U.S. Church Official: 'The Day May Come When We Have to Resist'

[estesbob]

So what? So are Traditionalist Catholics! For me, a “hate group” designation from the SPLC is an important “stamp of approval” that a group is doing something right.

I would be very suspicious of any conservative group that wasn’t declared a hate group by the SPLC.

 

[Tigg]

World Congress of Families is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Last time I looked there were over 1,000 names on the SPLC hate group list. Their posturing and crazy claims hold zero credibility for me.

 

[Atisor207]

The SPLC is a hate group of itself.

They designate most conservatives as hate group but not many Muslim extremist groups such as CAIR or leftist hate groups.

They are a hardcore leftist agenda-driven hate group pretending to be neutral.

Can’t wait till we get some sane leaders who stop paying attention to them.

 

[CarolNoel]

No, it won’t take that shape. They’ve gotten much more clever. They won’t be arresting and murdering priests and nuns for “being catholic.”

They will use the courts, fines and jails over time to create the appearance that they are punishing evildoers by revoking tax exemptions, prosecuting ‘hate speech’, and forcing believers out of desirable professions.

Think I’m exaggerating? Take these examples in recent years:

1. Obama Administration tried to force a religious school to rehire a teacher who was obstinately undercutting the religious teachings of her employer. Thankfully, the SC overturned it for now, but the attempt was seriously made.
2. The IL governor signed an executive order that pharmacists may not refuse to fill prescriptions for abortifacient drugs. Also overturned for now by courts, but not for a couple years in which hundreds of christians faced a crisis of faith vs livelihood.
3. The IL Catholic Charities was widely recognized as one of the best adoption agencies in the state, but was denied a license to operate AT ALL if they operated according to catholic teaching that children should not be adopted by gay couples. Note that the state has plenty of OTHER adoption agencies that gay people are free to use. Not good enough. Note that CC now can no longer even facilitate adoptions by faithful catholics. They are de-licensed.
4. If you own a medium or larger business, Obama attempted to force you to provide all your employees with insurance that pays 100% of the cost of contraception, morning after pills, IUDs and in some cases elective sterilization. Morally object to that? Too bad, you’re paying for it. Refuse and we’ll run you out of business with fines. (Apparently overturned for now, but not until thousands of business owners were forced to choose between faith and business. Admittedly, most chose business).
5. Photographers and bakers have attempted to respectfully decline to participate in gay weddings, but been sued for ‘unjust discrimination.’ It remains to be seen if courts will find any distinction between refusing to serve a PERSON and refusing to participate in an EVENT that is morally objectionable. (Personally, a reasonable compromise would be to say that a photographer may not decline to photograph two men because of who they are, but may object to photograph events he objects to. Thus, he may not refuse to photograph two men who want a ordinary portrait together, but he may refuse to photograph their wedding, just as he may refuse to take porno pictures for them. It’s the actions he may object to, not the people.)
6. Catholic Relief Services has historically been recognized as among the very best NGOs involved in providing care for refugees from war and political violence. Nevertheless, the Obama administration shut down their contract simply because they refused to be complicit in providing abortions to pregnant refugees.
7. Attempts have been made in the past (so far defeated, but for how long?) to REQUIRE doctors going into OB or family practice to participate in abortions as part of residency training. No conscience exemptions allowed. So far, pro-lifers have successfully fought back, but the NARAL types keep pushing for it because very few doctors really WANT to participate in abortions. Go figure.
8. The Mozilla CEO. The gay community got the guy fired because of his PRIVATE contributions to a political group seeking to block approval of gay marriage in CA. The message: Anybody not OK with gay sex is not welcome leading a big company. If you think that way, you better stay in the closet. Ironic…

See the pattern? They’re not going to shoot us, they are going to marginalize us and starve us out one small step at a time. All in the name of “progress,” of course.

Thanks. Very good read and very well explained.

 

[Atisor207]

No, it won’t take that shape. They’ve gotten much more clever. They won’t be arresting and murdering priests and nuns for “being catholic.”

They will use the courts, fines and jails over time to create the appearance that they are punishing evildoers by revoking tax exemptions, prosecuting ‘hate speech’, and forcing believers out of desirable professions.

Think I’m exaggerating? Take these examples in recent years:

1. Obama Administration tried to force a religious school to rehire a teacher who was obstinately undercutting the religious teachings of her employer. Thankfully, the SC overturned it for now, but the attempt was seriously made.
2. The IL governor signed an executive order that pharmacists may not refuse to fill prescriptions for abortifacient drugs. Also overturned for now by courts, but not for a couple years in which hundreds of christians faced a crisis of faith vs livelihood.
3. The IL Catholic Charities was widely recognized as one of the best adoption agencies in the state, but was denied a license to operate AT ALL if they operated according to catholic teaching that children should not be adopted by gay couples. Note that the state has plenty of OTHER adoption agencies that gay people are free to use. Not good enough. Note that CC now can no longer even facilitate adoptions by faithful catholics. They are de-licensed.
4. If you own a medium or larger business, Obama attempted to force you to provide all your employees with insurance that pays 100% of the cost of contraception, morning after pills, IUDs and in some cases elective sterilization. Morally object to that? Too bad, you’re paying for it. Refuse and we’ll run you out of business with fines. (Apparently overturned for now, but not until thousands of business owners were forced to choose between faith and business. Admittedly, most chose business).
5. Photographers and bakers have attempted to respectfully decline to participate in gay weddings, but been sued for ‘unjust discrimination.’ It remains to be seen if courts will find any distinction between refusing to serve a PERSON and refusing to participate in an EVENT that is morally objectionable. (Personally, a reasonable compromise would be to say that a photographer may not decline to photograph two men because of who they are, but may object to photograph events he objects to. Thus, he may not refuse to photograph two men who want a ordinary portrait together, but he may refuse to photograph their wedding, just as he may refuse to take porno pictures for them. It’s the actions he may object to, not the people.)
6. Catholic Relief Services has historically been recognized as among the very best NGOs involved in providing care for refugees from war and political violence. Nevertheless, the Obama administration shut down their contract simply because they refused to be complicit in providing abortions to pregnant refugees.
7. Attempts have been made in the past (so far defeated, but for how long?) to REQUIRE doctors going into OB or family practice to participate in abortions as part of residency training. No conscience exemptions allowed. So far, pro-lifers have successfully fought back, but the NARAL types keep pushing for it because very few doctors really WANT to participate in abortions. Go figure.
8. The Mozilla CEO. The gay community got the guy fired because of his PRIVATE contributions to a political group seeking to block approval of gay marriage in CA. The message: Anybody not OK with gay sex is not welcome leading a big company. If you think that way, you better stay in the closet. Ironic…

See the pattern? They’re not going to shoot us, they are going to marginalize us and starve us out one small step at a time. All in the name of “progress,” of course.

Excellent

 

[mdgspencer]

I suspect this is another Father Guarnizio. The other Father Guarnizio (who denied communion to a lesbian Buddhist in a Washington, D.C. parish) was actually a European, news reports said, and he was not from Virginia.

Yes, I recognized the name. The reason he was removed is unclear, although the timing did raise concerns that was related to his denial of communion to a lesbian (and the ensuing public controversy.)

I haven’t heard about what happened after the dust settled, and I am still not sure how Fr. Guarnizio has been occupied. Other than being a priest, I don’t understand how the title of the article can describe him as a “US Church Official.” The text of the news article mentions he is “an ambassador of the World Congress of Families.” However, the WCF is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. It is an endeavor of the Howard Center, a non-profit think tank created by a couple conservative activists.

The Dignitatis Humanae Institute is not affiliated with the Catholic Church, either. Although Church officials did speak at its conference, not everyone who attends a conference organized by DHI is a Church official, or (for that matter) even necessarily Catholic. The organization describes itself as “Catholic-insprired” think tank which is ecumenical.

I mention all of this since the news article presents the views of Fr. Guarnizio as deserving special attention. This raises the question as how he is employed in the Church and what his duties are.

 

[larsont7]

I suspect this is another Father Guarnizio. The other Father Guarnizio (who denied communion to a lesbian Buddhist in a Washington, D.C. parish) was actually a European, news reports said, and he was not from Virginia.

No, it is the same Fr. Marcel Guarnizo.

 

[mdgspencer]

I see you are right. I went on google images and the photos show it is the same priest.

No, it is the same Fr. Marcel Guarnizo.

 

[JimG]

A bit of a tangent, but when I saw this thread about talk of resistance to a radically secular and anti-Christian government, it reminded me of the war in the Vendee during the French Revolution. It seems to me that it is often the case that there is no more fiercely anti-Catholic government than one which is militantly secularist, as was the case with the French revolutionaries, and is increasingly the case in our own time.

The French revolutionaries wished to destroy the Church; it confiscated Church property, made priests into civil servants and required them to take an oath to the state, which most refused. The Catholics in the Vendee region found the attacks on their Church increasingly intolerable, and began an armed resistance, which was remarkably successful for a time.

But in the end, the government declared a scorched earth policy, massacring some 20,000 to 50,000 Vendee civilians in revenge for the uprising. Following that, cloistered Carmelite nuns were beheaded by guillotine in Paris. Why? Because they were nuns, and therefore charged with fanaticism.

Great attempts were made to suppress religious liberty in France. At some point, it was realized that religious liberty could not be suppressed indefinitely without continued uprisings.

Could we reach that point? Maybe so.

 

[Phaedra777]

No, it won’t take that shape. They’ve gotten much more clever. They won’t be arresting and murdering priests and nuns for “being catholic.”

They will use the courts, fines and jails over time to create the appearance that they are punishing evildoers by revoking tax exemptions, prosecuting ‘hate speech’, and forcing believers out of desirable professions.

Think I’m exaggerating? Take these examples in recent years:

1. Obama Administration tried to force a religious school to rehire a teacher who was obstinately undercutting the religious teachings of her employer. Thankfully, the SC overturned it for now, but the attempt was seriously made.
2. The IL governor signed an executive order that pharmacists may not refuse to fill prescriptions for abortifacient drugs. Also overturned for now by courts, but not for a couple years in which hundreds of christians faced a crisis of faith vs livelihood.
3. The IL Catholic Charities was widely recognized as one of the best adoption agencies in the state, but was denied a license to operate AT ALL if they operated according to catholic teaching that children should not be adopted by gay couples. Note that the state has plenty of OTHER adoption agencies that gay people are free to use. Not good enough. Note that CC now can no longer even facilitate adoptions by faithful catholics. They are de-licensed.
4. If you own a medium or larger business, Obama attempted to force you to provide all your employees with insurance that pays 100% of the cost of contraception, morning after pills, IUDs and in some cases elective sterilization. Morally object to that? Too bad, you’re paying for it. Refuse and we’ll run you out of business with fines. (Apparently overturned for now, but not until thousands of business owners were forced to choose between faith and business. Admittedly, most chose business).
5. Photographers and bakers have attempted to respectfully decline to participate in gay weddings, but been sued for ‘unjust discrimination.’ It remains to be seen if courts will find any distinction between refusing to serve a PERSON and refusing to participate in an EVENT that is morally objectionable. (Personally, a reasonable compromise would be to say that a photographer may not decline to photograph two men because of who they are, but may object to photograph events he objects to. Thus, he may not refuse to photograph two men who want a ordinary portrait together, but he may refuse to photograph their wedding, just as he may refuse to take porno pictures for them. It’s the actions he may object to, not the people.)
6. Catholic Relief Services has historically been recognized as among the very best NGOs involved in providing care for refugees from war and political violence. Nevertheless, the Obama administration shut down their contract simply because they refused to be complicit in providing abortions to pregnant refugees.
7. Attempts have been made in the past (so far defeated, but for how long?) to REQUIRE doctors going into OB or family practice to participate in abortions as part of residency training. No conscience exemptions allowed. So far, pro-lifers have successfully fought back, but the NARAL types keep pushing for it because very few doctors really WANT to participate in abortions. Go figure.
8. The Mozilla CEO. The gay community got the guy fired because of his PRIVATE contributions to a political group seeking to block approval of gay marriage in CA. The message: Anybody not OK with gay sex is not welcome leading a big company. If you think that way, you better stay in the closet. Ironic…

See the pattern? They’re not going to shoot us, they are going to marginalize us and starve us out one small step at a time. All in the name of “progress,” of course.

Thank you for this, and your other post. You have summed it up perfectly and saved the rest of us like-minded individuals a lot of typing. I DO wish this site had a “like” button.

 

[larsont7]

Not an evil country, just wrong at that time. We lived and learned and moved on.

How does making the sin of sodomy a crime make us wrong as a nation? We did not live and learn; we caved into the gay lobby’s agenda little by little to the point where it will soon be against the law for Catholics to vocally oppose the gay lifestyle. I don’t see how a faithful Catholic can reconcile being loyal to the Church and also in support of sodomy. Does…not…compute.

 

[mikekle]

we caved into the gay lobby’s agenda little by little to the point where it will soon be against the law for Catholics to vocally oppose the gay lifestyle. .

This is going to happen sooner than most people think!!! It will be interesting to see how churches address this and what they instruct people to do.

 

[St_Francis]

World Congress of Families is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I know many on this site dismiss their findings but having clergy be involved with these groups sends a very bad message in my opinion. WCF actually advocate criminalization of homosexuality overseas, that’s something only an extremist group would do. They are clearly more anti-gay then they are pro-marriage.

This isn’t nearly as bad as Archbishop Cordileone getting involved with the National Organization for Marriage since he is a leader in the Church but it still makes us look bad when he is presented as a “U.S. Church Official” (where did that title come from anyway?).

What are the SPLC criteria for being a hate group? This is all i could find on their site:
All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.

 

[Tigg]

Unless your faith is firm you shall not be firm!
(From today’s reading)

 

[J_Peterson]

What are the SPLC criteria for being a hate group? This is all i could find on their site:
All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.

I don’t know the criteria but I believe that the WCF fit the bill. They clearly don’t love gay people, and do everything they can to marginalize them around the world. That sounds like hate to me. Here is a blog from the Human Rights Campaign. I know most here don’t like them either but they make a good case against the WCF. Whatever you feelings are with regards to gay rights, the Catholic Church should not be aligning ourselves with these types of groups. I am still offended that this priest was called a “U.S. Church official”. These people are extremists.

hrc.org/blog/entry/op-ed

 

[FollowChrist34]

What are the SPLC criteria for being a hate group? This is all i could find on their site:
All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.

That sounds like a good secular liberal’s take on Catholic teaching on homosexuality. How do we monitor the hate groups monitoring the hate groups? - is anybody on that?

 

[markomalley]

That sounds like a good secular liberal’s take on Catholic teaching on homosexuality. How do we monitor the hate groups monitoring the hate groups? - is anybody on that?

“Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.

- CDF​

Of course, none of that matters…

 

[Dawnia]

Last time I looked there were over 1,000 names on the SPLC hate group list. Their posturing and crazy claims hold zero credibility for me.

The FBI website has a much more accurate list of “hate” groups. Ones that actually intend to do harm to others. Not just saying things in opposition to the latest political craze.

 

[mikekle]

What are the SPLC criteria for being a hate group? This is all i could find on their site:
All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.

Well, if the list did not imply a group engages in criminal acts or violence, then why is the FBI in charge of the list? LOL Why is not some other non-law enforcement agency keeping track of this list? That seems better imo anyway, I dont think the FBI is a good agency to put in charge of something like this, sends the wrong message.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, if the list did not imply a group engages in criminal acts or violence, then why is the FBI in charge of the list? LOL Why is not some other non-law enforcement agency keeping track of this list? That seems better imo anyway, I dont think the FBI is a good agency to put in charge of something like this, sends the wrong message.

The FBI has a different list, not the one I was referring to. The FBI’s list is one of groups likely to commit a crime, as opposed to the list of the SPLC, which just lists group which disagree with the SPLC.

I used to go to the SPLC site to see if thet would ever list the group Act-Up, an activist homosexual group which would disrupt and damage Catholic churches. Never found them there