Saturday, July 04, 2015

Declare your independence from following the crowd.



Some good advice here.

10 Ways Catholics Can Save Marriage:


  1. Start using the term “Holy Matrimony” and always use that term. Yes, you don’t need permission. That’s capital H and capital M. Go there. The word “holy” is important and “matrimony” has its etymology in the Latin mater meaning “mother.” Matrimony brings about the procreation of babies and makes women into “mothers.” Holy Matrimony. Got it?
  2. We must encourage Catholic Church to officially declare ex cathedra that our Holy Matrimony is a sacrament between a man and a woman that resides above the natural order of government and that it is ratified and regulated by the Catholic Church alone. True, this is already Catholic teaching, but we need to be vocal about it and make it clear as day.
  3. The Catholic Church should consider all Western marriages “dubious” since most contemporary married people are generally lacking formal and material intent. Those who are not practicing Catholics enter into an arrangement called “marriage” that does not correspond to the traditional Christian definition that ensures monogamy, procreation, and heterosexuality. If Bob and Sue get “married” in the Episcopal Church nowadays, their view of marriage may and probably does include no-fault divorce in case “it doesn’t work out,” the “need” for contraception, and a definition of marriage that includes homosexuality. Their intent is lacking and thus the marriage is dubious and ready for annulment. (BTW, this is a theologically correct way for liberal (German) Catholics to grant more legitimate annulments and find a solution without changing the Catholic theology of Holy Matrimony)
  4. The Catholic Church has traditionally and charitably presumed that Protestant marriages are valid and even sacramental. The Catholic Church should rescind this presumption since most Protestant denominations believe in divorce and remarraige…and now same-sex marriage. What they call “marriage” is not what we Catholics mean by “Holy Matrimony.”
  5. All Catholic marriage prep should end with a video recording of the male and the female to be married in which both personally articulate the Catholic teaching about matrimony, monogamy, indissolubility, procreation and contraception, and heterosexuality. This will be useful in the future if one party seeks an annulment. The diocese can simply pull the video and say, “Well, here you are being filmed 3 weeks before the wedding and you are rationally describing the Catholic sacrament of marriage and articulating your full consent to enter into it with your spouse. So explain to us again why you think you aren’t really married?” This video also demonstrates that the deacon or priest adequately prepared the man and woman for Holy Matrimony.
  6. Casual pre-marital sex should be seen as an impediment to Holy Matrimony.Holy Matrimony is a holy sacrament and a spiritual vocation. You cannot be leading each other into mortal sin as you prepare for this holy state. What if a Seminarian started to celebrate Mass and hear confessions before his ordination? He would be dismissed. But what if the seminarian said, “Yeah, but I needed to try it out to see if it was a right fit?” Sorry. Still dismissed. He’s not worthy to be priest. Yet, why are we so lazy and lax when it comes to the other sacrament of vocation.
  7. Recapture Holy Matrimony as a church event and this means we need to distance ourselves from the pomp of the afterparty, flowers, cake, guests, etc. Holy Matrimony should feel more somber like a priestly ordination and less like a QuinceaƱera or debutant ball. Holy Matrimony is not a narcissistic parade for princesses and their mothers. It’s a sacrament. Rein it in.
  8. We need to decouple civil marriage from Sacramental Holy Matrimony. This can be done in two ways:
    First, can priests cease serving as ministers of the State in administering marriage, as this Eastern Orthodox priest is doing.
    Second, we need aggressive pre-marriage civil agreements that secure monogamy and traditional marriage. Why? Because the legal teeth of civil marriage have been removed. A woman can commit adultery against her husband with 50 different men, and then seek a divorce…and the poor husband still has to pay alimony to her! Why? Because American courts do not believe that marriage is a monogamous contract. In a study of 566 gay couples, only 45% had made the promise to be sexually monogamous. David Nimmons cites studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in open relationships. Oh, and the NYTimes are citing these facts as ways that homosexual married couples can help “innovate” a new view of marriage for heterosexual marriages. We need to stress monogamy in marriage if we are going to save the institution. There should be a pre-nup (that word scares people for good reason – let’s call it pre-matrimony or “civil marriage addenda”) for both parties saying, “This is a monogamous, exclusive, and sacred bond that is only dissoluble by the death of one of the parties. If you’re unfaithful and commit adultery, you get nothing from the other spouse if you file for a civil divorce. Nothing.”
  9. Hang on to your Catholic vocabulary. If you have a gay co-worker who is “married” don’t call his partner a “husband” and don’t call his union a “marriage.” You wouldn’t call a Protestant service “a Mass” and you wouldn’t call the Reverend Jesse Jackson a “priest” or “Father.” I also don’t call a Lutheran a “Catholic” even though he claims to be one. Sorry, I have to be true to my beliefs. If I get fired, so be it. If you don’t follow your conscience, you’ll be miserable.
  10. Do not attend marriages that are not really marriages. When the judge or minister says, “Is there any reason why these two should not be married? Speak now or forever hold your peace,” you are morally obliged as a patriotic citizen of your community and as a baptized Christian to speak up and say it. If you don’t want to be in that awkward situation, don’t go!

Wednesday, July 01, 2015

Disruptive searches seem to be a favorite ploy on the part of totalitarians to punish dissidents.


This is from "Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany" by Robert Krieg, p. 68:

//Most of Wurzburg's Catholic theologians covertly resisted the Nazi state and paid a price for doing so.  In February 1933, police conducted a disruptive search of each scholar's residence. Not intimidated by this action, Andreas Bigelmair, professor of patrology and pastoral theology, continued to criticize the new government throughout the winter and spring of 1933 and was therefore listed as an enemy of the state. Three Storm Troopers came to his residence at 3:00 A.M., on June 29, 1933, and searched in vain for seditious literature."



This is from Wisconsin in 2011:

//Agents with weapons drawn swarmed through every part of the house. They barged into the bathroom where my partner was showering. I was told to shut up and sit down. The officers rummaged through drawers, cabinets and closets. Their aggressive assault on my home seemed more appropriate for a dangerous criminal, not a longtime public servant with no criminal history.

After they left, I surveyed the damage. Drawers and closets had been ransacked. My deceased mother’s belongings were strewn across the floor. Neighbors gathered in small clusters at the end of their driveways and the press arrived in force.

What had prompted the raid? My guess: As an adviser to Gov. Walker, I had played a lead role in drafting and implementing public-employee labor reforms that would propel him to the national stage.

The governor’s reforms, commonly referred to as Act 10, prompted angry union protests. The reforms also enraged many politicians, including, as I would later find out, Mr. Chisholm and members of his staff. My ties to Gov. Walker and Act 10 made me a prime target for Mr. Chisholm’s campaign to intimidate anyone close to the governor.

In other words, I was targeted because of my politics—in plain violation of the First Amendment and federal civil-rights statutes.//


Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Confederate flags are bigotry and must be banned.

Pictures of the Prophet Muhammad is bigotry and must be banned.

Pictures of the Pope Emeritus in condoms is not bigotry and the New York Times wants you to see it.

Spot the principle?

In case you are confused, the only principle here is that Secular liberals hate you if you are a Catholic, Evangelical or Jewish religious believer.


Your vote doesn't matter.

Why vote on important issues at all?

Let's just sit back and have 5 out of 9 lawyers tell us the way things are going to be.


Whatever happened to Katie Couric?

She is working for Yahoo and in this clip is interviewing Ted Cruz.

She is surprised to find that Hillary injected the "Birther" claim into the 2008 election.

Cruz is articulate and provides a cogent explanation about the American political system.


Because he knows who his enemy really is...

...and they are Americans who don't agree with him.

Hugh Hewitt back Ben Smith of Buzzfeed into a corner.

//HH: I know, but when you report, for example, on Saudi Arabia, you’re reporting on a state that refuses Christians to practice their faith. You’re reporting on a state that beheads people. You’re reporting on a state that embraces Shariah. Do you have an editorial judgment that that is an evil state? Or is that not within, is that again above your pay grade?

BS: Hugh, that’s not the business. I mean, the value that we add is the reporting, as I see it, and so that’s what we try to do.

HH: So can you articulate for me, and I get it, I think I get it, but can you articulate for me what is the different between the need to announce on LGBT equality and the need not to announce on Shariah-governed states?

[Long silence]

BS: That’s a really good question.//


Saturday, June 27, 2015

Remember how we were always told by the ACLU that we had to protect the rights of the most despised members of society, e.g., murderers, communists and perverts, in order to protect our own rights?

Hahahahahaha!

If you believed them, you were an idiot.

The enemy remains the same, but the principle change directions.


Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Pope Francis on Auschwitz.

Huh?

//It makes me think one thing: people, leaders, entrepreneurs that call themselves Christians, and produce arms! This gives some mistrust: they call themselves Christians! “No, no, Father, I don’t produce them, no, no .... I only have my savings, my investments in arms factories.” Ah! And why? “Because the interest is somewhat higher ...” And a double face is also a current coin today: to say something and do another. Hypocrisy ...l But let’s see what happened in the last century: in ’14, ’15, in ’15 in fact. There was that great tragedy in Armenia. So many died. I don’t know the figure: more than a million certainly. But where were the great powers of the time? Were they looking elsewhere? Why? Because they were interested in war: their war! And those that died were persons, second class human beings. Then, in the 30s and 40s the tragedy of the Shoah. The great powers had photographs of the railroad lines that took trains to the concentration camps, such as Auschwitz, to kill the Jews, and also Christians, also the Roma, also homosexuals, to kill them there. But tell me, why didn’t they bomb that? Interest! And shortly after, almost contemporaneously, were the lager in Russia: Stalin ... How many Christians suffered, were killed! The great powers divided Europe among themselves as a cake. So many years had to pass before arriving at “certain” freedom. It’s that hypocrisy of speaking of peace and producing arms, and even selling arms to this one who is at war with that one, and to that one who is at war with this one!//

I don't understand the part about not bombing the railway lines to Auschwitz because of "interest".  Is he saying that the Allies were making a profit on Auschwitz??? That there was no profit to be made in bombing Auschwitz???

Benedict was told to stay away from certain issues, although he was absolutely right about them, because of "messaging."  One would think that this Pope should get the same advice; apart from the fact that I don't think the media is about to attack him the way it would have attacked Benedict or John Paul, but this is an obvious set up for another round of the "Silence of Pius" game.
Just saying - 

If you want to win, you have to show up.

//SCHLICHTER THESIS CONFIRMED:

Shot:

● Sexy Conservatives Will Out-Breed Barren Liberals

—Kurt Schlichter, Townhall, April 20, 2015.

Chaser:

● HuffPo Writer Refusing To Have Children So She Doesn’t Spread Her White Privilege “Biologically”…

—Weasel Zippers, yesterday.//

The Left is beyond mere human ability to parody.


Monday, June 22, 2015

Hope and change in the Age of Obama.

A US Attorney goes after a libertarian magazine because its commenters practice this strange thing called "free speech."

I'm old enough to remember when liberals cared about "Free Speech."


Thursday, June 18, 2015

My quick take on the Environmental Encyclical:

Pope Francis writes:

//23. The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes.//

I accept the teaching that the climate is a common good with all that entails from the standpoint of Catholic teaching.

If human activity were causing a dangerous change in the climate, then this would be absolutely accurate.

However, there is no mention of the pause in global warming, which suggests something other than a simple correlation, and that suggests that the Holy Father did not get briefed on all the relevant, current information.

From a moral/theological standpoint, I accept the Encyclical; from an empirical/scientific standpoint, I don't think his description is accurate as a matter of empirical data.  From the standpoint of an attentive Catholic, I welcome his call for examination of this issue and if it turns out that the science validates him, then his concern will have been warranted; if not then his concern is still warranted.

Obviously, the Pope can no more end scientific inquiry than the minority of scientists who the media has dubbed "97%."

I appreciate the contribution that the Holy Father has made to framing the issues as a teacher and his reminder that humans have an obligation to each other in our treatment of the environment.
Celebrating victim status rather than American achievement...

...it's the American Way in the 21st Century!


 
Who links to me?