As you've no doubt heard, SCOTUS has approved Same-Sex marriage for all 50 states here in the USA...Highlights of the dissent are here:
As I've stated before, if marriage is a fundamental right, then by it's very nature no one (government, religion, person) can deny them this. Now SCOTUS by virtue of this decision has made marriage a right....
Okay, so now that marriage is a right, I can propose to a girl, and if she doesn't say yes, I can sue because my rights are being hindered, and then play the race card, and the courts would have to side with me. Logically, it stands to reason because marriage is now a "fundamental right of man"
The funny thing is, there are probably legal means to deal with inheritance and property rights which did not need marriage to function. (Lawyer friends, you know what to do)
If one does not affirm the new law, expect persecution...things are going to get ugly....Lord have mercy (x 600)
Showing posts with label so called gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label so called gay marriage. Show all posts
22 September 2014
Meanwhile in the land of pink and fluffy unicorns and rainbows...
We've all heard about the Cardinal Dolan Fiascoes, one of which he attempts to defend here, the other here and the salt on top of a wound of Abp elect Cupich to Chicago, up to the potential exile of Cardinal Burke, and the upcoming Synod...trying to organize thoughts has been rather painful, but I think now I've done so, hopefully rather charitably....and then the real salt on the wound if this is true
a. The St Patrick's Parade...
Let us start with a simple question: Why do we tell people information? It's because we WANT people to know what we're conveying. What we do NOT want people to know, we simply do not tell people...is this not true? For example, if I decide to tell you that I have a cat...it's because I want you to know that I have a cat, or know that you love kitties.
Likewise, if a person decides to "come out the closet" about who they choose to sleep with, it's because they WANT this knowledge to become public. If it wasn't to be public knowledge, then it simply would not be spoken in such a way that this information comes to the public.
As such, a group declaring on a banner that they freely choose to sleep with members of the same sex now makes this knowledge for public judgement and consideration. While it is true that one can't directly make the connection as to whether sodomy is taking place, it tends to be such a matter that those that are not seeking the attentions for these types of actions would not put themselves in the situations for that to happen. It is those that wish for the attention that make the public declaration....and there is no attempt to hide the activity that is going on. Let's not kid ourselves hee, those that are under the OUT NBC banner are more than likely not living lives according to he Church's teaching...
To the point of Cardinal Dolan being reassured that active promotion will not take place...You mean the same that he was "reassured" that Abortion wouldn't take place in Obamacare? How'd that turn out? The same one that trusts the criminal administration to work on illegal immigration, when it can't get abortion right? The same guy who Bravo'ed Michael Sam? I'd love to say he's being naive, but I can't agree, seeing that His Eminence has been fooled before....You really think that these people will not seek the opportunity to embarrass the Church and the Archbishop? There's a good reason his predecessors took the sand of no banners in the parade for St Patrick.
My friend Stephanie has a few points on her blog that are definitely worth considering, which although I do disagree with her, this blogger is all about giving equal time to the discussion.
To let oneself be manipulated in situations where there is clear opposition to what you believe is something that can't be allowed. It boggles me that the same approach (that failed back in the 70's) is being tried again, and somehow they're expecting to get different results? Insanity is probably being charitable, diabolical, may very well be more accurate.
But of course, it'd be crazy to not suggest a solution for this...whenever the parade will be next year...a Holy Hour to be done in reparation. Cardinal Dolan needs our prayers...big time...put your prayers on steroids for this Cardinal, that he may convert and really use the gift of fortitude to speak the truth, rather than capitulate to the culture....
b. Bp Cupich to Chicago
Now, I did live in Spokane for a short time and know of various orthodox priests that were placed in "interesting" positions...and also remember when the Bishop forbade his priests (later amended (don't fall for the amended piece being the original, it wasn't) (When I lived there, I was attending the Byzantine Catholic parish, his rule didn't apply)...made for some interesting times.
I find it interesting, we have a culture that will run us over if we don't stand up, and this appointment, is basically buzz kill for the culture warrior movement. There's an interesting defense here....but I must say, it's very true that one can tell a lot about a person by who their friends, and who their enemies are. It is also true that one can't directly implicate a person based upon their friends and enemies, but we can know about how a person interacts through their relationships....so when the liberal establishment is rejoicing....God help us...and yes, that does mean we need to pray for him, that he may use the gifts of fortitude for the Church. Apparently this is a Pope Francis personal pick....so much for continuity (but to be fair, he cleans up sex abuse scandals pretty quickly)...As I've said before, this pontificate may prove to be the Anti-Benedict XVI pontificate, and the last liberal hurrah before they hopefully go away and disappear.
c. The synod
I'll keep my thoughts simple, if this is a test to see whether God will allow this (Communion for Divorced/Remarried)....It's not a position that the Church wants to put themselves in....and if it does happen, the Pontiff will have publicly proclaimed error in solemn manner...and this would result in some very ugly things happening (Francis being anti-Pope Francis), schism, ugly things that we don't wish to happen. Pray for the synod, let us pray for them that they do uphold the teaching of the Church...let us not be presumptuous and assume it can't happen....there are humans involved, and schisms have happened.
d. Oh boy
If Piero Marini is appointed, that is salt on the open wound, and probably come to prove that the hypothesis about the anti-Benedict XVI pontificate to be true. We should pray that this does not happen, yes, I know God can write straight with crooked lines, but really...let us not be crazy.
Let us pray, pray, pray pray
Pax Vobis
a. The St Patrick's Parade...
Let us start with a simple question: Why do we tell people information? It's because we WANT people to know what we're conveying. What we do NOT want people to know, we simply do not tell people...is this not true? For example, if I decide to tell you that I have a cat...it's because I want you to know that I have a cat, or know that you love kitties.
Likewise, if a person decides to "come out the closet" about who they choose to sleep with, it's because they WANT this knowledge to become public. If it wasn't to be public knowledge, then it simply would not be spoken in such a way that this information comes to the public.
As such, a group declaring on a banner that they freely choose to sleep with members of the same sex now makes this knowledge for public judgement and consideration. While it is true that one can't directly make the connection as to whether sodomy is taking place, it tends to be such a matter that those that are not seeking the attentions for these types of actions would not put themselves in the situations for that to happen. It is those that wish for the attention that make the public declaration....and there is no attempt to hide the activity that is going on. Let's not kid ourselves hee, those that are under the OUT NBC banner are more than likely not living lives according to he Church's teaching...
To the point of Cardinal Dolan being reassured that active promotion will not take place...You mean the same that he was "reassured" that Abortion wouldn't take place in Obamacare? How'd that turn out? The same one that trusts the criminal administration to work on illegal immigration, when it can't get abortion right? The same guy who Bravo'ed Michael Sam? I'd love to say he's being naive, but I can't agree, seeing that His Eminence has been fooled before....You really think that these people will not seek the opportunity to embarrass the Church and the Archbishop? There's a good reason his predecessors took the sand of no banners in the parade for St Patrick.
My friend Stephanie has a few points on her blog that are definitely worth considering, which although I do disagree with her, this blogger is all about giving equal time to the discussion.
To let oneself be manipulated in situations where there is clear opposition to what you believe is something that can't be allowed. It boggles me that the same approach (that failed back in the 70's) is being tried again, and somehow they're expecting to get different results? Insanity is probably being charitable, diabolical, may very well be more accurate.
But of course, it'd be crazy to not suggest a solution for this...whenever the parade will be next year...a Holy Hour to be done in reparation. Cardinal Dolan needs our prayers...big time...put your prayers on steroids for this Cardinal, that he may convert and really use the gift of fortitude to speak the truth, rather than capitulate to the culture....
b. Bp Cupich to Chicago
Now, I did live in Spokane for a short time and know of various orthodox priests that were placed in "interesting" positions...and also remember when the Bishop forbade his priests (later amended (don't fall for the amended piece being the original, it wasn't) (When I lived there, I was attending the Byzantine Catholic parish, his rule didn't apply)...made for some interesting times.
I find it interesting, we have a culture that will run us over if we don't stand up, and this appointment, is basically buzz kill for the culture warrior movement. There's an interesting defense here....but I must say, it's very true that one can tell a lot about a person by who their friends, and who their enemies are. It is also true that one can't directly implicate a person based upon their friends and enemies, but we can know about how a person interacts through their relationships....so when the liberal establishment is rejoicing....God help us...and yes, that does mean we need to pray for him, that he may use the gifts of fortitude for the Church. Apparently this is a Pope Francis personal pick....so much for continuity (but to be fair, he cleans up sex abuse scandals pretty quickly)...As I've said before, this pontificate may prove to be the Anti-Benedict XVI pontificate, and the last liberal hurrah before they hopefully go away and disappear.
c. The synod
I'll keep my thoughts simple, if this is a test to see whether God will allow this (Communion for Divorced/Remarried)....It's not a position that the Church wants to put themselves in....and if it does happen, the Pontiff will have publicly proclaimed error in solemn manner...and this would result in some very ugly things happening (Francis being anti-Pope Francis), schism, ugly things that we don't wish to happen. Pray for the synod, let us pray for them that they do uphold the teaching of the Church...let us not be presumptuous and assume it can't happen....there are humans involved, and schisms have happened.
d. Oh boy
If Piero Marini is appointed, that is salt on the open wound, and probably come to prove that the hypothesis about the anti-Benedict XVI pontificate to be true. We should pray that this does not happen, yes, I know God can write straight with crooked lines, but really...let us not be crazy.
Let us pray, pray, pray pray
Pax Vobis
06 June 2014
Is it entirely possible that the premise for Religious Liberty
...is a false one, which can never be successful?
I read about this story of a baker who is being forced to sell to a homosexual couple here...
The thing that I've always thought about these situations that have occurred is the thought, this is what happen when one allows error the same rights as Truth. On each side a "religious" view is being projected. In one case you have a person who is in support of "homosexual marriage" and seeking to have this publicly acknowledged by everyone. On the other side we have a person who does not wish to acknowledge homosexual marriage through the action of baking a cake (or whatever), which in doing so constitutes a type of support of the "homosexual marriage" taking place.
The argument for religious liberty MUST be based in the Truth of the Church, otherwise, it will fail, if it isn't blatantly obvious by now. As something that I have said before, it is impossible to have a morally neutral situation. Either morals from the conservative or liberal side are being "imposed" into the debate. That is to say, either we're imposing our morals on them, or they're imposing their morals on us. It is NOT possible for neither side to "impose" morals.
Think about it...If the baker is indeed forced to serve against his will, he has been forced to publicly acknowledge homosexuality. If the baker wins, homosexuality would not be acknowledged (which is what the person is seeking, deeply)...while most certainly, there are multiple options for getting a cake, and someone would be happy to give this couple business...What if this is the only bakery within a reasonable distance? Does this not make the situation different? One wouldn't expect anyone to travel an hour just to get a cake?
Error does not have a right to be promulgated in public...Truth however does. Since I'm quite familiar with the field of academia, I'll go with this example. If someone is doing research on a topic...that person can't present their findings as fact to their classes without a public criticism, or defense of their work. Yet there can easily be discussions on the research in private "think tank" so to speak. It is similar to this with errors of various kinds. It is one thing to discuss them in private in the "dialogue towards Truth" so to speak....however to present these errors as Truth would be a scandal to the rights of Truth to be presented for everyone to hear. (It's another issue entirely to follow)
The rather infamous document Dignitatis Humane can be read for yourselves...but in light of that, I wish to propose some questions...
1) Is the premise for Religious Liberty flawed?
2) Is it possible to have multiple definitions for religious liberty?
In our situation with the baker and the couple, is it not true that coercion from the "couple" is happening? That is to say if we're to understand religious liberty as follows: "This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."...Are not the "couple" acting within their private beliefs? Do you see the problem here?
This is why it is important to define the parameters through with we're talking about "Religious Liberty" lest we be defeated with a taste of our own medicine. Religious Liberty can't be a vague principle which is not defined in the Truth of the Church...the quicker our Bishops get this, the better...and the more likely chance that they can actually win their case as a whole. The sooner we realize that we can't place error on the same plane as Truth, the better.
Pax Vobis
I read about this story of a baker who is being forced to sell to a homosexual couple here...
The thing that I've always thought about these situations that have occurred is the thought, this is what happen when one allows error the same rights as Truth. On each side a "religious" view is being projected. In one case you have a person who is in support of "homosexual marriage" and seeking to have this publicly acknowledged by everyone. On the other side we have a person who does not wish to acknowledge homosexual marriage through the action of baking a cake (or whatever), which in doing so constitutes a type of support of the "homosexual marriage" taking place.
The argument for religious liberty MUST be based in the Truth of the Church, otherwise, it will fail, if it isn't blatantly obvious by now. As something that I have said before, it is impossible to have a morally neutral situation. Either morals from the conservative or liberal side are being "imposed" into the debate. That is to say, either we're imposing our morals on them, or they're imposing their morals on us. It is NOT possible for neither side to "impose" morals.
Think about it...If the baker is indeed forced to serve against his will, he has been forced to publicly acknowledge homosexuality. If the baker wins, homosexuality would not be acknowledged (which is what the person is seeking, deeply)...while most certainly, there are multiple options for getting a cake, and someone would be happy to give this couple business...What if this is the only bakery within a reasonable distance? Does this not make the situation different? One wouldn't expect anyone to travel an hour just to get a cake?
Error does not have a right to be promulgated in public...Truth however does. Since I'm quite familiar with the field of academia, I'll go with this example. If someone is doing research on a topic...that person can't present their findings as fact to their classes without a public criticism, or defense of their work. Yet there can easily be discussions on the research in private "think tank" so to speak. It is similar to this with errors of various kinds. It is one thing to discuss them in private in the "dialogue towards Truth" so to speak....however to present these errors as Truth would be a scandal to the rights of Truth to be presented for everyone to hear. (It's another issue entirely to follow)
The rather infamous document Dignitatis Humane can be read for yourselves...but in light of that, I wish to propose some questions...
1) Is the premise for Religious Liberty flawed?
2) Is it possible to have multiple definitions for religious liberty?
In our situation with the baker and the couple, is it not true that coercion from the "couple" is happening? That is to say if we're to understand religious liberty as follows: "This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."...Are not the "couple" acting within their private beliefs? Do you see the problem here?
This is why it is important to define the parameters through with we're talking about "Religious Liberty" lest we be defeated with a taste of our own medicine. Religious Liberty can't be a vague principle which is not defined in the Truth of the Church...the quicker our Bishops get this, the better...and the more likely chance that they can actually win their case as a whole. The sooner we realize that we can't place error on the same plane as Truth, the better.
Pax Vobis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)