Fortnight For Freedom Day Ten: God Bless America!

Saturday, June 30, AD 2012

 

 

 

Beginning for two weeks, up to Independence Day, the Bishops are having a Fortnight For Freedom:

On April 12, the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S.  Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a document, “Our First,  Most Cherished Liberty,” outlining the bishops’ concerns over threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad. The bishops called for a “Fortnight for Freedom,” a 14-day period of prayer, education and action in support of religious freedom, from June 21-July 4.

 

Bishops in their own dioceses are encouraged to arrange special events to  highlight the importance of defending religious freedom. Catholic  institutions are encouraged to do the same, especially in cooperation  with other Christians, Jews, people of other faiths and all who wish to  defend our most cherished freedom.

 

The fourteen days from June  21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to  July 4, Independence Day, are dedicated to this “fortnight for  freedom”—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face  of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More,  St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the  Church of Rome.  Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our  Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that  would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for  religious liberty.

 

We here at The American Catholic are participating in the Fortnight For Freedom with special blog posts on each day.  This is the tenth of these blog posts.

Something for the weekend.  God Bless America sung by the imperishable Kate Smith.  This song became the rallying song for the United States during World War II.  Witten by Irving Berlin in 1918 while he was serving in the Army and revised by him in 1938, it was performed by Kate Smith on her radio show in 1938 and became an immediate hit, reaching unbelievable heights of popularity during World War II.  The song is a prayer to God, as the first stanza, rarely performed today, makes clear:

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,

Let us swear allegiance to a land that’s free,

Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,

As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.

God bless America,

Land that I love.

Stand beside her, and guide her

Through the night with a light from above.

From the mountains, to the prairies,

To the oceans, white with foam

God bless America, My home sweet home

God bless America, My home sweet home.

Few entertainers became so connected with one song as Kate Smith did with God Bless America.  A Protestant, Kate Smith attended Mass for years prior to her conversion to Catholicism.  In this Fortnight For Freedom we express our love for America and fervently beseech God to guide her.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

4 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom Day Ten: God Bless America!

  • It was good while it lasted.

    I remember freedom and the feeling that will never come back. The feeling that liberty would last forever, outlast the sea, the earth, and all men; the deceitful feeling that lured us to joys, to perils, to love, to vain effort – to death; the triumphant conviction of liberty, the heat of freedom in the handful of dust, the glow in the heart that with every year grew dim, grew cold, grew small, and expired – and expired, too soon, too soon – before life itself.

    Apologies to Joseph Conrad, 1857-1924, English writer, “Youth”

    Defend Freedom.

    Repeal Hell Care.

    Defeat Obama.

  • Fortnight For Freedom Day Ten: God Bless America!
    He does, He does. We have you, Donald McClarey.

  • If it were possible for me to do so after three decades of being an attorney, I would be blushing Mary!

Fortnight For Freedom Day Nine: Top Ten Movies For the Fourth of July

Friday, June 29, AD 2012

 Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it. 

John Adams

 

Beginning for two weeks, up to Independence Day, the Bishops are having a Fortnight For Freedom:

On April 12, the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S.  Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a document, “Our First,  Most Cherished Liberty,” outlining the bishops’ concerns over threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad. The bishops called for a “Fortnight for Freedom,” a 14-day period of prayer, education and action in support of religious freedom, from June 21-July 4.

 

Bishops in their own dioceses are encouraged to arrange special events to  highlight the importance of defending religious freedom. Catholic  institutions are encouraged to do the same, especially in cooperation  with other Christians, Jews, people of other faiths and all who wish to  defend our most cherished freedom.

 

The fourteen days from June  21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to  July 4, Independence Day, are dedicated to this “fortnight for  freedom”—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face  of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More,  St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the  Church of Rome.  Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our  Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that  would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for  religious liberty.

 

We here at The American Catholic are participating in the Fortnight For Freedom with special blog posts on each day.  This is the ninth of these blog posts.

 

As we are embroiled now in a struggle to preserve our religious liberty, I think the Fourth of July is a good time to recall the price made to establish our liberties.  A number of feature films and miniseries have been made about the events of the American Revolution.  Here are my top ten choices for Fourth of July viewing:

10.  Ben and Me  (1953)- Something for the younger patriots.  Disney put to film the novel of Robert Lawson, Ben and Me, which related how many of Ben Franklin’s bright ideas came from his mouse Amos.  Quite a bit of fun.   Not a classic but certainly an overlooked gem.

9.  The Crossing (2000)-A retelling of Washington’s brilliant crossing of the Delaware on Christmas 1776 and the battle of Trenton.  This film would rank much higher on my list but for Jeff Daniels’ portrayal of Washington as sullen and out of sorts throughout the movie.  Washington had a temper, and he could give vent to it if provoked, although he usually kept it under control, but the peevish Washington portrayed here is simply ahistoric and mars an otherwise good recreation of the turning point of the Revolution.

8.  John Paul Jones (1959)  Robert Stack, just before he rose to fame in the Untouchables, is grand in the role of the archetypal American sea hero.  Bette Davis is absolutely unforgettable as Catherine the Great.  The climactic sea battle with the Serapis is well done, especially for those pre-CGI days.  The only problem with the film is that many of the details are wrong.  This is forgivable to a certain extent since scholarship on Jones was badly skewed by Augustus Buell in a two-volume “scholarly biography” which appeared in 1900.  Buell was a charlatan who made up many incidents about Jones and then invented sources to support his fabrications.  Buell was not completely exposed until Samuel Eliot Morison, Harvard professor of history, and an Admiral in the Navy, wrote his definitive biography of Jones. Here is a list of the fabrications of Buell compiled by Morison.  Morison’s book appeared after the movie, which is to be regretted.

7.  The Patriot (2000) Finally, a film which depicts the unsung contribution of Australians to victory in the American Revolution!  Actually not too bad of a film overall.  Heath Ledger is quite good as Gibson’s oldest son who joins the Continentals at the beginning of the war against his father’s wishes.  Jason Isaacs is snarlingly good as the evil Colonel Tavington, very loosely based on Banastre Tarleton, commander of Tarleton’s Raiders during the Southern Campaign.  The film of course allows Gibson to carry on his over-the-top vendetta against all things English.  No, the British did not lock up American civilians in churches and burn them alive.  However, the ferocity of the partisan fighting in the South is well depicted, and Banastre Tarleton  at the Waxhaw Massacre earned a reputation for slaughtering men attempting to surrender.  The final battle of the film is based on the battle of Cowpens where General Daniel Morgan decisively defeated Tarleton.

6.  Drums Along the Mohawk (1939)-A John Ford classic starring Henry Fonda and Claudette Colbert.  Through the eyes of a young newlywed couple, Fonda and Colbert, the American Revolution on the frontier is depicted in the strategic Mohawk Valley.  Full of the usual Ford touches of heroism, humor and ordinary life.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

6 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom Day Nine: Top Ten Movies For the Fourth of July

  • I was “forced” to read “Johnny Tremain” in the 5th grade. That assignment was followed by “Rifles for Watie,” a very insightful look at the complexities of the Civil War. These are the books that inspired my fascination with miltary history and revolutionary politics, American-style. Only in later life did I realize the favor my teacher did for us. Would that educators still educated in such ways!

  • Great classics listed here. Another one is “Yankee Doodle Dandy” starring James Cagney as George M. Cohan.

  • Gibson’s character in “The Patriot” is based on Francis Marion, the “Swamp Fox.”

    Excellent point on the Revolution in the South–it was a brutal civil war, as battles like King’s Mountain demonstrated. It was also where most of the war was fought after Monmouth, as the Redcoats did not care to tangle with the vastly-improved Continentals in the north.

  • An excellent list. I agree with adding Yankee Doodle Dandy. Check out my book Christians at the Movies: A Century of Saints and Sinners for adding a Christian dimension to the list with such films as A Man for all Seasons, Becket, The Fighting Sullivans, The Fighting 69th, Sergeant York, and lesser known films that focus on Christians fighting for freedom from tyranny like The Prisoner, Joan of Paris, and the 1947 film The Fugitive about suppression of religion in Mexico

  • I watched the series on John Adams and agree it was superbly done. The Mel Gibson film might be considered offensive, but you have to remember that like the same actor’s ‘Braveheart’ it was fiction. The latter was worth sitting through on account of the battle scenes and the final 15 minutes when the Wallace character gets his just deserts.

  • It could have been worse for Wallace John. He could have been forced to sample some English cuisine! 🙂

Fortnight For Freedom Day Eight: Catholics and the Father of our Country

Thursday, June 28, AD 2012

 

Beginning for two weeks, up to Independence Day, the Bishops are having a Fortnight For Freedom:

On April 12, the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S.  Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a document, “Our First,  Most Cherished Liberty,” outlining the bishops’ concerns over threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad. The bishops called for a “Fortnight for Freedom,” a 14-day period of prayer, education and action in support of religious freedom, from June 21-July 4.

 

Bishops in their own dioceses are encouraged to arrange special events to  highlight the importance of defending religious freedom. Catholic  institutions are encouraged to do the same, especially in cooperation  with other Christians, Jews, people of other faiths and all who wish to  defend our most cherished freedom.

 

The fourteen days from June  21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to  July 4, Independence Day, are dedicated to this “fortnight for  freedom”—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face  of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More,  St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the  Church of Rome.  Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our  Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that  would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for  religious liberty.

 

We here at The American Catholic are participating in the Fortnight For Freedom with special blog posts on each day.  This is the eighth of these blog posts.

America has been blessed by God in many ways but I suspect no blessing has been greater than His granting us George Washington to lead us in our struggle for independence and to be our first President.  Catholics have perhaps more reason than other Americans to keep the memory of Washington alive in our hearts.  In a time of strong prejudice against Catholics in many parts of the colonies he was free from religious bigotry as he demonstrated on November 5, 1775 when he banned the anti-Catholic Guy Fawkes celebrations.

“As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope – He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.”

Order in Quarters, November 5, 1775

– George Washington

This stand against anti-Catholicism was not unusual for Washington.  Throughout his life Washington had Catholic friends, including John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the US.  He would sometimes attend Mass, as he did during the Constitutional Convention when he led a delegation of the Convention to attend Mass in Philadelphia as he had attended Protestant churches in that town during the Convention.  This sent a powerful signal that under the Constitution Catholics would be just as good Americans as Protestant Americans.

Washington underlined this point in response to a letter from prominent Catholics, including Charles and John Carroll, congratulating him on being elected President:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

2 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom Day Eight: Catholics and the Father of our Country

  • The oath of office which George Washington took – an oath which Barack Hussein Obama has never believed in, does not now believe in and will never believe in. May God have mercy on this nation and deliver us from such a reprobate of depravity, iniquity and idolatry.

  • The words of George Washington bring tears to my eyes. Would that we could be blessed with such a leader again.
    I think he is a saint, really.
    Maybe he’ll pray for us from where he is.

Fortnight For Freedom Day Seven: The Freemen Have Assented

Wednesday, June 27, AD 2012

 

Beginning for two weeks, up to Independence Day, the Bishops are having a Fortnight For Freedom:

On April 12, the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S.  Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a document, “Our First,  Most Cherished Liberty,” outlining the bishops’ concerns over threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad. The bishops called for a “Fortnight for Freedom,” a 14-day period of prayer, education and action in support of religious freedom, from June 21-July 4.

 

Bishops in their own dioceses are encouraged to arrange special events to  highlight the importance of defending religious freedom. Catholic  institutions are encouraged to do the same, especially in cooperation  with other Christians, Jews, people of other faiths and all who wish to  defend our most cherished freedom.

 

The fourteen days from June  21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to  July 4, Independence Day, are dedicated to this “fortnight for  freedom”—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face  of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More,  St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the  Church of Rome.  Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our  Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that  would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for  religious liberty.

 

We here at The American Catholic are participating in the Fortnight For Freedom with special blog posts on each day.  This is the seventh of these blog posts.

Maryland, the Catholic colony, played an important role in early American colonial history.  Although Catholics in Maryland would eventually be stripped of many of their civil rights in Maryland by a Protestant majority until the time of the Revolution, while they were a political force they helped lay the foundations for a new nation.  One of the most remarkable documents produced during the time that Catholics ruled Maryland is The Toleration Act of 1649, one of the first legislative acts in the American colonies to establish toleration for all Christian faiths.  This was a compromise document between the Catholics and Protestants of Maryland and its text is as follows:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

15 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom Day Seven: The Freemen Have Assented

  • “Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons.” Bishop Fulton Sheen.

    HOW COULD ANY MAN DENY TO ANOTHER MAN PRESENCE IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE? Isn’t the public square the possession of each and every PERSON in joint and common tenancy and each and every PERSON, the child of “their Creator”? It appears that some men can impose their form of hatred upon other men using the very FREEDOM endowed by “their Creator”, the Father of Jesus Christ and our Father, WHO is in heaven. The PERSON of Jesus Christ cannot be disenfranchised of His rights endowed by “their Creator” to all men without proof of evildoing, in this case treason, incurring the necessity for removal of scandal and impending harm. Let the punishment fit the crime. Let the evildoer be hung upon his own gibbet (petard).

  • “Toleration, or, to be more exact, religious liberty, is in every one’s mouth, and the constant theme of declamation with all who would depreciate their ancestors, glorify themselves, or win the applause of the multitude ; but, unless we are greatly deceived, it is a theme on which there is much loose writing, and still more loose speaking and thinking. ”
    this is a quote from “Civil and Religious Toleration” in Orestes Brownson’s Quarterly Review, July, 1849.
    Brownson is too little read I think..
    If you are interested: http://www.orestesbrownson.com/166.html

  • I’m concerned that the Catholic Bishops unfairly pound the drum of religious freedom to infringe on the rights of Catholics and non-Catholics in a manner which is inconsistent with our Constitutional liberties. Recently we have heard sermons about how the government is interfering with these liberties, without making reference to exactly how this is being done, but anyone who has been paying attention is aware this has all to do with women’s reproductive rights (e.g., birth control) which the Bishops are going to mat against Pres. Obama. Since reproductive medical care is a legal right, it is the Bishops who foist their ill-conceived notion of public morality down the throats of the US public.

  • Sheerest rubbish. No one is stopping women from buying contraceptives. For the cheapest political advantage Obama decided to run roughshod over religious liberty by mandating that employers provide insurance coverage which covers contraceptives. You couldn’t be more twisted in your perception of what this fight is about.

  • Ridiculous lies: How the left cheats in the war of ideas. E.G., Jim Hall.

    It’s not an “ill-conceived notion.” The bishops are promulgating 2,000 years consistent Church teaching against abortion and artificial contraception.

    You have the right to commit these mortal sins. Obama and you do not have the right to require the Church pay for sins against life, morals and the Holy Spirit.

  • You both have the right to your opinions, but neither of you, or the Church, have any right to make your religious views the law of the land. The complaint is that government interferes with religion, but it’s the other way around. Also, such intolerance is driving many Catholics out of the Church.

  • Once again total rubbish. The Church is not attempting to impose a ban on contraceptives on the nation. The Obama regime is attempting to impose on the nation that employers have to provide insurance to their employees that covers contraceptives, no matter their religious scruples. As for Catholics leaving the Church over the Bishops standing up for religious freedom, frankly such Catholics left the Church de facto long ago.

  • You both have the right to your opinions, but neither of you, or the Church, have any right to make your religious views the law of the land.

    It must feel wonderful to knock such a powerful strawman argument down, but sadly (for you) the Church is not trying to make its religious views the law of the land. It is simply fighting efforts by the government to impose its morality upon the Church by forcing it to pay for practices it deems to be immoral. Remember that first amendment thing you leftists pretend to hold so sacrosanct? Yeah, that’s what is at stake. (Cue leftist protesting that he is not a leftist.)

    . The complaint is that government interferes with religion, but it’s the other way around.

    Not that you haven’t done a masterful job of proving your argument, but we’re going to need a little bit more than “nuh uh, you’re the intolerant one” to convince us of the veracity of this claim.

    Also, such intolerance is driving many Catholics out of the Church.

    Really? The Churches I’ve been to look to be as full as ever. You don’t think this might a bit of wish fulfillment on your part?

  • JH: Quick! Call your Mom and thank her for not aborting you.

  • @7:59:
    “You both have the right to your opinions, but neither of you, or the Church, have any right to make your religious views the law of the land. The complaint is that government interferes with religion, but it’s the other way around. ”

    Not the other way around, the mandate was made on 1/20/2012 which interfered with religious beliefs. See the below three points.

    “June 27, 2012
    The HHS Mandate: A Question of Religious Freedom or the Life Issues?

    by Peter J. Colosi

    Editor’s note: This is the first of a three part article that will discuss the current approach of the US Bishops in order to thank them and praise their efforts, while at the same time pointing out a certain oversight in their approach. Following parts will look at the reasons not often mentioned for which the Administration is enacting the HHS Mandate as well as ideas on how most wisely to approach the question of contraception in the midst of the fight for religious freedom.

    The Approach of the Bishops: Praise and A Question

    Stating What the Fight Is and Is Not About

    It is wonderful to see the unity, work and leadership of the Bishops in the fight for Religious freedom. We should both thank God for and join with them in their focused attention on the wrongheaded general principles they list as built into the Mandate: (1) an unwarranted government definition of religion; (2) a mandate to act against our teachings; and (3) a violation of personal civil rights. Regardless of the specific content of this mandate (contraception), these wrongheaded general principles violate the nature of freedom and conscience, and they violate the laws and customs of the United States of America. This would also be true if the government had begun its attack on religious freedom by forcing the Amish to subsidize car sales on their property. …”

  • Jim Hall “reproductive medical care is a legal right” ??
    I am not a lawyer but I am asking- exactly how many rights have we enumerated?
    If it is a right, who supplies it?

    Your comment makes me think you just don’t understand the issues.. and the lack of knowledge must certainly be willful at this point. Anyone can plainly see the church is not trying to impose morality, but defending it’s own right to it’s own morals.

  • Mr. Hall, no one is making any serious attempt to make Catholic views on contraception the law of the land. There’s a whole lot of daylight between outlawing something and not providing a subsidy for it. (Ask anybody who likes their Jack Daniels.)

    And where are these Americans who are so priced out of the market for artificial contraception that they can’t afford condoms? Granted, I expect there are plenty of Americans, from Sandra Flew on down, who don’t *want* to use condoms. But there are plenty of Americans who want better housing than Section 8 affords, too, and I don’t hear anyone trumpeting *their* (much more defensible) right to good housing.

    You appear to be frightened of shadows.

    What *is* happening–and what can be verified simply by reference to public texts published by the U.S. Government–is that this Administration (apparently with your approval) is trying to force Catholics (and others) to pay for acts we consider intrinsically evil. Put more baldly, in order to solve a non-problem, you consider the consciences of millions of Americans expendable. (Just counting the observant Catholics, you still get millions, and I’m not even counting in the Mormons or the Orthodox or other folks who object to artificial contraception on conscience.)

    Who are you to tell us that our consciences don’t count?

  • The one comment, from Mr. Brown, which invites reply: “What *is* happening. . . . that this Administration (apparently with your approval) is trying to force Catholics (and others) to pay for acts we consider intrinsically evil.” Please, check your facts. After the Catholic Bishops raised a stink, the Obama Admin reached an accord to the effect that religious organizations may opt out of the requirement to include birth control coverage in their employee insurance plans, and upon doing so the insurers themselves will offer contraception coverage to enrollees directly, at no additional cost.

    Please note the manifest ironies, that even wholly “Catholic” hospitals and charities are staffed primarily by non-Catholics and largely provide services to people of other faiths or of none, paid for with tax dollars. Regardless, by now objecting to its employees election to secure such services–even when the Church is not ‘forced’ to paraticipate in the alleged evil–it is very clear that the Church is interfering with freedom here.

    The Church’s effort to cry foul over these matters is shameful. I’m not sure if you bunch are being run by Fox News, or if this is a “Saturday Night Live” moment which the Bishops hope to secure public ridicule. In either event, its position on these issues would be comical if not so pernicious and the outcome so damaging.

  • Jim Hall, It is the mission of the Catholic Church to save souls, that rational, immortal part of the human being . The spiritual works of mercy are inscribed in the bible. It is the duty of the church to resist anything that might endanger man’s soul. God cares for us as a mother cares for her infant. If an immortal soul goes to hell man is made more poor by its loss. Mankind was made for God and heaven. Without God and heaven, life becomes meaningless, and you can go to hell, unless you will to go to heaven. Now, Obamacare denies that you can will to go to heaven by denying man’s conscience and free will, which you call freedom from the state, but the true freedom, the truth from God is necessary to find heaven.

  • JIm Hall again with the willful misunderstanding.
    The Catholic organization pays the insurance provider for what the insurance provider provides. The Catholic then is still cooperating in paying for something he don’t believe in.
    Insurance companies should get to decide what kind of coverage they want to offer too.
    The government (Medicaid) provides the patient with the ability to pay for services provided, that does not give the government the right to require the service provider to provide something they don’t believe in. That’s like saying “I’ve got money so you have to sell me something, even if that something is not in your inventory.” Glad you’ve got money, but I don’t have to sell you what I don’t want to sell.
    People have the choice to go to Catholic organizations for service or for employment– the organization describes the job requirements and benefits, while also choosing to provide a service and what to include in that service… and who to hire.

Fortnight For Freedom Day Six: Freedom is not a “Worship Word”

Tuesday, June 26, AD 2012

 

Beginning for two weeks, up to Independence Day, the Bishops are having a Fortnight For Freedom:

On April 12, the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S.  Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a document, “Our First,  Most Cherished Liberty,” outlining the bishops’ concerns over threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad. The bishops called for a “Fortnight for Freedom,” a 14-day period of prayer, education and action in support of religious freedom, from June 21-July 4.

 

Bishops in their own dioceses are encouraged to arrange special events to  highlight the importance of defending religious freedom. Catholic  institutions are encouraged to do the same, especially in cooperation  with other Christians, Jews, people of other faiths and all who wish to  defend our most cherished freedom.

 

The fourteen days from June  21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to  July 4, Independence Day, are dedicated to this “fortnight for  freedom”—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face  of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More,  St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the  Church of Rome.  Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our  Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that  would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for  religious liberty.

 

We here at The American Catholic are participating in the Fortnight For Freedom with special blog posts on each day.  This is the sixth of these blog posts.

Long time readers of this blog will not be surprised to see that I have managed to work a Star Trek episode into one of the Fortnight For Freedom posts!

One of the “alternate Earth” episodes that became fairly common as the original Star Trek series proceeded, as explained by Hodgkin’s Law of Parallel Planetary Development, and stringent episode budgets,  the Omega Glory episode in the video clip at the beginning of this post featured an Earth where a cataclysmic war had driven the Americans, the Yangs, out of their cities and into primitive warbands.  Chinese Communists, the Kohms, settled in America.  Their technology was a few steps higher than the Yangs.  The Yangs had been waging a war for generations to drive the Kohms from their land, and the episode coincided with the Yangs taking the last of “the Kohm places”.

Over the generations, the Yangs had forgotten almost all of their history and what little knowledge remained was restricted to priests and chieftains.

“Cloud William: Freedom?

James T. Kirk: Spock.

Spock: Yes, I heard, Captain.

Cloud William: It is a worship word, Yang worship. You will not speak it.

James T. Kirk: Well, well, well. It is… our worship word, too.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

3 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom Day Six: Freedom is not a “Worship Word”

Fortnight For Freedom Day Five: Why Celebrate the Fourth?

Monday, June 25, AD 2012

 

 

 

 

Beginning for two weeks, up to Independence Day, the Bishops are having a Fortnight For Freedom:

On April 12, the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S.  Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a document, “Our First,  Most Cherished Liberty,” outlining the bishops’ concerns over threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad. The bishops called for a “Fortnight for Freedom,” a 14-day period of prayer, education and action in support of religious freedom, from June 21-July 4.

 

Bishops in their own dioceses are encouraged to arrange special events to  highlight the importance of defending religious freedom. Catholic  institutions are encouraged to do the same, especially in cooperation  with other Christians, Jews, people of other faiths and all who wish to  defend our most cherished freedom.

 

The fourteen days from June  21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to  July 4, Independence Day, are dedicated to this “fortnight for  freedom”—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face  of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More,  St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the  Church of Rome.  Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our  Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that  would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for  religious liberty.

 

We here at The American Catholic are participating in the Fortnight For Freedom with special blog posts on each day.  This is the fifth of these blog posts.

Why do we observe Independence Day on the Fourth of July each year?  Is it merely a historical commemoration, or is it because the lightning words of the Declaration of Independence still have meaning and relevance today?  This is not a new issue.  In the debate over slavery which embroiled this nation a century and a half ago, the phrase “all men are created equal” from the Declaration was argued and fought over.  On June 26, 1857, Abraham Lincoln, in response to the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, contended in a speech in Springfield, Illinois, that the phrase “all men are created equal” applied to blacks as well as whites:

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, nor for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and objects of that part of the Declaration of Independence which declares that “all men are created equal.”

Now let us hear Judge Douglas’ view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is:

“No man can vindicate the character, motives and conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared all men to have been created equal—that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain—that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.”

My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it—see what a mere wreck—mangled ruin—it makes of our once glorious Declaration.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

17 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom Day Five: Why Celebrate the Fourth?

  • “And now I appeal to all—to Democrats as well as others,—are you really willing that the Declaration shall be thus frittered away?”

    Democrats are the same today, except in dehumanizing the black man, they dehumanize the human baby. Other than that, nothing has changed since 1857.

  • Previously, I had not seen the connection.

    Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” (GA) likely is “America’s definitive speech.”

    Mr. Prothero cites Garry Wills’ 1992 book, Lincoln at Gettysburg.

    Lincoln, ” . . . performed one of the most daring acts of open-air sleight of hand ever witnessed by the unsuspecting.” Wills contends that in the GA, Lincoln “traced” America’s birth not to the “godless” Constitution but to the Declaration and its God-bestowed, unalienable rights. Apparently, Wills’ and Prothero think that changed America.

    Seems Obama et al are re-bestowing America’s essence to the “godless” Constitution. And, tons of liberals calling themselves Catholics are blindly aiding and abetting.

    See Stephen Prothero in the June 23, 2012 Wall Street Journal, page C10.

  • Just saying.

    I think the most important aspect of the Gettysburg Address is Lincoln “said it all” in 272 words.

  • One of Lincoln’s cleverest ways of attempting to fudge the Constitution’s explicit and no-nonsense restrictions on his power was to appeal to the Declaration, as if it had some kind of legal, philosophical, or moral weight beyond its immediate purpose.

    His use of it to defend the unconstitutional interference with a legal, constitutional practice in the states was extremely adroit, but as with so much of what he did as President, set an awful precedent for his successors, who would not necessarily find the same benign meaning in “equality” as Lincoln did.

    Once you depart from the Constitution, even if by appealing to the Declaration, you depart from the rule of law.

  • The Constitution governs the courts Tom. The Declaration is the foundation of the American experiment in self-government. Lincoln’s pro-slavery foes were absolutely wrong in attempting to justify their ongoing subjugation of fellow human beings by claiming that the words of Mr. Jefferson did not apply to blacks as well as whites. That Mr. Jefferson clearly intended this is established beyond question by the following section of his original draft of the Declaration:

    “[H]e [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

    Lincoln was right and his pro-slavery opponents were deeply, tragically wrong in their attempt to read slaves out of the Declaration. Contrary to your statement, Lincoln did not appeal to the Declaration as a grant of authority to abolish slavery, but he did appeal to the Declaration as evidence of what a crime slavery was against the inalienable rights of man, and that is what his pro-slavery opponents could not tolerate.

  • Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865). Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas. 1897. Fourth Joint Debate at Charleston Mr. Lincoln’s Speech (September 18, 1858):

    LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It will be very difficult for an audience so large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as possible.
    While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it.
    I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

  • Yep, Joe because the Democrat Stephen Douglas was using race baiting against Lincoln, just as Democrats use race baiting today. Douglas knew, as Lincoln knew, that due to the virulent racism of the day, that most white voters were repelled at the idea of negro equality, and that is why Douglas used such charges against Lincoln, and why Lincoln sought to repel them. However Lincoln never wavered as to the fundamental crime of slavery:

    “He [Senator Stephen A. Douglas] finds Republicans insisting that the Declaration of Independence includes all men, black as well as white…he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes! Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands with asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others.”

    Here is what black abolitionist Frederick A. Douglass had to say in summing up Abraham Lincoln:

    “I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

    Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,” gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.”

  • Don, parse it any way you want but can you imagine Abe defending those comments on Meet the Press? Or any modern candidate for political office trying to walk that back or weasel himself out of it? It doesn’t matter what Douglass said or anyone else. It’s Lincoln words, forever carved in history, that testify to his core white supremacist views notwithstanding other comments that sought to soften them.

  • Joe you accuse Lincoln by the standards of our time. In his time he was attacked as an advocate of racial equality, and considering that he came out for negroes having the vote before his death, perhaps justly attacked. Lincoln was able to call a well-established institution of his day, slavery, a crime, something that most of his contemporaries failed to ever do. Of course, considering your sympathies for the Confederacy, and the historically illiterate scribblings of neo-Confederate crank Dilorenzo, I find your attacking Lincoln as a racist completely risible.

  • “Standards of our time.” I believe the laws of God, Nature and the Constitution are immutable and are to be used for all times. I have no “sympathies” for the Confederacy per se, only what I believe is a greater understanding and appreciation for the root causes of the Civil War, which have been all too simplified by some historians.

    I am a “Yankee” at heart and also do not rely on DiLorenzo or anyone else to do my thinking. His “Hamilton’s Curse” was a tough read and, unlike his Lincoln books, less persuasive in its thesis.

    I think it’s important, although we disagree on Lincoln’s place in history, to examine whether Presidents including Obama are shredding the Constitution as I think Lincoln did.

    As long as you a quoting a black man, this is from African-American historian and scholar Lerone Bennett, Jr., and his book, “Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream.” —

    “Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom have a vested interest in [him] and who are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him.”

  • His use of it to defend the unconstitutional interference with a legal, constitutional practice in the states was extremely adroit, but as with so much of what he did as President, set an awful precedent for his successors, who would not necessarily find the same benign meaning in “equality” as Lincoln did.

    Lincoln may have appealed to the Declaration rhetorically from time to time, but he relied on the Constitution to justify his actions as president. By the way time, what “unconstitutional interference” with a “legal, constitutional, practice” did Lincoln perpetrate? Lincoln, at no time before the outbreak of hostilities, ever inferred that the federal government could interfere with slavery within the states. It was only after the outbreak of the civil war (and 18 months after hostilities commenced) that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, a completely legitimate wartime measure.

    So it’s time for you to get specific. What unconstitutional action did Lincoln take as president? No generalities, please.

    . It’s Lincoln words, forever carved in history, that testify to his core white supremacist views notwithstanding other comments that sought to soften them.

    Later on I am going to post my review of David Barton’s book on Thomas Jefferson. One of the things that Barton does that is so infuriating is to quote a line here or there without examining the broader context of Jefferson’s political thought. This is the same thing that you’re doing here. It’s a pretty shabby form of historical research.

    Edited to add: Actually, the historical revisionism with regards to Jefferson and Lincoln run in opposite directions. With respect to Jefferson, his defenders point to the occasional line here or there and ignore the rather voluminous amount of his writing that was repugnantly racist even for his day. As for Lincoln, his detractors like to point to this passage here or there to paint Lincoln as an unrepentant bigot, while ignoring the vast literature that shows he had much more progressive views on race matters.

  • “Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom have a vested interest in [him] and who are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him.”

    Historical figures often do have acolytes who cannot see their faults. That being said, that doesn’t mean that the historical revisionism has any ounce of credibility. People like you often spout about Lincoln “shredding the constitution” without offering a shred of evidence. It’s time to do a little original research yourself, so I put the question to you that I put to Tom McKenna. Please cite specifically the unconstitutional actions that Lincoln engaged in. And don’t cite some miserable pseudo-historian like DiLorenzo.

  • As long as you a quoting a black man, this is from African-American historian and scholar Lerone Bennett, Jr., and his book, “Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream.”

    As a historian Bennett made Dilorenzo look scholarly. From a review of his tome by James McPherson:

    “But Bennett gets more wrong than he gets right. The book suffers from crucial flaws. Least important are the factual errors, for there are not many. But those that do occur make Lincoln look worse than he was. While a congressman from 1847 to 1849, Bennett asserts, Lincoln claimed to have voted 40 times against the Wilmot Proviso to ban slavery from the territories acquired from Mexico. In fact, Lincoln claimed to have voted 40 times for the Proviso (an exaggeration, but he did support it on every vote).

    More significant are distortions in interpretation. After the Sioux uprising in Minnesota that killed hundreds of white settlers in 1862, Lincoln ”approved one of the largest mass executions in military history,” the hanging of 38 Indians. True enough. But the military court had sentenced 303 Sioux to death. Despite great pressure, unmentioned by Bennett, to approve these verdicts, Lincoln pardoned or commuted the sentences of 265 defendants — by far the largest act of executive clemency in American history.

    Selective quotation also produces distortion by omission. Citing a letter Lincoln wrote to the abolitionist Owen Lovejoy in 1855, Bennett maintains that Lincoln ”did not openly oppose the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party,” because in his district, as Lincoln explained, ”they are mostly my old political and personal friends.” Bennett fails to note that in the rest of the letter Lincoln stated that he had already broken with these former Whig associates and anticipated the ”painful necessity of my taking an open stand against them. Of their principles I think little better than I do of those of the slavery extensionists. Indeed I do not perceive how any one professing to be sensitive to the wrongs of the negroes, can join in a league to degrade a class of white men.”

    Bennett never acknowledges that Lincoln was ”sensitive to the wrongs of the Negroes.” Abundant evidence of such sensitivity is conspicuously missing from the book. Also missing is any appreciation of Lincoln’s stand against the expansion of slavery. Because the Constitution prohibited interference with slavery in states where it existed, Lincoln and other Republicans focused on the question of slavery in the territories, where they insisted that Congress had the constitutional power to ban it. In his famous House Divided speech of 1858, Lincoln said that Republicans intended to ”arrest the further spread” of slavery and thus place the institution ”in course of ultimate extinction.”

    No reader who accepts Bennett’s ”unimpeachable fact” that ”Lincoln supported the enslavement of the four million slaves” will be able to understand why seven slave states seceded in response to Lincoln’s election. Bennett quotes from a letter that Lincoln wrote in December 1860 to Alexander Stephens (who later became vice president of the Confederacy), whom Lincoln had known when they both served in Congress a dozen years earlier. ”Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves?” Lincoln asked Stephens. ”There is no cause for such fears.” So why did the South secede? Readers might have gotten part of the answer, and a different understanding of Lincoln, from a portion of this letter that Bennett did not quote: ”I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub.”

    It was indeed the rub, but we wouldn’t know it from this book. The South seceded because a man who believed slavery was wrong and was pledged, in his own words, to its ”restriction” and ”ultimate extinction” had, for the first time, been elected president. The war that followed secession prompted Lincoln’s decision in 1862 to issue an Emancipation Proclamation. Yet Bennett declares that Lincoln deserves no credit for freeing the slaves. The president was, he writes, a reluctant Emancipator who was ”forced into glory” by escaping slaves, abolitionists and Congressional Republicans who passed the second Confiscation Act in July 1862, freeing the slaves of persons ”engaged in rebellion against the United States.” This was the real Emancipation proclamation, insists Bennett. Lincoln’s proclamation was a mere afterthought.

    And because Lincoln’s proclamation exempted the border slave states, as well as portions of the Confederacy already controlled by Northern troops (Tennessee and parts of Virginia and Louisiana), Lincoln freed slaves where he had no power to do so and left in bondage all those in areas where he did have power, Bennett asserts. Moreover, Lincoln’s exemptions actually re-

    enslaved a half-million blacks freed by the Confiscation Act.

    All parts of this interpretation are wrong, and the re-enslavement thesis is absurd. First of all, the Confiscation Act freed only the slaves of ”traitors” whom a federal court determined, case by case, to have engaged in rebellion. As James G. Randall, the foremost expert on Civil War constitutional issues, wrote, ”It is hard to see by what process any particular slaves could have legally established that freedom which the second Confiscation Act ‘declared.’ ”Contrary to Bennett, no slave who had achieved freedom in areas exempted from Lincoln’s proclamation was ”re-enslaved.”

    The Emancipation Proclamation, moreover, was based on the president’s war powers as commander in chief to seize enemy property (i.e. slaves) being used to wage war against the United States. Since Union-controlled exempted areas were not at war with the United States, Lincoln had no constitutional power over slavery in those areas.

    Finally, the old canard that the Emancipation Proclamation freed not a single slave, repeated by Bennett, could not be more wrong. From Jan. 1, 1863, freedom would march southward with the Union Army, which became an army of liberation. Once the war was over, the proclamation would cease to have any legal force. That is why Lincoln endorsed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery, and won re-election on that platform in 1864.

    Bennett’s Lincoln is not only a reluctant convert to Emancipation; he is also an unwavering opponent of equal citizenship for the freed slaves, beholden as he is to his ”dream” of an all-white America. But in what turned out to be his last public speech, on April 11, 1865, Lincoln signaled that he would support the right to vote for freed slaves who were literate or had served in the Union armed forces. Bennett condemns this endorsement as an ”invidious distinction” (because white voters would not face such requirements) of a piece with Lincoln’s commitment to white supremacy. At least one listener to Lincoln’s speech did not agree. ”That means nigger citizenship,” muttered John Wilkes Booth. ”Now by God, I’ll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.””

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/27/books/lincoln-the-devil.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

  • so I put the question to you that I put to Tom McKenna. Please cite specifically the unconstitutional actions that Lincoln engaged in. And don’t cite some miserable pseudo-historian like DiLorenzo.

    I believe Gottfried Dietze had a menu of complaints about Lincon’s acts in the early months of 1861 listed in America’s Political Dilemma. I have forgotten them, of course. I believe one concerned appropriations. (He was a non-miserable political theorist).

  • Once again, as usual, I am outnumbered and outgunned here by the Lincoln apologists. I don’t shrink from a fair fight, but further discussion would take us far off-topic and take up much to much preciously bandwidth, which is something Don does not like.

    Let us all realize we have different “bliks” that form the basis of our world views and beliefs. I hereby retreat gracefully without conceding a bit.

  • I will not to beat a dead horse.

    Aside from Abraham using the God and the DoI to shelve the godless US Constitution, using his example to advance religious liberty may be unhelpful.

    Point of information. John Tyler, the tenth US President, was a delegate in the conference that could not avoid the war. He was elected a Virginia Representative in the CSA Congress. He died before it convened. That makes Tyler the only US President to die on foreign soil.

  • “Aside from Abraham using the God and the DoI to shelve the godless US Constitution, using his example to advance religious liberty may be unhelpful.”

    Except of course that Lincoln used neither to shelve the Constitution, but rather preserved it and the nation for future generations.

    Tyler still has living grandkids, amazingly enough.

Fortnight For Freedom Day 4: John Carroll, Bishop and Patriot

Sunday, June 24, AD 2012

Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo XIII on John Carroll, first Bishop in the United States

Beginning for two weeks, up to Independence Day, the Bishops are having a Fortnight For Freedom:

On April 12, the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S.  Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a document, “Our First,  Most Cherished Liberty,” outlining the bishops’ concerns over threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad. The bishops called for a “Fortnight for Freedom,” a 14-day period of prayer, education and action in support of religious freedom, from June 21-July 4.

Bishops in their own dioceses are encouraged to arrange special events to  highlight the importance of defending religious freedom. Catholic  institutions are encouraged to do the same, especially in cooperation  with other Christians, Jews, people of other faiths and all who wish to  defend our most cherished freedom.

The fourteen days from June  21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to  July 4, Independence Day, are dedicated to this “fortnight for  freedom”—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face  of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More,  St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the  Church of Rome.  Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our  Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that  would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for  religious liberty.

We here at The American Catholic are participating in the Fortnight For Freedom with special blog posts on each day.  This is the fourth of these blog posts.

From the beginning of our Republic, American Catholics were at the forefront of the battle to free America from British rule and to enshrine a committment to liberty in our founding documents.  The remarkable Carroll family of Maryland was at the head of this effort by American Catholics.  Charles Carroll of Carrollton signed the Declaration of Independence.  His cousin Daniel Carroll signed both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.  Daniel Carroll’s younger brother John Carroll, was the first bishop in the United States of America.

Born on January 8, 1735 in Maryland, he went abroad to study in Flanders and France, joined the Society of Jesus and was ordained a priest in 1769.  With the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773, he returned to his native Maryland as a missionary priest.  A patriot, he served on a diplomatic mission to Canada for the Continental Congress in 1776.  During the War he continued his efforts as a missionary priest, along with efforts to persuade the new states to remove disabilities from Catholics in their new state constitutions.  He was ever an advocate for religious freedom:

When men comprehend not, or refuse to admit the luminous principles on which the rights of conscience and liberty of religion depend, they are industrious to find out pretences for intolerance. If they cannot discover them in the actions, they strain to cull them out of the tenets of the religion which they wish to exclude from a free participation of equal rights. Thus this author attributes to his religion the merit of being the most favorable to freedom, and affirms that not only morality but liberty likewise must expire, if his clergy should ever be contemned or neglected: all which conveys a refined insinuation, that liberty cannot consist with, or be cherished by any other religious institution; and which therefore he would give us to understand, it is not safe to countenance in a free government.

I am anxious to guard against the impression intended by such insinuations; not merely for the sake of any one profession, but from an earnest regard to preserve inviolate for ever, in our new empire, the great principle of religious freedom. The constitutions of some of the States continue still to intrench on the sacred rights of conscience; and men who have bled, and opened their purses as freely in the cause of liberty and independence, as any other citizens, are most unjustly excluded from the advantages which they contributed to establish. But if bigotry and narrow prejudice have prevented hitherto the cure of these evils, be it the duty of every lover of peace and justice to extend them no further. Let the author who has opened this field for discussion, be aware of slyly imputing to any set of men, principles or consequences, which they disavow. He perhaps may meet with retaliation. He may be told and referred to Lord Lyttleton, as zealous a Protestant as any man of his days, for information, that the principles of non-reistence seemed the principles of that religion which we are not told is most favorable to freedom; and that its opponents had gone too far in the other extreme!

 

On June 6, 1784 he was appointed by the Pope as superior of the missions in the United States.  On November 6, 1789, he was appointed by the Pope as Bishop, after being elected to the post by American priests, a procedure previously approved by the Pope.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

2 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom Day 4: John Carroll, Bishop and Patriot

  • Pope Pius XII speaks of the friendship of Bishop John Carroll and George Washington and its effect on the early years of the republic:

    “When Pope Pius VI gave you your first Bishop in the person of the American John Carroll and set him over the See of Baltimore, small and of slight importance was the Catholic population of your land. At that time, too, the condition of the United States was so perilous that its structure and its very political unity were threatened by grave crisis. Because of the long and exhausting war the public treasury was burdened with debt, industry languished and the citizenry wearied by misfortunes was split into contending parties. This ruinous and critical state of affairs was put aright by the celebrated George Washington, famed for his courage and keen intelligence. He was a close friend of the Bishop of Baltimore. Thus the Father of His Country and the pioneer pastor of the Church in that land so dear to Us, bound together by the ties of friendship and clasping, so to speak, each the other’s hand, form a picture for their descendants, a lesson to all future generations, and a proof that reverence for the Faith of Christ is a holy and established principle of the American people, seeing that it is the foundation of morality and decency, consequently the source of prosperity and progress.” (SERTUM LAETITIAE
    Encyclical of His Holiness Pope Pius XII On the Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Establishment of the Hierarchy In the United States November 1, 1939 #3)

  • Very interesting Greg. I had not read this encyclical before. Along with much praise, Pius XII had some prescient and prophetic criticisms of American life:

    “16. We desire, however, that this Our praise be salutary. The consideration of the good which has been done must not lead to slackening which might degenerate into sluggishness; it must not issue in a vainglorious pleasure which flatters the mind; it should stimulate renewed energies so that evils may be avoided and those enterprises which are useful, prudent and worthy of praise may more surely and more solidly mature. The Christian, if he does honor to the name he bears, is always an apostle; it is not permitted to the Soldier of Christ that he quit the battlefield, because only death puts an end to his military service.

    17. You well know where it is necessary that you exercise a more discerning vigilance and what program of action should be marked out for priests and faithful in order that the religion of Christ may overcome the obstacles in its path and be a luminous guide to the minds of men, govern their morals and, for the sole purpose of salvation, permeate the marrow and the arteries of human society. The progress of exterior and material possessions, even though it is to be considered of no little account, because of the manifold and appreciable utility which it gives to life, is nonetheless not enough for man who is born for higher and brighter destinies. Created indeed to the image and likeness of God, he seeks God with a yearning that will not be repressed and always groans and weeps if he places the object of his love where Supreme Truth and the Infinite Good cannot be found.

    18. Not with the conquest of material space does one approach to God, separation from Whom is death, conversion to Whom is life, to be established in Whom is glory; but under the guidance of Christ with the fullness of sincere faith, with unsullied conscience and upright will, with holy works, with the achievement and the employment of that genuine liberty whose sacred rules are found proclaimed in the Gospel. If, instead, the Commandments of God are spurned, not only is it impossible to attain that happiness which has place beyond the brief span of time which is allotted to earthly existence, but the very basis upon which rests true civilization is shaken and naught is to be expected but ruins over which belated tears must be shed. How, in fact, can the public weal and the glory of civilized life have any guarantee of stability when right is subverted and virtue despised and decried? Is not God the Source and the Giver of law? Is He not the inspiration and the reward of virtue with none like unto Him among lawgivers (Cf. Job XXXVI:22)? This, according to the admission of all reasonable men, is everywhere the bitter and prolific root of evils: the refusal to recognize the Divine Majesty, the neglect of the moral law, the origin of which is from Heaven, or that regrettable inconstancy which makes its victims waver between the lawful and the forbidden, between justice and iniquity.

    19. Thence arise immoderate and blind egoists, that thirst for pleasure, the vice of drunkenness, immodest and costly styles in dress, the prevalence of crime even among minors, the lust for power, neglect of the poor, base craving for ill-gotten wealth, the flight from the land, levity in entering into marriage, divorce, the break-up of the family, the cooling of mutual affection between parents and children, birth control, the enfeeblement of the race, the weakening of respect for authority, or obsequiousness, or rebellion, neglect of duty towards one’s country and towards mankind.

    20. We raise Our voice in strong, albeit paternal, complaint that in so many schools of your land Christ often is despised or ignored, the explanation of the universe and mankind is forced within the narrow limits of materialism or of rationalism, and new educational systems are sought after which cannot but produce a sorrowful harvest in the intellectual and moral life of the nation.

    21. Likewise, just as home life, when the law of Christ is observed, flowers in true felicity, so, when the Gospel is cast aside, does it perish miserably and become desolated by vice: “He that seeketh the law, shall be filled with it: and he that dealeth deceitfully, shall meet with a stumbling block therein” (Ecclesiasticus XXXII: 19). What can there be on earth more serene and joyful than the Christian family? Taking its origin at the Altar of the Lord, where love has been proclaimed a holy and indissoluble bond, the Christian family in the same love nourished by supernal grace is consolidated and receives increase.”

We Are Catholics And We Will Be Heard

Thursday, June 21, AD 2012

 

Bravo to The Catholic Association for the fine video above to help us kick off Fortnight For Freedom.  People don’t truly appreciate their freedom until it is threatened.  I think that is also true for many Catholics in regard to the Church.  Time to stand up.  A time for choosing is here.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

4 Responses to We Are Catholics And We Will Be Heard

  • I just discovered your website and I live in Australia. Be great if there was a FFF campaign down here.
    A big issue for us (and I assume in your country) is the campaign against same sex marriage. There is a por SSM campaign at the moment that is cringeworthy in the way it has become trendy and a lot of celebrities have become involved. It is the “hula hoop” concept the latest fad. Roman Catholics (i like to put the Roman in front for extra emphasis as I strongly believe in the traditions of the Church) around the world need to fight this. I especially resent the way that “Marriage Equality” is the term used as opposed to same sex marriage. Talk about Newspeak!

  • Welcome Oz! We are all in this fight together, faithful Roman Catholics the world round!

  • One man and one fake wife or one woman and one fake husband has got to be perjury in a court of law. Perjury cannot be codified, sanctioned or legalized anynore than gay-marriage, as gay-marriage is assault and battery of the other. Religiously though, gay-marriage denies the human beings’ immortal soul.

  • Must Jehovah Witnesses employers include blood transfusions in coverage for Catholic employees? Can Muslim employers insist on Sharia law in the workplace? Must Christian Scientist employers provide health insurance?

    This slippery slope is coated with ice.

Gay Fascism & Judicial Tyranny Strike Again

Thursday, June 7, AD 2012

A ruling by the New Mexico Court of Appeals has found that Christian photographers cannot refuse to photograph a “gay wedding” on religious grounds. The absurdity and tyranny of this ruling is almost unfathomable, but what is less surprising is the vindictive nature of the entire case. As an entire slew of court cases in Canada demonstrates, the radical homosexual movement is not about fairness, tolerance or equality. Like its equivalents among racial minorities (think Black Panther Party) or feminists, it is about envy, revenge, and domination. As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism. Whether your are Christian or not, whether you have homosexual inclinations or not, the implications of the New Mexico court’s rulings for political liberty, religious freedom and private property rights ought to frighten you if you care in the least about these concepts.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

119 Responses to Gay Fascism & Judicial Tyranny Strike Again

  • This is exactly what happens when a society turns it back on God, and more specifically on it self. The issue here isn’t homosexual marriage (incidentally as long as Christians continue to misuse the beautiful word “gay” to describe sodomy the problem will never improve). the issue is homosexuality at large.

    We have ignored an entire generation that euphemistically describes mortal sin as ” hooking up”. We go to unmarried couples homes and treat them as married, then wonder why their generation doesn’t marry anymore. Anyone with young adult children knows that the entire generation no longer sees homosexuality as deviant. Now if we have turned our backs on God in order to mollify our children, how dare we wonder what has become of our society. Is this travesty of homosexual “marriage” not entirely logical, given the cowardly state of we, who were called by God to resist it.

    These Laws will only be reversed when we have the courage to stand and call homosexuality what it is; sin. Only then, when we have the courage to teach our children that sex is the sacred bond between a married couple that leads to babies (I know it sounds simple, that’s the point!) can we, as Christians, claim the right to our faith. As long as we continue to turn our heads the other way and inadvertently encourage heterosexual sin in our “enlightened” children, have we any right to wonder how things like this happen?

  • “As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”

    You omitted a prefix. It should read:

    “the anti-homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”

  • Leo,

    To quote a famous 20th century American philosopher, John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!”

    PS: Us knuckle-draggers ain’t forcing youse to accept our “hate, intolerance, etc.” However, you, your presumed moral superiority, and the moral bankrupts on the bench are . . .

  • God loves everyone, homo or heterosexual. God hates sin. Homosexual behavior is sin. Do you get that, Leo?

    By the way, if you want to play with another man’s genitals, then I won’t stand in your way. But kindly do it behind closed doors and don’t call the action marriage because it’s not. It’s filthy dirty. Yet I concede to your “right” to be a filth dirty pervert so long as you do not force the rest of society to follow you in your filthy dirty ways. God does allow you to be a filthy dirty sexual pervert. However, filthy dirty sex perverts like you want to force the rest of us to concede that your filthy dirty sexual perversion should be sanctified as marriage and that filty dirty sexual perverts should be treated the same as those united in the Sacrament of Holy Marriage. You are no different than those filthy dirty sexual perverts in Sodom and Gomorrah who tried to beat down the door to Lot’s house so that they could have anal sex with the angels whom Lot had welcomed inside. See Genesis 19:1-11. And you know the end of those men. First they were blinded (but they still didn’t give up – verse 11) and then their cities of wickedness were destroyed by fire from on high (buckle up, pervert, because God won’t withhold His justice forever. See Genesis 19:12-29.

    Well God says: NO! In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:

    9 Don’t you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t delude yourselves — people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, 10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk [addictively and excessively], who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob — none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.

    Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. Demonic and Satanic by any other name. It’s time for disgusting, perverted, rancid sexual filth that your kind supports to be called what it is. We all have to repent – daily – lest we burn in hell for eternity. That include me repenting of my sin. That also includes you repenting of your filth. But you say that this call to repentance is unloving, unkind and unjust. You won’t say that before the Great White Throne of Judgment, but it’ll be too late:

    11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

    —–

    Yes, I want people like you defeated, muzzled and emasculated (politically) so that you can’t drag others to the fires of hell with you.

  • Opps – editing error.

    “In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:”

    should be

    “In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul (which a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear) in Corinthians 6:9-10 concerning dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:”

    Arrrrggghhh – got so upset that people like Leo say the fecal stuff that he said that I did not edit correctly.

  • Paul: Thank you for proving my point.

    T. Shaw: You presume to know me. You don’t. I don’t judge others, and I would appreciate not being judged in return. Only God judges (Deuteronomy 1:17).

  • Wow, Leo.
    I really appreciate how you gave your reasons and examples along with your explanation, as opposed to a baseless drive-by accusation.
    Nope, no hate, intolerance, bigotry, or totalitarianism there!

    Keep it up, liberals. If I ever had any doubts on the subject, you’re settling them for me.

    Have a great day and God bless you!

  • Need any more evidence that Satan is sitting on the Throne and God has been thrown out of the window???? But have a heart, people of goodwill….. God has the Final Word and the Casting Vote. And Christ voted on the Cross at Calvary…..stand up Christian Solders and fight for God……yes we love, and embrace sodomites….but we hate the Sin as God does….let all of us practice the First of the Spiritual Works of Mercy here : Admonish the Sinners…..never compromise with Satanic perversions.

  • To you, Leo. I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions. Do not misquote Him on “Do not judge, lest you be judged”. He tells the adulterous woman…..”neither do I condemn you. But go AND SIN NO MORE. You see, Leo, God loves sinners. He died such a horrible death for us all. But He HATES SIN like all level headed, normal, intelligent and decent men and women do. Sodomy, Lesbianism, Abortion, Euthanasia and all those bestialities now dominating the Western World are Satanic, evil and filthy. That is, as I said above, doing what Jesus told us to do : ADMONISH THE SINNERS. And you are sinners par excellence, who are so arrogant and want to force your pervesities upon us all. WE SHALL NOT ACCEPT THAT, NEVER, NEVER AND AGAIN…..NEVER

  • Folks,

    I should never so early in the morning read and respond to the kind of stuff that Leo Salazar writes. The only proper response is what Mary42 gave: “I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions.” Thus do verses 9 and 10 in the Epistle of Jude state:

    9* But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.

  • Leo,

    I don’t hate homosexuals. Frankly I think most of them are the unfortunate victims of psychological abuse and/or social neglect.

    That being said, I do hate the radical gay movement, which is totalitarian in its ambitions.

  • “the anti-homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”

    Boo.

  • Whether sexual orientation is a choice or is in-born (I think it is neither, by the way)

    This is a bit curious – I have heard some argue it is in-born, others it is a choice, others it is a combination, and others that it can be in-born for some, choice for others, and a combination for yet others. But I have never heard someone say it is neither (which would seem to exclude all of the above). Do you consider cultural conditioning as a distinct cause from “choice”?

  • I think it results from social and psychological conditions experienced at an early and impressionable age. No one chooses the conditions they are brought up in, and they aren’t genetic.

    Like the professional psychiatric establishment did before it began self-thought-policing in the interests of political correctness, I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.

  • I think Bonchamps is correct. The propensity or inclination to homosexual behavior is a disease like alcoholism or drug addiction. Being an alcoholic or drug addict is not sinful. Indeed, millions are in recovery and abstinent from intoxicants. For the person afflicted with same sex attraction, the behavior is his or her intoxicant of choice. Being so afflicted is a cross perhaps similar in certain ways to the cross of alcoholism or addiction. We can choose to take up our cross and follow Jesus, denying our selfish wants, or we can give up and wallow in the intoxicant of our choice: homosexual behavior, alcohol or drugs.

    This is not a condemnation of those who drink alcohol in an adult manner, nor of the abstinent homosexual or lesbian. Not everyone is an alcoholic just as not everyone is a homosexual. Furthermore, there is only one place for sexual activity: in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between one man and one woman. If a heterosexual is unmarried, then he is held to the same rules that a homosexual is held to: chastity. If a heterosexual is married, then he is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with anyone other than his spouse. It is utter selfishness (not love) to rut in heat like a mindless baboon expecting no consequences for one’s actions, whether that rutting is homosexual or heterosexual. Yet today’s liberal progressive society would have us believe that such animalistic rutting is freedom and liberty instead of what it really is: slavery to whatever titillates the genitals. That, my friends, is drug addiction “par excellence”. We are not baboons or bonobo chimpanzees. We are human beings created in the image and likeness of God Almighty Himself, and He expects and requires that we behave as such. Failure to so behave can result in being cast into the hell of addiction in this life time, never to end in the burning fires of hell in the next.

    Use your God-given brains, Leo, instead of the stirring in your loins. You’re better than that.

  • Both national legislation and international conventions are casting their net ever wider.

    The following is typical:- “Discrimination comprises any distinction applied between natural persons by reason of their origin, sex, family situation, physical appearance or patronymic, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, sexual morals or orientation, age, political opinions, trade union activities, or their membership or non-membership, true or supposed, of a given ethnic group, nation, race or religion.”

  • Leo,

    I apologize.

  • Everything in life is some combination of genetics, environment, and individual decision. I don’t understand the need to pretend to know the ratios. We’re responsible for our choices to the extend that they were freely made and understood. Beyond that, we’re just guessing.

    Leo – I think you missed the point. If someone writes an article entitled “A Penny Saved Is Not A Penny Earned”, you wouldn’t show up and reply, “no, that’s incorrect; a penny saved is a penny earned”. The title of this piece and the image accompanying it are shocking for a reason. They’re intended to jostle your thinking. At a time when the President is depicted with a rainbow halo, an image of a rainbow swastika is incongruent. A vibrant mind would ask why, not just reply that he agrees with conventional thinking. Maybe you did get the point of the article, but nothing in your comments indicates it.

  • Bonchamps said: “I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.” I do too.
    Paul W. Primavera: I enjoyed reading your posts on Holy Scripture and still say my Hail Mary in Latin.
    Mary @42: You cut to the chase and clarified the issue quickly.
    Leo: What would the Holy Virgin say about your inexcusable defense of sinful behavior? The Holy Virgin weeps…and weeps.

  • Live and let live. Problems, accusations, and anti-stuff only happens when people impose upon other people and form ‘movements’ to do so.

    If aids and abortion didn’t kick up in the 80’s as an alert that something has gone off balance with humanity, then all this antagonizing, righteousness and division could move beyond emotional insanity to rational behavior and growth to calm ‘diversity’.

    We all have the possibility of achieving an integrity of our beliefs which are unique – we don’t need to butt heads or force change for another’s view of ‘integrity’. It’s just not right, practical, or any good to be ‘my way’ or else for anyone.

    This ‘anti’ bit is creepy because it is dehumanizing for all sides. Animals, away from man’s influence, have more intelligence and instinct. We could learn from them – and they are cute and beautiful.

  • As someone who makes a living in the visual arts, (including photography) this kind of ruling is rather chilling. One statement of the ruling stuck out to me:

    By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message. Rather, Elane Photography serves as a conduit for its clients to memorialize their personal ceremony. Willock merely asked Elane Photography to take photographs, not to disseminate any message of acceptance or tolerance on behalf of the gay community.

    The notion that this sort of photography is being ‘merely asked to take photographs’ is absurd. Artistic photography is as much an expression and message of the photographer as of the client. It’s not simply pressing a button on a camera- if that was the case, no one would hire photographers. Rather, the whole point of selecting a particular photographer over another (or over a family member with a camera phone) is that the photographer has a particular style, quality, etc.- even message- that is communicated by that style. Often times you even have to be careful with the clients you choose to work for so that your style and message don’t get diluted.

    Perhaps whoever made this ruling needs to open a photography business and see how well they do by merely ‘taking photographs.’

  • @Bonchamps

    “I don’t hate homosexuals . . . I do hate the radical gay movement.”

    First of all, I find your response disingenuous and indefensible. If there is a difference between homosexuals themselves and the purveyors of the “radical homosexual movement” (whatever that’s supposed to mean – I never realized one existed until I read about it here), you haven’t sufficiently defined it in your article. One needs to look no farther than the comments from your defenders on this page to see that, perceptually, most people see no difference.

    Secondly, I lived for a time in the deep South of the US, in lower Alabama. A far different environment from my native Southern California. Even back then, a full 20 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were white people living there who saw black people as genetically inferior human beings to whites. There was nothing I could say to them to convince them otherwise. The same seems to be true of you and your cohorts here: there’s nothing I can say to you to convince you that there is no difference between someone whose orientation is homosexual and you or me.

    Lastly, I notice a strong similarity between your “arguments” and those used by the racists I encountered in Alabama back then. Often they would say, “If I don’t want to deal with black people, then I should’t be forced to! It’s my right to refuse.” This is incorrect: if your only justification for denying someone a public service is based on their skin color, or their sexual orientation, then, no, it’s not your right. You are wrong.

  • Leo, Bon specifically addressed the difference between the individual and the behavior in paragraph 3. The photographer isn’t objecting to the individual; he’s objecting to the action of gay marraige. Paul Primavers puts it succinctly: “God loves everyone, homo or heterosexual. God hates sin. Homosexual behavior is sin.”

    As for the matter of genetic superiority, well, I don’t think anyone on this site cares about that. The real question is about moral superiority. Some people’s comments here have implied that heterosexuals are morally superior to homosexuals, and they’re wrong. Homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior are wrong when they’re outside God’s parameters. The parameters for heterosexual sex are limited; those for homosexual sex are nonexistent.

  • There is a difference between having a certain melanin in one’s skin cells and willful perverted sexual behavior. That difference is however lost of enlightened Leo. Nevertheless, regardless of that loss on him, no one may discriminate against taking wedding photographs of a black heterosexual couple, but one may (indeed, must) for reason of conscience refuse to provide such services to two homosexual perverts who demand their ungodly “union” be normalized, accepted and even praised in photography.

    Homosexual union is NOT marriage. Mutual masturbation or insertion of one’s male sexual organ into the orifice of another male is sickening, disgusting, filthy, dirty, perverted and disease-spreading. Just because certain animals engage in homosexual behavior (e.g., dolphins, bonobo chimpanzees, etc.) does not mean that a human created in the image and likeness of God Almighty should so debase and denigrate himself. We are NOT animals (but I do wonder about godless liberal progressive Democrats). God holds us to a higher standard. But in Leo’s world, it is unloving, unkind, unjust and divisive to say that.

    Indeed we all agree that black people are no more or less genetically inferior or superior than white people (or any other kind of people for that matter: red, yellow, brown, etc). In like manner, homosexual people are no more or less genetically inferior or superior than heterosexual people. For that reason, those who engage in homosexual behavior will be held accountable before God for the same – because, since they are NOT by their own declaration mental defects, they are fully aware of the grave evil in which they engage. If they were mental defects, then they could be excuse as innocent on the grounds of such mental deficiency or disease.

    Romans 1:18-32 applies, especially the last verse: “Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.”

    18* For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

  • Leo;

    I kindly suggest you do some research on Log Cabin Republicans. There is a difference between being “gay” and a “militant homosexual”. It would be nice if you could see there is a diversity in your community and embrace that diversity. I also suggest that you look at the political basis that is the genesis of the militant homosexual movement – you will find it stems from far left socialist/communist ideology. Look at the underpinnings of thoses ideologies, do the research on what influenced the ideologies, look at the times those ideologies grew out of and then look at the public and personal histories of the men/women behind thoses ideologies. It will be enlightening and tragic at the same time. Much of the militant homosexual movement’s money comes from the same organizations or ppl that are sympathic to socialism/communism. I do not mean to be disrespectful but if you do not care to look and challege your beliefs then your ignorance cannot be helped. My beliefs are challenged every day by ppl like you and I have to analyze if I am mistaken – I am only a man and thus fallible. Ultimately, I find the truths contained in the teachings of the one and true Church are infallible.

    Just as you accuss the ppl here of being closed-minded so are you. There is nothing I or anyone that is a faithful Catholic can say that will change your opinion and views. I do not wish to change your views or force you to act in a certain way but you seem to have a need/desire/compulsion to try to change mine or force me to act in a certain way. I just ask you respect my personhood and my basic human dignity as I respect yours.

    There is a difference between a voluntary act, which ultimately homosexuality is, and a color, race, etc. You are trying to claim a similarity between racism and the anti-homosexuality as shown by believers in Christ’s word – there is none. One is based on hate and the differences in man (racism) and the other is based on the love for man (wishing that all could enjoy full fellowship with God) and desire that man live up to his/her potential.

    I hope you can find peace and harmony because you seem angry and troubled. I will pray that you find and feel the true love of God. Peace be with you, my brother.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • It’d be nice if Primavera gave the next line: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” And that’s serious business. You’ve got to realize, Leo, that we know we’re under the same judgement for all of our misdeeds. Christianity doesn’t single out the homosexual for condemnation.

    We fight the battles we find ourselves in. If this were 1850, we’d be railing against slavery. Thirty years ago, we were mostly talking about abortion and communism. Now we’re talking about this. We haven’t suddenly started caring about homosexuality. We haven’t been secretly obsessed about homosexuality. We’re just playing the cards we’re dealt. And as this article demonstrates, the shift is taking place from protecting the rights of supporters of homosexual unions to diminishing the rights of opponents of homosexual unions. So the fight has been taken to our doorstep.

  • Post Script – my quote of Romans 1:32 doesn’t come across in the right way. In the original Greek of the epistle which St. Paul wrote to the Church at Rome, there were no divisions of chapter and verses. So Romans 2:1-16 immediately succeeds Romans 1:18-32 without the artifical divisions that were created to help the modern reader locate passages. Notice how St. Paul immediately stresses after his discussion about homosexual perversion that there is no partiality before God between the pagan homosexual pervert at the end of chapter 1 and the convert to Christianity at the beginning of chapter 2. The same rules apply to all of us, and none of us are worthy of Heaven. Note also that while St. Paul admonishes the believer NOT to judge, nowhere does he say that the believer is to give assent to sin either passively or actively. Indeed, his words are just the opposite. This gives new meaning to that other verse of Scripture which says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12)

    1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

    12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

  • Sorry, Pinky!

    We were cross-posting!

    You’re right!

  • Paul – Yeah, I got that. That would’ve been a lot to pull together in six minutes.

    I think it’s important for Leo – and for us – that we mention every once in a while that we’re all trying to work toward perfection. There’s a lot more hetero sin out there, numerically, and there’s no one on this board with a perfect track record. I say this a lot on the threads, but we’re called to be both right and good; when we’re talking about how right we are, it can sound like we’re talking about how good we are. I’d hate to think that we come off as jerks to an outsider.

  • Double ditto to what Pinky just wrote. I know what I deserve. God’s mercy is that I do not get what I deserve. God’s grace is that I do get what I clearly do not deserve.

  • Soon it will be illegal to refuse to attend a homosexual “wedding” if you’ve been invited.

    Just wait! You’ll see!

  • Hear hear Paul

  • Y’know, Leo, I had a whole long, scathing diatribe written out, but then it occurred to me that fascists don’t listen anyway.

    Best of luck. Seriously.

  • Coexist heil!

  • At Mary De Voe’s request, for Leo Salazar, and for all homosexuals caught in the addiction to sexual sin:

    Av? Mar?a, gr?ti? pl?na,
    Dominus t?cum.
    Benedicta t? in mulieribus,
    et benedictus fr?ctus ventris tu?, I?sus.
    S?ncta Mar?a, M?ter De?,
    ?r? pr? n?b?s pecc?t?ribus,
    nunc et in h?r? mortis nostrae.
    ?m?n.

  • Main Entry: fas·cism
    Pronunciation: \?fa-?shi-z?m also ?fa-?si-\
    Function: noun

    1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race [sexuality] above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

    So there we have it, textbook fascist behavior by the left.

  • Thank you, Bonchamps for the post.

    May the Lord Jesus reveal His glory to Leo. May Leo come to know the Person of Jesus Christ and be lead to acknowledge Jesus as Sovereign Lord and Merciful Savior. May he be given a thirsting for Truth, and through this thirsting discover authentic Love.

    Amen to the thoughts expressed by Mary 42. Thank you for speaking in power and in the authority of the Holy Spirit.

    Thank you Leo for providing us an opportunity to check our relationship with the Lord…to test our courage to witness His Gospel, It takes little courage to comment on an anonymous blog; the true test is found on the battlefield of our heart.
    2 Timothy 1:14 “guard the Truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.”
    We need to engage intellect through faithfully presenting Truth, in order to win hearts for Christ. 2 Timothy 2: 24-26 “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
    Titus 3:3-7 “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, HE saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.”

    We need to prostrate ourselves before the Lord, as His Justice is also His mercy. The earth is blanketed with the spirit of the antichrist. The only response is fervent prayer and fasting.
    2 Timothy 1: 8-9 “Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord…Who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of His own purpose…”

  • Thank you, Paul W. Primavera. God bless

  • Leo,

    I can’t speak for anyone else. Here’s my reply to your comment.

    “First of all, I find your response disingenuous and indefensible.”

    Well, it’s the truth. Take it or leave it.

    “If there is a difference between homosexuals themselves and the purveyors of the “radical homosexual movement” (whatever that’s supposed to mean – I never realized one existed until I read about it here),”

    Then you’re incredibly ignorant or naive – or a liar. Of course a radical homosexual movement exists, as much as radical feminism, radical race politics, and communism exist. The lawyer for the plaintiff in this very case is a radical gay advocate.

    I defined “gay agenda” in my previous writing: a political movement with the objective of normalizing and legitimizing a homosexual lifestyle in every facet of social and personal life. That is a radical assault on the foundations of human civilization.

    “you haven’t sufficiently defined it in your article.”

    Why should I define what is self-evident? Of course there’s a distinction.

    “One needs to look no farther than the comments from your defenders on this page to see that, perceptually, most people see no difference.”

    Hey, I can’t tell people how to think. I’m not a radical gay activist, that’s not my thing. I would tell any of them that there is a difference between a person who simply lives their life, and a political activist, and that they would have to be brain-damaged not to understand this.

    “Secondly, I lived for a time in the deep South of the US, in lower Alabama. A far different environment from my native Southern California. Even back then, a full 20 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were white people living there who saw black people as genetically inferior human beings to whites. There was nothing I could say to them to convince them otherwise.”

    So what? Are you whining because you couldn’t control their thoughts either?

    Do you just lie awake at night cursing the 1st amendment or what? Or does it just bother you that anyone has the temerity to think an unacceptable thought?

    “The same seems to be true of you and your cohorts here: there’s nothing I can say to you to convince you that there is no difference between someone whose orientation is homosexual and you or me.”

    This is just nonsense. No difference? Of course there is a difference. There is a massive difference. There are also differences between black and white cultures, between men and women, between Christians and Jews. Pretending differences don’t exist is ignorant and naive.

    That being said, however, this has nothing to do with whether or not they are “the same” or “different” than me. I know you have this view in your head of us here as a bunch of tribalistic cavemen who want to oppress everyone who isn’t exactly like us – or at least, you seem as if you do. This is false. You’re engaging in prejudice of your own.

    I really don’t desire to dictate what two people of any gender or sexual orientation do. Under our existing conception of private property rights, any two people can enter into the same kind of contracts as anyone else. They can share property and wealth, share a household, grant one another medical and/or legal power of attorney. I don’t believe society can or should make attempts to discern whether or not the people seeking them are gay and deny them on that basis.

    “Gay rights” politics are not about obtaining the legal right to participate in society at the same level as everyone else, as the efforts against Jim Crow were. They are about one thing only: FORCING society, and particularly Christians, to treat them with the prestige and respectability they think they deserve.

    They do NOT have a right to respect, prestige, polite smiles, or anything of the sort. And no one has any right to any good or service. But we’ll get to that below.

    “Lastly, I notice a strong similarity between your “arguments” and those used by the racists I encountered in Alabama back then. Often they would say, “If I don’t want to deal with black people, then I should’t be forced to! It’s my right to refuse.” This is incorrect: if your only justification for denying someone a public service is based on their skin color, or their sexual orientation, then, no, it’s not your right. You are wrong.”

    Well, I actually completely disagree with this, and I stand with Ron Paul in his rejection of that particular portion of the Civil Rights Act. It is an intolerable violation of private property rights to force people to serve those whom they do not wish to serve. I think the original Civil Rights movement was perfectly within its rights to boycott businesses that wouldn’t serve blacks. And if gays want to boycott Christian photographers, that’s fine too.

    But just to be clear: it is an insult, a disgusting mockery, to compare black skin to what is often willfully chosen deviant behavior. And it is no coincidence that it is the black voter who has been the most consistent opponent of “gay marriage” legislation. How do you think black Protestants and Catholics feel about constantly being compared to the sort of filthy degenerates who march in the streets in leather waving sex-toys around? You’re the insensitive lout here.

    You need to think long and hard about this comparison, Leo.

  • The premise of this article is correct and we do need the courage to address this.

    Case in point: the recent expulsion from Dartmouth, prison sentence, criminal record and international humiliation of Tyler Clementi’s roommate who briefly watched part of an intimate encounter between Tyler and a male sex partner. Unfortunately, Tyler, who had many many personal issues prior to going to college, later committed suicide by jumping off the Geo. Washington Bridge. This was a tragic and horrible event.

    But Tyler was NOT the victim of gay-bashing, and this incident was turned into a political statement when it should have been about invasion of privacy–something we all need to confront in this electronic age.

    Tyler’s roommate had already “spied” on straight friends when he was in high school, as a prank. (And for the record, he never posted footage of Tyler on the internet.) He was an insensitive jerk, but there were indeed gay people among his acquaintences. He never referred to them with slurs. He made no complaint about having a gay roommate, other than some initial wisecracks to his friends when he first found out. He does sound like a pompous and insensitive kid, but those aren’t crimes. Tyler was the one who brought a strange “older” man to the room for a sexual encounter, kicking out his roommate, and creating “drama.” (This happens a lot in college–kids are expected to quietly leave the room if the roommate wants to have privacy with a partner. That’s ridiculous–the burden should be on the kid who brings home a sex partner to find a private place.)

    Peeping on your roommate in these circumstances is immature and creepy, but I’m sure it has happened before, even before webcam technology. I am also fairly certain that he would have spied on Tyler if Tyler had brought home a girl. This was an ill-considered dumb act that young people that age seem prone to. That is why we have consequences that are intended to help them learn from their mistakes. He should have been penalizied by the university before this became a criminal matter. Tyler, too, should have been penalized, as I am sure the school has rules for dorm conduct.

    It is conceivable to me that Tyler was depressed, perhaps had been rejected by this “older” guy (and older, to a college kid, may mean 25), and was still dealing with his parents finding out he was gay.

    I am amazed at how many people try to compare this to the Mathew Shepard murder, which WAS an example of a kid being targeted for his sexual orientation. But there is not a war on gay people in this country: gays are tolerated and embraced to a degree that even 20 years ago would have been inconceivable.

    The political Gay Rights movement would have us believe otherwise.

    But this whole thing was about TYLER’S personal struggles, not about GAYS.

    Yet the school immediately launched a lot of “sensitivity outreach” efforts.

  • “You need to think long and hard about this comparison [ black skin color and sexual deviancy ], Leo.”

    He won’t. But it would be nice if he did. His comparison is an insult to people of any race everywhere, particularly the human race.

  • Sparhawk that brings up the question why mess around with your roommate?

  • Valentin, I deleted a comment by you three times with what I consider to be vulgar language in it. I guess you couldn’t take a hint. I am placing you on moderation for the time being.

  • I am sorry Donald I was wondering about that. I tend to talk like a sailor but certain bad things need to be given bad names so that people don’t act like bad things are good. I apologize for the vulgar language and will try to be more discreet.

  • I thought that some of those terms I used seemed much more discreet than what I was thinking of saying before.

  • Good enough Valentin, and congratulations for spending the shortest time in moderation in the history of TAC! 🙂

  • can we come up with more discreet and yet effective terms to use instead because it seems like people just assert that homosexuality makes perfect sense without really talking about it.

  • what is TAC?

  • Can you delete the comment on which century I meant? It seems somewhat irrelevent.

  • Thank you for the complement I do hope other people will have more humility than I do.

  • Bonchamps wrote

    “Well, I actually completely disagree with this, and I stand with Ron Paul in his rejection of that particular portion of the Civil Rights Act. It is an intolerable violation of private property rights to force people to serve those whom they do not wish to serve.”

    Let me remind you of what Rousseau says about democracy. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

    His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

  • I think the “state of nature” has one advantage, or two, over the current, corrupt system: were-geld, for example.

    On this topic, what is the common superior of which above writes?

  • If people are “born gay”, as the current theory goes, then it follows that they were created that way. And if they were created with that nature, then it’s on the Creator. If, as scripture tells us, He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?
    I find homosexual behavior repugnant but at the same time wonder if gays are truly responsible for being true to their nature. For this reason, I remain agnostic and side with my old friend, Lucretius who put it this way 2,050 years ago:

    Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam
    Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa
    “Had God designed the world, it would not be
    A world so frail and faulty as we see.”

  • @Joe Green

    “He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?”

    You say “blame,” I say “credit.”

  • Joe Green wrote, “He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?”

    Leo Salazar wrote, “You say ‘blame,’ I say ‘credit.’

    Whom God formed in the Garden of Eden were two perfect human beings, male and female. He did NOT create a predisposition to homosexuality any more than He created a predisposition to alcoholism. That some are born with mental defect or disease (e.g., a predisposition to homosexuality or a predisposition to alcoholism) is NOT the fault of God, but the result of the mortal wound of sin to which man wilfully acceded in the Garden of Eden. If indeed people are born this way, then it is a genetic defect that God never ever created. Man yielded out of self-will run riot to satan’s temptation. That in turn resulted in sin, and the wages of that sin are death. No one would be homosexual were it not for man’s initial disobedience. Again, that some are born with a predisposition to same sex attraction is NO different than some having been born with a predisposition to alcoholism. It cannot be overemphasized that God does NOT create the predisposition to defect or disease. Understand this: the mortal wound in the flesh of mankind creates that predisposition. God cannot create or cause evil because God is inherently and intrinsically all-good. Rather, Adam and Eve’s rejection of obedience to God’s commands resulted in evil, and homosexual behavior is evil; therefore, Adam and Eve’s disobedience results in that behavior (as well as the heterosexual sins of adultery and fornication – the rules are the same for everyone).

    That being said, God has mercy on those for whom He chooses to have mercy, and God visits justice on those for whom He chooses to visit justice. It is God’s sovereign will, and in fact we ALL – hetero and homosexual – merit only God’s justice, NOT God’s mercy. That God so love the world to send His only begotten Son (John 3:16) is His divine and sovereign mercy which neither homo nor heterosexual merit.

    As Romans 9:6-29 states:

    [ Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose ]

    6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”[b] 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

    10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

    [ Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice ]

    14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

    19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

    22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

    25 As He says also in Hosea:

    “I will call them My people, who were not My people,
    And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
    26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
    ‘You are not My people,’
    There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

    27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:

    “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
    The remnant will be saved.
    28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
    Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.”

    29 And as Isaiah said before:

    “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth[l] had left us a seed,
    We would have become like Sodom,
    And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”

  • @Bonchamps

    I’ve just read your response. I appreciate you taking the time to address my comments to you in detail. You’ve made some excellent points. But you’ve also made some points that seem to me based on gross assumptions and a plain misreading of what I wrote.

    I don’t think it’s useful to go into a detailed reaction to what you’ve written, but I would like to address two things.

    1) The comparison between race and sexual orientation discrimination: You weren’t the only one on this page to make an illogical leap based on my comments. Perhaps my writing lacked clarity. What I said was that I heard a striking similarity between the arguments that I heard racists using and the arguments that people on this forum use against homosexuals. I am very well aware that race/sexuality is apples/oranges. That’s precisely why I find the arguments of gay baiters so stunningly absurd.

    2) Personal attacks: You are a very literate writer and I enjoy reading your work. You sound like an intelligent person (no, I dont think you’re a bunch of tribalistic cavemen). That’s what is so disturbing to read from you, of all people, direct and personal attacks against me. From others on this page [unnamed] it’s par for the course, and I don’t take them seriously. But not from you.
    The key to civil discourse is “attack the ideas, not the person.” I admire very much that @T.Shaw apologized for judging me unfairly. I think we can have a far more productive and positive exchange with each other if we refrain from name calling.

    And, who knows? maybe we’ll learn something from each other.

  • T Shaw

    What Rousseau is saying is that, as between the Public on the one hand and the individual on the other, there is no outsider who has the power to adjudicate on their differences and enforce a decision.

    In other words, you cannot take a sovereign, independent state to court, precisely because it is sovereign and independent; it is subject to no superior person or body

    That is what he means, when he says there is no “common superior”

  • Valentin: Do you mean by “why mess around with your roommate?” that the incident (peeping) never should have taken place? Exactly. Not to get too far off the original topic, but the kid should NOT have been watching from elsewhere what was going on in that room. He should have faced penalties for invasion of privacy. But if he felt “entitled” to peep because he believed he had been edged out of his room to make space for a tryst and that made him uncomfortable–for whatever reason– he could and should have reported Tyler, who would also have faced disciplinary action.

    It’s too bad this was not about invasion of privacy, because people are constantly victimized by this, while they’re totally unaware. This would have been a great warning to technophilic peeping toms. instead Tyler Clementi’s death has been exploited by a cause he did not necessarilly embrace.

  • This civilization’s embrace of homosexual behavior is a sign of the coming apocalypse.

    However . . .

    I tried to buy a house recently. I had almost signed the papers when the owner learned that I was a practicing Catholic. They refused to sell me the house. So I kept looking. I found another house. Almost signed the paper. And again, when they learned I was a practicing Catholic, they refused to sell me the house. The third time this happened, the owner said, “I only sell to devout Muslims.”

    Irate, I told him that this kind of discrimination was deplorable. He said that it was perfectly fine to discriminate against me, “Because it isn’t like you were born Catholic. You chose to be Catholic. You act in certain ways that horrify me. You promote ideas that horrify me. Allah only knows what kind of deviant behavior you will teach your family in this house. I cannot in good conscience allow this house to serve your devil-deity. If you decide to reform your behavior, then I will allow you to buy my house.”

    I tried to tell him that I was indeed born a Catholic, at baptism. But he said, “Look, if you were merely baptized, I’d led you buy the house. It isn’t who you are that bothers me. It is what you do. It’s the fact that you actually act Catholic!”

    Most of us have accepted the idea that certain behaviors can be protected by law: faith being the most important kind of behavior. One may not persecute either Catholics or Blacks — even though being a Catholic depends on choice, and being Black depends on birth. Now ‘persecution’ may or may not venture into private business decisions: may a man sell his house to whomever he wishes, regardless of how vile his reasoning? On individual cases, it seems like government intrusion is unwarranted. But on a societal level, can we allow the mass of men to refuse to sell their homes to Black people, Jewish people, and dare I say . . . practicing homosexuals?

    May a photographer refuse to take photos at a devout Catholic wedding, or a Hindu wedding, or Satanists wedding, or a homosexual wedding? All of those criteria are behavior-based. Once we say, “no, a photographer may not decline a wedding because of behavior”, then we run into those questions.

    Now, many homosexuals want to say there were ‘born’ that way, putting them into the category of White Weddings, Black Weddings, Red-headed Weddings, Blue-eyed Weddings, etc. That puts their argument on firmer ground, because it makes their behavior untouchable. So it’s important to point out that, “No, homosexuality is defined by behavior, not biology.”

    But pointing this out doesn’t make for a solid argument. Because you still have to point out why we may protect certain behaviors (Catholicism), while arguing that other behaviors shouldn’t be protected (Child molestation).

    And yet . . . am I correct in saying that businesses may not legally refuse service to Child Molesters who have done their time in prison and are off of probation? Can a car wash say, “We don’t provide this service to Child Molesters”? Can a day care refuse to hire a Child Molester?

    As a Catholic Worker, and thus as a good anarchist and pacifist, I would sweep aside all these laws that protect us from persecution. Let sin boil up. Let all our hidden hatreds come to the surface. Let the truth reign. And then let us pray for the Holy Spirit to wipe us all clean. The government cannot secure human rights. It can’t even identify them.

  • Taking wedding pictures is a “public service?” Since when? Aren’t photographers private citizens running private businesses? If so, then they have the legal right to deny their services to anyone for any reason, whether you agree with their reasons or not.

  • Thanks!

    Obviously, I don’t know Rousseau from Russo. It’s in the USConst, you can petition the gov, you cannot sue it without permission. Now, I get it.

    I recognize one Eternal Superior.

    The World was judged one long-ago Friday on Calvary. John 12: 27-28; 31-33.

  • –Nate Wildermuth…” Because you still have to point out why we may protect certain behaviors (Catholicism), while arguing that other behaviors shouldn’t be protected (Child molestation).”

    First amendment protects Catholicism. Child molestation; No.

  • Nate, your story about a home purchase is fictional, no?

  • Kristin

    A photographic studio or shop, offering goods or services to the public was held to constitute “public accommodation.”

    Pretty well anything amounting to commerce or business is covered. The sale of a house, as in Nate’s example, would not be covered, unless the seller was a builder or developer, who makes a business out of selling houses. But a realtor would be covered

  • The essence of man is the image and likeness of God in him. When a man is born, the government gives him a birth certificate and a tax bill. When a rational, immortal soul is created and endowed with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, God gives the man His Name: “I AM”. God is Being. God is existence. God creates all things and keeps them in existence. Therefore, the man who exists, exists at the will of God from one second to the next. Therefore, I am able to say: “I AM Mary De Voe.”

  • If someone (hetero or homosexual) needs food, drink, shelter or any of the other necessities of life, then yes, one may and should do business to provide for such services. That’s always the right and correct thing to do.

    But no one needs photographic services. So if I own a photography studio and a homosexual “couple” comes to me to buy my services for photographing their disgusting and perverted “union,” then I may (and would) deny them.

    Homosexual behavior is perversion, to be differentiated from the person. (So, by the way, is adultery and fornication – the same rules apply equally to all, hetero and homosexual.) We must never tolerate or normalize disgusting and perverted sexual behavior. But we are still required to love the homosexual (just as we are required to love the adulterer and the fornicator – again, the same rules apply to everyone). So yes, we are under obligation to help provide what is necessary for life without respect to who or what the person is. Yet there is no moral compulsion to accede to a homosexual’s request for non-necessary services. In fact, there is every reason to compel them understand how harmful and wrongful their perverted sexual behavior is on the rest of society. For example, I’m heterosexual and in my teenage years my Dad made perfectly clear to me how wrongful adultery and fornication are; his exact words were, “If you get a girl pregnant and desert her, then I’ll put a two bitted ax in your head.” He deliberately endeavored to be as politically incorrect as possible. And I never got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, and those children to whose genetic material I contributed within wedlock I currently support as is my duty (I do more than that, but the reader gets the idea: responsibility and accountability).

    And I don’t care what passes for the law of the land and what it says when it supports this godless sexual iniquity called “gay rights”. These people have got to be made to realize that their disgusting, perverted behavior will not be tolerated in the public sphere. This is not a matter of judgment. It is a matter of preserving the cornerstone of society – the family: one man, one woman and children. That’s why God’s Law says: no homosexual behavior, no adultery, no fornication. God cares about humanity and what happens to it. So He makes Laws that if obeyed, will ensure its survival, even its prosperity. But the libertine hedonist doesn’t care about humanity, humanity’s survival or humanity’s prosperity. He only cares about his own license to titillate his genitals like a drug addict without regard for whom that will adversely affect or how injurious his behavior of sexual iniquity and idolatry is on the rest of society. This is called “Liberal-ISM” or “I”, “Self” and “Me”.

    Yes, I want the behavior of these people shoved back into the closet where it belongs. It is at best abnormal, but even worse, a destroyer of civilization and a denier of God.

  • PS, At least in the State of Washington, normal people are fighting back and winning against the tide of the facism of sodomy:

    Washington gay ‘marriage’ law stopped after opponents gather 240,000 signatures
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/washington-gay-marriage-law-stopped-after-opponents-gather-240000-signature

  • Mary, that phrasing seems wrong. God gives us our identity, but he doesn’t make us identical to God. That sacred name applies, as I understand it, only to the God who absolutely, unconditionally Is.

  • “can we come up with more discreet and yet effective terms to use instead because it seems like people just assert that homosexuality makes perfect sense without really talking about it.”
    An individual who perpetrates sodomy is called a sodomite. How sad that the atheist must die to learn that he has immortality. Unless, of course, the atheist and the sodomite have confused immortality with heaven. Dante wrote that the devil is frozen, immobile, into the bottom of the pit. That would prevent the devil from soaring with the saints and angels. The devil roams the earth seeking the ruin of souls. The practice of homosexual behavior is the “ruin of souls”. Only one of many.

  • “If you get a girl pregnant and desert her, then I’ll put a two bitted ax in your head.” I Love You, Paul W. Primavera, but only Platonically. I believe that this love is called friendship. Your dad was a feminist. He did right by you. Do you know Paul, that science has determined that when a woman carries a child, some of the baby’s cells with his genome enter the mother’s body and the woman carries her beloved. Pretty awesome. I very much appreciate your handsome knowledge of Sacred Scripture and your generosity in sharing. God bless you.

  • “Mary, that phrasing seems wrong. God gives us our identity, but he doesn’t make us identical to God. That sacred name applies, as I understand it, only to the God who absolutely, unconditionally Is.
    ” God’s “I AM” is infinite. Man’s “I AM” is finite. God creates all things and keeps them in existence. Therefore, the man who exists, exists at the will of God “I AM” from one instance to the next. In Jesus Christ, God’s “I AM” is justified, and redeemed.

  • Leo,

    If you wanted to have a civil, rational, intelligent discussion without name-calling, you really shouldn’t have started out by calling my reply to your first post “disingenuous.” You poisoned this well.

    I don’t hold grudges, so let’s move on.

    As for your first point, let me make this simple: I don’t care if the arguments are the same. It means nothing to me. As far as private property rights go, the argument is valid in both cases.

    And I’d like you to consider my questions. Would any of these comparisons be made if it were a cabal of Satanists demanding that Catholics photograph their ritual desecration of the Eucharist? Would these ridiculous comparisons to Jim Crow Alabama be made on behalf of the poor, persecuted Satanists?

  • Nate,

    “As a Catholic Worker, and thus as a good anarchist and pacifist, I would sweep aside all these laws that protect us from persecution. Let sin boil up. Let all our hidden hatreds come to the surface. Let the truth reign. And then let us pray for the Holy Spirit to wipe us all clean. The government cannot secure human rights. It can’t even identify them.”

    I’m fine with that. If you think I’m arguing that “my” group ought to have protections while gays or Satanists should have none, you’ve misread me.

    For the the record: I do not object to Muslims refusing to photograph Christian weddings, or Satanist real-estate agents refusing to sell homes to Jews, or anything of the sort. I don’t believe in protected categories at ALL when it comes to private property rights. Gays can boycott Christian businesses they don’t like, just as we can boycott companies that support the obscene “gay agenda.”

  • I am concerned about attempts by radical caders representing a tiny minority using the coercive power of the state to impose their will in an authoritarian manner on people they could not rationally persuade to approve of their lifestyles. I am concerned with the preservation of MY right, MY liberty, to disapprove and to avoid behavior that I believe is morally vile and reprehensible.

    If I don’t have that right, then I may as well live in a third-world dictatorship.

  • Joe nobody is born doing homosexual things.

  • I don’t understand the argument for homosexuality or why it would be reasonable so if someone who does have an argument and is friendly enough to post it please do.

  • Sparhawk it seems a little unfriendly to keep a roommate out of the room for such unjustified things.

  • Valentin: Yes, you’re right. As I said, Tyler was in violation of the housing code, not to mention common courtesy, in expecting to have the room to himself and to de facto kick out his roommate. From what I’ve read on the matter, Tyler had problems relating to people and communicating with his peers. Assuming he could make the room off-limits to another person paying A LOT for board takes nerve. And he should have been held accountable.

  • Pingback: Luckless in New Mexico « Blithe Spirit
  • Valentin, of course not, but the inclination is there from the beginning and acted upon as soon as the person reaches sexual maturity. Of course, adultery and fornication are equally condemned in Scripture — which is much ignored by the Bible thumpers, who seem to have a special disdain for homos. However, I must say I find homosexual activity more perverse than either adultery or fornication, which, though “sins,” seem more “normal” to me though no less punishable by the “creator” who allegedly made all of us.

  • Bonchamps

    As far as private property rights go, it is law that distinguishes mere possession (which is a physical fact) from ownership (which is a legal right) and law is an expression of the general will. Hence, Theodore Roosevelt’s words, “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”

    This was treated as a truism, long before Socialism was ever heard of. As the great classical scholar, Charles Rollin (1661-1741), reminds us, “Theft was permitted in Sparta. It was severely punished among the Scythians. The reason for this difference is obvious: the law, which alone determines the right to property and the use of goods, granted a private individual no right, among the Scythians, to the goods of another person, whereas in Sparta the contrary was the case.”

    You can see this principle everywhere enunciated in the French Revolution. Take Mirabeau (a moderate) “Property is a social creation. The laws not only protect and maintain property; they bring it into being; they determine its scope and the extent that it occupies in the rights of the citizens” So, too, Robespierre (not a moderate) “In defining liberty, the first of man’s needs, the most sacred of his natural rights, we have said, quite correctly, that its limit is to be found in the rights of others. Why have you not applied this principle to property, which is a social institution, as if natural laws were less inviolable than human conventions?”

  • Without reading most of the Comments, let me come back again with this simple question, my good people. If I was born with the propensity of being a thief, would it be OK for me to take stealing as my lifelong occupation and not get punished because I was born that way???? Of course, not. Those child abusers who excuse themselves by saying they were born that way, do we say OK continued raping your infant daughter, continue sodomising your pre-teen son, your pupil, if you are a Teacher, your Choir youngsters, if you are a Protestant Pastor???? OF COURSE NOT. And, oooh yes, the Catholic Church has been crucified for the Priests who abused minors. If we accept Leo’s Creed none of those I have mentioned should be admonished and punished.

    And how about a murderer claiming I was born with the propensity of killing people because it gives me great sexual joy to see a person expiring before my eyes????? Surely, we all know where such a person belongs.

    So, again I say, sodomy, lesbianism are perversities that should never be accepted by normal, rational, intelligent human beings. And on this Catholic Website, we must PROCLAIM FROM THE ROOFTOPS…..WE REJECT TOTALLY THESE ABBERATIONS. THEY ARE INTRINSICALLY EVIL, INHUMAN, BEYOND ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND MUST BE REJECTED. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church shall never teach, accept or permit anything with is contrary to God’s and Natural Law. We pray for those with sodomy and lesbianism perversities but they MUST STOP pushing their filthy acts down our throats, forcing us to accept their bestialities, let alone accepting their unnatural co-habitations can be called “Marriage”. Marriage is between One man and One Woman. Even male animals do not mate with male animals. Sheesh, this Culture is Devilish….and once again, in the name of God I pray for these people that they look for a cure to their perversions…….the Medical Science must surely have an answer to cure these dirty disorders.

  • Michael,

    The Church holds that private property is a natural right, and that labor is what confers the status of private property on any object:

    “Now, when man thus turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field which he cultivates – that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right.” — Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 9

    It is simply false that the law “creates” private property.

    “Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body. ” — RN, 7

    Private property rights exist prior to the state. The state exists to protect them:

    “the State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them” — RN, 51

    Of course, the state can “regulate” private property. You can’t use your private property to violate someone else’s rights, or to engage in evil behavior (i.e. pornography or prostitution or something like that).

    “The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.” — RN, 47

  • The first Commandments given by directly, in-Person God Almighty are found in Genesis.

    “Go forth and be fruitful (procreate)” is given in genesis six or seven times not just to man, but to all creatures.

  • 10% of the population is left-handed, 3% is queer, and so on. God must have gotten bored making the rest of us perfect. : )

  • If the homosexual activist could give proof positive that the immortal soul of the partner and his own immortal soul will not be going to eternal, infernal damnation, that he is not subject to death, that almighty God Who made all things and keeps them in existence cannot watch over His creation, even while some men abuse themselves through homosexual behavior, for God to see exactly what these individuals are doing, then and only then, will I be free to make an informed choice to give informed consent to aggravated assault and battery of the anus.
    Recently posted was the suicide of a young man, Tyler, who jumped off the George Washington Bridge because his homosexual behavior was broadcast into the public domain. God is watching and sees all homosexual behavior. When, in olden days, Kings and Queens married, their bishop had to present himself into their marriage chamber to verify that the marriage was consummated. So, the bishop did witness to the consummation of the marriage covenant and to the legitimacy of the children who became the next in line for the throne. God watched the consummation of the marriage covenant without the screen the bishop used. God watches every person in every instance of their life. It is called Divine Providence and found inscribed in our Declaration of Independence. So, each and every individual must live accordingly, in grace and dignity, for God is watching.
    P.S. I really do not believe that any individual will be spared death and judgment. This is what the devil, Satan, promised Adam and Eve. Abel was murdered and Adam and Eve both died. The homosexual proponent has embraced a losing argument.
    P.P.S. If a bishop was not present in your marriage chamber, you and your offspring will probably not be the next king and/or queen. Off the cuff: Does anyone know if the bishop was present in Obama’s marital chamber?

  • It is government’s duty to protect private property, virginity, innocence and “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. In Executive Order 13575, Rural Councils, Obama arrogated to himself the unauthorized power to seize private property at will.

  • Bonchamps

    But we read in the 2nd book of Institutes and in the 41st book of the Digest of Justinian that “those things that we take from enemies become ours by Natural Law (naturali ratione). In fact, for the Roman jurists, it is the paradigm case of acquisition of ownership. Now, without a law and a ruler, all men are enemies, so there would be no security of possession. His “natural right” is only as good as his natural powers of defending it.

    The Church certainly recognises strict limits to the right of private property. Populorum Progressio (23), citing St Ambrose, “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich,” declares, “These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.”

    As an example, the Pope states (24) that “ If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.”

    So there you have it; a right that is contingent (“not absolute”), conditional and defensible (by expropriation). Even Robespierre was asserting no more than that.

  • Not to get off topic here, but I’m not so sure Mary is correct about bishops and royal weddings. I know it was common practice for bishops to bless the marriage bed/chamber of a newly married king/queen or prince/princess on their wedding night…. but did they REALLY have to stick around to witness the, ahem, main event? I rather doubt that. There were other ways of verifying that a royal marriage had been consummated that were, shall we say, a bit less intrusive.

    Returning to our topic…

    I know some people like to compare the photographer refusing to do photos for a same-sex “wedding” to restaurants refusing to serve blacks in the Jim Crow South.

    However, there is another important difference between the two situations (besides the difference between race and sexual preference/orientation/behavior). The segregation that took place in the South was enforced by STATE laws and local ordinances and was not necessarily, or entirely, the result of “free market” choices by individual business owners exercising their right to do business as they pleased. If a restaurant owner had wanted to serve black customers in the Jim Crow era, he/she would have been forbidden by state law to do so, just as a restaurant owner who does NOT want to serve blacks today is forbidden by both federal and state law from refusing such service.

    If New Mexico had a state law forbidding ALL business owners from providing services to couples attempting same-sex marriages, on the grounds that same-sex marriage is illegal in that state (and at last report, it was), then the gay couple in question might have grounds to sue to have that law overturned. An argument could be made that if such a state law existed, it would be an unjust infringement upon not only the rights of the couple involved, but upon the rights of business owners who wanted to provide services for same-sex weddings, or had no objections to doing so.

    But that is not the case here. This is an individual choice by ONE business owner, which leaves other business owners perfectly free to provide the services the same-sex couple is seeking.

  • A photographic studio or shop, offering goods or services to the public was held to constitute “public accommodation.”

    Pretty well anything amounting to commerce or business is covered. The sale of a house, as in Nate’s example, would not be covered, unless the seller was a builder or developer, who makes a business out of selling houses. But a realtor would be covered

    If that’s the case, then it sets a pretty troubling precedent, even if same sex marriages were a-ok. Private businesses should have the legal right to choose their clients – especially if said businesses aren’t essential to life. I think refusing to sell food and water to a same-sex couple would be very wrong, but refusing to take their pictures? Nah.

  • Michael,

    I don’t care about Robespierre. I don’t care about the 54th book of Blah or the 78th Treatise on Blegh. In some contexts these might be relevant, depending upon what you want to establish. As concerns the moral rightness and justification of a thing, only Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium count.

    You’ve ignored the multiple quotations from Rerum Novarum I provided that demonstrate that the right to private property is natural, sacred, and inviolable – subject to some regulations, to be sure, but not to excessive taxation and certainly not expropriation for some social cause.

    “The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.” — RN, 15

    “We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable.” — RN, 46

    Meanwhile, this statement:

    “These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.”

    What does this mean, exactly? That “appropriating surplus goods” in such conditions (and if we think globally, this would mean EVERYONE) ought to be illegal? Or that it is simply immoral? If there is an argument here that the “surplus goods” ought to be confiscated by the state and redistributed to the needy, I don’t see it. If it is simply a moral admonishment, fine.

    What we have a natural RIGHT to is the fruits of our labor, which become our property. Whether or not we privately own the fruits of our labor has NOTHING TO DO with the material condition of our neighbor. Of course if we refuse to act charitably towards those in need when we very well could, then we will be held accountable by God.

    I don’t want to get into all the reasons why I find Giovanni Montini’s statements, especially about economics, highly suspect and not deserving of uncritical and immediate assent. But I don’t believe I can be faulted for standing firmly on the foundation laid by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum.

  • Bonchamps your last comment seems dangerous are you saying that the Gospel is the only word of God? or are you saying that if something says something contrary the Gospel should be rejected? because one big difference the Baptists and us Catholics is that Baptists claim that the Gospel is the only word of the lord where as we believe that the Gospel is the word of the lord.

  • I didn’t even mention the Gospel.

    RN = Rerum Novarum. An encyclical by Pope Leo XIII.

  • There should be a “to” in between “the” and “Gospel” as well as a “it” in between “Gospel” and “should”

  • I also clearly said that Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are the sources of authority.

    You need to read carefully before you post.

  • Bonchamps I had a few pretty big typos when you read my comment.

  • Well Ultimately Christ, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are the source of authority because they are the Author, but The Holy Spirit being the protector of Tradition and The Magisterium and God speaking through the Prophets as well as written accounts by the Apostles all three you mentioned do have Authority.

  • A group based on pride does not have Authority because pride is a vice. Therefore Gay Pride groups do not have authority.

  • I don’t care about your typos. Your implication that I was somehow elevating the Gospel above other sources of authority was clear even with the typos, and it is that implication that is completely false. I didn’t even mention the Gospels. So I really don’t know why you would even say such a thing.

  • I was not saying you were doing that I was asking whether you were.

  • The typos were significant typos which should not be there because they change the entire comment.

  • Why would you even ask it?

  • I asked because I was not sure what you meant when you said that The Scriptures, The Tradition, and The Magistereum are the sources of authority.

  • What was unclear about that?

  • Whether you were saying that because those are sources authority there is no other source of authority or whether you were saying that nothing that is incompatible with the sources can have authority.

  • Elaine: I was not there. I will try to find the text. My point is that God is there. Your post on “free market” is excellent.

  • Bonchamps

    I mentioned the Corpus Juris of the Catholic emperor Justinian, because it has been treated by theologians and canonists as an authoritative (but no infallible) source of Natural Law reasoning.

    As for the Magisterium, the best interpretation of earlier encyclicals is the light cast on their teaching by later ones and we should read Rerum Novarum in a way that is compatible with Populorum Progressio.

    Now, Section 23 gives a clear rôle to the civil authority, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” Here the Pope is quoting from the Letter to the 52nd Social Week at Brest, in L’homme et la révolution urbaine, Lyon: Chronique sociale (1965), 8-9.

    He then proceeds to give the example I have already cited, “If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.” I call it an example, for it is difficult to suppose that one régime applies to immoveable property and another to movables or to intellectual property, or that one is liable to expropriation and the other is not. Certainly, there is nothing in the encyclical to suggest this

    The balance to be struck is set out in Section 33, “Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

    It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man’s basic human rights.”

  • Michael,

    “As for the Magisterium, the best interpretation of earlier encyclicals is the light cast on their teaching by later ones and we should read Rerum Novarum in a way that is compatible with Populorum Progressio.”

    If you want to do that, be my guest. I cannot overlook what is a clear conflict of fundamental assumptions about the origin of private property. I also can’t overlook Montini’s left-wing sympathies, including his meetings with Saul Alinsky.

    “Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. ”

    This is faulty logic, commonly found among left-liberals and socialists. The “interplay of competition” increases everyone’s wealth – it is not a zero-sum game in which some people grow rich at the cost of other people’s poverty.

    Finally, the idea that you can have “public authorities” establishing goals, plans, and methods – and then graciously allowing private property owners to participate in them – while avoiding a planned economy is rather spurious. The best “plan” is to allow people to make rational economic decisions within a legal framework that protects private property rights.

  • “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich,”
    “My kingdom is not of this world” The principle of separation of church and state. “You would not have power if it had not been given to you from above.” Caesar belongs to God. In the Old Testament, the Israelites acknowledged God. Every seventh year was a Jubilee Year. The land reverted back to God, its Creator. After the Jubilee year, the land, according to its legal demarcations, usually reverted to its original owners. During the Jubilee year, the soil was left fallow. The soil was left to rest, untilled and the people ate of the aftergrowth.
    The Popes’ encyclicals speak to the sovereign individual person, to the soul of each and every one, literally, to their conscience. Read from this perspective, the Popes’ encyclicals encourage perfect charity and conscientious stewardship. If one has more than one can handle, one probably has more than he needs and ought to share for the sake of the land, if not for brotherhood, knowing full well that if he falls into need, his fellow brethren will share with him, and even in their need. The Popes’ encyclicals are a call to serve God righteously…in one nation under God.
    Proper government seeks to serve, to establish Justice and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity for the common good in good will. Government exists at the will of the people, for the people and by the people.
    Communism denies that it is a creature of the people, existing at the will of the people. Communism is the imposition of unauthorized, usurped power over the people, as in the HHS mandate. Communism is evil because it denies the Creator, the nature of the human being, as a sovereign person, composed of body and immortal soul, redefines the laws of nature to accommodate its evil agenda, and usurps the unalienable rights endowed by “their Creator”.
    Obama’s regime demands good will towards its evil agenda. Hitler made the slaves sing and smile on their way to the work camps… or death. Hitler demanded that Hitler be their “pursuit of Happiness”.

  • The New Mexico case is a decision of an intermediate appellate court dealing with state law. I do not know the laws of New Mexico, all the facts of the case, or whether the case will be appealed. But I suspect this article is not telling the whole story.

    As for the Canadian cases, Canada is not the United States. Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.

  • Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.

    Constitutional provisions will be ignored when the collective culture of the Bar changes. Our appellate judiciary is not overly endowed with integrity. When the wind shifts, constitutional protections for the spoken and written world will matter no more than freedom of contract amongst local businesses.

  • Art Deco is correct: “Constitutional provisions will be ignored when the collective culture of the Bar changes. Our appellate judiciary is not overly endowed with integrity. When the wind shifts, constitutional protections for the spoken and written world will matter no more than freedom of contract amongst local businesses.”

    The Constitution means nothing to these collectivists except as it exists to block their schemes. It like manner the Declaration of Independence means nothing. Nor coincidentally do Holy Writ, the Magisterium or Sacred Tradition.

    Their god is themselves. Their religion is hedonistic libertinism. Their goal is the destruction of anything sacred, including but not limited to God. They had their chance and succeeded with murdering God on the Cross, and that proved to be not their victory but their defeat.

    They may ignore or void the Constitution. They may ignore or void the Declaration of Independence. But one day every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess that HE is Lord of all to the glory of God the Father. Obama and his minions from hell shall NOT escape. Hallelujah!

  • Jim,

    “The New Mexico case is a decision of an intermediate appellate court dealing with state law. I do not know the laws of New Mexico, all the facts of the case, or whether the case will be appealed. But I suspect this article is not telling the whole story.”

    Well, when you discover what part of the story it is I’m not telling through your own diligent research, please share with us all.

    “As for the Canadian cases, Canada is not the United States. Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.”

    No one said it “had bearing on US law.” The point is to highlight the aggressive and totalitarian impulse of the gay movement.

  • It is amazing that some people assert that 2 men deserve the same “rights” as a married man and woman, 2 men by natural law cannot procreate we know this whereas a married man and woman can and so a married man and woman deserve to be recognised as more in accordance with god than 2 men trying and failing to reach the same position as the married couple.

  • “The point is to highlight the aggressive and totalitarian impulse of the gay movement”

    If a man or woman does not love enough to sublimate their sexual impulses, they do not love at all. Homosexual behavior is not only not marriage, homosexual behavior is not love. The gay-movement seeks to codify the vice of lust as the virtue of Love. The gay-movement seeks to impose corruption and abolish the duty of the state to protect virginity, innocence and the freedom of the people to protect their virginity and innocence. The gay-movement seeks to impose their phallic idolatry on America’s founding principles as an unalienable right endowed by “their Creator”. The gay-movement is not an individual, a unique person created by God. The gay-movement is actually demanding to be recognized as a legal corporation enjoying the freedom of a legal corporation as an artificial person and they are demanding birth as an artificial person from every sovereign citizen. A normal gay-person lives his private life, privately and does not demand that any other person recognize him as an establishment anti-thetical to culture, family and the founding principles. Only individual persons are created equal, with unalienable rights, not so of legal entities or artificial corporations whose so -called “rights” are inscribed by their founders at will, to be imposed by their founders, upon the will of the people.

  • Valentin wrote

    “It is amazing that some people assert that 2 men deserve the same “rights” as a married man and woman, 2 men by natural law cannot procreate we know this whereas a married man and woman can”

    Absolutely. It is very noticeable that, whilst the civil codes of various countries rarely define marriage, they all contain the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father and many jurists have seen filiation as the primary purpose of civil marriage

    It was this consideration that led the highest courts in a country so wedded to the principle of laïcité as France to reject same-sex marriage on equality grounds, as not so much immoral as illogical.

  • Roe v. Wade created an artificial community of individuals who could legally separate the human body from the human soul, literally dismember the soul from the body, and thereby end the begotten humanity yet to be born. The community of Roe v. Wade was superimposed upon our founding principles enumerated in The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Roe was to have been tried under Freedom of Religion as humanity is a gift from God. Another illegally contrived, superimposed community opposed to God is a different religion. Roe establishes atheism. The Right to Choose community chooses between the Person of God, their Creator and endower of unalienable right to Life, the Giver of Life and the taker of Life, the abortionist.

    Atheism, tried under the penumbra of Freedom of Religion at least acknowledged God and the fact that now, the Person of God was being dispossessed under the artificial legal person contrived called penumbra, a lie and perjury in a court of law.

    Gay-marriage agenda, another artificial illegal community intends to supplant matrimony as the proper relationship between one man’s soul and another woman’s soul in covenant. Matrimony is a covenant between two persons, body and immortal soul, ordained by God. The gay-marriage agenda too, must be tried under Freedom of Religion, since it too, judges what is God’s and what is man’s. God is the source of authority in civil marriages.

    “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” has been used against every virtue and all that is Holy. “Or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” is being used as license by every vice against every virtue. These illegal constructs must be tried under the penumbra of TRUTH, God is TRUTH, Freedom of Religion and the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a single virtue of peaceable assembly to speak, and pray about ‘their Creator”, in public and in private, as all persons are joint and common tenants of the public square.

    The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights declares that all inalienable human rights are derived from the people to whom a person is born, but it does not tell of the Freedom of God WHO endows the people with their freedom and inalienable human rights. Kind of like Human Rights and FREEDOM evolve from America. The evolution of inalienable human rights from other people is another false construct that must be tried under the First Amendment’s Freedom of God and man’s response to the gift of Faith from God, man’s Religion.

    One world government under the bank did not work in the European Union why would it work in America?

A Film For Our Time, and All Times

Sunday, June 3, AD 2012

 

No one, surely, Venerable Brothers, can hazard a prediction or foresee in imagination the hour when the good God will bring to an end such calamities. We do know this much: The day will come when the Church of Mexico will have respite from this veritable tempest of hatred, for the reason that, according to the words of God “there is no wisdom, there is no prudence, there is no counsel against the Lord” (Prov. xxi, 30) and “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Matt. xvi, 18) against the Spotless Bride of Christ.

Pius XI, INIQUIS AFFLICTISQUE

 

I knew that my viewing of For Greater Glory was going to be something special when two Dominican nuns, in habits,  came out of the showing before the one my family and I attended and one of them remarked to me that it was a very powerful film.  I replied that we were looking forward to seeing it.  Well, that wasn’t completely true.  My worldly, jaded 17 year old daughter would much have preferred to have been back home killing zombies online with her internet chums.  By the end of the film  she was weeping over the scene in which 14 year old Blessed  José Sánchez del Río, stunningly portrayed by Mauricio Kuri,  was martyred.  I did not blame her.  I have not been so deeply moved by a film since I saw The Passion of the Christ.

Before we go any farther, I should announce the obligatory spoiler alert.  I will be mentioning plot elements that people who have not seen the film might not wish to have revealed to them.  For those wishing to continue on, if you have not read my initial post here on the historical background of the Cristeros War, you might find it helpful to look at it before reading this review.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

25 Responses to A Film For Our Time, and All Times

  • I saw the film on Friday, opening day, and was very moved by it. I am a B16 kind of Catholic and find the LCWR and their supporters in a role of harrassment against those of us who accept the teaching magisterium of the Church and want to be faithful to its dogma and sacramental life. I wonder how the dear nuns would react to a film where courageous Mexicans were willing to give their very lives for God, where heaven cost them everything. I admire their deep faith and am grateful for their example. What are the LCWR nuns examples of? New Age faux theologies, feminism that supports abortion on demand, gay marriage. Who would die for those things?! They need to wake up. Go see the movie, sisters, and find out what the Church is really about. Certainly not your power struggle with the bishops. Viva Christo Rey!

  • I saw the film on Friday evening with some young men from the Church. The martyrdom of Blessed José Sánchez del Río reminded me of Revelation 6:9-11:

    9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

  • The Mexican Constitution to this day contains many anti-Catholic articles,
    forbidding the church to own property, interfering in Her administration,
    banning monasteries, limiting seats in seminaries, prohibiting Church schools,
    even prohibiting both processions and the wearing of clerical dress outside
    the walls of a church. Some of these laws are now ignored by the authorities,
    but they remain as a threat. For example, a few years back the Cardinal
    Archbishop of Mexico City made a public statement condemning government
    corruption and collusion with drug cartels. As I recall, the president of
    Mexico responded by pointing out that the provisions of the constitution
    remain in effect. The Church’s social services and schools are permitted to
    operate only on the sufferance of the government, and could be swept away
    should She make herself too troublesome.

    I’d imagine our president rather envies Mexico for her modern, progressive
    constitution.

  • My wife and I saw this movie last night. I noted one of the liberties that the film too, namely the burning of the train by Vega. I also noted in retrospect that they made it a point of showing him with several women smuggling ammunition when he meets General Ramirez, who seems to raise an eyebrow about the circumstances. In wanting to be charitable to the filmmaker, I wonder if it’s possible that perhaps other sources picked up Mexican government propaganda and used that as a source on Fr. Vega. I’m sure you’re right about the character of Fr. Vega, but I’m not a historian, so I have no idea what kind of evidence was used in the sources which present Fr. Vega in a rather negative light. Perhaps you can give us more information?

  • I’d like to think this movie may be a lesson for Obama and the secularist. Is there a point beyond which we will resist?

  • “I’d imagine our president rather envies Mexico for her modern, progressive
    constitution.”

    Not just Obama:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/

  • Just saw the movie and certainly can’t add to what you’ve said. All I can say I hope my faith is never put to the test.
    Can you suggest any books on the Cristero war or the period generally? My knowledge of Mexican hiistory is spotty at best.

  • The literature on the Cristero War in English is fairly sparse. The best book is probably Jean Meyer’s The Cristero Rebellion

    http://www.amazon.com/Cristero-Rebellion-1926-1929-Cambridge-
    American/dp/0521102057/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338758811&sr=1-1

    A good short history is in Latin American Wars, volume II

    http://www.amazon.com/Latin-Americas-Wars-Professional-1900-2001/dp/1574884522/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338758811&sr=1-10

  • Wikipedia has what I would consider to be a reasonable section on the Cristero War, but I am hardly one to speak authoritatively. It “seems” accurate, to me.

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy:) Don tells me the Wikipedia article on the Cristero War is accurate, Don the Kiwi. (Although I’m the one with the university degree in Spanish, Don’s read more Latin American history than I have. At least I can translate the Spanish-language resources for him!)

  • What is the story behind José Victoriano Huerta Márquez, 35th President of Mexico, whose dictatorship the Church allegedly supported, because of which support the anti-clerical laws in the Mexican Constitution were established? Did the Church shoot itself in the foot? I also read that at first the US supported Victoriano Huerta, and then Woodrow Wilson admonished him to restore / institute democratic reforms. Is this liberal progressive revisionist history, or is there some truth to all of this?

  • Few events in history are more convuluted and confusing then the Mexican Revolution that started in 1910. Madero toppled Diaz. He was overthrown by Huerta in 1913 after Madero proved unable to cope with the revolts that he faced. Huerta had initial US backing, but the incoming Wilson administration opposed him and backed Carranza who toppled Huerta in 1914. The Church in the chaos of the Mexican Revolution simply attempted to survive. Mexico has a long tradition of anti-clericalism dating back the first half of the nineteenth century. Anti-clericalists were at the helm when the 1917 Constitution was written. The Church was attacked at the time as supporting conservative forces in the Mexican Revolution, notably Huerta, but that was a false allegation:

    http://pittsburgh.academia.edu/ReynaldoRojoMendoza/Papers/150348/The_Church-State_Conflict_in_Mexico_from_the_Mexican_Revolution_to_the_Cristero_Rebellion

  • Thanks for the clarification, Donald. It’s always best to be properly informed.

  • From Fr Seraphim Beshoner’s podcast “Catholic under the Hood” (Franciscan humor there) an episode about the role of women in the revolt.

    http://catholicunderthehood.com/2011/12/10/278-las-brigadas-femeninas/

    Looking a the show notes he does give sources that interesting.

  • Pingback: St. Boniface the Hobbit Magisterium of Nuns Asia Bibi Sola Scriptura | Big Pulpit
  • Wow, it’s like we watched two different movies. As important as this story is and as much as I wanted to like this movie as a practicing Catholic, a combination of poor directing, an overblown and hammy score and average to sometimes cringeworthy acting (with a few exceptions – Blades and Greenwood) just ruined it for me. Despite their obvious anti-Catholic bias, I have to admit the secular critics were right in panning this seriously flawed movie. It seems that Catholics are so
    hungry for any movie that treats the faith favorably these days, some are willing to overlook the fact that a movie is just not that good (There Be Dragons is another recent example). We should expect better than this.

  • “It seems that Catholics are so hungry for any movie that treats the faith favorably these days, some are willing to overlook the fact that a movie is just not that good ”

    Or simply have a completely different opinion from yours as to the film. Everyone should go see it and make up their own minds as to the merit of the movie.

  • The movie was GREAT! Absolutely awesome. And head and shoulders above any of the recent releases (e.g., Battleship, Avengers, etc.).

  • I can’t get the scene of the martyrdom of Jose out of my head. The kid was fantastic throughout the entire movie.

  • Dear Donald,
    I was pleasantly surprised to see a link to my paper. Thanks very much!

    I would be happy to hear comments about it and to answer questions anyone may have about the Cristero Rebellion, or about the Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary (anti)religious policies.

  • Thank you Reynaldo for writing an epic paper that clarifies a topic I have always found somewhat confusing.

  • Pingback: The Fugitive (1947) | The American Catholic
  • My sole complaint about the movie comes at the very end. In order to give the pretense of a happy ending all that’s mentioned is that the church bells rang again. There was no mention of the 6,000+ Cristeros that Calles executed once they laid down their arms. Guess that was his idea of “amnesty.”

  • Pingback: Letter from Granddaughter of General Gorostieta | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Letter from Granddaughter of General Gorostieta « Almost Chosen People

They Will Shoot Me on Tuesday

Saturday, June 2, AD 2012

I die but God does not die!

Blessed Anacleto González Flores before his martyrdom, April 1, 1927

Something for the Weekend. El Martes Me Fusilaran.  (They will shoot me on Tuesday.)    A  song performed  by Vicente Fernández Gomez celebrating the fight for the Church and religious liberty by the Cristeros in Mexico in the twenties of the last century.  This seemed appropriate on the day when my family and I will be seeing For Greater Glory.  Go here to read my post on the film and the historical background on the Cristero War.  Here are the lyrics of the song translated into English:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

6 Responses to They Will Shoot Me on Tuesday

  • With a few young men from the Church, I saw the movie “For Greater Glory” last night. It is shocking to see what atheism will do in its hatred. But the theatre was only half full. The apathy of our society towards this is astounding.

  • Christ overcame death and so if someone is in communion with Christ he should not fear death this is some the wisdom which martyrs teach us.

  • Saw the movie. A rather emotional experience. I will review it either on Sunday or Monday.

  • Paul W. Primavera: I can only hope to see For Greater Glory. Only for killing a man can a man be put to death. Priests were murdered with impunity because of the “Law of the Land”. The Sun of Justice was exiled. Calles was born an innocent virgin. People in America have been intimidated for so long that they do not recognize the “boot on the neck.”

  • Pope Benedict has spoken about “faith fatigue” and how much we need a new evangelization to overcome this doubt and sadness and lack of joy regarding God whose existence calls me into being and sustains me. I saw “For Greater Glory” on opening day and found it stirring, inspirational and renewing. I walked out of the theatre with a renewed sense of the glory of the Faith. It is significant that the immigrants, the Mexicans, so despised by so many in this country, are shown as such courageous leaders in the fight for faith. I think of the lukewarm and compromising attitude of the Obama administration toward faith and I know better what Jesus meant when he said he would spit the lukewarm out of his mouth. Our life of faith here in American will be renewed by the vitality of the Hispanics and the Africans. We should be open to the grace that flows into the Church through them. Viva Christo Rey!

  • We Catholics of America have to realize that we of the present generation have not had to suffer physical persecution for our precious Faith. For that reason, we will have much to answer to Almighty God if we have not lived this faith to the fullest everyday, and most of all in all humility have given Him much thanksgiving for this great gift.
    The people of the past in Mexico will stand in judgement against us!

Review of For Greater Glory

Thursday, May 31, AD 2012

There is well known to Us, Venerable Brethren – and it is a great cause of consolation for Our paternal heart – your constancy, that of your priests and of the great part of the Mexican faithful, in ardently professing the Catholic Faith and in opposing the impositions of those who, ignoring the divine excellence of the religion of Jesus Christ and knowing it only through the calumnies of its enemies, delude themselves that they are not able to accomplish reforms for the good of the people except by combating the religion of the great majority.

Pius XI, FIRMISSIMAM CONSTANTIAM

The film, For Greater Glory, the heroic story of the Cristeros who fought for the Church and religious liberty in the twenties of the last century in Mexico, is opening on June 1.  Go here  to read my first post on the film and the historical background of the Cristeros War.   I will be seeing the movie with my family on Saturday, and I will have a full review of the film on Sunday or Monday.  In the meantime, reviews are beginning to come in.  I enjoyed this one by Dustin Siggins at Hot Air:

Over the last several years Catholics in America and Europe have experienced what they believe are the stripping of religious rights, and many are concerned the situation could easily turn into a public confrontation with various governments. One example of this is in England, where just this week the federal government has moved to declare wearing crosses in public is not a right. On this side of the water, my church’s parochial vicar Father Robert Lange often quotes His Eminence Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, who in 2010 said the following: “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”

Such things were on my mind as I watched “For Greater Glory,” a movie about the Cristeros, or “soldiers for Christ,” who fought against religious persecution by the Mexican government from 1926 to 1929. The movie starts with laws which encroach upon religious freedom relatively benignly, such as not allowing the public wear of religious symbols. The Mexican government then moves to decry foreigners who allegedly control the nation’s citizens, particularly the Vatican, and rounds up all foreign-born bishops and priests to force them to leave the country. Peaceful rallies and protests are responded to with military force, which leads to an economic boycott.

The boycott is the last straw for Mexican President Plutarco Elías Calles. Ignoring the counsel of his advisers, he begins invading churches and killing Catholic priests and parishioners. This leads to protests of various forms, from peacefully marching in the streets to violent rebellion. At the heart of the entire movie are a teenage boy who sees his mentor shot before his eyes, an atheist whose wife’s Catholic faith and his own belief in religious freedom cause him to lead the rebellion, a woman whose network of faithful Catholic women is critical to the rebellion’s early formation, a rebel whose legendary fighting skills are matched by his disdain for authority, and a priest whose violent leadership in the rebellion causes a great deal of spiritual uncertainty.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

9 Responses to Review of For Greater Glory

  • Steve doesn’t give it a rating, but my guess is he would give it a B+ or A- on his Decent Films scale.

  • A fourteen year old boy is executed after torture for loving Jesus. Calles is a Mexican Hitler. St. Agnes was only twelve years old when she was butchered. Fourteen year old children are not even executed for capital one murder and Calles was butchering children for loving Jesus. Calles is a Mexican Herod.

  • Why do they (Obama and the Dem party) hate us?

  • Pingback: St. Thomas Aquinas Sacred Music Gay Marriage Natural Law Communion in the Hand | The Pulpit
  • Don: I posted this over on your other blog entry, “They will shoot me on Tuesday” before I saw this area. With your permission, I’ll repost my question here:
    What is known regarding how the Cristero’s ended up? I read in a blog yesterday by Steven Greydanus, the movie critic at the National Catholic Register (the good NCR) [and lauded by you here earlier], that the Mexican government and the Catholic Church eventually came to an agreement whereby the Church stopped fighting the federal forces. As a result, the Cristeros became isolated and cut off from support and more were killed after the agreement than before. I realize the events in Mexico almost a hundred years ago are not the same as the attacks on religious liberty here in the US in 2012 but the ending in Mexico, if correct (and here I rely on you and your readers for help), sounds ominous with the Church leaders cutting a deal and leaving the people to fend for themselves against the State. It just makes me wonder about how current events will unfold…

    God bless you – thanks for this blog!

  • Some of the Cristeros were reluctant to accept the agreement, although most did. Most Cristeros expected that the Mexican government negotiated in bad faith and they were correct. Cristeros were persecuted and their leaders massacred. Many Cristeros fled to the United States where they usually received a warm welcome from Catholics here. The situation became intolerable in Mexico in the thirties and led to a second Cristeros revolt in the mid to late thirties. It should be noted that Pius XI bitterly denounced the Mexican government for reneging on the terms of the agreement With the election of Manuel Ávila Camacho, a believing Catholic, as President of Mexico in 1940, the situation dramatically improved, with the worst attacks on Catholics ended.

  • Pingback: For Greater Glory unfairly rated R …
  • Pingback: For Greater Glory unfairly rated R … | Catholic Canada

New Video Clips From For Greater Glory

Tuesday, May 29, AD 2012

 We wish to pay a special tribute of praise to those members of the clergy, secular and regular, and of the Catholic laity, who, moved by burning zeal for religion and maintaining themselves in close obedience to this Apostolic See, have written glorious pages in the recent history of the Church in Mexico.

Pius XI, Acerba animi

 

The film, For Greater Glory, the heroic story of the Cristeros who fought for the Church and religious liberty in the twenties of the last century in Mexico, is opening on June 1.  Go here  to read my first post on the film and the historical background of the Cristeros War.  I have found some new video clips online from the film.  The video at the beginning of the post shows Enrique Gorostieta Velarde, portrayed by Andy Garcia, and his family being turned away from a Church closed by the Mexican government.    Enrique Gorostieta Velarde, not a believing Catholic at the start of the struggle, would eventually become the leader of the Cristeros.

In the above clip Father Christopher, portrayed by Peter O’Toole, rejects the counsel to flee from government troops by Blessed Jose Sanchez del Rio, portrayed by Mauricio Kuri.  Captured by government soldiers during the Cristeros War,  Blessed Jose Sanchez del Rio refused a command to renounce his Catholic faith by shouting out “Death to Christ the King” and was murdered by his captors.  He shouted Viva Cristo Rey before he died and, according to an eyewitness, drew a cross on the ground with his blood and kissed it before he died.  He was 14 years old.  He was beatified by Pope Benedict on November 20, 2005.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

4 Responses to New Video Clips From For Greater Glory

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EVENING EDITION | The Pulpit
  • I hope this will give American Catholics the courage to stand up for their faith, to practice with fervor, to cease fomenting internal dissent over small matters in order to stand united against the bigger threat of a total secularization, led by the Obama administration, that would entirely privatize religion and keep it from influencing the moral tenor of the public square. The new dogma that there is no dogma is making a terrible mess of American society, infusing it with lewd behavior, rage, lawlessness, violence. For sure, the Church is made up of people and people all bear the burden of original sine and are capable of bad, even disgusting, behavior. But the temptation to leave the Church in disgust is the work of the Devil. The Church was founded by Christ and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. A bumper sticker reads: “The game is fixed. The Lamb will win. Be there.” Be faithful, be true, be there.

  • I like Susan’s quote, “The game is fixed. The Lamb will win. Be there.”

  • “Who are you if you don’t stand up for what you believe?”

Fortnight For Freedom

Sunday, May 27, AD 2012

 

 

 

The fight over the HHS Mandate is about to come to a boil.  In June the Bishops are going to have this document inserted in Mass bulletins throughout the nation which mentions the necessity of disobeying immoral laws in certain situations.

Some unjust laws impose such injustices on individuals and organizations that disobeying the laws may be justified.  Every effort must be made to repeal them.  When fundamental human goods, such as the right of conscience, are at stake, we may need witness to the truth by resisting the law and incurring its penalties.

I am almost thankful to President Obama.  Due to his blind hubris, his willingness to ride roughshod over American liberties for cheap perceived political advantage, he has awakened the Church in this country from her slumber, and reminded Catholics that they are part of the Church Militant here on Earth. 

Beginning for two weeks, up to Independence Day, the Bishops are having a Fortnight For Freedom:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

9 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom

  • Donald,

    “I am almost thankful to President Obama.”

    I have thought the same thing many times, God’s timing is not our timing, his presidency was a much needed wake-up call for many lukewarm people. But OH! I’d vote for a ham sandwich before I’d vote for Obama.

    And I love how you tip-toe’d around your point in the next sentence — NOT! 😀

  • Fortnight4freedom.org

    Uplifting and renewing as Easter season closes and Ordinary Time returns.

    Your ‘Elijah on Mount Carmel Year’ has to be reality, after the Rip Van Winkle one.

  • “God’s timing is not our timing”

    Or in the words of Richard Hovey, greatest poet of Illinois,( sorry Mr. Sandburgh!):

    Unmanifest Destiny

    To what new fates, my country, far
    And unforeseen of foe or friend,
    Beneath what unexpected star
    Compelled to what unchosen end.

    Across the sea that knows no beach,
    The Admiral of Nations guides
    Thy blind obedient keels to reach
    The harbor where thy future rides!

    The guns that spoke at Lexington
    Knew not that God was planning then
    The trumpet word of Jefferson
    To bugle forth the rights of men.

    To them that wept and cursed Bull Run,
    What was it but despair and shame?
    Who saw behind the cloud the sun?
    Who knew that God was in the flame?

    Had not defeat upon defeat,
    Disaster on disaster come,
    The slave’s emancipated feet
    Had never marched behind the drum.

    There is a Hand that bends our deeds
    To mightier issues than we planned;
    Each son that triumphs, each that bleeds,
    My country, serves It’s dark command.

    I do not know beneath what sky
    Nor on what seas shall be thy fate;
    I only know it shall he high,
    I only know it shall be great.

    Richard Hovey

  • What is the response of that pseudo-group, Catholics United? Will their liberal members have the hubris to balk about balking?

  • A THING IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED SINCE THE ELDER DAYS…
    …THE ENTS ARE GOING TO WAKE UP, AND FIND THAT THEY ARE STRONG.

  • Religious freedom has been under attack for some time, though the attackers claim that this is not their aim.

    People need to wake up and speak out about what is going on. I hope everyone will get the courage to speak out, through blog posts or Facebook shares, every day up to and including July Fourth.

  • It appears as though the liberal agenda, in the name of evolving society, is attempting to slide their Europeanizing mindset into place under the many smokescreen guises, all the while abolishing our GREAT CONSTITUTION

  • Pingback: Lincoln and the Liberty of Catholic Americans | The American Catholic

For Greater Glory: God’s Timing

Sunday, May 27, AD 2012

 

The film, For Greater Glory, the heroic story of the Cristeros who fought for the Church and religious liberty in the twenties of the last century in Mexico, is opening on June 1.  Go here  to read my post on the film.  The National Catholic Register’s Tim Drake has an interview with the producer of the film, Pablo Jose Barroso.  Note what the producer says about the timing of the film in regard to the struggle for religious liberty the Church is waging today in our country:

Tell me about the film.

It’s a great experience because it takes you to that period and beautiful  country, with its art and settings. It’s a story of hope, of freedom and of  heroism. The film tells the story of the pacifist movement, a group of people  who were trying to change things in Congress peacefully, as well as the story of  a former general who is recruited to organize the Cristeros into an army. You  also see several of the martyrs, including Blessed Jose Sanchez del Rio. In the  end, it’s about people standing up against oppression and dying for Christ. My  hope is that it will give viewers great hope.

What do you hope viewers take away from the film?

I think that, culturally, we’re not being congruent with our religious  beliefs. We are not standing up for our faith. We’ve been tolerating things that  are wrong. It seems as if it’s easier for people to be against God than to claim  him as their Creator. In this Year of Faith [to begin in October], the Holy  Spirit can help people to be more faithful. If only one person who doesn’t  believe in God sees this film and reflects on him, that is my best hope.

Given the current fight for religious freedom going on in the U.S., do  you see the release of the film as God’s timing?

Yes, it was frustrating and difficult not to have the film released when I  wanted it, but the Lord’s time is not our time. The movie is about conscience.  No one ever wins when religion is oppressed. As believers we need to band  together. This is the perfect time for this film. Hopefully, it will help wake  people up to the things that are taking us from God. In the end, this will harm  us. We have to be faithful.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

2 Responses to For Greater Glory: God’s Timing

  • I have met Mexican Catholics who never heard of this event. It’s not taught in their schools. When I took History of Latin America in college, the class had a Marxist bent, and the nature of this war was misrepresented and downplayed. I didn’t know about it until much later. When one abandons the truth, it’s still there, and so it must be hidden lest it become a reminder of the falsehood one has embraced.

See You In Court Mr. Obama

Monday, May 21, AD 2012

 

 

 

 

By this time I rather suspect that at least some of his campaign strategists, if not President Obama, are beginning to wonder if it was such a bright idea to pick a fight with the Catholic Church in an election year.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air gives us the details on 43 lawsuits filed simultaneously around the country today attacking the HHS mandate as blatantly unconstitutional:

Today’s Roman Catholic calendar lists May 21st as the feast day of St. Christopher Magallanes, a martyr killed for celebrating Mass during the Cristero War in Mexico. Perhaps Catholics today may want to recall St. Thomas More — the patron saint of lawyers, who was executed for refusing to agree to a mandate that gave Henry VIII the prerogative of defining religious expression in England.  Dozens of Catholic institutions filed lawsuits today against the Department of Health and Human Services over its mandate and its narrow definition of religious practice:

Catholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal district courts across the country Monday against the so-called contraception mandate, claiming their “fundamental rights hang in the balance.”

The plaintiffs include a host of schools and organizations, including the University of Notre Dame and the Archdiocese of New York. The lawsuits, though related, were filed individually.

The schools are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months back softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

Kathryn Jean Lopez posts a brief statement from Timothy Cardinal Dolan, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and one of the chief critics of the HHS mandate:

We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now. Though the Conference is not a party to the lawsuits, we applaud this courageous action by so many individual dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools across the nation, in coordination with the law firm of Jones Day. It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It’s also a great show of the diversity of the Church’s ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate – ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

13 Responses to See You In Court Mr. Obama

  • This affects everyone – Catholics, Orthodox Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, etc.

    My older brother – a member of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God (AG) – said that the Superintendent thereof issued a statement condemning the Obama initiatives – HHS mandate, gay marriage, etc. – and ordered all AG pastors to speak on this topic. AG is the largest Pentecostal denomination which historically viewed the Roman Catholic Church with apathy if not outright antipathy. For Obama to unite them in any cause with the Roman Catholic Church means that Obama has done what all the ecumenicalism in the World Council of Churches could never have done.

    I couldn’t be happier!

  • The Assemblies of God couldn’t be farther away from us theologically Paul, or closer to us on the moral issues. God bless them!

  • People have been underestimating the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years. Someone is always saying “It’s finished, let’s kick it!” Never a good idea because a) it’s NOT finished, and b) kicking the Church in a low period does indeed mean that a lot of people desert Her, but it also means that some surprising folks stand up and become dauntless champions for Her — sometimes not until after a lot of destruction, and sometimes right away, but nearly always in each particular place, and always if you look at the universal Church.

  • Just because it needs to be said, when the dust from this battle is settled (not war, for that will never end, but the battle) we (generically) should be prepared to be more dedicated, more active and more committed to doing the things that The Church has always stood for but that we may have been less intently focused on in the past.

    For my part, I am going deeper into the Christ Renews His Parish and Cursillo processes, having done the first one twice and second once. I’ll be on a seed team for CRHP, going from my central Indiana parish to Sarasota to help a parish there rev up its commitment to Christ and The Holy Spirit. My Cursillo groups are active but not terribly “pro”-active, and I’m taking it on myself to challenge that. Instead of just talking around the coffee table each week, it’s time for a demonstration of commitment.

    We each need to be able to say “Yeah, already there,” when the inevitable challenges come from those individuals and media outlets that will say “OK, Catholics, you won that round, but how about all these injustices and poverties?”

    You know the commitment across the country will be scrutinized by the Imperial Propaganda Ministry once the mandate’s been struck down, so we have to be ready. Or, perhaps more accurately, we have to begin yesterday to encourage and motivate our more wishy-washy parishioners to commit and start getting their hands dirty.

  • “contrary to its sincerely held religious beliefs. …”

    The University of Notre Dame has sincerely held religious beliefs? News to me. Glad they are joining the fight nonetheless.

    Between an overbearing government and the recent patent wars, business in law is good these days. I should have been a lawyer. 🙂

    If you haven’t clicked the Hot Air link, you should. More updates. I’m trying to find the list of dioceses in the suit.

  • Kyle–here’s a list of plaintiffs I found from CatholicVote.org:

    http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=30275

    1. D.D.C. Lawsuit
    o Archdiocese of Washington
    o Consortium of Catholic Academies
    o Archbishop Carroll High School
    o Catholic Charities of D.C.
    o The Catholic University of America

    2. E.D.N.Y. Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Rockville Centre
    o Catholic Health Services of Long Island
    o Catholic Charities of Rockville Centre
    o Archdiocese of N.Y.
    o ArchCare

    3. W.D.Pa. (Erie Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Erie
    o St. Martin Center
    o Prince of Peace Center

    4. W.D.Pa. (Pitt. Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Pittsburgh
    o Catholic Charities of Diocese of Pittsburgh
    o Catholic Cemeteries Association of Diocese of Pittsburgh

    5. N.D.Tex. (Dallas Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Dallas

    6. N.D.Tex. (Fort Worth Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Fort Worth

    7. S.D. Ohio (Columbus Div.) Lawsuit
    o Franciscan University of Steubenville
    o Michigan Catholic Conference

    8. S.D.Miss. (Gulfport Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Jackson
    o Catholic Charities of Jackson
    o Vicksburg Catholic School
    o St. Joseph’s Catholic School
    o Diocese of Biloxi
    o De l’Epee Deaf Center Inc.
    o Catholic Social & Community Services Inc.
    o Resurrection Catholic School
    o Sacred Heart Catholic School
    o St. Dominic Health Services

    9. N.D.Ind. (South Bend Div.) Lawsuit
    o The University of Notre Dame

    10. N.D. Ind. (Fort Wayne Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend
    o Catholic Charities of Fort Wayne-South Bend
    o St. Anne Home
    o Franciscan Alliance
    o Our Sunday Visitor
    o University of St. Francis

    11. N.D.Ill. Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Joliet
    o Catholic Charities of Joliet
    o Diocese of Springfield
    o Catholic Charities of Springfield

    12. E.D.Mo. (St. Louis Div.)
    o Archdiocese of St. Louis
    o Catholic Charities of St. Louis

  • Wacky Baracky Obumbler is certainly no skilled politician. At best, for him, he was able to do a decent job reading Axelrod’s trash on a TelePrompTer.

    Now, really, what kind of an idiot does one have to be to hang out with the Marxists in college? I have written it here before ‘ there is no ideology, no “ism”, no system of government that has caused more misery, more failure and more death of innocent people than Marxism, yet it still pulls in the gullible, the idiotic and the stupid.

    Obumbler is a combination of fallen-away Muslim and semi-Marxist. His wife is a golddigger par excellence. Obumbler has treated his presidency as a four year vacation and even if he loses to the Windsock, Obumbler would get a lifetime pension, a paid-for funeral, ten years of Secret Service protection and money for a presidential library. Obumbler will never pay for his errors – not in this lifetime.

    As for our Catholic hierarchy in the USA, it took this “mandate” to get them to wake up. Decades of abortion, Planned Parenthood taxpayer subsidies, restrictions on Nativity scenes, gay marriage and the like and the USCCB has been mostly asleep. The USCCB sill will not confront so called Catholic politicians who support abortion by excommunicating them. I have heard more about immigration reform (amnesty) and the USCCB’s continued support of “universal health care” was no small contributor to Obumblercare.

    Obumbler is a terrible President and quite a lousy politician. Sadly, it took Obumbler and the Democrat control of Congress to light a fire under the Catholic Church in the US.

  • I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg. Will we see another few dozen suits next month, and again the month after, and so on? 43 plaintiffs is a good start, with good attention, but the true scope of the government’s violation is far more than this.

  • It’s not clear to me if the list of plaintiffs is a list of all suits filed thus far, or if it is
    just a list of plaintiffs with a Catholic connection. Where are the lawsuits being filed by
    Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim organizations? Are Catholics going to do all of the
    heavy lifting on this?

  • Clinton: Several months ago about 11 suits were filed by a variety of organizations, some Catholic and some not. These 12 are all Catholic, and were filed simultaneously and seem to be very similar so I would imagine there was some heavy-duty planning. Are Catholics going to do all the work? They haven’t so far. Are they going to do all the “heavy lifting”? Remains to be seen! So far yes. But we will see.

  • Penguins Fan, you say : “and the USCCB has been mostly asleep. Christ’s Apostles”. Remember, Christ’s Apostles were asleep as He agonized in Ghestemany, they fled when He was arrested. He died on the Cross with only young John and His Mother at the foot of the Cross. The Apostles had to lock themselves in the Upper Room after his death with fear and trembling believing all was lost. But Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to them, reassured them and this Sunday, we celebrate the Feast of the Pentecost which woke up the Apostles with Divine Power and they courageously proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Penguins Fan, the Catholic Church rises up from the ashes like the Phoenix when under attack – whether from within or from without – and emerges victorious no matter how powerful the Adversary may be. She has done so these 2,000 years+ and She will do it again. Jesus will crush Satan whom you, Americans enthroned with your “Gospel of Death”. Obama may have gambled that he will divine the Church in America, but let us all remember, this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, with Christ as Her Spiritual Head, guided by the Holy Spirit is just about to defeat Satan yet again. And She will continue doing so Until the End of Time.

    The American Bishops may have been asleep when Satan was edging on the Throne, when Obama, his High Priest entered your While House, and he has now risen against Jesus Christ Himself.

  • Yes Mary 42 but now that we know Christ is the lord the only Son of God the bishops have to make sure that fake Catholics don’t burn their souls for not repenting. Not to mention they give a false image of what the Church is.

  • The Democratic Party today , under Obama, is NOT the Democratic Party of JFK, the only US Catholic President to date. It has become radicalized, severely. JFK would have NEVER considered such a strangulation on American’s freedoms. If we lie down without a fight, it will be very fast coming that more and more freedoms go by the wayside. Our constitution is just a piece of paper if not fought for, and used as the proper tool, in the courts.

Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

Friday, February 10, AD 2012

Update III:  The USCCB Pro-Life Director Richard Doerflinger and Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey agree with me that this “accommodation” or “compromise” is unacceptable.  Sadly Sr. Keehan of the the Catholic Health Associate found this “satisfactory”.  It looks like Obama will be happy that Sr. Keehan is on board.  Of course, Planned Parenthood and Sr. Keehan agree.

Update II:  Rumor confirmed.  Insurance, that Religious Institutions pay into, will provide contraception, ie, it is still a violation of the First Amendment.

Update I: Rumor is that “Hawaii” compromise will be offered, but the bishops have already rejected this.  So basically it’s a poor attempt at stalling and not really offering a solution.

The buzz this morning is that Obama is “caving in” to the pressure and will announce a “compromise” today at 12:15pm Eastern.

The news reports are saying that Religious Organizations won’t have to offer birth control, only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control.

Yeah, that’s the compromise.

If these reports are true, this is dead on arrival.  Changing the meaning of the words won’t do it.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

34 Responses to Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

  • It’s George Orwell’s 1984, except the date should be 2012.

  • …only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control…

    And who pays premiums into the insurance pool? The Religious Organizations and in most cases, their employees. This is no compromise; it’s word-smithing.

  • Exactly Big Tex.

    I wish I were more eloquent and prescient as you were, but I wanted to get this out and digested before Obama did another Pravda Announcement.

  • Next, he’ll offer 30 pieces of silver, the price of a man.

    I’m insulted.

    He must think we are as stupid as he.

  • Pingback: . . .Breaking: Obama Compromise is No Compromise. . . | ThePulp.it
  • Politics at its worst. This administration is not caving in on anything. They are mandating and telling the insurance companies what product to sell and at what price to sell. Unconstitutional.

  • He’s on the run.

    Don’t accept the first.

    Counter with: “Resign tyrant.”

  • Let’s pretend that birth control is a health issue (hahahah, sorry — I’ll stop laughing now). Since when is the President qualified to ORDER medical treatments? Did he go to medical school or something?

  • Lord have mercy. Has Sr. Keehan have no shame? No conscience? Her bishop should have a friendly chat with her, remind her that part of the reason the Church and the entire country is in this mess is in part her doing, and then politely ask her to keep her mouth shut.

  • Unfortunately it may be that Sr. Keehan has no problem with contraception, sterilization etc.

  • She also has no problem in wearing anything but a habit.

  • HHS was The Institute of Medical Services idea. BO and KS said so.
    The change in payment was recommended by some Insurance Business Institute.
    One, quick little mention of ‘religious liberty’ being intact, so there you guys who are complaining so much.

    Contraception was the whole focus of what HHS means to USA, no mention of the laundry list of other ‘care’.

    Contraception is good for preventing women’s health problems. What about all the studies of causes for women’s cancer? Women, not girls, what happened to the 11 year olds that were going to be ‘cared’ for? Not PC for a noonday speech for Catholic listeners. Ugh. More questions than answers from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.

    Contraception is the lowest common denominator of appeal for those who would trash Church teaching before letting go of complacency.

    No apology for using the word Mandate in olden times like yesterday. Now, it’s all about being the bearer of ‘good’ compromise for all concerned, especially those who want contraception. Politics, pandering to voters, and shutting up the Church.

  • I think Sr. Keehan has no idea how insurance works.

  • from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.
    He said so.

  • Too busy today to do anything right now except to note that this is no compromise and anyone who thinks it is is either a fool or a knave. Obama truly does have nothing but contempt for those outside of his ideological bubble.

  • Who is this Senior Keehan?

  • Obama went out of his way to say that he supports freedom of religion, pointing out that one of his stints as a community organizer in Chicago was funded by a Catholic group.

    Gag me with a spoon. I wonder which Catholic group funded his community organizing. I wonder further if those funds made their way through the CSA.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-announce-accommodation-religious-groups-contraceptive-rule-enough-170500694.html

  • There can be no compromise with evil.

    I would hold out for his resignation. That’s me.

  • Another great takedown of this duplicitous “compromise” over at Vox Nova.

  • Haha Paul. I’ll comment on that later. I’ll let others read the takedown first.

  • “Sister” Keehan is a traitor. If she approves of this, then it is not to be trusted. The road of compromise is never ending! Don’t take it. Time for Catholics willing to suffer persecution to stand up and be counted. If Obama wins this, it’s all over for Faith and freedom. Wake up America!
    Immaculate Conception pray for us.

  • I’ll update my post with that link, Paul. Good catch.

  • If the bishops will not or cannot make (Sr.) Keehan behave then hopefully the vatican will discipline her and her order. She is a disgrace to American nuns who are pro-life. In effect, she is giving comfort to the enemy and she needs to be stopped!!!

  • I clicked on the link thinking someone at Vox Nova had actually written something critical of Pharaoh Obama’s “compromise.” It seems most there are content to retreat into philosophical condemnations of American Democracy and other acts of mental onanism.

    I suspect MM is waiting for the Dem talking points.

  • Phillip:

    Kudos. I am afflicted with violent nausea by ravings of lunatics that believe in a vast array of dumb and illogical rubbish.

    Apparently, that pack of catholic Commies (adherents of the gospel of Mao) believe the destruction of the evil, unjust private sector justifies both the damnation of souls and the denial of basic human rights, i.e., religious liberty.

    Seems, they have bought into the tyrant’s alibi: the “welfare of humanity justifies enslaving humanity.”

    You are too kind and genteel. I would have waxed sort of alliterative: “acts of mental masturbation.”

  • The vn are not compromising with evil. They are evil.

  • There aren’t enough exorcists — are there?

  • I was going to rebuke T Shaw for going a bit too far, but he’s really not far afield. To rationalize this decision in such a way is just astounding. There really is no road low enough for these folks at VN. That said, I have to agree with Tony on one thing.

    Think of Romney attacking Obama when he did the same thing in Massachusetts!

    Well, at least that one was non-demented sentence in the rant.

  • How did Sr. Keenan get quoted? I understood this article was about what Catholics thought?
    Dan Malone

  • May God Change Sr. Keehan’s heart. We all should pray she converts and repents. She is truly a lost soul directing others to HELL.

  • The Catholic Church will never obey this mandate, not if all the powers of Hell were to shove it down our throats. I know that moral doctrine may seem a strange and ancient thing to your administration Mr President, but understand that as Catholics, we are required to disobey unjust law. Commanded. It is our duty. Do you understand the gravity of the ultimatum you’ve made? You have placed the faithful Catholic in a position in which he must choose between obeying your mandate and obeying God. To comply with the HHS mandate will be considered a sin. Regardless of how you view your actions, do not so easily ignore how the Church views your actions — as attacking her flock. Force the mandate on faithful institutions, and faithful institutions will shut down their services. Force it on our hospitals, our universities, our schools, and our convents and we will bear the consequences of looking you, Sibelius and all the rest in the eyes and saying “No.” As it turns out, the Church doesn’t give a damn what you think — She never has cared for the powers of the world — and will resist you with all Her might. To be briefer still, and to say what those bound by politics cannot: Bring it.

  • Me and my wife have been trying to have a child for over a year and we are seeing a fertility doctor who is putting my wife on birth control for one month to regulate her cycle (i.e., as part of a plan aimed at treatments during the following month). I don’t think this is a sin and I don’t see any problem with the Catholic Church providing those contraceptives if I worked for them. I don’t see the catch-22 Nancy describes because it seems the sin only occurs when contraceptives are used to prevent a pregnancy. Although contraceptives can be used in a sinful way, so can other health-related drugs, medical devices, or equipment. The most obvious examples are the use of many prescription drugs to commit suicide or to be abused. In the case of these other drugs, the Church doesn’t eliminate the drugs from their health plan but instead provides them and expects Catholics to follow its teachings and not use the drugs in the commission of a sin. Why are contraceptives different? They have a number of non-sinful uses, including use by non-Catholic employees or to regulate menstruation (i.e., in someone who is not having sex). I don’t see why providing these drugs would be any more a sin than providing Oxycontin or morphine. Would it be a sin for the Church to provide baseball bats because they could be used to commit a murder?