According to Progressives I am Racist, “Backward” and “Deplorable” Because, as a Catholic, I …

Featured

  1.  Am pro-life and know that all lives matter :“Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense… (The Church) makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society… The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation… These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do represent a concession made by society and the state…” 1Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia: ““Black lives matter because all lives matter — beginning with the poor and marginalized, but including the men and women of all races who put their lives on the line to protect the whole community.”2

  2. Want immigration policies which join compassion and common sense:

    “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…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.” 3“Family‐based Immigration Reform:  It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the family‐based legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in family‐based immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.”4Pope Benedict XVI:  “Every state has the right to regulate migration and to enact policies dictated by the general requirements of the common good, albeit always in safeguarding respect for the dignity of each human person.”5

     

  3. Understand that marriage did not come from the state; therefore, cannot be defined by the state:

    “The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman , free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent…”“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 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 is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.  They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity… Homosexual persons are called to chastity…”6
  4. Believe that the government should only do for us what we cannot do for ourselves:

    “Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative.  The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order… The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism.  It sets limits for state intervention.”7“In effect, the federal government has underwritten massive irresponsibility on the part of low-income fathers. They don’t need to act responsibly because the federal government has woven together a massive financial assistance system for single mothers with kids. The result is that multiple generations of low-income Americans have now grown up in neighborhoods almost entirely bereft of a responsible male presence… In fact, spending on these programs has exploded over the past three decades. Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution recently testified that spending on the ten largest federal programs for the poor increased from $126 billion in 1980 to $626 billion in 2011. That’s a $500 billion jump in spending, in real terms (after controlling for inflation). The idea that the entirety of this massive run-up in outlays is off-limits and should not be subject to budgetary scrutiny defies common sense.”8

  5. Know that freedom of religion does not mean that the practice of faith is to be held hostage inside church walls:

    “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits…”
    “Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order…”
    “Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word…”9


Bishop Fulton J. Sheen: “If by ‘interference in politics’ is meant the interference by the clergy in the political realm of the State, the Church is unalterably opposed to it, for the Church teaches that the State is supreme in the temporal order.  But when politics ceases to be politics and begins to be a religion, when it claims supremacy over the soul of man, when it reduces him to a grape for the sake of the wine of Moloch, when it denied both the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, when it competes with religion on its own ground, the immortal soul that is destined for God, then religion protests.  And when it does, its protest is not against politics but against a counter religion that is anti-religious.”10

6.  Understand that contraceptives, in vitro fertilization and human cloning are contrary to the dignity of human life because they relegate human reproduction to mere animal breeding: 

Contraception
“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood.  Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).11

“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… The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions.  For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial.  Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence.  Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character.”12

In Vitro Fertilization

“It is quite legitimate, indeed praiseworthy, to try to find ways to overcome infertility. The problem causes great pain and anguish for many married couples.  Since children are a wonderful gift of marriage, it is a good thing to try to overcome the obstacles which prevent children from being conceived and born… But the Bible tells us there are limits to acceptable methods for conceiving a child.  Recall the story of Noah’s unmarried daughters who tried to get their father drunk so that they might have children by him! Obviously not any means can be used to achieve pregnancy… Obviously, IVF eliminates the marriage act as the means of achieving pregnancy, instead of helping it achieve this natural end.  The new life is not engendered through an act of love between husband and wife, but by a laboratory procedure performed by doctors or technicians.  Husband and wife are merely sources for the “raw materials” of egg and sperm, which are later manipulated by a technician to cause the sperm to fertilize the egg.  Not infrequently, “donor” eggs or sperm are used.  This means that the genetic father or mother of the child could well be someone from outside the marriage. .. But even if the egg and sperm come from husband and wife, serious moral problems arise.  Invariably several embryos are brought into existence; only those which show the greatest promise of growing to term are implanted in the womb.  The others are simply discarded or used for experiments.  This is a terrible offense against human life.  While a little baby may ultimately be born because of this procedure, other lives are usually snuffed out in the process… Never are they to be used as a means to an end, not even to satisfy the deepest wishes of an infertile couple.  Husbands and wives “make love,” they do not “make babies.” They give expression to their love for one another, and a child may or may not be engendered by that act of love.  The marital act is not a manufacturing process, and children are not products.”13

Cloning

“There are a number of reasons why someone would try to engender a new human life through cloning. None would be morally legitimate.  For example, a couple may want to use a cell from a dying child to clone another baby as a way of perpetuating the life of the first child.  Obviously, this would not be a continuation of the dying child, but the bringing into being of a new child.  The dying child would become the “progenitor” of a new life without having agreed to it; the new child would not be treated as a unique individual with his or her own identity, but as an extension of another person.

A man or woman might also want to have a baby without getting married or involving a parent of the opposite sex.  Some homosexual people have said that cloning would be a perfect way to have children, because they would not have to marry someone of the opposite sex.  This would be terribly unfair to the child, depriving him or her of a natural father and mother… Most disturbing of all, some researchers want to use cloning to create human beings solely for experimentation and destruction.  They propose to supply genetically matched tissues for treating various diseases by making human embryos from patients’ body cells, then dissecting these developing embryos for their “spare parts.”13

7.  The first responsibility of educating children goes to the parents.  The parents allow the state to educate their children, not vice versa. Therefore, education policies should be made at the state and local level, not federal:

“Parents are the principal and first educators of their children… ‘The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.’… Parents should teach their children to subordinate the ‘material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones.’… The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of the spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.” 14


“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.”15

“Government, in consequence, must acknowledge the right of parents to make a genuinely free choice of schools and of other means of education, and the use of this freedom of choice is not to be made a reason for imposing unjust burdens on parents, whether directly or indirectly. Besides, the right of parents are violated, if their children are forced to attend lessons or instructions which are not in agreement with their religious beliefs, or if a single system of education, from which all religious formation is excluded, is imposed upon all.”16

 — Given this, the problem is not with Catholicism, but with the group more accurately called “regressive.”

(emphases in the above quotes were retained from the originals, not added)

1 – Excerpts from paragraphs 2272 and 2273 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

2 – “USCCB president says violence calls for ‘moment of national reflection’,” by Catholic News Service, http://iobserve.org/2016/07/08/usccb-president-says-violence-calls-for-moment-of-national-reflection/. 7/8/2016.

3 – Excerpt from paragraph 2241, Ibid.

4 – “Catholic Church’s Position on Immigration Reform,” Migration and Refugees Services/ Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm, August 2013.

5 – “Immigration:  A Principled Catholic Approach Avoids Emotionalism,” by Samuel Gregg, http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/immigration-a-principled-catholic-approach-avoids-emotionalism, 7/25/2014.

6 – Excerpts from paragraph 1625 and 2357-2359 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

7 – Excerpts from paragraphs 1883 and 1885, Ibid.

8 – “Are Catholics required to support a continually expanding welfare state?,” by Carl E. Olson, http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1341/are_catholics_required_to_support_a_continually_expanding_welfare_state.aspx, 5/11/2012.

9 – Excerpts from Sections 2, 4 and 7 of “Dignitatis Humanae” (Of Human Dignity) encyclical by Pope Paul VI, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html, 12/7/1965.

10 – “The Quotable Fulton Sheen,” edited by George J. Marlin, Richard P. Rabatin and John L. Swan, Doubleday, New York, 1989.  Quote was found in “Characters of the Passion, New York.  P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1946.

11 – Paragraph 2399 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

12 – From sections 17 and 21 of “Humanae Vitae” (Of Human Life) encyclical by Pope Paul VI, http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html, 7/25/1968.

13 – “Begotten Not Made:  A Catholic View of Reproductive Technology,” by John M. Haas, PhD, S.T.L., http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology.cfm

14 – Excerpts from paragraphs 1653, 2221, 2223 and 2372 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

15 – Paragraphs 1894, Ibid.

16 – Excerpt from Section 5 of “Dignitatis Humanae” (Of Human Dignity) encyclical by Pope Paul VI, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html, 12/7/1965.

 

 

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

Featured

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/

Same-Sex “Marriage,” Civil Rights for African-Americans, Abortion and Slavery

Featured

This title is a lead-in to discussing the “up is down and down is up” positions of U.S. liberals.  Given an opportunity to evaluate these, the Left would undoubtedly assert that three of the four are acceptable and desirable.

Yet in Judeo-Christian reality, the reverse is true. Three out of four are strongly unacceptable.

The first difficulty with the liberal position is the fallacy that “marriage equality” for the homosexual community is equivalent to racial civil rights.  Being African-American is not disordered behavior.  It is one of several genetic expressions of the human race — everyone of whom has inalienable rights.

The disordered condition of homosexuality1, whether innate or acquired2,3, requires the same compassion as due every other human situation.4  However, marriage is not an inalienable/ civil right and it cannot be viewed as equivalent to the racial civil rights cause.5  There is no justification that it be extended to everyone by civil jurisdictions who have no authority over the definition of this non-secular institution.6

At least most U.S. citizens agree that slavery is despicable.  For some reason, however, the evil of abortion is not as readily recognized as similarly heinous.  Perhaps it’s because the fallible Supreme Court erred seriously erred in deciding that the killing of the most vulnerable human beings was legal.  The era of convenience ushered in by the 1973 decision is so contrary to Judeo-Christian beliefs that it defies logic.7

Given the reversed vision of the Left, why should we trust them to issues like national security, honest elections, the federal debt, religious freedom and wages?

With their inclinations, they are likely to want unvetted immigration from terrorist hot spots, to declare that photo ID’s are more important for boarding a plane or buying alcohol than for voting, to think we can spend ourselves out of economic stagnation without slowing our economy further8, to prosecute those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman and believe that a federal minimum wage is appropriate even though the cost of living in the least expensive state is 38% less than in the most.9

Wouldn’t this be an insane world if the current generation of liberals had their way?

 

1 – “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman.  In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.  Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.”  Paragraph 2360 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

2 – “Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds,” by Sarah Knapton, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html, 2/13/2014.

3 – “Homosexuality is learned behavior,” by Manin Brown, http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-755425, 2/29/2012.

 4 – “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.  This inclination, which is 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. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”  Paragraph 2358 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

5 – “But to examine this question further – while a civil right is meant to guarantee equality in particular points of law, that is only one half of the picture.  There is an old saying that goes back to Plato – equality for equals, inequality for unequals. In other words, when a right is applied equally to everyone in a given class, it is because it presupposes there are no essential distinctions within that class that would preclude the right from being equally applied.  To take an example the same-sex crowd always brings up, this is why the old Jim Crow laws against interracial marriage were struck down as civil rights violations.  It was recognized that men were men, and women were women; race is not intrinsic to sexuality, therefore there is no compelling distinction between the races that would preclude them from freely entering into the married state.  Essentially, the overturning of the old prohibitions on interracial marriage supports traditional marriage because the law recognized that any man can marry any woman.  Therefore the racist Jim Crow marriage laws were true instances of civil inequality because they were proposing distinctions in the application of rights which were in fact irrelevant; any man is capable of entering into marriage with any woman, and the right for any man to enter into the married state with any woman could not be infringed…”

“… Any person can enter into the married state, but not under any circumstances they may choose. The question is not one of civil rights but of the definition of marriage, which is what homosexual activists contest. Since gender difference and sexual intercourse is intrinsic to understanding the institution of marriage, it is no discrimination of civil rights to say that the married state cannot be conferred on those whose relationships do not involve sexual intercourse.”  From “Homosexual Marriage is not a Civil Right,” http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/social-teaching/moral-issues/93-social-teaching/moral-issues/445-homosexual-marriage-is-not-a-civil-right.html

6 – “’The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage.’A  The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator.  Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes.  These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,B some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures.  ‘The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.’”

A ,B– From the papal encyclical, “Gaudium at spes,” (“Joy and Hope”) section 48 paragraph 1 and section 47 paragraph 2 respectively, published 12/7/1965.

(Paragraph 1603 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.)

7 – “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.  From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life… Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.  This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable… The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…” Excerpts from Paragraphs 2270, 2271 and 2271, Ibid.

8https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/jeremiah-was-criticized-for-speaking-truth-of-bad-state-of-affairs-trump-knows-how-he-felt/

9https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/why-a-national-15-hour-minimum-wage-makes-no-sense/

Railroading Trump Makes it Hillary-ous For Democrats and Dismal for The Future of the U.S.

Just for a moment, let’s disregard Hillary Clinton’s unethical and illegal present and past.   Is Trump the best the Republicans have to offer?  The simple answer is “no.”  Is protesting his  nomination by not voting or voting for third party candidate helpful to our country’s future?  A more emphatic, “NO.”

A Trump Administration will not likely be the “Morning in America” which Reagan brought and our nation needs again.  Trump is a little unpolished when it comes to foreign policy and has a public relations problem with some groups and his economic plans could go sour.  That is why a President has a Cabinet to advise him.

It’s crucial that potential Trump voters not be intimidated by the demonstrations of the Left. They are protesting the “splinters” in his eye while  ignoring the planks in Hillary Clinton’s.  To make it worse, some of these disturbances are being financed by notoriously anti-U.S. billionaire George Soros according to Monica Crowley of the Washington Times on July 11 in a Fox interview.

Who  is  Really  Promoting  Division?

Their claim is that Trump is promoting hate.  Yet, it’s the current Administration which has fanned the flames of racial division during its seven years with comments slanted toward those instigating trouble but against those trying to keep the peace.  Trends from Gallup, which do not include possible changes from recent events in Louisiana, Minnesota and Dallas:1

Increase in racial tensions

Police forces are staffed by imperfect people — just like the ones they are protecting.  The Democrats’ discussions that racism is our biggest sin overlooks the top killer of the President’s race: abortion.2

Terrorism  Through  Immigration

Trump’s initial plan to ban all Muslims was certainly not diplomatic and he has learned the need to modify it.  As flawed as his initial position was, it is not as dangerous as the Democratic plans to allow thousands of refugees from the Arab world without an ability to screen them adequately.  ISIS has vowed, and has been successful in infiltrating jihadists into Europe.  We’re next… Probably already happening.

Tenuous  Freedom  of  Religion

How about inalienable rights?  Trump will defend freedom of religion, speech and the right to bear arms.  Obama, Clinton and followers believe that those with religious convictions are out of touch with “progressive” times and should be forced to participate in abortions and comply with the legitimization of disordered behavior with same-sex “marriage.”

And their “religious accommodations” in Obamacare aren’t as advertised.  Signing over the authority to a third party to implement abortion and abortion-causing drugs for one’s employees is the same as signing over one’s car to be used in a crime.  Just because you didn’t drive the car doesn’t mean you weren’t participating.

True religious freedom means being able to not provide any of the items used for a same-sex “marriage.”  Forcing believers to concede is outrageous.  Marriage does not originate from the state and, therefore, cannot be defined by the state.  Marriage is also not a right because it is a vocation – a calling requiring discernment.  Conditions must be met for it to be valid.  The state’s only legitimate involvement is from its original interest regarding separation of property in the case of a divorce and care for minor children..

The tide is already turning to classify Catholic and some other Christian beliefs as “hate speech.”  The Left’s sense of “tolerance” includes silencing dissenters– even if they are espousing timeless truths that have survived Sodom, Gomorrah, Rome, the Dark Ages and modern totalitarians.

Second  Amendment  

Self-defense is a basic human right.

“Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality.  Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life.  Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow…”3

Giving our right to do so, then relying on a very fallible government to protect us at all times is foolish.  These governments prove their fallibility with policies such as gun-free zones (which make law abiding citizens mere sitting ducks) and sanctuary cities which put law-abiding citizens at the risk of criminals.

Gun availability was easier in the past.  Then why were mass killings far less frequent?

“Catalogs and magazines from the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s were full of gun advertisements directed to children and parents… The 1902 Sears mail-order catalog had 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. For most of our history, a person could simply walk into a hardware store, virtually anywhere in our country, and buy a gun…”

“Why — at a time in our history when guns were readily available, when a person could just walk into a store or order a gun through the mail, when there were no FBI background checks, no waiting periods, no licensing requirements — was there not the frequency and kind of gun violence that we sometimes see today, when access to guns is more restricted?…”

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not just laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society, not restraints on inanimate objects [emphasis added]… Moral standards of conduct, as well as strict and swift punishment for criminal behaviors, have been under siege in our country for more than a half-century… At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws are needed to regulate behavior.”4

Federal  Government  and  the  Economy

Financial responsibility?  Trump at least knows enough to say and work for reducing a dangerous federal debt. His success is yet to be determined.  However, Hillary and Bernie are enamored with giveaways, but with no rational plan to pay for them.  Either the federal debt would become unsustainable under them or their redistribution of wealth would recreate an eastern European form of socialism — one of man’s greatest failures.

Speaking of fiscal disasters, there is the proposed $15 per hour federal minimum wage. This has thousands of followers despite the critical fact that national pay standards are reasonable only if the cost of living is similar across all fifty states (not 57, Mr. President).

But it isn’t.  Mandating $15 in Mississippi, which has the lowest cost of living, would be like requiring $24.25 in New York and California.  Florida has the median cost of living. Only $11.10 is required there to accomplish what $15 does in those other two states.5

Job losses through trade deals?  It’s ironic that the parties have turned 180 degrees.  NAFTA was a Republican darling when it became effective in 1994.  Now that it has been shown to aggravate trade imbalances and loss of jobs, the Republicans want to revisit it.  For some unknown reason, Democrats want to keep it, possibly because they’re afraid of upsetting China — despite the fact that it has shown not to need a reason to trade unfairly.

Future  Composition  of  the  Supreme  Court

Finally, we have a number of Supreme Court positions which will be vacated soon in addition to Justice Scalia’s death.  Add another Obama/Clinton type term and the Court will be the playground of those who believe the Constitution is a malleable list of suggestions, like their view of the Ten Commandments and Natural Law.

The  Challenge  is  Clear

Trump is not the prototypical conservative even for those of us independents who don’t care about the party establishment’s thoughts.  There’s a time to be unwavering about some political ideals.  This is not one of them because there won’t be an opportunity to undo the damage with the 2020 elections, especially if the Democrats reclaim the Senate as well as keep the White House.

Trump may or may not perfectly promote all of the values which our Founding Fathers fought and died for 240 years ago.  But whatever is done to trip him up will do nothing except guarantee a third term of Obama’s path to our downfall.

Our federal deficit, the condition of the Supreme Court and the most crucial of constitutional rights cannot withstand a continuation of the last 7-1/2 years.  The choice is ours.  The consequences will impact the next generation or two in a way unseen previously.

Human history is littered with the fossils of societies who believed they were invincible to the consequences of unwise behavior.  Likewise, we are not immune to a big fall.

 

1 – “Concern Over Race Relations Has More Than Doubled In The Past 2 Years,” by Janie Velencia, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-relations-worry-rise_us_570bd5a7e4b0836057a1c547, 4/11/2016.

 

2 – “In announcing the new web page, Right to Life of Michigan said, ‘More than crime. More than accidents. More than cancer, heart disease and AIDS. Abortion has taken more black American lives than any other cause of death since 1973.’”

“’Did you know that? Abortion is the leading cause of death in the United States, but for black Americans abortion causes more deaths every year than every other cause of death combined. Now is the time for this fact to be addressed in the media and in the classroom,’ it added.”  From “Abortion Has Killed More Black Americans Than Crime, Accident, Cancer or AIDS,” by Sarah Zagorski, http://www.lifenews.com/2015/06/25/abortion-has-killed-more-black-americans-than-crime-accidents-cancer-or-aids/, 6/25/2015.

3 – From Paragraph 2264 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November, 2013.

4 – “Are Guns the Problem?” by Walter E. Williams, http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/are-guns-problem, 10/1/2013.

5https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/why-a-national-15-hour-minimum-wage-makes-no-sense/

Some Topics Which Incite Liberals to Attack First Amendment Right of Free Speech

  1. Defend a timeless moral values or institution such as marriage
  2. Suggest that current climate change is not primarily caused by humans
  3. Attempt to hold a political rally for a Republican candidate in a liberal city as occurred in Chicago yesterday evening when a Trump event had to be cancelled for security reasons

Before we go any further, let’s remember the inalienable rights which are protected by, not granted by, the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”1

(Second refresher, “inalienable” means something that can neither be taken away from nor given away by the possessor.)  Freedom of speech is a basic right.  Slander and libel aside, individuals do not forfeit the right to express their opinions simply because they are not in sync with a local majority.  As John Stuart Mill reminded us:

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”2

Current  Trend

Three examples of the topics listed at the beginning.

  1. “Ben Carson, the noted pediatric neurosurgeon, has become the target of a petition by Johns Hopkins students who want him removed as the medical school’s commencement speaker this spring… Last Tuesday, he told Sean Hannity of Fox News that “marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA3, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.”4 He withdrew later.
  2. “One group of climate scientists is trying a different approach. Dismayed by what they see as a lack of progress on the implementation of climate policies that they support, these 20 scientists sent aletter to the White House calling for their political opponents to be investigated by the government.”5
  3. “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump canceled one of his signature rallies Friday, saying he didn’t want to see ‘people get hurt’ after protesters packed into the Chicago arena where it was to take place… Protesters at the rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump rushed the arena floor in jubilant celebration after the announcement that he was calling off the event due to security concerns.”6

Those  Whose  Rights  Were  Violated  Are  Not  the  Only  Ones  Robbed

Universities have aided mankind’s progress by promoting open, civilized debate.  When this process is impeded, all are lessened.  John Stuart Mill cautioned:

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”2

When it comes to Freedom of Speech, all ideas matter.

 

 

1https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

2 – From Mill’s essay “On Liberty,” Chapter II “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty2.html

3 – “The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion. The group no longer holds regular national meetings, and as of the late 1990s—to avoid local police infiltration—the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

4 – He apologized to those he did not intend to offend with:  “Now perhaps the examples were not the best choice of words, and I certainly apologize if I offended anyone . . . But the point that I was making was that no group of individuals, whoever they are, whatever their belief systems, gets to change traditional definitions. The reason I believe the way I do, I will readily confess, is because I am a Christian who believes in The Bible.”

Yet, we also have “In fact, it was liberal Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor who brought up the issue of bestiality during this week’s oral arguments on a gay-rights case, openly asking if the extension of marriage laws to gays would open the courts up to lawsuits demanding equal marriage rights by polygamists and those who engage in bestiality.”

From “Dr. Carson Banned from a Commencement Speech,” by John Fund, 3/29/2013, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344291/dr-carson-banned-commencement-speech-john-fund

5 – Going further: “None of the Grijalva 7 was found to have engaged in wrongdoing of any sort, yet there have been significant career consequences for some.”

“The demand by Senator (Sheldon) Whitehouse (D-RI) and the 20 climate scientists for legal persecution of people whose research on science and policy they disagree with represents a new low in the politicization of science.”

“The role of these 20 scientists is particularly troubling.  The consequence of this persecution, intended or not, is to make pariahs of scientists who are doing exactly what we expect of researchers: to critically evaluate evidence and publish that work in the scientific literature.”

From “A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics,” by Judith Curry, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/28/new-low-in-science-criminalizing-climate-change-skeptics.html, 9/28/2015

6 – From “Trump cancels Chicago rally, says he didn’t want to see anyone hurt,” by FoxNews.com, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/12/trump-cancels-chicago-rally-says-didnt-want-to-see-anyone-hurt.html, 3/12/2016

Young Joe Biden Must Not Have Paid Attention in Class

The Vice President was in Iowa this week to rally support for his party. When it was humorously pointed out that he appeared to be travelling with nuns (the pseudo-Catholic “Nuns on a Bus” vehicle was behind the podium), he reminded the crowd that he attended Catholic school for twelve years and he implied that he was used to following their directives.

All chuckling aside, it is very distressing that he continues to promote an intrinsic evil (abortion and abortion-causing drugs) in the name of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and suggests that he can still be considered a practicing Catholic.1 (I know, Nancy Pelosi has tried to get voters to believe that a Catholic can’t be sure when human life begins.2 She, too, deserves an honorary Doctor of Misleading Letters degree.)

Joe Biden’s desire to be popular has caused him to disregard that marriage was not created by the President, his political party or even by any human being and, therefore, cannot be redefined by any of these.3 His illogical use of the word “equality” magnifies his hubris and of those who profess the same.4

If he weren’t such a public figure, then the damage would not be as great. However, as he misuses his nationwide platform, it confuses many who know little about our faith and it also encourages “cafeteria Catholics” and others to rationalize their betrayal of timeless truths. As an elected official, he is accountable to the electorate. Ultimately, however, it will not matter how he is judged by his peers or even by the U.S. Supreme Court, but rather by his Creator.

As I learned in my four years of Catholic high school education, “to whom much has been given, much will be expected.” For someone who said he received twelve years of Catholic instruction, respect for life and Natural Law is expected.

1 – “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 moral law…”, from paragraph 2271 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994.

2 – “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life…”, from paragraph 2270, Ibid.

3 – “The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent: ‘to be free’ means:
– not being under constraint:
– not impeded any natural or ecclesiastical law.” Paragraph 1625, Ibid.

4 — “’I’d like to think I did my part for marriage equality,’ the vice president said at the Make Progress National Summit on Wednesday in Washington.” From “Biden Suggests His Obama Legacy Is Same-Sex Marriage,” by Nikki Schwab, http://www.usnews.com, 7/16/2014.

Let’s Stop Misusing the Word “Love” When “Sex” is More Accurate!

The deterioration of language is never more evident than when considering the distortion of the word “love.” The true meaning of love is to want the best for others in this life (and in the next, for us believers) even if it requires having to make sacrifices.

With this understanding, we can easily see how “love child”, a new television series “Love Prison”, and even the originally elevated “making love” can be serious misuses of this beautiful word.

1) “Love child”: A clever euphemism if there ever was one. It’s ironic that this refers only to children from out-of-wedlock relationships and not from those within good marriages. In fact, “love child” should only refer to the children of loving married couples who work at their relationships by their daily commitment “until death do they part.” Anything else produces a “sex child.”

Granted, the ability of the word “bastard” to encourage couples to act virtuously is long since gone. The appropriate fear of scandal encouraged previous generations to be masters of their desires, instead of being enslaved by them. The inventions of The Pill, moral relativism and Obamacare’s disregard for the dignity of human life have successfully convinced many that this form of slavery is a fun and good thing. Unfortunately, believing in error doesn’t protect anyone from the natural consequences of violating timeless moral law.

2) “Love Prison”: An oxymoron for the ages. Love is not imprisoning, it is the direct opposite. Love frees one to live outside of a juvenile tendency to be selfish. “Sex Prison” fits here.

3) “Making love” was so appropriate when applied to married couples who cared for each other deeply. Now, it is often used for sex outside of the married relationship it was intended for.

It’s ridiculous trying to make adultery or fornication appear OK. But even if a couple doesn’t believe in God or the Ten Commandments, if they want to “do it” outside of a genuine life-long commitment, then it’s still just “making sex.”

If we begin to remember what love really is, then we will have a chance at resolving a lot of society’s problems.