Your welcome
How welcoming are you? I recently spoke with a gentleman who walked into a local non-denominational church for the first time. He said before he left, he had shaken hands with every person in attendance. Catholic convert Tim Staples tells a similar story of people fighting over him years ago in a Baptist church, inviting him into their homes when he was new and searching.
Circumstances are a little different in a Catholic Church. We are accustomed to seeing strangers in our churches, travelers passing through, people in town for a sporting event, and so forth. Occasionally however, non-Catholics who have a curiosity or have developed interest in Catholicism may gather enough courage to step into a Catholic Church for the first time. How do we seek out these folks and make them feel welcome?
Our parish is small so strangers generally stand out. Picking experienced Catholics out among strangers is not difficult. They come in, genuflect, enter the pew and kneel in prayer. Those unfamiliar to the church may seem a bit bewildered and unsure of themselves when they enter. I try to seek these people out and at least give them a friendly smile. We should never pass an opportunity to engage someone who may be seeking spiritual guidance. If those they meet seem indifferent or unfriendly, they may flee and never return.
I know of situations where a person has approached a Catholic priest for help, only to be told to come back another time because he was too busy at present. While priests are often pressed for time, turning a stranger away should never happen. One never knows what prompted that person to seek conversation. Even if responsibilities prohibit immediate counsel, one can never be too busy to show concern and obtain contact information.
Catholics should always be personable. One can never go wrong making eye contact with strangers, giving them a friendly hello. If we truly see Christ in others, we would never pass them by without a greeting. That stranger may have taken years to make that move to visit the Catholic Church. Who knows what situation may have pushed him or her in the door? Bringing one person into the Catholic faith could spawn generations to follow. One happenstance encounter could mean a thousand souls gained or lost. Never pass up an opportunity to evangelize.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
On Pain and Purpose
I love Catholic Answers Live. I am a radio club member who supports them financially in a small way every month, and I would encourage all Catholics to do so. I love Steve Ray, a frequent guest on the program. He is one of my favorite apologists and I especially enjoy his participation when Catholic Answers Live does one of their programs for non-catholics only.
On the August 31 broadcast, Steve and host Patrick Coffin took a call from an atheist, and self-proclaimed secular humanist, named Carlos who took exception to a comment Steve made that life has no purpose if there is no God. Paraphrasing Steve’s comments, “without God there is no such thing as good or evil.” “Morality becomes transcendent.” Citing Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Steve said, “if there is mortality, then anything is allowed.“ Steve went so far as to say, if we are just an assembly of molecules put together by time and chance, then there is no reason to help the elderly lady across the street. “Does it really make any difference whether I help her cross the street or whether I just run over her and rearrange her molecules?”
Carlos replied by saying it is very meaningful to help the lady cross the street. “The millions of years it took life to get here -- we see it even more precious.” Steve interrupted by saying, “Why? We see evolutionary processes . . . taking place. Why does it matter if I save the rain forests? . . . Why not just let humanity destroy itself because that is also part of the evolutionary process?” Carlos accused Steve of taking a very dark and pessimistic view and certainly not the view of most atheists he knew. According to Carlos, most atheist care deeply about life because to them, it is the only life we have.
Patrick interjected that Carlos is appealing to a foundation that he proclaims to reject. “The whole concept of right or wrong is dependent upon a transcendent God to whom we must make an account. Otherwise, Carlos, objectively speaking, you have no reason to forbid the opening of the doors of all prisons and letting all criminals out into society.” Carlos objected vehemently saying society has learned .. . . The remainder of his comment was cut short.
I found myself in the awkward position of thinking the atheist was making more sense than my much respected Catholic apologists. I agree that right and wrong is determined by God, but I believe a sense of right and wrong can be derived naturally from the notion of good and bad. The problem with this, of course, is that good and bad is based on experience, so the perceived right and wrong is no longer absolute.
This got me to thinking about how a godless society develops its pseudo morality, and I believe it comes from our ability to feel pain. In our weekly faith enhancement sessions at our parish, our priest often chastises the secular humanist impetus to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, but doing so is a characteristic of our nature. Even a fly tries to avoid being swatted and appears to enjoy a daily dose of dung. Absent this survivalist tendency, how would we as human beings behave differently? If we ourselves never suffered from illness, anguish, sorrow, loss, loneliness or injury, would we ever feel empathy for others? Does God allow us to feel pain as a means to learn compassion?
Our Catholic faith teaches us that pain is a result of original sin. Is not compassion a result of knowing the pain of suffering and not wishing others to experience it? If we never felt compassion, how would we treat others? If we never felt compassion, would we think nothing of running over the elderly lady or letting all prisoners loose to wreak havoc on others?
Knowing pleasure and pain, and the much-desired preference for one over the other, provides an impetus to treat others as we would like to be treated. Experience shows us that the way we interact with others can cause pleasure or pain, and we can enhance our own pleasure by giving enjoyment to others. Similarly, knowing another person is suffering arouses empathy when we know what that person is feeling through our own experience. In our quest to criticize the secular humanist, are we arguing against traits bestowed on us by our creator for a reason?
With pain comes compassion. With compassion comes charity. These are natural manifestations of the human experience whether one acknowledges the origin in God or not. Suggesting that an atheist might just as soon run over an elderly lady or open the doors of all prisons seems absurd to me. It certainly does little to convince him that his life lacks purpose.
I am reminded of a rather depressing song Peggy Lee sang in the late 1960’s called “Is that all there is?” The lyric expresses the point of view of a person disillusioned with life. The last stanza refers to death as being the final disappointment. While we might think the songwriter held an atheistic belief, most atheists probably do not hold such feelings of despair. Their hope lies in making the best of this life on earth because, to them, that’s all there is.
Near the end of the call from Carlos, host Patrick Coffin switched gears by mentioning the historical evidence that Jesus lived, was crucified and raised from the dead -- a much better approach to take with the atheist. Realizing historically that Jesus walked this earth, claimed to be God, worked miracles that defy natural explanation, died and rose again, and promised eternal life beyond the grave, can cause any atheist to rethink his position.
I love Catholic Answers Live. I am a radio club member who supports them financially in a small way every month, and I would encourage all Catholics to do so. I love Steve Ray, a frequent guest on the program. He is one of my favorite apologists and I especially enjoy his participation when Catholic Answers Live does one of their programs for non-catholics only.
On the August 31 broadcast, Steve and host Patrick Coffin took a call from an atheist, and self-proclaimed secular humanist, named Carlos who took exception to a comment Steve made that life has no purpose if there is no God. Paraphrasing Steve’s comments, “without God there is no such thing as good or evil.” “Morality becomes transcendent.” Citing Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Steve said, “if there is mortality, then anything is allowed.“ Steve went so far as to say, if we are just an assembly of molecules put together by time and chance, then there is no reason to help the elderly lady across the street. “Does it really make any difference whether I help her cross the street or whether I just run over her and rearrange her molecules?”
Carlos replied by saying it is very meaningful to help the lady cross the street. “The millions of years it took life to get here -- we see it even more precious.” Steve interrupted by saying, “Why? We see evolutionary processes . . . taking place. Why does it matter if I save the rain forests? . . . Why not just let humanity destroy itself because that is also part of the evolutionary process?” Carlos accused Steve of taking a very dark and pessimistic view and certainly not the view of most atheists he knew. According to Carlos, most atheist care deeply about life because to them, it is the only life we have.
Patrick interjected that Carlos is appealing to a foundation that he proclaims to reject. “The whole concept of right or wrong is dependent upon a transcendent God to whom we must make an account. Otherwise, Carlos, objectively speaking, you have no reason to forbid the opening of the doors of all prisons and letting all criminals out into society.” Carlos objected vehemently saying society has learned .. . . The remainder of his comment was cut short.
I found myself in the awkward position of thinking the atheist was making more sense than my much respected Catholic apologists. I agree that right and wrong is determined by God, but I believe a sense of right and wrong can be derived naturally from the notion of good and bad. The problem with this, of course, is that good and bad is based on experience, so the perceived right and wrong is no longer absolute.
This got me to thinking about how a godless society develops its pseudo morality, and I believe it comes from our ability to feel pain. In our weekly faith enhancement sessions at our parish, our priest often chastises the secular humanist impetus to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, but doing so is a characteristic of our nature. Even a fly tries to avoid being swatted and appears to enjoy a daily dose of dung. Absent this survivalist tendency, how would we as human beings behave differently? If we ourselves never suffered from illness, anguish, sorrow, loss, loneliness or injury, would we ever feel empathy for others? Does God allow us to feel pain as a means to learn compassion?
Our Catholic faith teaches us that pain is a result of original sin. Is not compassion a result of knowing the pain of suffering and not wishing others to experience it? If we never felt compassion, how would we treat others? If we never felt compassion, would we think nothing of running over the elderly lady or letting all prisoners loose to wreak havoc on others?
Knowing pleasure and pain, and the much-desired preference for one over the other, provides an impetus to treat others as we would like to be treated. Experience shows us that the way we interact with others can cause pleasure or pain, and we can enhance our own pleasure by giving enjoyment to others. Similarly, knowing another person is suffering arouses empathy when we know what that person is feeling through our own experience. In our quest to criticize the secular humanist, are we arguing against traits bestowed on us by our creator for a reason?
With pain comes compassion. With compassion comes charity. These are natural manifestations of the human experience whether one acknowledges the origin in God or not. Suggesting that an atheist might just as soon run over an elderly lady or open the doors of all prisons seems absurd to me. It certainly does little to convince him that his life lacks purpose.
I am reminded of a rather depressing song Peggy Lee sang in the late 1960’s called “Is that all there is?” The lyric expresses the point of view of a person disillusioned with life. The last stanza refers to death as being the final disappointment. While we might think the songwriter held an atheistic belief, most atheists probably do not hold such feelings of despair. Their hope lies in making the best of this life on earth because, to them, that’s all there is.
Near the end of the call from Carlos, host Patrick Coffin switched gears by mentioning the historical evidence that Jesus lived, was crucified and raised from the dead -- a much better approach to take with the atheist. Realizing historically that Jesus walked this earth, claimed to be God, worked miracles that defy natural explanation, died and rose again, and promised eternal life beyond the grave, can cause any atheist to rethink his position.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Election Fever
Polls taken just prior to Mitt Romney’s naming of Paul Ryan as his running mate, showed Obama with a substantial lead in the presidential race. Despite the fact that I work in an area with strong Democratic tendencies, I hear little support for Obama in my daily interactions. So, who are these people who favor him over Romney in the polls?
As George Bernard Shaw said, “The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.“ One way to get votes is to freely hand out entitlements to the point of irresponsibility and then spread fear when the opposition is forced to take them away. The Democratic Party seeks to maintain control by keeping many of their constituents dependent upon the government for food, housing, healthcare and other benefits.
This is really an enslavement ideology. Rather than providing opportunity for self-sufficiency, Democrats see themselves as the caring master, fostering social dependency in exchange for votes. The contemporary plantation has moved to the inner city taking with it the hopelessness that manifests itself in violence and misery. Holding fast to the traditional family unit has become politically incorrect while the village takes over rearing the child.
Ironically, it was Democrat Joe Biden who accused the Republicans of enslavement. After Mitt Romney named Paul Ryan as his running mate, Biden addressed a Danville, Virginia audience, about half African-American, saying, “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.” He was apparently referring to a Romney-Ryan administration freeing businesses to create job opportunities.
In Biden’s view, big business is the enemy, not the main source of income for millions of families. He sees corporations interested in making huge profits at the expense of the middle class. At the same time, Democrats will advocate raising the minimum wage, which sounds admirable, but in reality, eliminates job opportunities for low-income families who desperately need them. While appearing noble, their policies actually propagate dependence on the government for sustenance.
Is it fair to say the Republicans are dependent on an educated and informed constituency to get elected, while Democrats are more likely to get votes from the uninformed and ignorant? Perhaps not, but if knowledge results in prosperity, and Democrats attach a stigma to those who achieve financial success, what does it say about their voter base? How often does one hear Republican supporters cite economic reasons or moral objections for opposing Obama while his supporters simply say they think he’s doing a good job and they like Michelle? Others want to protect their special interests.
Democrats would like everyone to believe Republicans do not care about the impoverished. They think the Ryan’s budget plan is designed to pad rich Republican pockets. Even the United States Council of Catholic Bishops criticized Ryan, himself a Catholic, fearing his budget plan would adversely affect the poor. Jeopardizing future care by racking up enormous debt to the point of financial collapse is acting irresponsibly. Sometimes providing for the future requires sacrifice in the present. Making tough choices to insure the future does not violate Catholic teaching. Spending the country into financial ruin only hurts the poor. A healthy free market economy not only provides opportunities for the poor to help themselves, it also provides resources to help those who cannot help themselves. Prosperity enables charity.
The latest flap revolves around an asinine statement made by Missouri Republican Representative Todd Akin. When answering a question about his stance against abortion in the case of rape or incest, he said that women’s bodies may somehow block pregnancies in cases of “legitimate rape.” As expected, Democrats went on the attack and even his fellow Republicans distanced themselves, many calling on him to withdraw from the Senate race. The sad thing is that a potentially strong pro-life candidate may have ruined his chance for election by taking a convoluted approach to a difficult question rather than answering directly and honestly. The pro-abortion crowd loves to hear pro-life folks say they would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest under the assumption it is an unpopular stance. Perhaps the best response is to turn the tables on the questioner by asking, “If your daughter were raped and became pregnant, as horrible as that would be, would you think it okay to kill your own grandchild?”
Pregnancy resulting from rape is a tragedy for any woman to undergo. Yet, the baby is always innocent. The moral character of our society can be measured in terms of how we protect those unable to protect themselves. If one were able to discuss an impending abortion with the unborn baby, what would one say? “Sorry little one, but your daddy is a bad man and your mommy doesn’t want you, so I am going to kill you?” Put into words, it sounds morbid, mollified only by the fact the baby is not developed to the point of understanding or knowing fear.
Our secular society seems to think of sexual reproduction as strictly a biological occurrence – something that simply develops under certain conditions. To them, an unplanned pregnancy can be simply wiped away like a runny nose. The idea that a developing embryo is human life deserving protection, regardless of how it came to be, is completely eclipsed by concern for the mother. The fact is, at least two human lives are at stake here.
In this Sunday’s Gospel (August 26, 2012), we hear the end of Our Lord’s Bread of Life discourse. His disciples have just heard him say they must eat his flesh and drink his blood or they have no life in them. Their response is probably similar to what many today say when they hear all life must be protected from conception until natural death. “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (John 6:61) The gospel goes on to say that many of them returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Our country may have been founded on Christian principles, but many of us no longer accompany Our Lord, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the leaders we elect.
Polls taken just prior to Mitt Romney’s naming of Paul Ryan as his running mate, showed Obama with a substantial lead in the presidential race. Despite the fact that I work in an area with strong Democratic tendencies, I hear little support for Obama in my daily interactions. So, who are these people who favor him over Romney in the polls?
As George Bernard Shaw said, “The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.“ One way to get votes is to freely hand out entitlements to the point of irresponsibility and then spread fear when the opposition is forced to take them away. The Democratic Party seeks to maintain control by keeping many of their constituents dependent upon the government for food, housing, healthcare and other benefits.
This is really an enslavement ideology. Rather than providing opportunity for self-sufficiency, Democrats see themselves as the caring master, fostering social dependency in exchange for votes. The contemporary plantation has moved to the inner city taking with it the hopelessness that manifests itself in violence and misery. Holding fast to the traditional family unit has become politically incorrect while the village takes over rearing the child.
Ironically, it was Democrat Joe Biden who accused the Republicans of enslavement. After Mitt Romney named Paul Ryan as his running mate, Biden addressed a Danville, Virginia audience, about half African-American, saying, “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.” He was apparently referring to a Romney-Ryan administration freeing businesses to create job opportunities.
In Biden’s view, big business is the enemy, not the main source of income for millions of families. He sees corporations interested in making huge profits at the expense of the middle class. At the same time, Democrats will advocate raising the minimum wage, which sounds admirable, but in reality, eliminates job opportunities for low-income families who desperately need them. While appearing noble, their policies actually propagate dependence on the government for sustenance.
Is it fair to say the Republicans are dependent on an educated and informed constituency to get elected, while Democrats are more likely to get votes from the uninformed and ignorant? Perhaps not, but if knowledge results in prosperity, and Democrats attach a stigma to those who achieve financial success, what does it say about their voter base? How often does one hear Republican supporters cite economic reasons or moral objections for opposing Obama while his supporters simply say they think he’s doing a good job and they like Michelle? Others want to protect their special interests.
Democrats would like everyone to believe Republicans do not care about the impoverished. They think the Ryan’s budget plan is designed to pad rich Republican pockets. Even the United States Council of Catholic Bishops criticized Ryan, himself a Catholic, fearing his budget plan would adversely affect the poor. Jeopardizing future care by racking up enormous debt to the point of financial collapse is acting irresponsibly. Sometimes providing for the future requires sacrifice in the present. Making tough choices to insure the future does not violate Catholic teaching. Spending the country into financial ruin only hurts the poor. A healthy free market economy not only provides opportunities for the poor to help themselves, it also provides resources to help those who cannot help themselves. Prosperity enables charity.
The latest flap revolves around an asinine statement made by Missouri Republican Representative Todd Akin. When answering a question about his stance against abortion in the case of rape or incest, he said that women’s bodies may somehow block pregnancies in cases of “legitimate rape.” As expected, Democrats went on the attack and even his fellow Republicans distanced themselves, many calling on him to withdraw from the Senate race. The sad thing is that a potentially strong pro-life candidate may have ruined his chance for election by taking a convoluted approach to a difficult question rather than answering directly and honestly. The pro-abortion crowd loves to hear pro-life folks say they would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest under the assumption it is an unpopular stance. Perhaps the best response is to turn the tables on the questioner by asking, “If your daughter were raped and became pregnant, as horrible as that would be, would you think it okay to kill your own grandchild?”
Pregnancy resulting from rape is a tragedy for any woman to undergo. Yet, the baby is always innocent. The moral character of our society can be measured in terms of how we protect those unable to protect themselves. If one were able to discuss an impending abortion with the unborn baby, what would one say? “Sorry little one, but your daddy is a bad man and your mommy doesn’t want you, so I am going to kill you?” Put into words, it sounds morbid, mollified only by the fact the baby is not developed to the point of understanding or knowing fear.
Our secular society seems to think of sexual reproduction as strictly a biological occurrence – something that simply develops under certain conditions. To them, an unplanned pregnancy can be simply wiped away like a runny nose. The idea that a developing embryo is human life deserving protection, regardless of how it came to be, is completely eclipsed by concern for the mother. The fact is, at least two human lives are at stake here.
In this Sunday’s Gospel (August 26, 2012), we hear the end of Our Lord’s Bread of Life discourse. His disciples have just heard him say they must eat his flesh and drink his blood or they have no life in them. Their response is probably similar to what many today say when they hear all life must be protected from conception until natural death. “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (John 6:61) The gospel goes on to say that many of them returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Our country may have been founded on Christian principles, but many of us no longer accompany Our Lord, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the leaders we elect.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Chick-fil-Aid
Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy created a firestorm recently by simply confirming his support for traditional marriage. Cathy is known for espousing Christian values even to the point of closing his fast-food restaurants on Sundays. How can anyone not respect a man who sacrifices substantial profit in the practice of his Christian faith? Yet, we live in strange times these days. Believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman now implies bigotry to secular society, and therefore, even his right to free speech should suffer repercussions.
The Jim Henson Company (yes, the Henson Company of Muppet fame) said they would no longer partner with Chick-fil-A because the Henson Company embraces “diversity” and “inclusiveness”. Why is it that those who embrace diversity and inclusiveness often refuse to include anyone whose belief is diverse from theirs? I wonder if Dan Cathy, learning of the Henson Company’s support for same-sex marriage, would have initiated the separation. I don’t know, but I doubt it. If not, who is really the more tolerant?
The mayor of Boston and an alderman in Chicago are both trying to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening restaurants in their territory. The mayor of Chicago announced that Chick-fil-A’s values are not consistent with Chicago values. Keep in mind that all Dan Cathy said was that he supports the biblical definition of marriage. Seems like their outrage should be directed at God rather than Dan Cathy.
Having a dialogue with same-sex marriage proponents is a challenge. The biblical basis for traditional marriage has no relevance to them. They have no concept of the difference between a covenant and a contract. They do not seem to see any relationship between the deterioration of the traditional family and culture of violence that plagues so many young people especially in the inner cities. The chasm between God and the Godless in our society seems to be widening daily.
If the owners and officers of every company and business in Chicago were polled on their position on marriage, one could hope to find many that support traditional marriage between a man and woman. Would the alderman like to eliminate all of them from his ward? How long before he tries to remove all Catholic churches? Why is it okay to trample on one’s freedom of speech and practice of religion?
I saw an amusing cartoon on the Internet today. It demonstrated why Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage in the following manner:
Rooster + Rooster = Goose egg (0)
Hen + Hen = Goose egg (0)
Rooster + Hen = Chick-fil-A
Dan Cathy could have easily avoided this controversy by keeping silent on his religious beliefs. It takes courage to jeopardize your own business by speaking out in support of values that have become frighteningly unpopular. I hope that many other God-fearing business owners will come forward in support of Cathy and traditional marriage. If they cannot muster up the courage to do so, perhaps they can at least take the family out to dinner at Chick-fil-A.
Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy created a firestorm recently by simply confirming his support for traditional marriage. Cathy is known for espousing Christian values even to the point of closing his fast-food restaurants on Sundays. How can anyone not respect a man who sacrifices substantial profit in the practice of his Christian faith? Yet, we live in strange times these days. Believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman now implies bigotry to secular society, and therefore, even his right to free speech should suffer repercussions.
The Jim Henson Company (yes, the Henson Company of Muppet fame) said they would no longer partner with Chick-fil-A because the Henson Company embraces “diversity” and “inclusiveness”. Why is it that those who embrace diversity and inclusiveness often refuse to include anyone whose belief is diverse from theirs? I wonder if Dan Cathy, learning of the Henson Company’s support for same-sex marriage, would have initiated the separation. I don’t know, but I doubt it. If not, who is really the more tolerant?
The mayor of Boston and an alderman in Chicago are both trying to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening restaurants in their territory. The mayor of Chicago announced that Chick-fil-A’s values are not consistent with Chicago values. Keep in mind that all Dan Cathy said was that he supports the biblical definition of marriage. Seems like their outrage should be directed at God rather than Dan Cathy.
Having a dialogue with same-sex marriage proponents is a challenge. The biblical basis for traditional marriage has no relevance to them. They have no concept of the difference between a covenant and a contract. They do not seem to see any relationship between the deterioration of the traditional family and culture of violence that plagues so many young people especially in the inner cities. The chasm between God and the Godless in our society seems to be widening daily.
If the owners and officers of every company and business in Chicago were polled on their position on marriage, one could hope to find many that support traditional marriage between a man and woman. Would the alderman like to eliminate all of them from his ward? How long before he tries to remove all Catholic churches? Why is it okay to trample on one’s freedom of speech and practice of religion?
I saw an amusing cartoon on the Internet today. It demonstrated why Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage in the following manner:
Rooster + Rooster = Goose egg (0)
Hen + Hen = Goose egg (0)
Rooster + Hen = Chick-fil-A
Dan Cathy could have easily avoided this controversy by keeping silent on his religious beliefs. It takes courage to jeopardize your own business by speaking out in support of values that have become frighteningly unpopular. I hope that many other God-fearing business owners will come forward in support of Cathy and traditional marriage. If they cannot muster up the courage to do so, perhaps they can at least take the family out to dinner at Chick-fil-A.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
It’s My Party and I’ll Lie if I want to
Our annual small town festival took place last weekend. The three-day event culminates with a parade on Sunday afternoon. Being an election year, plenty of politicians walked the parade route to shake hands and pass out campaign literature. Both parties had floats upon which local officials rode with their flags and signage.
In a year when the Democrat party in power has been particularly tough on the Catholic Church, I find it disturbing to see at least two prominent members of my parish marching with a float displaying Obama/Biden campaign posters. The HHS mandate attempting to force Catholics to pay for services contrary to Catholic teaching has been in the forefront of the news lately. Having locally well-known Catholics in support of the party issuing such mandates is ripe for scandal by bringing into question Catholic resolve in such matters. Parade-watchers may justify their own support based on the apparent support of prominent Catholics.
For a Catholic to willingly support or appear to support a platform in direct conflict with Church teaching is grave matter. With the Democratic administration current attack on the Catholic Church so widely publicized, it would be difficult to deny the potential for scandal, the potential of leading others to an occasion of sin. The only thing preventing deliberate cooperation with grave matter from becoming a mortal sin is invincible ignorance. I am not suggesting that all Catholics who support the Democratic platform and living in mortal sin. Only God can make that call.
Also marching was our congressman, Joe Donnelly, a Catholic Democrat who claims to be pro-life, but aligns himself with a party professing a much different message. When the Obama health care bill was coming up for a vote, I wrote to him expressing my concern that the plan would pay for abortions and other non-negotiable evils that we as Catholics must oppose. Obama needed his vote to assure passage. Despite his professed pro-life stand, Donnelly voted in favor of Obamacare reportedly after receiving assurance from the President that abortion coverage would not be paid with taxpayer money by executive order. So-called executive orders carry little weight, at least those issued by our current executive. Obama obviously had no intention of keeping his word. I wonder how a congressman who has been duped by his own party, and supposedly holds values in direct conflict with his own party, remains faithful to that party. Isn’t he living a lie?
Our annual small town festival took place last weekend. The three-day event culminates with a parade on Sunday afternoon. Being an election year, plenty of politicians walked the parade route to shake hands and pass out campaign literature. Both parties had floats upon which local officials rode with their flags and signage.
In a year when the Democrat party in power has been particularly tough on the Catholic Church, I find it disturbing to see at least two prominent members of my parish marching with a float displaying Obama/Biden campaign posters. The HHS mandate attempting to force Catholics to pay for services contrary to Catholic teaching has been in the forefront of the news lately. Having locally well-known Catholics in support of the party issuing such mandates is ripe for scandal by bringing into question Catholic resolve in such matters. Parade-watchers may justify their own support based on the apparent support of prominent Catholics.
For a Catholic to willingly support or appear to support a platform in direct conflict with Church teaching is grave matter. With the Democratic administration current attack on the Catholic Church so widely publicized, it would be difficult to deny the potential for scandal, the potential of leading others to an occasion of sin. The only thing preventing deliberate cooperation with grave matter from becoming a mortal sin is invincible ignorance. I am not suggesting that all Catholics who support the Democratic platform and living in mortal sin. Only God can make that call.
Also marching was our congressman, Joe Donnelly, a Catholic Democrat who claims to be pro-life, but aligns himself with a party professing a much different message. When the Obama health care bill was coming up for a vote, I wrote to him expressing my concern that the plan would pay for abortions and other non-negotiable evils that we as Catholics must oppose. Obama needed his vote to assure passage. Despite his professed pro-life stand, Donnelly voted in favor of Obamacare reportedly after receiving assurance from the President that abortion coverage would not be paid with taxpayer money by executive order. So-called executive orders carry little weight, at least those issued by our current executive. Obama obviously had no intention of keeping his word. I wonder how a congressman who has been duped by his own party, and supposedly holds values in direct conflict with his own party, remains faithful to that party. Isn’t he living a lie?
Sunday, May 20, 2012
The Nuts and Bolts of Marriage
President Obama recently announced his support for same-sex marriage during an interview with ABC reporter Robin Roberts. He joins fellow Democrats Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and others favoring the legal union of two men or two women. He says his belief evolved after meeting many same-sex couples and seeing the love they shared between themselves and their adopted children. For us Catholics, this is one of the non-negotiables, putting us in complete opposition without compromise.
Many well-meaning people, including some Catholics, wonder what the big deal is. If two homosexuals love each other, why not allow them to marry? We may not be comfortable with the thought, but why should we care what they do? Is it not their own business? What right to do we have to deny them happiness?
It helps to understand that Catholic teaching is based on natural law, the laws of nature as created by God. Without getting into a deep philosophical discussion, simply stated, all humans, animals, objects, and all creation possess nature.
I do not pretend to have a firm grasp of philosophy beyond a one semester course I took in college some forty years ago, but an Internet search has led me to a lecture from International Catholic University that sheds some light. One commonly used example of nature is that of the chair. The casual model used to explain nature identifies four causes, they being matter, form, agent and end. In the case of a chair, the matter is the material from which it is made, such as oak. The form is the shape or design. Matter and form and called internal causes. The agent is the craftsman who made it, and the end is the objective or purpose the craftsman had in mind when he made it. These are the external causes. Once made, the chair retains a relationship to its maker. These four factors make up its natural chairness, so to speak.
It is possible to violate the nature of the chair. One might be able to cut off the back and make it into a table. Doing so would alter the form and the end as determined by the agent. Only the matter retains its originality, and it is no longer a chair as intended by the agent. This might not be a problem as long as the agent has relinquished any custody of his product.
Let us look at another example. Think of a nut and bolt. They have matter, form, agent and end. The agent designed the nut and bolt to be complementary. When coupled together, they form a bond holding two objects together. Taking away the nut and replacing it with another bolt violates the end or purpose. It is no longer effective for its intended purpose. Similarly, removing the bolt and adding another nut is also fruitless. When either the nut or bolt is absent, the possibility of a bond no longer exists.
God, the agent of all humanity, in His infinite wisdom, designed human beings as male and female sexes. They are meant to be complementary. Absent either one, the possibility of a sexual bond no longer exists. Substituting another male for the female, or vice versa, does not restore the end. Attempting to do so violates the natural design. Adding children to the arrangement by artificial means or adoption is a further violation of the nature.
Governmental officials occasionally think they can legislate the laws of nature. In 1897, the Indiana General Assembly considered passing a law that would have effectively changed the mathematical value of pi. The bill nearly passed until the senate came to realize they lacked the power to define mathematical truth.
Marriage derives from a biological truth, and more precisely, an anatomical truth by God’s design, not civil law. Genesis 2:24 says, a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Two men or two women cannot become one flesh. It is not anatomically possible.
God retains custody over all creation and especially our human nature and the Church acts as God’s custodian on earth. We must acknowledge that Jesus is God, and He established His Church with the authority to bind and loose. (Matt 16:18-19, 18:18) He also promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to all truth. (John 16:13, 1 Tim 3:15) The Church has the responsibility to uphold the natural law, including the external causes. She will not capitulate. She can’t.
Matt 18:15-17 says, if your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
President Obama is not likely to listen to the church, but supposed Catholics like Biden and Pelosi certainly should. Even many of our Protestant brothers and sisters at least understand and uphold the natural law. The complementary nature of male and female, not only anatomically speaking, but also in their respective child-rearing roles, cannot be discarded as irrelevant, even to those who have little concern for God or Church. The moral underpinning of the traditional family cannot be trifled.
There are those who will say all of this is just a convoluted argument to justify our bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth. We must all have deep compassion for those who experience same-sex attraction for whatever reason. We must pray for them as we would pray for the grace to overcome any other temptation. Yet, we must stand firm in our support of true marriage by God’s design.
President Obama recently announced his support for same-sex marriage during an interview with ABC reporter Robin Roberts. He joins fellow Democrats Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and others favoring the legal union of two men or two women. He says his belief evolved after meeting many same-sex couples and seeing the love they shared between themselves and their adopted children. For us Catholics, this is one of the non-negotiables, putting us in complete opposition without compromise.
Many well-meaning people, including some Catholics, wonder what the big deal is. If two homosexuals love each other, why not allow them to marry? We may not be comfortable with the thought, but why should we care what they do? Is it not their own business? What right to do we have to deny them happiness?
It helps to understand that Catholic teaching is based on natural law, the laws of nature as created by God. Without getting into a deep philosophical discussion, simply stated, all humans, animals, objects, and all creation possess nature.
I do not pretend to have a firm grasp of philosophy beyond a one semester course I took in college some forty years ago, but an Internet search has led me to a lecture from International Catholic University that sheds some light. One commonly used example of nature is that of the chair. The casual model used to explain nature identifies four causes, they being matter, form, agent and end. In the case of a chair, the matter is the material from which it is made, such as oak. The form is the shape or design. Matter and form and called internal causes. The agent is the craftsman who made it, and the end is the objective or purpose the craftsman had in mind when he made it. These are the external causes. Once made, the chair retains a relationship to its maker. These four factors make up its natural chairness, so to speak.
It is possible to violate the nature of the chair. One might be able to cut off the back and make it into a table. Doing so would alter the form and the end as determined by the agent. Only the matter retains its originality, and it is no longer a chair as intended by the agent. This might not be a problem as long as the agent has relinquished any custody of his product.
Let us look at another example. Think of a nut and bolt. They have matter, form, agent and end. The agent designed the nut and bolt to be complementary. When coupled together, they form a bond holding two objects together. Taking away the nut and replacing it with another bolt violates the end or purpose. It is no longer effective for its intended purpose. Similarly, removing the bolt and adding another nut is also fruitless. When either the nut or bolt is absent, the possibility of a bond no longer exists.
God, the agent of all humanity, in His infinite wisdom, designed human beings as male and female sexes. They are meant to be complementary. Absent either one, the possibility of a sexual bond no longer exists. Substituting another male for the female, or vice versa, does not restore the end. Attempting to do so violates the natural design. Adding children to the arrangement by artificial means or adoption is a further violation of the nature.
Governmental officials occasionally think they can legislate the laws of nature. In 1897, the Indiana General Assembly considered passing a law that would have effectively changed the mathematical value of pi. The bill nearly passed until the senate came to realize they lacked the power to define mathematical truth.
Marriage derives from a biological truth, and more precisely, an anatomical truth by God’s design, not civil law. Genesis 2:24 says, a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Two men or two women cannot become one flesh. It is not anatomically possible.
God retains custody over all creation and especially our human nature and the Church acts as God’s custodian on earth. We must acknowledge that Jesus is God, and He established His Church with the authority to bind and loose. (Matt 16:18-19, 18:18) He also promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to all truth. (John 16:13, 1 Tim 3:15) The Church has the responsibility to uphold the natural law, including the external causes. She will not capitulate. She can’t.
Matt 18:15-17 says, if your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
President Obama is not likely to listen to the church, but supposed Catholics like Biden and Pelosi certainly should. Even many of our Protestant brothers and sisters at least understand and uphold the natural law. The complementary nature of male and female, not only anatomically speaking, but also in their respective child-rearing roles, cannot be discarded as irrelevant, even to those who have little concern for God or Church. The moral underpinning of the traditional family cannot be trifled.
There are those who will say all of this is just a convoluted argument to justify our bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth. We must all have deep compassion for those who experience same-sex attraction for whatever reason. We must pray for them as we would pray for the grace to overcome any other temptation. Yet, we must stand firm in our support of true marriage by God’s design.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)