Think About It...

There's a position going around that says that freedom of speech only protects you from being arrested by the government, but doesn't protect you from being forced out of your place of employment. Basically, a position of justifying the ostracism against people holding positions which are unpopular among the cultural elites.

As it currently stands, this view is used to justify the harassment of anyone who holds the position that marriage is, by nature, to be between one man and one woman with the openness to the possibility of children.

Now, I have written before that whether or not a person's public actions justify termination of employment depends entirely on the nature of the employer. To summarize, I said that when a place of employment is explicitly established as holding that certain public behaviors running against the beliefs of the company, the violation of said behavior can justify the termination of employment. But, when the controversial behavior does not run against the established values explicitly, termination is not justified.

For example, if a person thinks Catholicism is wrong and publicly denounces it, as much as I would find such a person offensive, I would not think such a position justifies him or her being fired from a job as a pizza delivery person.  However, if that person taught at a Catholic School, such a public position does justify termination because it would explicitly run afoul of the nature of the employer.

Likewise, when Brendan Eich was forced out of his position at Mozilla, his support for traditional marriage in no way violated the policy of the company, because it had nothing to do with the essence of what Mozilla is.

However, we now have a situation where a mob can agitate to get a person holding an unpopular view ostracized and believe such a position is justified because of the unproven position that thinking a thing is wrong means the person holding it must be a bigot.

Now the danger is: if those opposed to these values can legitimately force the ostracism of the person with unpopular views, then when political fortunes change, those who wind up on top will have the same right to ostracize those who are now on the bottom.

In other words, perhaps in 2020, those people who worked against the Defense of Marriage Act might suddenly find their employer pressuring them to resign... and they will be able to make no objection without sounding hypocritical.

The key thing to remember is this: If you are unwilling to let the tactics you use against your enemies be used by your enemies against you, that is a good sign that you are behaving hypocritically and your tactics are unjust.

Think about it...

Think About It...

There's a position going around that says that freedom of speech only protects you from being arrested by the government, but doesn't protect you from being forced out of your place of employment. Basically, a position of justifying the ostracism against people holding positions which are unpopular among the cultural elites.

As it currently stands, this view is used to justify the harassment of anyone who holds the position that marriage is, by nature, to be between one man and one woman with the openness to the possibility of children.

Now, I have written before that whether or not a person's public actions justify termination of employment depends entirely on the nature of the employer. To summarize, I said that when a place of employment is explicitly established as holding that certain public behaviors running against the beliefs of the company, the violation of said behavior can justify the termination of employment. But, when the controversial behavior does not run against the established values explicitly, termination is not justified.

For example, if a person thinks Catholicism is wrong and publicly denounces it, as much as I would find such a person offensive, I would not think such a position justifies him or her being fired from a job as a pizza delivery person.  However, if that person taught at a Catholic School, such a public position does justify termination because it would explicitly run afoul of the nature of the employer.

Likewise, when Brendan Eich was forced out of his position at Mozilla, his support for traditional marriage in no way violated the policy of the company, because it had nothing to do with the essence of what Mozilla is.

However, we now have a situation where a mob can agitate to get a person holding an unpopular view ostracized and believe such a position is justified because of the unproven position that thinking a thing is wrong means the person holding it must be a bigot.

Now the danger is: if those opposed to these values can legitimately force the ostracism of the person with unpopular views, then when political fortunes change, those who wind up on top will have the same right to ostracize those who are now on the bottom.

In other words, perhaps in 2020, those people who worked against the Defense of Marriage Act might suddenly find their employer pressuring them to resign... and they will be able to make no objection without sounding hypocritical.

The key thing to remember is this: If you are unwilling to let the tactics you use against your enemies be used by your enemies against you, that is a good sign that you are behaving hypocritically and your tactics are unjust.

Think about it...

Pontius Pilate Rides Again

Introduction

Depending on which movie version you see about Jesus, the character of Pontius Pilate who condemned Him to death has a wide range of personalities. They range from the man trying to free Jesus, but gets thwarted at every turn to the callous, indifferent man who only cares about keeping order.

These different movie portrayals tend to miss one major point... that Pontius Pilate knew he was being asked to allow a gross miscarriage of justice over a person who he knew was innocent to satisfy people he knew wanted Him silenced for selfish reasons.  Not only that, but Pilate had the power to prevent this gross miscarriage of justice, but refused to use it, because he feared repercussions might affect him personally.

In the news lately, we seem to see many things in the news that seems to show that the mindset of Pontius Pilate is alive and well.

The Supreme Court

Today the Supreme Court, faced with the possibility of reversing an injustice created by the New Mexico where a person can be compelled to take part in a so-called "gay marriage" against his or her beliefs on the grounds that to do so was discrimination.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case,  setting a precedent other states can use to similarly force people to act against what they believe is right. They had the legal authority to make this right, and refused.

Mozilla

Last week, Mozilla, when faced with a digital mob trying to oust a man for supporting a Proposition protecting the traditional understanding of marriage, chose to encourage his resignation and offered an apology to the mob because this man believed that it was the right thing to do.

For all of Mozilla's weasel words claiming they tried to save Eich's job, the fact still remains that Mozilla had the power to call the bigotry what it was and tell the mob that Eich had just as much freedom as they did to support what he believed was right.

Instead they thought his behavior (done when even Obama claimed to support traditional marriage) was something reprehensible  and needed to be apologized for by the company.

Conclusion

There are many different ways to stand up for what is right. Some of them may involve personal inconvenience, maybe even persecution.  But when it comes down to choosing between comfort and right, a person needs to choose what is right.

To do otherwise is to follow the path of Pontius Pilate, refusing to do right and washing one's hands of the whole affair.

Pontius Pilate Rides Again

Introduction

Depending on which movie version you see about Jesus, the character of Pontius Pilate who condemned Him to death has a wide range of personalities. They range from the man trying to free Jesus, but gets thwarted at every turn to the callous, indifferent man who only cares about keeping order.

These different movie portrayals tend to miss one major point... that Pontius Pilate knew he was being asked to allow a gross miscarriage of justice over a person who he knew was innocent to satisfy people he knew wanted Him silenced for selfish reasons.  Not only that, but Pilate had the power to prevent this gross miscarriage of justice, but refused to use it, because he feared repercussions might affect him personally.

In the news lately, we seem to see many things in the news that seems to show that the mindset of Pontius Pilate is alive and well.

The Supreme Court

Today the Supreme Court, faced with the possibility of reversing an injustice created by the New Mexico where a person can be compelled to take part in a so-called "gay marriage" against his or her beliefs on the grounds that to do so was discrimination.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case,  setting a precedent other states can use to similarly force people to act against what they believe is right. They had the legal authority to make this right, and refused.

Mozilla

Last week, Mozilla, when faced with a digital mob trying to oust a man for supporting a Proposition protecting the traditional understanding of marriage, chose to encourage his resignation and offered an apology to the mob because this man believed that it was the right thing to do.

For all of Mozilla's weasel words claiming they tried to save Eich's job, the fact still remains that Mozilla had the power to call the bigotry what it was and tell the mob that Eich had just as much freedom as they did to support what he believed was right.

Instead they thought his behavior (done when even Obama claimed to support traditional marriage) was something reprehensible  and needed to be apologized for by the company.

Conclusion

There are many different ways to stand up for what is right. Some of them may involve personal inconvenience, maybe even persecution.  But when it comes down to choosing between comfort and right, a person needs to choose what is right.

To do otherwise is to follow the path of Pontius Pilate, refusing to do right and washing one's hands of the whole affair.

Taking a Stand on Mozilla

I have added my site to the list of those who are blocking the Firefox web browser on account of the forced resignation of Brendan Eich from Mozilla. That a person can be "encouraged" to resign over doing what is right shows that Mozilla has no respect whatsoever for those they disagree with despite the popular buzzword of tolerance.

While it is true that Google (makers of Chrome) and Microsoft (makers of Internet Explorer) are hardly champions of Christian moral values, they at least don't force people out (yet?) on account of their moral values.

Now I know that the Arnobius of Sicca blog is extremely small in terms of reach and influence. By itself, it can have no effect. But if enough people of good will stand for what is right, we can have an effect, saying, "we will not go quietly in having our rights taken away."

We do not take this stand out of any hatred or fear of persons with a same sex attraction. We take this stand because we believe that a marriage can only exist between one man and one woman in an exclusive,  life-long relationship open to the possibility of children.

The Catholic Church has this to say on the subject;

Chastity and homosexuality

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.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347)

We are forbidden to hate or to harm a person with a same sex attraction... not because "it's a rule" but because of our love of God who teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves. But true love does not mean living a lie.

For more information on how we can oppose this intolerance, please see the following:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/how-you-can-push-back-against-mozilla-firefoxs-gay-marriage-thuggery/

http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com

Taking a Stand on Mozilla

I have added my site to the list of those who are blocking the Firefox web browser on account of the forced resignation of Brendan Eich from Mozilla. That a person can be "encouraged" to resign over doing what is right shows that Mozilla has no respect whatsoever for those they disagree with despite the popular buzzword of tolerance.

While it is true that Google (makers of Chrome) and Microsoft (makers of Internet Explorer) are hardly champions of Christian moral values, they at least don't force people out (yet?) on account of their moral values.

Now I know that the Arnobius of Sicca blog is extremely small in terms of reach and influence. By itself, it can have no effect. But if enough people of good will stand for what is right, we can have an effect, saying, "we will not go quietly in having our rights taken away."

We do not take this stand out of any hatred or fear of persons with a same sex attraction. We take this stand because we believe that a marriage can only exist between one man and one woman in an exclusive,  life-long relationship open to the possibility of children.

The Catholic Church has this to say on the subject;

Chastity and homosexuality

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.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347)

We are forbidden to hate or to harm a person with a same sex attraction... not because "it's a rule" but because of our love of God who teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves. But true love does not mean living a lie.

For more information on how we can oppose this intolerance, please see the following:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/how-you-can-push-back-against-mozilla-firefoxs-gay-marriage-thuggery/

http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com

A Good Reminder for All Catholics

In reading St. Josemaria Escriva's The Forge, I came across this passage:

585  Don’t be scared by it. In so far as you can you should fight against the conspiracy of silence they want to muzzle the Church with. Some people stop her voice being heard; others will not let the good example of those who preach with their deeds be seen; others wipe out every trace of good doctrine…, and so very many cannot bear to hear her. Don’t be scared, I say again. But don’t get tired, either, of your task of being a loudspeaker for the teachings of the Magisterium.

I find this reflection to be very valuable. The Western media either takes things out of context (for example, the dishonest use of the Pope's words, "who am I to judge") or refuses to report on what was said (like the Pope's affirmation of the Church teaching on marriage).

Both tactics are used. The media uses misquotes to try to portray the Church to be in conflict with Christ, the Pope or "reality." The media uses suppression when it tries to portray a dissenter as being a "faithful Catholic."

We should not be blaming the Church or the Pope for causing this confusion.  They speak truly. The media changes the message.  We need to be informed,  recognizing that the secular media cannot be trusted to get it right. We need to follow trusted Catholic sources to see what is said in context. Then we need to present the truth to those who rely on the secular media for news about the Church.

We should also consider the words of Bishop Loverde in his recent work, Go Forth With Hearts of Fire:

Unlike prior generations, we cannot be lukewarm, uninformed , or casual about the gift of faith. Today is a time of decision and commitment, and we are at the forefront. If we examine history, this degree of urgency was shared by all of the great evangelists in their own times.

Spreading the truth is part of the evangelism all Christians are called to.

A Good Reminder for All Catholics

In reading St. Josemaria Escriva's The Forge, I came across this passage:

585  Don’t be scared by it. In so far as you can you should fight against the conspiracy of silence they want to muzzle the Church with. Some people stop her voice being heard; others will not let the good example of those who preach with their deeds be seen; others wipe out every trace of good doctrine…, and so very many cannot bear to hear her. Don’t be scared, I say again. But don’t get tired, either, of your task of being a loudspeaker for the teachings of the Magisterium.

I find this reflection to be very valuable. The Western media either takes things out of context (for example, the dishonest use of the Pope's words, "who am I to judge") or refuses to report on what was said (like the Pope's affirmation of the Church teaching on marriage).

Both tactics are used. The media uses misquotes to try to portray the Church to be in conflict with Christ, the Pope or "reality." The media uses suppression when it tries to portray a dissenter as being a "faithful Catholic."

We should not be blaming the Church or the Pope for causing this confusion.  They speak truly. The media changes the message.  We need to be informed,  recognizing that the secular media cannot be trusted to get it right. We need to follow trusted Catholic sources to see what is said in context. Then we need to present the truth to those who rely on the secular media for news about the Church.

We should also consider the words of Bishop Loverde in his recent work, Go Forth With Hearts of Fire:

Unlike prior generations, we cannot be lukewarm, uninformed , or casual about the gift of faith. Today is a time of decision and commitment, and we are at the forefront. If we examine history, this degree of urgency was shared by all of the great evangelists in their own times.

Spreading the truth is part of the evangelism all Christians are called to.

Do Christians Have a Double Standard?

It occurs to me that some people might believe that there is a double standard in play, where we object to the CEO of Mozilla and a member of the Duck Dynasty cast being bullied out of a job for privately supporting something in keeping with his or her beliefs while we think it is acceptable for a religious school to terminate an employee whose life is not in accord with the values of the religious school. Do we have a double standard when we think Hobby Lobby should be exempted from the Contraception Mandate but think Mozilla was in the wrong in encouraging the resignation of their CEO?

Such a person might ask, "Shouldn't you either accept the right of both to exclude, or the obligation of both to ignore personal behavior?"

It's a fair question, but if we explore the issue I think we will find the two scenarios are not equivalent and there is no case of special pleading or double standard in having two separate responses.

First of all, we must consider the purpose of the institution in question. For a secular company which operates under a code of ethics concerning how they behave towards customers or employees, what a person does in his or her own time that does not fall into these areas does not fall under the authority of the code of ethics.  It doesn't matter whether the employee personally holds views that others disagree with if he or she does not violate the code of ethics or the law.

In contrast, Hobby Lobby is a company which specifies it operates under Christian principles. A non-Christian is free to live his or her private life according to their personal values and Hobby Lobby does not interfere. What they insist on is the right to run their business according to their Christian values, which include no working on Sundays and no funding of abortifacient drugs. Hobby Lobby takes no action if an employee chooses to use these drugs. It's only when an employee's conduct is public and is in violation of the company code of ethics that it takes action.

So far, no double standard.

Now we come to the Catholic school who has to terminate an employee who is living in a way contrary to the Catholic moral beliefs. In this case, the purpose of the school is not just to teach, but to teach in a way which testifies to the Catholic vision of how to live. The teachers bear witness to this way of life. Now people who are not Catholic are educated by these schools and people who are not Catholic may be employed by these schools.

BUT, because these schools bear witness to the Catholic moral teaching, the employees are required to sign agreements that they will not live contrary to these teachings... a teacher who publicly lives against these moral values creates a scandal, forcing the Church to either:

■ Ignore the violation, giving the impression that Catholic moral teaching doesn't really matter.
■ Hold the teacher responsible for violating the code of conduct, showing that this is a very serious matter.

Thus the Catholic school may hire a teacher who has homosexual tendencies under the recognition that such a person must live a chaste lifestyle. However, if such a teacher publicly takes part in a "gay marriage" -- which the Church cannot accept as a true marriage -- this teacher is declaring to his or her students that he or she openly rejects the Catholic values. Because of this, the Church has no choice but to fire the teacher.

Again, there is no double standard. The employee agreed that he or she would live in a way compatible with Catholic teaching and then willfully broke that agreement. Because the Catholic Church believes that one may never choose to do evil, the employee who publicly testifies by his or her lifestyle that there is nothing wrong with the act, and that the Church is wrong is just as unfit to be a teacher in a Catholic school as a person who shows up for class drunk.

In short, there is no special pleading, no double standard between being appalled by the gay bullying against Mr. Eich and supporting Hobby Lobby or the Catholic Church.

Do Christians Have a Double Standard?

It occurs to me that some people might believe that there is a double standard in play, where we object to the CEO of Mozilla and a member of the Duck Dynasty cast being bullied out of a job for privately supporting something in keeping with his or her beliefs while we think it is acceptable for a religious school to terminate an employee whose life is not in accord with the values of the religious school. Do we have a double standard when we think Hobby Lobby should be exempted from the Contraception Mandate but think Mozilla was in the wrong in encouraging the resignation of their CEO?

Such a person might ask, "Shouldn't you either accept the right of both to exclude, or the obligation of both to ignore personal behavior?"

It's a fair question, but if we explore the issue I think we will find the two scenarios are not equivalent and there is no case of special pleading or double standard in having two separate responses.

First of all, we must consider the purpose of the institution in question. For a secular company which operates under a code of ethics concerning how they behave towards customers or employees, what a person does in his or her own time that does not fall into these areas does not fall under the authority of the code of ethics.  It doesn't matter whether the employee personally holds views that others disagree with if he or she does not violate the code of ethics or the law.

In contrast, Hobby Lobby is a company which specifies it operates under Christian principles. A non-Christian is free to live his or her private life according to their personal values and Hobby Lobby does not interfere. What they insist on is the right to run their business according to their Christian values, which include no working on Sundays and no funding of abortifacient drugs. Hobby Lobby takes no action if an employee chooses to use these drugs. It's only when an employee's conduct is public and is in violation of the company code of ethics that it takes action.

So far, no double standard.

Now we come to the Catholic school who has to terminate an employee who is living in a way contrary to the Catholic moral beliefs. In this case, the purpose of the school is not just to teach, but to teach in a way which testifies to the Catholic vision of how to live. The teachers bear witness to this way of life. Now people who are not Catholic are educated by these schools and people who are not Catholic may be employed by these schools.

BUT, because these schools bear witness to the Catholic moral teaching, the employees are required to sign agreements that they will not live contrary to these teachings... a teacher who publicly lives against these moral values creates a scandal, forcing the Church to either:

■ Ignore the violation, giving the impression that Catholic moral teaching doesn't really matter.
■ Hold the teacher responsible for violating the code of conduct, showing that this is a very serious matter.

Thus the Catholic school may hire a teacher who has homosexual tendencies under the recognition that such a person must live a chaste lifestyle. However, if such a teacher publicly takes part in a "gay marriage" -- which the Church cannot accept as a true marriage -- this teacher is declaring to his or her students that he or she openly rejects the Catholic values. Because of this, the Church has no choice but to fire the teacher.

Again, there is no double standard. The employee agreed that he or she would live in a way compatible with Catholic teaching and then willfully broke that agreement. Because the Catholic Church believes that one may never choose to do evil, the employee who publicly testifies by his or her lifestyle that there is nothing wrong with the act, and that the Church is wrong is just as unfit to be a teacher in a Catholic school as a person who shows up for class drunk.

In short, there is no special pleading, no double standard between being appalled by the gay bullying against Mr. Eich and supporting Hobby Lobby or the Catholic Church.

Facing the Persecution

It's no secret that it's open season on Christians that dare to publicly affirm their beliefs in Christian moral values... particularly when it comes to moral values concerning sexuality. Dare to affirm your beliefs in public and you run the risk of being fired (or "encouraged" to resign), sued or prosecuted depending on the circumstances of your behavior. Never mind the fact that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect Americans from that threat. Our beliefs are classified as intolerance and therefore those who disagree don't have to tolerate us.  Which brings us to the question of what we are to do about it.

No, this isn't going to be a post about preparing bunkers and stocking up on firearms. I figure that if society collapses, I'm likely one of the weak who get eliminated quickly by the mobs. How could I advise you on this?

Nor is this going to be a post about the need to overthrow the government. Yes, our government is terribly unjust and corrupt at this time, favoring those they like and harassing those who disagree with them. But so long as we have some freedoms left, let us use them to reach out to those people of good will. Remember, St. Justin Martyr didn't call for the overthrow of the Roman Empire.  He wrote to the Emperor (Antonius Pius) appealing to his reputation for justice.  It took almost 300 years before Christians could practice their faith without legal harassment or persecution... and Christians still spread the faith without seeking to overthrow the government.

What this is about is encouraging every Christian to begin preparing for the fact that we may be challenged to deny aspects of our faith and do evil to protect our lives or our freedom. We may not have time to hide or to evade a question forcing us to choose between our freedom and our faith.

Because we believe God is almighty and creator of everything visible and invisible, we cannot accept the State as having the right to change the natural law on what is moral. We believe God is all powerful and all good. What He decrees is not arbitrary.  It then follows He decrees what is good because it reflects His own goodness.

Now, for the Catholic, we believe that because Jesus is God and that He gave the Church His authority to bind and to loose and to teach in His name (see Matt 16:18-19, Matt 18:18 and Matt 28:20). Because we believe this, we cannot accept any encroachment from the State onto the authority of what the Church can or cannot say.

Thus, we need to prepare ourselves by remembering what we believe. Those who hate us and try to both force our beliefs out of public life and force us to contradict our beliefs when we are in public may have power, but we must remain faithful to our Savior and witness to the truth about Him as God's way of reaching out to those who hate us.

Facing the Persecution

It's no secret that it's open season on Christians that dare to publicly affirm their beliefs in Christian moral values... particularly when it comes to moral values concerning sexuality. Dare to affirm your beliefs in public and you run the risk of being fired (or "encouraged" to resign), sued or prosecuted depending on the circumstances of your behavior. Never mind the fact that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect Americans from that threat. Our beliefs are classified as intolerance and therefore those who disagree don't have to tolerate us.  Which brings us to the question of what we are to do about it.

No, this isn't going to be a post about preparing bunkers and stocking up on firearms. I figure that if society collapses, I'm likely one of the weak who get eliminated quickly by the mobs. How could I advise you on this?

Nor is this going to be a post about the need to overthrow the government. Yes, our government is terribly unjust and corrupt at this time, favoring those they like and harassing those who disagree with them. But so long as we have some freedoms left, let us use them to reach out to those people of good will. Remember, St. Justin Martyr didn't call for the overthrow of the Roman Empire.  He wrote to the Emperor (Antonius Pius) appealing to his reputation for justice.  It took almost 300 years before Christians could practice their faith without legal harassment or persecution... and Christians still spread the faith without seeking to overthrow the government.

What this is about is encouraging every Christian to begin preparing for the fact that we may be challenged to deny aspects of our faith and do evil to protect our lives or our freedom. We may not have time to hide or to evade a question forcing us to choose between our freedom and our faith.

Because we believe God is almighty and creator of everything visible and invisible, we cannot accept the State as having the right to change the natural law on what is moral. We believe God is all powerful and all good. What He decrees is not arbitrary.  It then follows He decrees what is good because it reflects His own goodness.

Now, for the Catholic, we believe that because Jesus is God and that He gave the Church His authority to bind and to loose and to teach in His name (see Matt 16:18-19, Matt 18:18 and Matt 28:20). Because we believe this, we cannot accept any encroachment from the State onto the authority of what the Church can or cannot say.

Thus, we need to prepare ourselves by remembering what we believe. Those who hate us and try to both force our beliefs out of public life and force us to contradict our beliefs when we are in public may have power, but we must remain faithful to our Savior and witness to the truth about Him as God's way of reaching out to those who hate us.

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.

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.