Seriously, that’s supposed to be a real question, Kyra Phillips? That a Catholic bishop should just chuck 2,000 years of tradition and the teachings of Christ because a minority of people who claim to be Catholic have abandoned the true meaning of marriage?

And, by the way, Bishop Malone is not simply “changing tactics” in his efforts to educate the people of Maine about marriage, he’s expanding and deepening the educational effort — launching a website, for instance, dedicated to the beauty of marriage.

The media has been trying to create this false narrative that Bishop Malone and the diocese of Portland is backing off of its commitment to protect marriage. Bishop Malone sets Kyra Phillips straight on that, too:

Phillips: So, Bishop, let me ask me – ask you. You know, this plan of action has changed quite drastically since 2009, you know, where you had very active campaign. And now you’re moving toward education and putting funds towards that. Are you softening your stance on same-sex marriage?

Bishop Malone: Not at all. It will be even stronger and more vigorous. One of our discoveries in 2009 was that really, many of our Catholic people in Maine could use a bit more profound understanding of how the church has understood marriage for 2,000 years. So, I decided, while we will certainly be in close contact with our allies who will lead the political battle, we intend to focus on the education and formation of consciences of our people.

Bravo, bishop! We’ve got your back.

As for Kyra, quick question: when are you going to ask a pro-abortion faith leader if they’re going to change their views in favor of abortion because a large number of their congregation is pro-life?

Oh that’s right — never, I bet.

Ph/t: NewsBusters

Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J.

There was lots of reaction to the news reports of “The Vatican” supposedly endorsing the creation of a world centralized bank. CatholicLane.com has an article by Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican in which he implores people to actually read the text of the document. http://cvote.to/6I George Weigel says it’s “rubbish” to compare the Vatican to Occupy Wall Street. http://cvote.to/6J But Thomas Peters says that’s exactly what Fr. Reese was implying. http://cvote.to/6L Bill Donohue notes that the terms “supranational Authority” and “supranational Institution” are neologisms that did not appear in the latest Papal encyclical. http://cvote.to/6M Tom Hoopes says this Pontifical Council’s report also recognized Pope Benedict’s emphasis on subsidiarity. http://cvote.to/6N Samuel Gregg wonders why a global central bank wouldn’t have the same problems that a European central bank has. http://cvote.to/6K

Rick Perry is planning a re-boot of his floundering campaign with the unveiling of his flat tax plan on income. The plan sets the income tax at 20% and keeps both the mortgage deduction and the charitable deductions. It increases the standard deduction for individuals and each dependents at $12,500. That would mean a family of four would pay no income tax on their first $50,000. Every dollar above that would be taxed at 20%. The corporate tax would also fall to 20%. Perry pitched the plan in the Wall Street Journal. http://cvote.to/6O

And yet, just as he is focusing on re-booting his campaign, Rick Perry chats up the “birther” talk. Reporter John Harwood said: “In [a] CNBC interview, Perry tells me why he kept Obama birther issue alive: ‘It’s a good issue to keep alive. It’s fun to poke at him.’” http://cvote.to/6W Uh, maybe that’s a joke suited for the White House Correspondents Dinner but not the campaign trail. Perry better not take the birther issue seriously or his campaign is toast.

Quote of the Day

“We are now enemies of the State … We all know what the power of the state can do to its enemies.” – Ed Mechmann, at the Archdiocese of New York’s blog, commenting on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s calling opponents of same-sex “marriage” as anti-American. http://cvote.to/6Q

Notes:

I promised you the interview with Sen. George LeMieux yesterday. But the news cycle yesterday involving the Vatican prevented that. So, Lord willing, I’ll post it this afternoon.

Christine Schilling will soon be blogging here at CatholicVote.org. Christine is a mother of ten and is married to Rep. Bobby Schilling, R-IL. Stay tuned!

Other articles of interest:

Yuck: A Canadian music station launched a “Win a Baby” contest, offering to pay $35,000 in fertility treatments to a winning couple. http://cvote.to/6R

Pope Benedict XVI proclaims three saints, saying their lives demonstrated that true faith is charity in action. http://cvote.to/6S

Media watchdog Brent Bozell says ABC should report on the widespread anti-Semitism found at Occupy Wall Street protests. http://cvote.to/6T

In New Hampshire, the House Judiciary Committee is set to vote on a bill restoring marriage as a union of one man and one woman. http://cvote.to/6V

Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston denounced an effort to get physician-assisted suicide on the Massachusetts ballot. “We hope the citizens of the Commonwealth will not be seduced by language [such as] dignity and compassion, which are means to disguise the sheer brutality of helping people to kill themselves,” said O’Malley. http://cvote.to/3i Here are some links from the Massachusetts Catholic Conference for those interested in more information. http://cvote.to/3j Supporters of euthanasia need 70,000 signatures to get it presented for action and the Legislature would either vote on the measure or send it to the ballot box for citizens to vote on the measure.

The National Abortion Federation cheered a recent NPR story on abortion doctors and linked the story on their Facebook page. But NPR’s Ombudsman, Edward Schumacher-Matos, was upset about the story, slamming the news agency for using the loaded term “abortion doctor.” Does this mean this editor thinks it was inappropriate to label an abortionist with the nice term of “doctor”? Ah, No. He thought NPR wasn’t favorable enough to abortion supporters. “We don’t say a physician is an STD doctor. Or a child-birth doctor. Or a breast-exam doctor,” Schumacher-Matos said. Apparently the approved term is “abortion provider.” Sheesh. What a Culture of Death we live in. http://cvote.to/3h

There’s another wrinkle regarding Gardasil, a vaccine used to combat HPV. It’s been the subject of considerable discussion since Rick Perry entered the presidential race. Dr. Diane Harper, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City says the vaccine is being way over-sold. NPR notes this is “striking” since Harper worked on studies that got the vaccines approved and even accepted grants from the manufacturers (although not any longer, she says.) She changed her mind, she said, when the vaccine makers started lobbying state legislatures to mandate school children get vaccinated. “Ninety-five percent of women who are infected with HPV never, ever get cervical cancer,” she says. “It seemed very odd to be mandating something for which 95 percent of infections never amount to anything.”  http://cvote.to/3l Yes, we have certainly covered this issue extensively at CatholicVote and not all opinion here has been uniform. http://cvote.to/3k

Rep. Jeff Flake, an economic libertarian who doesn’t care too much about social issues, endorsed former Gov. Mitt Romney, an economic liberal who doesn’t care too much about social issues. Flake is an early favorite to win the GOP nomination for the Senate seat vacated by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl. Flake upset pro-family activists when he voted to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Arizona has moved up their presidential primary to Feb. 28, so this is considered a “big get” for Romney. http://cvote.to/3m

Other articles of interest:

CBS’s Mark Knoller reports that President Obama promises to veto any deficit plan that reduces Medicare benefits if the plan does not also raise taxes on “the rich and big corporations,” according to White House officials. http://cvote.to/3n Wow. Raising taxes in a recession? Yeah, brilliant.

The National Organization for Marriage compiled a long list of media outlets which noticed the impact that David Weprin’s vote on so-called “same sex marriage” contributed to his upset defeat to pro-life and pro-family Bob Turner in the race to fill the House seat in Queens and Brooklyn that was vacated by Anthony Weiner. http://cvote.to/3o

Republican insiders worry if Rick Perry can win over suburban voters. They wonder how the Texas governor would fare in Pennsylvania and if he’ll make Missouri more competitive than it should be. http://cvote.to/3p

President Obama’s approval ratings have dropped below 50% in nine target states that George W. Bush won in 2004, but that Obama captured in 2008. They are: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada. http://cvote.to/3q

Have a million bucks? You could buy the domain teaparty.com, which has been owned by The Tea Party, a Canadian rock band since 1993 – and they are actually liberal in their politics. http://cvote.to/3r

… that sound you aren’t hearing is the sound of the mainstream media ignoring the news.

Meanwhile, the special election in NY-9 (Brooklyn & Queens NY) is shaping up to be very interesting. Pro-life, pro-marriage Catholic Bob Turner is taking on pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage David Weprin to replace disgraced Anthony Wiener in Congress, in a district that Democrats have a 3-1 voter registration advantage.

Will Bob Turner pull it out? We’ll certainly see! I’ll be tweeting tonight as the results come in.

Meanwhile, if you live in this district (or have friends or family who do) please go out and support Bob Turner!

UPDATE: Bob Turner won tonight’s special election 54%-46%! A huge upset and awesome news! More from me after I catch a few hours of sleep. In the meantime, see the AP coverage.

NY Assemblyman David Weprin is running for the seat recently vacated by disgraced Anthony Weiner (of “sexting” infamy). It should be an easy win next Tuesday for Weprin in this Queens district (NY-9) which sees Democrats at a 3-1 voter registration advantage over Republicans.

Problem is, back in June, Weprin voted to redefine marriage, and went as far as to claim in doing so that he was inspired by his Orthodox Jewish faith to undermine the ancient and common sense understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman.

That ticked off, well, most everyone who isn’t a liberal white Democrat. 40 Orthodox Rabbis have signed a letter “blasting” Weprin’s gay marriage vote. The Jewish Journal and NY Assemblyman Dov Hikind (also an Orthodox Jew) have crossed over and endorsed Weprin’s Republican opponent, the Catholic Bob Turner. NY Senator Ruben Diaz, a Democrat and an ordained minister, well-respected by the Hispanic Community has taped a radio ad against Weprin — because Diaz puts faith and marriage in front of his political party. The New York Times recently published a fascinating profile of the immigrant communities in Queens who believe in marriage and feel snubbed and outraged by Weprin’s vote to redefine it.

… all of which has combined to push Bob Turner ahead of David Weprin by 6 points, according to a recent poll. The race has meanwhile been changed from a “Lean Democrat” to a “Tossup.”

Democrats are taking note and are funneling an absolutely massive amount of money into the race in the hope of changing the tide and pushing Weprin across the finish line, but make no mistake: the reason Weprin is fighting for his political life right now is because he crossed his constituents on one of their core values: marriage. The National Organization for Marriage (where I work) has invested $75K to get the word out among more people so they know where Weprin stands on marriage.

Whatever the outcome next Tuesday (and if you have resources you can provide to help defeat Weprin, please do!), let the lesson once again be learned: voting to redefine marriage is the best way to make an easy election difficult, and make a close election losable. Power to the people who believe in marriage.

You can follow the story here (I’ll post an update whatever the outcome on Tuesday) or until then at the National Organization for Marriage blog.

UPDATE: Bob Turner won tonight’s special election 54%-46%! A huge upset and awesome news! More from me after I catch a few hours of sleep. In the meantime, see the AP coverage.

This happened as a direct result of the bad same-sex civil unions bill that went into law this June. A law that catholics (and other people) warned would result in, among other things, exactly this — Catholic Charities being forced out of the adoption business.

I called on catholics to oppose the bill before it was eventually passed, writing at the time (quoting the IL Catholic Conference) that the “Language in the bill offers little protection in the context of litigation that religious institutions and individuals will face if this bill is adopted.”

267 days later, here we are.

Furthermore, Catholic Charities being forced to shut down in yet another state was not an “unintended consequence” of the legislation. There are people who wanted this to happen and opposed efforts to improve the language to provide protection for religious groups and individuals. And right now they’re winning the fight to curtail religious freedom because catholics are not standing up for our rights.

Luckily, two bishops in Illinois (so far) are calling it like it is.

Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Diocese of Peoria, IL wrote (underlining mine):

“Catholic Charities is one of the lead providers of foster care services in the state. They have been valued partners for decades. Clearly the intent of the civil union law was not to force the state to end these contracts and force the transfer of thousands of children’s cases.” He continued by stating, “We continue to believe we can adhere to our religious principles and operate within Illinois law.”

The Bishop, his Priests and the faithful of the Diocese of Peoria, are simply astonished that the politicians of the state of Illinois seem to be unwilling to grant the same kind of religious accommodations that have been granted in the states of New York and Rhode Island regarding their establishment of civil unions. Bishop Jenky is sad to observe that important elements of the political establishment in the state of Illinois are now basically at war with the Catholic community and seem to be destroying their institutions. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Peoria will be reviewing the judge’s written ruling to determine their next steps.

Bishop Thomas Paprocki joined him in saying:

The State of Illinois is actively taking steps to push Catholic Charities of the Dioceses of Belleville, Joliet, Peoria and Springfield out of foster care services, which would end a partnership that dates back to the mid-1960s with the creation of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. The message from the state of Illinois is simple: Organizations that only place children in accord with their religious beliefs are barred from state contracts – Catholics need not apply.

Catholic Charities has been caring for vulnerable children for more than 100 years, leading to DCFS’ current success rate.

As we consider the next steps in our course of action, we pray for the children and for our dedicated employees who may be so adversely affected by this decision.

I quibble about only one thing: this decision “may” not adversely effect children and those who work for and with Catholic Charities. It will adversely effect them. Parents who foster kids placed with them by Catholic Charities are already signaling that they will be forced to cease doing so:

Casey Teckenbrock, of Herrin, said he and his wife expect any transition to delay the adoption of their foster daughter. But after that is complete, they likely will cease to be foster parents for Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois in the Diocese of Belleville.

“If the state doesn’t respect our morals, then we don’t want to do work for them,” Casey Teckenbrock said. “This will be a disaster for the 2,000 kids in foster care.”

And they aren’t alone:

“[Same-sex adoption is] a very small issue to shut an entire agency down that’s doing so much good in a community,” said Becky Wilhoit, an evangelical Christian who is not Catholic. “We specifically chose Catholic Charities as the agency we wanted to work with knowing they were religious and that they had resources to provide what we needed for our family. We know other agencies in the town can’t provide that for us. It becomes an issue for us to continue fostering.”

In other words, Catholic Charities does not represent simply “the Church” being forced to stop doing adoptions and foster care. It represents good men and women unable to help kids through Catholic Charities. It means kids not being helped by Catholic Charities. And why? David French explains it well:

Same-sex marriage advocates have long minimized its impact on religious liberty, but as this and other examples show, both religious liberty and child welfare are ultimately subordinate to sexual freedom.

In other words, political pressure exerted by gay rights groups and their political sympathizers in pursuit of establishing their right to absolute sexual freedom is squashing the right of the Church and fair-minded people to provide needy kids with a mom and dad — with care fitting the dignity of the babies and young people they serve, in other words.

And what do we do in response to this struggle between absolute sexual “freedom” and religious freedom? Which side are we on?

If we want to be on the side of the Church and supportive of the rights of Catholics and other Christians to serve vulnerable kids in the way our faith outlines there are several things we can concretely do:

1. If you live in Illinois, make a mental note to vote against every House (PDF) and Senate (PDF) member who voted for this bad civil unions bill. The Catholic Governor of Illinois Pat Quinn signed the bill. Vote him out too next time around.

2. If you live in Illinois, call your elected officials in the IL House and Senate and ask them to become a co-sponsor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011 (which could help this situation some).

3. For the rest of us, follow and support the Thomas More Society (which is working on behalf of Catholic Charities in IL) to learn more about the lawsuits currently pending and to discover ways you can help.

4. Help nip these problems in the bud by supporting effective pro-marriage organizations like the National Organization for Marriage (who I work with). This post on the NOM blog explains 4 easy (and free) ways you can help their efforts to protect marriage and religious liberty nationwide.

5. As always, stay informed about current Catholic news and activism opportunities here at CatholicVote.

• Letter from Archbishop O’Brien (PDF)
• Letter from Governor O’Malley (PDF)

===

Over the weekend Catholic Governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley released private letters he had exchanged with Archbishop of Baltimore Edwin O’Brien over the issue of same-sex marriage (an effort to pass same-sex marriage in Maryland earlier this year failed because it lacked the votes, now O’Malley has signed on to a renewed effort to redefine marriage in the next legislative session).

An important part of the backstory here is that Gov. O’Brien probably feels encouraged by the adulation heaped on Catholic governor Andrew Cuomo of New York after he ignored the Catholic bishops to push same-sex marriage into law there.

There’s a lesson here: when one Catholic governor gets away with ignoring the warnings of his bishops, other Catholic governors and elected officials feel emboldened to do the same.

Anyway, Archbishop O’Brien is intent to avoid the same result happening in Maryland.

I’m searching for the original letters exchanged between O’Malley and O’Brien. In the meantime, here is what’s filtered through the press:

Two days before Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) announced plans to sponsor a same-sex marriage bill, a Catholic archbishop strongly urged that he reconsider the move, suggesting the governor was acting out of “mere political expediency.”

Edwin F. O’Brien, the archbishop of Baltimore, said in a letter late last month that sponsoring the bill would “deeply conflict” with O’Malley’s Catholic faith and that he should resist pressure to do so after New York’s recent legalization of same-sex marriage.

“Maryland is not New York,” O’Brien wrote. “We urge you not to allow your role as the leader of our state to be used in allowing the debate surrounding the definition of marriage to be determined by mere political expediency. The people of Maryland deserve no less.”

O’Malley responded to O’Brien on Thursday, citing a litany of issues on which he shares the church’s views. But, O’Malley wrote, “when shortcomings in our laws bring about a result that is unjust, I have a public obligation to try to change that injustice.”

More:

O’Brien’s appeal to O’Malley was made in starkly personal terms.

“I am well aware that the recent events in New York have intensified pressure on you to lend your active support to legislation to redefine marriage,” O’Brien wrote. “As advocates for the truths we are compelled to uphold, we speak with equal intensity and urgency in opposition to your promoting a goal that so deeply conflicts with your faith, not to mention the best interests of our society.”

O’Brien continued: “It is especially hard to fathom your taking such a step, given the fact that our requests last year for you to sponsor legislation to repeal the death penalty and support students in Catholic and other nonpublic schools went unheeded.”

A sample of Gov. O’Malley’s response:

“I do not presume, nor would I ever presume as governor, to question or infringe upon your freedom to define, to preach about and to administer the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church,” O’Malley wrote. “But on the public issue of granting equal civil marital rights to same-sex couples, you and I disagree. . . . I look forward to working with you on other issues of mutual agreement. And I respect your freedom to disagree with me as a citizen and as a religious leader without questioning your motives.”

Right now I’m relying on what the Washington Post found most interesting to copy. I’m sure I would probably highlight different parts of the letters.

I think O’Malley’s line about “never presuming … to preach about or administer the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church” is particularly revealing.” The issue, after all, isn’t who wears a miter vs. who was elected governor. The issue is the pre-political institution of the family, and the right of the Church to defend the family when it comes under attack in the public square. Natural law, in other words, not theology.

I also doubt O’Malley realizes that being personally warned about why he should not attack the family by redefining marriage could also serve as a necessary precursor to canonical penalties since he has chosen to ignore the advice and firm admonition of his Archbishop.

I also find it fascinating that Governor O’Malley chose to release these letters. Abp. O’Brien was performing a courtesy by keeping the correspondence private. Now that O’Malley has chosen to bring the public in on the conversation, I wonder how Abp. O’Brien will respond.

UPDATE — forgot to include this factoid: O’Malley “often attends weekday Masses” according to WaPo.

But the sudden uptick in volume of Catholic voices talking about the threat to marriage represented by its redefinition in New York confuses me, for this reason: we could have stopped it.

Over the past weeks (and months) I’ve worked closely with the National Organization for Marriage to oppose gay marriage bills in Maryland, Rhode Island and New York. We won in Maryland and Rhode Island. And we just lost in New York. And yet, instead of trumpeting the victories in these first two states when they happened, far more ink has been spilt by Catholic voices bemoaning the final result in New York.

There’s a reason for this: Catholic commentary follows mainstream media commentary. The number of headlines earned by a victory for gay marriage far outweighs (I would bet by a ratio of at least 10-to-1) the number of stories written about gay marriage defeats. So a part of this phenomenon is due to Catholics sensing a major shift has happened in the fight to protect marriage only when the media signals us a shift has happened — and the media is careful to only signal such shifts when they like where they think they see things headed.

Thus we are left with the distinctly odd situation where marriage defeats have a thousand Catholic fathers, and marriage victories are made to be Catholic orphans. It should, of course, be just the other way around.

[I should make clear before I go on: I am tremendously pleased with the active role CatholicVote has taken leading up to the vote to activate our members to defend marriage and pray for the legislators in New York to make the right choice!]

Another reason that Catholics talk more about marriage defeats than our victories is that, sadly, many of us –almost always quite unintentionally– have fallen into the careful trap laid by proponents of gay marriage of believing that it is inevitable.

As I briefly outlined in my post earlier this week, gay marriage is not inevitable. In fact, despite the defeat for marriage in New York, this year has been a very good year for marriage: two deep-blue states shut down efforts to redefine marriage (Democrats, by the way, were responsible in both states for this), and several other states (Minnesota, Indiana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa and Pennsylvania – off the top of my head) are moving forward with enacting greater measures to establish one-man, one-woman marriage as the only type of union recognized as marriage in their state constitutions and statutory law.

This is the bird’s-eye view of the marriage fight I see. Unfortunately, I think many Catholics are being presented with a different picture because of how the media portrays the battle, and, in addition, because even Catholic voices they trust often mirror this negative attitude about the real ability we have to protect marriage.

So what CAN we do to protect mariage, besides bemoan when we have setbacks? Simple:

1. If you haven’t yet, become a member of CatholicVote and subscribe to their newsletter. CatholicVote has their fingers on the pulse of this issue and will always keep you up to date.

2. Follow and support the work of the National Organization for Marriage (and their frequently-updated blog). NOM is the most successful national organization fighting to defend marriage and the faith communities that believe in marriage.

3. Find the website for your state’s Catholic Conference of Bishops and see what is happening in your state now which either threatens or supports marriage.

4. As you begin to think about the November 2012 elections, get into the habit now of evaluating candidates and issues in terms of how they impact marriage and the family.

5. Pray for those who fight to protect marriage and family and work to learn more about why marriage is only between one man and one woman for good reasons.

If we all commit ourselves to these five simple steps, the next time we’ll be talking about a major piece of marriage news we’ll be talking about it for the right reason: because we won.

In the final day of intense backdoor lobbying, two republicans –both Catholics– broke with the Republican party and voted for the gay marriage bill, ignoring the bishops of New York who said today they opposed the bill “in the strongest possible terms.”

The bill will now be signed into law by Catholic Governor Andrew Cuomo. I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about this situation in the coming days and weeks.

Advocates for religious freedom did force the New York assemblies, in the 11th hour, to adopt stronger religious protections than they had originally proposed – but the amendment’s language was only made public this afternoon and was immediately voted into law, disallowing any real opportunity for the language to be examined by legal experts (incidentally, a New York law requiring bills to be posted for the public to see 72 hours before being voted upon was suspended to rush the bill through the process).

Whenever a setback in the fight to protect marriage take places, it’s important not to lose perspective. The media is quick to amplify “defeats” for traditional marriage, and barely mentions victories of those who believe marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman.

Here are some quick things to recall about the struggle to protect marriage:

• Efforts to redefine marriage in Maryland and Rhode Island, both deeply liberal states, were defeated this year. New York was the last chance activists had to try to redefine marriage in a state this year.
• Minnesota and Indiana both witnessed positive movement this year towards defining marriage more securely as the union of husband and wife. Other states will soon follow suit.
• 31 States, so far, have voted for traditional marriage when they have put it to the people.
• The NY legislature has imposed gay marriage on the state. If it had gone to a vote of the people of New York – traditional marriage would have won. 57% of New Yorkers reject same-sex marriage. Advocates for redefining marriage know they lack popular majority support – which is why always resist allowing people to vote on the issue. New York was no exception to this rule.
• According to a new comprehensive poll released by the Alliance Defense Fund, 62% of Americans favor traditional marriage (yes, you read that right).
• The National Organization for Marriage (where I work) has pledged “at least” $2 million dollars to reversing same-sex marriage in NY. Votes against marriage and family will have real consequences.

I could say much more, but these are some of the most important points to make now. We can expect the media to be full of headlines and talking heads proclaiming the “death” of traditional marriage and vilifying those who hold fast to it in the days ahead. Don’t let it get to you. Popularity and acceptance were never attributes Christ promised His disciples they would get to enjoy.

Catholics, for our part, must commit ourselves tonight, more than ever, to fully understanding the good reasons why marriage exists only between a man and a woman, and become more prepared to articulate those reasons with courage and conviction in the public square, as well as to actively participate in the political process and influence a culture that is confused and deceived about what is really at stake here.

In the end, real love and truth will win. Of that I have precisely no doubt.

On a personal note, thank you so much to all of you who prayerfully and proactively have supported my efforts to protect marriage in New York these past few weeks. I owe you a great debt of gratitude. Thank you most of all for your patience as I was forced to dedicate my time and attention to covering this important issue, often times to the detriment of reporting and commenting on other issues near and dear to my heart.

Tonight we rest and reflect, tomorrow is a new day, and by God’s grace, a better one.

Governor Cuomo is for gay marriage, so you can guess who Dowd is writing to protect and abet in her column (entitled “Gay Sera, Sera“). My father has responded to Ms. Dowd’s feeble attempts to warp his argument here.

Now why do I title my post “Vintage Deja Vu Dowd”? Because Maureen Dowd has only one argument against the Catholic Church, or any Catholic figure who speaks in the public square. And every time it’s the same. It goes like this: “Pedophile!”

Time and time again, Dowd’s disagreement with (and mocking of) the Church’s teaching on sexual morality has no argument except to bring up the clergy sexual abuse scandal. Take, for instance:

Dolan snidely dismissed the notion that gay marriage is a civil right. “We acknowledge that not every desire, urge, want, or chic cause is automatically a ‘right,’ ” he wrote.

“And, what about other rights, like that of a child to be raised in a family with a mom and a dad?”

And how about the right of a child not to be molested by the parish priest?

That last line, of course, is Dowd’s. Never mind the fact that that the Church unequivocally condemns the abuse of minors. Never mind the fact that even the most heinous sinner could still speak the truth (and Archbishop Dolan is by no means such a person). Never mind the fact that even I could (and by reason ought to) acknowledge that Dowd is right about some things even though sometimes she has been wrong about other things (I’m offering the possibility purely as a speculation).

But for Dowd, because the Church abuse scandal happened, nothing the Church teaches or any (faithful) Catholic says could ever be right. But this way of debating the Church and Church teaching is clearly wrong.

By Dowd’s own logic and style of argumentation, after all, if she once received a DUI, I could and would never have to listen to a single point she ever made about transportation. By the same (absurd) logic, if she ever burnt a batch of cookies, I would never have to acknowledge her opinions on baking, home management, or thermodynamics.

These comparisons may seem absurd, but so is Dowd’s style of writing. In fact, it seems to be her only method of argumentation. Combing her latest column, you will find no substantive argument for why the state of New York ought to redefine the definition of marriage. You’ll simply find a lot of mean barbs aimed at Archbishop Dolan and Catholic teaching (and my dad, see here). Ad hominem attacks, for Dowd, are more a rule than a careless exception.

One line of Dowd’s got me in particular:

“Dolan and other church leaders are worried about the exodus of young Catholics who no longer relate to the intolerances of church teaching.”

Ms. Dowd, I’m right here. And frankly, your intolerances to church teaching and towards church teachers is something I don’t relate to (seriously, calling Archbishop Dolan “Starchbishop?” – even I know that’s immature).

But again, if I were to bring this up to Ms. Dowd, because I’m a Catholic who firmly believes in the teachings of the Church, I’m sure she’d fall back on her classic argument for people like me: “Pedophile!”

Nonetheless, because I’m getting into the habit of issuing challenges to people who never take them up, I’ll challenge Ms. Dowd to argue the merits of gay marriage against the teachings of the Church without taking recourse to her favorite “Pedophile!!” argument. In fact, I’ll challenge Ms. Dowd to debate the Church on any issue without bringing up the clergy sexual abuse scandal. I don’t think she can.

In the meantime, I’ll pledge to declare I don’t have to believe that what Ms. Dowd publishes is her own original writing because Wikipedia tells me she may have plagiarized in one of her columns once. For that reason, I have the “right” to refuse to acknowledge that Dowd is the author of any future column she rights, to treat her according to the same unfair and disingenuous standard she chooses to constantly apply to the Church.

I just turned twenty-six, so whenever Ms. Dowd wants to debate according to reasonable standards –and not ones of her own convenience and contriving– I’ll be ready, and eager. Que sera, deja vu.