Ruth Institute Blog

OK, it’s not that I’m Australian mates (born and raised right here in the good old USA, as a matter of fact) but for some reason the first two times I’ve felt motivated to post on Ruth Institute blog it’s been because of something that was happening ‘down under’ (and both times specifically in Queensland, no less).

Before, I was concerned about the vote on an initiative to liberalize the law concerning surrogate births. And now there’s a lobby group in Queensland that wants to make facebook let their members have the option of identifying themselves as ‘transgender’.

It seems the gay lobby and their supporters are determined to force us all to conform -  in terms of our language, thoughts, and behavior – with their world view. Remember how eHarmony was forced to facilitate same-sex dating on their own website?

I’ll bet nobody is taking any gay dating websites to court to make them facilitate Christian evangelism… or the efforts of organizations like Exodus International.

That’s the question Colleen Carroll Campbell asks. in reference to the recent story about a Catholic school in Colorado that denied readmission to the child of a lesbian couple. As she put it:

Boulder’s vociferous gay-rights activists mobilized to protest the priest, the parish and the Archdiocese of Denver, brandishing signs outside the church that plaintively asked: “What would Jesus do?”

For the reporters breathlessly covering the story and many Catholics, the answer was obvious. Jesus would allow the children to stay in the school. He would tell the teachers not to worry about the conflict between their duty to teach Catholic doctrine on marriage and their desire to protect the feelings of students being raised by a couple that flouted that doctrine in a particularly obvious way.

But Colleen noted a detail that seems to have been overlooked in all the breathless hoopla:

A lesbian couple in the liberal bastion of Boulder, Colo., had enrolled their children in a Catholic parish school, only to see those children denied re-enrollment once the parish priest learned of their home situation.

In other words, the children had been in the school, placed there by their legal parents, who evidently didn’t think it worth mentioning that they were living a lifestyle contrary to the very public teaching of the church. Why did they enroll their children in the school operated by a religion that very publically disapproves of homosexual practice? Have they been living in a cave? Do they really believe it is in their children’s best interests to send them to this particular school, all things considered? Here is what Archbishop Chaput has to say:

The policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves. Our schools are meant to be “partners in faith” with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.

Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced. That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents. That isn’t fair to anyone—including the wider school community. Persons who have an understanding of marriage and family life sharply different from Catholic belief are often people of sincerity and good will. They have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children.

He is assuming goodwill on the part of these two women. I hope he is correct. It is entirely possible, however, that they fully intended to create this kind of controversy. If so, they are in effect, using their children to advance a political point of view, by placing their children in a compromised situation, and daring somebody to do something about it.

The California Human Rights Amendment would define personhood to include everyone, “no matter how small.” The spiritual dynamo behind this amendment is pro-life hero, Rev. Walter Hoye. An African American pastor in Oakland, Rev. Hoye spent time in jail, because he violated the Oakland City Council’s draconian “clinic bubble law.” Rev. Hoye makes the connection between personhood, abortion and slavery better than anyone I know. Read it here.

My formal endorsement is on this page.

Go here to download your petitions.

San Diego County residents will have the chance to vote in better judges, meaning judges who will interpret the Constitution, rather than make up law as they go along. Visit Better Courts Now to find out how you can be involved. If you don’t live in San Diego County, forward this to someone who does! (You can find my video testimony on this page!)

One of my facebook buddies (actually one of our Ruth Institute alumni) is going back and forth about my post on the Washington Archdiocese from a couple of days ago. I posted a reply to them, but thought regular ruth readers might be interested in this issue.
Here is the quote from my original post:

“According to the Washington Post, at the end of civil marriage ceremonies judges will say ‘I now pronounce you legally married,’ Read more…

There seem to be a class of people who believe that any problem in the world can be solved if only there were enough condoms.

One problem with this theory is that condoms might not properly fit the pre-teen set.  The Swiss have come up with a brilliant solution.

Extra small condoms for boys as young as 12 could soon be on our shelves. Read more…

Stuart Schneiderman in this great article discusses how modern society makes the road to marriage needlessly complicated.  But here are some excellent suggestions he has for women (even women who went astray on that road) on how to navigate that road:

First suggestion: act like you respect yourself. As everyone knows, the path from Girls Gone Wild to conjugal bliss is long and arduous. I am not saying that it is impossible, just that it is very difficult. If you want to get married, do not accumulate too many experiences that you will have to live down.

Second suggestion: if you have had a bit too much fun in your past, don’t share it. It is none of his business. He does not want to hear about it. If he tells you that he wants to know, and if he swears on the Bible that he must know your past, he still does not want to hear about it.

Third suggestion: act like you respect men. If you do, most of the time they will be more than happy to be respectful toward you. And they will be far more likely to want to marry you.

Fourth suggestion: if your man is acting like a child, ask yourself whether you are treating him like a child. If you give a man most of the advantages of marriages without requiring any commitment, then you should not complain if he is happy to comply. As I said, he will not want to disappoint you.

Fifth suggestion: cultivate in yourself the virtues that you want to find in a man. If you want a man to be more responsible, be more responsible yourself. If you want a man to commit to you, honor all of your commitments to him. A woman who cannot show up on time when she swears she will do so cannot expect her man to see her as someone he can trust to honor a larger commitment.