Religious Freedom and Mozilla

News has been brought to my attention about the latest attack on the freedom to do as we ought. The current CEO of Mozilla (Eich) was found to have made a donation to the defense of marriage in California (Proposition 8).  Because of his acting on what he believed to be right, the Firefox browser was blocked from accessing a certain site, and people who used Firefox were told they should use a different browser. The Mozilla company apologized for this action, and affirmed its support for "gay marriage."

Apparently this is irrelevant to the activists. They want him fired for his personal beliefs, and I have just been informed he resigned today.

Now, let's consider this. A man who believes marriage is between a man and a woman and personally donated $1000 for Prop 8 lost his job for doing what he believed right.

Consider the ramifications of this. Any one of us might also lose our jobs simply because we stand by the belief that marriage is created by God as a union between one man and one woman. That is what Christ Himself has said in Matthew 19:4-7...

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

So, regardless of whether you're a TV celebrity (remember Duck Dynasty?) an owner of a Bed and Breakfast, a photography studio owner or a baker, taking actions in keeping with your faith can get you sued, fired or prosecuted.  A friend of mine wrote:

In serious honesty, I think that this [affects] me directly. If I want to move up in my own organization, is my progress now capped by past donation to organizations which support traditional marriage or oppose abortion? How far will this eventually extend? This is no longer about what a company itself supports - though the persecution [of] businesses fortheir beliefs has been bad enough - but now about what you believe andsupport as a private person with your personal money.

My friend's concern is quite valid. With the Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy saying, "The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.", it does not bode well for the person expecting justice from the courts.

Now some people may feel indifferent about this issue. Perhaps you disagree with Catholic teaching. Perhaps you just don't think it important. Either way, consider this. If we can get fired, sued or prosecuted because someone dislikes our beliefs, you too can get fired, sued or prosecuted for your beliefs if the wind shifts and goes against you.

It is only in standing with us that you can oppose people targeting you.

Reflections on a Scene from "Son of God"

So, I saw Son of God the other day. It was fairly well done (though like all movies about our Lord, there were scenes I would rather were treated differently). There was one scene that sticks in my mind that was about the two thieves who were crucified with Him.

In this scene, we see Jesus battered and bloody, dying on the cross. The good thief, after rebuking the other, asks Jesus to remember him when He enters His kingdom.

From the perspective of the world, Jesus is a dying criminal. He appears to be a failure. Yet, the good thief has the faith to ask Jesus to remember him when He enters His kingdom all the same. He believes that despite the appearances, Jesus will do what He promised.

Perhaps we should keep this in mind when we face the trials and tribulations of life as Christians. When we face suffering, hostility, mediocre/bad clergy or religious, possibly even persecution, we should look to Jesus with the faith of the good thief, trusting Jesus' promise no matter how hard things may be.

Reflections on a Scene from "Son of God"

So, I saw Son of God the other day. It was fairly well done (though like all movies about our Lord, there were scenes I would rather were treated differently). There was one scene that sticks in my mind that was about the two thieves who were crucified with Him.

In this scene, we see Jesus battered and bloody, dying on the cross. The good thief, after rebuking the other, asks Jesus to remember him when He enters His kingdom.

From the perspective of the world, Jesus is a dying criminal. He appears to be a failure. Yet, the good thief has the faith to ask Jesus to remember him when He enters His kingdom all the same. He believes that despite the appearances, Jesus will do what He promised.

Perhaps we should keep this in mind when we face the trials and tribulations of life as Christians. When we face suffering, hostility, mediocre/bad clergy or religious, possibly even persecution, we should look to Jesus with the faith of the good thief, trusting Jesus' promise no matter how hard things may be.

On Westboro Baptists and the Guilt By Association Fallacy

The news reports are coming out that the founder of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church (hereafter referred to as WBC) has died. While I pray for his soul as I would for any person who lived in error, I certainly cannot praise his "mission."

I'm sure that may surprise some. The media, over the past few years have consistently placed stories of WBC antics in the news whenever Christians have spoken against government attempts to redefine marriage.   It comes across as an Orwellian Two Minute Hate, trying to link Christian moral teaching with extremist hatred.

This is the Guilt by Association fallacy, which argues:
■ It is pointed out that unsavory person A accepts claim X.
■ Therefore X is false.

The point is, the truth or falsity of a belief is not nullified by the character of the person or group that holds it. It is quite possible that a person can hold a true belief for a false reason or go to an unjust extreme in applying the truth,  but that false reason or that unjust extreme does not mean Claim X is false.

The majority of Christians who recognize homosexual acts are contrary to God's will also reject the extremist views of the WBC.

Consider the signs carried by the WBC.  Now consider what the Catechism has to say:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

2358 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.

There can be no just comparison of the WBC and the Catholic Church.  So people should stop seeking to use the WBC as a bugbear to vilify Christian moral teaching.

On Westboro Baptists and the Guilt By Association Fallacy

The news reports are coming out that the founder of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church (hereafter referred to as WBC) has died. While I pray for his soul as I would for any person who lived in error, I certainly cannot praise his "mission."

I'm sure that may surprise some. The media, over the past few years have consistently placed stories of WBC antics in the news whenever Christians have spoken against government attempts to redefine marriage.   It comes across as an Orwellian Two Minute Hate, trying to link Christian moral teaching with extremist hatred.

This is the Guilt by Association fallacy, which argues:
■ It is pointed out that unsavory person A accepts claim X.
■ Therefore X is false.

The point is, the truth or falsity of a belief is not nullified by the character of the person or group that holds it. It is quite possible that a person can hold a true belief for a false reason or go to an unjust extreme in applying the truth,  but that false reason or that unjust extreme does not mean Claim X is false.

The majority of Christians who recognize homosexual acts are contrary to God's will also reject the extremist views of the WBC.

Consider the signs carried by the WBC.  Now consider what the Catechism has to say:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

2358 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.

There can be no just comparison of the WBC and the Catholic Church.  So people should stop seeking to use the WBC as a bugbear to vilify Christian moral teaching.

Thoughts on the So-Called "Freedom From Religion"

Amendment I
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.

The freedom of religion is normally understood to be an important part of American life. It's enshrined in the Constitution as something the government cannot infringe on.  The government can't tell me I must belong to a state approved religion. Nor can it tell me that I cannot belong to the Catholic faith... which is certainly a change from pre 19th century England, pre Constitution America or modern China or Vietnam.

In America,  such a right meant that I was free to live my life as a member of the Catholic Church, supporting and opposing laws and politicians, running my business in accordance with my beliefs. In doing so, I do not force Catholicism on others. I do my best to convince others of the truth, but I do not coerce people to do what they believe to be evil.

Unfortunately, we seem to have had a total breakdown on the concept of religious freedom. Politicians who act in accordance with their religious beliefs, laws passed by a majority of citizens who believe certain behavior cannot be sanctioned by civilized society are attacked by a vocal minority that has the support of the political, cultural and media elites. This elite has the opinion that the freedom of religion means the freedom from religion, and that is a gross perversion. It is imposing beliefs the Christian not only disagrees with, but also believes is evil to do.

The reason this is an imposition is because of this difference: The freedom OF religion means I may live all aspects of my life in accordance with what God demands of me, including my right to vote. The freedom FROM religion claims that a person has the right not to see religious activity in public... or to be affected by laws or behavior that people with religious motivations follow.

The results of such behavior is that when a majority of a state pass a law which defends the long held understanding that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, a judge can take this distortion called "freedom from religion" and declare such laws violate the "separation of Church and state."  Why? Because the motivation is alleged to be solely based on religion and because of the establishment clause, as misinterpreted by judges, laws passed are ruled "violation" of Church and State.

But that's nonsense. The establishment of religion clause means that nobody can be forced to belong to a religion against their will. But when Christians, Jews and Muslims vote in favor of a law defending the common understanding of marriage, nobody is forced to be a Christian,  Muslim or Jew. Rather, it means Christians, Muslims and Jews agree that in light of distortion, the definition of marriage needs to be made clear in law.  THAT'S the free exercise of religious freedom.

On the other hand, judges who rule that homosexual relationships can be marriages and that Christians must treat them as such or face charges on violating "civil rights," that's interference with religious freedom to live as God calls us to live... which forbids us to assist the sin of another.

Likewise the contraception mandate. The Catholic believes that artificial contraception is a sin. To require the Catholic to participate in assisting another's sin by paying for contraception via health insurance for his employees is interference with a person's right to live according to God's commands.

The response from the "freedom from religion" mindset is that an employee shouldn't have to give up her right to contraception (begging the question) just because she works for a religious employer.

But that argument shows the unjustness of "freedom from religion."  The woman's constitutional rights are not violated by having to pay for her own contraception.   But the Catholic employer is having his constitutional rights violated by being forced to provide such contraception --as condemned by his religion-- or face fines of $100 per employee per day.

Once upon a time, people would realize the injustice of these incidents of judicial activism.  But today? Now believers are portrayed as bigots simply because they defend their rights as believers.

This injustice will continue until such a time that people recognize that the "freedom from religion" is a counterfeit right that violates true rights

Thoughts on the So-Called "Freedom From Religion"

Amendment I
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.

The freedom of religion is normally understood to be an important part of American life. It's enshrined in the Constitution as something the government cannot infringe on.  The government can't tell me I must belong to a state approved religion. Nor can it tell me that I cannot belong to the Catholic faith... which is certainly a change from pre 19th century England, pre Constitution America or modern China or Vietnam.

In America,  such a right meant that I was free to live my life as a member of the Catholic Church, supporting and opposing laws and politicians, running my business in accordance with my beliefs. In doing so, I do not force Catholicism on others. I do my best to convince others of the truth, but I do not coerce people to do what they believe to be evil.

Unfortunately, we seem to have had a total breakdown on the concept of religious freedom. Politicians who act in accordance with their religious beliefs, laws passed by a majority of citizens who believe certain behavior cannot be sanctioned by civilized society are attacked by a vocal minority that has the support of the political, cultural and media elites. This elite has the opinion that the freedom of religion means the freedom from religion, and that is a gross perversion. It is imposing beliefs the Christian not only disagrees with, but also believes is evil to do.

The reason this is an imposition is because of this difference: The freedom OF religion means I may live all aspects of my life in accordance with what God demands of me, including my right to vote. The freedom FROM religion claims that a person has the right not to see religious activity in public... or to be affected by laws or behavior that people with religious motivations follow.

The results of such behavior is that when a majority of a state pass a law which defends the long held understanding that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, a judge can take this distortion called "freedom from religion" and declare such laws violate the "separation of Church and state."  Why? Because the motivation is alleged to be solely based on religion and because of the establishment clause, as misinterpreted by judges, laws passed are ruled "violation" of Church and State.

But that's nonsense. The establishment of religion clause means that nobody can be forced to belong to a religion against their will. But when Christians, Jews and Muslims vote in favor of a law defending the common understanding of marriage, nobody is forced to be a Christian,  Muslim or Jew. Rather, it means Christians, Muslims and Jews agree that in light of distortion, the definition of marriage needs to be made clear in law.  THAT'S the free exercise of religious freedom.

On the other hand, judges who rule that homosexual relationships can be marriages and that Christians must treat them as such or face charges on violating "civil rights," that's interference with religious freedom to live as God calls us to live... which forbids us to assist the sin of another.

Likewise the contraception mandate. The Catholic believes that artificial contraception is a sin. To require the Catholic to participate in assisting another's sin by paying for contraception via health insurance for his employees is interference with a person's right to live according to God's commands.

The response from the "freedom from religion" mindset is that an employee shouldn't have to give up her right to contraception (begging the question) just because she works for a religious employer.

But that argument shows the unjustness of "freedom from religion."  The woman's constitutional rights are not violated by having to pay for her own contraception.   But the Catholic employer is having his constitutional rights violated by being forced to provide such contraception --as condemned by his religion-- or face fines of $100 per employee per day.

Once upon a time, people would realize the injustice of these incidents of judicial activism.  But today? Now believers are portrayed as bigots simply because they defend their rights as believers.

This injustice will continue until such a time that people recognize that the "freedom from religion" is a counterfeit right that violates true rights

We Must Be Faithful to Christ

St. Josemaria Escriva, in his work The Forge, had this to say:

460   We are not good brothers to our fellow men if we are not ready to continue behaving correctly, even when those around us may interpret our actions badly or react in an unpleasant manner.

This statement strikes me as I consider the actions reported in the media about the reaction of hostility to the St. Patrick Day parade in New York and Boston.   Political leaders and leading beer companies have announced their boycott of these parades because the leaders will not allow these parades to be hijacked for the purpose of promoting an agenda which runs contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches.  It doesn't matter that those with homosexual orientation are allowed to march -- they (like other groups) simply cannot use the parade to push an agenda -- the media portrays the faithfulness to God as being motivated by hatred... homophobia is the slur used.

It is here that St. Josemaria's quote reminds us of our obligation under the commandment to love our neighbor as ourself. If we would be good brothers to our fellow men, we must continue to behave correctly... This is not merely being civil to those who hate us. We are called to bless those who curse us, so we can't repay evil with evil.   But there is more to it than that.

Behaving correctly also means we must continue to proclaim the message if salvation, warning people that sin exists and that Jesus calls us to repent and turn to Him with our whole heart.  This means when the political, cultural and media elites try to bully and intimidate us to be silent and deny God's teaching, we cannot concede.

If we do, we will have betrayed our fidelity to God.

We Must Be Faithful to Christ

St. Josemaria Escriva, in his work The Forge, had this to say:

460   We are not good brothers to our fellow men if we are not ready to continue behaving correctly, even when those around us may interpret our actions badly or react in an unpleasant manner.

This statement strikes me as I consider the actions reported in the media about the reaction of hostility to the St. Patrick Day parade in New York and Boston.   Political leaders and leading beer companies have announced their boycott of these parades because the leaders will not allow these parades to be hijacked for the purpose of promoting an agenda which runs contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches.  It doesn't matter that those with homosexual orientation are allowed to march -- they (like other groups) simply cannot use the parade to push an agenda -- the media portrays the faithfulness to God as being motivated by hatred... homophobia is the slur used.

It is here that St. Josemaria's quote reminds us of our obligation under the commandment to love our neighbor as ourself. If we would be good brothers to our fellow men, we must continue to behave correctly... This is not merely being civil to those who hate us. We are called to bless those who curse us, so we can't repay evil with evil.   But there is more to it than that.

Behaving correctly also means we must continue to proclaim the message if salvation, warning people that sin exists and that Jesus calls us to repent and turn to Him with our whole heart.  This means when the political, cultural and media elites try to bully and intimidate us to be silent and deny God's teaching, we cannot concede.

If we do, we will have betrayed our fidelity to God.

Credo: What Follows From Belief

In this day and age, it is common to encounter members of the Church who, while professing belief in the Church, seem to think that they are free to decide whether or not to follow the moral teaching of the Church.

That kind of thinking is a contradiction in terms.

To be a Catholic in anything more than a nominal sense is to recognize the role Jesus Christ intended for His Church... to preach the Gospel to all the nations, to bind and loose, to forgive sins and so on.  This isn't an advisory role. Jesus tells His Apostles: "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:23).

The Church speaks with Christ's authority. Not because she usurps it, but because Christ gives her the authority to carry out His mission.

Thus, the "Cafeteria Catholic" has a dilemma:

If one believes what the Church teaches about herself, such a person must recognize that what she teaches concerning morality comes from Christ's authority.  Remember Luke 10:16... "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

However, if one rejects this claim of authority, there is no plausible reason to remain in the Church to change her teaching. Such a belief professes that the Church has no authority to impose anything, and the logical consequence is that there is no sense to try to stay, let alone change anything.

The "Cafeteria Catholic" approach is morally and intellectually dishonest approach where the person ignores the significance of what they profess to believe.

There are two things to be aware of when reading the above.  First, this isn't to be interpreted as a "let's clear the deadwood out of the Church" mindset.  Because we know the truth of the Church, encouraging people to leave is the wrong attitude. The purpose is to get all Catholics to recognize that dissent is a rebellion against God, not a faction. It is an attitude of conversion, not judgment.

Second, we must not think of this as THEY have to change. No doubt, the scandalous behavior of public dissenting Catholics must be challenged. But the obligation to follow the teaching of the Church applies to us as well. Not all dissenters are "liberal."  Many conservatives have been offended by certain social teachings of the Church, some going as far as to accuse the Pope of Marxist leanings.

If we who recognize the truth of the authority of the Church choose not to follow teachings we dislike because they go against our political preferences, we are not witnessing our faith and obedience to Christ... we're merely witnessing hypocrisy.

Credo: What Follows From Belief

In this day and age, it is common to encounter members of the Church who, while professing belief in the Church, seem to think that they are free to decide whether or not to follow the moral teaching of the Church.

That kind of thinking is a contradiction in terms.

To be a Catholic in anything more than a nominal sense is to recognize the role Jesus Christ intended for His Church... to preach the Gospel to all the nations, to bind and loose, to forgive sins and so on.  This isn't an advisory role. Jesus tells His Apostles: "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:23).

The Church speaks with Christ's authority. Not because she usurps it, but because Christ gives her the authority to carry out His mission.

Thus, the "Cafeteria Catholic" has a dilemma:

If one believes what the Church teaches about herself, such a person must recognize that what she teaches concerning morality comes from Christ's authority.  Remember Luke 10:16... "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

However, if one rejects this claim of authority, there is no plausible reason to remain in the Church to change her teaching. Such a belief professes that the Church has no authority to impose anything, and the logical consequence is that there is no sense to try to stay, let alone change anything.

The "Cafeteria Catholic" approach is morally and intellectually dishonest approach where the person ignores the significance of what they profess to believe.

There are two things to be aware of when reading the above.  First, this isn't to be interpreted as a "let's clear the deadwood out of the Church" mindset.  Because we know the truth of the Church, encouraging people to leave is the wrong attitude. The purpose is to get all Catholics to recognize that dissent is a rebellion against God, not a faction. It is an attitude of conversion, not judgment.

Second, we must not think of this as THEY have to change. No doubt, the scandalous behavior of public dissenting Catholics must be challenged. But the obligation to follow the teaching of the Church applies to us as well. Not all dissenters are "liberal."  Many conservatives have been offended by certain social teachings of the Church, some going as far as to accuse the Pope of Marxist leanings.

If we who recognize the truth of the authority of the Church choose not to follow teachings we dislike because they go against our political preferences, we are not witnessing our faith and obedience to Christ... we're merely witnessing hypocrisy.

Judicial Abuse Through Lack of Logic

I came across an article talking about a Federal judge striking down abortion restrictions. The article points out that the judge claims abortion restrictions violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, saying it "impermissibly infringes a woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to elect to terminate a pregnancy before viability".

Now the relevant part of the Constitution is section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, abortion is defined as a right protected under the Constitution while using a judicial ruling to define abortion as a right (continuing the begging the question fallacy used since Roe v. Wade).

Yet, when it comes to an actual right defined in 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.

The right of a business owner to practice his freedom of religion in not participating in the HHS Contraception Mandate or in not recognizing or participating in so-called "gay marriage" is very much in question.

Thus, we have an inconsistency:

■ The Constitutional Right to abortion is presumed to exist when it in fact needs to be proven.
■ The Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion is presumed to need to be proven when it actually exists.

What our courts are doing in America is to give certain popular views the illusion of being Constitutional while ignoring certain unpopular views even though they have been recognized in the Constitution.

Such behavior is properly called arbitrary:

arbitrary
■ adjective
1based on random choice or personal whim.
2(of power or a ruling body) autocratic.

Christians can justifiably object to both the enshrining of abortion as a "Constitutional Right" when it is merely a judicial ipse dixit claiming it is, and object to the denial of religious freedom.  

However, the judicial activists can't. If they insist on protecting the fictional right to abortion, they are certainly bound to protect the actual right to religious freedom.

The implications are staggering:
■ Judges declare what they favor are "rights."
■ Judges refuse to protect rights they dislike.

There can be no justice when the judges behave in this manner.

Judicial Abuse Through Lack of Logic

I came across an article talking about a Federal judge striking down abortion restrictions. The article points out that the judge claims abortion restrictions violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, saying it "impermissibly infringes a woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to elect to terminate a pregnancy before viability".

Now the relevant part of the Constitution is section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, abortion is defined as a right protected under the Constitution while using a judicial ruling to define abortion as a right (continuing the begging the question fallacy used since Roe v. Wade).

Yet, when it comes to an actual right defined in 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.

The right of a business owner to practice his freedom of religion in not participating in the HHS Contraception Mandate or in not recognizing or participating in so-called "gay marriage" is very much in question.

Thus, we have an inconsistency:

■ The Constitutional Right to abortion is presumed to exist when it in fact needs to be proven.
■ The Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion is presumed to need to be proven when it actually exists.

What our courts are doing in America is to give certain popular views the illusion of being Constitutional while ignoring certain unpopular views even though they have been recognized in the Constitution.

Such behavior is properly called arbitrary:

arbitrary
■ adjective
1based on random choice or personal whim.
2(of power or a ruling body) autocratic.

Christians can justifiably object to both the enshrining of abortion as a "Constitutional Right" when it is merely a judicial ipse dixit claiming it is, and object to the denial of religious freedom.  

However, the judicial activists can't. If they insist on protecting the fictional right to abortion, they are certainly bound to protect the actual right to religious freedom.

The implications are staggering:
■ Judges declare what they favor are "rights."
■ Judges refuse to protect rights they dislike.

There can be no justice when the judges behave in this manner.

Stop Panicking And Just Pray.

In certain blogs and articles, I see a lot of fear being expressed over the synod on the family changing Church teaching concerning divorce and remarriage when the previous marriage is still valid. Especially when Cardinal emeritus Kasper makes statements that seem rather... bizarre (to put it charitably).

Me? I have faith that the Holy Spirit is still on the job when it comes to protecting the Church from teaching error on matters essential for salvation. Since the Holy Spirit protects the Pope, it is reasonable to expect that, regardless of what may be said at the synod, the Pope won't be changing Church teaching from truth to error.

No doubt the media and dissenters will continue to misrepresent and raise false hopes (it happened before the release of Humamae Vitae where people wrongly expected the Church to change her teaching on contraception). But the Holy Spirit was active then, and is active now.

The Pope has asked us to pray for the synod. We should. Not in the sense of "Oh God, please don't let them teach heresy!" Rather we should be praying:

"Lord, please send your Holy Spirit over this synod  so that Your Church may be brought to a deeper understanding of what Your Son has taught about marriage."

Stop Panicking And Just Pray.

In certain blogs and articles, I see a lot of fear being expressed over the synod on the family changing Church teaching concerning divorce and remarriage when the previous marriage is still valid. Especially when Cardinal emeritus Kasper makes statements that seem rather... bizarre (to put it charitably).

Me? I have faith that the Holy Spirit is still on the job when it comes to protecting the Church from teaching error on matters essential for salvation. Since the Holy Spirit protects the Pope, it is reasonable to expect that, regardless of what may be said at the synod, the Pope won't be changing Church teaching from truth to error.

No doubt the media and dissenters will continue to misrepresent and raise false hopes (it happened before the release of Humamae Vitae where people wrongly expected the Church to change her teaching on contraception). But the Holy Spirit was active then, and is active now.

The Pope has asked us to pray for the synod. We should. Not in the sense of "Oh God, please don't let them teach heresy!" Rather we should be praying:

"Lord, please send your Holy Spirit over this synod  so that Your Church may be brought to a deeper understanding of what Your Son has taught about marriage."

Just a Pinch of Incense...

In ancient Rome, there was an obligation to burn a pinch of incense before the statue of the emperor. Doing so was essentially an act of worship of the emperor as a god. The monotheistic Christians could not do this without denying their beliefs in one true God... or give scandal by appearing to do so. But if they refused, they would suffer consequences for standing up for what they believed.

To the morally lax pagans, the Christians doubtlessly were viewed as intolerant. However, by insisting that the Christians burn this incense and do what they believed was morally wrong, the pagans were the intolerant ones. They thought the Christian beliefs were either a threat or something so insignificant that the Christians shouldn't make a fuss about it.

Fast forward some 1700 years to the present. The Christians who, because of their belief in one God, find themselves in a dilemma. Either let your business acknowledge the so-called "gay marriage" (or cause the scandal of appearing to do so), or suffer the consequences.

Again, to a good many people, the Christians are viewed as either intolerant or fussing over something "not important."  Laws seeking to protect Christians have been proposed, but they have been portrayed as discriminatory laws.

What makes it so sickening now is the First Amendment was intended to prevent the state from coercing someone into doing what they believed was morally forbidden. But now, it is the defense of these religious rights that is considered unconstitutional.

Once again, Lincoln's words have shown themselves prophetic:

"As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, "All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

I first posted these words in 2007. Each year, they seem more amd more reflecting our government.

Just a Pinch of Incense...

In ancient Rome, there was an obligation to burn a pinch of incense before the statue of the emperor. Doing so was essentially an act of worship of the emperor as a god. The monotheistic Christians could not do this without denying their beliefs in one true God... or give scandal by appearing to do so. But if they refused, they would suffer consequences for standing up for what they believed.

To the morally lax pagans, the Christians doubtlessly were viewed as intolerant. However, by insisting that the Christians burn this incense and do what they believed was morally wrong, the pagans were the intolerant ones. They thought the Christian beliefs were either a threat or something so insignificant that the Christians shouldn't make a fuss about it.

Fast forward some 1700 years to the present. The Christians who, because of their belief in one God, find themselves in a dilemma. Either let your business acknowledge the so-called "gay marriage" (or cause the scandal of appearing to do so), or suffer the consequences.

Again, to a good many people, the Christians are viewed as either intolerant or fussing over something "not important."  Laws seeking to protect Christians have been proposed, but they have been portrayed as discriminatory laws.

What makes it so sickening now is the First Amendment was intended to prevent the state from coercing someone into doing what they believed was morally forbidden. But now, it is the defense of these religious rights that is considered unconstitutional.

Once again, Lincoln's words have shown themselves prophetic:

"As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, "All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

I first posted these words in 2007. Each year, they seem more amd more reflecting our government.

Poisoning the Well: "Religious Discrimination" Laws

The American media is portraying the recent bills in Arizona and Indiana concerning the freedom of religion as "religious discrimination" laws.  Thus, before anyone begins to research what the law is trying to achieve, they are given a negative image of what the law does.

In logic, we call this "Poisoning the Well."  Basically this involves:

1) Negative claim made about Subject X
2) Therefore any defense made by or concerning X is rooted in this negative claim.

In America today we are seeing anyone who remains faithful to the Christian belief that marriage is intended to be between one man and one woman is labeled homophobic or intolerant, and any attempt to legally defend this is presumed to be rooted in homophobia or intolerance.

It's dishonest behavior used to propagandize. What's alarming is currently we have the government and the mainstream media using this tactic to prevent the freedom of religion in areas they disapprove of.

Now of course any proposed law should be carefully drafted to avoid abuses. However, the basic premise of such laws is that no person should be forced to act in such a way that obligates them to do what they believe is evil. That's also the basic premise behind the Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment.

For the media and government to call these principles "religious discrimination" does not bode well for the Freedom of Religion in America.

Poisoning the Well: "Religious Discrimination" Laws

The American media is portraying the recent bills in Arizona and Indiana concerning the freedom of religion as "religious discrimination" laws.  Thus, before anyone begins to research what the law is trying to achieve, they are given a negative image of what the law does.

In logic, we call this "Poisoning the Well."  Basically this involves:

1) Negative claim made about Subject X
2) Therefore any defense made by or concerning X is rooted in this negative claim.

In America today we are seeing anyone who remains faithful to the Christian belief that marriage is intended to be between one man and one woman is labeled homophobic or intolerant, and any attempt to legally defend this is presumed to be rooted in homophobia or intolerance.

It's dishonest behavior used to propagandize. What's alarming is currently we have the government and the mainstream media using this tactic to prevent the freedom of religion in areas they disapprove of.

Now of course any proposed law should be carefully drafted to avoid abuses. However, the basic premise of such laws is that no person should be forced to act in such a way that obligates them to do what they believe is evil. That's also the basic premise behind the Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment.

For the media and government to call these principles "religious discrimination" does not bode well for the Freedom of Religion in America.

Trying to Set the Church at Odds With Christ

Introduction

There are times when the Catholic Church is attacked as lacking compassion when it comes to her moral teachings. Our Lord's words on love and mercy are brought up and the attempt is made to argue that Church teaching is at odds with His words.

The Form of the Accusation

The basic argument is,
■ If the Church follows Christ's love she will support X (if A then B)
■ The Church does not support X (not B)
■ Therefore the Church does not follow Christ's love (therefore,  not A)

The logical form is valid (modus tollens), so whether or not the argument works depends on whether or not the premises are true. (To have an argument which is proven true, we need true premises and a valid form).

The Logical Considerations

In fact, the accusation seeking to separate God from Church teaching does have a false premise. The major premise (If the Church follows Christ's love she will support X), actually presupposes what it has to prove -- that the unpopular Church teaching X goes against Christ's teaching on love. (This is known as begging the question).

Instead of proving that claim, we tend to see another fallacy. That fallacy comes from the argument that since Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality (for example), it must be okay. This is the argument from silence, where because nothing is said on a topic, the silence can be used to support my position.

We can point out how ridiculous this is by pointing out that Jesus didn't say anything about necrophilia, bestiality, rape or other particularly vile acts no sane person would champion.

Looking at the Data

This will be the longest section of this article. Because the Catholic Church is accused of going against Christ in her moral teaching, we must look at what He said. This won't be an exhaustive list. But it will show what He says is at odds with the soft Jesus people tend to stop with.

I: God is not divided into factions.

First, we have to consider the fact that Jesus explicitly identifies Himself with God. For example:

■ "The Father and I are one." (John 10:30).
■ "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:9b)

Why do we need to start with these verses? Because they show we can't separate the "nice guy Jesus" from God in the Old Testament. God is one God in three persons in the Trinity, but The three persons aren't at odds with each other. God the Father who condemned certain things as wicked in the Old Testament also sent His Son to save us from our sins.

BUT, saving us from our sins means there are sins we need saving from... sins God spoke out against through revelation and through the natural law.

II: The Old Law is Fulfilled and Perfected in Christ.

This usually brings us to a counter charge that tries to put the Old Testament at odds with Christ. They point to the darker passages of the Old Testament, asking why we don't practice the harsh sentences called for in the Jewish law. Sometimes, this contrast is used to claim that because Christ appears less harsh than the Old Testament, we can therefore go from saying X is a sin to X is not a sin. But this is comparing apples and oranges.

The weakness in this challenge is the failure to understand the Christian understanding of the Law. For example:

■ “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:17-19).

In other words, Jesus tells us He is specifically NOT saying things go from being sin to not being sin. He is instead fulfilling the purpose of the Law. This fulfillment is not making things more lax. It is making things more demanding.

Matthew 5:21-48 shows how it is made more demanding. It's not enough to say, "I never killed anybody, never committed adultery etc." If we harbor hatred or lust, we are also guilty of sin.

Also, we need to consider St. Paul on the Law, in Galatians:

■ "Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed. Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian* for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian." (Galatians 3:23-25)

■ "I mean that as long as the heir is not of age,* he is no different from a slave, although he is the owner of everything, but he is under the supervision of guardians and administrators until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were not of age, were enslaved to the elemental powers of the world.* But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption." (Galatians 4:1-5)

This requires us to understand something about Greco-Roman culture. In that time, a child was often supervised by a slave known as a pedagogue (translated as "guardian" by the NAB). This slave had the authority and responsibility to make sure that the youth carried out what the father wanted him to do. The youth did not have the rights or responsibilities of being a heir until he reached the age of maturity. At this point, the purpose of the pedagogue was achieved.

That didn't mean what the pedagogue did was worthless or cast aside. His teaching prepared the youth in his charge for when he came of age. The heir now had to bear the responsibility for his actions.

As Christians, we are no longer under the Law, but we still must do what God wants us to do. Not because "it's against the Law" to go against God, but because to act against God is to act in willful rejection of His love for us.

III: Jesus Christ Specifically Links Loving Him With Keeping His Commandments.

It is quite true that God is love as 1 John 4:8 tells us. But loving God involves more than sentimentality. It involves action. Jesus tells us things like:

■ "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15)
■ "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." (Matt 7:21)

Jesus Christ loves us and died for us, but He also makes clear that those who would enter His Kingdom and profess love for Him must live in accordance with His commandments. If we refuse to do so, we cannot honestly claim to love Him and we cannot enter His kingdom.

IV: Christ's  Commandments Concerning His Church

Now we get to some very difficult facts for the person who tries to separate Jesus from the Church.  Jesus specifically tells us about the authority He gives to others to act in His name.  For example:

■ "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)
■ "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:18-19)
■ "If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.  Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 18:17-18)
■ "Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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 have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20)

What we see here is the Church is not an arbitrary institution created by men and unjustly imposing rules. The Church has her authority and mission given her by Christ. Rejection of this authority is not a valid option. It is rejecting Christ Himself and is a serious wrong.

V: Christ's Words on Moral Issues

As I mentioned in the beginning, some people try to argue that because he did not condemn a specific sin, it means He had no opinion on the issue. I pointed out that this was a logical fallacy (Argument from Silence).

But it is also a case of ignoring the fact that just because a condemnation was not made does not mean He did not address the issue. These kind of spurious arguments ignore the overall understanding of what Christ teaches.

Let's look at how Christ described marriage. This is the best example because of how many people accuse the Church of lacking compassion over sexual issues.

■ "He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matt 19:4-6)

In this small section, Jesus defines marriage as between one man and one woman in a lifelong marriage. This excludes polygamy, so called "gay marriage," divorce and remarriage and other sins people want the Church to change her teaching about. It refutes the claim that Christ "didn't say anything about X."  Not because He mentioned homosexuality (for example) by name, but because He defined marriage in such a way that bars any other possibilities.

We can see here that the ones who stand at odds with Christ is not His Church, but those who want the Church to change. 

The Terrible Truth

Because of the data from Christ's own teaching, those who want to make the Church change her teaching have to face the terrible truth... in order to promote their vices, and claim that the Church goes against God has to deny those words of Christ which go against their claims.

1) They have to deny the link between God in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ which Jesus makes explicit.

2) They have to deny Jesus' affirmation of the moral law which condemns the sins people today want approved.

3) They have to deny Jesus' linking obedience to love of Him.

4) They have to deny Jesus' proclaiming that His Church acts with His authority.

5) They have to ignore the words of Christ that contradict their demands for changes in Church teaching.

Once you consider these things, it becomes clear that those who try to separate Christ from the teaching of the Catholic Church must ignore most of what Jesus actually said and emphasize a few statements out of context.

Conclusion

It all comes down to considering what it means to be faithful to Christ. I recognize that the non Catholic Christian and the non Christian may disagree with the Catholic understanding of moral obligation. But even so, they should recognize that this is what the Catholic Church believes she is obliged to do if she would be faithful to Christ.

As for the Catholic who wants change in Church teaching, they must realize that their demands are incompatible with what the Church believes she must do.

When it comes to choosing between appeasing the world, and following Christ, the Church can only repeat what St. Peter said to the Sanhedrin in Acts 5:29...

We must obey God rather than men.

Trying to Set the Church at Odds With Christ

Introduction

There are times when the Catholic Church is attacked as lacking compassion when it comes to her moral teachings. Our Lord's words on love and mercy are brought up and the attempt is made to argue that Church teaching is at odds with His words.

The Form of the Accusation

The basic argument is,
■ If the Church follows Christ's love she will support X (if A then B)
■ The Church does not support X (not B)
■ Therefore the Church does not follow Christ's love (therefore,  not A)

The logical form is valid (modus tollens), so whether or not the argument works depends on whether or not the premises are true. (To have an argument which is proven true, we need true premises and a valid form).

The Logical Considerations

In fact, the accusation seeking to separate God from Church teaching does have a false premise. The major premise (If the Church follows Christ's love she will support X), actually presupposes what it has to prove -- that the unpopular Church teaching X goes against Christ's teaching on love. (This is known as begging the question).

Instead of proving that claim, we tend to see another fallacy. That fallacy comes from the argument that since Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality (for example), it must be okay. This is the argument from silence, where because nothing is said on a topic, the silence can be used to support my position.

We can point out how ridiculous this is by pointing out that Jesus didn't say anything about necrophilia, bestiality, rape or other particularly vile acts no sane person would champion.

Looking at the Data

This will be the longest section of this article. Because the Catholic Church is accused of going against Christ in her moral teaching, we must look at what He said. This won't be an exhaustive list. But it will show what He says is at odds with the soft Jesus people tend to stop with.

I: God is not divided into factions.

First, we have to consider the fact that Jesus explicitly identifies Himself with God. For example:

■ "The Father and I are one." (John 10:30).
■ "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:9b)

Why do we need to start with these verses? Because they show we can't separate the "nice guy Jesus" from God in the Old Testament. God is one God in three persons in the Trinity, but The three persons aren't at odds with each other. God the Father who condemned certain things as wicked in the Old Testament also sent His Son to save us from our sins.

BUT, saving us from our sins means there are sins we need saving from... sins God spoke out against through revelation and through the natural law.

II: The Old Law is Fulfilled and Perfected in Christ.

This usually brings us to a counter charge that tries to put the Old Testament at odds with Christ. They point to the darker passages of the Old Testament, asking why we don't practice the harsh sentences called for in the Jewish law. Sometimes, this contrast is used to claim that because Christ appears less harsh than the Old Testament, we can therefore go from saying X is a sin to X is not a sin. But this is comparing apples and oranges.

The weakness in this challenge is the failure to understand the Christian understanding of the Law. For example:

■ “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:17-19).

In other words, Jesus tells us He is specifically NOT saying things go from being sin to not being sin. He is instead fulfilling the purpose of the Law. This fulfillment is not making things more lax. It is making things more demanding.

Matthew 5:21-48 shows how it is made more demanding. It's not enough to say, "I never killed anybody, never committed adultery etc." If we harbor hatred or lust, we are also guilty of sin.

Also, we need to consider St. Paul on the Law, in Galatians:

■ "Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed. Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian* for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian." (Galatians 3:23-25)

■ "I mean that as long as the heir is not of age,* he is no different from a slave, although he is the owner of everything, but he is under the supervision of guardians and administrators until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were not of age, were enslaved to the elemental powers of the world.* But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption." (Galatians 4:1-5)

This requires us to understand something about Greco-Roman culture. In that time, a child was often supervised by a slave known as a pedagogue (translated as "guardian" by the NAB). This slave had the authority and responsibility to make sure that the youth carried out what the father wanted him to do. The youth did not have the rights or responsibilities of being a heir until he reached the age of maturity. At this point, the purpose of the pedagogue was achieved.

That didn't mean what the pedagogue did was worthless or cast aside. His teaching prepared the youth in his charge for when he came of age. The heir now had to bear the responsibility for his actions.

As Christians, we are no longer under the Law, but we still must do what God wants us to do. Not because "it's against the Law" to go against God, but because to act against God is to act in willful rejection of His love for us.

III: Jesus Christ Specifically Links Loving Him With Keeping His Commandments.

It is quite true that God is love as 1 John 4:8 tells us. But loving God involves more than sentimentality. It involves action. Jesus tells us things like:

■ "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15)
■ "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." (Matt 7:21)

Jesus Christ loves us and died for us, but He also makes clear that those who would enter His Kingdom and profess love for Him must live in accordance with His commandments. If we refuse to do so, we cannot honestly claim to love Him and we cannot enter His kingdom.

IV: Christ's  Commandments Concerning His Church

Now we get to some very difficult facts for the person who tries to separate Jesus from the Church.  Jesus specifically tells us about the authority He gives to others to act in His name.  For example:

■ "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)
■ "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:18-19)
■ "If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.  Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 18:17-18)
■ "Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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 have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20)

What we see here is the Church is not an arbitrary institution created by men and unjustly imposing rules. The Church has her authority and mission given her by Christ. Rejection of this authority is not a valid option. It is rejecting Christ Himself and is a serious wrong.

V: Christ's Words on Moral Issues

As I mentioned in the beginning, some people try to argue that because he did not condemn a specific sin, it means He had no opinion on the issue. I pointed out that this was a logical fallacy (Argument from Silence).

But it is also a case of ignoring the fact that just because a condemnation was not made does not mean He did not address the issue. These kind of spurious arguments ignore the overall understanding of what Christ teaches.

Let's look at how Christ described marriage. This is the best example because of how many people accuse the Church of lacking compassion over sexual issues.

■ "He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matt 19:4-6)

In this small section, Jesus defines marriage as between one man and one woman in a lifelong marriage. This excludes polygamy, so called "gay marriage," divorce and remarriage and other sins people want the Church to change her teaching about. It refutes the claim that Christ "didn't say anything about X."  Not because He mentioned homosexuality (for example) by name, but because He defined marriage in such a way that bars any other possibilities.

We can see here that the ones who stand at odds with Christ is not His Church, but those who want the Church to change. 

The Terrible Truth

Because of the data from Christ's own teaching, those who want to make the Church change her teaching have to face the terrible truth... in order to promote their vices, and claim that the Church goes against God has to deny those words of Christ which go against their claims.

1) They have to deny the link between God in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ which Jesus makes explicit.

2) They have to deny Jesus' affirmation of the moral law which condemns the sins people today want approved.

3) They have to deny Jesus' linking obedience to love of Him.

4) They have to deny Jesus' proclaiming that His Church acts with His authority.

5) They have to ignore the words of Christ that contradict their demands for changes in Church teaching.

Once you consider these things, it becomes clear that those who try to separate Christ from the teaching of the Catholic Church must ignore most of what Jesus actually said and emphasize a few statements out of context.

Conclusion

It all comes down to considering what it means to be faithful to Christ. I recognize that the non Catholic Christian and the non Christian may disagree with the Catholic understanding of moral obligation. But even so, they should recognize that this is what the Catholic Church believes she is obliged to do if she would be faithful to Christ.

As for the Catholic who wants change in Church teaching, they must realize that their demands are incompatible with what the Church believes she must do.

When it comes to choosing between appeasing the world, and following Christ, the Church can only repeat what St. Peter said to the Sanhedrin in Acts 5:29...

We must obey God rather than men.

Pro-Choice to do What?

As we witnessed the annual March for Life this past week, I keep seeing one argument pop up over and over by those who defend that travesty of justice called the "right" to abortion. That argument is "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice."

To which, I reply: "The choice to do what?"

Because the answer is, "to have an abortion," we can see that the argument of "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice," is essentially trying to hide behind semantics in the hopes of saying what it is less blunt, perhaps as a way to soothe a troubled conscience by using a euphemism.

The tactic is similar to the dispute over slavery. The Southern desire for secession was paraded in the name of "States Rights."

Which again brings up the question: "The state's right to do what?"

Well, it was over the state's right to determine the legality of slavery... something we know today is reprehensible.

The euphemisms "pro-choice" or "states rights" make a declaration... that the thing defended is something which can be legitimately chosen without being declared illegal.

So, in terms of the euphemism "states rights," it is argued that the state can decide whether or not whether people who are non-white can be owned as property... no other body can decide it is never right and forbid it by law.

Likewise, with the euphemism "pro-choice," it is argued that an individual alone can decide whether or not an unborn child will live or die, and no other body can forbid it by law.

The problem is, these euphemisms ignore the fact that there was (in the case of states rights) and is (in the case of pro-choice) a dispute over whether any individual or group has the power to deny the human rights to another person or group.

Once upon a time, people believed that because some human beings had a darker skin color, they could be denied human rights and treated as property.

Today, some people believe that because some human beings are unborn, their mothers can decide to deliberately kill them.

When you strip away the euphemism and rhetoric, that is what the propaganda of "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice" actually means.

The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can recognize the ugly truth hidden behind delicate language.

Pro-Choice to do What?

As we witnessed the annual March for Life this past week, I keep seeing one argument pop up over and over by those who defend that travesty of justice called the "right" to abortion. That argument is "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice."

To which, I reply: "The choice to do what?"

Because the answer is, "to have an abortion," we can see that the argument of "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice," is essentially trying to hide behind semantics in the hopes of saying what it is less blunt, perhaps as a way to soothe a troubled conscience by using a euphemism.

The tactic is similar to the dispute over slavery. The Southern desire for secession was paraded in the name of "States Rights."

Which again brings up the question: "The state's right to do what?"

Well, it was over the state's right to determine the legality of slavery... something we know today is reprehensible.

The euphemisms "pro-choice" or "states rights" make a declaration... that the thing defended is something which can be legitimately chosen without being declared illegal.

So, in terms of the euphemism "states rights," it is argued that the state can decide whether or not whether people who are non-white can be owned as property... no other body can decide it is never right and forbid it by law.

Likewise, with the euphemism "pro-choice," it is argued that an individual alone can decide whether or not an unborn child will live or die, and no other body can forbid it by law.

The problem is, these euphemisms ignore the fact that there was (in the case of states rights) and is (in the case of pro-choice) a dispute over whether any individual or group has the power to deny the human rights to another person or group.

Once upon a time, people believed that because some human beings had a darker skin color, they could be denied human rights and treated as property.

Today, some people believe that because some human beings are unborn, their mothers can decide to deliberately kill them.

When you strip away the euphemism and rhetoric, that is what the propaganda of "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice" actually means.

The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can recognize the ugly truth hidden behind delicate language.

Christians Behaving Badly? A Logical Reflection

Read more »

Christians Behaving Badly? A Logical Reflection

Read more »

Reflections on Religious Freedom vs. The Judiciary

Introduction

The Washington Post has a rather asinine article about the issue of religious freedom and posting offensive objects under religious freedom under the First Amendment.

The idea of a Satanic monument to be next to a display of the Ten Commandments may, at first glance, seem to be a reductio ad absurdum to the defense of the Ten Commandments being displayed. After all, isn't it favoritism to allow one religious display, but not another?

Preliminary Notes

Now, for purposes of this article, I'll leave out the repugnance of  Satanism as a man made religion which is an express repudiation of Christianity.  I'll also leave out the consideration of Christianity having any special rights because it is the true religion.

While I both believe Catholic Christianity is the true religion and Satanism is offensive and a lie, the focus here is about freedom of religion in general and the all or nothing view of the judiciary.

The Principal Problem

I think the problem is the courts commit the fallacy of equivocation. They take the concept of religious freedom with different meanings, when it needs to keep a consistent meaning.

The freedom of religion involves the right of the individual to seek out and follow God according to their conscience without interference from the state, either by mandating the attendance in one religion (an official state Church like Anglicanism in Elizabethian England) or by restricting a religion from functioning (like the Soviet Union).

However, the freedom of religion does not mean an approach of either all get the same amount of attention in the public sphere or none do.

Distinguishing Protection of a Minority from Suppression of a Majority

Law has had an emphasis on protecting the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is a good concept when properly understood. We recognize it is unjust to mistreat a minority and restrict them from practicing the rights all people possess.

Unfortunately, the judiciary seems to take a view that if we can't give all religions the same weight, we can't allow any of them to have a public presence. It ignores the fact that the majority of Americans do have a shared religious culture and heritage and tries to pretend it doesn't exist.

America tends to get bizarre here by forgetting a sense of proportion. The percentage of Christians in America is about 78.4%. The next largest  religion is Judaism (1.7%). Islam is 0.6%.  While 16.1% is unaffiliated with religion,  only 1.6% are atheists.

Now while not all people who profess Christianity actually practice it, it does mean that the influence of Christianity plays a large role in how many Americans view life.  The Cross, the Ten Commandments... these are things which are meaningful to the vast majority of Americans. For example, even to nominal Christians, the Ten Commandments  have meaning in terms of law and justice.

The Abundance of Christian Symbols is not Infringement of Religious Rights of a Minority

Now, the 78.4% of Americans who recognize Christianity as true would do wrong to suppress the human rights of 21.6% of the population who don't.

But suppression of religious rights involves either the forcing actions which the believer finds condemned by their conscience or forbidding actions the believer feels morally obligated to do.  For example,  the Obamacare Contraception Mandate involves the forcing of funding contraceptives and abortifacients by people whose conscience forbids them from doing so.

It doesn't mean that symbols of a religion consisting of 0.6% (Islam) of the US population has to be as visible as the symbols of a religion consisting of 78.4% or else it is discrimination. Nor does it mean that the 1.6% of the population that is atheist has the right to suppress the existence of religion in the public sphere because they deny the Divine exists.

Trolling and Harassment

Another consideration is that when a group puts up a counter monument for the purpose of showing their disagreement with the Christian symbol, this is not an issue of religious freedom for the countering group. It is an issue of harassment. The original Christian monument is not put up for the purpose of propaganda. But the counter monument is.  Belief in the Divine is a delusion!  these monuments proclaim.   Don't believe in Christianity, believe in us! they say.

But the War Memorial built in the shape of the Cross is not made to promote Christianity. It exists as a prayer for the war dead, remembering the salvation Christ died and rose to bring us.

Now, some don't believe that Christ was anything more than a man. But to take offense in the hope and prayers that the war dead may rest in God and demand the removal is not an action of religious freedom. It's an act of religious oppression, saying "I disagree with Christianity. So take it down!"

Conclusion

The problem with the legislature and the courts is they begin with a faulty assumption... that any religious symbol on public land counts as the establishment of a religion. But in accepting the demands that no religious symbol exist on public land actually favors the establishment of atheism. The accepting of demands to establish a monument that exists for the purpose of rejecting a religion when the original monument has no propaganda intent actually establishes a religious harassment as a right.

A government which wants to respect the rights of the freedom of religion needs to consider these things. It ought to distinguish intent instead of blindly taking a one size fits all approach without considering whether the appeal is done for a legitimate redress or for harassment.

Reflections on Religious Freedom vs. The Judiciary

Introduction

The Washington Post has a rather asinine article about the issue of religious freedom and posting offensive objects under religious freedom under the First Amendment.

The idea of a Satanic monument to be next to a display of the Ten Commandments may, at first glance, seem to be a reductio ad absurdum to the defense of the Ten Commandments being displayed. After all, isn't it favoritism to allow one religious display, but not another?

Preliminary Notes

Now, for purposes of this article, I'll leave out the repugnance of  Satanism as a man made religion which is an express repudiation of Christianity.  I'll also leave out the consideration of Christianity having any special rights because it is the true religion.

While I both believe Catholic Christianity is the true religion and Satanism is offensive and a lie, the focus here is about freedom of religion in general and the all or nothing view of the judiciary.

The Principal Problem

I think the problem is the courts commit the fallacy of equivocation. They take the concept of religious freedom with different meanings, when it needs to keep a consistent meaning.

The freedom of religion involves the right of the individual to seek out and follow God according to their conscience without interference from the state, either by mandating the attendance in one religion (an official state Church like Anglicanism in Elizabethian England) or by restricting a religion from functioning (like the Soviet Union).

However, the freedom of religion does not mean an approach of either all get the same amount of attention in the public sphere or none do.

Distinguishing Protection of a Minority from Suppression of a Majority

Law has had an emphasis on protecting the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is a good concept when properly understood. We recognize it is unjust to mistreat a minority and restrict them from practicing the rights all people possess.

Unfortunately, the judiciary seems to take a view that if we can't give all religions the same weight, we can't allow any of them to have a public presence. It ignores the fact that the majority of Americans do have a shared religious culture and heritage and tries to pretend it doesn't exist.

America tends to get bizarre here by forgetting a sense of proportion. The percentage of Christians in America is about 78.4%. The next largest  religion is Judaism (1.7%). Islam is 0.6%.  While 16.1% is unaffiliated with religion,  only 1.6% are atheists.

Now while not all people who profess Christianity actually practice it, it does mean that the influence of Christianity plays a large role in how many Americans view life.  The Cross, the Ten Commandments... these are things which are meaningful to the vast majority of Americans. For example, even to nominal Christians, the Ten Commandments  have meaning in terms of law and justice.

The Abundance of Christian Symbols is not Infringement of Religious Rights of a Minority

Now, the 78.4% of Americans who recognize Christianity as true would do wrong to suppress the human rights of 21.6% of the population who don't.

But suppression of religious rights involves either the forcing actions which the believer finds condemned by their conscience or forbidding actions the believer feels morally obligated to do.  For example,  the Obamacare Contraception Mandate involves the forcing of funding contraceptives and abortifacients by people whose conscience forbids them from doing so.

It doesn't mean that symbols of a religion consisting of 0.6% (Islam) of the US population has to be as visible as the symbols of a religion consisting of 78.4% or else it is discrimination. Nor does it mean that the 1.6% of the population that is atheist has the right to suppress the existence of religion in the public sphere because they deny the Divine exists.

Trolling and Harassment

Another consideration is that when a group puts up a counter monument for the purpose of showing their disagreement with the Christian symbol, this is not an issue of religious freedom for the countering group. It is an issue of harassment. The original Christian monument is not put up for the purpose of propaganda. But the counter monument is.  Belief in the Divine is a delusion!  these monuments proclaim.   Don't believe in Christianity, believe in us! they say.

But the War Memorial built in the shape of the Cross is not made to promote Christianity. It exists as a prayer for the war dead, remembering the salvation Christ died and rose to bring us.

Now, some don't believe that Christ was anything more than a man. But to take offense in the hope and prayers that the war dead may rest in God and demand the removal is not an action of religious freedom. It's an act of religious oppression, saying "I disagree with Christianity. So take it down!"

Conclusion

The problem with the legislature and the courts is they begin with a faulty assumption... that any religious symbol on public land counts as the establishment of a religion. But in accepting the demands that no religious symbol exist on public land actually favors the establishment of atheism. The accepting of demands to establish a monument that exists for the purpose of rejecting a religion when the original monument has no propaganda intent actually establishes a religious harassment as a right.

A government which wants to respect the rights of the freedom of religion needs to consider these things. It ought to distinguish intent instead of blindly taking a one size fits all approach without considering whether the appeal is done for a legitimate redress or for harassment.

Musings From Reading Denzinger

From Denzinger #326, decreed by Pope St. Nicholas I in 863 AD:

Chap. 5. If anyone condemns dogmas, mandates, interdicts, sanctions or decrees, promulgated by the one presiding in the Apostolic See, for the Catholic faith, for the correction of the faithful, for the emendation of criminals, either by an interdict of threatening or of future ills, let him be anathema.

Radical Traditionalists routinely condemn the decrees of the Church since Vatican II, including those involving the correction of those individuals who defied the Church... like Archbishop Lefebvre.

So we see something interesting here.
1) If those who don't follow the ancient decrees of the Church are to be condemned...
2) and one of the ancient decrees of the Church was to declare that anyone condemning the decrees of the Apostolic See to be anathema...
3) then it seems the radical traditionalists stand condemned for condemning the Pope when he intends to teach as head of the Church

...which is not limited to ex cathedra proclamations. Vatican I did point out:

If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those things which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the pastors of the faithful; let him be anathema.

So, when the Pope decrees a change in the Mass, when he excommunicated a recalcitrant bishop for illicitly consecrating three bishops against the his express refusal... the condemnation of these is the condemnation of a papal decree.

Therefore...?

The radical traditionalists should be grateful the Popes they blast and condemn are so patient and merciful.