Considering A Sacrament- You're Not As Prolife As You Think

It's funny that I've struggled so much lately over challenges I've had lately with my new faith considering how much investigation and research I did about Catholicism long before even joining RCIA. But problems I've had lately relate to two of the Church's more controversial positions, which go hand-in-hand with each other: Sanctity of life and prohibition of contraception.

I say these are struggles for me because I agreed with the Church's teachings about them and because of that, I thought I understood them. But I'm coming to learn that I don't. Which isn't to say I disagree with the Church. It only means that I didn't completely understand where they were coming from.

Take abortion, for example. To me it was human life. Simple as that. And since we don't know exactly when "life begins", the cautionary principle we should proceed from is that life begins at the moment of conception.

And while I suspect the Church agrees with that sentiment, it doesn't go far enough in describing the fullness of the person or the problem. My problem, though, was that I didn't feel any great intellectual compulsion to proceed from there. And that's why the reasons for the Church's teachings have caught me so off-guard.

From the Catechism:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Pretty straight forward, right?

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.

This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.

Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

...

Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

So in a nutshell, that tells us what the Church teaches concerning abortion. But it doesn't tell us the fullness of why things are the way they are. This is more or less where I'd always stopped with the formation of my pro-life views. "It's murder". Pure and simple. And, again, it is. But there are other factors at work in this far beyond even that. My problem was that I thought the above was enough by itself. And as Anglican (as I used to be), it might've been. But the Church always has two or three reasons (at least) for believing what they do. So what are the other reasons in play here?

It relates to the life and purpose of the sacrament of marriage. A man and a woman, once married, are to bond in the marital union. Their love for each other and this sacrament given from above are powerful. So powerful, in fact, that (in ordinary circumstances) the end result can be new life.

The purpose of marriage isn't to do whatever you want, if you catch my drift, with your spouse. Your wife is not a sex object. She's your wife. She has the full dignity of being made in God's image. As a man, you're to cherish her, protect her and love her as Christ loves the Church.

From the Catechism...

2249 The conjugal community is established upon the covenant and consent of the spouses. Marriage and family are ordered to the good of the spouses, to the procreation and the education of children.

Again, the purpose of marriage is in the majority of cases the creation of new life, which carries with it the inherent responsibility of educating the children in the faith. Push comes to shove, this is what the two of you are here to do.

1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.

And let's be realistic, that may not always fit into your game plan. If the two of you already have your hands full with a little one who's still in diapers and want to space the next child out, there's nothing wrong with consummating only during non-fertile times. You're both open to procreation but your preference is to wait at least a while.

Here's the thing. You will most assuredly feel the desire for each other during fertile times. But you can't act upon it. That's a sacrifice the two of you have to make. Again, your spouse is not a sex object. The minute you don't respect how powerful the marital union is, you may end up with an unexpected pregnancy.

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning (he) made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

Now, this policy has been treated as an authoritarian power play by the secularists. "They only want women to be wombs with feet!" Well, let's be realistic for just a moment. Which worldview objectifies women? The Catholic viewpoint that says both husband and wife should respect each other's souls and bodies at all times and never treat one another like a piece of meat because their union is so powerful it can create new life? Or the secularist view that says you can do whatever you want with whoever you want as often as you want with absolutely no commitment whatsoever as long as you remember to take your Pill?

You cannot use contraception without in some way or another cheapening what the sacrament of marriage is supposed to be. Consequently, there may well be times when you have to sacrifice the pleasure of your physical union with your spouse. But that's a sacrifice you must be willing to make.

Besides, if the Church truly wanted to reduce women to "baby factories", they would not forbid in vitro fertilization. But they do. Infertile couples don't miss out on the fullness of the marital union simply because they don't have children. But they're still called to sacrifice by not having children.

1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

But you never hear that argument in anti-Catholic rants in the media. All anybody seems to remember is the Church's prohibition against using contraception. But if the Church truly viewed women as baby outlets, they would not forbid artificial fertilization procedures.

So much for women's rights!

Ultimately it comes down to the dignity of marriage, which is inextricably linked to the dignity of the human being which is itself inextricably linked to the value of human life. And that leads us right back to abortion.

Considering the reverence the Church manifestly has for marriage as a sacrament for procreation, is it any wonder then that the Church views abortion the way it does? If one's view of marriage is as high-minded as the Catholic Church's, the only logical conclusion must be that abortion is a wicked practice of barbaric moral evil.

I thought I was prolife, pro-marriage and anti-contraception before but it took the Church to show me understand just how right and yet how far away I was.

The Coming Evangelical Collapse (Six Years Later)

"We're all Catholics now."
Mike Huckabee

The Coming Evangelical Collapse

You know, I've never been much of one to read the tea leaves. Generally speaking, I'm often the last one to get the memo about pretty much anything. I generally tend to believe in my own point of view until that awkward moment when reality rudely wakes me up.

But my record isn't all bad. Or even mostly bad. When I was teaching a small group at Southern Baptist Church #1, I saw first hand that modern Christianity was up against a lot of problems.

For one thing, it blew my mind how many of my supposed peers were absolutely ignorant of even the fundamentals of the faith. In the evangelical world, you are free to believe whatever you like about raptures and End Times and things like that but what's non-negotiable are big ticket doctrines such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and other things. I wasn't asking the group members to know the order in which David, Moses, Elijah and Abraham lived (although it wouldn't hurt). I merely sought to give them the core essentials of the faith.

The Catholic Church would say I was trying to catechize them.

However, my efforts were largely for naught. Many of them were incapable of explaining even the basics of what they believe or, heaven help them, why they believe it. The point came where I stopped wondering why they were even bothering to come to church at all and started wondering how long my (then) beloved evangelical Christianity could survive in the face of such alarming ignorance and apathy.

I needn't have worried, of course, because in short order it stopped being my problem. Getting fired publicly has that effect. People so ignorant of their faith and so eager to embrace (rather than engage) the culture couldn't long be counted upon to stand up for evangelicalism. Thus it would be fair to say that by the start of 2010, I was very scared of what evangelicalism might look in ten years' time.

Oddly enough, I ended up helping fulfill that myself what with my journey to the Catholic Church, but I digress.

Apart from not reading the tea leaves, I've also never been one to get swept away with hyperbole and doom-saying. Any fool can predict catastrophe because havoc and mayhem are the natural states of the world. Indeed, the market is strong for predicting future calamities.

Still, when the source article I linked to up top first caused a stir, it was completely off my radar. But I tripped over it not long after I joined the RCIA program about a year ago. And even though the late author freely admits to being no prophet, he outlines an oddly prophetic vision of the problems that have engulfed evangelicalism. It's easy to buy into because I glommed onto it relatively late in the game. Comparing this man's predictions to what has already come to pass, indeed, it is chilling how accurate his vision has been. At least up to now.

To wit: Twenty and thirty years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention pretty much ran the board on all or most social issues. Politicians crossed prominent evangelical pastors and leaders at their own peril. It would be fair to say that evangelicalism enjoyed a cultural and political hegemony that the first century Church could only dream of. And the SBC was not ignorant of this. On the contrary, they rather enjoyed their positions of influence.

Today though, your average sub-35 year old evangelical can easily explain the supposed merits and importance of gay marriage but fails miserably when the subject turns even to simple, no-brainer questions like the names of the four gospel writers found in sacred Scripture. I could end up being proved wrong but I suspect that's no recipe for building a future.

My point is that my generation was raised on dc Talk and told to vote Republican; our parents hoped that just about covered it. Meanwhile, secular (and I daresay more hostile) sources have used mass media to propagandize the youth on the entire liberal agenda and, in so doing, explained WHY those causes are to be protected, justified and legalized.

A good example of what I mean is Rachel Held Evans. She's part of the breed of hipster Christians ("I'm a Christian but not the George W. Bush kind of Christian,") who abandoned evangelicalism in favor of greener, more LGBT-friendly pastures. And what she ended up finding is the Episcopal church, naturally.

As aggravating and Christian-chic as Evans might be, she's hardly unique. Her parents' generation worried about winning that next midterm election while little Rachel and everyone else her age tuned in to the Daily Show. And now that her generation has grown up, what did anybody expect was going to happen?

Now, I confess that I still carry a certain amount of anger and resentment toward evangelicalism because of my negative experiences from 2010. To deny that would be a transparent lie. And in just a few weeks, I'd become obligated to confess that lie. So I'll instead freely admit that part of me can't help feeling (A) partially vindicated for all the fears and concerns I had for the movement's future back in 2009 and 2010 and (B) a little happy that so many of these puffed-up evangelicals are being humbled.

They fell in love with the world. This is what they deserve.

What might that mean for the Catholic Church though? Honestly, I have no idea because, frankly, I've always found it a bit hard to believe that the young people really enjoy liturgy and more traditional expressions of Christianity. Or if they do, it's primarily a superficial fad. What will they do and where will they go when the novelty fades?

Well, the deceased blogger speculated that evangelicalism's inevitable collapse has at least short term benefits for the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. And he may even be right; I wouldn't know. But I could sooner envision the Liberal True-Believers dropping out of Christianity entirely rather than attending churches who have staked their credibility on the sinfulness of homosexual relations, the impossibility of female ordination and other liberal hot buttons.

No matter the outcome, all that's really happening in my view is that Christianity isn't "shrinking" as such so much as the Nominals and In-Name-Only's are abandoning a religion they never truly believed in anyway.

Assuming that process completely or mostly wipes evangelicalism out, the only real player on the table will be two choices- Catholicism and, to whatever degree of viability, Eastern Orthodoxy.

I must admit that it's quite possible that there'd some penitent evangelicals who might come home to the Mother Church in Rome. However, that process would involve a lot of thoughtful consideration and no small amount of pride-swallowing.

Since both of those things are abjectly foreign to most evangelicals, I suspect the immediate beneficiary could be Orthodoxy. And part of me would be okay with that. I don't know what the Church's official position regarding Eastern Orthodoxy is but the Orthodox seem to have valid Orders and valid Sacraments. Is Orthodoxy the full expression of Christian truth? Perhaps not. But it's a lot closer to the mark than the Southern Baptist Convention was on their best day.

Assuming evangelicalism truly does collapse and that it happens in the relatively near future (and, at risk of saying "me too", that appears to be something of an inevitability), I see it as a good thing, ultimately. Christianity in the United States is shrinking, as I said, but what we're losing are those who were never truly invested in the faith to begin with. And they're leaving behind a more obedient and committed Body. And this would likely be a body more unified in faith, purpose and Sacrament than any time in America's history.

Whatever growing (or more aptly shrinking) pains could lie in store, in the end, isn't that a basically positive thing?

Hatred

Been thinking.

Obviously gay marriage is making a lot of inroads right now. And it doesn't matter what I think about that. It doesn't matter that it's completely artificial. It doesn't matter that what little "momentum" it has comes from a Presidential election where a major part of the electorate was repressed and kept away from polls.

What matters is that it's coming. And this genie isn't easily put back in the bottle, however illegitimate its origins.

This same group is basically openly at war with any semblance of organized religion. They've been less successful here, thanks primarily to a Supreme Court obsessed with freedom of speech. Under other circumstances, nobody's qualified to say what might be happening to America right now.

This is all mostly pushed by people who only love liberty and democracy when it suits their purposes. Otherwise, both are obstacles to their agenda. Obstacles to be eradicated.

And I'll be bluntly honest that it's hard to obey Our Lord's command to love those who hate me and do good to those who persecute me. My natural inclination is to be an absolute gadfly. If I have a chance to ruin a liberal's day, all too often I'm guilty of taking it. Even if it's something as petty as cutting somebody off in traffic with an Obama/Biden 2012 bumper sticker on their car. As long as it doesn't violate the law or result in physical injury, odds are it'll be a pleasure to completely screw some liberal over.

But Our Lord doesn't say to do that. He says to love those who hate me and do good to those who persecute me. This is what the Church did back in the first century when the Romans were using Christians as tiki torches in Caesar's garden. This is the approach that ultimately transformed Rome from barbaric paganism to enlightened Christianity.

This is the approach that changed the entire world.

But hate. Hate comes so easily, doesn't it? I see liberals everywhere destroying everything that makes this country great. And not only are they destroying it, they're reveling in their victories and successes. And I hate them for it. I regularly refuse to give them any measure of forgiveness, patience, kindness or, worst of all, Our Lord's love. I declared them enemies and never even attempted to reach them.

And my hate isn't restricted to liberals either. A fair amount of it is directed to evangelical Christians, obsessed with their little imaginary apocalypses; the ones who stayed home in 2012 and gave control over this country to a tyrant because they didn't like Mitt Romney out of some idiotic "principled stand".

This same principle didn't keep them from voting for President Bush back in 2004, mind you; it's only when Obamacare is set to destroy what's left of freedom in America that these fools decided to be conservative purists.

I say all of this to my shame. Because for as resentful, angry and downright hateful as I've been to those people, they're ultimately just PEOPLE who need Our Lord's love and sacrifice in order to be forgiven. And I've made absolutely no effort to be the light that shines the way.

Understand, in most respects I consider myself a sexual libertarian. I don't care who does what with whom as long as all parties consent to it. My opposition to same-sex "marriage" comes exclusively from the certainty that part of "marriage equality" necessarily entails putting the Church under liberalism's boot.

NOBODY can guarantee when gay marriage is the law of the land, priests, pastors and other religious leaders won't get sued into oblivion for refusing to perform "same-sex marriage" ceremonies.

That is where my opposition to same-sex unions begins and ends. Otherwise I couldn't care less about it and am amazed that things have gone as far as they have.

But that hasn't stopped me from anything. I originally didn't care about "same-sex marriage" supporters or their kooky cause. But now that they're in spitting distance of their goal, I not only hate them but the people they're advocating for.

And again, that's the complete opposite of what Our Lord intended.

Through this entire mess, I've come to realize that there's a better than average chance that this could result in a serious persecution, possibly up to and including martyrdom. And through it all, I've steadfastly refused to count the evangelicals as allies. By definition they've already rebelled against the Church's authority.

Why would they be counted upon to stand up for REAL truth when they've already rejected so much of it already by separating themselves from Rome?

But Our Lord said we should make peace with our brothers. I've never even attempted to do this. I've just assumed they're pompous, ignorant, proud and unreliable pretenders to the REAL faith.

There's a lot here that I've failed to handle properly. I've returned the favor (with interest) when liberals treat me like enemies. I've smugly dismissed any legitimacy of conviction (if not purity of doctrine) among the evangelicals and categorized them as misled sheep; simpletons and fools too stupid to crack open and read the writings of the early Church fathers to understand their supposed faith's TRUE origins.

I will do all in my power to repent. The hour is late. Probably too late to reverse any of this. But that's no excuse for not recognizing my error and working to repent and correct these problems.

Pope Francis and the Media

Crazy times. That's partly the reason for the lack of updates.

The other thing though is there hasn't been a whole lot to say lately. But there have been a few interesting developments. A couple.

For one thing, my firm belief is the American leftwing media had no real choice but to show admiration for Pope John Paul II. He reigned for nearly thirty years, he was instrumental in the undoing of a major American enemy and he oversaw the implementations of major parts of Vatican II.

I won't discuss Vatican II, you understand. That's above my paygrade as an Inquirer. I'm just talking about Blessed John Paul II's legacy here and why the leftie media had some sympathies for him.

So they HAD to show admiration for him, especially on the occasion of his death. Even the leftie media aren't (or weren't) of such poor taste that they'd bash too much on him after his passing. Their rank and file sure did (check archives of their blogs and news article comments; it was the most ugly viciousness you can imagine) but the media themselves didn't.

And among liberals, some of the grief may well have even been sincere. I saw a picture of former-President Bill Clinton standing next to then current President George W. Bush. President Bush looked serious and solemn while Clinton looked completely overcome. Put another way, you could tell that Clinton had pretty much lost it over Pope John Paul's death. So if he was upset about it, I'll allow others might've been as well.

Pope Benedict XVI was an easier target for their abuse and vitriol. He was more of a traditionalist in some of his views, he was clearly not going to somehow change the Church's more aggravating policies (aggravating to liberals, that is) and all around I think the only reason he didn't have an even worse time is because President Bush was a much more interesting target. But under other circumstances, I shudder to think how the media might've treated Pope Benedict.

Pope Francis is different. Or different to liberals anyway. They fell in love with him because of the perception that he was friendly to liberal pet cause, even though he CAN'T change the Church's teachings regarding female clergy, abortions, same-sex unions and other things.

Everything is politics to the media. Add to that a fondness for deifying human beings as well as a complete ignorance of how the Catholic Church operates and you've got a recipe for them to believe that Pope Francis would be the answers to their prayers if they believed in prayer. They believe that, why, the right Pope at the right time could drag this old fuddy-duddy institution into the modern day, ordain female clergy, bless same-sex unions, permit abortions and other liberal sacraments.

This delusion comes in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

But now the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to fall into place. Pope Francis has said time and again that he cannot and will not "change" the Church's teachings about whatever the liberals are going nuts about this week.

On top of that, top Vatican officials are echoing the Holy Father's remarks.

"[President Obama] appears to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies. Such policies would have been unimaginable in the United States even 40 years ago. It is true that many faithful Catholics, with strong and clear leadership from their bishops and priests, are reacting against the ever-growing religious persecution in the U.S."
-- Vatican Chief Justice Cardinal Raymond Burke
(Source- http://washingtonexaminer.com/cardinal-burke-criticizes-obamas-anti-life-and-anti-family-policies-ahead-of-vatican-visit/article/2546191

Maybe the leftie media will be content to continue living in Liberal La-La Land about this. Maybe they'll take possibly the most scathing criticism the Vatican has ever made against an American President's policies in my lifetime lying down. I admit it could totally happen.

I just doubt it will.

No, I think this will be the beginning of the end of the American liberal media's love affair with Pope Francis. Sooner or later (sooner, I always thought), they'd realize that Pope Francis hasn't "changed" anything, the Church's policies remain as they always were, Pope Francis is unapologetically maintaining the faith as it has been handed down for millennia and he's not the superhero/reformer he was first thought to be by the American media. The above quote from Burke may be their wake up call.

After that, my hunch is that the only thing that might save Pope Francis from being totally pilloried in the media will be his ethnicity. They may be slightly reluctant to bash too much on the first South American Pope in history. But maybe even that won't be enough.

Now, to address a little conspiracy that's made the rounds, a lot of people think the media have simply adopted Pope Francis as a posterboy specifically to create chaos and disunity in the Church. If the media love Francis, surely that'll tick off the conservatives and traditionalists in the Church, which is precisely what the media want. That may irreparably harm Pope Francis and his pontificate. If that happens, if the conservatives turn on a Pope perceived by the media to be more friendly to liberal wackadoo causes, mission accomplished!

Personally, I don't buy that. That would require the leftwing media to realize how most people view them, and that's something they're fundamentally unwilling to do. They have to believe not only that they're the smartest people in the room but that everyone else believes that too. So this theory that they're intentionally causing problems doesn't work for me because it would require the liberal media to acknowledge things about themselves they've historically been unwilling to acknowledge.

No, being as they tend to view the Catholic Church as just another political organization that can change direction if enough pressure is applied, they've genuinely taken Pope Francis to heart... which is why hell will have no fury greater than theirs when they realize Pope Francis is just another Pope who can't and won't "change" the Church's teachings about anything.

THAT is when the claws will come out and I suspect we aren't too far away from that happening.

More to follow.

The Universe Has A Starting Point

There's been a lot of bizarre triumphalism about discoveries regarding the big bang theory lately. The following examples were all copied from Facebook:

---
and there goes adam and eve, and the best selling fiction novel in history "the bible." Science dont lie but people do, and over the years humans have evolved to become amazing bullshiters guess martin luther made bulls***ing a career since he was not smart enough to be a scientist nor nothing more than a peasant..its like obama taking advice from people off skid row
---
Some day one of the last remaining bibles will sit in a Museum of history somewhere and people will marvel at how their ancestors worshipped it's fictional stories the way we do the ancient greeks and egyptians.
---
I love science. Big bang theory ftw. Its ok religion you can take a rest now. Let the big kids handle this!
---
Sorry creationists, but scientists just found the "smoking gun" that shows how the Big Bang happened.
---

There are other examples I could cite but I doubt any of them are any more qualified to follow every single detail of recent discoveries than the above knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, anti-religious zealots are.

I'm not saying I follow every single nuance of recent big bang discoveries myself, you understand. Far from it. The difference though is (A) I admit it and (B) I'm calling other people out for pretending to have an expertise I suspect is sadly lacking if their rambling, semi-conscious Facebook posts are anything to judge by. Why, you might say I'm observing and interpreting evidence to formulate my conclusion. But enough of this heavy "science" stuff I know will only confuse them.

Now, you might doubt me on the above. If you do, ask ANY of the sudden big bang cheerleaders to explain cosmic microwave background light and the role that played in this recent discovery with emphasis on inflation.

Yeah, let me know how that goes.

Anyway, ultimately the principle of the big bang theory is this: the universe had a beginning. Really, that's it. It's that simple. Yes, there are nuanced and intricate analyses to be made, many of which are kind of interesting to some people. But ultimately that's what the big bang theory tells us. The universe had some kind of starting point.

Since it's been singled out, I feel I should say that Christianity has acknowledged that much from the get-go. It should be noted that it was "mainstream science" that was uncomfortable with the universe having a solid starting point rather than perpetual existence favored by most of the scientific community precisely because of what might be implied about Who exactly lit the fuse of the big bang. Religious people who understand the simple principle of the big bang theory (ie, the universe didn't exist one moment but then did the next moment) weren't and aren't uncomfortable with the proposition. It was "mainstream science" that took a lot of convincing on the matter.

And eventually (at gunpoint, against their will, as a last resort and only when all other options failed) mainstream science ultimately did acquiesce and accept simple fact.

So all the non-believers and anti-religious bigots doing end zone dances right now? They're the same ones a century ago who would've been horrified at the very discoveries and theories they're now shouting with glee from the rooftops.

Even so, I'm prepared to be the bigger man in this case. And so I'd like to thank the science-denying, non-believing, anti-religious whackjobs for putting aside their pride (not to mention over a century of resistance to progress) and agreeing with my God, my prophets, my holy text and me in our shared belief that the universe had a firm starting point. Better late than never, guys!

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
-- Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

My Religious Text

I suspect that a lot of Christians feel really aggravated and talked down to when some non-believing liberal tells them what the Bible says and how it should be interpreted. And many of them aren't afraid to admit it either.

That's where we are right now. Several liberals are perfectly willing to tell Christians who Our Lord would be willing to bake and sell cakes to and just how loving and affirming He'd be to anybody and everybody. I've seen a lot of my friends from the evangelical world have meltdowns over that patronizing stupidity on Facebook and various blogs I keep up with.

"Who do these people think they are telling ME what MY Bible says?"

"It's gotta take a lot of [testosterone] to use my Savior for your own purposes like that!"

"Where do YOU get off dictating to me what the Bible does and doesn't say and how it should and shouldn't be interpreted? We have centuries of study and interpretation reinforcing our point of view."

My heart bleeds. But at least now the evangelicals know how the Catholics have felt since 1517.

Gay Marriage and the Lessons Learned

I hope the Republican Party learns their lesson from all this same-sex "marriage" nonsense going on right now. There were opportunities to deal with this decades ago with a Constitutional amendment. But the left (and their rubber-stamp media) all said that it wasn't necessary, it was overkill, don't overreact, etc.

Let this be a lesson to you too: Any time a liberal says ANY kind of legislation is unnecessary, pass it anyway.

In 1995, we were told that opposing civil unions is bigoted. They exist only to create a legal framework for gays to have a relationship recognized by the state. That's it! Nothing more! So there's no need to amend the Constitution to strictly define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Why, that's the whole reason we have DOMA! Constitutional amendments are overkill! So don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

In 2004, we were told that opposing the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling is bigoted because it only extends benefits to gay couples that everybody should have! Besides, this is one ruling in one state! There's no need to amend the Constitution to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman! It doesn't mean marriage is being redefined so don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

In 2013, we were told that the Supreme Court did the right thing by striking down part of DOMA and saying anything to the contrary was bigoted! It's not like the Court ruled that gay "marriage" is legal and required by all 50 states so don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

In 2014, we're being told that refusing to do business with gay couples is bigoted because the crazed liberal mob says so. After all, it's not like the Constitution say that marriage can't mean something other than one man and one woman. This is perfectly legal and Constitutional. But don't worry, nobody's saying that churches will have to participate in same-sex ceremonies if they don't want to so don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

At the rate things are going, does anybody still think this won't eventually end with priests, pastors and other clergy being jailed for refusing to officiate gay ceremonies?

When a liberal says not to pass a piece of legislation because it's overkill, it's redundant, it's unnecessary or whatever else, pass it anyway.

The Squishy Center

One thing that I remember reading in that brouhaha after A&E caved to pressure to reinstate Phil Robertson after he shot his mouth off about homosexuality was an anonymous network source telling a FoxNews.com writer that several ABC and CBS network executives were fuming about how A&E knuckled under. The source then asked what this meant for moral standards going forward.

I'll put aside the irony of how people on my side were laughed at for asking the same questions about morality 10 or 15 years ago. There's too much schadenfreude there to be of interest to any of you.

Still, he does raise a good point (unintentionally, I'm sure). You see, 50 or 60 years ago, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" were basically economic definitions. The words themselves assumed a common worldview. The issue came down to basically what you thought the government's responsibilities were to the economy.

Obviously that's not the case anymore. I find that when you use the word "worldview", peoples' eyes glass over and they lose all understanding of what you're saying. When you instead say "morality", they're able to follow you a lot easier. I don't know why and I choose not to fight it. It simply IS.

People say that the United States of America is made up of two countries. The "union" is strictly theoretical. That's a premise I tend to accept because it's certainly descriptive of the last several Presidential elections, all of which rose and fell on the voting preferences of 6 or 8 "swing states". The residents of reliably blue states and reliably red states drew their lines in the sand long ago. So let's hope the people in Ohio want tax cuts, eh?

Obviously it comes down to religion. That's the root problem. But the manifestation is morality. There are two moralities at play in America. Two very different and mutually exclusive definitions of right and wrong. And ultimately one or the other will become the dominant moral force in American public life.

That sounds extremist to a lot of people who call themselves moderates. The squishy center. To people like them, I sound like a freak. But history bears me out. There is no center. The center today will be either left of center or right of center ten years from now. It's not a fixed point. It's a self-defeating philosophy And ultimately it doesn't exist.

One side or the other will come to be the decisive moral voice. And for now, it seems obvious which way the winds are blowing. But, as I said before, it's rarely liberals who schism.

The Gay Lobby and Painty-Waist Libertarianism

Yeesh, this is just not my week for sticking to my original plan. I wanted to talk about lay ministries today. But apparently, like the Messianic Judaism entry originally scheduled for yesterday, it just wasn't meant to be.

Okay, big doings in Arizona as Governor Brewer may or may not sign a bill into law that will, GASP!, permit businesses to associate with whomever they want to associate! That's antigayhomophobicbigotedchristofascistgodbaggery!

This has led a few people from the right and the left to call for marriage privatization. That is to say "get the government out of marriage".

Now, my views on most political issues are "cut government, cut taxes, privatize it". That applies to just about everything. Just about. But not everything. Marriage is a good example of my "just about everything" clause.

Whether anybody likes it or not, marriage is a spiritual union between one man and one woman. Period, end of discussion. But marriage is also a legal union between two people (for now) recognized by the State. It must be this way. Be it for taxation, inheritance, visitation, legal testimony and other things, the government has a role to play. Whether anybody likes it or not

It's well and good to argue that the government has no business being in the marriage business. And in a world where divorce is rare and would be adjudicated exclusively through churches or private arbiters, privatization even makes some amount of sense. But this isn't a perfect world. The Left has done all it can to enshrine divorce as an institution in this country. Property laws being what they are, the government has to rule on these things.

It's not "fair", it's not "right", but it's the way things are.

I really wish the panty-waist libertarian wing of the Republican Party would adopt a consistent line on when the government should or shouldn't take action. They pipe up everytime one of these "same-sex marriage" issues comes along but somehow their commitment to constitutional government stops short of little things like cutting entitlements and balancing the budget.

This is a contentious issue. One side wants marriage to be legally defined the way it has been for millennia in western civilization. The other side wants to redefine the word and entire concept.

One side will win and the other will lose. It's that simple.

And honestly, I don't really even care about it very much. When it comes to the "gay agenda", I don't care about the "gay" part. The "agenda" part... that's something else.

What people do with each other behind closed doors doesn't affect me. Therefore it doesn't concern me. It's not my job to "rescue" people from these things. What I care about is being free to practice my religion in peace.

Now, The Secular Chorus always sings that our priests, churches and religious organizations will "never" be forced to perform unions they have a religious objection to.

Right now though, people are getting dragged into court and sued into oblivion because they don't want to do business with gay people, usually on religious grounds. So I hope the marriage-redefiners can at least see why I and others are concerned here.

Considering Phil Robertson

Wow, lack of updates lately. The reason for that is because I've been sick with some crud and that sacked me out for the better part of a week. Combine that with the Christmas holiday and there's your delay right there.

So anyway. Facebook has absolutely blown up goings on related to Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty. I shall not recap his comments. If you don't know what he said, Google is your friend.

It's been interesting reading the reactions people have had though. And I'm not talking about the media, Hollywood, politicians and so forth. I mean reactions from the rank and file. Specifically I refer to people on the conservative/Republican/Christian side of the argument.

For the first time it really feels like lines are being drawn about this issue. For the first time it feels like there are fractures in the opposition to "same-sex marriage". But I'll come back to this in a moment.

Earlier tonight I saw a friend-of-a-friend had posted a link to some crowd-source financing web page. The page is intended to collect funds so that a same-sex couple can leave the very deeply red state we live in and drive to California to get married.

This isn't a simple matter of challenging the law in the Texas Supreme Court in the hopes they find it unconstitutional. It would be pointless. The state's Supreme Court would have to rule against them because Texas didn't ban "gay marriage" with a bill signed in to law. Rather, the Texas Constitution was itself amended specifically to prevent not only "gay marriage" ceremonies from occurring within the state but also to prevent Texas from recognizing such unions performed in other states.

In other words there's simply no wiggle room here. If you reside in the state of Texas, there's simply no way for same-sex couples to get "married". There's no state law you can pass in Texas that will ever change that. Even if 100% of all citizens in Texas changed their minds tomorrow about "gay marriage" and decided to pass a law, it wouldn't do any good. The state's constitution would have to be modified. And that's a procedural pain in the neck.

I say all of that to draw an analogy. There's an entire segment of the supposed Christian community who are finally willing to "compromise" (ie, sell out) on this issue. This whole chimichanga related to Phil Robertson has brought at least that much into focus. There are craploads of people supposedly on my side of the aisle who have finally had enough. They're at their breaking points now.

Everybody? No, of course not. But a considerable number. I use the term "supposed Christians" up there (A) because these people are okay with their Protestant/evangelical churches officiating or in some way blessing same-sex unions, which is a patently anti-Christian attitude to have and (B) this even includes some Mormons I know. Mormons in general and these Mormons in particular may be good people but Mormons cannot be called Christians unless we either redefine the word "Mormon", the word "Christian" or both.

To be sure, Catholics far and wide may support "same-sex marriage" too but the difference is that the Church doesn't. And that I guess is the sum and substance of my point here.

Much like the Texas state constitution, the Catholic Church has taught infallibly that marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman. Period, end of discussion. Even if every single Catholic in the entire world up to and including any given Pope were to decide "same-sex marriage" is cool and totally onboard with God's plan, the Church's prior teachings on the subject are impossible to change.

The Catholic Church can't compromise on this. Can't. Cannot. Even if individual Catholics are more than willing to kowtow to the left about this issue, the Church herself can't.

But non-Catholic institutions lack the Church's authority and leadership. As with states which forbid "same-sex marriage" by law rather than Constitutional amendment, their own bylaws may forbid anything even remotely resembling "same-sex marriage" today but who knows what those bylaws might say tomorrow? Apply enough pressure and who knows? Maybe the Mormons and the Southern Baptists will accept "gay marriage" after all.

But the Catholic Church can't.

As a side note, let me say that in many ways I consider myself to be a sexual libertarian. In many ways, I don't care what people do or with whom they do it as long as (A) it's consensual and (B) it doesn't become my problem.

The issue with "gay marriage" is that any legal recognition of it will eventually become my problem in the form of my church being forced to recognize or perform "gay weddings". The gay lobby and its advocates can say anything they like to the contrary but let's cut the crap. Their movement isn't about "equality". If that's all they wanted, laws regarding civil unions could be modified as necessary to confer whatever legal benefits are conferred by marriage.

That isn't the issue. It's never been the issue. Ultimately the gay lobby wants society's blessing for that immoral lifestyle. Anything less is unacceptable. We've all seen the Internet meme of a picture of a "gay marriage" advocate holding a sign that says "I civil union you". The nonsensical sentiment is designed to illustrate the supposed absurdity and inequality inherent to civil unions over and against marriage.

It isn't about equality. It's about forcing everybody everywhere to accept the proposition of "gay marriage" simply because they desperately yearn for wholesale societal endorsement.

Not just "acceptance". Not just "tolerance". Endorsement.

Do you seriously think they'll draw the line at religious freedom? How's that working out so far? We've all heard the stories about Christian business owners being forced to participate in "gay weddings" in spite of the fact that theirs is a clear cut case of religious conscience.

The same gay lobby which has eaten those business owners alive in court will somehow spare churches and other religious groups? Fat chance!

When I express unequivocal opposition to "gay marriage", bear in mind that this is what I have in mind. When it comes to the "gay agenda", remember that I couldn't care less about the "gay" part. It's the "agenda" part that bothers me.

The Religion of Secularism

I can't be the first one to notice the similarities between secularism and organized religion. In point of fact, I believe religion is the only way to explain the zealotry of the left. As I say though, I can't be the first. Still, I doubt there's as extensive a list comparing how much secularism resembles Christianity.

-- The Religion of Secularism
- Tithe
Taxes

- House of Worship
Cable News Networks
Internet Blogs/Facebook Groups

- Seminaries
College Universities

- Clergy
News Journalists
Supreme Court Justices
School Teachers/College Professors

- Sacred Scripture
Darwin's Origin of Species
Roe v. Wade

- Catechism
School textbooks

- Sacraments
Voting
Abortion
Pre-Marital Sex
Divorce

- Messiah
Barack Obama

- Mother Mary
Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey

- Prophets
Charles Darwin
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens
Bill Clinton

- Saints
Franklin Roosevelt
Celebrity Activists/Atheists

- Martyrs
John F. Kennedy
Matthew Shepard
Murdered Abortion Providers

- Representative of All Evil
President George W. Bush

- Religious Congregations
Congressional Black Caucus
National Organization of Women
ACORN
ACLU
Organized Labor

- Magisterium
Scientific Methods

- Religious Jargon
Separation of Church and State
Political Correctness

- Curia
US President
US Congress
Supreme Court

- Creation Myth
Evolution

- Eschatology/End Times
Global Warming

- Virtues
Taxing "the rich"
Universal Healthcare
Gay Marriage
Social Justice

- Holy Days
Earth Day
Labor Day

- Political Expression/Affiliation
Liberalism (Democrat Party)

- Apostates
Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey
Dennis Miller

So how exactly is secularism not a religion? And how is governmental implementation of secularism not establishing a religion?