Propaganda in America: "Cutting Down the Laws"

The Short Term Danger

As we get closer to the elections, it is alarming to see just how many people are being taken in by propaganda set forth by the Obama administration.  There are actually a large amount of people who believe that the dispute over the HHS mandate is actually an attempt by religious groups to prevent people from using contraception.  People have used dishonest labels, such as the "War on Women."  They accuse us of trying to force our beliefs on them.

The facts are different.  Prior to the HHS mandate, self insured employers were not required to offer coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients.  Employers (religious organizations or individual business owners) trying to be faithful to their beliefs had this option to do what they felt obligated to do.

What the HHS mandate does is to mandate all insurance (including the self-insured) to provide contraception and abortifacient coverage or else be fined $100 per employee per day.  If you're a small business owner hiring 10 people, that's $1000 a day in fines.  In larger Catholic institutions, it adds up to millions of dollars a year.

It is funny, isn't it?  Christians who run businesses or hospitals or colleges must now offer coverage for activities they call evil or be forced out of business.  They're the ones accused of forcing their beliefs on others.  Meanwhile those people who demand that employers cover their contraceptives and abortifacients are called the victims.

The Long Term Danger

The evil done in this particular incident is dangerous enough in that it flagrantly violates the constitution while people who are oppressors portray themselves as victims, but there is a long term danger as well.

The Long term danger is that, if the government propaganda is allowed to go unchallenged, we we are seeing a large portion of the nation who can be deceived into thinking a violation of the Bill of Rights is in fact a new freedom.  Precedents are being set which can be used by any future government, conservative or liberal, to overrule the conscience of any group which is inconvenient.

Now many of the deceived may think that this is alarmism.  They may think that since we are not seeing the tactics of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or modern China, that there is no danger here of the loss of civil rights in America.

However, America doesn't need concentration camps or gulags to restrict our freedoms. Right now our government can inflict fines for non-compliance if this is allowed to stand… fines that can force any person or group out of business who refuses to comply with the desired policy.

I won't say we are becoming Totalitarian mind you.  That would require deceiving the population a bit more to thinking that it is better to entrust all power to a regime with an ideology which a large enough percentage tends to sympathize with. 

No, right now, we are in danger of moving from a Republic based on the safeguards of protecting freedoms to an authoritarian government which takes away some of our freedoms in the name of "bettering" people in some way or "protecting" freedoms from an alleged threat.  Right now this so-called threat is organized religion, where attempts to defend religious beliefs is portrayed as "forcing beliefs on others."  To "defend" the country from that "threat" the government claims that religious individuals must comply with  state demands.

But once they get you to accept that belief that government impositions over the Constitution are necessary, it becomes easier to eliminate other constitutional hindrances to their power.

Conclusion

I think a good way to conclude this article is to quote from the 1966 movie, A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Many people out there may have hostility to Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular.  I have even seen some go so far as to say that it should be destroyed to "protect" people.  One hopes these types are merely a minority of uninformed radicals.  But even if the reader should be opposed to us, you should be careful as to what conveniences you support to oppose us.

Otherwise, once you cut down all the laws, will you be able to "stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

Propaganda in America: "Cutting Down the Laws"

The Short Term Danger

As we get closer to the elections, it is alarming to see just how many people are being taken in by propaganda set forth by the Obama administration.  There are actually a large amount of people who believe that the dispute over the HHS mandate is actually an attempt by religious groups to prevent people from using contraception.  People have used dishonest labels, such as the "War on Women."  They accuse us of trying to force our beliefs on them.

The facts are different.  Prior to the HHS mandate, self insured employers were not required to offer coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients.  Employers (religious organizations or individual business owners) trying to be faithful to their beliefs had this option to do what they felt obligated to do.

What the HHS mandate does is to mandate all insurance (including the self-insured) to provide contraception and abortifacient coverage or else be fined $100 per employee per day.  If you're a small business owner hiring 10 people, that's $1000 a day in fines.  In larger Catholic institutions, it adds up to millions of dollars a year.

It is funny, isn't it?  Christians who run businesses or hospitals or colleges must now offer coverage for activities they call evil or be forced out of business.  They're the ones accused of forcing their beliefs on others.  Meanwhile those people who demand that employers cover their contraceptives and abortifacients are called the victims.

The Long Term Danger

The evil done in this particular incident is dangerous enough in that it flagrantly violates the constitution while people who are oppressors portray themselves as victims, but there is a long term danger as well.

The Long term danger is that, if the government propaganda is allowed to go unchallenged, we we are seeing a large portion of the nation who can be deceived into thinking a violation of the Bill of Rights is in fact a new freedom.  Precedents are being set which can be used by any future government, conservative or liberal, to overrule the conscience of any group which is inconvenient.

Now many of the deceived may think that this is alarmism.  They may think that since we are not seeing the tactics of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or modern China, that there is no danger here of the loss of civil rights in America.

However, America doesn't need concentration camps or gulags to restrict our freedoms. Right now our government can inflict fines for non-compliance if this is allowed to stand… fines that can force any person or group out of business who refuses to comply with the desired policy.

I won't say we are becoming Totalitarian mind you.  That would require deceiving the population a bit more to thinking that it is better to entrust all power to a regime with an ideology which a large enough percentage tends to sympathize with. 

No, right now, we are in danger of moving from a Republic based on the safeguards of protecting freedoms to an authoritarian government which takes away some of our freedoms in the name of "bettering" people in some way or "protecting" freedoms from an alleged threat.  Right now this so-called threat is organized religion, where attempts to defend religious beliefs is portrayed as "forcing beliefs on others."  To "defend" the country from that "threat" the government claims that religious individuals must comply with  state demands.

But once they get you to accept that belief that government impositions over the Constitution are necessary, it becomes easier to eliminate other constitutional hindrances to their power.

Conclusion

I think a good way to conclude this article is to quote from the 1966 movie, A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Many people out there may have hostility to Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular.  I have even seen some go so far as to say that it should be destroyed to "protect" people.  One hopes these types are merely a minority of uninformed radicals.  But even if the reader should be opposed to us, you should be careful as to what conveniences you support to oppose us.

Otherwise, once you cut down all the laws, will you be able to "stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

The Cart Before the Horse: Accusing the Church of Political Motivations

It is not that his Church tyrannously claims the right of forbidding to him a freedom allowed to others.  [The Catholic] must not say "My Church forbids it" – that is inaccurate.  What he must say is "God forbids it and my Church fortifies me in that belief."

—Msgr. Ronald Knox, The Beliefs of Catholics (page 158 Image Book version)

One of the real problems in America and the rest of the Western world is that the concept of democracy tends to override everything, and the view that everything has a political motivation.  The result is nowadays, instead of religion being viewed as some form of relationship with God, religion is seen as misogynistic, homophobic, autocratic… basically whenever the Church must say something is contrary to how a person who professes to be Christian must live, the response is to accuse the Church as having a malicious intent.

This sort of mindset plagues certain dissenters within the Church and ideologues outside the Church alike.  They see the disliked Church teaching as being politically motivated by people who must be intolerant – otherwise they would think like the dissenters and ideologues.  When the Church must condemn certain behavior as being outside what is part of being a follower of Christ, the result is to accuse the Church of meddling in politics.

This sort of view entirely misses the point of the Church's mission of evangelizing the world.

The Catholic Church has been around far before there was a United States of America.  It was established in the first century AD, a time when Europe was divided between the (relatively) civilized Roman Empire and the barbarian tribes of the North.  The Church condemned abortion then too.  They condemned use of medicines to artificially prevent conception.  In fact, while the Church teachings have become more refined in response to the innovations of technology, the basic premises have not changed.

The first century document, The Epistle of Barnabas,for example, states:

Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born. (Chapter XIX)

It should be noted that this document, which shows the Catholic belief existed at this time, was far before the creation of the United States in 1776 (or 1787 if you want to count the implementation of the Constitution as the beginning), the establishment of the Democratic Party about 1800, the formation of the Republican Party in 1856.  In fact the Catholic teachings on these subjects existed far before Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire.

The point of the above is not to make use of an argument from antiquity fallacy (this view is older therefore it is true).  Rather, it is to show how foolish it is to claim that the Catholic teaching and the actions of the Pope and Bishops are politically motivated when they remind us that modern attempts to legalize evil are still contrary to what God tells us to do.

When the Church does speak on issues which are "hot button" issues in the political sphere, we need to remember that her motivation is not to get a Republican in the White House or to pass a liberal agenda (the Church has been accused from both sides).  When the Church teaches, her motivation is to be faithful to Jesus Christ who commanded the Church to go out to the nations.  This includes warning the people of all nations to turn from evil and seek to good.

Some may deny that Christ established the Catholic Church, and we can't help it if some refuse to accept her teachings.

But it is foolish to claim that just because these opponents may be politically motivated, that the Church must be too.

The Cart Before the Horse: Accusing the Church of Political Motivations

It is not that his Church tyrannously claims the right of forbidding to him a freedom allowed to others.  [The Catholic] must not say "My Church forbids it" – that is inaccurate.  What he must say is "God forbids it and my Church fortifies me in that belief."

—Msgr. Ronald Knox, The Beliefs of Catholics (page 158 Image Book version)

One of the real problems in America and the rest of the Western world is that the concept of democracy tends to override everything, and the view that everything has a political motivation.  The result is nowadays, instead of religion being viewed as some form of relationship with God, religion is seen as misogynistic, homophobic, autocratic… basically whenever the Church must say something is contrary to how a person who professes to be Christian must live, the response is to accuse the Church as having a malicious intent.

This sort of mindset plagues certain dissenters within the Church and ideologues outside the Church alike.  They see the disliked Church teaching as being politically motivated by people who must be intolerant – otherwise they would think like the dissenters and ideologues.  When the Church must condemn certain behavior as being outside what is part of being a follower of Christ, the result is to accuse the Church of meddling in politics.

This sort of view entirely misses the point of the Church's mission of evangelizing the world.

The Catholic Church has been around far before there was a United States of America.  It was established in the first century AD, a time when Europe was divided between the (relatively) civilized Roman Empire and the barbarian tribes of the North.  The Church condemned abortion then too.  They condemned use of medicines to artificially prevent conception.  In fact, while the Church teachings have become more refined in response to the innovations of technology, the basic premises have not changed.

The first century document, The Epistle of Barnabas,for example, states:

Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born. (Chapter XIX)

It should be noted that this document, which shows the Catholic belief existed at this time, was far before the creation of the United States in 1776 (or 1787 if you want to count the implementation of the Constitution as the beginning), the establishment of the Democratic Party about 1800, the formation of the Republican Party in 1856.  In fact the Catholic teachings on these subjects existed far before Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire.

The point of the above is not to make use of an argument from antiquity fallacy (this view is older therefore it is true).  Rather, it is to show how foolish it is to claim that the Catholic teaching and the actions of the Pope and Bishops are politically motivated when they remind us that modern attempts to legalize evil are still contrary to what God tells us to do.

When the Church does speak on issues which are "hot button" issues in the political sphere, we need to remember that her motivation is not to get a Republican in the White House or to pass a liberal agenda (the Church has been accused from both sides).  When the Church teaches, her motivation is to be faithful to Jesus Christ who commanded the Church to go out to the nations.  This includes warning the people of all nations to turn from evil and seek to good.

Some may deny that Christ established the Catholic Church, and we can't help it if some refuse to accept her teachings.

But it is foolish to claim that just because these opponents may be politically motivated, that the Church must be too.

Is the Ryan Abortion Position on Abortion Contrary to Catholic Teaching?

(Edited 10/13/12 to fix a statement that could be misinterpreted as saying Ryan's position is absolutely wrong)

One of the aftermaths to the Biden-Ryan debate is the argument that the position described by Ryan is also contrary to the Catholic teaching.  Some pro-lifers seem to take the view of a plague on both your houses, while some liberal Catholics argue that since neither candidate holds a Catholic position, they are free to vote for whoever they want.

In light of my last column which pointed out the despicable conclusions that follow from Biden's views on abortion, I figure I should also offer comment on what Ryan described as the Romney/Ryan view on the subject.  I must admit that, at first glance, their views hardly seem ideal when Ryan says:

Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don’t agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

According to some Obama supporters and some pro-lifers, Ryan seems a problem here.  If the fetus is a human person from the moment of conception, it follows that the protection of that human life is not removed in the cases of any of those exceptions.  In the Catholic teaching, "One may never do evil so that good may result from it" (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1789).  The good sought is the protection of the mother.  The evil done is the deliberate killing of the unborn child.  Since we may never choose an evil means to achieve a good end, it may seem the Ryan position is not compatible with Catholic teaching.  We Catholics cannot – and should not—deny the fact that abortion in any circumstances is impermissible.

The teaching of the Church has made clear our obligations when faced with a voting choice where neither party is fully pro-life.  In speaking on such laws, Pope John Paul II has said (Evangelium Vitae #74)

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Now, since it is impossible at this time to overturn the unjust Supreme Court decisions on abortion, we can make a case that the Romney/Ryan position falls under this criteria.  When faced with  a president who feels that abortion should be legal under all circumstances, the Romney/Ryan position is definitely aimed at limiting the harm done by legalized abortion.  Since Ryan's position is well known in opposing abortion, his position on the limiting abortion to rape/incest and the life of the mother can reasonably be considered to lessen the effect of an unjust law and is not cooperation with an unjust law.

We need to realize the difference though between choosing a lesser evil willfully compared to tolerating the effect of a lesser evil.  We are simply not allowed to choose to do evil.  Because Ryan is not saying he supports abortion rights in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother, and his rating with the National Right to Life Committee is 100% and his rating with NARAL is 0% it seems safe to assume that Ryan is not advocating some form of abortion rights, but is rather trying to limit abortion as much as he thinks he can.

So I believe we can say that his position is not one of dissent, but one who recognizes his Catholic obligation to save innocent lives and is seeking to limit the evil of America's unjust laws on abortion.

Is the Ryan Abortion Position on Abortion Contrary to Catholic Teaching?

(Edited 10/13/12 to fix a statement that could be misinterpreted as saying Ryan's position is absolutely wrong)

One of the aftermaths to the Biden-Ryan debate is the argument that the position described by Ryan is also contrary to the Catholic teaching.  Some pro-lifers seem to take the view of a plague on both your houses, while some liberal Catholics argue that since neither candidate holds a Catholic position, they are free to vote for whoever they want.

In light of my last column which pointed out the despicable conclusions that follow from Biden's views on abortion, I figure I should also offer comment on what Ryan described as the Romney/Ryan view on the subject.  I must admit that, at first glance, their views hardly seem ideal when Ryan says:

Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don’t agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

According to some Obama supporters and some pro-lifers, Ryan seems a problem here.  If the fetus is a human person from the moment of conception, it follows that the protection of that human life is not removed in the cases of any of those exceptions.  In the Catholic teaching, "One may never do evil so that good may result from it" (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1789).  The good sought is the protection of the mother.  The evil done is the deliberate killing of the unborn child.  Since we may never choose an evil means to achieve a good end, it may seem the Ryan position is not compatible with Catholic teaching.  We Catholics cannot – and should not—deny the fact that abortion in any circumstances is impermissible.

The teaching of the Church has made clear our obligations when faced with a voting choice where neither party is fully pro-life.  In speaking on such laws, Pope John Paul II has said (Evangelium Vitae #74)

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Now, since it is impossible at this time to overturn the unjust Supreme Court decisions on abortion, we can make a case that the Romney/Ryan position falls under this criteria.  When faced with  a president who feels that abortion should be legal under all circumstances, the Romney/Ryan position is definitely aimed at limiting the harm done by legalized abortion.  Since Ryan's position is well known in opposing abortion, his position on the limiting abortion to rape/incest and the life of the mother can reasonably be considered to lessen the effect of an unjust law and is not cooperation with an unjust law.

We need to realize the difference though between choosing a lesser evil willfully compared to tolerating the effect of a lesser evil.  We are simply not allowed to choose to do evil.  Because Ryan is not saying he supports abortion rights in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother, and his rating with the National Right to Life Committee is 100% and his rating with NARAL is 0% it seems safe to assume that Ryan is not advocating some form of abortion rights, but is rather trying to limit abortion as much as he thinks he can.

So I believe we can say that his position is not one of dissent, but one who recognizes his Catholic obligation to save innocent lives and is seeking to limit the evil of America's unjust laws on abortion.

Biden the Despicable

During the VP debate, the question of abortion came up.  Biden had this to say:

BIDEN: My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who -- who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to -- with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a -- what we call a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the -- the congressman. I -- I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that -- women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that.

Now, to translate the term (the Washington Post didn't understand what was said in transcript), De fide means:

(A matter) of the faith.  Essential to the faith and based in revelation. A doctrine proposed de fide in an ex cathedra fashion is said to possess the highest degree of certainty of truth and must be believed by the faithful.

Bretzke, J. T. (1998). Consecrated phrases: A Latin theological dictionary: Latin expressions commonly found in theological writings (electronic ed.). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

So Biden, by saying he recognizes the Church teaching on abortion is de fide, he is stating he knows the Church teaching as true and must be believed by the faithful.  So what does the Church say on abortion?  Well the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

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

So here's the problem for Catholics supporting Obama and Biden.  Biden has declared he believes the unborn child is alive and accepts the Catholic teaching that life must be protected from the moment from conception – yet he refuses to protect that unborn child from abortion.

What should we think of a man who entirely refuses to save lives from a government who declares it is allowable to kill them?  The word despicable comes to mind.  So does cowardly.  Also, hypocrisy fits. 

As we come to the elections, the Catholic voter must consider what it means when the Vice President says he believes the unborn is a person and still refuses to lift a finger to save their lives.

Biden the Despicable

During the VP debate, the question of abortion came up.  Biden had this to say:

BIDEN: My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who -- who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to -- with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a -- what we call a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the -- the congressman. I -- I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that -- women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that.

Now, to translate the term (the Washington Post didn't understand what was said in transcript), De fide means:

(A matter) of the faith.  Essential to the faith and based in revelation. A doctrine proposed de fide in an ex cathedra fashion is said to possess the highest degree of certainty of truth and must be believed by the faithful.

Bretzke, J. T. (1998). Consecrated phrases: A Latin theological dictionary: Latin expressions commonly found in theological writings (electronic ed.). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

So Biden, by saying he recognizes the Church teaching on abortion is de fide, he is stating he knows the Church teaching as true and must be believed by the faithful.  So what does the Church say on abortion?  Well the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

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

So here's the problem for Catholics supporting Obama and Biden.  Biden has declared he believes the unborn child is alive and accepts the Catholic teaching that life must be protected from the moment from conception – yet he refuses to protect that unborn child from abortion.

What should we think of a man who entirely refuses to save lives from a government who declares it is allowable to kill them?  The word despicable comes to mind.  So does cowardly.  Also, hypocrisy fits. 

As we come to the elections, the Catholic voter must consider what it means when the Vice President says he believes the unborn is a person and still refuses to lift a finger to save their lives.

Big Bird and German Catholics: Morning Musings on Propaganda

Read more »

Big Bird and German Catholics: Morning Musings on Propaganda

Read more »

Church and State

Introduction

If one wants to be consistent in arguing the "Separation of Church and State," reason requires that we point out the fact that one cannot keep the Church out of the State without keeping the State out of the Church as well.  The problem is this is increasingly ignored by the Federal Government.

Christianity, in following Christ's command to “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” (Mark 12:17) recognizes that the State has certain areas of authority granted to it for the common good and the protection of the people and that the people are required to give obedience to the authority in these matters.  However, Christians are also required to give obedience to God in matters which concern Him and the State has no authority to oppose or interfere with these commands.

Thus the state can pass laws which provide for the protection and benefit of the population.  For example, it can collect taxes (though not excessively) to make it possible to carry out its duties.  It can set traffic laws for the protection of the people.  There is nothing sacred about driving on the right or the left side of the road, but the government mandates one to avoid the danger of head-on collisions.  The government can set laws concerning military service for the defense of the nation.  There is nothing unreasonable about this as a general principle, though one can certainly judge how the state carries this out (such as a fair conscription in times of national emergency vs. an arbitrary "press gang").

However, the state does not have the authority to mandate what is to be morally acceptable. nor to force religions to participate in things that they find morally repugnant.  The state cannot justly compel Jews and Muslims to eat Pork, nor to force them to provide it for others for example.

The State Cannot Pass Laws outside its Competence or Area of Authority

In Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons, we have an exchange between Thomas Cromwell and St. Thomas More concerning King Henry VII and his Act of Supremacy declaring him the head of the Church in England.  Thomas Cromwell attempts to reason that since More does not know the state of the souls who did sign and he does know he has a duty of obedience to the King, he should therefore sign his assent to the Act.  However, St. Thomas More points out:

Some men think the Earth is round and others think it is flat.  But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round?  And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it?  No, I will not sign. (Page 133).

St. Thomas More's point is a good one.  There are some things the state does not have the authority to declare. Regardless of what the State declares, if it is contrary to what is reality, such a law is meaningless and is nothing more than the state trying to tell people what to think or to do… tyranny.

The State has No Authority to Compel Compliance with an Unjust Law

Let's take another angle.  In the (admittedly mediocre) movie CSA: Confederate States of America, one of the premises is that the victorious South, in attempting to bring the conquered North into its way of life, creates a quandary.  A reconstruction tax is to be imposed on the conquered Northerners.  However, this tax can be avoided by the purchase of a slave.  It leaves the northerners with three choices:

1. To purchase a slave.
2. To pay the ruinous taxes.
3. To leave the country.

The movie shows that the intent of the law is for people to choose option #1 to remove a cultural barrier between the North and the South.  Most Northerners do choose option #1, with a minority choosing option #3.  The viewer is supposed to recognize that all three of the choices are unjust.  Slavery is wrong, and the person who recognizes it as being wrong should not be forced into ruinous taxes or exile.

Both Violations Exist in America in 2012

It is interesting that people can see the problem in the movie, but not see that a very real version is happening right now in America.  With the HHS mandate for example, employers with religious beliefs that tell them that contraception and abortifacients are morally wrong are put in the same quandary.  Failing to provide contraception/abortifacient coverage in their health care plans results in a fine which can equal $100 per employee per day.  It is estimated that the Evangelical owned "Hobby Lobby" could potentially have to pay up to $1.3 million dollars a day for refusing to comply with the HHS mandate.

In other words, the company has these options:

1. To comply with what they believe to be immoral.
2. To pay ruinous fines.
3. To stop doing business in America.

Christians are not Imposing their Beliefs on Others when they Defend their own Rights

Now the examples of A Man for All Seasons and CSA bring out two important facts.  First, that a government which seeks to mandate what is morally acceptable has no authority to do so, and second, when it seeks to coerce acceptance of such a mandate, it is behaving tyrannically and exceeds its authority.

Remembering this is important where supporters of the government's policies are labeling Christians as being intolerant and imposing views on others.  The First Amendment points out:

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.

So the employer with religious beliefs which tells him or her that providing insurance coverage for contraception or abortifacients is wrong has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in regards to the interference with the free exercise of religion.  The government does not have the right to restrict these freedoms.  Religious believers have the right to object to and challenge the HHS mandate and do not impose their views on others in doing so.

Nor do we impose our views on others when we seek to instruct voters as to why certain government policies are unjust and seek to encourage the passage of laws that overturn the injustices.  Our nation was founded on this principle, as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The irony is, it is the religious believers seeking to defend their rights declared in the Declaration and the Constitution are unjustly accused of violating these rights, while those who do or favor the actual violations are treated as the victims.

Our objection to the unjust Laws, Mandates and Court Rulings is not out of opposition to the democratic process, but is out of opposition to the imposition of something the government has no right to impose in the first place and has no right to coerce our compliance with unjust sanctions.

Church and State

Introduction

If one wants to be consistent in arguing the "Separation of Church and State," reason requires that we point out the fact that one cannot keep the Church out of the State without keeping the State out of the Church as well.  The problem is this is increasingly ignored by the Federal Government.

Christianity, in following Christ's command to “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” (Mark 12:17) recognizes that the State has certain areas of authority granted to it for the common good and the protection of the people and that the people are required to give obedience to the authority in these matters.  However, Christians are also required to give obedience to God in matters which concern Him and the State has no authority to oppose or interfere with these commands.

Thus the state can pass laws which provide for the protection and benefit of the population.  For example, it can collect taxes (though not excessively) to make it possible to carry out its duties.  It can set traffic laws for the protection of the people.  There is nothing sacred about driving on the right or the left side of the road, but the government mandates one to avoid the danger of head-on collisions.  The government can set laws concerning military service for the defense of the nation.  There is nothing unreasonable about this as a general principle, though one can certainly judge how the state carries this out (such as a fair conscription in times of national emergency vs. an arbitrary "press gang").

However, the state does not have the authority to mandate what is to be morally acceptable. nor to force religions to participate in things that they find morally repugnant.  The state cannot justly compel Jews and Muslims to eat Pork, nor to force them to provide it for others for example.

The State Cannot Pass Laws outside its Competence or Area of Authority

In Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons, we have an exchange between Thomas Cromwell and St. Thomas More concerning King Henry VII and his Act of Supremacy declaring him the head of the Church in England.  Thomas Cromwell attempts to reason that since More does not know the state of the souls who did sign and he does know he has a duty of obedience to the King, he should therefore sign his assent to the Act.  However, St. Thomas More points out:

Some men think the Earth is round and others think it is flat.  But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round?  And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it?  No, I will not sign. (Page 133).

St. Thomas More's point is a good one.  There are some things the state does not have the authority to declare. Regardless of what the State declares, if it is contrary to what is reality, such a law is meaningless and is nothing more than the state trying to tell people what to think or to do… tyranny.

The State has No Authority to Compel Compliance with an Unjust Law

Let's take another angle.  In the (admittedly mediocre) movie CSA: Confederate States of America, one of the premises is that the victorious South, in attempting to bring the conquered North into its way of life, creates a quandary.  A reconstruction tax is to be imposed on the conquered Northerners.  However, this tax can be avoided by the purchase of a slave.  It leaves the northerners with three choices:

1. To purchase a slave.
2. To pay the ruinous taxes.
3. To leave the country.

The movie shows that the intent of the law is for people to choose option #1 to remove a cultural barrier between the North and the South.  Most Northerners do choose option #1, with a minority choosing option #3.  The viewer is supposed to recognize that all three of the choices are unjust.  Slavery is wrong, and the person who recognizes it as being wrong should not be forced into ruinous taxes or exile.

Both Violations Exist in America in 2012

It is interesting that people can see the problem in the movie, but not see that a very real version is happening right now in America.  With the HHS mandate for example, employers with religious beliefs that tell them that contraception and abortifacients are morally wrong are put in the same quandary.  Failing to provide contraception/abortifacient coverage in their health care plans results in a fine which can equal $100 per employee per day.  It is estimated that the Evangelical owned "Hobby Lobby" could potentially have to pay up to $1.3 million dollars a day for refusing to comply with the HHS mandate.

In other words, the company has these options:

1. To comply with what they believe to be immoral.
2. To pay ruinous fines.
3. To stop doing business in America.

Christians are not Imposing their Beliefs on Others when they Defend their own Rights

Now the examples of A Man for All Seasons and CSA bring out two important facts.  First, that a government which seeks to mandate what is morally acceptable has no authority to do so, and second, when it seeks to coerce acceptance of such a mandate, it is behaving tyrannically and exceeds its authority.

Remembering this is important where supporters of the government's policies are labeling Christians as being intolerant and imposing views on others.  The First Amendment points out:

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.

So the employer with religious beliefs which tells him or her that providing insurance coverage for contraception or abortifacients is wrong has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in regards to the interference with the free exercise of religion.  The government does not have the right to restrict these freedoms.  Religious believers have the right to object to and challenge the HHS mandate and do not impose their views on others in doing so.

Nor do we impose our views on others when we seek to instruct voters as to why certain government policies are unjust and seek to encourage the passage of laws that overturn the injustices.  Our nation was founded on this principle, as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The irony is, it is the religious believers seeking to defend their rights declared in the Declaration and the Constitution are unjustly accused of violating these rights, while those who do or favor the actual violations are treated as the victims.

Our objection to the unjust Laws, Mandates and Court Rulings is not out of opposition to the democratic process, but is out of opposition to the imposition of something the government has no right to impose in the first place and has no right to coerce our compliance with unjust sanctions.

Fifth Anniversary Post: Lincoln was Right

In my first post, written September 22nd, 2007, I quoted Abraham Lincoln who had written:

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." 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 shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy hypocrisy.

In that post I had written about my concerns that America was in danger of passing unjust laws in which "the just who are constrained and the unjust are free."

Fast forwarding five years to today, September 22nd, 2012, it is no longer a theoretical question about the danger of passing unjust laws.  They are now passed, and the fate of the First Amendment is much more dubious than it was when I first wrote.  The propaganda of the current presidency and his supporters are in fact blaming people who are trying to defend their religious freedom for "imposing their views on others."

I find that curious.

The Catholic who believes abortion is wrong and uses his or her rights as an American citizen (freedom of speech, the right to vote etc.)  regarding this moral conviction is told he or she is "imposing views on others."  The atheist who believes abortion is a right and uses his or her rights as an American citizen to expand the legality and reach of abortion is praised for "protecting freedom."

Both the Catholic and the atheist in this case are acting according to what they believe.  But one is vilified for doing so and the other is praised.  One is harassed when speaking while the other is protected.  This is an arbitrary application of law, of media reporting calculated to favor one group and denigrate another.

I believe Lincoln was right.  America is a nation where there is a pretense of loving liberty, but no longer an actual love of liberty.  It is the alloy of hypocrisy to praise freedom when the HHS mandate is telling religious institutions that their schools and hospitals must choose between going against what they believe God commands them to do and being fined/taxed out of existence.

People of good will should think about that.  On one hand we have the the First Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

On the other hand, we have a government prohibiting the free exercise of religion by telling religious hospitals and schools that they must pay for insurance coverage for abortifacients and contraception – even if these hospitals and schools think it wrong and refusing to consider the petitions for the redress of grievances.

When the Church (and other denominations) speak out on this, it draws the accusation of "violating the separation of Church and State" and potential legal sanctions.

So we see again Lincoln's point.  America claims to love liberty, but is willing to set it aside when seeking to suppress someone who takes a stand and says "What America is doing is wrong here."  That is "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more laudable beliefs than is the case" as the Oxford English Dictionary defines hypocrisy.

The sad thing is, once the principle is accepted (which at this time seems to depend somewhat on the results of the November 2012 elections and the Supreme Court challenges), it becomes easy for any future government to use this to their own ends.  It doesn't have to even be the scenario of Obama who makes the United States into a dictatorship.  A future presidency could take the premise Obama established and use it to further his or her own ends, using the force of government to silence opponents.

So with this in mind, what are we to do?  The individual Christians seems weak.  The Church is attacked in a way that seeks to silence her.  The courts seem indifferent to these violations.  The government is actively involved in promoting this violation.  Are we doomed to suffer the violation of religious freedom?

At a time like this, I am reminded of the words of St. Augustine:

God therefore does not command impossibilities; but in His command He counsels you both to do what you can for yourself, and to ask His aid in what you cannot do.

Augustine of Hippo. (1887). A Treatise on Nature and Grace (P. Holmes, Trans.). In P. Schaff (Ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume V: Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings (P. Schaff, Ed.) (138). New York: Christian Literature Company.

We need to both pray concerning what is outside of our control, and do what God wants us to do.  We can't hide in a bunker and complain loudly about bishops being at fault because we're still under fire.  All of us who profess to be Catholics have a role to play.  It might be something like informing people on a national scale, but it also might be a matter of informing a co-worker who speaks about the so-called "war on women" how things really are.

God does have a role for each one of us to play.  We do have the free will to cooperate with God or to ignore that role He calls us for.  However, we must remember that God doesn't always use spectacular miracles to make His will known.  Sometimes he calls on the little people – like how he called a collection of tax collectors, fishermen and the like to bring His message to the whole world.

How far would those twelve men had gotten if everyone else in the Church had, instead of taking part in the mission of the Church, instead sat around and complained about how terrible these Apostles were for not getting more done?

In 2007, I don't think anyone foresaw this coming.  Now that it is here, we have to remember that all of us: Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians, non-believers – all people seeking to do right – need to make a stand against a government which is choosing to do wrong.

If we don't, the words Cardinal George uttered in 2010 will be prophetic:

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr"

Fifth Anniversary Post: Lincoln was Right

In my first post, written September 22nd, 2007, I quoted Abraham Lincoln who had written:

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." 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 shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy hypocrisy.

In that post I had written about my concerns that America was in danger of passing unjust laws in which "the just who are constrained and the unjust are free."

Fast forwarding five years to today, September 22nd, 2012, it is no longer a theoretical question about the danger of passing unjust laws.  They are now passed, and the fate of the First Amendment is much more dubious than it was when I first wrote.  The propaganda of the current presidency and his supporters are in fact blaming people who are trying to defend their religious freedom for "imposing their views on others."

I find that curious.

The Catholic who believes abortion is wrong and uses his or her rights as an American citizen (freedom of speech, the right to vote etc.)  regarding this moral conviction is told he or she is "imposing views on others."  The atheist who believes abortion is a right and uses his or her rights as an American citizen to expand the legality and reach of abortion is praised for "protecting freedom."

Both the Catholic and the atheist in this case are acting according to what they believe.  But one is vilified for doing so and the other is praised.  One is harassed when speaking while the other is protected.  This is an arbitrary application of law, of media reporting calculated to favor one group and denigrate another.

I believe Lincoln was right.  America is a nation where there is a pretense of loving liberty, but no longer an actual love of liberty.  It is the alloy of hypocrisy to praise freedom when the HHS mandate is telling religious institutions that their schools and hospitals must choose between going against what they believe God commands them to do and being fined/taxed out of existence.

People of good will should think about that.  On one hand we have the the First Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

On the other hand, we have a government prohibiting the free exercise of religion by telling religious hospitals and schools that they must pay for insurance coverage for abortifacients and contraception – even if these hospitals and schools think it wrong and refusing to consider the petitions for the redress of grievances.

When the Church (and other denominations) speak out on this, it draws the accusation of "violating the separation of Church and State" and potential legal sanctions.

So we see again Lincoln's point.  America claims to love liberty, but is willing to set it aside when seeking to suppress someone who takes a stand and says "What America is doing is wrong here."  That is "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more laudable beliefs than is the case" as the Oxford English Dictionary defines hypocrisy.

The sad thing is, once the principle is accepted (which at this time seems to depend somewhat on the results of the November 2012 elections and the Supreme Court challenges), it becomes easy for any future government to use this to their own ends.  It doesn't have to even be the scenario of Obama who makes the United States into a dictatorship.  A future presidency could take the premise Obama established and use it to further his or her own ends, using the force of government to silence opponents.

So with this in mind, what are we to do?  The individual Christians seems weak.  The Church is attacked in a way that seeks to silence her.  The courts seem indifferent to these violations.  The government is actively involved in promoting this violation.  Are we doomed to suffer the violation of religious freedom?

At a time like this, I am reminded of the words of St. Augustine:

God therefore does not command impossibilities; but in His command He counsels you both to do what you can for yourself, and to ask His aid in what you cannot do.

Augustine of Hippo. (1887). A Treatise on Nature and Grace (P. Holmes, Trans.). In P. Schaff (Ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume V: Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings (P. Schaff, Ed.) (138). New York: Christian Literature Company.

We need to both pray concerning what is outside of our control, and do what God wants us to do.  We can't hide in a bunker and complain loudly about bishops being at fault because we're still under fire.  All of us who profess to be Catholics have a role to play.  It might be something like informing people on a national scale, but it also might be a matter of informing a co-worker who speaks about the so-called "war on women" how things really are.

God does have a role for each one of us to play.  We do have the free will to cooperate with God or to ignore that role He calls us for.  However, we must remember that God doesn't always use spectacular miracles to make His will known.  Sometimes he calls on the little people – like how he called a collection of tax collectors, fishermen and the like to bring His message to the whole world.

How far would those twelve men had gotten if everyone else in the Church had, instead of taking part in the mission of the Church, instead sat around and complained about how terrible these Apostles were for not getting more done?

In 2007, I don't think anyone foresaw this coming.  Now that it is here, we have to remember that all of us: Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians, non-believers – all people seeking to do right – need to make a stand against a government which is choosing to do wrong.

If we don't, the words Cardinal George uttered in 2010 will be prophetic:

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr"

The Logic That Discredits a 'Gay Marriage' argument

In the news, there have been some cases of the media or activists taking offense when a high ranking official in the Church points out that if homosexual 'marriage' was permitted, there was no reason to deny polygamy and incestuous marriage between consenting partners.  The result is to watch the supporters of so-called 'gay marriage' hit the ceiling as they angrily deny such a claim, while accusing us of saying hateful things.  How dare they say homosexual relationships are the equivalent to incest and polygamy?

Well, they didn't make that comparison.  These were not statements of moral equivalence.  Nor were they examples of the "slippery slope" fallacy (which argues if X happens, then Y and Z must also happen). 

What the cardinal and the bishop did was to employ the logical tool of reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).  This tool shows that the consequences of taking an argument to its logical end are so absurd or offensive that the argument itself must be rejected as absurd or offensive.  (The reductio can sometimes be confused for the slippery slope, but the two are not the same)

The reductio can be broken down this way.

1. IF a person accepts the claim that feelings of affection between people, able to give consent, are the only necessary conditions for marriage (and those who insist it is intolerance to claim that marriage between a man and a woman is the only valid form of marriage)
2. THEN any similar feelings of affection between people able to give consent must also be granted the right to 'marry.'
3. THUS absurd results like polygamy and incestuous marriage must also be accepted for the same grounds "gay marriage" is accepted (that is, you can't accept one and deny the other without being arbitrary).

"Sorry dear, I'm leaving you and marrying our 18 year old daughter… we love each other and it is bigoted of you to try to restrict who we can marry."

The point is NOT to say "homosexuality = incest."  The point is this argument for so-called "gay marriage" cannot exclude incestuous marriage and polygamy as well.  Since the angry reactions show us that even supporters of "gay marriage" are offended by this comparison – an indication that the consequences of taking the argument to it's logical end are absurd or offensive, it follows this argument to justify "gay marriage" is absurd (or else opponents of incestuous marriage are "incestophobic.")

Far from being a comparison of "gay marriage" and polygamy or incestuous relationships, this reductio ad absurdum points out that this argument put forward to defend "gay marriage" actually also justifies behavior that goes too far even for the supporters.  If the supporter of "gay marriage" wants to accuse us of 'homophobia' because we believe marriage should be between a man and a woman only, then the supporter of polygamy or incestuous 'marriage' can accuse the person who wants to limit marriage to two people who are not related to each other can also be accused of intolerant bigotry.

So here is the problem for those who attack the Catholic Church as "intolerant" because she defines marriage between a man and a woman only.  Because they recognize the openness to possibility of life as one of the requirements of marriage and the unity of two people as another, it is not intolerance that marriage be made up of only two people and between a man and a woman.

BUT, for anyone who claims that it is only the affection between people that is the basis of marriage – and therefore homosexual "marriage" should be allowed IS bigoted if they refuse to allow other unions which fall under this criteria.

Remember, by expressing outrage at this claim, the proponents of "gay marriage" have already demonstrated that they find the possibility of polygamy and incestuous "marriage" offensive by being outraged at what the bishop and the cardinal have said.  So their dilemma is:

1. Either they tolerate any sort of relationship which can be justified by the reductio ad absurdum
2. OR they must justify why they can draw the line to exclude these things and still rationally support "gay marriage."

Maybe that's why supporters are so prone to hurling ad hominems instead of explaining their position?

The Logic That Discredits a 'Gay Marriage' argument

In the news, there have been some cases of the media or activists taking offense when a high ranking official in the Church points out that if homosexual 'marriage' was permitted, there was no reason to deny polygamy and incestuous marriage between consenting partners.  The result is to watch the supporters of so-called 'gay marriage' hit the ceiling as they angrily deny such a claim, while accusing us of saying hateful things.  How dare they say homosexual relationships are the equivalent to incest and polygamy?

Well, they didn't make that comparison.  These were not statements of moral equivalence.  Nor were they examples of the "slippery slope" fallacy (which argues if X happens, then Y and Z must also happen). 

What the cardinal and the bishop did was to employ the logical tool of reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).  This tool shows that the consequences of taking an argument to its logical end are so absurd or offensive that the argument itself must be rejected as absurd or offensive.  (The reductio can sometimes be confused for the slippery slope, but the two are not the same)

The reductio can be broken down this way.

1. IF a person accepts the claim that feelings of affection between people, able to give consent, are the only necessary conditions for marriage (and those who insist it is intolerance to claim that marriage between a man and a woman is the only valid form of marriage)
2. THEN any similar feelings of affection between people able to give consent must also be granted the right to 'marry.'
3. THUS absurd results like polygamy and incestuous marriage must also be accepted for the same grounds "gay marriage" is accepted (that is, you can't accept one and deny the other without being arbitrary).

"Sorry dear, I'm leaving you and marrying our 18 year old daughter… we love each other and it is bigoted of you to try to restrict who we can marry."

The point is NOT to say "homosexuality = incest."  The point is this argument for so-called "gay marriage" cannot exclude incestuous marriage and polygamy as well.  Since the angry reactions show us that even supporters of "gay marriage" are offended by this comparison – an indication that the consequences of taking the argument to it's logical end are absurd or offensive, it follows this argument to justify "gay marriage" is absurd (or else opponents of incestuous marriage are "incestophobic.")

Far from being a comparison of "gay marriage" and polygamy or incestuous relationships, this reductio ad absurdum points out that this argument put forward to defend "gay marriage" actually also justifies behavior that goes too far even for the supporters.  If the supporter of "gay marriage" wants to accuse us of 'homophobia' because we believe marriage should be between a man and a woman only, then the supporter of polygamy or incestuous 'marriage' can accuse the person who wants to limit marriage to two people who are not related to each other can also be accused of intolerant bigotry.

So here is the problem for those who attack the Catholic Church as "intolerant" because she defines marriage between a man and a woman only.  Because they recognize the openness to possibility of life as one of the requirements of marriage and the unity of two people as another, it is not intolerance that marriage be made up of only two people and between a man and a woman.

BUT, for anyone who claims that it is only the affection between people that is the basis of marriage – and therefore homosexual "marriage" should be allowed IS bigoted if they refuse to allow other unions which fall under this criteria.

Remember, by expressing outrage at this claim, the proponents of "gay marriage" have already demonstrated that they find the possibility of polygamy and incestuous "marriage" offensive by being outraged at what the bishop and the cardinal have said.  So their dilemma is:

1. Either they tolerate any sort of relationship which can be justified by the reductio ad absurdum
2. OR they must justify why they can draw the line to exclude these things and still rationally support "gay marriage."

Maybe that's why supporters are so prone to hurling ad hominems instead of explaining their position?

TFTD: Meaningless…

If a person believes in God in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of God to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person believes in Christ in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of Christ to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person claims to be a Catholic, in a meaningful sense, it is reasonable to expect this person to recognize that the Catholic Church was established by Christ and teaches with Christ's authority, protected from teaching error on issues necessary for salvation.

Thus…

If one rejects the teaching and authority of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Church Christ founded, such a person cannot claim to be a faithful Catholic in any meaningful sense of the term.

Once we realize this, when we look at the claims of those Catholics who deny the commands of God and Jesus Christ and/or the teachings of the Catholic Church are binding, what they claim to profess… is pretty meaningless.

TFTD: Meaningless…

If a person believes in God in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of God to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person believes in Christ in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of Christ to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person claims to be a Catholic, in a meaningful sense, it is reasonable to expect this person to recognize that the Catholic Church was established by Christ and teaches with Christ's authority, protected from teaching error on issues necessary for salvation.

Thus…

If one rejects the teaching and authority of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Church Christ founded, such a person cannot claim to be a faithful Catholic in any meaningful sense of the term.

Once we realize this, when we look at the claims of those Catholics who deny the commands of God and Jesus Christ and/or the teachings of the Catholic Church are binding, what they claim to profess… is pretty meaningless.

TFTD: Church Teaching NOT Up for Grabs

"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)

I came across an opinion article from a badly misinformed writer on the conflict among Catholics during an Election year.  The annoying part of the article read:

Beyond secular politics, polarization in the church also includes tension about such things as the new Mass language, the ordination of women, the role of nuns, contraception, the nature of the priesthood and the role of laity. The very nature of the reforms of Vatican Council II is up for grabs. Inspiring leaders with vision and courage are sorely lacking.

That would be incorrect.  The nature of the reforms are not "up for grabs."  We need to recognize that the Catholic teaching is not an issue to be debated or voted on.  it is not something that would be changed if only the Church would bring in liberal bishops.  The truth is, faithful Catholics believe the Catholic faith was established by Christ with authority given to the apostles and their successors – the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him (the Magisterium).

Basically, when there is a dispute over the proper interpretation of Catholic teaching, it is the Magisterium which has the authority to determine what is in keeping with the Catholic faith and what is not.  Not some modern theologian.  Not some married couple who decide they don't want to follow the Church teaching on sexual morality.

Not even a deceased cardinal who took positions on morality which were dubious at best has the authority to change the teaching on his own say so.

What we have in America is not a case of  "Inspiring leaders with vision and courage are sorely lacking."  The Bishops who stand with the Holy Father and teach the message of the Church can indeed speak out with authority.  Those members of the Church who contradict the consistent teaching of the Church have no authority whatsoever for their position.  The ex-priest promoting priestly marriage, the liberal politician supporting abortion, the businessman who tries to distort the Catholic position on social justice, they do not.

it is important to recognize these truths.  To be authentically Catholic, one must remember that the doctrinal and moral teachings cannot be reversed and they are not mere opinions of the Pope and bishops.

Like it or not, those people who disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church are, according to what follows from the Catholic faith, in conflict with God.  If a person accepts the authority of the Church as coming from Christ, they need to be faithful to the teaching of the Church as coming from Christ.  If one rejects that, it is pretty foolish to remain within a Church which claims it as true.

So let's stop the nonsense of the Church teaching as being "up for grabs."  Those who remain faithful to the Church teaching will be faithful to Christ, while those who deny the Church teaching will be denying Christ.  This is not political debate, but recognizing the truth God calls us to live.

TFTD: Church Teaching NOT Up for Grabs

"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)

I came across an opinion article from a badly misinformed writer on the conflict among Catholics during an Election year.  The annoying part of the article read:

Beyond secular politics, polarization in the church also includes tension about such things as the new Mass language, the ordination of women, the role of nuns, contraception, the nature of the priesthood and the role of laity. The very nature of the reforms of Vatican Council II is up for grabs. Inspiring leaders with vision and courage are sorely lacking.

That would be incorrect.  The nature of the reforms are not "up for grabs."  We need to recognize that the Catholic teaching is not an issue to be debated or voted on.  it is not something that would be changed if only the Church would bring in liberal bishops.  The truth is, faithful Catholics believe the Catholic faith was established by Christ with authority given to the apostles and their successors – the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him (the Magisterium).

Basically, when there is a dispute over the proper interpretation of Catholic teaching, it is the Magisterium which has the authority to determine what is in keeping with the Catholic faith and what is not.  Not some modern theologian.  Not some married couple who decide they don't want to follow the Church teaching on sexual morality.

Not even a deceased cardinal who took positions on morality which were dubious at best has the authority to change the teaching on his own say so.

What we have in America is not a case of  "Inspiring leaders with vision and courage are sorely lacking."  The Bishops who stand with the Holy Father and teach the message of the Church can indeed speak out with authority.  Those members of the Church who contradict the consistent teaching of the Church have no authority whatsoever for their position.  The ex-priest promoting priestly marriage, the liberal politician supporting abortion, the businessman who tries to distort the Catholic position on social justice, they do not.

it is important to recognize these truths.  To be authentically Catholic, one must remember that the doctrinal and moral teachings cannot be reversed and they are not mere opinions of the Pope and bishops.

Like it or not, those people who disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church are, according to what follows from the Catholic faith, in conflict with God.  If a person accepts the authority of the Church as coming from Christ, they need to be faithful to the teaching of the Church as coming from Christ.  If one rejects that, it is pretty foolish to remain within a Church which claims it as true.

So let's stop the nonsense of the Church teaching as being "up for grabs."  Those who remain faithful to the Church teaching will be faithful to Christ, while those who deny the Church teaching will be denying Christ.  This is not political debate, but recognizing the truth God calls us to live.

Propaganda and lies: The Lie that Will Never Die

Read more »