Coping With Election Losses: Most Conservatives Turn to God and Prayer, Many Liberals Turn to the Streets

Featured

This presidential campaign season was clearly the most unusual our nation has ever seen.  But its uniqueness did not end when the election was over.  After a stunning defeat, liberals went to the streets to demonstrate, often not peacefully, when the younger ones weren’t looking for “safe places” to hide in universities because a Democrat would not be in office for the first time since they were in grade school.

Please don’t be misled.  Tuesday, November 5, 2012 was one of the top five disappointing days of my now eleven presidential elections.  Persons of faith knew that the infamous “phone and pen” would bring more attacks on all freedoms, especially religious.  So, what did we do?  We turned to the one who is ultimately in charge, despite all human attempts to destroy His plans.  We continued our prayers to God and promised to redouble our efforts to try to live in His will, regardless of the outcomes in our lifetimes.

However when they suffer defeat, many liberals feel an especially strong leaning toward despair as their hope is in man, as the data in the footnote shows.1   Man is not the ultimate power in determining his destiny.  Many may disdain religious faith and Natural Law as being crutches for the weak by saying, “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them…”2 or attempting to justify same-sex “marriage” as being modern justice in place of timeless values.

It not only doesn’t work, but it does not bring the peace needed to deal with stinging adversity and achieve constructive change.  Thus, we have the violent demonstrations against Trump’s election.   So, who are the real hate mongers?

1 – “In a poll about American’s attitudes toward religious freedom, Republicans, and especially conservatives, are standout churchgoers. For Republicans, 46 percent said they “regularly attend,” Democrats 23 percent. Just a quarter of Republicans, 24 percent, never attend or refused to answer the question compared to 46 percent of Democrats.”

“And when separated by ideology, only 18 percent of liberals said they regularly attend church and 62 percent said they never go. For conservatives, 41 percent regularly attend and 34 percent never go.”

While the article adds, “But among the nation, belief in God remains high, even among those unaffiliated with any church,” the true priorities are displayed by actions, not just lip service.

From “Church poll:  Just 18% of liberals regularly attend, 62% never,” by Paul Bedard, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/church-poll-just-18-of-liberals-regularly-attend-62-never/article/2569673, 8/6/2015.

2 – “Obama : ‘They cling to guns or religion,’” http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2008/april/obama-they-cling-to-guns-or-religion.html, 4/13/2008.

Forget Conservatives’ Alleged Phobias, Hillary — Rather, You Need to Reclaim a Healthy Fear of God

Featured

Hillary Clinton and her Democratic followers like to claim that those who disagree with them as suffering from phobias.  For those who want to be careful about allowing people from Islamic terrorist strongholds to immigrate at will, the charge of “Islamophobia” is levied.  If a Christian does not accept revisionist morality called “marriage equality” and accept that two men or two women can marry, he is suddenly a “homophobic.”  Besides being a stupid term, because it actually means an unreasonable fear of humans, it falsely wishes to say that such a person is fearful of homosexuals.

“Fear mongering” is also thrown at Donald Trump because he has the audacity to accurately explain the current dreadful condition of our nation.

With all of this talk of fear from the Left, it’s sad that the perpetrators of these false claims have lost their fear of God along the way.  In case any of them reads this, here is a summary on their actions which should cause them to pause and reconsider their possibilities on their judgment day.

Thou  shall  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbor:  In simple terms, this Commandment refers to lying.  The Left should feel at home with this otherwise they wouldn’t join Hillary in continuing to label their adversaries as having psychological disorders (re: “phobias”).

So does the President they elected.  He said that there was “not a smidgen of corruption” with regard to the IRS unwarranted investigations of conservatives and that with Obamacare, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”  We know how these comments were exposed to be deliberately false.

Hillary has had a field day with her false statements to the FBI in her email case which endangered national security.  Although FBI Director James Comey admitted in a Congressional inquiry that several of her key statements were lies, she keeps claiming publically that the FBI did not find any of her statements to be false.  But this should be expected from someone who ignored ambassador Stevens’ request for more security then made up the story that the murderous Benghazi attack was incited by a video in order to prevent Obama from losing more votes in the 2012 election.

Thou  shall  not  Steal:  “The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Service (IRS) in 2015.”1  That speaks for itself.

Hillary also wants the wealthy to pay their “fair share.”  She plans to target those making more than $250,000 annually.  In 2014, those making that amount represented 2.7% of all tax filings and they paid 51.6% of taxes paid.2  Also, “The top 1% of households — defined as bringing in more than $730,000 a year — would see their tax burden go up by more than $78,000 on average, according to an analysis of  Clinton’s original tax plan from the Policy Center.”3

We can call these socialist plans a “redistribution of wealth,” but that’s only to disguise what it is:  stealing.  It may be surprising to many, but socialism is itself contrary to Christian beliefs.4

Thou shall not kill:  As of the start of this year, we have killed 58-1/2 million babies via abortion in the U.S. since the Supreme Court determined this was a “privacy” issue instead of murder in 1973.Regardless of the rationalizations calling it “women’s reproductive health” or “choice,” it has been understood to be murder since the earliest days of Christianity.For Hillary Clinton to support late term abortions is even more appalling.

Thou  shall  not  commit  adultery:  Getting the current drama out of the way first, Donald Trump’s deplorable disrespect for women in his words and alleged actions is certainly deplorable.  It’s irrelevant that some could be considered “locker room talk.”  However, it is surprising to hear Hillary speak so indignantly of him when she covered up and vilified those women with whom her husband was adulterous over the years including his time as President.7,8

Hillary Clinton is among a growing number of  proponents who believe in “marriage equality.”  This euphemism is for same-sex “marriage.”  While those afflicted with homosexual tendencies must be treated with love and respect, this charity does not extend itself to enabling disordered behavior.  Ancient traditions are not necessarily irrelevant and such is the situation with marriage.  This institution goes back to the earliest days of Judeo-Christian tradition and cannot be changed by humans as we did not create it.  Any attempt to include disordered behavior is seriously wrong.9,10

IN CONCLUSION, a healthy fear of God would do more to fix our nation than falsely accusing Donald Trump of being a fear-monger.

 

1 – In addition, “The tax records, which were filed with the IRS in November of 2015, show that the Clinton Foundation spent far more on overhead expenses like travel ($7.9 million) than it did on charitable grants in 2014. The group also spent more on rent and office supplies (a total of $6.6 million) than it did on charitable grants.”  From “Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014,” by Sean Davis, http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/clinton-foundation-spent-6-percent-charitable-grants-2014/, 9/16/2016.

2 – “From “High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be “fair’?” by Drew Desilver, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/, 4/13/2016.

3 – “Here’s how much Hillary Clinton’s tax plan would hit the rich,” by Jeanne Sahadi, http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/pf/taxes/hillary-clinton-taxes/, 8/11/2016.

4 – Part of Section 15 of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum, published May 15, 1891, http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

5 – “58,586,256 Abortions in America Since Roe v. Wade in 1973,” by Steven Ertelt, http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/14/58586256-abortions-in-america-since-roe-v-wade-in-1973/, 1/14/2016.

6 – “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.  This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.  Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:  You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish…”
Part of paragraph 2271 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing November 2013.
Note:  the “You shall not kill…” comes from the Didache, Tertullian and other Christian writings.

7 – “Enabler or family defender? How Hillary Clinton responded to husband’s accusers,” by Shawn Boburg, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/enabler-or-family-defender-how-hillary-clinton-responded-to-husbands-accusers/2016/09/28/58dad5d4-6fb1-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html, 9/28/2016.

8 – “Bill’s sex-assault victim lashes out over Hillary’s terrorizing,” by Jerome R. Corsi, http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/bills-sex-assault-victim-lashes-out-over-hillarys-terrorizing/, 5/13/2016.

9 – “’K’maase Eretz Mitzrayim asher yeshavtem ba lo sa’asu – like the practice of the land of Egypt in which you dwelled do not do’ (Vayikra 18:3)”

“This verse prohibits the most immoral forms of behavior – idolatry, incest, adultery, bloodshed, male and female homosexual activity and bestiality[1]. The prohibition against male homosexual behavior is repeated in Vayikra 18:22. Prohibited homosexual activity includes any non-platonic physical contact; even yichud (seclusion) with someone of the same gender is forbidden for homosexually active individuals[2]…”

“Homosexual behavior is absolutely prohibited and constitutes an abomination[5]. Discreet, unconditionally halachically committed Jews who do not practice homosexuality but feel same sex attraction (ssa) should be sympathetically and wholeheartedly supported.  They can be wonderful Jews, fully deserving of our love, respect, and support. They should be encouraged to seek professional guidance.  Moreover, in an uninfected Torah society, appropriate sympathy for discreetshomrei Torah u’mitzvos who experience but do not act upon ssa is clearly distinguished from brazen public identification of their yetzer hara for forbidden behavior.  In a pure Torah society people would recognize that every individual neshama is given its own unique constellation of challenges and some of these challenges consist of feeling an impulse to forbidden behavior.  But every individual neshama also possesses the resilience and strength to triumph over its challenges[6]…”

Talmud Torah allows us to absorb the divine Weltanschauung. Inevitably, with respect to homosexuality, Talmud Torah will place us at odds with political correctness and the temper of the times. Nevertheless, we must be honest with ourselves, and with Hakadosh Baruch Hu, regardless of political correctness, considerations or consequences.

[1] The Sifra (Vayikra 138:5), cited by Rashi ad loc. refers to the atrocities of Eretz Mitzrayim as being the most corrupt of all nations. The Sifra (138:7) further provides the list of activities in which the Mitzriyim engaged. See also Rambam Hilchos Isurei Biah 21:8.

[2] Rambam Hilchos Isurei Biah 21:1,2; 22:1,2. See also Shulchan Aruch Even HoEzer 24

[5]Vayikra 18:22

[6] In the present forum we are not discussing the halachic category of shotim.

Taken from http://torahweb.org/torah/special/2010/homosexuality.html#_ednref5

10 – “…Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravityA, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.  They are contrary to the natural law… Under no circumstances can they be approved… The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.  This inclination, which id objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.  They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided… Homosexual persons are called to chastity.”

References can be found in Genesis 19:1-29, Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

Sections of paragraphs 2357-2359 come from of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing November 2013.

Hillary Clinton’s “Freedom of Worship” Cripples Freedom of Religion

Featured

For years, Hillary Clinton and her adversary turned accomplice with regard to religion, Barack Obama, have been attempting a slight of hand which will stifle the religious freedom our nation was founded on.  Their use of “freedom of worship” with impunity is part of their agenda to eliminate opposition to their plans.1

By restricting the freedom of religion to the tightly confined space of the four walls of religious buildings, it ceases to be truly free.  Hillary Clinton even went so far as to use this position to promote the legal form of murder known as abortion:

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper.  Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will.  And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”2

Thus, it is not surprising to hear members of her campaign staff agreeing with a supporter, John Halpin, a staffer at the Clinton allied Center for American Progress, who said of Catholics: “They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy…”  Clinton spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri added, “I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”3

This may not hurt her in the election as only 31% of Democrats attend weekly church services.  This number falls to 23% of white Democrats.

Regardless, restricting religious practices to houses of worship is a contradiction to the very nature of religion.  Hillary and most of her fellow Democrats may not believe the war against terrorism is a religious war at its roots.  However, her attempts to hold Christian religions hostage will not be as badly misinterpreted.

 

1 – “However, both the President and his Secretary of State have now replaced “freedom of religion” with “freedom of worship” too many times to seem inadvertent.”  From “Why ‘Freedom of Worship’ Is Not Enough,” by Ashley E. Samelson, https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/why-ldquofreedom-of-worshiprdquo-is-not-enough, 2/22/2010.

2 – “Hillary: ‘Deep-seated … religious beliefs’ have to be changed for abortion,” by Ed Morrissey, http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/hillary-deep-seated-religious-beliefs-have-to-be-changed-for-abortion/, 4/24/2015.

3 – “Hillary Clinton Campaign Spokeswoman Mocks Catholics, Calling Catholic Faith ‘Severely Backwards’” by Steven Ertelt, http://www.lifenews.com/2016/10/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-spokeswoman-mocks-catholics-calling-catholic-faith-severely-backwards/, 10/12/2016.

4 – “Preaching to The Choir: How Church Attendance Divides the Parties,” by Ronald Brownstein, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/preaching-to-the-choir-how-church-attendance-divides-the-parties/431928/, 4/6/2015.

Don’t Waste Your Time With “The Tribunal” if Understanding the Catholic Annulment Process is Your Goal

Featured

Many aspects of the Catholic faith are criticized simply because they are misunderstood.  The annulment process is one that mystifies even quite a few who say they are Catholic.

What  is  an  Annulment?

An annulment is not a “Catholic divorce.”  A divorce breaks a civil contract, which can be broken by humans.  A marriage between two baptized Christians is a covenant between them and God – something humans cannot break.  “Until death do you part” applies to all Christians despite attempts to create man-made exceptions over the last five centuries.

A “declaration of nullity” by the Catholic Church simply means that all of the necessary conditions for a sacramental union were not present at the time of the wedding vows.1  This statement does not in any way change the legitimacy status of the children.2

The  Movie’s  Theme

The story involves a previously married Protestant man (Joseph) who wishes to marry a Catholic woman who has never been married (Emily).  Since “until death do you part” clearly applies here, they can only be married in the Church if his first marriage did not exist sacramentally.  Otherwise, he is still married in the eyes of God.  The tribunal must determine whether any spiritual, psychological or physical impediments to marriage existed at the time those vows were taken.  So, how well did the movie portray the process?

Critique

  • The setting: It was a “court” arrangement where the petitioner and respondent3 were present along with the advocate and defender of the bond.In many dioceses, the petitioner, respondent and witnesses only have to submit written testimonies to the tribunal and are not required to make personal appearances.  There was a small disclaimer in the movie’s credits at the end, but it would have been far more effective if it had been mentioned verbally at the beginning.  Small point, and not critical.
  • Prevailing action: What brings this movie down to a “not recommended” rating is that it spent an inordinate amount of time showing a PG-13 version of Emily and her battles with temptations of fornication with the two men involved, sometimes successful sometimes not.  Her level of holiness has absolutely no bearing on the marriage being reviewed.

The director could argue that he wanted to show the reason for Tony’s emotional tug-           of-war resulting from his helping a rival to possibly marry his beloved.  But this                     could have been accomplished with a simple monologue from him explaining his                   moral dilemma.  Filling the movie with her activities was essentially for a soap opera             effect – not at all helpful or appropriate when attempting to explain the annulment               process.

  • Joseph’s irrelevant promises to be a good husband: Near the end, Joseph expressed his fervent intentions to be a loyal and attentive husband.  That’s all well and good, but the tribunal is not assessing his suitability to be a husband again, but to determine whether his first marriage was sacramental and, therefore, exists to the exclusion of another wife.
  • Emily’s feelings and maturity:  Also near the end, she made a case for herself before the tribunal that she possessed the necessary character traits to be a good wife.  Wonderful, but this has nothing to do with the validity of a marriage she was not involved with.  Incidentally, neither Joseph’s nor Emily’s personal evaluation of their current state of maturity and resolve would have been included in any written responses for either forms of the tribunal process.
  • Defender of the bond: He was given the opportunity to display an eruption of anger certainly not typical of people in this process.  The director must have wanted Hollywood more than accuracy.
  • Starting the engagement relationship with deliberate deception: Before the decision of the tribunal was known, Tony offered Joseph the engagement ring he had bought for Emily some time ago.  After he convinced Joseph to accept it, they agreed that if Emily were to ask how he obtained that ring, Joseph was to say he bought it on the internet.  He probably shouldn’t have used the ring in the first place and then he violated the trust that must exist between husband and wife by lying about its origins.  This is funny only to the secular crowd which views life as a sitcom.
  • Proceeding down the aisle with Saturday Night Live irreverence: The lack of respect for marriage continued to the end of the movie when Tony and Emily’s best friend, Amana, were seen going down the aisle together in the wedding procession.  They were giggling and having a great time as they made only slightly veiled comments about hooking up later.

Movies which inform a misguided society about Catholic beliefs and practices are needed.  Unfortunately, “The Tribunal” does much more damage than good.  Reading about annulments on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ site or the Catechism of the Catechism would be a much better choice.

1 – “’Annulment’ is an unfortunate word that is sometimes used to refer to a Catholic ‘declaration of nullity.’ Actually, nothing is made null through the process. Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.”

“For a Catholic marriage to be valid, it is required that: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they are capable of giving their consent to marry; (3) they freely exchange their consent; (4) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; (5) they intend the good of each other; and (6) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by Church authority.”  http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/annulments/

2 – “A declaration of nullity has no effect on the legitimacy of children who were born of the union following the wedding day, since the child’s mother and father were presumed to be married at the time that the child was born. Parental obligations remain after a marriage may be declared null.”  http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/annulments/

3 – “The person who is asking for the declaration of nullity – the petitioner – submits written testimony about the marriage and a list of persons who are familiar with the marriage. These people must be willing to answer questions about the spouses and the marriage. If the other spouse did not co-sign the petition, the tribunal will contact that spouse – the respondent – who has a right to be involved. In some cases the respondent does not wish to become involved; the case can still move forward.”  http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/annulments/

4 – “Each party may also appoint a Church advocate to represent him or her before the tribunal. A representative for the Church, called the defender of the bond, will argue for the validity of the marriage.”  http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/annulments/

News Flash, Pro-Choice: We Don’t Own Our Bodies, Including the Unborn

Featured

The longstanding argument rationalizing the killing of the unborn is the presumption that it solely involves the woman’s body and she can do with it whatever she wants.

Two errors here.  First of all, the chromosomes of the baby prove that a second, unique individual is also present.  Therefore, it’s not just about the woman’s body.

Secondly, we are only stewards of our bodies, not the ultimate masters of them.

“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.”1

“The Torah states that the human body was created Bi’tzelem Elokim, in the image of God, and is the property of the Creator.  Man is given custodial rights to his body, and has no more right to harm or destroy his body than the superintendent has to ransack the building he is hired to maintain…”
“By extension a physician may not hasten the death of a patient, not only because of his duty to preserve life, but because he has no right to destroy the property of another, in this case God… Because one’s body is not his property…”2

Consequently, suggesting that we own ourselves is a position which cannot be held by those who hold to Judeo-Christian traditions.

 

1 – Paragraph 2280 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing; November, 2013.

2 – “Sanctity of the Human Body,” by Daniel Eisenberg, MD.  http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48960576.html

 

 

Satan Likes to Control People (Strange, So Does Big Government!)

Evil’s dislike for Good is not restricted to the realm of the supernatural. The Earth has been a battleground since our most distant ancestors with consciences came into being.  For people of faith, these wars will continue until the Second Coming.  For skeptics, it could last until the sun becomes a red giant and overtakes the first three planets, including ours.  Either way, it will be a long struggle.

Many Good vs. Evil confrontations are obvious.  Organized crime, neighborhood gangs and Islamic jihadists are clear examples of those who attack innocent people.  However, the colliding political philosophies of small vs. big government are part of an overlooked venue.  Striving for big government unwittingly puts many on the side of the control freak who was bounced from Heaven; thus, creating Hell.

Respect  for  Human  Life  Creates  Two  Sides  of  the  Battle

A key principle around which sides are taken is respect for the dignity of human life.   Government intervention should be limited to doing for individuals what they have a right to do for themselves, but cannot.1  Assistance ought to be given where it is truly necessary.  Taxpayer funds should be available to provide the basics of life for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

But it must not also promote, unintentionally or otherwise, the breakup of the family as many of the War on Poverty programs have done over the last half-century.2

It also means that tax money should not arbitrarily fund some private startup industries just because they happen to be a favorite of someone in power (e.g. Solyndra).3   In addition, there are government intrusions which force communities to accept government subsidized housing.4

European  Union  Ruling  Class  is  Power  Happy

Overbearing control of government is seen in many ways.  Mandating that member nations take unreasonable security risks by the arbitrary and negligent opening of national borders was the main reason the United Kingdom decided to leave the European Union in order to restore its rightful sovereignty.  The EU ruling elites also find ways to control the trivial as well as the big picture.  They determined which tea pots and toasters they considered environmentally acceptable and, therefore, permitted to be used in the home.

Trivializing  Human  Life  in  the  U.S.

The more massive the exercise of control, the more it aligns with Evil. (The word “evil” may have fallen out of favor with the self-proclaimed enlightened.  Nevertheless, that doesn’t make it cease to exist.)

In our country, the creeping vine of mega-government has long since crossed the line from Good to its hellish opposite.  Legalizing the killing of unborn babies under the ironic claim of “women’s health” has been more devastating to both mother and baby than the pro-death crowd is willing to admit.5

Trivializing human life has surreptitiously led to relegating its status to mere animal life in the lab. In vitro fertilization/ genetic modification and surrogate motherhood are just two examples of breeding human life to serve our wishes as we do thoroughbred horses or cattle.  Discarding unwanted human embryos used in stem cell experiments causes less anxiety for researchers than getting rid of weeds in their carefully manicured gardens.

Those of faith understand that we are to have humane dominion over animal life, but not dominion over human life. That belongs exclusively to the Author of Life Himself.

State  Elevating  Itself  Over  the  Church

The unwarranted intrusion of Big Government extends to trying to force religious orders and organizations to comply with the contraceptive/ abortifacient mandate of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”).  For these in power, it’s not sufficient that our tax dollars are used for purposes which we have an inalienable right to object to.  Rather, the Obama Administration will not be satisfied unless we materially participate in the evil by giving our consent to a third party to carry out his control of human reproduction — which is not his to control in the first place. It’s the 21st century version of the Romans who threatened early Christians with severe consequences if they didn’t offer “just a little incense” to Roman idols in order to satisfy their political leaders.6

Broad  Range  of  Government  Dominance  Over  Citizens

Modern Big Government has reached new lows with a brazen insult to Natural Law. Citizens who understand the timeless irrevocable truth that a valid marriage can only exist between one man and one woman are being required to provide ceremonial items for same-sex “marriages.” While religious liberty must never be used to justify denying anyone the basics of life such as food, housing, medical care, employment, etc., it must not be dismissed in favor of the sham, known in politically correct circles as “tolerance” or “inclusiveness.”

These are only a few of the headlining points of concern. Requisite to the ultimate control (aka “possession”) of people involves intervention in the smaller details of daily life as well.  Mundane items such as kitchen utensils in the EU have already been mentioned.   It has also spread from the micro-managing of limiting the size of soft drinks in New York City to the insulting requiring of law-abiding citizens of Kentucky to have their urine tested annually – and at their expense – to ensure they are consuming specific prescriptions instead of selling them illegally.7

Where  Will  This  Lead?

The Prince of Darkness would be pleased with these displays of coercion.  The “religion” of secular humanism has set itself against the religion of eternal origins, mimicking the unsurpassed failure of the confrontation the Father of Lies had with the Creator before the universe existed.

God grants free will and proponents of small government defend it.  On the other hand, it drives Satan – and perpetrators of oppressing Big Government, crazy.  Being a control freak is an indication of a severe disorder.  Why would the Left want to have goals which parallel those of the infamous fallen angel?  Aiming for world domination now risks eternal disaster later.

 

1 – “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.”  Paragraph 1894 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Twenty-fifth printing; November, 2013.

2 – “7 Ways the War on Poverty Destroyed Black Fatherhood,” by Nick Chiles, http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/12/24/ways-war-poverty-destroyed-black-fatherhood/, 12/24/2014.

3 – “Barack Obama Solyndra Scandal: 8 Facts About Green Energy Company Controversy,” by Alana Marie Burke, http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Barack-Obama-Solyndra-Scandal-Green-Energy/2015/01/29/id/621537/, 1/29/2015.

4 – “Under the new plan, residents from low-income neighborhoods would be placed all around Baltimore County, essentially integrating the poor among wealthier families.”
“Studies indicate doing cluster in one area is not successful,” said Tony Fugett, president of the Baltimore County NAACP. “The hope is that the units would be dispersed throughout the county.”

From “Low-income housing ordered to be integrated in Baltimore neighborhoods,” by Leland Vittert, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/05/low-income-housing-ordered-to-be-integrated-in-baltimore-neighborhoods.html, 4/5/2016.

5 – “How Abortion Hurts Women:  The Hard Proof,” by Erika Bachiochi, http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/how-abortion-hurts-women-the-hard-proof.html

6 – From a homily given by Fr. Joshua Lange when he was an assistant pastor at St. Joseph Catholic Church in Cold Spring, KY several years ago.  He was reassigned to a parish of his own in the summer of June 2012, http://www.stjosephcoldspring.com/Portals/stjoeschool/Documents/News/June172012FC.pdf

7 – “Urine tests required by new drug law can cost patients hundreds of dollars,” http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article44379045.html, 9/27/2012.

 

Do Lay People Have the Authority to Interpret Scripture Infallibly?

Visiting the Martyn-Lloyd Jones article about the supposed errors of the Catholic faith, we find this one about interpreting Scripture:

“Protestantism teaches the ‘universal priesthood of all believers’ and the right of every man to read the Scripture for himself and to interpret it under the illumination of the Holy Spirit.”

“Rome denies that completely and absolutely. She, and she alone, is able to understand and to interpret the Scripture and to tell us what to believe.”1

This is one of the celebrated differences between the numerous Christian denominations which have sprung up since the early 16th century and the Church which Christ established in the first century.

To  Whom  Did  Jesus  Give  the  Authority  to  Teach?

Jesus was clear about this at the end of the Gospel of Matthew: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”2

The apostles were given the mission to teach and, importantly, “all that I have commanded you.”  He did not order them to write a New Testament.  While the Bible is divinely inspired, He did not say that teaching would have to wait until the Bible was completed and the canon ultimately defined at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage centuries later.3

Can  the  Laity  Interpret  Scripture?

Jesus established who the teachers are to be:  the apostles and their successors.4  Where does that leave the rest of us?

The teaching authority of the Church (“Magisterium”) has strictly defined just seven passages of the Bible.  The Church’s focus is to define doctrine.We, the laity, are encouraged to study Scripture and its myriad of finer points using all available and reliable sources.  The key thing to remember is that if we conclude something which is contrary to the Church’s teaching over the last two millennia, we would be wise to look for our error and not assume we are the final arbiter.  Failing to do this, we run the risk of adding our names to the confusion brought on by the 30,000+ who self-empowered themselves to start new denominations.6

 

1 — “Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Roman Catholicism,” https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/36351627/posts/18413

2 – Matthew 28: 19-20.  The New Catholic Answer Bible, Fireside Catholic Publishing; Wichita, KS, 2005.

3 – “It was not until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that the Catholic Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn’t. Probably the council fathers studied the (complete) Muratorian Fragment and other documents, including, of course, the books in question themselves, but it was not until these councils that the Church officially settled the issue.”

“The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church. It was settled only after repeated (and perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by Catholic bishops.”  From “Was the Canon of Scripture determined before the Church councils decided it?,” http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-the-canon-of-scripture-determined-before-the-church-councils-that-decided-it

4 – “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”  — Pope St. Clement of Rome, circa A.D. 80. From “Why is That in Tradition?, by Patrick Madrid, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division; Huntington, Indiana, 2002.

5 – ▪ The reference to being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 includes the idea of   baptism.

▪ In telling the apostles, “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.

▪ In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus conferred on the apostles the power to forgive sins; everyone does not share this power.

▪ Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.

▪ The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained, not merely elder members of the Christian community.

From “Are Catholics free to interpret Bible verses without the Church’s approval?,” by Peggy Frye, http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/are-catholics-free-to-interpret-bible-verses-without-the-churchs-approval

6 – The Bible was never intended to be our sole source of guidance.  “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) and “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21) as found in The New Catholic Answer Bible, Fireside Catholic Publishing; Wichita, KS, 2005.  If everyone outside of apostolic succession claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit, then why is there so much confusion and contradictions in the non-Catholic Christian world?