BY PATRICK B. CRAINE

The archbishop was speaking to media at a pro-life vigil in Motor City on Saturday.

“I don’t think they were hurtful,” he said of his comments from April, according to the Detroit Free Press. “I think they were straightforward. There’s nothing hurtful in telling people the truth.”

“And the truth is that... the teaching of the church about marriage is God’s way for us to flourish,” he added. “That’s what I want people to know.”

On April 7^th, the archbishop had stressed, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, that a Catholic must be committed to Church teaching if they present themselves for Holy Communion.

“For a Catholic to receive holy Communion and still deny the revelation Christ entrusted to the church is to try to say two contradictory things at once: ‘I believe the church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and I reject what the Church teaches,’” he said. “In effect, they would contradict themselves. This sort of behavior would result in publicly renouncing one's integrity and logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury.”

Four days later, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, a retired auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese with a strongly liberal reputation who has made a name for himself as an opponent of Church teaching, gave an interview to oppose Vigneron’s stance.

"Don't stop going to communion.  You're okay," Gumbleton told Fox News.

The highest authorities of the Church, including Pope Benedict himself, have insisted, however, that the Church’s law not only bars public advocates of abortion and same-sex “marriage” from receiving Communion but, in Canon 915, instructs clergy to deny them Communion if they refuse to recant after receiving instruction.

Canon 915 states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Archbishop Vigneron offered a Mass at Assumption Grotto church for about 200 pro-lifers, and then joined a walk to two abortion facilities where he led a Rosary. The event was organized by the Helpers of God’s Precious Infants.

In his homily, he told the pro-lifers who gathered that they were part of the “field hospital” spoken of by Pope Francis in his widely-publicized interview published last week.

September 23, 2013 at 6:00 AM, updated September 23, 2013 at 7:47 AM

Advocates have been working to convince state lawmakers — including a number of Republicans — that they should cross Gov. Chris Christie and override his veto of a bill (S1) that would legalize same-sex marriage. The state currently allows civil unions, and Christie maintains same-sex marriage should be decided by a voter referendum.

The effort to override Christie is still an uphill battle: In the Assembly, advocates need 12 more lawmakers to vote for an override than those who voted for the original bill. Three more votes are needed in the Senate. And the clock is ticking, with the legislative session ending in January.

But with new pledges to vote for an override — and a lame-duck Legislative session approaching — there are signs the gap is shrinking.

State Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), a supporter of same-sex marriage, says he has been given commitments for enough votes in the Senate, and lawmakers and advocates are still pressing to find them in the Assembly.

In the lower house, Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth) missed the vote on the bill last year. He has committed to voting for an override.

Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi (R-Bergen), also absent during the vote, said she would vote in favor of an override, indicating she had been swayed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.

The court’s ruling will be key in convincing others, said Jeff Cook-McCormac, the senior adviser to the American Unity Fund, which is focused on convincing GOP lawmakers across the country to support same-sex marriage.

"It’s giving them a reason to re-think it," Cook-McCormac said of the court decision.

At least two more Democrats have indicated a willingness to back an override.

Assemblywoman Gabriela Mosquera (D-Camden), who was not a legislator last year, will vote for an override, said Carol Murphy, her spokeswoman. And Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo (D-Hamilton) said he may support an override but continues to listen to constituents.. He said the response has been evenly split.

SEEKING GOP SUPPORT

Advocates say they are hoping Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini (R-Ocean), who did not vote on the bill, will support an override. She did not return a call for comment.

Cook-McCormac said it is possible to convince more Republicans to support gay marriage because "the question is a little clearer than it was" last year.

"I think the first thing is recognizing that the circumstances have changed considerably in New Jersey," he said, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision makes it clear that civil unions do not provide equal benefits to marriage and polls show gay marriage is supported by most New Jerseyans. "By getting them directly in touch with their representatives we are letting legislators know where their constituents stand," he said.

Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said his group is part of a coalition — including the National Organization for Marriage and the New Jersey Catholic Conference — that is lobbying legislators to vote against the override attempt.

"We’re working right now. The marriage coalition has been gathering and talking about opposition work to keep marriage as the union of a man and a woman," said Deo.

"I don’t think it’s going to be an easy push for (gay marriage supporters), but it’s going to be a battle for both sides," he said.

Meanwhile, a state Superior Court judge heard arguments last month over a lawsuit by six couples and Garden State Equality alleging civil unions fail to provide benefits equal to those afforded by marriage. The judge may rule soon, but the case is likely to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Lesniak said the Supreme Court could act before the Legislature has a chance to vote on an override, but that will have no impact on the effort to sway lawmakers. "We’re not going to give up on any avenue to get marriage equality done as soon as possible," he said.

Star-Ledger staff writer Matt Friedman contributed to this report.

BY BEN JOHNSON

Chief Judge Richard Roberts made the ruling inside the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia this morning.

Federal prosecutors had asked that Floyd Lee Corkins II serve 45 years in prison for his planned shooting rampage at the Family Research Council last summer. They said Corkins' actions clearly met the definition of terrorism, because he intended “to use acts of violence to terrorize and intimidate those within the District of Columbia and the United States who did not share his political beliefs and views.”

Defense attorneys said Corkins deserved only 11.5 years, saying that he had been mentally ill at the time of the shooting.

FRC employee Leo Johnson, who was shot in the left arm as he stopped Corkins' planned massacre,told his assailant, "I forgive you but I do not forget. If you believe in God you should pray to him everyday, because not only did God save my life that day, he saved yours, too."

It was not the first time they had exchanged words.

On August 15, Corkins entered the FRC building with nearly 100 rounds of ammunition, 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches, and a list of four socially conservative “hate groups.”

In a videotaped confession, Corkins explained his had planned to "kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims' faces, and kill the guard." He hoped the shooting would "make a statement against the people who work in that building...and with their stance against gay rights."

He said he had also considered bombing the building but settled on entering and shooting the employees of the conservative groups one-by-one.

Standing across the desk inside the entrance, Corkins told Johnson, “I don't like your politics” before opening fire.

Security camera footage released in April shows Corkins missing with his first shot, then shooting Johnson in the arm as he wrestled the gun away.

“The trajectory of the round was such that, had Leo not ducked, it would have hit him in the head,” FRC President Tony Perkins told the Values Voters Summit in Washington, D.C., last September. “The second round hit him in the arm, completely disabling his left arm.”

Once he had the gun, Johnson faced a moment of temptation.

“The thought approached me for a moment whether or not I shoot him, not knowing what he might do, but in that moment the Lord spoke to me saying don’t shoot him,” Johnson told Perkins.

In the filing, prosecutors said without Johnson's heroism, Corkins "would have almost certainly succeeded in committing a massacre of epic portions."

Instead, Johnson kept Corkins corralled as he waited for police to arrive.

Corkins, then 28, had been volunteering at The DC Center for the LGBT Community. He explained to investigators that he used the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) list of allegedly anti-gay "hate groups" to choose his victims.

“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups," Corkins admitted during his videotaped interrogation. "I found them online, did a little research, went to the website – stuff like that.”

On February 6, Corkins reversed his not guilty plea and confessed to three charges: one count of committing an act of terrorism with the intent to kill, one count of intent to kill while armed, and one federal count of crossing state lines with guns and ammunition. Seven additional charges were dropped.

The names of all four groups Corkins intended to terrorize have not yet been released. However, Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition learned her organization's name and address was found written in Corkins' pocket.

She told LifeSiteNews.com the Obama administration made no effort to defend TVC against copycat shooters.

“If someone had mailed bacon to a mosque, all heck would have broken loose, and they would have sent in attorneys from the Justice Department...But they ignore the concerns of Christians,” Lafferty told LifeSiteNews.com

“I think Christians need to wake up,” Lafferty said. “We have a government that does not believe they need to protect us.”

A group of Republicans in the House is set to unveil a proposal aimed at protecting conservative groups in the wake of the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.

Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) plans to introduce the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act Thursday. He said the bill “ensures that any religious institution, organization or church that believes that marriage should continue to remain between one man and one woman will not be discriminated against by the federal government.”

The Supreme Court in June ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, paving the way for the federal government to grant marriage benefits to same-sex couples with licenses from states that have legalized same-sex marriage.

Citing examples in the states, Labrador said he and other conservatives are worried that organizations like the Boy Scouts or Catholic Charities could lose their tax-exempt status because of their official positions on the question of marriage.

“My bill does not deal with those state issues,” Labrador said in an interview, “but we have already seen the increased attack and discrimination of institutions at the state level, and we just want to ensure that it does not happen at the federal level.

“I believe the Constitution protects these institutions,” he said, “but I just want to make sure that it’s in the law, that it’s 100 percent sure, that people have no question about it.”

The bill has 60 co-sponsors, including the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Steve Scalise (La.), and two socially conservative Democrats: Reps. Mike McIntyre (N.C.) and Daniel Lipinski (Ill.).

Labrador emphasized that the bill was not an attempt to overturn the Supreme Court decision and that it should appeal to a wide range of members concerned about government intrusion, particularly following the IRS scandal.

“My bill is very narrowly drafted, so this is something that conservatives, independents, moderates, Republicans, Democrats can support — just so we can protect these religious institutions from any discrimination by the federal government,” Labrador said.

The Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights advocacy group, said the proposal was unnecessary. 

“The federal government isn’t discriminating against religious groups or people of faith as it implements the Supreme Court’s decision striking down DOMA.  And there’s no reason to believe that it ever will,” spokesman Fred Sainz said. 

“This legislation’s real purpose is to let federal employees, contractors and grantees refuse to do their jobs or fulfill the terms of their taxpayer-funded contracts because they have a particular religious view about certain lawfully married couples — and then to sue the federal government for damages if they don’t get their way.”

BY HILARY WHITE, ROME CORRESPONDENT

ROME, September 13, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Replacing terms like mother and father with “Parent 1 and Parent 2” is not an innocuous defense of “equality” but the beginning of a complete re-write of Italian society, a prominent Italian cardinal said this week.

Changing the categories of family life and genealogy could send “a real earthquake” through the social structure.

The expression, that has already been proposed for all official documents related to public housing and kindergarten placements in the city of Venice, will make “the category of fatherhood and motherhood disappear, to be replaced by the generic category of ‘parenting,’” the Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna, Carlo Caffarra, said.

Speaking in a keynote address at a conference at the Teatro Manzoni in Bologna this week, Cardinal Caffarra identified the largest question facing Italian society: “Is marriage a reality at the disposal of the men, or does it have a ‘hard core’ that is not open to human preference?”

“Is the definition of marriage…exclusively dependent on social consensus?” he further asked. “Is it the social consensus which decides what marriage is?”

Cardinal Caffarra said that the main focus for the work of Catholic teachers should be understanding the primacy of marriage between man and woman, which has as its foundation the “intrinsic ability to give rise to a new the human person.”

He called fatherhood or motherhood “highest capacity and responsibility that men and women have,” because it is “one of the points where the creative action of God enters our created universe.”

In the modern world – busy with the reconstruction of marriage to include same-sex partners – the term “love” has been drained of its true meaning, he added.

“Have you noticed that I have carefully steered away from using the word ‘amore’?” Caffarra said. “Why? Because it’s been stolen.”

“Indeed, ‘love,’ one of the key words for the Christian, has been taken from modern culture and made into an empty term, a kind of container where everyone puts what he feels. For this reason, the ‘truth in love’ today finds little support.”

He quoted Pope Benedict XVI in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate, saying, “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled arbitrarily. It’s fatal to risk love in a culture without truth.”

He warned the teachers in the audience, “The witnesses of the truth of conjugal life will be difficult, as not infrequently happens to the witnesses of the truth. But this is the most urgent task of the educator.”

Yesterday the President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, echoed the same topics in his opening address to the 47^th annual Social Weeks conference in Turin. To “weaken the family,” Bagnasco said, or “worse destabilize the meaning of the person, is to destabilize society.”

Although he did not directly mention the Parent 1 and Parent 2 controversy, Bagnasco added that “the person receives life through fruitful love of Dad and Mom.”

“You’re starting to deconstruct the sexual dimension to match the social,” he said. And by insisting on this ontological “liquidity” of the human person, we “run the risk of being pulverized in an indistinct egalitarianism that erases the rock of sexual and generational differences, thus eliminating the possibility of being father and mother, son and daughter.”

(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania judge on Thursday ordered a suburban Philadelphia county clerk to comply with the state's same-sex marriage ban and stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

Since July, D. Bruce Hanes, the elected Montgomery County register of wills, has given out 174 licenses to same-sex couples, ignoring a 1996 state law that defines marriage as "between one man and one woman."

The state Department of Health sued to stop Hanes, saying he is in "direct defiance" of the ban and "risks causing serious and limitless harm to the public."

In his order Thursday, the judge said Hanes must "cease and desist from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex applicants, from accepting the marriage certificates of same-sex couples, and from waiving the mandatory three-day waiting period." He also denied dozens of requests from same-sex couples in the state to intervene in the lawsuit.

Hanes told CNN in August that he and his solicitor reviewed the state constitution and decided that language about civil rights, happiness and liberty applied to same-sex couples who want to get married.

"We've either got to change the constitution -- permit discrimination on the basis of sex, permit civil rights to be frustrated -- or change the interpretation of that marriage act or change the marriage act. You can't have it both ways," he said in August.

Hanes started issuing the licenses shortly after the U.S. v. Windsor case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Pennsylvania is considered a conservative state on the issue of same-sex marriage, and it is simultaneously fighting a court battle with the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the state in July after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Windsor case.

The state attorney general, Kathleen Kane, said this year that Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage is "wholly unconstitutional" and that she won't defend the state in the ACLU suit.

By Zelie Pollon

SANTA FE, New Mexico | Sat Sep 7, 2013 2:08am EDT