In his State of the Union speech, President Obama openly criticized the Supreme Court for its recent First Amendment decision regarding corporate advertising. Such public bullying of the Court by the President is unthinkably crass, petulant, and small, especially given the venue and the event and given that the Court cannot publicly respond. It was also incredibly stupid given Obama's stated support of Gay Rights.
There is no doubt that several cases will reach the Court during the Obama administration that might have been on hold during a more conservative administration. One of those cases is the current Gay Marriage case being championed by big name attorney Theodore Olson in California. Olson is contending that Gay Marriage is a civil right and the case is sure to reach the Supreme Court.
It is fairly certain that there are four no votes on the Court: Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. The yes votes are not as certain but probable: Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Beyer, & Stevens. The swing vote, the unknown, is Anthony Kennedy. If gay marriage is to have any chance before the nation's highest court, Kennedy's sympathies will need to be courted.
Obama's unthinkable, low class swipe at the Court in front of the whole nation and the world will not soon be forgotten by the Court. One Justice that will particularly remember Obama's insult is the author of the majority opinion in the case that Obama criticized: Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Regardless of Obama's personal opinion about the Court's ruling, the State of the Union speech was not the place to express it. The Court was officially present at the speech as a "guest" of Congress. It's like inviting friends to your party and then openly insulting them. This was a very bad move simply as a matter of professional manners. But it was a disastrous move for Olson and Gay Rights.
By the way, I'm going to anticipate that some who read this will focus more on the Court's opinion that they disagree with than the point of this post. The primary criticism of the ruling is that the Court has made corporations citizens. At least that's the talking point for the liberal press. What they fail to mention is that the Court has simply made businesses equal to Unions, since they already can do what businesses have been denied.
In any event, Obama's public claim that the ruling allows for foreign corporations to intrude on national politics is false. Right now it looks like the best thing going for Conservatives is Obama himself.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
THE SYNOD OF CAPUA AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH
As you may know, a Synod is a gathering of church leaders, convened under hierarchical authority, to discuss matters of the Faith: a strategy meeting of the church brass, you might call it.
The Synod of Capua was convened awhile ago, in the year 392, as a matter of fact. Among other items on the agenda, the Synod condemned the teachings of an ex-monk named Jovinian.
Now why are we bothering with an obscure synod and a heretical ex-monk, especially during the Christmas season?
As we shall see, the Synod of Capua and the Jovinian heresy are intimately connected to what exactly happened on that first Christmas when Christ left His mother's womb, or more precisely, HOW He left His mother's womb.
All Christians accept that Jesus was miraculously conceived when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary as we read in Luke 1:35.
But what about the actual birth of Christ? Did he actually pass through the birth canal like all other humans or did he miraculously just pop out? This is actually a very serious question with a very serious answer...and our ex-monk, Jovinian, got it wrong; and many modern theologians still do!
One of the 4 Marian Dogmas is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. In Catholic practice, a dogma is a doctrine that has been solemnly defined and must be believed if one is to be fully Catholic.
The Church defines Mary's Perpetual Virginity not just in terms of the miraculous conception of Jesus, not just in terms of her not having had any relations with a man and therefore no other children, but also in terms of the integrity of Mary's body during childbirth. In other words, Mary remained physically a virgin before, during, and after childbirth. The Synod of Capua says it like this:
"...the miracle of the Virgin Birth consisted concretely in the absence of physical lesion, viz., maintenance of the integrity or incorruptibility of the body of the Mother of God.
And lest we think that this is just some ancient dusty old doctrine, we should note that in 1992, Pope John Paul II assisted in the celebration of the 1,600th anniversary of the Synod of Capua and commended its teaching on the integrity of Mary's Body during child-birth as the perennial belief of the Church, a teaching he also reaffirmed in his 1987 Encyclical Redemtoris Mater (Mother of the Redeemer).
This is a topic that most of us haven't spent much time considering. But a couple of years ago the movie THE NATIVITY STORY forced the issue into public discussion. The movie portrayed Mary in the throes of labor as she gives birth to Jesus.
In this scene, two Marian dogmas are challenged if not outright denied: Mary's Perpetual Virginity and the Immaculate Conception. As noted, the Church has solemnly declared the miraculous nature of the birth of Christ, not just His conception.
But the Immaculate Conception, Mary's own conception in her mother's womb without the stain of original sin, is also challenged, for as you know the penalty for Original Sin that was given to Eve, and thus to all women, was the pain of childbirth: "...in pain shalt thou bring forth children" (Genesis 3:16). However, Catholic Dogma asserts that Mary was preserved from Original Sin and thus also from its penalty.
For the Protestant makers of the film, the portrayal of Mary in labor posed no problem since the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, bodily integrity or otherwise, is not a dogma most non-Catholics subscribe to.
It was interesting to note, though, that the makers of the film were in fact aware of the Catholic dogma they were violating as they expressed concern over a possible Catholic backlash in an interview released prior to the movie's debut. But as it turned out they had little to worry about. Most of the Catholic press gave the film rave reviews, and almost all the major Catholic apologists brushed off the labor pains issue.
Given the gravity of the offense to two Marian dogmas, plus the novel portrayal of Mary as a rebellious teenager (hardly becoming of the Immaculate Conception), devout Catholics can rightly be appalled.
This is one of the reasons why we (Catholics) must never solely take the word of even the most respected theologians, apologists, or authors when it comes to matters of the Faith. We certainly can listen and learn, but we must always verify by seeking out the authentic magisterial teaching of the Church. And the authentic magisterial teaching of the Church on the issue of the "virgin birth" is "incorrutibiter genuit" which means: "whom Mary virginally conceived, she bore or begot incorruptibly."
Several Popes since the Synod of Capua have pronounced on this doctrine: Pope Leo the Great in 449, Pope Hormisdas in 521, and Pope Pelagius in 527. And at the Lateran Synod in 649, Pope St. Martin I, solemnly defined "incorrutibiter genuit" and asserted that anyone who denied this truth is "anethema" (condemned).
More recently, Blessed Pope John XXIII forbade any further public discussion of the issue. In other words, the bodily integrity of the Virgin Mother is a NON-NEGOTIABLE.
Sadly, and in defiance of magisterial teaching, some Catholic theologians continue to bat the topic around with the skeptics among them claiming that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was not actual but symbolic.
However, authentic Catholic doctrine proclaims that Mary is the: “unopened door of the Temple” through which only the Lord enters and exits without opening it, either at His conception or at His birth.
So in the words of Pope St. Martin I "virgo concepit, virgo peperit, virgo post partum remansit".
Mary "remained a virgin at conception, birth, and after the birth"…of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. God came to us through Mary. God continually comes to us through Mary. God set it up that way. Blessed be God forever and blessed be his handmaid, Mary, every virgin.
The Synod of Capua was convened awhile ago, in the year 392, as a matter of fact. Among other items on the agenda, the Synod condemned the teachings of an ex-monk named Jovinian.
Now why are we bothering with an obscure synod and a heretical ex-monk, especially during the Christmas season?
As we shall see, the Synod of Capua and the Jovinian heresy are intimately connected to what exactly happened on that first Christmas when Christ left His mother's womb, or more precisely, HOW He left His mother's womb.
All Christians accept that Jesus was miraculously conceived when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary as we read in Luke 1:35.
But what about the actual birth of Christ? Did he actually pass through the birth canal like all other humans or did he miraculously just pop out? This is actually a very serious question with a very serious answer...and our ex-monk, Jovinian, got it wrong; and many modern theologians still do!
One of the 4 Marian Dogmas is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. In Catholic practice, a dogma is a doctrine that has been solemnly defined and must be believed if one is to be fully Catholic.
The Church defines Mary's Perpetual Virginity not just in terms of the miraculous conception of Jesus, not just in terms of her not having had any relations with a man and therefore no other children, but also in terms of the integrity of Mary's body during childbirth. In other words, Mary remained physically a virgin before, during, and after childbirth. The Synod of Capua says it like this:
"...the miracle of the Virgin Birth consisted concretely in the absence of physical lesion, viz., maintenance of the integrity or incorruptibility of the body of the Mother of God.
And lest we think that this is just some ancient dusty old doctrine, we should note that in 1992, Pope John Paul II assisted in the celebration of the 1,600th anniversary of the Synod of Capua and commended its teaching on the integrity of Mary's Body during child-birth as the perennial belief of the Church, a teaching he also reaffirmed in his 1987 Encyclical Redemtoris Mater (Mother of the Redeemer).
This is a topic that most of us haven't spent much time considering. But a couple of years ago the movie THE NATIVITY STORY forced the issue into public discussion. The movie portrayed Mary in the throes of labor as she gives birth to Jesus.
In this scene, two Marian dogmas are challenged if not outright denied: Mary's Perpetual Virginity and the Immaculate Conception. As noted, the Church has solemnly declared the miraculous nature of the birth of Christ, not just His conception.
But the Immaculate Conception, Mary's own conception in her mother's womb without the stain of original sin, is also challenged, for as you know the penalty for Original Sin that was given to Eve, and thus to all women, was the pain of childbirth: "...in pain shalt thou bring forth children" (Genesis 3:16). However, Catholic Dogma asserts that Mary was preserved from Original Sin and thus also from its penalty.
For the Protestant makers of the film, the portrayal of Mary in labor posed no problem since the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, bodily integrity or otherwise, is not a dogma most non-Catholics subscribe to.
It was interesting to note, though, that the makers of the film were in fact aware of the Catholic dogma they were violating as they expressed concern over a possible Catholic backlash in an interview released prior to the movie's debut. But as it turned out they had little to worry about. Most of the Catholic press gave the film rave reviews, and almost all the major Catholic apologists brushed off the labor pains issue.
Given the gravity of the offense to two Marian dogmas, plus the novel portrayal of Mary as a rebellious teenager (hardly becoming of the Immaculate Conception), devout Catholics can rightly be appalled.
This is one of the reasons why we (Catholics) must never solely take the word of even the most respected theologians, apologists, or authors when it comes to matters of the Faith. We certainly can listen and learn, but we must always verify by seeking out the authentic magisterial teaching of the Church. And the authentic magisterial teaching of the Church on the issue of the "virgin birth" is "incorrutibiter genuit" which means: "whom Mary virginally conceived, she bore or begot incorruptibly."
Several Popes since the Synod of Capua have pronounced on this doctrine: Pope Leo the Great in 449, Pope Hormisdas in 521, and Pope Pelagius in 527. And at the Lateran Synod in 649, Pope St. Martin I, solemnly defined "incorrutibiter genuit" and asserted that anyone who denied this truth is "anethema" (condemned).
More recently, Blessed Pope John XXIII forbade any further public discussion of the issue. In other words, the bodily integrity of the Virgin Mother is a NON-NEGOTIABLE.
Sadly, and in defiance of magisterial teaching, some Catholic theologians continue to bat the topic around with the skeptics among them claiming that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was not actual but symbolic.
However, authentic Catholic doctrine proclaims that Mary is the: “unopened door of the Temple” through which only the Lord enters and exits without opening it, either at His conception or at His birth.
So in the words of Pope St. Martin I "virgo concepit, virgo peperit, virgo post partum remansit".
Mary "remained a virgin at conception, birth, and after the birth"…of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. God came to us through Mary. God continually comes to us through Mary. God set it up that way. Blessed be God forever and blessed be his handmaid, Mary, every virgin.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Yes, Virginia. There is a Purgatory.
Catholics have great jokes. And we should. Heck we’ve been around 2000 years, so we’ve had lots of time to come up with them. Jokes about confession are probably the most numerous, but purgatory ranks right up there.
Here’s one for you:
A recently departed soul reaches Heaven’s gate and is advised that he’ll be needing to spend a little time in Purgatory before he can get into the Big House. An Archangel escorts the man to Purgatory where they enter a long hall with three doors. The angel explains that there are three ways to spend one’s time in Purgatory and each soul gets to choose his own form of discomfort.
The angel opens the first door and the man sees many poor souls up to their necks in mud. Not particularly excited about spending his time in such a manner he asks the angel to show him what’s behind the 2nd door. The angel opens door #2 and the man sees the poor souls clanking about in chains and carrying rocks.
The man then requests to see behind door #3. The man sees all sorts of folks walking about with cocktails, chatting, and carrying on. The only down side was that they were knee deep in sewage. “Well”, thought the man. “This can’t be all that bad.” So he informs the angel that he’ll take door #3.
“No problem” says the angel and he leads him into the room, introduces him to the rest of the folks, hands him a martini, and the man joins the party. About 10 minutes later the angel claps his hands and says “Okay, folks. break's over - everybody back on your heads.”
Purgatory, like confession, and other uniquely Catholic practices and beliefs, provide fodder for many such stories, probably because such things are mysterious and often little understood.
So let’s take a quick stab at Purgatory, especially since its existence is rejected by most non-Catholic Christians and little understood even by most Catholics. As a matter of fact, many Catholics are under the impression that Vatican II “did away” with Purgatory. I’m afraid that’s not the case.
If you want to read exactly what the Catechism says about Purgatory you can go here and begin reading at p
aragraph 1030. But essentially the Church teaches 3 things about Purgatory:1. That there is such a "place" or state.
2. That most of us will need to spend some time there.
3. That there is suffering in Purgatory though we do not the nature of it.
Most non-Catholic Christians will be too scandalized by now to read further, so we'll just continue with the Catholics...or at least some of them. Let's work backward on our 3 points.
Not much more to say about #3. The word Purgatory implies "purgation", cleaning, purging, etc. So you know something's going on there that probably isn't too pleasant. We do find some references to a purgatorial type of suffering in Scripture:
1 Cor 3:15 speaks of being saved "but only as through fire": "But if someone's work is burned up, that person will suffer loss, the person will be saved, but only as through fire."
Luke 12:58 tells us a prison that we may have to endure until we "pay the last penny": "If you are
to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison. I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny."Luke 16:19-31 gives us the story of the poor man, Lazarus, and Dives, the rich man, who calls out from a place of torment after his death and asks Lazarus to warn his brothers. We know that Dives cannot be in Hell, because in Hell one is no longer capable of doing or desiring good, which Dives tries to do (warn his brothers). This is an interesting story because it comes from the lips of Jesus himself. The story also refutes the so-called "soul sleep" that some believe. Dives is very much alive in this parable.
As for #2 and why we'll need to spend some time there, Church teaching is based on 5 words in Revelation 21:27: "nothing unclean will enter it". The "it" is Heaven and the "unclean" is most of us, since most of us will not die in a state of complete perfection except for genuine martyrs which the Church defines as those who have shed their blood for the Faith. However, only God can judge the heart so we know not who else God may have allowed to reach a state of perfection while still in this life.
Many of our non-Catholic Christian brethren believe that regardless of the woeful state of our soul at death, Christ's blood will cover us, and so long as we believe in Jesus, we'll skip right into Heaven. While they are welcome to believe that, believing it doesn't necessarily make it so. Discussing that here would take us into a separate discussion into what constitutes "salvation". So for now we'll need to suffice it to say that while Catholics also believe that we are covered with the Blood of Christ, we believe that we are also called to take up our cross and may indeed to have to shed a little blood of our own.
Now to the first point: there is such a place or state. Yes, we know the word Purgatory is not in the Bible and we're not going to get into a discussion here about "solo scriptura", but let's take a look at Revelations 20:13-14:
"The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire."
What is "Hades"? Most will say it is "Hell", or more precisely, Gehenna, the place of eternal torment. But it's not, for we see that Hades itself is "thrown into the pool of fire" (lake of fire in some translations). Can't throw Hell into Hell, so Hades has to be something other than Hell. It's obviously a THIRD place.
What's more is that there are people in it since it says that "Death and Hades gave up their dead". We are well aware of the existence of a third place called "the bosom of Abraham" where the righteous went to await the coming of the Lord. But there was no need for the "bosom of Abraham" after Christ opened the gates of Heaven.
So here we have a "third place" with people (souls) in it at the end of time (at the time of the Final Judgment). So what could it be and why are there souls in it? They're obviously not in Heaven, and as we explained, Hades isn't Gehenna.
So, maybe the Bible doesn't call it Purgatory, but there is certainly a "Third Place" in Scripture, and we can only imagine that since these souls are not yet with the Lord after their death that there must certainly also be suffering...if only the suffering of waiting.
Conclusion:
1. Scripture shows us a place that is not Heaven and is not Hell.
2. Souls are in this place.
3. The souls are not damned or they'd be in Gehenna and the "Hades" that they are in is not Gehenna.
4. This New Testament "Hades" is not the "bosom of Abraham" of the Old Testament.
5. The existence of this place of waiting is consistent with the Scripture references to "paying the last penny", "being saved as through fire", "this place of torment", etc., but especially with Revelation 21:27 which reminds us that "nothing unclean shall enter it."
Because most of us will die in a state of imperfection but still desirous of union with God, God's Mercy demands that we be allowed a state of final purgation so that we CAN "enter it". This is not the second chance that some think Purgatory is, just a final state of purgation for those who have already sought God's Mercy.
But even if you dont' accept the need for a Purgatory, Scripture clearly shows that there is one. Guess we'll find out for sure some day. I already am sure.
Friday, October 23, 2009
GOOD BYE, UNCLE PAUL
GOOD BYE, UNCLE PAUL
Died, December 11. 2004, Age 75
Every boy needs a hero or two. And after my dad I’d have to say it was Uncle Paul. There was something magical about those two words…Uncle…and Paul.
Visions of beautiful farmland, horses, old wagons, tractors, cows, milk cans. Lying in my bed in the house of a smoggy big city I dreamt of “going to Uncle Paul’s”.
And he had been a cowboy, a real one, in Oklahoma. Being a real cowboy, he had a white horse. And being a real cowboy, that white horse was his first love.
Lady was her name. She was already old when I first saw her as a boy. Already out to pasture. But I remember how she stood out amongst all the other horses, how you could easily spot her out in the field, still proud, still a cowboy’s horse.
Uncle Paul made me proud to be a Rohr. I had an uncle who had been a cowboy. I would come back to the dirty streets of Los Angeles after a beautiful Ohio summer believing that to be a Rohr, to have a Dad who was the strongest man in the world, to have 10 incredible uncles and aunts, to be one of 61 grandchildren, and to have an uncle who was a cowboy, was…well what else could a boy ask for.
This was the best life, the best fortune that anyone could ever dream of. I was a Rohr. I am a Rohr. And so are you cousins. You got royalty in your blood cause you too had an uncle who was a cowboy.
So Uncle Paul, saddle up your white Lady once more, and ride her into heaven. And when you get there, say hi to Uncle Ernie, Uncle Frankie, and Uncle Elmer, and of course Grandpa and Grandma. Tell ‘em we won’t be long. Tell ‘em that with their prayers we’ll all make it to that one last Rohr reunion, to that one big “cattle call” in the sky. And, oh yah, when I get there can I have a ride on Lady?
Good-bye, Unc. Thanks for the opportunity to grow up in the shadow of your woods, in the wide-open spaces of your fields, and atop those great machines they called John Deere. And lastly, thanks for those encouraging words that made me famous back when I only knew 3 chords: “C’mon, Tim, play Dead Skunk one more time for us, will ya?” You got it, Unc. You got it.
- By his nephew, Timothy J. Rohr and read at his memorial service, December 18, 2004 by my sister, Michelle Rohr Gerber
Died, December 11. 2004, Age 75
Every boy needs a hero or two. And after my dad I’d have to say it was Uncle Paul. There was something magical about those two words…Uncle…and Paul.
Visions of beautiful farmland, horses, old wagons, tractors, cows, milk cans. Lying in my bed in the house of a smoggy big city I dreamt of “going to Uncle Paul’s”.
And he had been a cowboy, a real one, in Oklahoma. Being a real cowboy, he had a white horse. And being a real cowboy, that white horse was his first love.
Lady was her name. She was already old when I first saw her as a boy. Already out to pasture. But I remember how she stood out amongst all the other horses, how you could easily spot her out in the field, still proud, still a cowboy’s horse.
Uncle Paul made me proud to be a Rohr. I had an uncle who had been a cowboy. I would come back to the dirty streets of Los Angeles after a beautiful Ohio summer believing that to be a Rohr, to have a Dad who was the strongest man in the world, to have 10 incredible uncles and aunts, to be one of 61 grandchildren, and to have an uncle who was a cowboy, was…well what else could a boy ask for.
This was the best life, the best fortune that anyone could ever dream of. I was a Rohr. I am a Rohr. And so are you cousins. You got royalty in your blood cause you too had an uncle who was a cowboy.
So Uncle Paul, saddle up your white Lady once more, and ride her into heaven. And when you get there, say hi to Uncle Ernie, Uncle Frankie, and Uncle Elmer, and of course Grandpa and Grandma. Tell ‘em we won’t be long. Tell ‘em that with their prayers we’ll all make it to that one last Rohr reunion, to that one big “cattle call” in the sky. And, oh yah, when I get there can I have a ride on Lady?
Good-bye, Unc. Thanks for the opportunity to grow up in the shadow of your woods, in the wide-open spaces of your fields, and atop those great machines they called John Deere. And lastly, thanks for those encouraging words that made me famous back when I only knew 3 chords: “C’mon, Tim, play Dead Skunk one more time for us, will ya?” You got it, Unc. You got it.
- By his nephew, Timothy J. Rohr and read at his memorial service, December 18, 2004 by my sister, Michelle Rohr Gerber
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Saturday, October 03, 2009
The Problem in New Jersey
Catholic bishops in New Jersey have launched a campaign to stop expected legislation this coming November legalizing same-sex marriage.
Their efforts, though admirable, are too late and will most likely fail.
Why?
The bishops' Achilles heel is in their statement. In their efforts to defend marriage they make the mistake of distinguishing between same-sex "unions" and same-sex marriage.
In their statement they acknowledge that all the rights of marriage are already available to same-sex couples under the state's current law allowing same-sex civil unions.
They state this without any opposition or challenge to the law which recognizes same-sex couples as "married" in all but the word itself.
Thus, "marriage" is reduced to nothing more than a term. There is no legal distinction and thus it is an easy step to simply co-opt and apply the term since the actual legal effects of marriage have already been co-opted and applied.
Apparently the bishops had no problem with civil unions...."just so long as they don't call it marriage".
This is just one of the traps that same-sex proponents set for the opposition, and sadly in this case, the NJ bishops were easy prey.
By not challenging the legal status of same-sex unions in their statement in defense of marriage, and even granting it official sanction by referencing it in a positive light, the bishops have no grounds for their defense, at least in the public square, and perhaps in the religious realm also.
The document released by the Congregation of the Faith in 2003 addressing the legalization of same-sex unions, is adamant that all Catholics "must oppose" the legalization of same-sex unions regardless of what they are called.
By distinguishing between marriage and "unions", the NJ bishops have officially ignored the CDF directive and opened the door wide to the final destruction of that which they wish to defend.
We on Guam have already made the same mistake as evidenced by a recent poll. While the majority of people on Guam would oppose same-sex marriage, the majority would also support legal recognition of same-sex unions.
As per the law, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. We Catholics MUST OPPOSE the legalization of same-sex unions, not just because we are obliged by our Church to do so, but because if we don't, we will be defending nothing more than a definition and not the institution itself.
There is still time...but not much.
Their efforts, though admirable, are too late and will most likely fail.
Why?
The bishops' Achilles heel is in their statement. In their efforts to defend marriage they make the mistake of distinguishing between same-sex "unions" and same-sex marriage.
In their statement they acknowledge that all the rights of marriage are already available to same-sex couples under the state's current law allowing same-sex civil unions.
They state this without any opposition or challenge to the law which recognizes same-sex couples as "married" in all but the word itself.
Thus, "marriage" is reduced to nothing more than a term. There is no legal distinction and thus it is an easy step to simply co-opt and apply the term since the actual legal effects of marriage have already been co-opted and applied.
Apparently the bishops had no problem with civil unions...."just so long as they don't call it marriage".
This is just one of the traps that same-sex proponents set for the opposition, and sadly in this case, the NJ bishops were easy prey.
By not challenging the legal status of same-sex unions in their statement in defense of marriage, and even granting it official sanction by referencing it in a positive light, the bishops have no grounds for their defense, at least in the public square, and perhaps in the religious realm also.
The document released by the Congregation of the Faith in 2003 addressing the legalization of same-sex unions, is adamant that all Catholics "must oppose" the legalization of same-sex unions regardless of what they are called.
By distinguishing between marriage and "unions", the NJ bishops have officially ignored the CDF directive and opened the door wide to the final destruction of that which they wish to defend.
We on Guam have already made the same mistake as evidenced by a recent poll. While the majority of people on Guam would oppose same-sex marriage, the majority would also support legal recognition of same-sex unions.
As per the law, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. We Catholics MUST OPPOSE the legalization of same-sex unions, not just because we are obliged by our Church to do so, but because if we don't, we will be defending nothing more than a definition and not the institution itself.
There is still time...but not much.
Friday, October 02, 2009
As you may know by now, House Representative Alan Grayson...,
...a freshman Democrat senator from Florida, has called the Republicans "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who know nothing but ‘no'" for their opposition to current health care bills. He remarked on the House floor that the Republican health plan (there is no Republican health plan) is: “If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly.”
(Watch the CNN interview with Grayson here. (As you know CNN is no friend of conservatives but they do an admirable job of holding Grayson accountable.)
While a small debate wages over whether Grayson should apologize in the wake of the forced Joe Wilson apology, the issue once again highlights the desperation of the Democrats.
As we all know, Democrats completely control the House and do not need one single Republican vote to pass whatever bill they want. So why the rhetoric from Grayson and other Democrats?
They must keep the public focus on the Republicans and off the fact that the Democratic leadership, despite their unprecedented power (they control both houses and the White House), simply can't lead.
And why can't they?
Because conscientious Democrats within their ranks (and there are a few) have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the lies their leadership is perpetrating on the American people.
And what sort of lies?
One big lie is that current health care legislation will not directly fund abortions.
Conscientious Democrats know this is a lie which is why they (183 in all, or 42% of the House), led by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, along with some Republicans issued a letter to Speaker Pelosi on September 28 demanding that the direct funding of abortions be strictly and expressedly forbidden.
President Obama publicly promised that this would be the case. It would seem an easy task for the Democratic leadership to simply include the language in the bill that would effect the President's stated claim: there will be no funding of abortions in "my" health care plan.
(Of course Obama doesn't have a health care plan. That's the problem. He can make all the claims he wants about HIS health care plan because he has committed nothing to paper. Incidentally, Obama's claim set off a fire storm of protests amongst his pro-choice base, a base he made a promise to in front of Planned Parenthood in July of 2007.)
The Democratic leadership is caught in a lie. Obama has made the claim. Conscientious representatives are now asking their leadership to back up the claim in writing and the leadership is looking for a way out and there is none...other than to resort to bashing Republicans.
But it's like beating a horse with a broken leg. No matter how hard you beat it, the horse is not going to get up and go. Republicans simply do not have the votes. This is the very BIG dirty not so little secret that folks like Grayson know is their undoing if the public ever catches on.
Of course the only person who has publicly implied that anyone should be denied health care and just die is Obama himself when he recommended that some people who are terminally ill or very old should just "take the pain pill" and go home. You can watch Obama actually say that here.
Too bad CNN didn't hold Obama as accountable as they seem to be holding Grayson.
The real interesting fact here is that while the Obama and the Democratic leadership claim that the health care bill will not fund abortions, a full 42%, almost half of the House of Representatives, do not believe Obama or their leadership, or they would not have had issued the letter.
We, out here in the public, do not have to debate whether the current health care legislation will directly fund abortions or not; 42% of the people who are directly related to the legislation have expressedly said that it does. Obama could change all that in an instant by simply telling the Democratic leadership to include the language that would back up his claims.
This is not about pro-life or pro-choice. This is simply about pro-truth. If Obama intends to fund abortions as promised to his base before the elections, and as evidenced by the fact that he has already released millions to international groups that promote and perform abortions, then let him stand up and say so. But he has said otherwise. Now let's see what he does.
(Watch the CNN interview with Grayson here. (As you know CNN is no friend of conservatives but they do an admirable job of holding Grayson accountable.)
While a small debate wages over whether Grayson should apologize in the wake of the forced Joe Wilson apology, the issue once again highlights the desperation of the Democrats.
As we all know, Democrats completely control the House and do not need one single Republican vote to pass whatever bill they want. So why the rhetoric from Grayson and other Democrats?
They must keep the public focus on the Republicans and off the fact that the Democratic leadership, despite their unprecedented power (they control both houses and the White House), simply can't lead.
And why can't they?
Because conscientious Democrats within their ranks (and there are a few) have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the lies their leadership is perpetrating on the American people.
And what sort of lies?
One big lie is that current health care legislation will not directly fund abortions.
Conscientious Democrats know this is a lie which is why they (183 in all, or 42% of the House), led by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, along with some Republicans issued a letter to Speaker Pelosi on September 28 demanding that the direct funding of abortions be strictly and expressedly forbidden.
President Obama publicly promised that this would be the case. It would seem an easy task for the Democratic leadership to simply include the language in the bill that would effect the President's stated claim: there will be no funding of abortions in "my" health care plan.
(Of course Obama doesn't have a health care plan. That's the problem. He can make all the claims he wants about HIS health care plan because he has committed nothing to paper. Incidentally, Obama's claim set off a fire storm of protests amongst his pro-choice base, a base he made a promise to in front of Planned Parenthood in July of 2007.)
The Democratic leadership is caught in a lie. Obama has made the claim. Conscientious representatives are now asking their leadership to back up the claim in writing and the leadership is looking for a way out and there is none...other than to resort to bashing Republicans.
But it's like beating a horse with a broken leg. No matter how hard you beat it, the horse is not going to get up and go. Republicans simply do not have the votes. This is the very BIG dirty not so little secret that folks like Grayson know is their undoing if the public ever catches on.
Of course the only person who has publicly implied that anyone should be denied health care and just die is Obama himself when he recommended that some people who are terminally ill or very old should just "take the pain pill" and go home. You can watch Obama actually say that here.
Too bad CNN didn't hold Obama as accountable as they seem to be holding Grayson.
The real interesting fact here is that while the Obama and the Democratic leadership claim that the health care bill will not fund abortions, a full 42%, almost half of the House of Representatives, do not believe Obama or their leadership, or they would not have had issued the letter.
We, out here in the public, do not have to debate whether the current health care legislation will directly fund abortions or not; 42% of the people who are directly related to the legislation have expressedly said that it does. Obama could change all that in an instant by simply telling the Democratic leadership to include the language that would back up his claims.
This is not about pro-life or pro-choice. This is simply about pro-truth. If Obama intends to fund abortions as promised to his base before the elections, and as evidenced by the fact that he has already released millions to international groups that promote and perform abortions, then let him stand up and say so. But he has said otherwise. Now let's see what he does.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Health Care and Your Right to The Pill
The National Women's Law Center, in commenting on a ruling in North Carolina that would force Belmont Abbey College which is run by Benedictine monks, to provide contraceptive drug coverage to female employees, said that pregnancy prevention "is central to good health care for women".
The statement provides an opportunity for an easy but rarely mentioned observation.
Health care, preventative or otherwise, is aimed at warding off disease or some other malady foreign to the body.
A woman's body is designed for child bearing. In that sense it can be said that pregnancy is a natural condition. It's what a woman's body is "supposed" to do. And when it doesn't do that, when a woman doesn't conceive naturally, then something is usually considered medically wrong.
Health care is about stopping or preventing something that is wrong or could go wrong with the body. Contraception is about stopping or preventing something that is right with the body.
Only the intellectual dishonest can deny this. We don't even have to get into the moral discussion.
There is always the exception where pregnancy can be life threatening, but it's the exception. And in today's medically advanced society, it is a very rare exception.
The problem here is that the exception has been elevated to the status of the norm. Whenever that happens, there are consequences.
I'm not going to quote studies that show the link between female cancers and contraceptives. Supporters of contraceptives could quote just as many studies back to me to support their perspective.
I would ask you though to consider the possibility of an ill effect on a woman's body after prolonged, sometimes decades long, ingestion of a chemical, designed to force her body to do the very opposite of what it is naturally designed to do.
This isn't like taking an aspirin for a headache. All drugs, except for contraceptive drugs, are designed to counteract something that is wrong with the body. Contraceptive drugs are designed to counteract something that is right with the body.
All drugs have side effects, negative consequences of one kind or another. One may take an aspirin for pain, but to ingest them regularly could be dangerous. What of the woman who ingests a synthetic hormone (The Pill) in doses high enough to trick her body into making it "think" that it's pregnant, year after year?
Think about it. How many women do you know who have died in their 40's from female related cancers (breast, uterine)? It's a disturbingly high number.
This little entry makes no attempt to judge those individuals since I would have no way of knowing whether they used contraceptive drugs or not. But given general contraceptive use, the odds are that they did.
There's a saying that says: "God forgives, others can forgive, I can forgive...but nature never forgives."
While there is a moral component to the argument, the only point I want to make here is the biological one, an appeal to examine nature's design...and hopefully, to intellectual honesty.
The statement provides an opportunity for an easy but rarely mentioned observation.
Health care, preventative or otherwise, is aimed at warding off disease or some other malady foreign to the body.
A woman's body is designed for child bearing. In that sense it can be said that pregnancy is a natural condition. It's what a woman's body is "supposed" to do. And when it doesn't do that, when a woman doesn't conceive naturally, then something is usually considered medically wrong.
Health care is about stopping or preventing something that is wrong or could go wrong with the body. Contraception is about stopping or preventing something that is right with the body.
Only the intellectual dishonest can deny this. We don't even have to get into the moral discussion.
There is always the exception where pregnancy can be life threatening, but it's the exception. And in today's medically advanced society, it is a very rare exception.
The problem here is that the exception has been elevated to the status of the norm. Whenever that happens, there are consequences.
I'm not going to quote studies that show the link between female cancers and contraceptives. Supporters of contraceptives could quote just as many studies back to me to support their perspective.
I would ask you though to consider the possibility of an ill effect on a woman's body after prolonged, sometimes decades long, ingestion of a chemical, designed to force her body to do the very opposite of what it is naturally designed to do.
This isn't like taking an aspirin for a headache. All drugs, except for contraceptive drugs, are designed to counteract something that is wrong with the body. Contraceptive drugs are designed to counteract something that is right with the body.
All drugs have side effects, negative consequences of one kind or another. One may take an aspirin for pain, but to ingest them regularly could be dangerous. What of the woman who ingests a synthetic hormone (The Pill) in doses high enough to trick her body into making it "think" that it's pregnant, year after year?
Think about it. How many women do you know who have died in their 40's from female related cancers (breast, uterine)? It's a disturbingly high number.
This little entry makes no attempt to judge those individuals since I would have no way of knowing whether they used contraceptive drugs or not. But given general contraceptive use, the odds are that they did.
There's a saying that says: "God forgives, others can forgive, I can forgive...but nature never forgives."
While there is a moral component to the argument, the only point I want to make here is the biological one, an appeal to examine nature's design...and hopefully, to intellectual honesty.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
To his credit, President Obama...
...when asked on Letterman if he thought that opposition to his policies was based on racism, Obama replied: "Well, Dave, I was Black before the election...". He went on to explain that while racism exists America still elected him president.
I was glad to hear him say that for base charges of racism do not allow us to engage policies at face value. That is not to say racism isn't a problem. It will always be a problem. But I like what Oprah said: "The best answer to discrimination is excellence."
The fact that Obama's poll numbers are declining is not the result of racism or right wing radio diatribe. Those who are racist now were racist before the election. And the so-called "right wing" talk show guys are not saying anything different now than they were saying before the election.
Nothing has changed on that front.
Actually Obama's "personal" poll numbers have not declined that much. He is still extremely popular, once again evincing the fact that opposition to his policies is not about racism.
The poll's are showing falling support for his policies, especially on health care reform. Why? Is Obama any less of an effective communicator now than he was before the election? No. Are more people racist now than 8 months ago? Not likely. Are right wing radio talk show hosts any more vocal now than before the election? Nope.
Most of the criticism of the opposition to health care reform is aimed at the so-called lies and deceptions allegedly perpetrated by the right wing and the insurance companies. But these so-called lies and deceptions are far less inflammatory than the allegations leveled personally at Obama before the election over his ties to anti-American characters such as his pastor and Bill Ayers, his very obvious lack of experience (only 148 days in the senate), and his militant support of abortion.
The rhetoric was far more inflammatory before the election. Then added to that he was being attacked by the Clintons, arguably one of the most formidable political machines in the history of the country.
Obama faced far more opposition before the election, and to his credit, overcame it. He won fair and square, although I would add that he was rather weakly opposed (McCain didn't offer much of an alternative.)
In effect, as regards race or personal opposition, nothing has changed. And of course now the Clintons are now defending him instead of attacking him. The only thing that is new is the implementation of his agenda. I don't use "agenda" in a negative way. He has an agenda that he thinks is best for the country, as every President does, and he is attempting to implement it. The fact is that more and more people do not like what they see, just like they didn't like what they saw with the Bush administration - which inevitably paved the way to Obama's election.
We also must note that the Republicans CANNOT be blamed for anything. They do not have enough votes to stop anything. The Democrats have full control of both houses of Congress AND the White House. Obama could have his health care reform today if he wanted to.
There is no need to go around the country doing television interviews to convince the American people that his plan is good. The American people will not vote on the plan, Congress will. And Congress is able to pass any of the plans right now.
If the plan is as good as its proponents say it is then there is no need to fight with the opposition. Just pass the plan and let the people see and experience the plan itself. There's no need to go on Letterman. But apparently Obama thinks there is.
The truth is that the real fight is among the Democrats. Let me restate: THE REPUBLICANS CANNOT STOP ANYTHING. So what are the Democrats fighting about? Why can't they just move forward?
That's a question they do not want us to ask which is why their defenders keep trying to stir up dust with talk of racism, talk show hosts, and Republican opposition. But as just shown, none of those things are a factor.
I was glad to hear him say that for base charges of racism do not allow us to engage policies at face value. That is not to say racism isn't a problem. It will always be a problem. But I like what Oprah said: "The best answer to discrimination is excellence."
The fact that Obama's poll numbers are declining is not the result of racism or right wing radio diatribe. Those who are racist now were racist before the election. And the so-called "right wing" talk show guys are not saying anything different now than they were saying before the election.
Nothing has changed on that front.
Actually Obama's "personal" poll numbers have not declined that much. He is still extremely popular, once again evincing the fact that opposition to his policies is not about racism.
The poll's are showing falling support for his policies, especially on health care reform. Why? Is Obama any less of an effective communicator now than he was before the election? No. Are more people racist now than 8 months ago? Not likely. Are right wing radio talk show hosts any more vocal now than before the election? Nope.
Most of the criticism of the opposition to health care reform is aimed at the so-called lies and deceptions allegedly perpetrated by the right wing and the insurance companies. But these so-called lies and deceptions are far less inflammatory than the allegations leveled personally at Obama before the election over his ties to anti-American characters such as his pastor and Bill Ayers, his very obvious lack of experience (only 148 days in the senate), and his militant support of abortion.
The rhetoric was far more inflammatory before the election. Then added to that he was being attacked by the Clintons, arguably one of the most formidable political machines in the history of the country.
Obama faced far more opposition before the election, and to his credit, overcame it. He won fair and square, although I would add that he was rather weakly opposed (McCain didn't offer much of an alternative.)
In effect, as regards race or personal opposition, nothing has changed. And of course now the Clintons are now defending him instead of attacking him. The only thing that is new is the implementation of his agenda. I don't use "agenda" in a negative way. He has an agenda that he thinks is best for the country, as every President does, and he is attempting to implement it. The fact is that more and more people do not like what they see, just like they didn't like what they saw with the Bush administration - which inevitably paved the way to Obama's election.
We also must note that the Republicans CANNOT be blamed for anything. They do not have enough votes to stop anything. The Democrats have full control of both houses of Congress AND the White House. Obama could have his health care reform today if he wanted to.
There is no need to go around the country doing television interviews to convince the American people that his plan is good. The American people will not vote on the plan, Congress will. And Congress is able to pass any of the plans right now.
If the plan is as good as its proponents say it is then there is no need to fight with the opposition. Just pass the plan and let the people see and experience the plan itself. There's no need to go on Letterman. But apparently Obama thinks there is.
The truth is that the real fight is among the Democrats. Let me restate: THE REPUBLICANS CANNOT STOP ANYTHING. So what are the Democrats fighting about? Why can't they just move forward?
That's a question they do not want us to ask which is why their defenders keep trying to stir up dust with talk of racism, talk show hosts, and Republican opposition. But as just shown, none of those things are a factor.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The Socio-Political impact of same-sex legislation
Symposium, September 7, 2009
1. Understanding the political landscape and the issue of civil rights
2. The consequences of the legalization of same-sex unions
3. Why and how we must speak out.
I. Political landscape and the issue of civil rights
On August 24, the PDN published the results of a survey that showed that while the majority of people onHow did we get here? There is no doubt about what our Church teaches on the matter:
“…all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions…” (-CDF)
And probably no other community in the
Have we simply cast off our Catholic Faith on this matter?
How we got here is a complex question. For years we have quietly embraced, or at least tolerated, contraception, cohabitation, and yes, even abortion. As you may know, Guam is the easiest place in the
Indeed, the Legislative Findings and Intent of Bill 138, the same-sex civil unions bill, so much as said so, appealing as it did to "kindness" and "compassion" of the people of Guam as one of the bases for the legalization of same-sex unions.
While this is not the main point of my talk, I believe we may need to re-evaluate this so-called kindness and compassion. The acceptance of contraception has led to a multitude of ills including abortion. Cohabitation has led to one of the highest rates in the nation of unwed mothers. And the health risks of gay sex are staggeringly high.
But aside from the complex part of the question of "how we got here", there is also a very simple answer. A quick study of the route taken by gay activists in other states where same-sex unions now receive legal recognition will show a simple 2 part strategy:
1. cloak the agenda in the language of civil rights2. keep away, at least initially, from the word "marriage"
If you've been following the stories of the two same-sex bills from the beginning, you can easily see that the same-sex advocates on
The same-sex advocates here anticipated opposition from the Catholic Church. So from the beginning they have tried to make it look like they were attempting to appease the Church knowing that the media, unwilling, or too lazy, to look at the deeper issues, would fan the flames of a war between the Church and the gay advocacy.
In so doing, the advocates have been able to isolate all opposition to their cause as only religious opposition which then makes it easy for them to discard that opposition by appeals to a false understanding of “separation of church and state” (e.g. “Who are you to impose your religion on us?”).
If you have been following the town halls, hearings, and commentary in the media, you will have seen that this is precisely what they have been doing, and as you have seen from the PDN poll, it's working.
I want to quickly discredit each of these 3 tactics in the hopes that we can force this issue into the clear light of an honest discussion. Since we do live in a democracy, we, the people, have a right to choose the kind of society we want to leave for our children, but we also have a right to the truth, without which there is no democracy.
A. Is same-sex marriage a civil right?
Next, we must note that civil rights apply to persons, not corporate entities. A corporate entity in the eyes of the state is any legally recognized arrangement between two or more people, be it a business, a church, or a marriage.
While the civil rights of the individuals involved in a corporate entity are still applicable, the entity itself is not accorded civil rights since a legal entity is not a person.
Society subjects corporate entities to certain restrictions and obligations not required of individuals and at the same time grants them certain benefits and protections.
For instance, a business can deduct expenses that an individual cannot. A church can file for a tax-exempt status whereas an individual cannot. A marriage too is granted certain protections and benefits that are not available to individual persons. But why?
Simply put, the state grants certain benefits and protections to corporate entities based on the relationship of that entity to the larger community and its contribution to the public good.
A business is granted tax exemptions because it contributes to the economy and employs people. A church is granted tax-exempt status because the state sees that it performs a social function of helping people, a function that would otherwise fall to the state and cost more money than what it costs the state to allow the tax-exemption.
The state does not grant these favors arbitrarily. It's to the states economic advantage to do so.
In the case of marriage, the state has come to see that the one man - one woman family unit is simply the most cost effective way of producing, socializing, and educating the next generation, upon which the survival of the state depends.
The state is motivated to protect and incentivize the family unit because it understands that if the family breaks down, the burden of raising the necessary next generation would fall to the state and would simply cost more money than the cost of protecting and incentivizing the traditional family unit in the first place.
But isn't marriage a civil right?
No. Marriage itself is not a civil right. What is a civil right is the right for a man and a woman to contract marriage in the eyes of the state. Again, civil rights apply to individuals, not entities.
Well, what’s to keep two people of the same sex from contracting marriage? Isn't it their civil right?
At issue here is the fact that nowhere in history do we have any precedent for this demand. Homosexuality has been a part of the human condition since the beginning, but it has always been seen by every culture and in every time as a condition that is not normative. Thus there has never been a culture that has embraced the practice since doing so would have meant an end to that particular society due simply to the sterility of the relationship.
Because there is no precedent, the same-sex lobby, in its search for validation has latched on to the issue of civil rights, much to the consternation of many Black people for whom the civil rights movement is historically and uniquely theirs.
The case most trumpeted by the same-sex lobby is the 1967 case of Loving vs. the State of
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man',..."
However, the second sentence does not end there. Notice the comma. The rest of the sentence reads:
“ …fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
Also, notice the quotations marks bracketing the words “basic civil rights of man”. The quotation marks are there because the Court in the Loving case is quoting another case, the 1942 case of Skinner vs. the State of
The full sentence in Skinner is worth noting. It reads:
“We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
In quoting Skinner, the
B. Keep away, at least initially from the word “marriage”
We must not be swayed by the same-sex proponents’ use of the words “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” and their claims that by not requiring a religious ceremony, traditional marriage is not compromised.
This is a deception for two reasons:
1. A religious ceremony is not required to get legally married.
2. Both bills, but especially Bill 185 aggressively annexes all the language applicable to marriage in the Guam Code to domestic partnerships.
Section 16109 states:
Notwithstanding any provision of law, every reference in the
(1) Every reference to "married" shall apply equally to the status of partners in a domestic partnership; and
(2) Every reference to "husband," "wife," or "spouse" shall apply equally to a partner in a domestic partnership; and
(3) Every reference to marital status, including without limitation provisions pertaining to parties and procedures for annulment, divorce, separation, or dissolution, shall apply equally and as necessary to domestic partnerships and to partners in a domestic partnership.
The use of the designations “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” is a tactic knowingly employed by the same-sex proponents to slip the legislation past the general public.
My opponent in the debate before the Rotary Club of Guam in fact admitted that the designation “domestic partnership” would be “a little easier for the public to swallow”.
And as you have seen from the PDN poll, the strategy is working.
To summarize: Because same-sex couples, while they may be capable of loving relationships, cannot of themselves produce children which is the fundamental purpose of Marriage as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, there is no legal precedent or civil right to same-sex marriage.
C. Isolate all opposition as religious opposition….then appeal to the so called separation of church and state in order to discard the opposition.
In this, the proponents are taking advantage of the ignorance of most people about this so-called separation. In fact there is simply no such thing. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
As you can see there is no separation of Church and state as our history as a country has plainly shown. Not only was the Black civil rights movement peopled by Black Christians and led by Black religious leaders, but the abolition movement against slavery was peopled by White Christians and led by White religious leaders. To say that religion has no place in public discourse we would first have to discount such things as the abolition of slavery and the Black civil rights movement.
As a matter of fact not only are religious perspectives allowed in public discourse, they are in fact protected by the clause “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.
II. The consequences of the legally recognizing same-sex unions.
"Gay Marriage is not simply some sort of private, self-regarding kind of thing. Legalized Gay Marriage is about forcing other people to recognize these relationships as valid, legitimate, and equal, and can potentially involve serious legal consequences to those who disagree, especially churches and schools."
Here are some examples:
- Activism in schools both public and private
- In 2008, a booklet titled, "Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth," was distributed to all 16,000 school districts in the country.
- Under the guise of promoting tolerance and equality, the publication:
- Advises schools against sexual re-orientation therapy
- Warns educators that on-campus gay and lesbian clubs must be accepted
- Cautions against presenting heterosexuality as normative
- Tells students that “homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality
- In
- In October of 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar signed into law SB 777 which requires LBGT education for K-5 and will use public funding to influence school children against the Judeo-Christian understanding of human sexuality, marriage, and the family.
Religious freedom compromised and religious people persecuted
- In
- In 2006, Boston Catholic Charities, which ran an adoption agency, was ordered by the state of
- In 2008, a Christian photographer was fined $6000 by the state of New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding.
- In 2007 a
- Traditional community organizations (Boy Scouts) targeted
- Polygamy and Pedophilia a natural consequence
- Traditional marriage destroyed
III. Why we must speak out and how.
Understanding the commandment “to love”
It has been common to hear or read signs held by gay advocates during the recent town halls and public demonstrations that said “love thy neighbor” or at least appealed to the commandment to love.
We must not forget that the commandment to love thy neighbor (as thyself) is only the second commandment to love found in Mt. 22.
The first is "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.”
Jesus goes on to say that “This is the greatest and the first commandment.” And then he adds: “The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
As we know, loving God means doing what he commands us to do and NOT to do.
Biblical directions on how to speak out
“If your brother should commit some wrong against you, go and point out his fault but keep it between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. If he does not listen, summon another, so that every case may stand on the word of two or three witnesses. If he ignores them, refer it to the Church.” - Mt. 18, 15-17
Gospel consequences of not speaking out
“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father”. – Mt. 10: 32
Recommendations for speaking out in the public square
- Educate yourself
- Write a letter to the editor
- Write a letter to lawmakers
- Testify at public hearings
- Call in to radio talk shows and voice your opinion
Resources:
[Slide 26: recommended resources]
· www.johnpaulthegreatguam.com >Issues
· Facebook Causes: Esperansa
· Homosexuality and the Catholic Church: Clear Answers to Difficult Questions by Fr. John F. Harvey
The insanity of same-sex parenting
-As atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in Marriage and Morals(1929): "It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."
-Homosexual acts cannot create children; therefore the State has no interest in regulating homosexual relationships.
As David Blankenhorn wrote in The Future of Marriage (2007): "Marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children… Redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples would eliminate entirely in law, and weaken still further in culture, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child."
Nothing less is at stake than that an innocent child, first opening her eyes in this world, should see the faces of those two people, her own mother and father, who together gave her life, not the faces of two men who will be her technologically-contrived, State-decreed "parents".
Time is running out to restrain the social vandals who write laws in our land. As Blankenhorn warned: "Once this proposed reform (of gay marriage) became law, even to say the words out loud in public -- ‘Every child needs a father and a mother’ -- would probably be viewed as explicitly divisive and discriminatory, possibly even as hate speech."
For the sake of all children yet to be born we must despise threats of "hate speech" and say out loud that every child needs the love of a father and a mother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
