LifeSiteNews (LSN) has spoken to several people who attend Mass at St. Louis parish who are upset with the situation, but who do not wish to be named out of concern of a reaction from St. Louis pastor, Fr. Larry Covington.  One parishioner, however, John O’Sullivan, was willing to speak publicly.  O’Sullivan told LSN that although he has much respect for the Jewish community, he is devastated over the participation of the Planned Parenthood Rabbi.

“Rabbi Freedman is a total heartbreak for me,” said O’Sullivan, a long-time member of the St. Louis parish.  “He is sitting on the board of Planned Parenthood that is opposed to life in the womb, and I’m so much for respect for life.” The elderly parishioner added, “As long as I’m around I will speak up for the unborn.”

LSN attempted to interview Fr. Covington by phone but was directed to email questions instead.  In an e-mail sent to the pastor, LSN informed him that Rabbi Freedman is a leader at Planned Parenthood and asked if the pastor approved of the rabbi’s speaking at the Church.

In his email response, Fr. Covington refused to address the question of Rabbi Freedman, instead saying only that he, the Jewish community and the majority of his parishioners were pleased with the church’s “outreach.”

Fr. Covington said that the “parish’s hospitality to Temple Beth Shalom for the celebration of the Jewish High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur” was undertaken with the “permission of the diocesan Bishop.”

But a spokesman for Austin Bishop Joe Vásquez told LSN that the bishop was not made aware of Rabbi Freedman’s affiliation with Planned Parenthood prior to approving the use of the Church for the Jewish services.

Msgr. Mike Sis, Vicar General of the Diocese of Austin, told LSN, “Bishop Vásquez was installed as the fifth bishop of Austin in March of this year.  He was only recently made aware of who Rabbi Alan Freedman is and did not know of his affiliations until a few days ago.”

“Earlier this summer, Bishop Vásquez was informed that for the purpose of offering interreligious hospitality, St. Louis Parish would open its doors to Temple Beth Shalom (Austin, Texas), which did not have a place large enough to celebrate its high holy days,” explained Msgr. Sis.

“Now that Bishop Vásquez is aware of the associations of this particular rabbi, he will be in dialogue with his advisers and with Father Larry Covington, pastor of St. Louis, to determine what course of action might be appropriate in future years.  Since our Jewish brothers and sisters are presently in the midst of their high holy days, the parish will, for this year, honor its commitment to the community of Temple Beth Shalom and will allow them to use the facilities of St. Louis on Yom Kippur,” he concluded.

Despite refusing to address the matter of Rabbi Freedman, Fr. Covington did respond to a question about the concerns of his parishioners. “To answer your questions about parishioner’s who may be upset at this, I find it surprising that none of them have said anything of this to me or to members of the Parish Council,” he said.  “This would lead me to believe that the information you have received may not be accurate and that its source is outside of this parish community.”

Asked about this, O’Sullivan told LSN that he had scheduled a meeting with Fr. Covington to discuss the matter.  The meeting was to take place today, September 15, but Fr. Covington delayed the meeting till after the event in dispute takes place.  O’Sullivan noted that the parish secretary also informed him that Fr. Covington noted that Rabbi Freedman would not be discussed at the meeting.

In addition to the matter of the Planned Parenthood Rabbi, some of the Catholics interviewed were disturbed by the prominence given to the Jewish ceremonies over the Catholic Mass.

When the first such event took place at St. Louis Church last year, the church was transformed into a non-Catholic worship space.  The altar was decked with apparel for the Jewish ritual, the tabernacle was covered, Catholic statues were removed and the Stations of the Cross covered.

O’Reilly asked Beck, “Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?” Beck replied, “No, I don’t,” adding sarcastically, “Will the gays come and get us?”

After being pressed again on the question, Beck said, “I believe — I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?”  Showing his own surprise, O’Reilly remarked, “Okay, so you don’t. That’s interesting. Because I don’t think a lot of people understand that about you.”

The Glenn Beck revelation comes on the heels of two other startling announcements by conservative celebrity pundits in the last couple of weeks.  Earlier this week it was announced that conservative pundit Ann Coulter would headline a fundraiser for the homosexual activist group within the Republican Party, GOProud.  And on July 29, although his position had been revealed before, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh again came out in favor of homosexual civil unions, while being opposed to same-sex ‘marriage.’

To be fair, it must be pointed out that Beck said he was looking at the ‘big picture’ and promoting faith, the answer to all such things.  Moreover, he added that he was okay with gay ‘marriage’ with a caveat.  “As long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. If they can still say, hey, we oppose it,” he said.

But even to have suggested, as strongly as he did, that he was not opposed to gay ‘marriage’ is detrimental and demonstrates a ‘small picture’ approach.

Beck seems like a good guy. He’s thoughtful.  He’s right on many matters in the culture war.  For instance, when O’Reilly followed up and asked if Beck thought abortion threatened the United States, Beck replied dramatically in the affirmative.  “Abortion is killing, it’s killing, you’re killing someone,” he said.

So I thought it’d be worth it to calmly and persuasively share concerns with Beck on his approach.  He may not read my email, but I’m sure if enough pro-family folks were to get the message to him, he’d reconsider his outlook.

Here’s Beck’s email: me@glennbeck.com

And here’s the gist of what I wrote:

Laws teach people what is right and wrong and thus homosexual acts will implicitly be given the stamp of approval where such legal recognition is granted.  The young will be given the false impression that this behavior is safe and acceptable, or even good.

Society has a duty to legally recognize and support married couples since they are, through procreation, the source for the continuation of human life and thus society itself.  Homosexual couples cannot properly procreate and thus have no such claim to societal recognition.

The question is not so much about marriage, but about homosexual acts.  The acts are harmful to the individuals who engage in them. They are harmful physically, emotionally and spiritually.

With regard to persons engaged in such behavior or identifying with it, there must never be unjust discrimination.  All gay bashing, name-calling and the like should be condemned.  However, there must be discrimination on this front, a just discrimination, to preserve societal recognition for marriage between one man and one woman.

Limbaugh’s stance is common among conservatives, but is nonetheless misguided and will inevitably lead to the redefinition of marriage.

The question is not so much about marriage, but about homosexual acts.  The acts are harmful to the individuals who engage in them. They are harmful physically, emotionally and spiritually.

Suggesting that one would oppose same-sex ‘marriage’ but support same-sex civil unions sends the wrong message to those engaging in the destructive behavior.  Such a compromise undermines the central issue in that it would demonstrate a lack of concern for those participating in homosexual activity.

Moving from tolerance of homosexual activity to legal recognition is a serious matter.  Laws teach people what is right and wrong and thus homosexual acts will implicitly be given the stamp of approval where such legal recognition is granted.  The young will be given the false impression that this behavior is safe and acceptable, or even good.

Society has a duty to legally recognize and support married couples since they are, through procreation, the source for the continuation of human life and thus society itself.  Homosexual couples cannot properly procreate and thus have no such claim to societal recognition.

Then comes the common objection: “But what about IVF? Can’t homosexual couples procreate that way?”  IVF is, however, in addition to being destructive of human life with countless human embryos lost in the process, unhealthy for the egg donor and the child conceived.  Moreover, it deprives the child the right to be conceived in the loving sexual union of a husband and wife.  Most poignantly, it deprives the child of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood.

In the final analysis, Limbaugh and all conservatives who advocate for homosexual civil unions are themselves dealing the death-knell for the true definition of marriage.  Legal recognition of homosexual civil unions will inevitably (and has in many jurisdictions) lead to homosexual ‘marriage.’

The only way to preserve marriage is to confront the struggle at its root – to warn of the dangers of homosexual acts: their dangers to society and to children, but especially to those engaged in such behaviors.

With regard to persons engaged in such behavior or identifying with it, there must never be unjust discrimination.  All gay bashing, name-calling and the like should be condemned.  However, there must be discrimination on this front, a just discrimination, to preserve societal recognition for marriage between one man and one woman.

A media frenzy erupted in May after Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted announced the automatic excommunication of a nun who contributed to the decision to go ahead with the procedure. The nun in question, Sister Margaret McBride, had claimed that the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother, who was suffering from pulmonary hypertension.

However, while various media gave the impression that pulmonary hypertension is a condition where abortion would be curative, Catholic medical experts pointed out that this is not the case.

In fact, neonatologist Dr. Paul Byrne explained to LifeSiteNews that with pulmonary hypertension, an abortion, although it may relieve some of the stress on the heart, may also make the situation worse due to the stress of the abortion procedure. Dr. Byrne also explained that the literature on the condition indicates that there have been successful interventions for pregnant women with pulmonary hypertension that have enabled both mother and child to survive.

In its statement, the USCCB Committee presents two scenarios that distinguish “between medical procedures that cause direct abortions,” which it says are “never morally permissible,” and those “that may indirectly result in the death of an unborn child,” which in certain extreme situations can be permissible.

The first scenario – that involving an illicit direct abortion – approximates the situation at the Phoenix Catholic hospital.

“In the first scenario, a pregnant woman is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently as a result of the added burden of pregnancy. The doctor recommends an abortion to protect the health of the woman.”  The abortion, according to the example, “is likely to improve the functioning of the organ or organs, but only in an indirect way, i.e., by lessening the overall demands placed upon the organ or organs, since the burden posed by the pregnancy will be removed.”

Although the bishops admit that in the scenario “the abortion is the means by which a reduced strain upon the organ or organs is achieved,” they nevertheless explain that this amounts to “direct abortion” and is “never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means.”

“The surgery directly targets the life of the unborn child. It is the surgical instrument in the hands of the doctor that causes the child’s death. The surgery does not directly address the health problem of the woman, for example, by repairing the organ that is malfunctioning,” they explain.

In the second scenario they present a case where a surgery to save the life of the mother can be legitimate even if it causes the death of an unborn child.

“In the second scenario, a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus. The doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent the spread of the cancer. Removing the uterus will also lead to the death of the unborn child, who cannot survive at this point outside the uterus,” explains the document.

“The second scenario describes a situation in which an urgently-needed medical procedure indirectly and unintentionally (although foreseeably) results in the death of an unborn child. In this case the surgery directly addresses the health problem of the woman, i.e., the organ that is malfunctioning (the cancerous uterus). The woman’s health benefits directly from the surgery, because of the removal of the cancerous organ. The surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child.”

While the Bishops Committee document does not discuss excommunication, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”

See the full USCCB document here.

The dilemma is similar to that which social liberals face when deciding whether to vote for a Christian politician.

A social liberal would be willing, and even happy, to vote for a nominal/dissenting Christian politician.  Such a politician would actually only weaken the example of authentic Christianity, especially if the religious leadership does not reprimand him or her.  For the social liberal, such a Christian could be seen as an heroic pioneer to steer Christianity to what they perceive as a more enlightened position.

So too, a social conservative would be willing to vote for a politician with admitted homosexual inclinations, but who chooses to refrain from acting on those desires, knowing homosexual acts to be unnatural, unhealthy and immoral. Such individuals would, by upholding the truth on human sexuality, undermine the propaganda which suggests that aberrant sexuality is normal and healthy. Electing such an individual would thus be acceptable.

We should always keep in mind that in electing individuals to public office, we are indeed electing an exemplar for the populace.  Public officials are looked up to by those whom they represent and are often made into role models for school children.

Beyond this, politicians influence other politicians.  Imagine how difficult it would have been as a pro-family politician in Iceland to vote against same-sex ‘marriage’ when the prime minister is herself an active lesbian.

The disagreements between pro-family and homosexualist forces are far-reaching, to the degree that a laissez-faire political coexistence is not possible.

One side views those who oppose same-sex “marriage” as bigoted and discriminatory, even “haters,” for refusing societal and legal recognition of “loving relationships.”

The other side views acceptance of homosexual behavior as the promotion of a deadly behavior that results in shattered lives, a broken culture and spiritual peril.

Both sides of the debate are locked in a struggle for the hearts and souls of their peers.

For the homosexual activist, mere tolerance is never enough. The goal is full acceptance of homosexuality. The push for homosexualist education in school, accompanied by restrictions on parents withdrawing their children from offensive classes gives clear evidence of this fact.

For the pro-family activist the goals are similarly broad. The aim is not simply to passively have others “do whatever they want” as long as they do so privately – in the proverbial “closet” – but to have the destructive behaviors recognized for the dangers they represent, to assist individuals to resist the disordered urges, and to have children spared corrupting examples and the deprivation of not having a mother or father – both effects of homosexual parenting.

This is not to deny that there is some common ground among the disparate factions. Both sides of the issue can support the effort to end “gay bashing” – the physical assaults against and taunting of persons identifying as or perceived to be homosexual.  Both sides agree there is no place for such brutality in civilized society.

All persons regardless of sexual orientation have human dignity and as such are deserving of equal respect. Such assaults are in fact fuel for the homosexual activist movement, rather than an effective method of combating its efforts.

Therefore, when pro-family advocates oppose electing practicing and openly gay politicians, it is not because of a baseless or irrational phobia of a different sexual orientation. Rather, it’s because of a clear-headed recognition of what results from exalting an individual who not only engages in, but is proud of his or her destructive behavior.

“We see McDonald’s decision to backhand hundreds of millions of traditional family values people,” Bill Johnson, President of the American Decency Association, told LifeSiteNews, “and align themselves with promoting the godless behavior of a few.”

In the add, a boy sitting in McDonald’s receives a call from his lover while his father orders a meal.  He tells his lover that he was thinking about him, and that he misses him, before he hangs up because his father is coming.

After his father sits down next to him, his father tells him that it is a shame that he is in an all-male class, because otherwise he would be able to get all the girls.

This is not McDonald’s first homosexualist activism.  In 2008, McDonalds paid $20,000 dollars to become an official “organizational ally and corporate partner” of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

In the same year, McDonald’s also helped sponsor the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade; Richard Ellis, vice president of communications for McDonald’s USA, was also appointed to the board of directors of the NGLCC.

Yet because of a boycott started by the American Family Association on July 3rd of that year, Richard Ellis left the board of the NGLCC and McDonald’s said that it did not plan to renew its membership with the NGLCC.

Bill Johnson called the new television spot “one of the most bewildering kinds of advertisements when you consider the fact that so many Americans across this country have done business with McDonald’s.”

He said that they were “testing, testing once again the marketplace, by running obvious[ly] pro-gay ads,” despite their previous conflict with pro-family activists.

Contact info for McDonald’s:

Andrew J. McKenna, President
McDonald’s Corporation USA
McDonald’s Plaza
Oak Brook, IL  60523
Phone: 1-800-244-6227
or: 630-623-3000
Fax: 630-623-5004
Website email

McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited
McDonald’s Place
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M3C 3L4
Ph: (416) 443-3932
Fax: (416) 446-3443

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America was not surprised by President Obama’s actions. “Obama is consistent,” Wright told LifeSiteNews. “He takes the side that is short-sighted, harmful to individuals and society, and focused on self. He sides with those demanding that the innocent be discriminated against and the immoral celebrated. He is consistently wrong on moral issues.”

Signed on May 28, Obama’s proclamation boasts that across his Administration “openly LGBT employees are serving at every level.”

The proclamation outlines Obama’s policy agendas for the promotion of homosexuality. He declares,

• “we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.”
• “We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring Federal employees receive equal benefits.”
• “I am also committed to ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ so patriotic LGBT Americans can serve openly in our military, and I am working with the Congress and our military leadership to accomplish that goal.”

The first proclamation of National Sanctity of Human Life Day was made by in 1984 by President Ronal Reagan and repeated annually.  The tradition was continued by President George H. W. Bush, suspended during the eight year term of President Bill Clinton, and resumed under President George W. Bush.

The message speaks of the “devastating aftermath of abortion” and notes that “millions of unborn babies have been eliminated by abortion since 1969.”  Abortion has “destroyed countless innocent lives and deeply scarred women, men, and children from all walks of life, leaving our society deeply wounded,” says COLF.

COLF warns further that, “Just as abortion intensified its assault on the most innocent members of our society over 40 years ago, the potential legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide now threatens the lives of countless vulnerable persons across the country.”

The message refers to assisted suicide and euthanasia as “inhuman practices.”

The message addresses Catholics and all Canadians, saying, “On the occasion of the March for Life, let us commit ourselves to renewing our civilization through acts of love.”

“It is important,” says the message, “to show our love not only for the unborn child, but also for the frightened mother who considers abortion as a last resort, the silenced partner who can do nothing but watch as his child is taken from him, and the misguided doctor who perverts his or her gift of healing by destroying life.”

The bishops’ message urges political action to “continue to fight for the rights of the unborn.”

The March for Life message concludes by discrediting the notion that abortion and assisted suicide are all about “individual choice.”  In reality, it says, “the decision to participate in any one of these life-destroying acts affects not only the individual, but also his or her family and friends, and their entire community … the entire social network that upholds our society.”

Meanwhile, a group of lay Catholics in the archdiocese has revealed communications that they have had with the Vatican regarding an alleged gay cabal of priests that the group claims is veritably running the archdiocese, and suggests that this situation is the real cause of the early retirement. The group says that the Vatican has investigated its claims, and found them to be well-founded.

The archbishop’s April 20 resignation notice ran simply, “I was permitted to tender my resignation and I receive the Holy Father’s blessing in accord with canon 401, § 2.

“While I reiterate that I still enjoy good health, I also recognize that I no longer have the stamina and spirit of earlier years. Moreover, I recognize that the current challenges facing the Archdiocese now could benefit from new eyes and fresh insights and energies.”

However, Eric Guinta, one of the researchers that formed the group Christifidelis, a lay “watchdog” organization in the diocese, says that the sudden retirement is almost certainly the consequence of a document that his group submitted to the Vatican in 2006. That document was “an exhaustive report (hundreds of pages of text, documentation, and eye witness accounts) detailing and documenting” what he calls a “culture of sodomy and theological heterodoxy” on the part of as many as a majority of priests of the Miami Archdiocese.

Guinta reports that Sharon Baroussa, an attorney and a member of Christifidelis, represented a priest, Rev. Andrew Dowgiert, in a lawsuit filed against the archdiocese in 2005. “Fr. Dowgiert, on loan from a Polish archdiocese and soon to be incardinated in Miami, alleged that he was ‘fired’ from active ministry in the Miami Archdiocese after whistle-blowing on homosexual activity by several pastors of the Archdiocese,” he says.

That lawsuit served as the launchpad for the investigations during which Christifidelis gathered the information that it included in its lengthy report submitted to the Vatican.

Guinta says that after the group submitted its report on the alleged corruption in the Miami archdiocese, Baroussa, “was contacted by a Vatican monsignor, who met with her in person and assured her that the Holy See would be investigating each and every one of the allegations presented in the report.”  He adds that in the fall of 2006, “this monsignor contacted her again, informing her that our allegations had all been vindicated, and that Rome was going to act on the report.”

With the early retirement of Archbishop Favalora, claims Guinta, “Rome has finally acted, and in doing so has vindicated” the faithful Catholics who in exposing the scandals, “suffered tremendous persecution and ostracization for defending the integrity of the Catholic Church’s doctrine, liturgy, and moral witness.”

See Guinta’s full report here.

Speaking by telephone, leading pro-life Congressman Chris Smith told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that Clinton’s abortion push was “outrageous.” Particularly in a discussion of maternal and child health, said Smith the abortion push is ”bewildering.” “Abortion is, by definition, infant mortality,” he said.  He noted that in addition to “killing children,” abortion harms mothers; he pointed out that hundreds of studies have found harmful psychological and physical consequences associated with abortion.

Congressman John Flemming from Louisiana, told LSN that he was “not surprised that the socialist liberal pro-abortion forces of the Democrat Party are working not only in the United States to advance abortion and the numbers of abortions but also to export that to other countries.”  Fleming, a physician for over 30 years, added: “The fact that life begins at conception, is not above my pay grade, and abortion is not health care but the taking of life.”

Kansas Republican Todd Tiahrt is the Ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, through which all funding requests for healthcare spending must pass.  He was the sponsor of the still-in-effect 1999 Tiahrt Amendment, which prevents American foreign aid from going to forced abortions, sterilizations or contraceptives.

Tiahrt told LSN that a strong majority of Americans oppose government funding of abortion.  Therefore, he suggests that Clinton “is speaking contrary to American culture and American thought.”

Iowa Congressman Steve King concurred as he told LSN, “Congress has spoken and 64 Democrats and every Republican voted to block funding of abortion both foreign and domestic.  …  Funding abortions overseas violates the will of Congress and the American people.  Secretary Clinton’s pro-abortion beliefs are causing her to misrepresent U.S. policy.”

In the Canadian House of Commons today, Liberal politicians pounced on the fact that Clinton’s insistence on abortion in the plan was backed by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.  Liberal MP Bob Rae said, “What was supposed to be the Canadian signature initiative on maternal health has been described as completely inadequate by the two major allies … both the United States and the United Kingdom.” Rae added: “I wonder if the Prime Minister can explain how such a major diplomatic setback could be occurring in the build up to the G8, which Canada is hosting.”

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose Conservative colleague yesterday blasted Clinton’s interference in Canadian politics, responded by implying that Canadians, rather than the British or Americans, would decide on the matter of promoting abortion or not.  Referring to the abortion G8 push broadly as “foreign aid priorities,” he said, “it is Canada and Canadians who will make Canadian decisions.”