tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85597393932088489312024-03-13T17:05:25.569-04:00What Does Mike Think?In which Mike thinks about faith, science and stuffMikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.comBlogger816125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-46465622210453955542024-03-02T10:13:00.004-05:002024-03-02T10:13:56.828-05:00Gaslighting<p>Imagine a bunch of premies, in a hospital, asleep in their bassinets. The hospital has assured the parents that these children are watched and monitored, and they are securely locked in the nursery. Yet, that was not so. There is no guard, no monitoring, and the door is left unlocked. A mentally unstable patient comes in the room, removes five of them, and drops them on the floor, killing them.</p><p>What should happen to those responsible for the children? I think we can all agree that they should lose their jobs, face penalties, and possibly go to jail for their gross negligence with children left in their care, and the facility responsible should be sued out of existence.</p><p>This is basically what happened at an IVF clinic in Alabama. The clinic had told the parents their children would be guarded and monitored until they were ready to implant them. Instead the room was left unguarded and the door to the adjoining hospital unlocked. A mentally unstable patient came in, removed five children and dropped them on the floor killing them.</p><p>The "pro-choice" media is dancing on the graves of these children, blaming Pro-lifers for the "ban of IVF" in Alabama, proving that they really don't care about women and children. And Democrats immediately crafted legislation (more likely brought it out of the drawer where it had been waiting) to exempt the industry from all liability, and even expanding that to cover the creation of extra embryos for medical experiments without the consent of the parents.</p><p>Leaving aside the ethics and morality of buying and selling human beings, this really bothers me. You can say "oh, they're not children, they're embryos." But to the parents, these are their children, whom they spent years trying to have. Perhaps the only children they will ever have in their lives. Their hopes for a future family are gone, smashed on the floor, because of negligence and lies, and the media and politicians only care about how they can use this to make more money.</p><p>Disgusting!</p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-16395374088151787492024-02-11T14:58:00.001-05:002024-02-11T14:58:09.271-05:00The LeperIn today’s first reading we hear about the Mosaic laws concerning Leprosy. Leprosy, or Hanson’s disease, as it is called today, was serious business in the ancient world. There was no cure, and so the person with leprosy would spend the few years they had left gradually watching their body deteriorate, and pieces of themselves dying and coming off. Skin, fingers, toes, hands, feet, until they were left a helpless wreck, in constant pain, having to live alone until they were too weak to live.<br /><br />Leprosy is a perfect analogy for sin. Without a “cure” the sinner gradually becomes a slave to sin. It takes over his life, until pieces of his life are lost, and eventually the sinner becomes too weak and in constant pain from his sin. The penalty for sin, like leprosy, is isolation and death. Now, you may think that there are people who are happy in their sin, but that is part of the problem. Ironically one of the penalties of sin is it feels good, and we take that immediate but shallow pleasure over the true joy of a relationship with God. And over time we lose that relationship to the extent that we no longer desire it, and are lost in habitual sin.<br /><br />And consider what happens to the leper. He comes to Jesus, admitting his disease, and Jesus heals him, just as He heals us from our sins. After the healing, notice that Jesus can no longer enter the cities, but has to remain out in the wilderness. He is taking on the punishment that the leper “deserved” – namely he cannot go into cities. This all points to the way Jesus took our sins and suffered the punishment we deserved, death on the cross. What seems on the surface to be a simple story about a leper actually has a deeper meaning as well, about the love of God for each of us, and how He is willing to take our punishment so that we may live.<br /><br />Lastly, consider how the leper approaches Jesus. He doesn’t try to hide his leprosy or impose upon Jesus. He humbly kneels, and doesn’t even presume to try to make Jesus heal him, he just trusts in Jesus and says “if you wish, you can make me clean.” Too often we ask God to do something for us, but we don’t actually trust that God can do it. So we pray over and over, “Lord heal this” or “Lord change that.” But if the Lord actually healed or changed what we ask, we would be surprised that it happened, and maybe even attribute the event to something else – “oh that chemo worked,” or “they changed their mind about it.”<br /><br />We ask but don’t expect to be answered. On the contrary, the leper believes that Jesus can heal him, but does not presume to ask. What a great faith he has! May we all strive to be more like the leper. Acknowledge what we need, have faith that God will do what’s best, and leave it in His hands, knowing that He loves us and will take care of us. Or as Padre Pio so succinctly put it “Pray, Hope and don’t worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.”Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-10923999993213556132023-08-26T18:20:00.005-04:002023-08-27T11:24:42.857-04:00GOP Primary - what they all got wrong<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-FTMrE_-v1kYlmLrZnM68k7S8PW0kqAMYHdV0JLCHIykniEia1S0v78XjV_IPowzfgkocPwY1M9vnPxZuYq1W6O64gdWl-9JNyr0hr8dlp2YpLFPzZhxbvYRJDbRHf-fEKSDcaUvK2jPxiag60gios25YP4fZJT3YbT6-7fFstRC4f4QZSjRYPjkNU9o/s880/debate.jpeg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="495" data-original-width="880" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-FTMrE_-v1kYlmLrZnM68k7S8PW0kqAMYHdV0JLCHIykniEia1S0v78XjV_IPowzfgkocPwY1M9vnPxZuYq1W6O64gdWl-9JNyr0hr8dlp2YpLFPzZhxbvYRJDbRHf-fEKSDcaUvK2jPxiag60gios25YP4fZJT3YbT6-7fFstRC4f4QZSjRYPjkNU9o/s320/debate.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>There's an old story about AT&T (or at least as I heard it), that if they bought Kentucky Fried Chicken they would rebrand it as "Hot Dead Birds." I disagree - I think they would have rebranded it as "Meal 5520." Either way, you get the idea.<p></p><p>Since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, Republicans have treated abortion as a "losing" topic. It seems every time they bring it up poll numbers drop. Meanwhile, Biden and the Democrats are thriving on the "restoration of abortion rights" propaganda. In the media, pro-lifers are called "extremists" and the technique seems to resonate with voters.</p><p>At the GOP presidential candidate debate the other night, abortion and "pro-life" was a significant part of the discussion. All of the candidates professed to be pro-life, but some apologetically, and all of them proposed national bans at 15 weeks, except for Burgum, who thinks it is a "states only" issue, and Ramaswamy, who always manages to not commit to any concrete solution, and never gets called on it.</p><p>Several candidates pointed out that there is broad, bi-partisan support for a 15 week ban, and Nikki Haley shot them down saying that there weren't 60 senators who would vote for it. That's not helpful, Nikki.</p><p>Just like the "Hot Dead Birds" brand, Republicans never seem to find a way to make their message appealing.</p><p>On the other hand, she did call out Democrats for pushing abortion up until birth, and that's where the Republicans need to go, IMHO. Point out at every opportunity that the Democrats want abortion until birth, and they don't want parental notification. Parental notification is a hot button topic. Parents everywhere want to know what their kids are doing, and abortion without parental notification chiefly benefits sex traffickers who can get easy abortions for their underage victims. And just about everybody recognizes that a baby is a baby at a certain point in a pregnancy.</p><p>What I found most disappointing is every candidate used the phrase "pro-life" without ever saying what they meant by it. The only one who said why he was pro-life was Pence, who said basically "because Bible." Again, not helpful. Those who hold his view of the Bible are already in his camp, and those who don't will see it as another reason not to be pro-life.</p><p>Nope, none of them gave any coherent explanation as to what their views actually are or why they hold them. So I will say what I wished they would say.</p><p>I understand that not all of America is on the same page when it comes to abortion, but here is how I see it. Our founding documents tell us that we are all created equal and that we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Over the years Democrats have always failed to recognize the rights of some. At first it was primarily slaves, then immigrants, now it is the unborn, the disabled and elderly.</p><p>Science tells us unequivocally that unborn babies are human beings, as are disabled people and seniors. On what grounds do we justify killing some human beings, simply because they are inconvenient? That's why I'm pro-life and why I believe that government at all levels must protect life at all ages.</p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-36103633618470149802022-07-04T20:30:00.006-04:002022-07-04T20:30:55.338-04:00Gun Control is a Sin (Part II)<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNwW-x2S8uPugpqUVSQeFKV7hmBDSdL1_K8O0HUjopuGdDXm-4boBrwa0RL6cYwYL46R_uYNpBAesoz6tiGMFAIJg7M_qtxqEiCoOXA4ob7RacAOGPVfqQKp2qsdRyzXBJ0fWwZ_pZaFYU6As_aJ9KGVqJscNMFykjGLJWG08JKCdgsXlj6nsuNCq9/s1024/3657552037_29cc11a13e_b.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="840" data-original-width="1024" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNwW-x2S8uPugpqUVSQeFKV7hmBDSdL1_K8O0HUjopuGdDXm-4boBrwa0RL6cYwYL46R_uYNpBAesoz6tiGMFAIJg7M_qtxqEiCoOXA4ob7RacAOGPVfqQKp2qsdRyzXBJ0fWwZ_pZaFYU6As_aJ9KGVqJscNMFykjGLJWG08JKCdgsXlj6nsuNCq9/s320/3657552037_29cc11a13e_b.jpeg" width="320" /></a></span></div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">In <a href="https://wdmt.blogspot.com/2022/07/gun-control-is-sin.html" target="_blank">Part I</a> I laid out a brief definition of Justice, and spoke of the two false assumptions used to justify gun controls. I left off with:</span><p></p><p style="color: #4b4b4b; text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">And so, even if gun control worked so well that it magically removed all the guns, it would be an injustice against the innocent, and against the physically weaker, or poorer members of society. The strong would prey on the weak with impunity.</span></blockquote><p></p><p style="color: #4b4b4b; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">But some gun control advocates will say, they don't want to get rid of <i>all</i> guns, just keep guns out of the hands of "bad" people. Let's talk about that. Who are the "bad" people? Apparently they think it is the gun owner, since that's who the law targets. Why do they claim gun owners are bad? Because they own guns. And we're right back to the false notion that guns have no legitimate use.</span></p><p style="color: #4b4b4b; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">Conversely, who are the "good" people? Usually mentioned are the government or agents of the government. It is stunningly ignorant to think that a government worker is more moral than the average person. In the last century governments have killed more civilians than any mass murderer could dream of - some <a href="https://reason.com/2014/05/15/be-antigovernment-and-proud/" target="_blank">262 million people</a>.</span></p><p style="color: #4b4b4b; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">One thing that stuck in my mind, that I learned from a course in the legal use of deadly force. Why do police carry guns? To protect themselves from danger of death or serious bodily harm. They don't carry them to "shoot bad guys" or to "save civilians." In fact, the criteria for a "good" police shoot is the same as that for any citizen defending themselves (at least in theory, we'll get into why they get a pass in another blog post).</span></p><p style="color: #4b4b4b; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">And then there's the other class of "good guys" that gun control proponents don't mention: the rich. Of course, the right can have private body guards, and so can you. Wait, you're too poor? Then you don't deserve protection from criminals. Is there anything more unjust? Should we not, as a society, have laws that are preferential to the poor and underserved rather than the rich elites?</span></p><p style="color: #4b4b4b; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">Thomas Jefferson is often quoted with the following, which was actually him quoting </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">Cesare Beccaria (“On Crimes and Punishments”):</span></p><p style="color: #4b4b4b; text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">The laws of [false utility] are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator?</span></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">The point is a valid one. Gun control laws will be obeyed by good citizens, but ignored by those wishing to commit crimes. And so such laws disproportionately disarm the law abiding citizen rather than the criminal.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">One of the dirty little secrets of gun control is that after such laws are enacted there is an increase in violent crimes. gun control advocates like to point out the difference in criminal statistics between the US and other countries, but they don't look at what happened in those countries when the gun laws were enacted. Nor do they look at the types of crimes. In the US the vast number of robberies are conducted when the home is empty. In the UK, most home robberies occur <a href="https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/home-security/burglary-statistics#victims" target="_blank">when the family is home (58%)</a>, and can be forced to hand over hidden valuables. This is because the criminal in the US fears the homeowner, whereas in the UK the homeowner is helpless, and a source to be intimidated and or beaten.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">Likewise sexual assault and rape. In the UK there are <a href="https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/statistics-sexual-violence/" target="_blank">618,000 sexual assaults or rapes</a> each year. In the US, that number is <a href="https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics" target="_blank">735,000 sexual assaults or rapes</a>. Sounds similar until you realize that the population of the UK is around 68 million and the US has 330 million people. So the rate in the UK is o<i>ver 4 times</i> that of the US.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">Then there's the fact that in the US <a href="https://gunpowdermagazine.com/fact-check-guns-are-used-in-fewer-than-9-percent-of-violent-crimes/" target="_blank">guns are not used in over 91% of violent crimes</a>. So even if we were to disarm all criminals, it would result in a tiny drop in crime (assuming those who would have used a gun don't just use a different weapon). There are much more effective ways to reduce crime than gun control, such as strict enforcement of existing laws, abandoning so-called "bail reform", three strikes laws, etc.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">I've rambled a little, but the key points are that:</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: white;">Gun control harms the victim more than the criminal.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: white;">Gun control hurts the poor more than the rich.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: white;">Gun control hurt minorities more than whites.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: white;">Gun control increases crime.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: white;">Even if it were "perfect" it would not reduce crime significantly.</span></span></li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: white;">For these reasons, gun control is a sin against Justice. In future posts, we'll be looking at the racist roots of gun control, and specific gum laws which gravely unjust in other ways. Stay tuned...</span></span></p><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-83583779718893766502022-07-04T15:27:00.002-04:002022-07-04T20:31:55.831-04:00Gun Control is a Sin<p><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsH_woY2VM92JoOLVntK7tygMNOvAvTcUUeEZo6stuvYopnmPs7R_Kj5U1mbnbaMzk-hb2uWCt7sXe7jhKgB_tEsTdDkOwpL2j-5Nff2XqZCQQDT_xmhGYSmc76g9yOPkGQdd9vmDsRh7-miDciLR9_MCAgPB-nJfodtzD4j3LIcAliu-ZuR32khf-/s1080/1047px-Allegoria_della_Giustizia_-_galleria_del_Poccetti.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1047" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsH_woY2VM92JoOLVntK7tygMNOvAvTcUUeEZo6stuvYopnmPs7R_Kj5U1mbnbaMzk-hb2uWCt7sXe7jhKgB_tEsTdDkOwpL2j-5Nff2XqZCQQDT_xmhGYSmc76g9yOPkGQdd9vmDsRh7-miDciLR9_MCAgPB-nJfodtzD4j3LIcAliu-ZuR32khf-/s320/1047px-Allegoria_della_Giustizia_-_galleria_del_Poccetti.jpg" width="310" /></a></span></div><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This is part I of a longer discussion.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;">Over the course of the last few weeks I've received several notices from the USCCB urging me to support the Democrats' gun control bill. Considering that gun control is a matter of prudential judgement (meaning Catholics in good standing can come to vastly different conclusions), rather than a matter like abortion, which is an inherent evil, and considering how many more statements on gun control I received than on abortion, it got me to thinking and researching the matter more deeply.</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">I have come to the conclusion that, rather than being a matter of prudential judgement, gun control is actually a sin against Justice. It is also opposed to the pro-life cause. Not only should the bishops not be urging their flocks to support it, they should be advocating the opposite. Let me explain.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">What is Justice? Justice is one of the four cardinal virtues, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. We don't often hear of the other three, but there is a lot of talk (mostly complaining about a lack of) justice. Justice is the principle by which we give to each person what is due him.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">A <a href="https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/roman-catholic-church/item/the-virtue-of-justice" target="_blank">St. Pope John Paul II said</a>:</span></p><p style="font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 19px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><blockquote><p style="font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 19px;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Christ left us the commandment to love our neighbour. In this commandment, everything that concerns justice is also contained. There can be no love without justice. Love “surpasses” justice, but at the same time it finds its verification in justice. Even a father and a mother, loving their own child, must be just in his regard. If justice is uncertain, love, too, runs a risk.</span></p><p style="font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 19px;"><span style="font-family: arial;">To be just means giving each one what is due to him. This concerns temporal goods, of a material nature. The best example here can be remuneration for work or the so-called right to the fruits of one’s own work or of one’s own land. But to man is due also his good name, respect, consideration, the reputation he has deserved. The more we know a man, the more his personality, his character, his intellect and his heart are revealed to us. And the more we realize—and we must realize!—with what criterion to “measure him” and what it means to be just towards him.</span></p><p style="font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 19px;"><span style="font-family: arial;">It is necessary, therefore, to deepen our knowledge of justice continually. It is not a theoretical science. It is virtue, it is [a]capacity of the human spirit, of the human will and also of the heart. It is also necessary to pray in order to be just and to know how to be just.</span></p><p style="font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 19px;"><span style="font-family: arial;">We cannot forget Our Lord’s words: “The measure you give will be the measure you get” (Mt 7:2).</span></p></blockquote><p style="font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 19px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">To see why gun control is inherently unjust, first let's talk about what guns are (at least of the purpose of this discussion). Firearms (aka guns) fall into a broader class which we call weapons. A weapon is something which can be used to inflict damage. A weapon can be used for evil (to attack) or good (to discourage an attack, or defend against attack). Therefore weapons are morally neutral (excluding for the moment weapons which have no legitimate defensive use).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">The most basic weapon is the human body. Humans instinctively use their hands, feet, knees, etc. to attack or defend. The basic premise is that you put energy into your fist (for example) and that energy is transferred to the object it strikes, causing pain and damage to that object.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">The human body has very little range, and so other weapons were designed to increase that range. Contact weapons like knives, swords, clubs, and projectile weapons like rocks, knives, spears, arrows and firearms. A firearm, in principle, is basically rock throwing, only the rock is small and it is thrown very fast.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">The thing that makes a firearm different from rock throwing, and fundamentally different from all the other weapons mentioned, is that its effectiveness to attack or defend does not depend on the strength of the user. And that fact is what makes them unique in the sense of Justice, and the reason why gun control is the goal of despots everywhere. As the old adage goes "God made men, Sam Colt made them equal."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Gun control advocates base their arguments on two principles, both of which are false. The first is that the world would be safer and more peaceful without guns. Anyone who has studied history can tell you that the world was objectively more violent and dangerous before the invention of guns. Modern liberals like to think that somehow people today are "more evolved" than those of a few hundred years ago, but even modern history shows that when one group of people has power over another the result is never good. Consider the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide" target="_blank">Armenian Genocide</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930–1933" target="_blank">Stalin's Russia</a>, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust" target="_blank">the Holocaust</a>, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide" target="_blank">Rwandan Genocide</a> and <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/31/abortion-leading-global-cause-of-death-in-2021-with-43-million-killed/" target="_blank">abortion</a>.The defenseless are still being killed in great numbers.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">The second false principle is that guns have no good use. Again even a brief look at history shows that to be false. Guns have been used to defend against aggressors since they were invented. In the US today, guns are used <a href="https://www.justfacts.org/guncontrol.asp#crime" target="_blank">between 1 million and 3 million times a year</a> to defend against criminals. Those numbers are <a href="https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/" target="_blank">based on a 2012 report</a>, ordered by president Obama, so you know they are not biased in favor of firearm owners.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">To quote civil rights activist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Ruth_Silver" target="_blank">Carol Ruth Silver</a>, "Access to firearms gives women, for the first time in history, the capacity to live independently and apart from men in safety and freedom." Consider the case of a 120 pound woman and her 240 pound would-be male attacker. Or an elderly or disabled person. Access to firearms makes them the equal of that attacker. And usually that is enough to dissuade the attacker. In fact, 95% of the time when a firearm is "used" to defend against an attacker, no shot is fired. The mere display of a firearm causes the criminal to rethink whether he wants to go up against even odds of being hurt or killed.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">And so, even if gun control worked so well that it magically removed all the guns, it would be an injustice against the innocent, and against the physically weaker, or poorer members of society. The strong would prey on the weak with impunity.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">More in <a href="https://wdmt.blogspot.com/2022/07/gun-control-is-sin-part-ii.html">Part II</a>...</span></p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-16659286989809898642021-10-28T15:52:00.000-04:002021-10-28T15:52:01.511-04:00What is the Unpardonable Sin?<p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Mitteleschenbach_Kirche_3467.jpg/800px-Mitteleschenbach_Kirche_3467.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="632" data-original-width="800" height="253" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Mitteleschenbach_Kirche_3467.jpg/800px-Mitteleschenbach_Kirche_3467.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">By AlexanderRahm - <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3776432" target="_blank">Own work</a>, CC BY 3.0<br /></td></tr></tbody></table>There are a few passages of scripture that I cannot fathom. That's OK, in most cases, as I don't feel that I am capable of understanding everything about God. But there are several in this category I would really like to understand, because they may be relevant to my salvation or that of others.</p><p><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+12%3A22-32&version=RSVCE" target="_blank">Matthew 12:31-32</a> is one such passage. It reads:</p><blockquote>Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.</blockquote>I recently listened to an episode of "<a href="https://stpaulcenter.com/audio/the-road-to-emmaus/the-unpardonable-sin/" target="_blank">The Road to Emmaus</a>" podcast with Scott Hahn where that was the topic of discussion. It left me with more questions than answers.<div><br /></div><div>Here's what's conventionally said about the unpardonable sin. The context of the two verses above is that Jesus has cured a demoniac and the Pharisees claim Jesus has done so by beelzebul (the devil) rather than by God's power. Jesus rebukes them, then offers those two verses. The footnote in my Bible says "To attribute to the devil the works of the Holy Spirit seems to imply a hardness of heart that precludes repentance."</div><div><br /></div><div>Somehow this is often equated to the sin of despair (denial that one's sins can be forgiven) or the sin of presumption (the belief that I do not need repentance for the forgiveness of my sins). I'm not sure I follow the leap from attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil to believing that my sins are forgiven (or not), but there it is.</div><div><br /></div><div>The <a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1864.htm" target="_blank">Catechism says</a>:</div><div><blockquote>1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.</blockquote></div><div>Aquinas describes <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3014.htm" target="_blank">three different interpretations</a> of the blasphemy agains the Holy Spirit (see highlighted text below):</div><blockquote><p style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); line-height: 24px; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">For the earlier <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05072b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">doctors</a>, viz. <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Athanasius</a> (Super Matth. xii, 32), <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07349b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Hilary</a> (Can. xii in Matth.), <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Ambrose</a> (Super Luc. xii, 10), <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Jerome</a> (Super Matth. xii), and <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Chrysostom</a> (Hom. xli in Matth.), say that <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sin</a> against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a> is literally to utter a <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">blasphemy</a> against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Spirit</a>,</span> whether by <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Spirit</a> we understand the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">essential</a> name applicable to the whole <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Trinity</a>, each Person of which is a Spirit and is <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">holy</a>, or the personal name of one of the Persons of the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Trinity</a>, in which sense <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">blasphemy</a> against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a> is distinct from the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">blasphemy</a> against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Son of Man</a> (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat012.htm#verse32" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Matthew 12:32</a>), for <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Christ</a> did certain things in respect of His <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">human</a> <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">nature</a>, by eating, drinking, and such like actions, while He did others in respect of His Godhead, by casting out <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04710a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">devils</a>, raising the dead, and the like: which things He did both by the power of His own Godhead and by the operation of the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>, of Whom He was full, according to his <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">human</a> <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">nature</a>. Now the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08386a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Jews</a> began by speaking <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">blasphemy</a> against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Son of Man</a>, when they said (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat011.htm#verse19" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Matthew 11:19</a>) that He was "a <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06590a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">glutton</a> . . . a wine drinker," and a "friend of publicans": but afterwards they blasphemed against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>, when they ascribed to the prince of <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04710a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">devils</a> those works which <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Christ</a> did by the power of His own Divine Nature and by the operation of the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>.</span></p><p style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); line-height: 24px; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Augustine</a>, however (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi), says that <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">blasphemy</a> or <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sin</a> against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>, is final impenitence</span> when, namely, a man perseveres in mortal <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sin</a> until death, and that it is not confined to utterance by word of mouth, but extends to words in thought and <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">deed</a>, not to one word only, but to many. Now this word, in this sense, is said to be uttered against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>, because it is contrary to the remission of <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sins</a>, which is the work of the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>, Who is the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">charity</a> both of the Father and of the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Son</a>. Nor did <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Our Lord</a> say this to the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08386a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Jews</a>, as though they had <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sinned</a> against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>, since they were not yet guilty of final impenitence, but He warned them, lest by similar utterances they should come to <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sin</a> against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>: and it is in this sense that we are to understand <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/bible/mar003.htm#verse29" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Mark 3:29-30</a>, where after <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Our Lord</a> had said: "But he that shall <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">blaspheme</a> against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>," etc. the Evangelist adds, "because they said: He hath an <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04010c.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">unclean</a> spirit."</span></p><p style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); line-height: 24px; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But others understand it differently, and say that <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sin</a> of <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">blasphemy</a> against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>, is a <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sin</a> committed against that <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">good</a> which is appropriated to the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a></span>: because <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">goodness</a> is appropriated to the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>, just a power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Son</a>. Hence they say that when a man <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sins</a> through weakness, it is a <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sin</a> "against the Father"; that when he <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sins</a> through <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">ignorance</a>, it is a <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sin</a> "against the Son"; and that when he <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sins</a> through certain <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">malice</a>, i.e. through the very choosing of <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">evil</a>, as explained above (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2078.htm#article1" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">I-II:78:1</a>; <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2078.htm#article3" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">I-II:78:3</a>), it is a <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">sin</a> "against the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); color: #7c4dff; text-decoration-line: none;">Holy Ghost</a>."</span></p></blockquote><div><br /></div>But here's my basic problem with all the interpretations above. If you say that this sin is only unpardonable because it is not repented of, then it is no different from any other mortal sin, and yet we don't call every mortal sin unpardonable. Blasphemy agains the Holy Spirit then, is not unpardonable.<div><br /></div><div>Want an example? The mission of the Apostles and the formation of the Church is a work of the Holy Spirit. St. Paul considers this an abomination against the Jewish faith - something of the devil, and so he persecutes the Christians. Yet Paul repents and his sin is (presumably - ha ha) pardoned.</div><div><br /></div><div>Furthermore Jesus says that whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven. Well, isn't that what the Pharisees did? They said Jesus was in league with beelzebul, they didn't directly mention the Holy Spirit (nor did Paul for that matter).</div><div><br /></div><div>For that matter it would seem that saying a word against the Son of man will be forgiven if the person repents, just like any other sin. And one could say that claiming Jesus is in league with the devil seems to imply a hardness of heart that precludes repentance of that. And indeed we see that many of the Pharisees (as far as we know) did not repent of their words against Jesus.</div><div><br /></div><div>St. Augustine (one of my personal faves) <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160321.htm" target="_blank">has an interpretation that at least is consistent logically</a>, but I don't see how it follows form the text. That is, final impenitence is not mentioned, and indeed if the sin is impenitence then it is not a "sin" per se, but impenitence of sin, that precludes forgiveness. The text seems to imply there is a sin which precludes later forgiveness, not a state you are in later that precludes forgiveness from any sin. I guess one could interpret the text as meaning "whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit until death" but that's not what the text says.</div><div><br /></div><div>And so the whole thing remains a mystery to me. The common interpretation does not make sense to me because the same logic applies to every other mortal sin, including blasphemy against Jesus, which Jesus explicitly says is not this sin.</div>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-22015053732380119092021-01-13T15:49:00.002-05:002021-01-13T15:49:17.700-05:00Don't. Stop Believing<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bDet-lu51hc/X_9clZH1VeI/AAAAAAAAHi4/6ROjBbBK1B47wui3bCAXCI7o1vNHyv7ygCLcBGAsYHQ/s770/Credo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="542" data-original-width="770" height="141" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bDet-lu51hc/X_9clZH1VeI/AAAAAAAAHi4/6ROjBbBK1B47wui3bCAXCI7o1vNHyv7ygCLcBGAsYHQ/w200-h141/Credo.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>Every mass, and indeed every time we pray the rosary we recite the Creed. The word comes from Credo, Latin for "I believe" since Catholics have no imagination and name prayers and documents after the first words (e.g. the "Our Father" or "Glory Be"). The text of the prayer is as follows:<br /><blockquote>I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from there He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen<div></div></blockquote><div>Here's my problem with that (you knew I'd complain about something). Immediately after praying this we go out into the world and make statements like "Trump is the best (or worst) president EVAH!" We say "masks don't (or do) work!" We say "Climate change is a hoax (or the most important problem of our day)!"</div><div><br /></div><div>The thing is all of those statements are things we believe, but we don't say "I believe" these things, we state them as matters of fact, because we are so convinced of them that in our minds they surpass belief, and anyone who doesn't see this in the same light is clearly WRONG!</div><div><br /></div><div>So why is our expression of beliefs on politics, or science, so strong compared to our belief in God? You could say that it's just the way people express themselves today, and that's a fair point, but as we speak so we think (or vice versa). In my reckoning, if our belief in God is absolute (and it should be, as God is evident from reason alone), why not express it that way?</div><div><blockquote>God, the Father Almighty, is the Creator of heaven and earth, and Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from there He will come to judge the living and the dead. The Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting are all true. Amen<div></div></blockquote></div><div><br /></div>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-82130486776715799702020-12-12T19:07:00.001-05:002020-12-13T20:50:15.560-05:00The False Prophet of the Apocalypse<p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jsWdNwF0cxI/X9VatfbGpHI/AAAAAAAAHdk/q6_O7PN7I5c_Jo2zLwlCd6jmRXH25NrAgCLcBGAsYHQ/s800/book-of-revelation-the-antichrist-revealed-22.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="655" data-original-width="800" height="164" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jsWdNwF0cxI/X9VatfbGpHI/AAAAAAAAHdk/q6_O7PN7I5c_Jo2zLwlCd6jmRXH25NrAgCLcBGAsYHQ/w200-h164/book-of-revelation-the-antichrist-revealed-22.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>Of late there has been a spate of Catholics online spreading stories that run along the following lines: Pope Francis is not really the Pope, he the the antichrist, or the beast, or the false prophet. This is backed up by a bunch of "prophecies." One prominent news source and several Catholic "influencers" have posted similar things, and in the groups I manage I have had to "break up" numerous fights between "Catholics." I'm not going to waste your time or give them any extra eyeballs by posting links but you are welcome to google the title of this post if you want to read one of them. After reading this, you may not want to, however. Here are my thoughts.<p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">First off, what is prophecy?</p>
<p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">To a Christian,
prophecy is not predicting the future, but speaking God’s truth.
What is God's truth? Look at the Biblical prophets. With a few rare
exceptions, they say nothing about the future world of politics and
future events (the only exception I can think of is in Isaiah where
he says someone named Cyrus will restore Jerusalem).
Instead, they speak of current events (even though those events may
have echoes in the future) and the truth that God loves us, will never
abandon us, and that we need to repent and turn from false idols.
Jonah – Ninevah must repent or be destroyed. Isaiah – God will
shepherd His people. Hosea – turn from idols and be faithful to
God. Elijah – God is faithful to His chosen people.</p>
<p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">On the other hand,
to the modern world prophecy is predicting the future through
preternatural means. This is a corruption of prophecy and demonic.
The Bible and the catechism both expressly forbid as serious sin the
desire to know future events through means that are not natural. That’s not to say God does not reveal
knowledge of the future to certain people -. Zechariah, Mary and
Joseph, for example. But that knowledge was given to them
individually, not to the world. To try to predict the dates of the “Great
Apostacy” the “Tribulation” and the second coming of Our Lord
is sinful. It is not for us to know, as Jesus Himself says in Sacred
Scripture.</p>
<p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">Regarding all these
current trendy Catholic prophecies about saviors and antichrists (usually applied to Trump and Pope Francis respectively), I can make the “savior” ones
apply to Trump to Obama or Biden or Pope Francis. On the other hand I
can make the antichrist ones apply to Trump, or Pope Francis, or
Biden. Most of them can apply to any world figure. All you have to do is first decide that person "X" is the
antichrist, then manipulate things until you find some connection to
the number 666. For instance, if you take the integer values of the ASCII encoding of the characters "BERGOGLIO" and add them up they equal 666! "Proof" that the Pope is the antichrist! If that hadn't worked, I'm sure there is some combination of characters in some part of his name that will add up if you translate and encode them just right.. Starting with a conclusion and
manipulating times, events, names, etc. until you find some
connection to something somebody wrote is NOT the way to the truth.</p>
<p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">So the methodology is suspect right off the bat. Now let’s consider the sources quoted:</p>
<ul><li>Prophecies of St.
Francis. This book claims to contain “unknown” writings of St.
Francis of Assisi. It has an imprimatur from the bishop. Is this a
good source? I don’t know but note that an imprimatur only means
that the book does not contain statements that contradict Catholic
dogma. It does not mean that the contents are true, or even that the
church agrees with the book (see
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/imprimaturs-and-private-revelations&source=gmail&ust=1607884964293000&usg=AFQjCNH3i6-P-1YWcc_W5HlhToFbG3o-uQ" href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/imprimaturs-and-private-revelations" style="color: navy; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/imprimaturs-and-private-revelations</a>
for information on imprimaturs). Also, the book was published in
1882, and St. Francis died in 1181, 700 years earlier. Why is there
no record of these writings for 700 years? But let us assume it is
accurate – what does the book actually predict? I found it online
(<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://archive.org/stream/SeraphicFatherStFrancisOfAssisi?ref%3Dol%23page/n265/mode/2up&source=gmail&ust=1607884964293000&usg=AFQjCNEmYmJmoL5PpO65NmX4ARXctFh-Kg" href="https://archive.org/stream/SeraphicFatherStFrancisOfAssisi?ref=ol#page/n265/mode/2up" style="color: navy; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">https://archive.org/stream/SeraphicFatherStFrancisOfAssisi?ref=ol#page/n265/mode/2up</a>).
The book notes that the prophecy was fulfilled in 1378 under Pope
Urban VI. Does that mean it can’t also apply to today? It could,
but 1378 was not the end of the world, so saying that this is THE
great Tribulation and the Final end does not follow.
</li></ul><ul><li>St. Malachy. Just like the prophecies of St. Francis, the prophecies of St. Malachy were "discovered" in 1590, 450 years after St. Malachy lived, in 1148. They are simply not credible. For an explanation see
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://jimmyakin.com/2013/02/how-reliable-is-the-st-malachy-prophecy.html&source=gmail&ust=1607884964293000&usg=AFQjCNGJoZjlruQWR8CysucTsfPFokvPoQ" href="http://jimmyakin.com/2013/02/how-reliable-is-the-st-malachy-prophecy.html" style="color: navy; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">http://jimmyakin.com/2013/02/how-reliable-is-the-st-malachy-prophecy.html</a> Perhaps they should be called prophecies of "malarkey" instead. <br /></li></ul><ul><li>Our Lady of
Garabandal – this apparition was determined not to be genuine by four successive bishops. Enthusiasts reject the bishop's authority and claim it will be recognized at a later date. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote of it "<i>this Sacred Congregation wishes to assert: that the Holy See has
never approved even indirectly the Garabandal movement, that it has
never encouraged or blessed Garabandal promoters or centers. Rather the
Holy See deplores the fact that certain persons and Institutions persist
in formatting the movement in obvious contradiction with the
dispositions of ecclesiastical authority and thus disseminate confusion
among the people."</i></li></ul><ul><li>Our Lady of
LaSalette is an approved apparition, BUT as noted above, the
recognition of an apparition by the church does not mean it is
accurate, only that the message does not contradict Catholic dogma.
The apparition took place in 1846 and was approved in 1851. However,
the prophecy states that the antichrist will be revealed in 1865.
That did not happen. That should be proof that at least the prophecy of the
antichrist is false. See
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/la-salette-sorting-fact-from-fiction&source=gmail&ust=1607884964293000&usg=AFQjCNF0l8Yxq48G44k01CDRdbtsuKKjpg" href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/la-salette-sorting-fact-from-fiction" style="color: navy; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/la-salette-sorting-fact-from-fiction</a>
for more information.</li></ul><ul><li>Our Lady of Fatima –
these modern interpretations all assume that the consecration of
Russia was not done and that there are more secrets that were never
revealed (or more parts to the secrets). Sr. Lucia, the original visionary, confirmed several times
that the consecration of Russia was done to Our Lady’s
satisfaction, and that the secrets were as revealed. See
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.bluearmy.com/letter-from-sister-lucia-confirmed-consecration-of-russia-was-done/&source=gmail&ust=1607884964293000&usg=AFQjCNEgWlVsiPmw4BvhW4fm-qaz_l8-hg" href="https://www.bluearmy.com/letter-from-sister-lucia-confirmed-consecration-of-russia-was-done/" style="color: navy; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">https://www.bluearmy.com/letter-from-sister-lucia-confirmed-consecration-of-russia-was-done/</a>
and
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://jimmyakin.com/2019/10/the-third-secret-of-fatima-jimmy-akins-mysterious-world.html&source=gmail&ust=1607884964293000&usg=AFQjCNFe9cuEHcLKZNBDNvPVacr3HmGi_g" href="https://jimmyakin.com/2019/10/the-third-secret-of-fatima-jimmy-akins-mysterious-world.html" style="color: navy; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">https://jimmyakin.com/2019/10/the-third-secret-of-fatima-jimmy-akins-mysterious-world.html</a></li></ul><ul><li>The “Warning” or
“Illumination of Conscience” cited in these theories is false – see
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://sqpn.com/2020/10/the-warning-the-illumination-of-conscience-catholic-prophecy/&source=gmail&ust=1607884964293000&usg=AFQjCNEmx-knci5xdTEJ_LeQl8kzri4KaQ" href="https://sqpn.com/2020/10/the-warning-the-illumination-of-conscience-catholic-prophecy/" style="color: navy; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">https://sqpn.com/2020/10/the-warning-the-illumination-of-conscience-catholic-prophecy/</a></li></ul><ul><li>The “End Time”
prophecies cited are false – see
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://sqpn.com/2020/10/the-apostle-of-the-last-times-fr-michel-rodrigue-apocalyptic-prophecy-private-revelation-last-days-end-times/&source=gmail&ust=1607884964293000&usg=AFQjCNEt3oJV_6GxsL3kOXnx3lV1SfNx9g" href="https://sqpn.com/2020/10/the-apostle-of-the-last-times-fr-michel-rodrigue-apocalyptic-prophecy-private-revelation-last-days-end-times/" style="color: navy; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">https://sqpn.com/2020/10/the-apostle-of-the-last-times-fr-michel-rodrigue-apocalyptic-prophecy-private-revelation-last-days-end-times/</a></li></ul><ul><li>Pope St. Pius X’s
prophecy about the next Pope with the same name – assuming this is
even true – I can’t find the actual statement by the Pope, only
later claims that he said this – is claimed to refer to Pope Benedict XVI. The prophecy speaks of a Pope with the same name who will suffer and flee to hiding, and then the last days of the world will come. Of course the next pope named Pius was Pius XI, who didn't fit the prophecy. Rather than accept that the prophecy was false, enthusiasts looked for ways to twist it to fit the "fact" that these are the last days. What they came up with is that Pope Benedict XVI's given name is Josef, which, when translated from German to Italian, is Giuseppe, which was the given name of Pope St. Pius X. However, if you want to go down that rabbit hole, there are better candidates: Pope Pius XII's given name was Eugenio
Maria <b>Giuseppe</b> Giovanni Pacelli – and he also was a pope
<b>Pius</b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> – </span><span style="font-weight: normal;">that’s
a better match for the prophecy than Pope Benedict… or the Pope
after that, </span><span style="font-weight: normal;">John XXIII was
</span><span style="font-weight: normal;">Angelo </span><b>Giuseppe</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">
Roncalli… if you’re willing to twist things enough you can make
the prophecy be about anyone you like.</span></li></ul>
<p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So, the source material used is garbage. <br /></span></p><p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Next,
look at the “fruits” of the prophecies. The one thing that
separates Catholics from all other Christians is the Pope. If you
look at Martin Luther’s 95 theses, the church has basically adopted
all of his reforms except one – that the Pope is not the seat of
authority for the church. That is the Protestant heresy. So when I hear Catholics saying that Francis is
not the “real” Pope </span><span style="font-weight: normal;">what
does that mean? The bishops acknowledge Francis as Pope, so these
Catholics have
separated themselves from the Magisterium. If they say “Benedict is
Pope” – well, Benedict says Francis is Pope, so they are defying the
authority of Pope Benedict as well. There is no scenario I see where
this leads us to a closer relationship with Christ and His church. On
the contrary it seems to me that such people should no longer be called
Catholic, but they are now Protestant, since they do not accept the
authority of any Pope.<br /></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So
the fruit of this whole exercise is to cause divisions within the
church and cause the faithful to leave the body of Christ. </span><span style="font-weight: normal;">That's
not to say that some people won't use these theories to give them
resolve to repent, but these theories are not necessary for that, nor is that
their goal. Instead they are sensational "click bait."<br /></span></p>
<p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
So my conclusion is that this is demonic because:</p><ul><li>The "goal" of the prophecies (to predict the second coming of Christ) is sinful, and something Christ warns us against.</li><li>The methods used to come to the conclusion are deceitful and involve twisting the truth, they are not of
God.</li><li>The sources of the prophecy are false, possibly of demonic origin.</li><li>The fruits of the prophecies are fear and division, putting our own "knowledge" above the teachings of the church.</li></ul><div>Note, I do think Pope Francis is not being a very good Pope, and that we are
living in the end times, but you don't need these prophecies to tell you
that. Clearly we are in end times - we have been for 2000 years, but playing around with private
revelations and false prophets is not something we should be doing.</div><div> </div><div><div>One finally thought... a lot of the people pushing these theories see themselves as a "faithful remnant" because they
are defying the "antichrist/beast." They point to things like the above, and
that Pope Francis is bad and is "destroying" the church. But are they
the faithful remnant for defying Pope Francis? Is it not them who are destroying the church? Remember in
Israel, the son of Solomon, Rehoboam, was so bad that ten of the twelve
tribes split off. Yet, the ones who stayed with the bad king were the
faithful remnant, not the ones who defied him and set up their own temples.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not suggesting we fall
into line with the "new world order" and other ideas the Pope seems to
embrace. But I am suggesting when we see things we don't like, we say "yes, he is wrong" and recognize him
as Pope anyway. It is time we realize the Pope is not God, but a man.</div><div><br /><br /></div> </div>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-34888340903591510412020-11-26T11:45:00.005-05:002020-11-26T13:49:34.586-05:00God intended it for good<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Squantoteaching.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="394" data-original-width="458" height="275" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Squantoteaching.png" width="320" /></a></div>This is probably the worst Thanksgiving my family has had. All the family but my youngest are in other states, and "quarantined." Even my youngest son's girlfriend is quarantined, and so our family celebration consists of three people and a telephone. And yet it may be the best Thanksgiving my family has had. A reminder to be thankful for the blessings that we have, and to hold God above all things in our lives. It has given me an opportunity to reflect more on grace and blessing, and on God's word.<br /><p>And so here is my Thanksgiving reflection for this year. Recall the story of Joseph in the Bible, in Genesis 37-50. Joseph is sold into slavery by his own brothers, and is taken to a foreign land (Egypt). There he works his way to a position of importance, and eventually is able to save not only Egypt but the lands around, including his own people, from starvation when a famine occurs. The story ends with him being reunited with his brothers and forgiving them, saying (Gen 50:19-20):<br /></p><p style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;"><span class="text Gen-50-19" id="en-NRSVCE-1526">“Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? </span><span class="text Gen-50-20" id="en-NRSVCE-1527">Even
though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in
order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today. </span><span class="text Gen-50-21" id="en-NRSVCE-1528">So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones.” </span></p><p><span class="text Gen-50-21" id="en-NRSVCE-1528">Of course, Joseph is a prefigurement of Christ, who "empties Himself, becoming a slave" and through His suffering, many are saved. But that happened 2,000 years ago.</span></p><p><span class="text Gen-50-21" id="en-NRSVCE-1528">Recall the story of the first Thanksgiving. The Puritans had arrived at Plymouth and nearly half of them had died that first year. They did not know how to handle the unique challenges of the new world. A different climate, soil, wildlife, plants all were different. The only thing that pulled them through was help from the natives, especially Squanto. Squanto was able to help them because he spoke perfect English and understood their needs and culture. How did this come about?</span></p><p><span class="text Gen-50-21" id="en-NRSVCE-1528">Many years before, Squanto was sold into slavery, and taken to a foreign land (Spain). There his freedom was purchased by Franciscans, who taught him the Catholic faith, into which he was Baptized. They later brought him to England, where he learned the language and customs, and where he worked his way to a position of importance, and eventually bought himself passage back to America. He then became the means by which the Puritan settlers were saved.</span></p><p><span class="text Gen-50-21" id="en-NRSVCE-1528">Just as in the story of Joseph, and others, Squanto's story shows how God brings good even out of evil, so that many may be saved. I have no doubt that in His wisdom and mercy, God is doing the same for us today.</span></p><p><span class="text Gen-50-21" id="en-NRSVCE-1528">Thank you, God, for all the blessings you have given me; for family, friends, my health, prosperity, liberty, and most importantly the ability to know You and love You. I do not see the good in all things, and I complain day to day, but I have hope in Your mercy and firm faith that you will use this, as You do all things, for good.</span></p><p><span class="text Gen-50-21" id="en-NRSVCE-1528">May God bless you all on this unusual and trying Thanksgiving day!<br /></span></p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-66807883068022921622020-11-20T22:44:00.005-05:002020-11-20T22:44:51.074-05:00Disproportionately Affected<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ueR_plse000/X7iL5o24NFI/AAAAAAAAHZ0/xz_tIvT26IolWLRKcou0Aclr06yF2wAZACLcBGAsYHQ/s560/minorities_protest_jakarta.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="560" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ueR_plse000/X7iL5o24NFI/AAAAAAAAHZ0/xz_tIvT26IolWLRKcou0Aclr06yF2wAZACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/minorities_protest_jakarta.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>One thing I hear all the time from my Democratic friends is that a law is unjust because it disproportionately affects minorities. Crime laws are unjust because there is a disproportionately high number of minorities in prison. Drug laws are unjust because they disproportionately incarcerate minorities. And the old saw, voter ID laws are unjust because they disproportionately disenfranchise minorities. But is that true? Out of six studies performed from 2014 to 2018, three found no effect, one found an increase in minority voter participation, and one found a slight decrease. Guess which study gets all the publicity? Now, <a href="https://theconversation.com/voter-id-laws-dont-seem-to-suppress-minority-votes-despite-what-many-claim-114349">newer studies have debunked that</a>, finding flaws in the methodology of the study that found a decrease.<p></p><p>I'd like to look at it from the other side, however. I believe voter fraud disproportionately disenfranchises minorities. I was listening to <a href="https://www.iheart.com/podcast/867-hold-these-truths-with-dan-57531634/episode/how-to-rig-an-election-fraud-63265848/">this podcast by Dan Crenshaw</a> and, interestingly, one of the most common kinds of fraud is perpetrated by people who have houses in multiple states, who receive mail in ballots and vote in each state. Now I don't know about you, but I'm guessing you have to have money to own multiple houses, meaning the rich are disenfranchising the poor, and minorities. Another type of fraud is ballot harvesting, which again is likely ti disproportionately affect the poor and minorities, who live in more densely populated areas. Finally, there is the old gray train, going through minority-filled city neighborhoods and offering to "help" people with their votes, often with a promise of a meal or some money. Again, this is disenfranchising minorities.</p><p>Even if voter fraud were color blind, it would still disenfranchise minorities more than whites, because there are fewer of them. It's simple mathematics. Let's say there are 100 people voting, and 90 of them are white, 10 are black. It only takes 10% voter fraud by whites to completely eliminate the black vote, even if they all voted in one monolithic block. In a more realistic split, just 1% or 2% voter fraud will nullify any chance minorities have of influencing an election.</p><p>So it seems to me that is you really care about minority rights, the thing to do is enact laws to safeguard legal votes and eliminate voter fraud. Ignoring or encouraging fraud is just another racist policy of the racist Democrat party.<br /></p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-9333516238986833532020-10-28T18:05:00.004-04:002020-10-28T22:02:19.044-04:00If your world view is threatened...<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/Amy_Coney_Barrett_judge_robe.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/Amy_Coney_Barrett_judge_robe.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />...by a Supreme Court justice reading the Constitution as it is written, then you have not done government right. Here's why.<p></p><p>Let's say you want to make abortion legal everywhere. How do you do that? You get the senate and the house to vote on a bill, get it passed, get the president to sign it, and it becomes law. Likely that law will be challenged, and it will go to the supreme court. Let's say the court decides there is nothing in the Constitution to allow you to write such a law (hint, there isn't).</p><p>No problem, you simply write an amendment to the Constitution, get it passed by two thirds of the house and senate, and get three fourths of the states to ratify it. It then becomes the law of the land, and no amount of SCOTUS finagling should be able to knock it down. When the Republicans freed the slaves, gave them the right to vote, gave women the right to vote, etc. that's how they did it. And so you can't really have a Supreme Court justice decide to deny women the right to vote (for instance).<br /></p><p>The Democratic party, and sadly, a lot of Americans, think that the role of the Supreme Court justices is to "vote" for what they want. Conservative justices will always vote for conservative things and liberal justices will vote for liberal things. We need to have a balance, or a majority of people who will "vote" the right way. But that's not what the Supreme Court is supposed to be about. They are supposed to see if the laws being enacted correspond to what's written in the Constitution.</p><p>Will that stop some liberal policies from being enacted? Yes. It will also stop some conservative policies from being enacted. That's life. You either live within the rule of law, or there is no law, only raw power to oppress your opponents. Don't like the Constitution? As noted, there is an amendment process. If you can't get the amendment you want passed, it's because the American people actually don't want what you want, and you have no legal or moral authority to do what you want.</p><p>If Democrats wanted abortion to be legal everywhere, they have had forty seven years to pass a law, and potentially an amendment. Instead, they relied entirely on perverting the judicial branch, and now they are crying because they are in the minority. And their solution is still not to go the legal route (pass laws and/or an amendment) but threaten to impeach existing justices they don't like, or pack the court with ones they do. Pathetic.<br /></p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-60535821763626662342020-10-21T15:31:00.002-04:002020-10-22T13:49:15.828-04:00Seamless Garment Voting<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YdvZlfgtUDM/X5CKcaa8XOI/AAAAAAAAHM0/3QH05-pzkpU1rn2AX22B2MWYg-5aLZclACLcBGAsYHQ/s480/the-seamless-garment-l.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="480" height="191" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YdvZlfgtUDM/X5CKcaa8XOI/AAAAAAAAHM0/3QH05-pzkpU1rn2AX22B2MWYg-5aLZclACLcBGAsYHQ/w200-h191/the-seamless-garment-l.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>My Catholic friends fall into one of two categories: Democrats and others. The Democrats are all voting Democrat because of something called "the seamless garment." The others are voting based on Catholic non-negotiables.<p></p><p>Without going into too much detail, the concept of non-negotiables is mentioned in Pope Benedict XVI's <a href="http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html">Sacramentum Cartatis</a>. It basically says that there are some issues that are just wrong. You can't support them, even for the sake of doming some other good. These issues are the right to life, marriage and the family, and religious liberty.conscience rights. The idea is not that other issues aren't important, but that these issues are so fundamental to every moral good that support for them is abhorrent to morality.</p><p>The seamless garment theory was created by Cardinal Bernardin in 1984, and says that everything is connected, as are the threads in a single piece of cloth. This is, of course, true, and the idea of the seamless garment was to ground other issues, such as concern for the poor, peace, human rights, into a right relationship, all based on the fundamental rights mentioned above (aka non-negotiables). The problem is that it has been inverted by some Catholics to claim that all issues are morally equivalent because they are interrelated. This gives some Christians the notion that issues like immigration or the death penalty, for instance, are as important as abortion or euthanasia.</p><p>Of course, that is <b>not</b> what the seamless garment is about, but I thought it would be interesting to look at voting issues in terms of both the correct seamless garment theory and the distorted popular misconception of the seamless garment theory. Where do the parties stand? Is there a reason to vote Democrat under the seamless garment misconception?<br /></p><p><b>Abortion</b></p><p>The Democratic party and the Biden/Harris ticket are not only in favor of legalized abortion, they want to support and increase it, both in number of abortions and in type of abortions. Making Roe v. Wade law, using tax payer funding to pay for abortions, making abortion part of foreign aid and coercing foreign countries to relax their own abortion restrictions will all increase the numbers of abortions. They have also called for eliminating all restrictions on late term abortions, allowing abortions for any reason and at any stage in pregnancy, even up to (and possibly after) birth and denying health care to already born babies who are not "wanted." No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>Transgender</b></p><p>Pope Francis, when asked what the preeminent issues for voting were, replied that abortion was preeminent, but it wasn't the only serious issue - he mentioned "transgender" as another extremely important issue. The Democrats and Biden/Harris have called for expansion of transgender "rights" by saying that transgender people must be allowed to choose to compete in any gender's sports leagues, shower and change in and gender's rooms, and force individuals and businesses to recognize the gender they choose. Biden has called for children as young as eight to choose their own gender without anybody being able to deny them. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>Religious Liberty/Conscience Rights</b></p><p>Democrats have called for an end to religious "exceptions" and a repeal of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Biden has said he plans to prosecute the Little Sisters of the Poor over their refusal to pay for abortifacients. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>Other non-negotiables</b></p><p>To keep this short, let's just say that on fetal tissue research, same sex marriage, school choice, parental rights, etc., no matter which criteria you use, these are all reasons not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>Racism</b></p><p>The Democratic party is the party of racism. From the KKK to segregation, the Democratic party has opposed every piece of civil rights legislation. Harris aggressively prosecuted minorities, and even withheld information that might have freed inmates. Harris' family owned slaves. Biden authored a crime bill which gave lengthy prison sentences to minorities who committed minor offenses. Biden has made numerous disparaging comments about blacks. Many of the parties policies are racist, or support racist organizations, like Planned Parenthood, which was created to reduce the population of minorities, and still does through aggressive advertising aimed at them, and by placing abortuaries mainly in minority populated areas. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>Immigration</b></p><p>The Democratic party favors open borders and non-enforcement of immigration laws in the US. This policy has been disastrous for immigrants, exposing them to criminals and sacrificing their safety. A recent study showed that 80% of all women who entered the US illegally were sexually assaulted in the process. In addition, human trafficking (aka slave trading), drug trafficking, and weapons trafficking are all enabled by the Democrats' policies. It was Democrats who "invented" separating children from parents and keeping them in cages at the border. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>Climate</b></p><p>The Democratic party favors shutting down the US fossil fuel industry. This ensures that all the fossil fuels used will be environmentally dirty, and extracted without benefit of US environmental protections. In addition, they want to mandate solar and wind power. Both of these technologies are destructive of the environment, and not sustainable. Because they are intermittent, they do not reduce the need to have fossil fue powered backup plants. Because they are diffuse, the amount of land that would need to be stripped to supply the energy needs of the US is four times the total land area of the US. The energy used to make a solar panel is close to the total amount of energy it will produce, and the materials used are toxic, and will eventually seep into ground water. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>War</b></p><p>Despite lip service to peace, Democrats have not followed through. The Obama administration (of which Biden was a part) made unprecedented use of drone strikes, killing 3,500 people, including American citizens, without due process of law, or a congressional declaration of war. He ramped up military activity and broke agreements with our allies. Billions in cash were clandestinely delivered to enemies of the US. On the flip side, President Trump has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering peace in the Middle east, in Europe and Africa. The war in Afghanistan is finally coming to an end under President Trump. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>Law and Order<br /></b></p><p>As a senator Biden pushed for a crime bill that directly led to the unconstitutional "stop and frisk" policy, and directly led to the current crisis of minorities in prison. He is (finally) under investigation for his "quid pro quo" deals with Ukrainian officials to get his son a job, and to interfere in criminal investigations into his dealings. Biden and Harris have refused to condemn burning and looting in
our cities (in fact, Harris said that the looting "should continue").
There was the weaponization of the IRS under the Obama
administration, the weaponization now of the media and social media,
Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc. Harris refused to look into credible evidence of trafficking in human organs by Planned Parenthood, and instead colluded with them, took money from them, and prosecuted the journalist who uncovered their crimes. She withheld evidence that could have cleared two black men on death row. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>Civility</b></p><p>One reason I have heard is that the Democrats are "civil" unlike President Trump. So let's look at how civil they are. Consider the Kavanaugh hearings, the Clarence Thomas hearings, etc. - they even invented a word "borking" for what the Democrats did to Supreme Court nominee Bork. They repeatedly called the president names, called him racist, despite a lack of evidence. In the first debate, Biden interrupted the president many times, calling him a "clown" and other names. Half of Americans have been called "deplorable" and "racist"... I could go on, but I think it is clear that no matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>Health Care</b></p><p>The Democrats favor a return to Obamacare. The problem is that Obamacare doesn't solve any problems, but rather, institutionalizes them in government bureaucracy. In other words, instead of making drugs cheaper to manufacture, or regulating drug profits, it merely forces everyone to share the cost. From a Catholic perspective this goes against the principle of subsidiarity, that problems are best solved locally, not in a one-size-fits-all approach. It also doesn't make sense from a purely secular perspective. Lastly, it is not economically feasible. Obamacare worked for a few years because parts of it had their costs deferred to future years. In the next few years, as those costs kick in, premiums will become even more astronomical. The problems that it claims to solve - uninsured people, preexisting conditions - were either not actual problems, or have already been solved in other (better) ways. Jesus calls us to care for the sick. He does not call on us to take money from our neighbors to pay for it. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>Voter Suppression</b></p><p>The Democratic party is the party of voter suppression, with a history that goes all the way back to Jim Crow laws, poll tests, etc. Today Democrats claim that voter ID laws are voter suppression, based on the racist theory that minorities aren't capable of getting government ID, yet they don't consider it suppression to require government ID to driver, receive government benefits, health care, etc. What they are pushing is lax election laws that encourage fraud. Voter fraud is voter suppression, since every "extra" vote cast nullifies the vote of a real voter who voted the other way. Given that minorities are minorities their votes are more easily nullified by voter fraud, so actually voter ID laws would help ensure minorities votes counted. No matter which criteria you use, this is a reason not to vote Democrat.</p><p><b>Death Penalty</b></p><p>Yes, the party platform states that Democrats oppose the death penalty, which takes the lives of about 20 convicted criminals per year in the US. Republicans are split on this issue.</p><p><b>Conclusion</b></p><p>In short, there is no issue, other than perhaps the death penalty, where the Democratic party does not directly go against Catholic teaching or the good of society. Even if you say all these issues are equivalent in moral value, the death of 20 people does not add up to the rest of the issues. Abortion alone kills 75 million human beings every year.<br /></p><p> <br /></p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-22752472403170519542020-10-10T13:25:00.002-04:002020-10-10T13:25:32.295-04:00Quarantine<p><span data-offset-key="1btjh-0-0"><span data-text="true"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/thepointsguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/GettyImages-114854171.jpg?fit=2121%2C1414px&ssl=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="133" src="https://i0.wp.com/thepointsguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/GettyImages-114854171.jpg?fit=2121%2C1414px&ssl=1" width="200" /></a></div>As you may or may not know, we went to Florida a little while ago, to visit my in-laws, and so we are in our "voluntary quarantine" phase. So naturally I've been thinking about New Jersey's quarantine rules.<p></p><p><span data-offset-key="1btjh-0-0"><span data-text="true">I understand the desire to quarantine people who have traveled in order to slow the spread of the virus. That's sound science. But NJ doesn't quarantine all travelers, only ones coming from certain states. And that I find puzzling.</span></span></p><p><span data-offset-key="1btjh-0-0"><span data-text="true">If you quarantine people based on the distance they travel, that makes sense. By trying to localize contact points to spread the virus, you would keep outbreaks, if any occur, local.<br /></span></span></p><p><span data-offset-key="1btjh-0-0"><span data-text="true">If you quarantine people based on how they travel, that also makes sense. For instance, we traveled by air, and were exposed to TSA workers, people in the airport, the other people on the plane, the previous occupants of the plane, etc. - literally hundreds of contacts. If we had traveled by RV, we might only have been exposed when buying food and gas.</span></span></p><p><span data-offset-key="1btjh-0-0"><span data-text="true">But New Jersey does neither of these, but quarantines based on state. Now at the time we were in Florida, the case rate and death rate for people in Florida was half of what it was in New Jersey during the same period. So we are less likely to have been bringing the virus from Florida than if we had visited Freehold. Where is the "science" behind that?<br /></span></span></p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-61089031908549584292020-09-27T15:43:00.000-04:002020-09-27T15:43:01.141-04:00Who's life matters?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yNOJB1zpzSY/X3DrEniRLiI/AAAAAAAAHJc/jk606MMzbhMZHUOULjUSdapdnWJMgR0IwCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/640-o-BLACK-BABY-facebook.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yNOJB1zpzSY/X3DrEniRLiI/AAAAAAAAHJc/jk606MMzbhMZHUOULjUSdapdnWJMgR0IwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/640-o-BLACK-BABY-facebook.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Over the past few weeks I have been excoriated by several friends (who have, for the most part, unfriended me over this issue) for not repeating the phrase "Black Lives Matter." To paraphrase the common argument (I'd quote it but I am blocked from being able to read what they wrote).<p></p><p>"You can't say 'all lives matter' when black lives are especially at risk. As long as black people are being killed we have to say 'black lives matter.'"</p><p>And I get it. I really do. The reason I don't parrot the slogan is that it doesn't mean what it claims to mean. But the argument I was given got me to thinking. People are donating billions of dollars, holding demonstrations around the country, and wanting to make sweeping changes to our entire society to correct the issue of police killing blacks.</p><p>In 2019, the <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124036/number-people-killed-police-ethnicity-us/" target="_blank">number of black killed by police was 259</a>. That's sad. But in the <a href="https://www.statista.com/chart/19490/us-abortion-rate-guttmacher-institute/" target="_blank">same year, some 865,000 children were killed in abortions</a>. An <a href="http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa_abortion_by_race.html" target="_blank">estimated 300,000</a> of those children were black.</p><p>So a black child is over 1000 times as likely to be killed by its mother in an abortion than to be killed by police. Where is "Black Lives Matter" over this? Where is the outrage? The billions in funding? The demonstrations? The only ones who care about these children are those in the pro-life movement. Their demonstrations are poorly funded and not even acknowledged by the media, until president Trump started attending.</p><p>If you want me to chant "Black Lives Matter" with you start caring about black lives, you hypocrites!<br /></p><p><br /></p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-22183440760232390762020-08-29T01:13:00.002-04:002020-08-29T11:57:15.836-04:00A Biden truth<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SI8rLC9SgII/X0ng7vOUwvI/AAAAAAAAHF8/teP6Zmw3Bro8KWYPjw9-TMR12f7KRKlDQCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/bh.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1374" data-original-width="2048" height="274" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SI8rLC9SgII/X0ng7vOUwvI/AAAAAAAAHF8/teP6Zmw3Bro8KWYPjw9-TMR12f7KRKlDQCLcBGAsYHQ/w410-h274/bh.jpg" width="410" /></a></div>In my post on <a href="https://wdmt.blogspot.com/2020/08/presidential-impeccability.html" target="_blank">Presidential Impeccability</a> I discussed can a Catholic vote for Donald Trump. Now I'd like to tackle the flip side, can a Catholic vote for Joe Biden. Just as in the case of Donald Trump, the answer hinges on the three "non-negoatiables" (please see the post linked to above for the whole discussion on non-negotiables.<p></p><p>Many of my friends who plan to vote for Joe Biden tell me they're actually voting for Kamala Harris, because they don't feel Joe Biden will be able to serve all (or maybe any) of his term. With that in mind I'm writing this as "can a Catholic vote for Joe Biden <i>or</i> Kamala Harris, and will be presenting material regarding both candidates.</p><p>So without further ado, let's go through the list:</p><p><b>On the dignity of human life from conception to natural death</b> Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are not acceptable. Joe Biden has a 100% abortion support rating from Planned Parenthood and Naral. In 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood was struck down, upholding and affirming Roe v. Wade, due to a single vote, by Justice David Souter, whom Joe Biden had helped approve for SCOTUS. On the day this happened, fellow senator Warren Rudman <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/paulkengor/2009/05/05/when-biden-and-rudman-wept-n1119895" target="_blank">describes meeting Joe</a> as follows:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>“At first, I didn’t see Joe; then I spotted him waving at me from far
down the platform,” Rudman later recorded in his memoirs, Combat:
Twelve Years in the U.S. Senate. “Joe had agonized over his vote for
David, and I knew how thrilled he must be. We started running through
the crowd toward each other, and when we met, we embraced, laughing and
crying.”
</p><p>An ecstatic Biden wept tears of joy, telling Rudman over and over: “You were right about him [Souter]! ... You were right!”
</p><p>The two men were so jubilant, so giddy—practically dancing—that
Rudman said onlookers thought they were crazy: “[B]ut we just kept
laughing and yelling and hugging each other because sometimes, there are
happy endings.”
</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Joe Biden opposes the Hyde amendment, which forbids using federal dollars to pay for abortions. He has promised to repeal the Mexico City policy, which forbids using federal money to support expansion of abortion in foreign countries. <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/08/28/joe-bidens-2012-speech-china-i-totally-understand-one-child-policy/" target="_blank">Biden is ok with China's "one child" policy</a> of force abortion and sterilizations. Biden said he was <a href="http://www.euthanasia.com/biden.html" target="_blank">"proud" to support a euthanasia bill</a>.<br /></p><p>Kamala Harris also has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and Naral. She opposes the Pain Capable Child Protection Act, which would limit late term abortions. Harris co-sponsored the “Women’s Health Protection Act,” which calls for abortion without limits until birth. Harris announced that as president she would
require states that have a history of passing pro-life laws to seek
preclearance from the Justice Department before they could enact any laws that would impact abortion on demand. Under her plan, any
new pro-life laws would be considered unenforceable without
preclearance from the Justice Department.</p><p>As Attorney General of California, when presented with video evidence that Planned Parenthood was committing crimes by illegally selling body parts, Harris <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/daleiden-explains-how-biden-vp-pick-kamala-harris-abused-police-powers-for-planned-parenthood" target="_blank">colluded with Planned Parenthood to charge</a> the reporters with crimes. That case is still ongoing, and Planned Parenthood still has not been investigated.<b> </b></p><p><b>On the dignity of marriage and family</b>, Joe Biden has <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/joe-biden-performs-his-first-marriage-between-two-men" target="_blank">performed a same sex marriage</a>. stuff<br />
The protection of the right of parents to educate their children. </p><p>As A.G. of California Kamala Harris <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-abortion-health-care-positions-issues/" target="_blank">refused to defend Proposition 8,</a> the ballot initiative where Californian voters declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. A direct result of that was the legalization of same sex marriage in California<b>.</b></p><p><b>On the protection of the right of parents to educate their children</b>, Joe Biden wants to <a href="https://www.redstate.com/heartlandinstitute/2020/07/29/joe-biden-declares-war-on-school-choice/" target="_blank">eliminate charter schools</a> and eliminate funding sources for private schools. Kamala Harris has not voiced an opinion on the matter, although her overt bias against religious freedom and <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kamala-harriss-anti-catholic-bigotry/" target="_blank">Catholics in particular</a> make it unlikely she is a friend of private schools.</p><p>So... in pretty much every non-negotiable bot Biden and Harris are unacceptable candidates for a Catholic.</p><p>...and yet so many Catholics, even ones who claim to follow the Magisterium, plan to vote for them. Here's why I think, not only are they wrong, but they are putting their immortal souls in danger. The Catechism says:</p><p style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;"><b>1857 </b>For a <i>sin </i>to be <i>mortal</i>, three conditions
must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter
and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."</p><p> So, the question is, is voting for Biden/Harris considered grave matter? Certainly being involved in abortion is (performing one, have one performed, paying for one, enabling another person to have one). But what about voting for abortion? In <a href="http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html" target="_blank">Evangelium Vitae</a>, Pope John Paul II writes:</p><p><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql a8c37x1j irj2b8pg enqfppq2 jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" dir="auto"></span></p><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"></div><blockquote><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Therefore,
by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors,
in communion with the Bishops... I declare that direct abortion, that
is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave
moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human
being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written
Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the
ordinary and universal Magisterium. </div></blockquote><blockquote><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">No
circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act
which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God
which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and
proclaimed by the Church. </div></blockquote><blockquote><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Abortion
and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to
legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws;
instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by
conscientious objection...</div></blockquote><blockquote><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">In
the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting
abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to
'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for
it.</div></blockquote><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Please take the time to go read all of Evangelium Vitae. It is not a long read, and there is so much more there and the brief excerpts I have included above.</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"> </div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">I would think that would settle things, but I have heard two arguments to "get around" this teaching and vote for Biden/Harris.</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">The first argument involves a note, that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote at the bottom of a <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/worthiness-to-receive-holy-communion-general-principles-2153" target="_blank">fraternal letter to the US bishops</a>:</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"> </div><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;">A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so
unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to
deliberately vote for a candidate <i>precisely</i> because of the
candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic
does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or
euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is
considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the
presence of proportionate reasons. <br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"> </div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">From this some have concluded that as long as they say "I don't like abortion, but boy, that Joe Biden has a better plan for 'X' than Trump" they can freely vote for whomever they please with a clean conscience. However, they ignore the phrase "can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." What does "can be permitted" and what are proportionate reasons?</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"> </div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">"Can be permitted" in the context of the letter means "still able to receive Holy Communion" - in other words, he's not saying it's fine, just that it's not a mortal sin. <br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">As for proportionate means, what is "proportionate" to the brutal murder of close to a million completely innocent human lives every year? The answer is really only one thing - the brutal murder of even more completely innocent human lives. That is, if you were voting for a pro-abortion candidate because if you didn't a worse pro-abortion candidate would win. George Weigel explains it much better than I could in <a href="https://eppc.org/publications/cardinal-ratzinger-and-the-conscience-of-catholic-voters/" target="_blank">this article</a>. The situation is not simple, but it is clearly not the case that this note is a "loophole" to let Catholics ignore 2,000 years of church teaching.<br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">What about climate change? If the world ends in twelve years that kills more people than abortion. Could that be a proportionate reason? For this to be a proportionate reason, we would at least have to be as certain about those deaths as we are about the reality of abortion. That presupposes the following:</div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Biden/Harris alone have the power to change the earth's climate (e.g. the president has the power necessary to unilaterally change things).</li><li>Biden/Harris will change the climate as their top priority (e.g. it's not a campaign promise).</li><li>There is no other way to change the climate (e.g. we cannot work with any other lawmakers to address the problem)</li></ul><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">There are problems right away with those assumptions. Although Biden has said he will eliminate fossil fuels by 2050 he has not proposed how that can be done (<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#63f298fe35f7" target="_blank">hint: it can't</a>). Also, given that it was a priority for Obama/Biden for eight years, and there were no significant steps taken, it is unlikely that Biden/Harris can/will make such changes in half that time.</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"> </div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">It is also unclear whether the methods the Democrats have proposed will even have a positive impact on climate. For instance, many of the initiatives put in place during the Obama/Biden administration, such as electric vehicles and solar power, simply moved environmentally dirty operations off to China and other countries with lax environmental laws and emissions exceptions in the Paris agreement. The current administrations' insistence on manufacturing things in the US has actually cleaned up some industries and reduced pollution, and Trump's <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-releases-2019-year-review-highlighting-agency-accomplishments-and-environmental" target="_blank">Affordable Clean Energy Act</a> is projected to reduce CO2 emissions by 35% by 2050. It is not at all a black and white issue.</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">In short, it is not a proportionate reason.<br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">The second argument is that voting for a candidate is not the same as voting in favor of the policy. To me this seems a bit of a stretch because the only reason to vote for a candidate is because you want them to implement the policies you approve of. I suppose you could say "I don't care what the candidate's policies are, I just vote straight Democrat" but why vote Democrat unless you like the policies of the Democratic party (which are also <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/over-100-democratic-politicians-call-for-platform-changes-to-welcome-pro-lifers-59603" target="_blank">extremely pro-abortion</a>).</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Another way to look at this is to use an analogy. Could a southerner in the Civil Ware era<span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql a8c37x1j irj2b8pg enqfppq2 jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" dir="auto"> say "I support Jefferson Davis and the south, but that's not
related to supporting slavery?" As any honest person will tell you "A vote for Jeff
Davis is a vote to preserve our southern institutions" (aka slavery).
Likewise a vote for Biden is a vote to expand "women's healthcare" (aka
abortion). When something is as integral to a person's platform as abortion is to Biden/Harris it is disingenuous to claim that your vote will not be an approval for them to go ahead with their support of abortion.</span></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql a8c37x1j irj2b8pg enqfppq2 jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" dir="auto"> </span></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql a8c37x1j irj2b8pg enqfppq2 jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" dir="auto">Ironically enough, this very same argument was used by Planned Parenthood to skirt the law against <a href="https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-employees-oath-illegally-altering-abortions/" target="_blank">performing partial birth abortions</a>.</span></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql a8c37x1j irj2b8pg enqfppq2 jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" dir="auto"> </span></div><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql a8c37x1j irj2b8pg enqfppq2 jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" dir="auto">“The federal abortion ban is a law, and laws are up to interpretation.
So there are some people who interpret it as, it’s intent. <em>So if I say on day one, ‘I do not intend to do this,’ what ultimately happens doesn’t matter</em>.” (emphasis added) <br /></span></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql a8c37x1j irj2b8pg enqfppq2 jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" dir="auto"><br /></span></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql a8c37x1j irj2b8pg enqfppq2 jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" dir="auto">For these reasons, I believe if you as a Catholic vote for Biden/Harris with full knowledge (knowing what has been discussed in this post) and consent, you are at risk of committing a mortal sin. I know people will excoriate me for pushing an agenda, and I <i>am</i> pushing an agenda, but my agenda is not political, it's spiritual. I don't want you, dear reader, to be in sin. Even if it is not mortal.</span></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql a8c37x1j irj2b8pg enqfppq2 jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" dir="auto"> </span></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql a8c37x1j irj2b8pg enqfppq2 jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" dir="auto">My other agenda is that we have, for the first time since 1973, a real chance to reduce the number of abortions in the US. Under president Trump abortions are already at the lowest level on over a decade. Having a president who promotes a pro-life cause, appoints pro-life judges, and allows pro-lifers to have a voice in government and the public square is already starting to change minds and hearts.<br /></span></div></div><p></p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-41683294563851536702020-08-26T23:53:00.000-04:002020-08-26T23:53:16.655-04:00Presidential Impeccability<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vSIEwpBTssU/X0cqcb6QfXI/AAAAAAAAHFY/gLJhtDwmogMIANmpetDtc5mBdGMoL45xQCLcBGAsYHQ/s992/president-trump-ap-jef-190128_hpMain_4x3_992.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="744" data-original-width="992" height="246" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vSIEwpBTssU/X0cqcb6QfXI/AAAAAAAAHFY/gLJhtDwmogMIANmpetDtc5mBdGMoL45xQCLcBGAsYHQ/w328-h246/president-trump-ap-jef-190128_hpMain_4x3_992.jpg" width="328" /></a></div><br />As you may or may not know, I expend a lot of effort into determining who to vote for. I don't believe in party politics, but in examining the positions and policies of individual candidates, and choose the one according to the principles of my faith and conscience. On the odd chance that you care what Mike thinks I will share my views about voting in general, and in the 2020 presidential election, in particular.<p></p><p>But the focus of this post is not to do all of that, but to speak to a particular issue - can a Catholic vote for Donald Trump given that he is "X" (substitute your own value for X - liar, adulterer, racist, etc.). I have seen a lot of arguments along the lines of<br />A: "Catholics can't vote for Biden because he is pro-abortion."<br />B: "Well, then Catholics can't vote for Trump because 'X'. therefore Catholics are free to vote for Biden as the lesser of two evils."</p><p>First off, there are more than two candidates. If you can't vote for Biden, that doesn't mean you have to vote for Trump, and vice versa. There are several other candidates, such as Brian Carroll, or Tom Hoefling, who embrace most of Catholic social teaching without being Joe Biden or Donald Trump. If you honestly can't vote in good conscience for either major party candidate, rather than violate your principles, vote for one of them, or write in another candidate. "But that is throwing away my vote" - nonsense. It is staying true to your values. If being on the "winning" side in a political contest is more important than your conscience and moral values, you need to rethink your priorities.</p><p>Back to the issue at hand. There are "non-negotiables" from a Catholic perspective. These are <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/vote/" target="_blank">explained here</a>, and I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here is a summary. From the EWTN site, the distinction is as follows:</p><p></p><blockquote><p><b>Non-negotiable issues</b> involving <b>essential moral goods</b>
(e.g. life, liberty) are the most important. Essential goods directly
oppose intrinsic evils which may never morally be chosen.</p>
<p><b>Negotiable issues</b>, on the other hand,
are not matters of essential goodness or evilness. Rather, they involve
determining the best means, or policies, to achieve good ends.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>If a candidate (in any race, not just POTUS) promotes any non-negotiable issues, a Catholic may not support that candidate unless there are no candidates who do not support non-negotiables, in which case he must vote for the candidate who he believes will do the least harm.<br /></p><p>In the 2016 election, there were five non-negotiable issues identified specifically.</p><ul style="list-style-type: undefined;"><li>Abortion</li><li>Human Cloning</li><li>Euthanasia (assisted suicide)</li><li>Stem Cell Research</li><li>Homosexual "Marriage"</li></ul><p>In the 2020 elections, this is the list.</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>
<b></b>The dignity of human life from conception to natural death.
</li><li>
The dignity of marriage and family, upon which the good of every society and the human race itself depends.
</li><li>
The protection of the right of parents to educate their children. </li></ol><p>What happened? Did some issues become "negotiable"? Did new ones become "non-negotiable?" Part of it depends on what's at stake in an election. In 2016 parental rights to educate children wasn't an issue at all - nobody was attacking that right. Now that right is threatened. The first four issues on the list did not go away, but have been combined into one item in this year's guidance.</p><p>Note that this list does not say anything about the impeccability (moral character) of the candidate. While moral character is important, we are not trying to canonize the person, we are hiring them to do a job, and the important thing is whether or not they will do a good job, not whether or not they have a good personal life. Unless Jesus or Mary are eon the ballot (and boy, I wish they were) we are always going to be voting for someone who is a sinner.</p><p>Now let's look at where Donald Trump stands on those issues, and others.</p><p><b>On the dignity of human life</b> from conception to natural death, Donald Trump has been a steadfast champion. He has spoken numerous times about the dignity of human life. He is the first president to promote and attend the March for Life. He has done everything in his power to defund Planned Parenthood. He has surrounded himself with pro-life people, like Marjorie Danenenfelser, Alveda King, Abby Johnson, and others. He has appointed Supreme Court justices and federal judges who interpret the Constitution as it was originally written (and hence can work towards the overturn of Roe v Wade). Likewise his <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/trump-bioethics-supreme-court/515250/" target="_blank">judicial choices oppose euthanasia</a>. He has criticized and removed funding for fetal tissue research.<br /></p><p>I have heard objections that Planned Parenthood's funding is at its highest level this year. That is not due to Donald Trump, but house Democrats, who have increased funding to make up for Trump's funding cuts. You can't blame a man for something someone else did.</p><p>I've also heard objections that Trump is not pro-life because he does "X" (supports the death penalty, puts kids in cages, wants to arrest immigrants, didn't fund social welfare program "Y", etc.). Some of those criticisms are justified, others are specious, but the one thing they have in common are that they are not non-negotiables. We cannot conflate not letting someone into your country with dismembering a baby. One is a prudential decision which may or may not be best for the common good, the other is murder, plain and simple.</p><p><b>On the dignity of marriage and family</b>, Donald Trump has, for the most part, been a force for good. Again, his judicial nominations have been pro-family, and pro-religious freedom. According to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-says-he-s-fine-gay-marriage-60-minutes-interview-n683606" target="_blank">an NBC News report</a> Trump said, referring to same sex marriage:</p><p class="endmarkEnabled"></p><blockquote><p class="endmarkEnabled">“It’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law,” Trump said <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-promises-pro-life-justices-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage/">in a "60 Minutes" interview </a>that
aired Sunday night. “It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s
done. These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled.
And I’m fine with that.”</p><p class="endmarkEnabled">These
comments appear to contradict statements Trump made during an interview
with Fox News' Chris Wallace in January, where he said he would "<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/31/ted-cruz-attacks-donald-trump-financial-record-trump-responds/">strongly consider</a>" appointing Supreme Court justices who would repeal same-sex marriage.</p></blockquote><p class="endmarkEnabled"></p><p class="endmarkEnabled">Does that mean Trump supports a non-negotiable? I think it is a matter of personal interpretation. I see it as something similar to what Bishop Robert Barron said in an <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-barron-tells-gay-interviewer-i-wouldnt-press-to-reverse-gay-marriage">interview on the Rubin Report</a>.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Rubin questioned the bishop on his “personal feelings” about the
Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling that legalized homosexual “marriage”:
“I assume you felt it was a wrong decision by the court?”</p>
<p>“I do,” replied Barron. “But I don’t think I want to press it
further. I think where we are right now in the States, I’ll apply the
Aquinas principle. I think it would probably cause much more problems
and dissension and difficulty if we keep pressing it.”</p></blockquote><p></p><p>In other words, not wanting to press the issue at this time is a far cry from endorsing it. Given the second part of NBC's coverage, and other remarks the president has made, it seems clear that he does not support same sex marriage, nor does he believe Obergefell was correct, but it is not a hill to die on right now. Making this a campaign issue would likely cause more problems than it would help.</p><p>Still, if you personally feel those two words "I'm fine" undo his support of marriage and family in other areas and indicate true support for same sex marriage, then yes, you would have to not vote for Trump as a good Catholic.</p><p><b>On the right for parents to educate their children</b> Trump is a strong ally. He has championed conscience rights, religious freedom, school choice and homeschooling without government interference. His choice for secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, is very much in favor of private and religious schools and homeschooling. The president's judicial nominees have been in favor of parental rights and religious rights.</p><p>All in all, I think you have to say that barring two words, made in a 60 Minutes interview, there is nothing you can point to about the president supporting non-negoatiable issues. Even those two words "I'm fine" do not, in my opinion, indicate "support" or "endorsement" of a non-negotiable. In fact, as the president's detractors point out, his actions have contradicted those two words.</p><p>I also see Catholics decrying other "non-negotiable" issues that the president supposedly supports. Here are a few:</p><p>The president supports the death penalty. This is true, but the death penalty is not a non-negotiable. According to Pope Francis' latest statements on the issue the death penalty is no longer needed. That does not change the church's long standing teaching that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Abortion is intrinsically evil because it is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. In the case of the death penalty, the human being isn't innocent, and is being killed in a manner of self defense. We shouldn't kill if we have a better means of defense, which is Pope Francis' point, but that doesn't change the teaching, just the circumstances.</p><p>The president is pro-gay because he appointed Richard Grenell
acting director of the Office of National Intelligence, which made him
the first openly gay Cabinet member. In addition, president Trump has worked to decriminalize homosexuality in the 69 countries where it is illegal, and worked on a plan to eradicate HIV/AIDS. The catechism says, <a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm" target="_blank">paragraph 2358</a>:</p><p><span class="text"></span></p><p style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: left;"><b>2358</b> The number of men and women who have
deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination,
which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.
They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every
sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These
persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are
Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the
difficulties they may encounter from their condition. </p><p>There is no reason not to hire a homosexual person for a job if their sexuality does not impact their ability to perform it, and if they are qualified. In fact, it would be unjust not to. Decriminalizing homosexuality sounds bad, until you realize that most of the criminal penalties being discussed are death. I don't think anybody believes that is just. And eradicating HIV/AIDS is a work of mercy. The disease is not restricted to homosexuals, and even if it were, they deserve to have their health needs met. Although homosexual acts are to be avoided, people with homosexual inclinations should be treated with respect and compassion.</p><p>Again, if you honestly feel that this constitutes promoting homosexuality, then by all means vote your conscience. To me this, like his words "I'm fine" do not rise to the level of support.</p><p>So can a Catholic vote for Donald Trump in good conscience? I believe one can. There are a few items (his reluctance to challenge Obergefell at this time, and his call for other countries to stop locking up and executing homosexuals) that one could interpret in such a way as to eliminate him as a potential candidate, but I don't believe either of these constitutes support of these issues, merely prudential decisions to get support to address larger issues, like the abortion of almost one million innocent children.<br /></p><p></p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-48316123130540359942020-07-01T17:04:00.003-04:002020-07-01T17:04:51.776-04:00No White People!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ns-b5K_JarA/XvyXE48mCgI/AAAAAAAAG3Y/4UJp4uxCH38znWWNwOwrjurKvbWAFsXTgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/black-jesus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="356" data-original-width="475" height="238" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ns-b5K_JarA/XvyXE48mCgI/AAAAAAAAG3Y/4UJp4uxCH38znWWNwOwrjurKvbWAFsXTgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/black-jesus.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I'm seeing a lot of people making the claim "There are no white people in the Bible." The best response I've seen is "how about Lot's wife?" but seriously, this claim is ludicrous.<br />
<br />
My first thought is "who cares?" If we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and race doesn't matter, why are we racially profiling Biblical people?<br />
<br />
The impetus behind this claim seems to be to somehow discredit art which depicts Christ or other Biblical figures as white, or perhaps the idea in white people's minds that Biblical figures are "like them." Again, who cares? Isn't the whole point of the Bible that Biblical figures are like you and I? For that matter, every culture has depicted Biblical figures as members of their own culture. This is not an attempt to deny the historical lineage of the person, but to make the person more relatable to the viewer. New flash - the purpose of literature and art is not always to depict everything literally.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Virgen_de_guadalupe1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="514" height="200" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Virgen_de_guadalupe1.jpg" width="128" /></a></div>
Additionally, when Jesus and Mary have appeared in visions to people, they appear as members of the culture that person belongs to. Take Our Lady of Guadalupe, for instance. Mary appeared as a young pregnant Aztec girl, who spoke to St. Juan Diego in his native Nahuatl language.<br />
<br />
I won't go through the numerous depictions of Jesus and Mary in art, but <a href="https://trendspost.com/depictions-of-jesus-around-the-world/" target="_blank">here's an article with a small sampling of them</a>.<br />
<br />
But the real point of this post is to debunk the claim that there are no white people in the Bible. Skin color is mentioned only a few times in the Bible. The only places I can think of are <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jer+13%3A23&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">Jeremiah 13:23</a> "<span class="text Jer-13-23" id="en-NRSVCE-23176">Can </span>Ethiopians change<span class="text Jer-13-23" id="en-NRSVCE-23176"> their skin </span><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"></span><span class="text Jer-13-23">or leopards their spots?" - presumably referring to the dark color of the skin of Ethiopians - and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+1%3A5&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">Song of Solomon 1:5</a> "</span></span><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="text Song-1-5" id="en-NRSVCE-19613">I am black and beautiful,</span><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Song-1-5">O daughters of Jerusalem." So it would seem we have ample evidence of dark skinned people in the Bible.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5">However, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+5%3A10&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">Song of Solomon 5:10</a> says "</span></span></span></span><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="text Song-5-10" id="en-NRSVCE-19679">My beloved is all radiant and ruddy</span><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Song-5-10">distinguished among ten thousand." Ruddy meaning red. Hard to be red when you're black. Furthermore, later in the same chapter, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+5%3A14-15&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">verses 14-15</a> say "</span></span></span></span></span></span><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="text Song-5-14">His body is ivory wor</span></span></span></span></span></span></span>k, encrusted with sapphires. His legs are alabaster columns, set upon bases of g<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15">old." Alabaster and Ivory are light colored. My reading of this is that the lovers described in the book are a light skinned or white male and a black female.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15">Both Esau and David are described as ruddy as well and at least in Esau's case it is describing his hairiness. Did they have red hair? Reddish skin? Were they "white?" Who cares. but it seems at least possible, if not likely.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15">I guess some of it depends on who you consider to be white. An Aryan, white supremacist Nazi type person would say that only the Aryan race is truly white and all others are inferior. However, we are not Aryans, white supremacists, or Nazis. To contemporary Americans, white generally means of European descent, including Mediterranean cultures and Hispanics. At least that's the way race is considered in government forms and statistics. So let's look at whiteness from that perspective, especially since we're looking at this from a contemporary perspective.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15">There are Greeks in the Bible. Greece is a European country these days, but even in antiquity, Greeks were descended from various people, including white skinned people, and certainly at least some of them were what we would call "white." But regardless of skin color, Greeks are considered white today.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15">There are Romans in the Bible. Rome was and is in Italy. Italians are considered white.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15">There are many references to Tarshish in the Old Testament. The exact <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarshish" target="_blank">location of Tarshish</a> is lost to history, but some scholars think it was in Spain or even Britain. Spanish people are considered white, as are British people.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15">Lastly there are the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Galatia" target="_blank">Galatians</a>. The Galatians were Celtic people originally of France and the Balkans. Celts and eastern Europeans are considered white.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15">So yes, Virginia, there were white people in the Bible, even excluding Lot's wife. So stop virtue signalling with incorrect statements about the Bible.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Jer-13-23"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-1-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-10"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Song-5-15">
N.B. if you want to discount Italians, Greeks, etc. as being non-white
because of the way people were classified in antebellum times, note also
that Catholics and Jews were not considered white, regardless of skin color, and so all religious
art would get a pass, since they are depicting non-whites (Jews and Catholics), regardless of
the color of the skin in the art.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-35004150784357524592020-05-31T16:28:00.002-04:002020-05-31T16:28:29.202-04:00The Wages of Sin is COVID?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JoMtgWkZQrU/XtQTUWpXDVI/AAAAAAAAGxE/ew5fnGjl78EH056kDO_-jPl3rkWhyomRQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/640-reap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="402" data-original-width="640" height="125" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JoMtgWkZQrU/XtQTUWpXDVI/AAAAAAAAGxE/ew5fnGjl78EH056kDO_-jPl3rkWhyomRQCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/640-reap.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
In one of the <a href="https://ascensionpress.com/pages/the-great-adventure" target="_blank">Great Adventure Bible studies</a> I was in, the host, Jeff Cavins, made a comment which had a profound effect on me. He said the punishment for sin was that it felt good. Think about that for a minute. What? Feels good? How is that a punishment? How does that square with "the wages of sin are death"? Oddly enough, they fit perfectly.<br />
<br />
What is the greatest good? Union with God. What is the effect of sin? Disunion with God - destroying the life of grace within us. If a sin feels good, it makes it all the harder to regain that union with God. In Genesis, Adam was to tend and guard the garden, and Eve was to be the mother of all. The effect of Adam's sin was "<span class="text Gen-3-17">cursed is the ground because of you; </span><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"></span><span class="text Gen-3-17">in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; </span></span><span class="text Gen-3-18" id="en-NRSVCE-74">thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you" - it became harder to fulfill what God had asked of him. Likewise Eve "</span><span class="text Gen-3-16">I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; </span><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"></span><span class="text Gen-3-16">in pain you shall bring forth children."</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16">In his book <a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Confessions-Augustine-Translated-Bouverie-Introduction-ebook/dp/B0184SU1SK" target="_blank">Confessions</a>, St. Augustine talks about how he and a group of other young men stole some pears. They didn't do it for money, or because they were hungry, they did it just for the thrill of having done it. This is the wages of sin. The attachment to the sin itself, which makes it harder for us to do good.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16">Anyone who's struggled with pornography can attest to what a serious attraction sin can be. Even "smaller" sins, like "white" lies, make it hard for the person to tell the truth, even when it doesn't really matter. Gossip becomes habitual, to the point where we can't resist sharing a bit of information even knowing it will harm someone. God gives us what we ask for. In the Bible Solomon prays for wisdom and gets it. What you sow, so shall you reap.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16">What does all this have to do with COVID-19? For decades we have been a selfish people. We have shut out our neighbors. Things like social media, which have the capability to unite us, instead divide us and make us more and more isolated. We have developed a utilitarian society as well, where the elderly and the disabled are seen as a burden instead of a blessing.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16">Along comes COVID-19. Isolation is enforced, we got what we wanted. We are now dependent on the technology that has divided us for years, and instead of talking face to face, we connect in online platforms, where common courtesy is uncommon. The elderly and ill are especially vulnerable to the disease. Tired of visiting mom in the nursing home? Now you have the perfect excuse. In fact, if you're lucky your governor will send COVID patients to the nursing home and mom will not be a burden any more. You don't even have to go through the bother of a big funeral, since you can't have one.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16">Hate going to church on Sunday? Now you don't have to; in fact you can't. You can watch a video stream in your underwear any time of day or night. Or better yet, you can get free entertainment instead. At least porn sites are up. Don't like paying extra to go to your local store? It's closed. Perfect time to find an online overseas place that sells at a discount.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16">And you'll be happy to know that the highest priority is making abortions available. Sure you can't get a biopsy of that lump or have that cancerous tumor removed, but at least you can get what you want - no babies. </span></span><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16"><span class="text Luke-23-29" id="en-NRSVCE-30227">For the days are
surely coming when they will say, "<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+23%3A29&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">Blessed are the barren</a>, and the wombs
that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed."</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16"><span class="text Luke-23-29" id="en-NRSVCE-30227"></span>You can sin all you want, and you don't have to confess it; the churches are closed.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16">We asked for it, we begged for it. Not begged God, of course, for we ignored Him, but we asked "the powers that be" for it and God heard us nonetheless. We <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hos+8%3A7&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">sowed the wind</a>, now we reap the whirlwind.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16"><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+11%3A27-29&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">Proverbs 11:27-29</a></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16"><span class="text Prov-11-27" id="en-NRSVCE-18786">Whoever diligently seeks good seeks favor,</span><br /><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Prov-11-27">but evil comes to the one who searches for it.</span></span><span class="text Prov-11-28" id="en-NRSVCE-18787"> </span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16"><span class="text Prov-11-28" id="en-NRSVCE-18787">Those who trust in their riches will wither,</span><br /><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Prov-11-28">but the righteous will flourish like green leaves.</span></span><span class="text Prov-11-29" id="en-NRSVCE-18788"> </span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-16"><span class="text Prov-11-29" id="en-NRSVCE-18788">Those who trouble their households will inherit wind,</span><br /><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Prov-11-29">and the fool will be servant to the wise.</span></span> </span></span><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Gen-3-18"></span></span>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-63234577754703915672020-05-09T12:28:00.000-04:002020-05-09T12:28:03.655-04:00Non-essential Heroes<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k9GdsXxVNzk/XrbZ-HF1yKI/AAAAAAAAGoM/v7gkpi1VZ_wlDtV2I3SMgbXTK3dzrRlegCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/jesuspreaching.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="625" data-original-width="1000" height="125" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k9GdsXxVNzk/XrbZ-HF1yKI/AAAAAAAAGoM/v7gkpi1VZ_wlDtV2I3SMgbXTK3dzrRlegCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/jesuspreaching.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
My meditation for today:<br />
<br />
During this lockdown I have heard praises from every quarter for our "essential" workers, who risk their lives on the front lines everyday to keep us safe. Police, EMS, nurses, truck drivers, etc., and rightly so. Amen! God bless them for their sacrifice!<br />
<br />
However, in all this we seem to have forgotten about the "non-essential" workers? How about some praise for those who are giving up their livelihoods, their dignity as workers, and sometimes their life dreams in order to keep us safe? They are sacrificing themselves and their families too, to keep us safe. Let's not ignore their sacrifices. May God bless them and keep them safe, and hopefully restore to them what they have lost and more.<br />
<br />
Note also that I put "essential" and "non-essential" in quotes. I object to this nomenclature, because there is no worker, no person in this world who is "non-essential." We are all sons and daughters of God, and as such we all are essential. There is no such thing as a non-essential worker. You might say "But what is meant is that the <i>jobs</i> are non-essential." Well, then we should not call the workers non-essential, but even so, there is no legitimate job that is non-essential.<br />
<br />
Consider Jesus' ministry. Going out into crowds proclaiming the Gospel. By the standards of the world their is no worker and no job more non-essential than Jesus and His ministry. Yet it is the most essential thing in the world.<br />
<br />
Words matter. Let's get out of the mindset of "essential" and "non-essential" and start talking about "safe" and "unsafe." All jobs are essential. Some may be safer to do than others. And let's remember all those suffering in the name of public safety, not just the ones we can see.Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-18152978957957295752020-04-19T12:40:00.000-04:002020-04-19T12:40:03.326-04:00Divine Mercy Reflection<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8N1Z51b4iCo/Xpx-lr7MHZI/AAAAAAAAGfA/mcBS9jVEY5oUj1GmKJA6xx-45TucmI79gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/faust.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="924" data-original-width="1024" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8N1Z51b4iCo/Xpx-lr7MHZI/AAAAAAAAGfA/mcBS9jVEY5oUj1GmKJA6xx-45TucmI79gCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/faust.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Today is Divine Mercy Sunday. I attended <a href="https://youtu.be/8hMRmy96tIk" target="_blank">mass with Fr. Mike Schmitz</a> who gave a wonderful homily. I encourage you to watch the video, but for those who don't, let me add my own reflection, which was stated much more eloquently by Fr. Schmitz.<br />
<br />
In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+10%3A27&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">Luke 10:27</a>, Jesus gives the two greatest commandments, <span class="text Luke-10-27" id="en-NRSVCE-29655">“You shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” These are actually taken from the Old Testament. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+6%3A5&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">Deuteronomy 6:5</a> "</span><span class="text Luke-10-27" id="en-NRSVCE-29655"><span class="text Deut-6-5" id="en-NRSVCE-5092">You shall love the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might" and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev+19%3A17&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">Leviticus 19:17</a> "</span></span><span class="text Luke-10-27" id="en-NRSVCE-29655"><span class="text Deut-6-5" id="en-NRSVCE-5092"><span class="text Lev-19-18" id="en-NRSVCE-3300">you shall love your neighbor as yourself."</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="text Luke-10-27" id="en-NRSVCE-29655"><span class="text Deut-6-5" id="en-NRSVCE-5092"><span class="text Lev-19-18" id="en-NRSVCE-3300">It strikes me that these two commandments echo God's principle attributes, justice and mercy. To love God is to love His laws, and to seek justice. According to justice each should be treated according to what is due. In today's post-Christian world, karma. However, love of neighbor enables us to show mercy, that is, forgiving our neighbor even when he does not deserve it by justice. This, to me, is a great mystery - how God is both mercy and justice.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="text Luke-10-27" id="en-NRSVCE-29655"><span class="text Deut-6-5" id="en-NRSVCE-5092"><span class="text Lev-19-18" id="en-NRSVCE-3300">On Divine Mercy Sunday we are called to contemplate not just how we, through sin, deserve punishment, but rather to trust in God's mercy and forgiveness. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psa+136&version=NABRE" target="_blank">Psalm 136</a> is a good read for today "</span></span></span><span class="text Ps-136-1">Praise the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>, for he is good;</span><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Ps-136-1">for his mercy endures forever..."</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-136-1">It is said that nobody is condemned to hell for sin, but rather for refusing God's mercy and forgiveness. But who in their right mind would do such a thing, and why? God's mercy and forgiveness is offered to us through the sacrament of Confession. John 20:21-23:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-136-1"> </span></span><span class="text John-20-21" id="en-NRSVCE-31150">Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” </span><span class="text John-20-22" id="en-NRSVCE-31151">When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.</span><span class="text John-20-23" id="en-NRSVCE-31152"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”</span></blockquote>
<span class="text John-20-23" id="en-NRSVCE-31152">I know many people who say "Jesus died for my sins, past present or future. I am saved no matter what." But that's not what Jesus says, that's a tradition of men. Others, "I can take my sins directly to God and He forgives me." But that's not what Jesus said, that too is a tradition of men. How do you know you are forgiven? There is one simple way. When a priest, ordained by Jesus, and acting in His name, using the power expressly delegated to him by Jesus, says those words to you "I absolve you from your sin" then, and only then, are you assured that you are indeed forgiven.</span><span class="text John-20-23" id="en-NRSVCE-31152"> This is not something the church made up - it is in black and white in the Scriptures.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="text John-20-23" id="en-NRSVCE-31152">Are you too embarrassed to go to Confession? Don't believe it is effective, or that it applies to you personally? Don't believe you will be forgiven? Then you are refusing God's mercy, which is being freely offered to you. Please think about this, and I beg you - make an act of contrition today and a firm resolution to go to Confession as soon as you can, and accept the mercy that is being extended to you by God.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="text John-20-23" id="en-NRSVCE-31152">"My God, I am sorry for my sins with all my heart. In choosing to do
wrong and failing to do good, I have sinned against you whom I should
love above all things. I firmly intend, with your help, to do penance,
to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin. Our Savior Jesus
Christ suffered and died for us. In his name, my God, have mercy. Amen."</span><span class="text John-20-23" id="en-NRSVCE-31152"> </span><span class="text Luke-10-27" id="en-NRSVCE-29655"><span class="text Deut-6-5" id="en-NRSVCE-5092"><span class="text Lev-19-18" id="en-NRSVCE-3300"><span class="sb-0"><span class="dt "><span class="dtText"><span class="text Luke-10-27" id="en-NRSVCE-29655"><span class="text Deut-6-5" id="en-NRSVCE-5092"><span class="text Lev-19-18" id="en-NRSVCE-3300"><span class="sb-0"><span class="dt "><span class="dtText"><span class="text"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-56339032462657503992020-04-09T21:59:00.000-04:002020-04-19T11:57:55.223-04:00Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KGAp9OsHlnk/Xpx049CKKFI/AAAAAAAAGe0/xVReGhRMfbw8VNkrVibJgrvOSFJeJT-HACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/bloch_crucifixion-of-christ-sm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="565" data-original-width="450" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KGAp9OsHlnk/Xpx049CKKFI/AAAAAAAAGe0/xVReGhRMfbw8VNkrVibJgrvOSFJeJT-HACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/bloch_crucifixion-of-christ-sm.jpg" width="254" /></a></div>
According to Matthew 27:45-46:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”</blockquote>
This year, given the state of my life, I am reflecting on these words more and more. We are in a time of darkness, disease and quarantine, physically and spiritually, and I am tempted to cry out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Every day I read that more people have become ill and more people have died, more and more people are losing their jobs, their hope and their faith. Today 196 people died in New Jersey. Has God forsaken us? Did God forsake Jesus on the cross?<br />
<br />
Yet the words spoken by Jesus were not His moment of despair, but a teaching moment. Even in His agony Jesus thinks only of us. In fact, there is not one word or action of Jesus that was not for the good of others. This is an amazing revelation to me. These words, that sound like a cry of despair, are actually meant to recall <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+22&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">Psalm 22</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="text Ps-22-1">My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?</span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Ps-22-1">Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? </span></span><span class="text Ps-22-2" id="en-NRSVCE-16277"></span><br />
<span class="text Ps-22-2" id="en-NRSVCE-16277"></span><span class="text Ps-22-2" id="en-NRSVCE-16277">O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer;</span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Ps-22-2">and by night, but find no rest.</span></span><span class="text Ps-22-3" id="en-NRSVCE-16278"></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="line">
<span class="text Ps-22-3" id="en-NRSVCE-16278"></span></div>
<div class="line">
<span class="text Ps-22-3" id="en-NRSVCE-16278">Yet you are holy,</span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Ps-22-3">enthroned on the praises of Israel.</span></span><span class="text Ps-22-4" id="en-NRSVCE-16279"></span><span class="text Ps-22-4" id="en-NRSVCE-16279"> </span></div>
<div class="line">
<span class="text Ps-22-4" id="en-NRSVCE-16279">In you our ancestors trusted;</span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Ps-22-4">they trusted, and you delivered them.</span></span><span class="text Ps-22-5" id="en-NRSVCE-16280"></span><span class="text Ps-22-5" id="en-NRSVCE-16280"> </span></div>
<span class="text Ps-22-5" id="en-NRSVCE-16280">To you they cried, and were saved;</span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Ps-22-5">in you they trusted, and were not put to shame.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... </blockquote>
<div class="poetry top-1">
<div class="line">
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5">Go ahead and follow the link above and read the whole thing. It alternates between what the psalmist feels at the moment and what he knows to be true of God. The psalm ends in firm trust that God has, in fact, not forsaken him</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="text Ps-22-30" id="en-NRSVCE-16305">Posterity will serve him;</span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Ps-22-30">future generations will be told about the Lord</span></span><span class="text Ps-22-31" id="en-NRSVCE-16306"> </span></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="line">
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="text Ps-22-31" id="en-NRSVCE-16306">and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn,</span><br /><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Ps-22-31">saying that he has done it.</span></span></span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="line">
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-31">At no time did God forsake His people, at no time did God forsake His Son, nor does He forsake us. In Genesis, God says "Let there be light" and there was, and man is created. At the Crucifixion, there are three hours of darkness until God brings back light, and brings forth the righteous dead from their graves - man recreated anew.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="line">
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-31"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="line">
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-31">We are in Lent, but Easter is coming. I don't just mean this week, but in our lives. Now is a time for sackcloth and ashes, but I know and believe that after these days of comparative darkness, God will restore the light and bring forth something new and wonderful. And those who died in His love will rise again, for nothing is ever lost with God.</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-31">Join me in reading <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+40&version=NRSVCE" target="_blank">Isaiah 40</a>. This is usually read during Advent, but I think it is particularly appropriate to meditate on the consolation of God.</span></span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-31"><span class="text Isa-40-27" id="en-NRSVCE-22334">Why do you say, O Jacob,</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-31"><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Isa-40-27">and speak, O Israel,</span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-31"><span class="text Isa-40-27">“My way is hidden from the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>,</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-31"><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Isa-40-27">and my right is disregarded by my God”?</span></span><span class="text Isa-40-28" id="en-NRSVCE-22335"></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-5"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Ps-22-31"><span class="text Isa-40-28" id="en-NRSVCE-22335">Have you not known? Have you not heard?</span><br /><span class="text Isa-40-28">The <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> is the everlasting God,</span><br /><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Isa-40-28">the Creator of the ends of the earth.</span></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote>
</div>
from the <a href="https://mariangraces.com/blogs/news/litany-for-the-church-in-our-time" target="_blank">Litany for the Church in Our Time</a>:</div>
<div class="poetry top-1">
</div>
Jesus our God, in these dark hours when Thy Mystical Body is undergoing its own crucifixion, and when it would almost seem to be abandoned by God the Father, have mercy, we beg of Thee, on Thy suffering Church. Send down upon us the Divine Consoler, to enlighten our minds and strengthen our wills.<br />
<br />
Thou, O Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived, Who hast promised to be with Thy Church until the End of Time, grant us a mighty faith, that we may not falter; help us to do Thy Holy Will at all times, especially during these hours of grief and uncertainty. May Thy Most Sacred Heart and the Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of Thy Holy Mother be our sure refuge in time and in eternity.<br />
Amen.<br />
<br />Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-71163048914736203602020-03-26T14:35:00.002-04:002020-03-26T16:07:25.167-04:00Shutting down the church<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DyGijzvYJVo/Xnzr0YoJF-I/AAAAAAAAGS4/pEZC7maNjz0z4S_9rOJxSXV0WRCz3YHWgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/church-closed%255B2%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="447" data-original-width="557" height="256" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DyGijzvYJVo/Xnzr0YoJF-I/AAAAAAAAGS4/pEZC7maNjz0z4S_9rOJxSXV0WRCz3YHWgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/church-closed%255B2%255D.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I've been thinking about our churches being closed, especially in light of VA Governor Northam's insistence that <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/virginia-governor-makes-attending-church-a-criminal-offense-52677" target="_blank">churches be prosecuted for not following his directives</a>. A lot of people on both sides of the issue have made some good points (and some very misinformed points).<br />
<br />
First off, no civil leader has the authority to close churches. Period. Northan can rage all he wants. This is still the USA. Governors are making arbitrary decisions of what businesses are "essential." Liquor stores are essential, Pot stores are essential, Abortuaries are essential. Churches, not essential (cue GIF of angry Greta Thunberg).<br />
<br />
The bishops, on the other hand, absolutely have the authority to close churches and cancel services. For the most part they have done so. This is problematic. Apparently the bishops don't feel church is essential. Nor do I see the USCCB pushing back and arguing that churches are more essential than abortuaries and pot shops. Instead I see more complaints about money, and pleas to give online than I see complaints about closing doors. In my state there are multiple lawsuits from industries who consider themselves essential but were deemed non-essential: gun stores, gun ranges, bicycle repair shops, phone stores, livestock feed businesses... but not a word from the bishops that public worship is essential. What do you believe is most important?<br />
<br />
Before the lock down began in my area, our bishop gave dispensation from attending Sunday mass for those affected by the virus, and asked vulnerable people to stay home. The mass that I attended that week had less than one third of the usual number of attendees (my estimate - I don't have official numbers). We were all able to "social distance" effectively. I don't see why a church that holds 1200 people now can't hold more than 10 for "social distancing." I could fit 200 people in there and the place would still look empty. So why not?<br />
<br />
My church is still open for Adoration (which is being held in the 1200 seat portion of the building). This is a blessing, but surprisingly the numbers of people there are no more than usual, maybe less than usual for Lent. But again, no problem social distancing. We are also open for Confession. However, many churches are not offering Confession and I've read some are denying the Extreme Unction (aka Anointing of the Sick) in some cases. These are <i>absolutely</i> essential, and should be employed even more now, rather than less.<br />
<br />
The question for our bishops, and for society as a whole, is "what do you believe is most important?" If you believe that Confession actually forgives sins, and people need to have their sins forgiven, then you will offer Confession. Likewise Extreme Unction. If you believe that it is all a sham to make people feel good, then of course, don't expose people to any danger by providing these. Likewise, if you believe the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, then by all means masses should be celebrated. If not, who cares if churches are closed? Some parishes are offering outdoor masses, where the faithful attend in their cars. I don't see why that isn't being practiced wherever possible, yet most dioceses don't seem to be permitting it. What do you believe is most important?<br />
<br />
Non-religious people say (and some Catholics falsely believe) that they cannot get the virus by receiving the Eucharist. That is not true. But just as I would stay by my wife if she were sick with the virus, even though I could catch it from her, I would risk going to mass, even if I could catch the virus there. Of course such a statement brings immediate scorn from non-believers. What right do I have to engage in behavior that could use up valuable medical resources? The same "right" you have to engage in behavior that could use up valuable medical resources, like homosexual and other "risky" sexual acts, smoking (tobacco or marijuana), tattoos, piercings, etc.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span class="text 2Chr-7-13" id="en-NASB-11338"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>If
I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the
locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people,</span> <span class="text 2Chr-7-14" id="en-NASB-11339">and My people who
are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and
turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive
their sin and will heal their land." - <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chron+10%3A13-14&version=NASB" target="_blank">2 Chron 10:13-14</a></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="text 2Chr-7-14" id="en-NASB-11339"><span class="text Joel-2-12" id="en-NASB-22324">“Yet even now,” declares the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>,</span><br /><span class="text Joel-2-12">“Return to Me with all your heart,</span><br /><span class="text Joel-2-12">And with fasting, weeping and mourning;</span><span class="text Joel-2-13" id="en-NASB-22325"><sup class="versenum"></sup>And rend your heart and not your garments.”</span><br /><span class="text Joel-2-13">Now return to the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> your God,</span><br /><span class="text Joel-2-13">For He is gracious and compassionate,</span><br /><span class="text Joel-2-13">Slow to anger, abounding in loving kindness</span><br /><span class="text Joel-2-13">And relenting of evil." - <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joel+2%3A13-14&version=NASB" target="_blank">Joel 2:13-14</a></span> </span> </blockquote>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-40768732266095836882019-12-22T15:47:00.000-05:002019-12-22T15:47:05.639-05:00Impeach!<div data-contents="true">
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="73t8e-0-0">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg/800px-Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="632" height="200" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg/800px-Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg" width="157" /></a></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="73t8e-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="73t8e-0-0"><span data-text="true">OK, nobody asked for my opinion so here it is.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="1a9uf-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1a9uf-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1a9uf-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="58p7u-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="58p7u-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="58p7u-0-0"><span data-text="true">As
I understand it, president Trump is being impeached on 2 articles.
First, that he abused power, seconds that he "obstructed congress."</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="erluv-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="erluv-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="erluv-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="9u2jq-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9u2jq-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="9u2jq-0-0"><span data-text="true">On the first charge, the claim is tampering with the 2020 election:</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9u2jq-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="9u2jq-0-0"><span data-text="true">He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting
the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that
would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political
opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage. </span></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0"><span data-text="true">Let's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/10/us/politics/articles-impeachment-document-pdf.html" target="_blank">take a closer look at that</a>. The <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-phone-call-transcript-text-pdf-1510770" target="_blank">transcript of the call</a>
was made public because the Democrats demanded it.I see nothing in the
transcript where he asks that the investigation be made public, only
that the investigation continue. So, isn't it the Democrats who made it
public, and are therefore culpable of the transgression? Or maybe I am
misconstruing something... but let's grant that the claims are correct
for a second.</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0"><span data-text="true">It
is not a crime for the president to ask a foreign government to
investigate crimes; President Trump's "crime" according to the article
of impeachment, is that the investigation would embarrass a candidate in
the 2020 election... but isn't that exactly what the Democrats are
doing? Making a very public investigation into a candidate in the 202
election to benefit their candidate, harm the election prospects of
their political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States
Presidential election to their advantage? I mean if investigating a
political rival in a way which can humiliate them and influence the next
election makes one unfit for office, then every Democrat who called for
Trump's investigation and impeachment is equally unfit for office using
the same criteria.</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0"><span data-text="true"> </span></span></div>
The
second article of impeachment claims that president Trump "obstructed
congress" - what does that mean, exactly? According to the <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34304.pdf">Congressional Research Service</a>, obstruction of congress consists of:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering
(18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of
congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy
to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature
of statute, rule and common law).</blockquote>
On the face of it, it
looks bad. President Trump is accused of ignoring lawful congressional
subpoenas. But is that what happened? No. President Trump claimed that
the subpoenas were not valid, and that he would comply if a court
ordered him to. Rather than appealing to a judicial process, congress
ignored his request and accused him of ignoring their request.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
IANAL, but I know that there are limits to what one can subpoena, and particularly when a branch of government is involved. <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474710-supreme-court-ruling-pulls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment" target="_blank">According to this article</a>, SCOTUS is ruling (likely in Trump's favor) on a very similar issue of subpoenas.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
Ultimately
this is a matter for the impeachment court to decide, which is the
senate. The fact that the Democrats won't release the charges to the
senate so that the president can be tried is a clear indication that the
impeachment proceedings are intended to humiliate the president, rather
than to actually redress a crime. Of course, that brings me back to the
first article of impeachment.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
It
is unlikely that 2/3 of the senate will vote to remove the president,
considering that not even all the Democrats in the house voted for
impeachment. I don't know if any of these things are objectively
impeachable, but if they are, there's clear evidence that the house
Democrats are as guilty as the president, if not more so.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="20km" data-offset-key="fjs4n-0-0">
On
the other hand, the Democrats have "won" this round. The government is
in shambles and the country is divided under the Trump administration
due to their actions. And maybe the Republicans won something too. I
don't personally like president Trump, but this circus is so far out of
the bounds of decency it makes me almost want to vote for him, just to
not appear to support this kind of contempt for Constitutional
procedings.</div>
</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-28977159190655098972019-11-15T18:19:00.001-05:002019-11-15T18:19:55.958-05:00There is no such thing as gun rights<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lWaXYgERdMI/Xc8woUqCM4I/AAAAAAAAF80/r6geXoZx2TAb8EYEqtWJq5fHC-wGZp3oQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/mini-cat-key-chain-red.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1001" data-original-width="1001" height="199" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lWaXYgERdMI/Xc8woUqCM4I/AAAAAAAAF80/r6geXoZx2TAb8EYEqtWJq5fHC-wGZp3oQCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/mini-cat-key-chain-red.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
I keep hearing people on both sides of the "gun debate" talking about "gun rights." I'm here to tell you that there are NO gun rights. Period. That's all.<br />
<br />
You see, guns don't have rights, people do. So let's change the conversation from "gun rights" to "self defense rights." After all, it's self evidently wrong to stop someone from defending themselves. And that's what the gun control crowd is really after, not guns. They want to remove the right of citizens to defend themselves.<br />
<br />
If the issue were "public safety" they wouldn't even be talking about gun control, because as public safety issues go, it's a minor issue, unless you live in Chicago, Baltimore, or one of the other cities where gun control has been tried and failed.<br />
<br />
If the issue were guns, then they wouldn't also push other laws to keep honest people from defending themselves without guns. For instance, New York City just passed a ban on "undetectable weapons." Sounds like a good things right? But what it really does is prevents women from possessing one of the most common, effective non-lethal defense against rape, the <a href="http://everycollegegirl.com/how-to-avoid-dangerous-situations-and-use-basic-self-defense/" target="_blank">cat self defense key ring</a> (see photo above). Likewise, it is illegal to buy pepper spray in New York City (and no, hair spray is not a self defense weapon). The New York Knife show had to move to New Jersey because so many ordinary knives are illegal in New York City.<br />
<br />
But New York City isn't the only place infringing on the rights of self defense. In New Jersey a sling shot is an illegal weapon (I'm not kidding). New Jersey also has "duty to retreat" laws which say that you cannot defend yourself, in any way, even in your own house unless you can prove that you could not flee the scene. Sorry, but that armed home invader is not an "<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/13/nbc-new-york-reports-alleged-home-invader-as-unwanted-house-visitor/" target="_blank">unwelcome house visitor</a>."<br />
<br />
All of these laws (and many more) infringe on our rights to self defense, and don't involve firearms at all. They involve either criminalizing a method of self defense or favoring the "rights" of the attacker over that of the victim. Let's stop arguing "gun control" and start talking about victims' rights and the right to defend oneself.Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8559739393208848931.post-68580279622399800852019-09-28T23:45:00.002-04:002019-09-28T23:45:10.563-04:00Sorry Bishop...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6GLRDPFXDRA/XZAfNis-X9I/AAAAAAAAF4k/CjbZ7-lDmoQaV_aWTfFPdPW2GZtIJAhAQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/good%2Bperson.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="800" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6GLRDPFXDRA/XZAfNis-X9I/AAAAAAAAF4k/CjbZ7-lDmoQaV_aWTfFPdPW2GZtIJAhAQCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/good%2Bperson.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
I
have heard the saying on the right not only from good hearted, well
meaning Christians, but also from the pulpit, and from the USCCB itself
one too many times. Not that they care what I think, but I need to get
this off my chest anyway. The problem with the statement is not that it
is false, but that it is a straw man. The implied (or often expressed)
followup to the statement is that if you are not a communist or
socialist, or if you are patriotic, then you don't want people to have
healthcare or food. That is not true at all. Let's not confuse lack of
support of a government program or political party be confused with a
lack of wanting to solve a problem. <br />
<br />
Sorry, but
government-run healthcare, and in general federal government run
programs are NOT part of nor are they even compatible with Catholic
social justice. Let me explain.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a3.htm" target="_blank">catechism defines social justice</a> as:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>SOCIAL JUSTICE</b>
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="1928"></a><b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null">1928</a></b>
Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that
allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according
to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the
common good and the exercise of authority.
</blockquote>
and goes on to add <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="I">I. RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON</a></b>
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="1929"></a><b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null">1929</a></b>
Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent
dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which
is ordered to him:
<br />
<dl><dd><span class="text1">What is at stake is the dignity of the
human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by
the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history
are strictly and responsibly in debt.<sup>35</sup> </span></dd></dl>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="1930"></a><b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null">1930</a></b>
Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow
from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and
must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of
every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its
positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.<sup>36</sup>
If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or
violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role
to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from
unwarranted or false claims.
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="1931"></a><b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null">1931</a></b>
Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the
principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any
exception) as 'another self,' above all bearing in mind his life and the
means necessary for living it with dignity."<sup>37</sup> No
legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and
attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of
truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the
charity that finds in every man a "neighbor," a brother.
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="1932"></a><b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null">1932</a></b>
The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving
them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in
whatever area this may be. "As you did it to one of the least of these
my brethren, you did it to me."<sup>38</sup>
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="1933"></a><b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null">1933</a></b>
This same duty extends to those who think or act differently from us.
The teaching of Christ goes so far as to require the forgiveness of
offenses. He extends the commandment of love, which is that of the New
Law, to all enemies.<sup>39</sup> Liberation in the spirit of the Gospel
is incompatible with hatred of one's enemy as a person, but not with
hatred of the evil that he does as an enemy. </blockquote>
The problem with those words is they are very vague. What is
someone's "due"? What rights flow from man's dignity as a creature? It
is very easy to interpret those words, as many in the USCCB and in
America, as supporting the notion of government run health care,
government run education, unrestricted illegal immigration, government
run welfare programs - in short a socialist state with nearly unlimited
economic control. That is not what the catechism is saying at all.<br />
<br />
To see what's really being talked about we need to go read the documents cited in the text above; in particular <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem.html" target="_blank">Pacem in Terris</a>.
I encourage the reader to read the whole encyclical, but here are some
excerpts (ellipses where I have elided parts of the text for brevity's
sake, I have emboldened certain key phrase you can read to skim over
this):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><i>Rights</i></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> 11.
But first We must speak of man's rights. <b>Man has the right to</b> live. He
has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the
proper development of life, particularly <b>food, clothing, shelter,
medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In
consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of
ill health</b>...<br />
<div align="CENTER">
<i>Rights Pertaining to Moral and Cultural Values</i></div>
12.
Moreover, man has a natural right to be respected. He has a right to
his good name. ... He has the right, also, to be accurately informed about
public events. <br />
13. He has the natural <b>right to</b> share in the
benefits of culture, and hence to receive <b>a good general education</b>...<br />
<div align="CENTER">
<i>The Right to Worship God According to One's Conscience</i></div>
14.
Also among man's rights is that of being able to <b>worship God ... and to profess
his religion both in private and in public</b>. ...<br />
<div align="CENTER">
<i>The Right to Choose Freely One's State in Life</i></div>
15.
Human beings have also the right to choose for themselves the kind of
life which appeals to them...<br />
16.
<b> The family</b>, founded upon marriage freely contracted, one and
indissoluble, <b>must be regarded as the natural, primary cell of human
society</b>. ... <br />
17. Of course, the <b>support and education of children is a right which belongs primarily to the parents</b> <br />
<div align="CENTER">
<i>Economic Rights</i></div>
18.
In the economic sphere, it is evident that a man has the inherent right
not only to be given the opportunity to work, but also to be allowed
the exercise of personal initiative in the work he does <br />
19.
...Women must be accorded such conditions of work as are consistent with
their needs and responsibilities as wives and mothers....<br />
21. As a further
consequence of man's nature, he has the <b>right to the private ownership
of property</b>, including that of productive goods. ...<br />
<div align="CENTER">
<i>The Right of Meeting and Association</i></div>
23.
Men are by nature social, and consequently they have the <b>right to meet
together</b>...<br />
<div align="CENTER">
<i>The Right to Emigrate and Immigrate</i></div>
25.
Again, every human being has the right to <b>freedom of movement and of
residence</b> within the confines of his own State. When there are just
reasons in favor of it, he must be permitted to emigrate to other
countries and take up residence there....<br />
<div align="CENTER">
<i>Political Rights</i></div>
26.
Finally, man's personal dignity involves his right to take an active
part in public life...<br />
27. As a human person he is <b>entitled to the legal
protection of his rights</b>,...</span></blockquote>
Much
of it sounds an awful lot like the US Constitution. And if you stop
reading the encyclical there you could erroneously come to the
conclusion that Pope John XXIII. Sorry for the length of these passages.
Same rules as above:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><i>Duties</i></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> 28.
The natural rights of which We have so far been speaking are
inextricably bound up with as many duties, all applying to one and the
same person...<br />
29. Thus, for example, <b>the
right to live involves the duty to preserve one's life</b>; the right to a
decent standard of living, the duty to live in a becoming fashion; the
right to be free to seek out the truth, the duty to devote oneself to an
ever deeper and wider search for it. <br />
<div align="CENTER">
<i>Reciprocity of Rights and Duties Between Persons</i></div>
30.
Once this is admitted, it follows that in human society <b>one man's
natural right gives rise to a corresponding duty in other men</b>; .... Hence, to claim one's rights
and ignore one's duties, or only half fulfill them... <br />
<div align="CENTER">
<i>Mutual Collaboration</i></div>
32. ... it is useless to admit that a man has a right to the
necessities of life, unless we also do all in our power to supply him
with means sufficient for his livelihood. <br />
33. Hence <b>society must... provide men with abundant
resources</b>. ... </span></blockquote>
Sounds great so far... here's where it all goes south for the USCCB, globalists, etc. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><i>An Attitude of Responsibility</i></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> 34.
<b> Man's personal dignity requires</b> besides that he enjoy freedom and <b>be
able to make up his own mind when he acts</b>. In his association with his
fellows, <b>therefore</b>, there is every reason why his recognition of rights,
<b> observance of duties</b>, and many-sided collaboration with other men,
<b>should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision. Each man
should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of
responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or
enticement. There is nothing human about a society that is welded
together by force</b>. Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of
man's progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom.
</span></blockquote>
The encyclical goes on like that for a while. There are a couple of other paragraphs that I would like to point out:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">48. Hence, <b>a regime which
governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or
promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for
the common good. And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to
the dignity of free and rational human beings</b>. Authority is before all
else a moral force. For this reason the appeal of rulers should be to
the individual conscience, to the duty which every man has of
voluntarily contributing to the common good. But since all men are equal
in natural dignity, no man has the capacity to force internal
compliance on another. Only God can do that, for He alone scrutinizes
and judges the secret counsels of the heart. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><i>Responsibilities of the Public Authority, and Rights and Duties of Individuals</i></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> 60.
It is generally accepted today that <b>the common good is best safeguarded
when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of
civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are
recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted</b>, and that
each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily. For "to
safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate
the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public
authority.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">I
have a saying along those lines "there is no grace in paying taxes." We
have come to a point where people think only in material terms. If we
take money from the rich and give it to the poor, that is justice. But
that is injustice. The rich man has not done a good act, nor has anyone.
And the poor do not need our money as much as our care.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Let
me make this perfectly clear. According to the principles of Catholic
social justice, the duty of government is NOT to provide for the poor,
but to ensure the rights and freedoms of its citizens to do so is
respected. The role of the individual is to provide for the poor.
Government programs walk over and inhibit the rights and duties of both
the provider and receivers of material goods.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Thomas Sowell explains the false notion of social justice more succinctly and elegantly than I can.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IpIHL7sWUtw/XZAlk0_TkbI/AAAAAAAAF4w/ChY_vmZz6Lg2rxhWi8rxrMHnXhz1o2ANgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/sowell.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="524" data-original-width="960" height="217" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IpIHL7sWUtw/XZAlk0_TkbI/AAAAAAAAF4w/ChY_vmZz6Lg2rxhWi8rxrMHnXhz1o2ANgCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/sowell.png" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Catholic
social justice consists of caring for the needs of your neighbor. You,
yourself, caring for the needs of your neighbor. Forcing everyone to pay
money to a (corrupt) government in the hopes that they will be a moral
force is folly, yet the USCCB and other well meaning but ignorant
Christians keep fighting for programs like government run healthcare,
then are "shocked" and dismayed to find out they have give up the right
to life of the unborn and elderly. What exactly did they think would
happen?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">The USCCB support government programs to stop sex
trafficking. Sounds good until you realize that they also receive the
money and run some of the programs. Add to that the fact that they
oppose border restrictions, ensuring a lively and continued source of
sex trafficking and it begins to look less like social justice and more
like self serving.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">And as someone pointed out, each and
every government dollar comes with strings that no religious value be
attached to it. So far from preaching the Gospel and fulfilling the
great commission to "make disciples of all nations" every time the USCCB
endorses a government program rather than taking the initiative and
enable Catholics to do the work privately, they restrict and opposes the
only legitimate mission they have in the world.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">So
yes, I do want people to have health care and food. But unlike you I am
will to do it myself and unwilling to take money from others by force to
give to an organization which disrespects and degrades individuals.
What are you willing to do in the name of social justice?</span><br />
<br />Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.com0