of bigotry.” After citing myriad U.S. Supreme Court cases going back to the late 1800’s that affirmed the public interest in marriage, Cooper responded by telling the judge that the plaintiffs’ charge was “a slur on 7 million Californians It’s a slur on 70 of 108 judges who have upheld as constitutional and rational the decision of voters and legislatures to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.”

Over the course of his closing argument, Cooper was masterful at weaving in pertinent legal authorities that are not only important for this judge’s deliberations, but are most critical to have in the record for appeals likely leading to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Roe v Wade of Marriage?

At the end of his argument, Cooper took the opportunity to urge the judge to let the debate on marriage continue by upholding Prop 8. Cooper’s words were more significant than one might imagine, because if Prop 8 had failed, — or if the judge decides to overturn it and his decision is upheld –, it would be legally discriminatory to even argue that marriage between a man and a woman has a higher value to society than same-sex relationships.

As the plaintiff’s counsel rose to rebut Cooper’s argument, Judge Walker seemed to turn pensive and asked about detrimental consequences of “constitutionalizing” social change and taking it out of the “political realm,” effectively ending debate. He obscurely referred to the example of the Roe v. Wade case, without mentioning it by name, and the resulting polarization. Roe v. Wade overturned every restriction on abortion across the country and ignited shock waves that are still reverberating 37 years later. Walker suggested that overturning Prop 8 could lead to the same kind of situation that has “plagued our politics for 30 years” and could be dangerous for the future of the same-sex “marriage” movement.

Plaintiffs argued that because of discrimination against homosexuals the must be treated as a protected class requiring a stricter standard be used since the plaintiffs contention is that Prop 8 discriminates against this class of people. Cooper pointed out that for homosexuality to be a “suspect class” under the equal protection clause of the constitution, homosexuality must be immutable.

Evidence provided during the trial by one of the plaintiffs’ witnesses is that about two-thirds of lesbians change their sexual orientation at least once over the course of their lives – contradicting the immutability claim. The judge responded that discrimination based on religion is protected and religious beliefs can change, but Cooper reminded him that protection of religious beliefs is covered by the first amendment guaranteeing religious liberty creating the basis for equal protection clause.

The performance of former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olsen, the attorney who presented the closing arguments for the plaintiffs was somewhat surprising for someone who has argued a number of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. His arguments seemed very general and to be more directed toward repeating campaign-style rhetoric than legal argument. This plays well with gay “rights” communities and with the media, who enthusiastically applauded when the plaintiffs’ legal team was introduced at a closed press conference following the hearing.

Olsen argued that procreation has never been a condition for marriage and therefore it cannot be about procreation. There is much procreation taking place outside of marriage as less people are getting married and more people are cohabitating. Marriage has changed over the last 30 years, he claimed, and is breaking down on its own attempting to demonstrate that it could not be adversely effected by permitting gays and lesbians to marry. If the state’s interest were to channel people who procreate into marriage, there would be no no-fault divorce laws that channel people out of marriage. New York is the only state without no-fault divorce and it is expected to adopt it soon.

Olsen tried to equate restrictions on same-sex “marriage” to attacks on the dignity of blacks in past marriage laws, and a contention contended that withdrawing same-sex “marriage” rights contributes to stigmatizing gays. He referred to the fact that 18,000 same sex couples married during the period from May 2008, when the California Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the voters in 2000, to the date of passage of Prop 8 that November.

For some reason, Olsen felt it important to draw attention to testimony by Dr. Nancy Cott of Harvard about how slaves were denied marriage and somehow linking this with bans on interracial marriage. Olsen continued to misrepresent court decisions striking down interracial marriage barriers as a redefinition of marriage to bar racial discrimination against adults in loving relationships. Cooper, on the other hand, pointed out that the right to marry in those cases assumed marriage between men and woman as the justices pointed out was “fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race.” He noted that these restrictions “grew out of . . . white supremacist theory,” meaning these laws were about eugenics – racial purity and the procreative nature of relationships between men and women.

Olsen tried to argue that precedent for overturning Prop 8 could be found in the Lawrence v. Texas decision that overturned a law criminalizing private sexual behavior. He argued that marriage is also a private behavior. Cooper countered that Lawrence focused on a criminal statute, not a statutory privilege created by the state. Further, Cooper cited Crawford v Board of Education, a 1982 California case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rights of voters to pass an initiative to reduce state requirements for school busing to the federal standards. The national standard for marriage established in the federal law (DOMA), and by 40 states that have adopted marriage protection amendments or legislation, is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Olson also pointed to Romer v. Evans, a Colorado case on an initiative amending the state constitution to ban all legislation at any level of government that would provide any protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The U.S. Supreme Court found that there was no rational reason to adopt something so broad and overturned it on that basis. Cooper pointed out that is not the case in California. Prop 8 is very narrow and there are clear reasons for retaining the traditional definition of marriage, which the plaintiffs have not refuted.

Cooper further cited a New York Court of Appeals case upholding marriage and the Lofton v Florida upholding a ban on gay adoptions by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Both courts cited common sense alone as being sufficient as rational reasons for adopting the laws. No one knows how long it will take Judge Walker to arrive at a decision. It could be a couple of weeks or it could be several months. There is no deadline.

As a closing note, conversations between attorneys and the judge highlighted the great amount of confusion there is about what marriage is, and its relationship to children and parenting.

The debate is complicated by many factors, among which are the promotion of alternative families in which deprived of mothers or fathers is considered normal, redefinition of motherhood and fatherhood as roles rather than biological realities, artificial means of procreation through IVF, and children unwittingly being reduced to objects for adult fulfillment rather than gifts of equal dignity. The fight to protect and promote marriage between a man and a woman cannot be divorced from these factors.

This continues to highlight the need for training large numbers of people in the new and very effective techniques that have been developed in conjunction with the Stand with Children strategy to promote the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society.

  

Please support this effort with a tax-deductible donation to Catholics for the Common Good Institute.

    Or simply mail a check to:
    Catholics for the Common Good Institute
    P.O. Box 320038
    San Francisco, CA 94132

Our Lady of Guadalupe our patroness and guide, pray for us.

For the Common Good,

Bill May
Chairman, Catholics for the Common Good
415 651 4171
415 738 0421 (Fax)