Objections to High School Dress Code for Young Women Miss a Crucial Point

Featured

Indignation is running high as a result of a Florida high school yearbook being digitally adjusted by those in charge to make the photos of 80 female students comply with its dress code.  The root problem is not the fact that dress codes for females are more detailed, therefore “unfair,” than those for males as the article concluded.  The mistake on the part of school administrators was not enforcing the dress code prior to the photos being taken.  Once they missed their responsibility on that point, any changes should have been approved by each family impacted.  The end doesn’t justify the means.

Granted, “The high school’s website says all student pictures in the yearbook ‘may be digitally adjusted’ if they don’t conform to the school district’s code of conduct.”1   However, they should have anticipated that this was a vociferous crisis just waiting to happen.  Anyone who has paid attention to the last few decades should expect an uprising even though a policy is officially stated.  Acknowledgement of authority and modesty  is considered old-fashioned in many places.

THE  REAL  PROBLEM

One parent misses the problem altogether with:  “I think it sends the message that our girls should be ashamed of their growing bodies, and I think that’s a horrible message to send out to these young girls that are going through these changes.”

It’s not about being ashamed of anything.  Rather, it’s about not “being in your face about it.”  If a woman believes she’s attractive, the knowledge of her good fortune should be sufficient for her.  Reminding the outside world of her sexiness does either of two things, and both aren’t good.  It causes envy in other women and lust in men.  (By using the word “lust” this writer risks being labeled as hopelessly out-of-date.  So be it.)  But what the promoters of more revealing clothing forget is that women and men respond differently to the human form.  Everyone seems to want moral perfection of everyone else, but few understand the reality that all of us have the responsibility to encourage virtue in our fellow human beings by our words and actions. (Yes, the Left is intent on a genderless humanity, but natural differences remain despite their attempts at social re-engineering.)

NO,  IT’S  NOT  “UNFAIR”

The school’s dress code has seven bullet points for girls compared to three for boys.  “Some parents and students call the policy sexist for its wording and enforcement.  More than 80% of infractions over the past three years have been issued to female students, according to data provided by district officials.”

Without becoming graphic, a review of the human body and its effects on human sexual interactions makes it clear that it’s not unfair.  In addition to the aforementioned differences between men and women and how they process sexual stimuli, the female form provides many more opportunities for getting attention.  Unless we revert to the unfortunate practice of codpieces2  for men, women naturally have more “zones of focus” than men do.  Society’s chances at a less immoral environment do not increase from the dismissal of nature, but from a cooperative strategy to promote virtue in everyone.  How we dress is part of that.    

CONTRADICTION

It’s a good bet that those parents who are ignorant of the virtue of modesty are among the first to want the elimination of class standing in cumulative grades because it makes some feel inferior.  Well, a young woman who is more physically developed can have that same impact on her “less fortunate” classmates, especially if she dresses more provocatively.  Class standing has the justification that students will enter a world where their achievements vs. the competition will have to stand on their own.   Sexual attributes, by themselves, should not be the way to success … although we do have examples of some politicians and others in the limelight using this route.

Imagine if we “geeks” paraded through class hallways and office settings with our academic and professional achievements plastered on our clothing.  It would be a definite indication of a severe lack of confidence.  It portrays a similar amount of insecurity when we dress in order to advertise our physical attributes as if we have nothing else to offer.

TRUE  HUMILITY

True humility is not shown by the rejection of compliments.   Rather, it’s accepting our true worth in a way which gives gratitude for our blessings without making others feel insulted or inferior, especially regarding those attributes we cannot change.  How we dress will be a reflection of our insecurity if we have a need to flaunt it, hoping to tease or cause envy.  If we believe ourselves to be attractive, that knowledge by itself  should be sufficient if we are healthy emotionally.     

1 – From “’They’ve made these girls feel humiliated’: Parents voice anger over female students’ altered yearbook photos at Florida high school,” by Sheldon Gardner, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/23/florida-female-students-yearbook-photos-bartram-trail-high-school/5237009001/, updated 5/24/2021.

2 – “When the fourteenth-century fashion for very short doublets emerged, the codpiece was invented to cover up the gap at the top of those hose.   If you believe ‘the Parson’ in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, it was a much-needed innovation.  He disliked the short doublets of his day because ‘Alas! Some of them show the very boss of their penis and the horrible pushed-out testicles that look like the malady of hernia’.

“Originally just a triangle of cloth, the codpiece became more substantial and more decorative as time went on, until its decline in the late sixteenth century.

Codpieces also functioned a useful little purse for storing precious items like coins, or jewels, and tradition claims this as the origin of the expression ‘a man’s family jewels.’”

From “A little article on the history of the codpiece…” by Lucy Worsley, https://lucyworsley.com/a-little-article-on-the-history-of-the-codpiece/

“No Children” at a Wedding Reception Reflects Modern Misunderstanding of What Marriage Is

Featured

Stated simply, marriage is more than legalized sex.  Its two-fold purpose is to unify the couple so that they become “one flesh” AND that they are open to children. 1 The couple, regardless of age, should not attempt to thwart the possibility of having children through non-natural means. 2

That this is commonly ignored is not surprising given that most non-Catholic Christian churches began approving of contraception as far back as 1930.  With the denial of this intrinsic aspect of marriage, it provides a clear path to a number of violations of the commandment against adultery from fornication 3 (unmarried persons) to infidelity 4 (married)  to same-sex “marriage.” 5

The decreasing patience for having and raising children or even being with them in a social setting has led to this astonishing request for their absence at a celebration which, by its definition, involves the acknowledgement and appreciation of the gift of children.  Barring children from a marriage reception is a contradiction.

1 – “Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage…”  Excerpt from paragraph 1664 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, twenty-fifth printing, November 2013.

2 – “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood.  Legitimate intentions on the part of the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”   Excerpt from paragraph 2399, Ibid.

3 – “… Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and a woman has been established.  Human love does not tolerate ‘trial marriages.’ It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.”  Excerpt from paragraph 2391, Ibid.

4 – “Adultery refers to marital infidelity… Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.  The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.”  Excerpt from paragraph 2380, Ibid.

5 – “… 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 complimentarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved.”  Excerpt from paragraph 2357, Ibid.

Why the Pro-Choice Argument That “It’s My Body” is False

Featured

Many proponents of abortion argue that it’s their right to kill the unborn because the baby is dependent on the mother and, most of all, “it’s my body.”

First, there is the obvious, ignored reality that the baby has his/her own unique genetic composition making it a distinctly separate person.

Second, despite the fact that many believe in God, they forget that we do not “own” our bodies. The Creator, who is the author of life, does.  We are merely stewards of the life He has given us. 1 Otherwise, there would be no moral problem with committing suicide or assisting someone in this act. 2, 3

Maybe this example will help.  A parent allows a child to make use of a family car provided he pays for the gas, insurance and make routine repairs when he becomes the primary user of the vehicle. The parent retains ownership of the car.

However, since the child does not own the car, he may not sell it or even paint it without permission.  Even allowing someone else to use it must be in accord with the owner’s wishes.

The same is true of our bodies.  We are entrusted to the life given to us.  We are responsible to maintain it and use it for good purposes, but we do not own it and can never own it.  Sure, we have free will because we are not robots.  However, unlike the minor in the example of the car who can one day become an adult similar to his parents and own the car, we never “grow up” to be similar to God and, therefore, own our bodies.

Despite the absence of ownership, there will be consequences for both the minor using the car incorrectly and for us if we live our lives immorally.  If the minor breaks traffic laws or has an accident, he will be responsible for penalties even though he doesn’t own the vehicle. The same is true for our actions if they run afoul of Natural Law, or the Ten Commandments for Judeo-Christian adherents.  There will be consequences which we will be responsible for in this life and possibly the next.

As we can never be on the same level as God while the child can advance to the same level as his adult parents, we can never own our lives the way the child can own the car someday. We never have the right to kill ourselves or anyone entrusted to us for care by the Creator. Killing the unborn may be rationalized because of a Supreme Court error in judgment (Roe v Wade), but it cannot be justified in the court of a well-formed conscience.

1 – “Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him.  It is God who remains the sovereign Master of Life.  We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls.  We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us.  It is not ours to dispose of.”  Paragraph 2280 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, twenty-fifth printing, November 2013.

2 – “Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life.  It is gravely contrary to the just love of self… Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.”  Excerpt from paragraph 2281, Ibid.

3 – “…Voluntary cooperation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.  Grave psychological disturbances, anguish or grave fear of hardship, suffering or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.”  Excerpt from paragraph 2282, Ibid.

No, Capitalism and Racism Were Not “Birthed During the Same Period… And Grown Together”

Featured

The Left has found a new way to argue a point when the facts contradict them.  We have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claiming that the Electoral College is racist.  Wrong, but this can be discussed at another time.  Now we hear from the writer Ibram X. Kendi that “you can’t separate capitalism from racism, that they were birthed during the same period in the same area and have grown together, damaged together and will one day die together.” 1

While false declarations like these are ridiculous, they are disturbingly effective. We have seen many feel shamed because of an inaccurate charge of “racist.” 

Racism/ Slavery

Origins of racism, who knows?  It has probably existed in some form since the earliest days of humans.  We do know the ancient Greeks and Romans held views which are deserving of being called racist.      

For example, from the Greeks:
“Without slaves to do the labor, Aristotle argued, enlightened men would lack the time and energy to pursue virtue and wisdom.  He also drew upon Plato’s biological claims — slavery is justified because slaves are more akin to dumb brutes than to free men: ‘From the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.’” 2

From the Romans:   
“The Romans understood water power but could see no reason to exploit it, because there was no shortage of slaves to do needed tasks.” 2

Capitalism

But capitalism, on the other hand, began much later during the (mislabeled) “Dark Ages” and racism did not contribute to its growth.  From a non-Catholic historian:

“In fact, capitalism was a very Catholic invention: it first appeared in the great Catholic monastic estates, way back in the ninth century… Because of the immense increases in agricultural productivity that resulted from such significant innovations, such as the switch to horses [note: from oxen], the heavy moldboard plow, and the three-field system, the monastic estates were no longer limited to mere subsistence agriculture.  Instead, they began to specialize in particular crops or products and to sell these at a profit, allowing them to purchase their other needs, which led them to initiate a cash economy.” 3    

Where  Do  We  Go  From  Here?

From a Black American economics professor:
“The bottom line is that when leftists have no other winning argument, they falsely accuse others of racism.  Republicans cower at the charge and often give the leftists what they want.  Black Americans who are octogenarians, or nearly so, need to explain what true racism is, not to correct white liberals but to inform young black people.” 4
Mr. Kendi should learn from Professor Williams.

1 – Lily Rothman interview with Ibram X. Kendi in Time, 8/19/2019.

2 – “The Victory of Reason (How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success),” by Rodney Stark, Random House Trade Paperbacks, New York, 2006.

3 – “Bearing False Witness,” by Rodney Stark, Templeton Press; West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.

4 – “Being a racist these days is pretty easy,” by Walter E. Williams, Cincinnati Enquirer, 8/4/2019.

CCC Paragraph #2241 Would Solve Immigration Problems

Featured

“The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

“Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” 1

We often make situations more complicated than they need to be. Immigration is an unfortunate example of this.

With constant tropical storms of political agendas swirling around us, it’s easy to forget that immigration is a two-way street.  Better off nations have a moral obligation to do what they can to help those non-citizens in need, without surrendering the right to protect their sovereignty.  Those desiring a new country may certainly seek help, provided they abide by the laws and respect the customs of their prospective new home.

Protecting a nation’s sovereignty does not include having procedures which delay non-criminals from entering in a timely manner. 2  This hurts both immigrant and receiving country.

On the other hand, not opposing caravans of immigrants which attempt to sidestep reasonable border policies is neither fair to existing citizens nor wise for everyone in the long run. 3  The infamous “catch and release” policy at U.S. borders encourages illegal border crossing. 4  Finally, giving the vote to non-citizens, who have not committed themselves to this country, even “only” for school board issues, is illogical. 5  Given human nature, more nonsensical privileges will follow.

Applying the wisdom of paragraph 2241 would get us back on track.

1 – Paragraph 2241 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, twenty-fifth printing, November 2013.

2 – “Waiting in line: Why legal immigration can take decades, by Zach Quinn, 11/28/2016, https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2016/11/28/waiting-turn-long-line-legal-immigration//

3 – “The Caravan Expose the Democrats, by Michael Brendan Dougherty, 10/26/2018, https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/migrant-caravan-democrats-border-enforcement-immigration-debate/

4 – “Illegal immigrant families exploit ‘catch and release’ loopholes , surge over borders at record levels, by Stephen Dinan, 9/12/2018, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/12/illegal-immigration-soars-families-spot-holes/

5 – “San Francisco To Allow Noncitizens To Vote For School Board, 10/23/2018, https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/10/23/san-francisco-noncitizens-vote-school-board/

#MeToo is Sadly Not A Surprise, Pope Paul VI Warned Us 50 Years Ago

Featured

”Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.  Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.  Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” 1

“It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching.  There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication.  But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a “sign of contradiction.” (22)  She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.

“Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter.  It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.”3

These are excerpts from Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae (Latin for “Of Human Life”), issued in 1968.  (It should be noted that the writing style unfamiliar to many is a result of having a translation from a Latin text.  The Romance languages, especially those in a classical style, are different from modern, informal American English.) This was written at the dawn of the “free love” era.  Secular news media and even some clergy and bishops felt that his message was flawed or at least doomed to being disregarded by those claiming to be Catholic.

Despite the opposition to his message, this pope’s steadfast courage to be truthful has been vindicated.  Recent revelations of countless inappropriate sexual advances and impositions of men toward women in the workplace and other relationships over the last few decades make it clear: the promise of “safe sex” through use of condoms and chemical means of birth control have reduced the dignity of women to become mere sex objects.

Men are demonstrating decreased moral responsibility in caring for the children they cause to be conceived.  U.S. births to all unmarried women were just 5% in 1960, and had risen to 40% across all demographics in 2016 (29% for non-Hispanic whites, 53% for Hispanics and 70% for non-Hispanic blacks). 4

True, some of the increase is due to government policies which indirectly discourage marriage and also the popular belief among some that women don’t need a husband to have a child, only a “sperm donor.” 5

Nevertheless, the consequences have been obvious.  We would be wise to heed the words of Pope Paul VI.  He may have died forty years ago, but his understanding of human nature is timeless.

1 – Excerpt from section II, topic  17 of Pope Paul’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, dated July 25, 1968. https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

2 – Referred to Luke 2:34 (“and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, ‘Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted…’”) Taken from The Catholic Study Bible, third edition, containing The New American Bible, revised edition, Oxford University Press, 2015.

3 – Excerpt from section II, topic  18 of Pope Paul’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, dated July 25, 1968. https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

4 – “Trend in births to unmarried women,”  https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/births-to-unmarried-women, 9/24/2018.

5 – “Why Women Don’t Need Husbands, by a Husband,” by Tom Burns, https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/why-women-dont-need-husbands-written-by-a-husband-hesaid/, 11/26/2013.

“… Are a Way to Show Off the Body and Be Provocative” — Is This a Sensible Goal of Fashion?

Featured

A basic Google search for the meaning of “provocative” includes:
“arousing sexual desire or interest, especially deliberately”

The entire quote, which is the subject of this article, is as follows:

“Short shorts are a way to show off the body and be provocative, and everyone has a choice on how to show off their body, no matter their size.”1

Since women have been used by men at historic levels since the 1960’s 2,3 and recent disclosures about the decades of sexual abuse against women, is this a smart approach?  Giving the benefit of the doubt, are bodies being advertised in order to seek more than a short-term relationship like a lifelong mate?  OK, maybe not.

Are revealing clothes being worn to elicit jealousy from other women?  Honestly?… It couldn’t be that it’s being done to boost one’s self-image since a woman should already be familiar with her positive physical attributes every time she dresses.  Or is there some perverse wish in arousing the aforementioned sexual desire in men in order to exert some power over them?  No way!

Regardless of the motives, it’s ironic that the ill-advised quote comes from a magazine named “Women’s Health.”  How women dress should be given serious and responsible consideration as it does have an impact on our society.

 

1 – Gabrielle Porcaro, Women’s Health, as reported in the USA Today section of the Cincinnati Enquirer, by Maria Puente, 7/31/2017.

2 – “Cohabitation in the United States has increased by more than 1,500 percent in the past half century. In 1960, about 450,000 unmarried couples lived together. Now the number is more than 7.5 million.”  From “The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage,” by Meg Jay, The New York Times, 4/14/2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/the-downside-of-cohabiting-before-marriage.html

3 – Meanwhile, the U.S. population will not have increased 100% since 1960 until sometime in the next decade.  Taken from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/1940census/CSPAN_1940slides.pdf

Suddenly, Democrats are Worried About People Losing Their Lives?

In response to the recently released Senate version of Obamacare replacement, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said:

“These cuts are blood money,” Warren said on the Senate floor. “People will die.”  More specifically, Warren added that “Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives.” 1

She was a member of the Congress which implemented Obamacare – the plan which increased premiums to unfathomable heights (married couple with no children at home in Ohio with moderate coverage and high deductibles pays $1,700 per month).  The plan has absurd requirements causing insurers to leave many counties and states, thus decreasing competition (and we know what that does to prices).  This is the plan which Rep. Nancy Pelosi famously said that we would have to pass it in order to learn what’s in it, and we have regretted the result.

Sen. Warren is all up in arms about the proposed health plan which might force Congress to move public health insurance assistance from the backs of average Americans to a sensible federal plan where the burden is distributed fairly.  (This does not mean going to socialized medicine, the “single payer” program which Obamacare had in mind after it deliberately destroyed our private insurance system, a goal well on its way to realization.)

All of this outrage from a member of the party which promotes the killing of babies (59 million victims since Roe v. Wade)2   and a disciple of President Obama who, as a senator, would not vote against the horrific practice of late term abortion.

We can’t take her or the rest of the hypocritical Democrats seriously.

 

1 – “Elizabeth Warren on McConnell Bill: ‘These Cuts are Blood Money… People Will Die,’” by Tony Lee, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/22/elizabeth-warren-blood-money-people-will-die/

2http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042

Democrats: Don’t Wring Your Hands About Anticipated Federal Budget Cuts, but Donate As Non-Liberals Do

Lead  In

My wife and I recently attended an info-dinner given by a nationally known financial planning company for invited clients.  Near the end of the evening, one of the attendees at our table repeatedly mentioned how improper it was for those us attending a special dinner we didn’t have to pay for when so many in the U.S. and the world were struggling to survive.  To comfort him, several of us agreed with his assertion that the world contained enough wealth to sustain the entire population, but that the problem was how to make it equitable.

He continued to wring his hands verbally about how those of us at the table, living in excess, were part the problem.  I commented that it would be a great help if our federal government would stop pushing religious groups out the adoption business, hospitals and schools because they did not subscribe to the new political correctness being enforced.  These organizations not only have done good work for centuries, but do it more economically than big government can.

His continued restrained jabs at our supposed lack of concern for the less fortunate changed our responses.  A couple of us described how we and relatives were assisting disadvantaged people through contacts in our country and the world in charitable projects to alleviate poverty.  These efforts included not just significant financial assistance, considering our modest means, but actual labor to help those in need.

Unfortunately, he was not mollified by any of this.  Finally, to my surprise, my otherwise silent wife asked him what he was doing to help others since he seemed so passionate about this subject.  After some typical liberal avoidance of the issue, he said he was promoting awareness.  But what was he actually doing to be part of the solution?  In the absence of anything specific, it was clear that he was for big government to solve these inequities.  This idea was cemented with his question after I reminded him that the success of getting the colonies to agree to a federal constitution was contingent on the assurance that states’ rights would still exist.  He then asked me how much our nation’s population had increased since then.  I correctly stated that it went from three million to 320 million.  His implication was that greater size required great government intervention.

Subsidiarity,  not  Big  Brother

The Left loves concentration of power at the top ostensibly because those of us at the lower levels are incapable.  History proves the error of this strategy because:

“… Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative.  The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity [emphasis retained], according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help co-ordinate its activity within the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good’… The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism.  It sets limits for state intervention… In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies… The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures.  Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and supporting the institution of the family.  Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life.” 1,2

How  Does  This  Relate  to  the  New  Federal  Budget?

President Trump’s federal budget proposal is expected to be released this coming Tuesday (May 23).  Included in it will be some budget cuts as the federal deficit begins to be addressed.  The safest bet is that there will be considerable howling, especially from Democrats, as a result of some decreases in funding of some social programs.

Subsidiarity teaches that this is not a crisis or necessarily inappropriate.  Much has been and should be done at the state and local level – and this includes us average citizens, not just “the government.”

Going back to the discussion at the financial planning dinner, what states’ residents are doing the most to make the world a better place through their own initiative?  According to recent data, these states were the most charitable based on income tax filing deductions (as a percentage of income) and would not reflect aid to family members and friends in need:

  • Utah 6.6%
  • Mississippi 5.0%
  • Alabama 4.8%
  • Tennessee 4,5%
  • Georgia 4.2%
  • South Carolina 4.1%
  • Idaho 4.0%
  • Oklahoma 3.9%
  • Arkansas 3.9%
  • North Carolina 3.6%

Liberal states aren’t present in this list.  Adding  to the Left’s reputation for wanting the federal government take all of the responsibility, New Hampshire was the lowest and Maine and Vermont were among the lowest.While some may believe that this is because conservatives are simply wealthier or more religious (at least true on the second part), the point is that for the 2012 election, “The top 17 states for rate of giving all went for Romney.” 4

The take away from this:  Liberals, with their willingness to spend others’ money instead of their own, may not complain about budget cuts until they match the generosity of their supposedly less informed non-liberal acquaintances.

 

1 – Taken from paragraphs 1883, 1885, 1894 and 2209 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November, 2013.

2 – A word about “the common good.”  It is not about majority rule or what helps the most people, but “By common good is to be understood ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.’  The common good concerns the life of all… The common good consists of three essential elements:  respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.”  Ibid, from paragraphs 1906 and 1925.

3 – “Report:  Which states give the most to charity?  The ones with church-goers,” by Lindsey Bever, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/06/report-which-states-give-the-most-to-charity-the-ones-with-church-goers/?utm_term=.d192b18507a9, 10/6/2014.

4 – “Who’s More Generous, Liberals or Conservatives,” by John Grgurich, The Fiscal Times, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives, 10/17/2014.

“Catholic” VP Candidate Kaine Doesn’t Understand Church’s Doctrine on Marriage, the Book of Genesis and Pope’s Statement

In his desire to remain relevant in a capricious society, Tim Kaine said the Catholic Church may one day allow same-sex “marriages.”

“Kaine, who attends a primarily African-American Catholic parish in Richmond, Virginia, acknowledged that his “’unconditional support for marriage equality is at odds with the current doctrine of the church I still attend.’…”

The Democratic VP candidate, a self- proclaimed Catholic, not only approves of such impossible unions, but he doesn’t understand the basics of his faith as evidenced by:

“’But I think that’s going to change, too,’ he said to applause, invoking both the Bible and Pope Francis as reasons why he thinks the church could alter its doctrine on marriage.”1

But  Church  Doctrine  Can’t  Change

But, Mr. Kaine, doctrine is in unchangeable.  Practices may change over the years, but doctrine is permanent.

For example, the doctrine of Jesus’ “hypostatic union”2 of the divine and human has always been true despite the Arian heresy (arising around AD 300) which “was willing to grant Out Lord every kind of honor and majesty just short of the full nature of the Godhead… He was granted, one might say (paradoxically), all the divine attributes – except divinity.”3

Also, the Church knows that Jesus is present body, soul and divinity in the Eucharist4 starting with the Last Supper and no Christian revolution can change that reality.5

Doctrine is in unchangeable.6

The same goes for marriage.  That it can only be between one man and one woman goes back to its very beginning.  It was not invented by humans and thus cannot be redefined by humans.

Kaine  Forgets  About  the  Reality  of  Sin  as  well  as  the  Definition  of  a  Family

” ‘I think it’s going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator in the first chapter of Genesis who surveys the entire world including mankind and said it is very good, it is very good,’ he said.”1

Yes, God saw that His creation was good.  Then, two human beings threw a wrench into this wonderful situation by introducing sin into the world.  Some sins are “disordered behavior”7 and homosexual acts are in this category.  God’s creation is good, but some human actions are not.

Like most errors, Kaine took a verse from Genesis out of context in order  to justify his acceptance of same-sex “marriage” plus the way he came to that conclusion: “‘My three children helped me see the issue of marriage equality as what it was really about, treating every family equally under the law,’ he said.1

He summarized with: “‘To that I want to add, who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family?’ Kaine asked. ‘I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.’“1

The family, a very nice sentiment.  However, to suggest that we can invent a family headed by two homosexual men or women is flawed because the “arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of such witness and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable.”  [ For the complete answer to the question of single parents vs. two homosexual heads of household, see footnote 8]

Kaine,  Like  Many  Others,  Takes  “Who  am  I  to  judge?”  Out  of  Context

He concluded his argument for same-sex marriage by saying, “Pope Francis famously said, ‘Who am I to judge? ‘ Kaine continued, referencing the pope’s 2013 comment when asked about gay priests in the church.”

One would expect the secular new media to take comments from a religious leader out of context, but a self-proclaimed Catholic like Tim Kaine?

Here’s a good summary of the issue: “When the Pope said, ‘Who am I to Judge’, he was not talking about a situation where an active and unrepentant homosexual was the subject of discussion. In the Pope’s own words, he was talking about a person who had, ‘experienced a conversion’, has gone to confession and ‘seeks the Lord’… “

“When they cannot take one of his statements out of context and when they cannot twist their interpretation to somehow support progressivism, they ignore it completely. This is why you do not see major news outlets reporting that Pope Francis calls on Catholics to defend marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman….”

“You will not see the NBC Nightly News reporting the Pope’s recent speeches and homilies in the Philippines, such as:

‘The family is also threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.’9

Case closed.

Conclusion

This much can be said about Tim Kaine.  If he were to be elected Vice-President, there is no doubt he could continue the error-riddled legacy of the current pseudo-Catholic in that same office, Joe Biden.

If Kaine believes the Church will someday change the definition of marriage, he needs to be prepared for an endless wait!

 

 

 1 – “VP Candidate Tim Kaine Says Catholic Church Will Accept Marriage Equality,” from “Bondings 2.0” reposting a newwaysministryblog, https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/29908851/posts/38582

2 – “The union in one person, or hypostasis, of the divine and human natures. Jesus Christ is both God and man in virtue of the hypostatic union, a mystery of faith in the strict sense… Although he is God and man, he is not two but one Christ. And he is one, not because his divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed to God. He is one, not at all because of a mingling of substances, but because he is one person…”  From New Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright 2003, http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407705521/hypostatic-union.html

3 – “The Great Heresies,” by Hilaire Belloc, TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.; Rockford, Illinois, republished in 1991 (first published in 1938 by Sheed and Ward, London).

 4 –“The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.  Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.”  Paragraph 1377 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing; November , 2013.

5 – “It was above all on ‘the first day of the week,’ Sunday, the day of Jesus resurrection, that the Christians met ‘to break bread.’From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure.  It remains the center of the Church’s life.”  Paragraph 1343, Ibid.  A – Acts 20:7.

6 – “In catechesis, ‘Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God,…is taught – everything else is taught with reference to him – and it is Christ alone who teaches – anyone else teaches to the extent that he is Christ’s spokeman, enabling Christ to teach with his lips… Every catechist should be able to apply to himself the mysterious words of Christ: ‘My teaching is not mine, bu his who sent me.’”  Paragraph 427, Ibid.

7 – “… Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravityB, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’C  They are contrary to the natural law… Under no circumstances can they be approved.”  Sections of Paragraph 2357, Ibid.

8 – “What about single parents? These families lack a father or a mother, just like households headed by two men or two women.
A child is meant to be raised by his or her own, married father and mother. But there are times when, due to family tragedies or other unfortunate circumstances, this ideal cannot be realized. The Church acknowledges the difficulties faced by single parents and seeks to support them in their often heroic response to meet the needs of their children. There is a big difference, however, between dealing with the unintended reality of single parenthood and approving the formation of “alternative families” that deliberately deprive a child of a father or a mother, such as arrangements headed by two men or two women. Undesired single parenthood can still witness to the importance of sexual difference by acknowledging the challenges faced by single parents and their children due to the lack of a father or mother. In contrast, arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of such witness and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable. These arrangements of themselves contradict the conjugal and generative reality of marriage and are never acceptable. Children deserve to have their need for a father and a mother respected and protected in law.”  http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm

9 – “Did You Hear What Pope Francis Said?” by Bob Sullivan, http://bsullivan.org/did-you-hear-what-pope-francis-said/