Denise Darrigrand, Clark University's Dean of Students: Is she Christianophobic?

In the March 8, 1955 edition of Look magazine, Rev. Carl M. Chorowsky, minister of the first Unitarian Church of Fairfield, Connecticut, explained the basic tenets of Unitarian theology. Dr. Chorowsky said that, "In general, a Unitarian is a religious person whose ethic derives primarily from that of Jesus, who believed in One God, not the Trinity...Unitarians hold that the orthodox Christian world has forsaken the real, human Jesus of the Gospel, and has substituted a Christ of dogmatism, metaphysics and pagan philosophy. Because Unitarians refuse to acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and God, they are excluded from the National Council of the Churches of Christ."

Dr. Chorowsky further explained the Unitarian attitude toward Jesus Christ in this edition of Look magazine when he said that, "Unitarians repudiate the doctrine and dogma of the Virgin Birth...Unitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, either of Jewish hope or of Christian fantasy. They do not believe He is 'God Incarnate,' or the Second Person of the Trinity, as the final arbitrator at the end of time, who shall come to judge the quick and the dead."

What is this but the spirit of Antichrist? We are warned in 1 John 4: 1-3, "Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world."

Unitarian Universalists have a radical and militant homosexual agenda and have ridiculed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Catholic Teaching on homosexuality, referring to it as "archaic" while dismissing a statement from the CDF as representing "astonishing arrogance."  See here.  Does the Dean of Students at Clark University, Denise Darrigrand, share this view?  When a reader of this Blog wrote Ms. Darrigrand an email asking, "Does Clark University approve of students organizations which engage in public ridicule of Catholics?",  Ms. Darrigrand responded, "...I've been following this for about a week now.  A lot of our students are upset about it but it doesn't seem like there's much we can do.  We're just going to ride it out."

Would Dean Darrigrand take this attitude if African-Americans were the subject of public ridicule by students at Clark University?  Homosexual persons?  Jews? or any other group?  We're just going to ride it out?  This is the response to Catholic-bashing from the Dean of Students at Clark University?  Could it be that Ms. Darrigrand has chosen to just look the other way because she identifies with the Unitarian Universalists and the radical homosexual agenda?

Dean Darrigrand's Facebook page (which I have copied should it happen to suddenly disappear or change), mentions that her interests include the Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester and Lgbtqi Spirit of Central Massachusetts, a homosexual activism organization.  Lgbtqi stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersex.

Is this why it is "open season" on Catholics and Catholic opposition toward homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" at Clark University?

Should Clark University be permitted to receive federal funding when this sort of anti-Catholic animus is just shrugged off?

Christianophobic San Francisco losing families and youth

Several years ago, back in 2006, some 25,000 Christian teens converged on San Francisco as part of the Battle Cry rally, to rally against what they referred to as pop culture's terrorism against virtue.  San Francisco supervisors responded by passing a resolution warning that these young Christian teens would have a negative effect on the community.  Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno was quoted as having said that the Christian youths were, "loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

The same city supervisors, pillars of tolerance that they are, issued a resolution that same year calling a 2003 Vatican document that addressed same-sex unions and "gay" adoptions as "hateful and discriminatory rhetoric that...shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."

Apparently referring to Christian youths as "obnoxious" and "disgusting" while telling them that they should leave San Francisco was not seen by the Board of Supervisors as hateful, insensitive or ignorant.  But it would appear that San Francisco's Christianophobia and intolerance toward what Dan Quayle referred to simply as "family values," is bearing fruit.  Families are abandoning the City by the Bay.  And this although city officials have been trying desperately to counter the family-flight trend.  See here.

San Francisco is not family-friendly.  And Christian families are not very likely to feel welcome in a city which views Christian youth as "obnoxious" and "disgusting" and moral opposition toward homosexuality as "insensitivity and ignorance."

I'll say it again, why would Deacon Paul Mello associate himself with Unitarians in Petersham?

In a previous post I documented how Deacon Paul Mello of Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol, Massachusetts participated in an "interfaith service" with  Unitarian Universalists who promote abortion, homosexuality, same-sex "marriage" and paganism.  The minister of the Unitarian church which Deacon Mello apparently has no problem with, M. Lara Hoke, has announced at her Blog that she will be participating in an event with the anti-Catholic, anti-life group CodePink. See here.

When the Respect Life Ministry of the Diocese of Oakland, California purchased pro-life advertisements which were placed in trains and buses, radical "abortion rights" activists demanded that the ads be removed.  In an article published by the Priests for Life website, and which may be found here, Deacon Keith Fournier wrote, "I remember an immensely popular game show entitled “To Tell the Truth.” It began its long television tenure in 1969 and my mother loved to watch it. For those unfamiliar with the show, there were three contestants who attempted to deceive a four member panel of celebrities as to their true identity. One of them was the actual person associated with the events which were told to the contestants in a sworn affidavit read on the air. It recounted the story of the real person. Some of the stories were humorous, others inspirational and still others quite serious. All of the stories gripped the viewers and the celebrity panelists who would then attempt, through a series of questions, to find the truth by exposing the liars. After the questions, the panelists would vote as to whom they believed was telling the truth and the viewers at home, long before the potential for actual audience participation, would also make their own choice. Finally, the real person would stand. Usually, it was quite a surprise to both the celebrity panelists as well as the viewers.


I was reminded of the show this morning when I read a newspaper report out of California indicating that “abortion rights” activists were defacing advertisements appearing in trains and buses that contained messages they did not like. The Respect Life Ministry of the Oakland Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church paid for the ads. They are tasteful, true and extremely effective. They all ask the question 'Abortion: Have we gone too far?' My readers can find these excellent ads at an equally effective web site developed by the “Second Look Project”. (www.secondlookproject.org/)

A vocal and angry group of activists, many associated with an organization called 'Code Pink', have besieged the Bay Area Rapid Transit demanding that the ads be removed. Hundreds of the ads have been ripped down and/or defaced with profanity; including direct, blatant anti-Catholic slurs. In some instances they have been covered over with propaganda espousing abortion on demand as a 'right.' Proponents of abortion on demand, throughout all nine months of pregnancy, who call such feticide a 'choice' and who want it protected as a 'right' by the police power of the State do not like to hear this truth. Worse yet, they now want to conceal it from the public. These ads simply tell the truth, free of emotionally charged rhetoric. They present facts - scientific, medical, sociological and statistical truth...

Opponents of this advertising campaign insist that the ads are 'misleading.' I simply ask my readers to go to the web site and view them. You will find that they are factual, dispassionate and - most importantly - they are true. That is why they are being opposed with such a fury. Some opponents insisted that the Transit officials should have rejected the ads. In the words of Suzanne Joi , a member of 'Code Pink' which promotes itself as being in favor of social justice and anti-war stated: 'At the very least they should have made sure both sides were represented… I think every woman has noticed them…I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''

The Transit authorities distributed a passenger bulletin before the first of the year detailing their advertising policy. They are now being pressured to reconsider this policy by those who do not want passengers to read these ads - because they do not like their content. In effect, these folks are the new censors of a new cultural revolution. Claiming to be tolerant, they are anything but. They do not want those who disagree with them to have the Right to Free Speech, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do they fear the implications of the truth? I believe they do...

One more note on this particular group. Though, at least in my opinion, they rightly opposed the War in Iraq, they promote the great lie of our age - that children in the womb are property to be used or discarded at whim. In so doing they actually promote a war on the womb while claiming to be peacemakers. By opposing these advertisements in California they have sent a signal. They support, aid and abet another war, one that is being waged on women and children. Make no mistake that is precisely what unrestricted abortion on demand - through all nine months, with no restrictions - truly is. This war has turned mothers into battlefields. Women are being lied to and deluded by those who are the ministers of propaganda in a new cultural revolution, those who promote the use of familiar weapons of modern warfare as 'surgical strikes' and 'chemical warfare' on pre-born children...

It is time to tell the truth.

It is time to sound the Code Red on Code Pink."

Amen Deacon Keith!  And it's time for Deacon Paul Mello to distance himself from Unitarian Universalists who are supportive of the Culture of Death and the radical homosexual agenda.

Related reading: Unitarian Universalists have ridiculed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Church teaching on homosexuality, referring to it as "archaic."

Is the United States Department of Justice Christianophobic?

Christian opposition to homosexuality is based upon Divine Revelation and the Natural Law. For Catholics, the Catechism clearly teaches that homosexuality is contrary to nature and homosexual acts are among the "sins gravely contrary to chastity" (CCC, 2396) and that "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

This teaching, as the Catechism makes clear, is based upon Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Natural Law. But for homosexual activists and others who support the radical homosexual agenda, moral opposition toward homosexuality is something evil and is rooted in mental illness. The word "homophobia," as explained here, is employed by homosexual activists as a semantic weapon in the cultural war.

The United States Department of Justice, as this article explains, has categorized Repent America as a "hate group" because of its Biblical opposition to homosexuality. And the USDOJ has an article at its website which asserts that "homophobia" is rooted in a "toxic masculinity." This article says that, "Toxic masculinity is the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence...According to Connell, contemporary hegemonic masculinity is built on two legs, domination of women and a hierarchy of intermale dominance...It is also shaped to a significant extent by the stigmatization of homosexuality...Today's hegemonic masculinity in the United States of America and Europe includes a high degree of ruthless competition, an inability to express emotions other than anger, an unwillingness to admit weakness or dependency, devaluation of women and all feminine attributes in men, homophobia, and so forth...Toxic masculinity is..socially destructive...proclivities associated with toxic masculinity include..a strong need to dominate and control others....a readiness to resort to violence, and the stigmatization and subjugation of women, gays and men who exhibit feminine characteristics." (See here).

The USDOJ seems anxious to categorize Christian opposition toward homosexuality as a form of mental illness, a "toxic masculinity" which is prone to violence and domination. But the Church's teaching isn't an attempt to "dominate" or "stigmatize" homosexual persons. The Church teaches clearly that homosexual persons, "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC, 2358). The Gospel is not a dominating force. It is a liberating force. It liberates from the slavery of sin. Meanwhile, the Rainbow Sash Movement (part of the Homosexual Hate Movement) has announced its plans to violate federal law by interfering with the First Amendment rights of Catholics. Will the USDOJ take action? Or will radical homosexual activists be allowed to terrorize Churches as they did in California over Proposition 8? Have radical homosexual activists shown respect for Christian believers?

Is the stage being set for persecution? President Obama has already asserted that Christians and others who oppose homosexuality are clinging to worn out ideas. See here.

Pope Benedict XVI on the dangers of abortion and same-sex "marriage" here.

Remember the Domestic Extremism Lexicon fiasco? Read here.