Vote No for Proposition Kasper

With the current buzz in the Church regarding the topic of the Synod, I wanted to take an opportunity to give a few thoughts on marriage and divorce. I haven’t been the most astute at following all the news presented in the press recently, mostly because it is a poor source for definitive statements regarding the matter. There are however many good sources that can help in understanding what has been going on:

• Jimmy Aiken put out a concise enumeration of the ideas presented that I found very informative. They can be read here.     
• Raymond Aroyo also gave a candid interview with Cardinal Burke -the voice for truth within the synod. 
• I would also like to encourage anyone to stand by for my Parish Priests recent sermon that was given today that may be posted on Audio Sancto or his website at a later date. In it he properly defines what a decree of nullity is, the means by which one is decreed null and interesting statistical truths regarding the abuse of the annulment process by many within the church.
• Remaining in the Truth of Christ is a book that has recently been published by Ignatius Press that defends the traditional view of marriage by a number of currently presiding Cardinals. I plan on purchasing this book and giving it a read to augment my knowledge on the topic.

I think it is safe to say that the complexity of situations in marriages are matched by the complexity of cannon law, to which is designed to handle said situations. This design has been developed over centuries of defending the truth of marriage and has been very carefully articulated; it may not be perfect in that the process can be subverted, but it has been effective in handling the situation. I have to admit that this topic is one in which I am least polished in. However, the topic has been broached by friends and family recently not to mention that from the synod. From these conversations, I have been reminded how complex these situations can be. One does not have to be a canon lawyer to understand what is basically at stake here and the antagonist behind the issues at hand.

I see the heart of the matter to be whether marriage is dissoluble. We have heard from our Lord that “it was not so from the beginning.” This is an indication that it is the jurisdiction of Natural Law -that from the beginning it was not so. We also know from our Lords words, “that marriage is between a man and a woman, and what God hat joined together, let no man put asunder.” These are orthodox Truths of Christ that are being tampered with and discussed by the Synod.

The only one audacious enough to outwardly contradict the teachings directly, are Cardinal Kasper and indirectly, by Pope Francis. They are subtle, advocating for “pastoral changes”, changes in processes by which a decree of nullity is said. I am being specific in the terms decree of nullity, because it is important to distinguish nullity from decree of nullity. The Church cannot nullify a marriage; however, they can decree that one was null or non-existent. The improvement to the processes in place are encouraged to be simplified. As I had mentioned before, marriage situations can be very complex in nature and to simplify those methods may not do justice to what is deserved by the situation. My Priest touched on the gravity of this matter by emphatically stating that souls are at stake when determining whether a marriage was null. It is in fact a greater act of mercy for the spouses in question to have their case thoroughly examined by experts, rather than having an inexperienced parish priest decide (which is happening regularly at the parish level). My priest gave a good example of this by likening it to a random citizen putting on Judges Robes and writing a decree in opposition to the law and stating it just, when in actuality, that decree is worthless and those citizens simply do not have the authority which they are attempting to express.

I am not yet sure what the pastoral changes will be or even if they will come to pass. However, I must point out that whatever changes do come, it would be a scandal from the clear teaching of the Church -in that the practices must not be separated from the doctrines. This concept is bound to all dogmas of our faith especially recent ones in question, namely the indissolubility of marriage and acceptance of homosexual unions. No matter how you sugar coat it, the practical application of truth must be in conformity with the truth it supports. A digression from this is without question contradictory and scandalous to the faithful. If visibly, the Church says you must simply seek confession then perform a penance as a means to reconciling your condition, you are still left with the problem of the first marriage. What about the spouse and or children that have been left abandoned? This new practice of reconciliation leaves unreconciled the existence of your real spouse and you continue to remain in an adulterous union –not a marriage.

Recently, there have been two cases where I had a conversation with a cohort which it was revealed that my interlocutor had a divorce. In the first discussion, the reason for divorce was that they were young, incompatible and had no children as justification for said divorce. The second didn’t give as much detail, however indicated incompatibility as well. I felt it was inappropriate for me to protest the truth, simply because of the relationship between us, but an interesting thought occurred to me. In future conversation with them, would it be erroneous for me to refer to their partners as wife or spouse? Should we not instead name them as partner or something more precise? Technically they would not be married and it may be an inconspicuous way of indicating the nullity of their relationship. This may do harm, but I am not one to roll over and give in to heresy in order to maintain civility. Either way, it would be a passive way of admonishing the sinner to those whom you are not in a relationship that merits more overt exhortations.

One thing is certain, the Pope has not been clear as to his stance regarding these issues –some are calling this scandalous, others call it an air of mercy. However, he has connoted an approval of Cardinal Kasper’s view as a merciful form. He specifically had mentioned possibly taking a stance similar to that of the Orthodox faith. That being a stance which views the invalid marriage as a “Penitential Marriage”. I am not sure what this exactly means, but it isn’t orthodox that’s for sure.

Cardinal Kasper has said in an interview to America Magazine, “We cannot simply take one phrase from the gospel of Jesus and from that deduce everything. Discipline can change, so I think we have here a theological fundamentalism, which is not Catholic.” It seems here that Kasper is trying to impregnate Jesus’ clear teaching on divorce and add or “change a discipline” to fit his modern idea, rather than a fundamental or orthodox teaching. This smells too much like a protestant mentality, one in which you can pick and choose what you want. This may be another case of Cafeteria Catholicism. Cardinal Burke says it well, “When you attempt to drive a wedge between discipline and doctrinal truth, it is simply false in the Catholic Church. Discipline is at the service of the teaching of some sacred reality.”

This is I feel is a great problem today especially amidst so much pruning of truth by other Christian denominations. How can we claim stalwart perennial truths, if our actions demonstrate the contrary? Non-Catholics do not understand our terminology, but what they do see are people getting decrees of nullity and to them this is Catholic divorce. The approval of copious amounts of petitions for decrees are scandalizing to those whom we are boasting orthodoxy in our faith –this is a poor witness.

The enemy has dubbed their innovations as a merciful way of dealing with the problem of marriage and divorce. Kasper says, “Divorced and remarried people should find a good priest who accompanies them for some time and if this second civil marriage is solid, then the path of new orientation can end with a confession and absolution.” At face value this does seem merciful to the couple; however, truth is has been undermined in this scenario and the marriage is completely left out of the conversation. No, I do not mean the new union, I mean the original marriage. What about the spouse or children who have been left, what about the truth of Jesus, what about chastity? A confession and absolution are only one part of the process; restitution must be made to the true marriage as well. When this is done, the scales are made right; however, the one-sided solutions do not zero in Kasper’s proposals. Unfortunately, in this new scenario, the parties remain outside a state of grace, continue to be unworthily able to receive communion and could potentially end up in Hell.

       “Pope Pious the XII in a talk to the tribunal of the Roman Rhoda, set forth the beauty and appreciation of the decrees of nullity process in a way that it gets to the truth of about the claim that a marriage is null so that the parties can really be at piece that the declaration of nullity serves their good and is not just a Catholic divorce. (Cardinal Burke).” This again, is why the annulment process is as complex and thorough as it is – for the good of the souls. If so be it a decree cannot be granted, it is for their own good. They must both live in chastity with their current partner and do their best to live according to the teaching of the Church. This is not easy, but is it worth disobeying the teaching of Christ and suffering for eternity? The nullity process is not a Divine Law; however, you cannot expect the Church not to have a process by which to determine objectively with a degree of moral certitude that a marriage is null –it would be asinine to assert otherwise. If you revert to a quick once over method, you do no favors, are acting irresponsible, and are not shepherding souls.  

The Catholic Social Teaching on Work

The Catholic Social Teaching on Work

Can I Work Today

 About two years ago at my place of employment, upper management decided to start more aggressively sending people home when the workload was not heavy. One of the major reasons for this decision, was to better prepare for changes in healthcare, i.e., reduced reimbursement, increased costs to patients, and increased taxes on medical devices among other unknown variables with the inauguration of the Affordable Care Act.  Therefore, the reduction in payroll costs of sending home staff during lighter workloads (we call it flexing) enabled the hospital system for which I am employed, to pad their budget for the unexpected changes. Unfortunately, the specific Hospital in which I work, decided to be extra responsible in this practice and mercilessly exercised this new policy. Needless to say, all staff who were affected by this, retaliated in various forms from complaints to giving their notice -in my department specifically, we lost at least three to these changes. Therefore, drawing this out to its logical conclusion, we are understaffed, overworked and flexed off; which has made for a very strenuous time in my life, in which I still reside. Naturally, a sense of injustice permeated and dominates the thoughts of myself and my cohorts; this is both tiresome and nurtures attitudes and conversation that are not efficacious to one’s piece or sanctity. For me, I felt like nothing more than a commodity that could be laid aside for ad hoc purposes and a tool to be used when the need arises and then put back in its storage place for later use. To put it bluntly, I felt like a number, whose value and dignity as a human person had been diminished considerably. Regrettably, this is a common practice today among businesses; people are laid off constantly among other devaluations. Granted, businesses must be responsible to ensure their survival, but at what cost? Is this practice unjust and consequently sinful? What makes this even more grievous, is that my household is single income; it wasn’t always so, but when my wife and I changed the way that we viewed the family; I knew that I had to change the way we live. I will talk further about the dynamics of the family in another blog post, but for now, I will focus on the understanding of work, as a good and how we can harness that good to cultivate virtue.

A Blessing or a Curse

            There are two ways in which we can look at work: work as a good or as a commodity (in a materialistic impersonal sense), which is worth very little in light of eternity. The origin of this bifurcation in the concepts of work can be traced to creation, where in the verse, we see two concepts arising: God created all things and they were good, then following the curse, “You will earn your bread by the sweat of your brow (God).” Before the fall and curse, work existed within the garden; a perfect type of work that was edifying and gave glory to God (Smith). This was the ideal type of work that we are to strive for and seek as a model for today. This idea is commonly conferred by our magistrates in the form of sanctification of our daily duties, i.e., “offering them up” as a meritorious spiritual benefit. This concept also entails a submission to Christ as our employer, a realization that is encouraged perpetually throughout the duration of the day.

            The Church has however developed a concept work that is a bit more obscure, not apparent and requiring deeper insight.  It puts work within a hierarchy with the human person as its subject, not its object. This reevaluation entails a gift, God’s gift of creation to men. This creation, the earth and cities in which we live, requires cultivation; this is not a novel concept, but a frequent reminder is in order, that work is not some punishment in which we are to toil with and pass away under the fatigue of this burdensome life. No, work is a gift, in which men are enriched, it is a crucible by which virtue is mastered, modeled by our Lord, St. Joseph, St. Benedict, and many other industrious Saints whose lives must be emulated and meditated upon.  Work is in a sense a servant for men and understood in this light, its ominous challenge losses its daunting countenance and dons a benevolence, which incites an eagerness to take up a lighter, more efficacious yoke.

            The other path I spoke of in that bifurcation is the toilsome emphasis of work. This type, although it very well may be toilsome, is distinct from the former view, in that its final cause is not realized. It does not have God’s glory and man’s benefit in view, it is simply a means to an end –whether that end be money or a temporary satisfaction, the motive in question is not lasting. Without the realization of whom your work is benefiting, “it is vain for you to rise before light, rise ye after you have sitten (sic), you that eat the bread of toil (David, Psalm 127).”

            To understand work as a commodity, i.e. you see yourself as an object to be sold to an employer for a wage, falls under the idea of materialism. This idea at first glance might appear an accurate description of the employee/employer relationship; however, fundamentally, a neglect of the dignity of the person is left out of this description. Understanding the worth of Human Labor and its dignity is the beginning of sanctification of that work. If we look at it merely in terms of numerical value, it becomes easier to abuse the objects in question. This materialistic view has also affected our proper identity. When you last introduced yourself to another person did you first identify your profession? In some contexts, this is appropriate, but generally, your initial identification should pertain to something more substantial –perhaps faith or family.

The Spiritual and Moral Benefit of Work

            As we have mentioned, work exists to serve man. When we create things, we improve upon the materials at hand and in turn by working well, we too are improved. The work needs to serve us by improving our character, which in turns gives glory to God. If we step into the office or factory without the proper disposition, we may be spinning our wheels, losing gifts that simply could be attained by a Morning Offering at the commencement of the day.

            So how do we reconcile our labor? As we have mentioned, the initial task is first realizing your worth. You must be benefited in the contract as well as the employer and this is termed commutative justice. For both parties to benefit there must not be excesses on either side; the employee should not ask for too much, must fulfill his obligations, and must not abuse the employer in other obscure ways.  On the other hand the employer must provide enough compensation for the labor given; they must not require unattainable expectations and provide proper working conditions that do not erode the laborer.

            Although all of these criteria are important, I wanted expand a bit on the importance of just compensation. Often time’s people unjustly complain as to the insufficiency of their paychecks; whose argument may or not be grounded on anything substantial, but for those who are under paid, this is a grave matter. The head of the household should alone be sufficiently compensated to provide for his family. I emphasized alone, because for the important fact that the woman of the house should not be obliged to find gainful employment outside of the home in order to sustain the family. I simply say this as both a reminder and encouragement to women that the dignity and worth of staying home and rearing their children is far more worthy and rewarding than fulfilling a desire to prove yourself out in the workplace. We all know that women are very capable of working outside the home, but in reality, there is nothing more satisfying to children as well as the mother, than to be home fulfilling the role they are physically designed to do. Men are physically strong by nature and as such, we are designed for labor; women are nourishing and lovable by nature, thus designed for rearing children. Again, I will qualify this by saying that women are capable of providing income for the family by whatever means they desire, but is it the best choice to work outside the home –especially when children are involved?

            From my own experience, when my family started to grow, my wife and I both worked. We were duel income and I will admit that hers was slightly higher than mine. However, when we started having more children, I could see the anxiety and tension from both the kids and us, from sending the kids off to day-care. The kids cried when we left them, they brought home questionable habits and we were concerned with the quality of their learning environment. We couldn’t afford Catholic School even with duel income, so we had to settle for other options. After a number of changes both in my work and my wife’s, we ultimately decided it best for her to stay home. We both vacillated on the decision, but once we acquiesced, it has proven to be the best decisions we have ever made for our family. Our kids are on a good classical Catholic home-school curriculum and seem to be thriving. It was a huge adjustment financially, but we made a lot of sacrifices that now -don’t even seem as substantial as we thought.

I hope you have a clearer understanding now of the worth envisaged by just compensation. This is important because we have a right to support our family; it is our duty, just as it is the duty of a woman to nurture their children –both in the womb and without.

The Three Fundamentals

There are three fundamental realities at stake today, namely family, work and education.  As I have mentioned earlier, the right to a family is inherent in our nature; as well as the right to support the family.  Work is the means by which we may sustain our families and if our society continues to view work in a materialistic way without recognizing the value of the individual and the family he supports, the whole of society ends up suffering. 

The home is the first school of work. Within the household everyone must contribute, otherwise the household will quickly decline. This is difficult with younger children, because their attention spans are very short. However, the older they become the easier it gets and the more they will learn their role. This also applies to the spouse; if one of the parties are not contributing at a level to which is suitable, not only do the duties get neglected, so too your relationship with your spouse will weaken. On the other hand contributing more to your family is a great sign of love, which I promise will never go unnoticed. We all have room to grow in our work ethic and it is purely an issue of humility. The more we sacrifice for one another the saintlier we become. This is a great lesson for the children, for when the parents are working in harmony, they will mimic this example and understand the concepts in their own lives. Again, the family is the primary place for educating your children of the sanctity of work, it is also a great source of grace for the spouses to sanctify themselves. We all want our children to grow up and become autonomous citizens that can produce; training them to work within the household is one of the best means in which we can prepare them for that. I would recommend reading the Rule of St. Benedict on this topic. Benedictines are wonderful models of prayer and work. I can think of no better guide book for teaching someone how to sanctify their work.

There are serious problems in our society regarding all three fundamentals I have mentioned. The quality of our educational systems is poor, legislations that demean the family are rampant, and our culture is driven by material and capital gain, the effects of which is manifest in devaluation of the worker. Families are where saints are born, education is a means by which we know of God and His creation and work is God’s gift for us that we may sustain, sanctify ourselves and give glory to God. There is a direct relationship between all three, since they are all so interrelated. “If you ignore the profundity of these fundamental realities, it is taking the short view rather than the long in regard to the common good and therefore happiness” (Smith). Each one of these subjects merit lengthy studies and many volumes of data to adequately grasp each one. My goal however, is to briefly lay out how work is interrelated within our sphere of living. With all this said, when you wake up in the morning and start your day, remind yourself that your work is a gift, it is here to make you better spiritually; it is the means by which we are perfected, a tool provided to us to serve God and give him glory. You are the subject of work not its object; are you improved by the work you do or is it destroying you?

Who is your King, America or Christ?

Ever since my conversion in 2004 to the Church Christ founded, I am continually reminded of how ignorant I am of the Churches teaching. The breadth and depth of truth that our Holy Faith touts can be likened to the Mariana Trench. In reality, the vast wisdom of the Church (which is the body of Christ) can never be measured, simply because man cannot comprehend the mind of God: "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable His way!" (Romans 11:33) The recent reminder of this has its source from the jurisprudence of Aquinas and the Social Teaching of the Church.
An associate of mine who is not Catholic -well to be honest he is a radical homosexual liberal who is regular in his protestant church attendance, piqued my interests on a topic that until now has received only cursory attention in my personal studies.  My association with him is purely academic in nature; however, the conversations will from time to time alight on juridical topics.  On one of these occasions-the contextual topic I can't seem to recollect, he emphatically declared his favor of a separation of church and state.  The activation of my inner truth meter served as an initial warning to his statement.  I was disappointed in my inability to express orally this education; but it did however provide a future subject to explore.  Upon further examination, the dormant corpuscle of truth that was signaling my conscience that evening was not immaterial.

The Point I am referring to ultimately, is the reign of Christ the king.  Reign in both our spiritual lives as Catholics, as well as physical governmental reign of peoples in the world; the separation of which in America, being the cause of a slew of moral problems.  My upbringing as a protestant American has had certain effects upon my understanding of politics; not necessarily how a government is to rule its people, but the actual authority behind that rule.  The underlying belief that the church as a spiritual body of believers, as opposed to the truth of it being a physical body, needing physical rule by Christ, stewarded by the catholic church; has lingered and continues to cloud my understanding of a true catholic culture.  This disadvantage is slowly being healed by the good catechism I am receiving from my parish priests, good friends, and personal study.  The influence I speak of is Americanism.  Simply put the superabundant faith Americans put in their political system; the idea that authority lies in the people exemplified in the adage, " power to the people.", when in truth, authority comes from god alone.  Pope Leo the 13th had something to say on this:

An associate of mine who is not Catholic -well to be honest he is a radical homosexual liberal who is regular in his Protestant church attendance, piqued my interests on a topic that until now has received only cursory attention in my personal studies. My association with him is purely academic in nature; 

The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form provided only that it be of a nature to insure the general welfare. But whatever be the nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount Ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State (emphasis mine)(Pope Leo XIII).

On the same subject he writes:

Every civilized community must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its author. Hence it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme lord of the world. Everything without exception must be subject to Him, and must serve Him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern, holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the Sovereign Ruler of all. "There is no power but from God." (Rom. 13:1)(Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei)

Also he declares the importance of a state to declare itself a Catholic State, if that state is a Catholic Society:

In a Catholic society, it is incumbent upon the State to be a "Catholic State," to declare and to treat Catholicism as "the religion of the State." The formal, official, and exclusive recognition and profession of Catholicism by the State in a Catholic society as its own one and only religion, in short, the establishment of Catholicism as "the religion of the State," seems necessarily contained in the very notion of the State's duty to accept and profess the true religion, therefore Catholicism, with its creed, code and cult. How else could the State, qua State, in truth accept and profess Catholicism, together with its tenet that it alone is the true religion?

This is a precise description of the deference a state should have toward God:

Men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, not less than individuals, owes gratitude to God, who gave it being and maintains it, and whose ever-bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice—not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion—it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin in the State not to have care for religion, as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for States are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, should hold in honor the holy Name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it . . . .

This next and last excerpt is strikingly similar to that of our nation and is cited as reprehensible:

The State (civitas) does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty towards God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favour; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.

With this in mind you should recall Obama's comment at a “Call to Renewal” conference: “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”, this being a perfect example of the above quote that, “[the state]…is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true…”

What does a state look like that is ruled by God and what does one like that is ruled by men? One does not have to struggle laboriously to imagine what a state looks like without Gods laws as their foundation. The easiest example to reference is America herself, whose fruits entail legalization of divorce, contraception, pornography, sodomy, abortion and polytheism (polytheism in the sense of allowing public expression of other religions as if that expression were not detrimental to the common good) ; with underlying ideals of materialism, socialism, unbridled capitalism and liberalism to name just a few. America evidently does not stand alone in these atrocities, many South American, European and other countries are also sliding headlong into these enlightened ideals of freedom, unity and plurality that do not align themselves with the Traditions of the Church; God and his Law are not the reference for any government today.

It is hard to paint a picture of a state that is ruled by Christ, because I do not know of one that is not inhabited by sinful man. There have however been self-proclaimed Catholic states, which have attempted submission to Christ the King that we will look at. But I first want to expound a bit more on the American Political System and dig slightly deeper into its errors. I will admit though, with the shifting position of the Church on religious liberty in the documents of Vatican II, this may be borderline traditionalism. I am not a traditionalist in the sense that I do not acquiesce to the teaching of the current Magisterium. On the contrary my fidelity to them is on par with the teaching of the Church in its entirety, incorporating and implementing equally the popes and doctors of holy memory and those presently presiding; partitioning any one of these would results in a fragmentation and only further disunity. On the other hand, when there is an apparent contradiction in teaching of the Church and the reconciliation of which can only be determined by choosing between pass teaching and current teaching, one must choose based on reason, intellect, history and hopefully the Holy Spirit.

It is obvious that our nation prides itself on its plurality and tolerance. It is hard to imagine it developing into anything different, since it is comprised of a myriad of races and creeds. But as a predominately Christian nation, we must give deference and credit where credit is due –that is of course to God. I find it mind numbing trying to trace back the original deviation from truth of our forefathers;  as soon as you think you have found a first cause, another progenitor rears its heretical head. The bottom line is, our nation is founded by non-Catholics and as such, I find it futile to point out errors that aren’t exactly novel. Protestants suffer foremost with a serious lack of obedience to authority and consequently have put their trust in a form of government whose authority lies within the very people whom they govern. This authority is commonly exercised on representatives; whom by flexing their own legislative authority, infringe upon an opposing group of people, who in turn take measures to usurp them in the upcoming elections. It would seem it is a ping ponging of authority between liberal and conservatives; a perfect government for protesters and those like Satan who declare:  “Non Serviam.” 

Now of course I have left out the authority of law –having developed at a guarded rate and whose semblance has aged ever so slightly up until about 50 years or so; has been nipped and tucked to such a degree, that it no longer resembles its stoic countenance. I am of course referring to the introduction of the aforementioned legislations on contraception, abortion, and the like. As I have mention in a previous post, democracies hinge on the idea that a nation that is governed by the people requires virtue as a prerequisite to success. I can’t exactly speak for previous generations, but I was never taught any form of virtue or ethics in the public schools I have attended; on the contrary, my parents gave me some very memorable ethics lessons with application of belt to my buttocks.  To be certain, the transformation of our educational systems, have had noticeable results upon our culture, manifesting in forms resembling Sodom and Gomorrah, e.g. faultless divorce, gay marriage and other aforementioned “liberties.” Not to mention the almost complete eradication of the Liberal Arts and their replacement with the Technological Sciences.

It is hard to pin point an exact date when our Judiciary System started drifting away from its original legal philosophy of Natural law, but the change in direction is indisputable. For an example of this, all one needs to do is look in the current news updates on the eradication of traditional marriage. The battle for contraception, abortion and divorce are in the hands of the enemy and soon euthanasia and marriage will also be in their hands –at least legally. I do not intend to be hopeless on these matters; I firmly trust prayer, fasting and hard work can make a difference.

I know have I been verbose in painting this American picture, but it is hard to not express these thoughts, because it is a catharsis to me. As I said before, I wanted to give an example of a country that has attempted service to our Lord –that country is Spain. I have chosen Spain because I have recently listened to a lecture by Michael Davies on a similar subject, whose link can be found here: http://www.keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=933. In this lecture Mr. Davies expounds in detail on the teaching of the Church prior to Vatican II regarding religious liberty and gives examples (as I have done previously), of what happens to a state that adopts a pluralistic mentality. It is plain to see in pre conciliar Spain, a fidelity to the teaching of the Church by looking within their constitution.  This is exemplified in Article 1 of their concordat of 1953: “The Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion continues to be the religion of the Spanish nation.” This was brought in line with the 1945 concordat called the Fuero de los Española’s and in Article 6 it states: “The profession and practice of the Catholic Religion which is that of the Spanish state will enjoy official protection. No one will be disturbed for his religious beliefs nor the private exercise of his religion. There is no authorization for external ceremonies or manifestations other than those of the Catholic Religion.”

                So we see here a clear manifestation of a state submitting its rule with that of the teaching of the Church. Practically speaking, the execution of this teaching is a restriction on Protestants and others that prevented them the right to publicly proselytize their faiths by signage and publication and sale of literature. We see the same efforts inaugurated by Pope Paul IV with his Index Librorum Prohibitorum –a list of erroneous books, which protected the less educated faithful. This list has had many revisions and additions heretofore 1948 and abolished in 1966 by Pope Paul VI. With the innovations of cheaper and more efficient printing, the voluminous increase of texts had become a formidable opponent to keep at bay. A replacement to this daunting task of evaluating incoming texts was replaced by the imprimatur (“let it be printed”) and nihil obstat (“nothing forbids”) the receiving of which being given by the local ordinary. The purpose of this restriction is the protection of the common good; the protection of souls from falling into error. This is the teaching responsibility of Bishops to safeguard the teaching of the Catholic faithful.  Father Wolfe gave a stunning homily (http://files.audiosancto.org/20130328-Pray-for-Our-Priests-and-Bishops-Lest-They-Be-Damned.mp3) on the responsibility of priests and bishops that I highly recommend you give a listen.

                With the advent of Dignitatis Humanae (D.H.), Spain being a faithful Catholic State changed its constitutions to align itself with the new Church teaching. D.H. sates in the Declaration of Religious Liberty:

The right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known to reveal the word of God by reason itself. The right of the human person of religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right person of religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.

The change in the constitution is enumerated thus: “The profession and practice of the Catholic religion, which is that of the Spanish state enjoys official protection. The state guarantees the protection of religious liberty [Emphasis added] to be guarded by an effective juridical provision which will safeguard morals and public order.”  The addition to the juridical provision is the result of the additions in D.H. and in 1978 The Wanderer Stated:  “The Spanish chamber of deputies has voted approval of article 15 of the countries draft constitution which decrees there will be no state religion and guarantees freedom of all religions.” It is interesting to note the progression of Spain’s declaration of being a Catholic State entitling official protection to it, to officially removing any public affiliation with a particular religion. With that being established, let us see the outcome. In 1978 the ban on contraception was lifted, in 1981 Spain legalized divorce, and in 1985 abortion was legalized. As you can see, it took less than 10 years for this “progress” to occur and consequently in 2005 gay “marriage” had been legalized.

                I would like to go back a bit and touch on what were the influencing factors that led to the change in Social Teaching in Vatican 2. Davies lays out pretty thickly the influence of American Bishops and their instigation of American political thought toward the council in the lecture I linked above. This quote from John Courtney Murray a theologian and innovator at the Council, in favor of Religious Liberty, indicates pretty clearly the effects of Americanism upon the Schema of the Council:

During the council the Schema on religious freedom was often called the American Schema, the adjective would be quite inappropriate in regard with the final form of the schema, the declaration of itself… It was therefore an act of the universal church like that of the other conciliar documents. However during the long course of its legislative history, the schema had the solid and consistent support of the American bishops and their numerous interventions had considerable influence in determining its substance and language…There was those who said that the American bishops supported the schema simply for right reason, but this is an inadequate view. Undoubtedly the support derived its basic inspiration from the American experience, from which the Church has learned the practical value of free exercise of the first amendment. The object or content to the right to religious freedom as specified in the declaration and in the American constitutional system is identical.

Again in the language of expressed by Murray, connotes a certain pride in the erroneous American ideal and politic.

                Now how do we go about reconciling the apparent contradictions between the teaching of the Popes and the innovative ideal of American plurality in D.H.?  Looking back at the quote from D.H. its justification for change is based on three points: the dignity of the human person, Reason, and Scripture. Does this infer that Pope Leo XIII was not thinking logically and that he didn’t know his scripture? Davies gives an amusing reminder of both the Amalekites and the prophets of Baal who were both completely destroyed by Moses and the Israelites –as per the instruction of God; this is a clear example that flies in the face of the concept of Religious Liberty and pluralism. Nowhere in scripture is it said that one has the right to propagate error. On the contrary, we see the Israelites suppressing the error of the Amalekites by force, not tolerating their public expression of faith. Now, I am not advocating any sort of cleansing of any erroneous religions or peoples, I am simply stating we have clear example of the Israelites eradicating those who are idolatrous; clearly squelching any idea that religious tolerance was neither the norm nor God’s plan.  As far as the evidence from reason and human dignity, both D.H. and Davies give no examples; therefore, have to be taken at face value and must be left to the experts.

                Two of these experts are Bishop Dismet, a Belgium Relator for the Council who interprets phrases and passages from previous church documents and Murray (himself being the major inciter of the new teaching).  Murray gives his thoughts on the relation of the two teachings: “it is clear that the first and second views when dealing with the question, make affirmations that are either contradictory or contrary.” Dismet’s explanation is no better than Murray’s: “Some Fathers affirm that the declaration do not sufficiently show how our doctrine is not opposed to ecclesiastical documents up until the time of the supreme pontiff Leo XIII. As we said in the last Relatio, this is a matter for future theological and historical studies to bring to light more fully.” And I must quote Davies logical conclusion: “If the Relator for the Secretary for Christian Unity, cannot explain how these teaching can be reconciled, one wonders if anybody could.”  It is apparent here that at the time, the two teaching were not reconciled and to my knowledge no such attempts have been made to do so recently. What conclusions then are we to glean from this information? Are we to have blind faith in the innovations and turn a blind eye to history, or are we to respect the ancients and their wisdom? If you choose based on the fruits they produce, then the choice is apparent. However, if we choose the later, we must then determine that the previous teaching does not relate to us in the 21^st century and that the decline in morals and virtue throughout the Christian world is due to some other impetus.

                The question that comes to mind is: Is the right of free expression of religion a question of Eternal, Divine, Natural, or Human Law? This would require  a deconstruction and using differing models and scenarios. For example: Is or is not the country primarily Catholic, what type of government are we dealing with?, etc. Based on the numerous variables involved I am inclined to dub it a Human Law, which we would then conclude that it is merely an application of the Natural Law. The basis then of our choosing being determined by whether the common good is kept. We are then left with the question: Would the permission of public practice of all religions help or retard the common good? I will let you answer that for yourselves.

                Before I end, I want to recap some important points and questions for you to chew on:

1.       Should there be a definite separation of Church and State? Only if you are not Christian and or have some sin or lifestyle you are attempting to rationalize or cling too.

2.       Authority comes from God alone, his rule being manifest in his Law, enumerated in the Commandments and the teachings of Jesus, promulgated by those who have been given authority in his Church, whose interest is the people and which is humbly and obediently deferred to by states and individuals

3.       The Teaching of the Church up to Leo XIII has been to suppress error by restricting public exercise of religion and publication of literature, which is not Catholic.

4.       Americanism, which is a self-centered ideal focusing on the supremacy of the American political ideal of plurality and tolerance of all beliefs, is the model for all other nations and the Church, which should be conformed to.

5.       With the change in the Churches Social Teaching, presented in Dignitatis Humanae, the Church conformed to the ideals of Religious Liberty, which was an un-reconcilably deviation from the teaching of previous Popes.

6.       With this apparent contradiction, to which teaching are faithful Catholics to heed? We are to accept to those teaching witch best conform to Scripture, Tradition, and reason.

What does this mean for us exactly? I would say that it is simply a new topic of prayer for us. The focus of our prayer should also include those with positions of authority within our government. The purpose of the prayer should be that all sovereignty should be assigned to God, whom is the authority of all men and states, who’s Law should always be referenced and consulted in any executive or legislative action. This is the only method by which states can properly give service to Christ the King, who is the King of our lives, nature, and the societies that govern.

               

               

               

The Progression of Reason on Homosexuality

The following is a short essay I threw together for one my classes, the theme being the role our government has and should play in the case of so called "gay marriage". There was much more content that I wanted to add to this, but the limit of the paper prevented me from doing so. I hope you enjoy.

The Progression of Reason on Homosexuality

To map out the role in which our Government has played in the battle for gay-rights, is to see a concerning marked transformation. I want to start by defining what one of the roles of government is. One important purpose of a governing body is to promote the common good by enforcing the rule of law. Laws are coined by rationally deliberating on issues that are desirous to people; they are rarely conceived by flippant passion. The law regarding the prohibition of homosexuality can be traced back thousands of years across many cultures and that law has been singularly and definitive prohibited from time remember. Have we been mistaken all this time of the pernicious nature of sodomy?

We begin by looking at Thomas Jefferson, in his Bill of Proportioning Crimes and Punishment; his views on the matter are thus: “Whosever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with a man or woman shall be punished…” It is no mystery that our country has maligned homosexuality from its conception, but the progression of this position is pertinent to understanding its constitutionality in regard to “gay Marriage” (Bill 64). When the 14^th Amendment was passed, all but five of the states in the Union had criminal sodomy laws, 24 states to this day continue to have these laws. There are records from the late nineteenth century up to 1995 of criminal persecution of individuals who participated in sodomy numbering over 200 (Reilly 71). From this, we see little change in the position of our justice system, because they understood something about the nature of marriage and subsequently sexual relations and their purpose. James Wilson’s views on family typify those of our founders, which are thus: “It is the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as for its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, the family must precede every institution of government, which is wise and good.”

Next we come to Bowers v. Hardwick, one of the more recent cases that pertain to sodomy, in which Justice Burger, upholding the constitutionality of an Alabama sodomy law, references William Blackstone, a Judge in England who wrote Commentaries on the Laws of England (O’Connor, Sabato, and Yanus 119). This reference echoes orthodox views of sodomy as a “crime against nature”. This is another clear example of a Justice in recent times (1986) staying the course on traditional sodomy laws. I just want to make it clear, that we have here the Supreme Court upholding the sodomy laws of a state, the justification of which not being based on any statements in the constitution, but on rational common knowledge of the destructive nature of the act.

At this point I want to focus a bit on what exactly are the dangers of sodomy. To do this, we must first consider teleological characteristics of things. Everything has a purpose and when a thing is fulfilling its purpose, you could say that it is acting according to its nature; it is performing an act that is in accordance with its function. Now let’s move to the illustration of the body. An ear’s purpose is for hearing; you may be able to do other things with your ear, e.g. pierce it and place an earring on it, but its main function is hearing. Ornamentation would be a secondary function of the ear, but you can continue to hear noises with it in place. Next you may decide to put a knife in the ear, but this would be damaging despite your intended purpose. As you see, there is a hierarchy of functions, but its main end is for listening. The sexual organs are no different. Genitalia are use for procreation primarily and secondarily micturition. When you start using objects for their unintended purpose, risky consequences may ensue. What are some specific health risks of anal sex? Anal Cancer is one of them, which the risk of acquiring is 4000 percent more than heterosexuals (Daling et al). Next you have HIV, the CDC states that male to male sex results in an increase of acquiring HIV by 44 times. Likewise, 61 percent of people who acquired new onset HIV are gay men. The numbers for syphilis cases among both men and women were in the 70 percent ranges. Now keep in mind too, gay men only make up 2 percent of the entire adult population. These are staggering numbers that cannot be ignored; yet don’t seem to have the attention of current legislatures. There are numerous more confirmed statistics from solid sources including those pro gay, who present startling data of the health risks of gay sex and this does not include the data regarding mental disorders of both the individuals and the children raised by them. These figures indicate a direct correlation of this behavior to mortal diseases.

Getting back on track we come to Lawrence V. Texas. Here we finally see the beginning of the transition in thought, starting with Justice Kennedy. Here, Kennedy deems the restriction of sodomy unconstitutional (O’Connor, Sabato, and Yanus 119). He states that liberty consists of “autonomy of self.” This translated essentially means self rule, which according to Aristotle is the freedom to choose the good habitually and thus forming a virtuous person. I don’t think this is what Kennedy meant; maybe his idea was the freedom to choose the bad regardless of the consequences and without interference of the state. Either way, we know from the research that such activity is grave; therefore, if he meant the autonomy to choose the benign, he is obviously misinformed. He also states: “The fact that the governing majority in a state has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” We finally come to it. Sodomy is here rationalized as a congenial act, whose actions cannot be sanctioned by a state. Sodomy is now on par (according to the Court) with heterosexual intercourse. The question remains however: what, aside from immorality would be reasons for vindicating the longstanding sodomy laws; the court does not seem to know. The answer to this is as we mentioned above: is to protect sex, with its natural procreative end which is its primary purpose.  The continuation of this ignorance can be followed by reviewing contraceptive rulings in Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstaedt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International, in which implied constitutional rights of privacy are invoked from the Bill of Rights and used as immunity for offenders of Natural Law (Davidson et al. 826).

The catalyst for this change in mentality surely had to have had some sources. One of these sources, I presume to be the scientific breakthroughs made in Psychiatry. Up until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) defined Homosexuality as a mental disorder. The removal of this disease from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the APA, (the authoritative manual of mental disorders) ushered in a new found bill of health for all homosexuals. Studies have concluded them sane. Wait a minute; what studies? Oh that’s right, there are none. Come to find out, the editing of this manual was a result of the relentless pressure from outside Homosexual groups at APA meetings and the conflict of interests of Dr. John P. Spiegel, president-elect of the APA and other homosexual psychiatrists groups working inside the APA (81 Words). The change in the DSM wasn’t based on a single scientific study whatsoever. It was the result of oppression by gay activists, the cause of which is not denied by many homosexuals. The new status of homosexuality no longer being a disease follows that it no longer needs to be cured (Davidson 852). With this established, gays can claim that they are “born this way”; therefore, bestowing on them the right of being called a social class, worthy of civil rights.

Lastly, we will look at the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). There are four cases that demonstrate the progressive resistance of the BSA against accepting openly gay Scouts, whose rulings were in favor of BSA core values (Reilly 177). However, these cases were not the only front which gay rights advocates were targeting. They were aiming at a chink in the armor that is vulnerable to many organizations; that is, their financial support.  Pressure was put on many of the big contributors to the BSA, who themselves pulled funding, which in turn was effective in compelling the BSA to cave in.

By chronologically breaking down the history of rulings of the courts, you see an apparent shift in perspective from reason to rationalization. The process of change has taken three faces: first staunch adherence to orthodoxy, then tolerance and finally imposing sodomy as a good. If this “diversity” is not embraced, you will be targeted for discrimination and potentially incriminated against. We see examples of this more and more frequently. Shop owners are being fined for not serving gays, employers and employees are being fired for speaking out, and Religious are being attacked for their traditional views; it seems roles are reversing as this continues to progress.

The framers of the constitution understood that with a republic, a certain responsibility is placed on its citizens; a responsibility of personal virtue. “We the People”, what sort of people are envisaged by the framers when this was written. Montesquieu taught that “there are three essential forms of government, each of which calls for the shaping of a distinct characteristic in those governed: under despotism the characteristic of fear, under monarchies the disposition of honor, but under a republic what is called for is nothing less than the cultivation of virtue.” The framers of the constitution had great respect for is citizens because they understood the endurance of a nation was in their hands. The attempt of separating the verdict of immoral from an act that is inherently disordered is by definition unjust. Therefore, a government which is charged to uphold justice is obliged to uphold the rule of law; which is an ordinance of reason.

Work Cited

“Bill 64.” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia. Monticello, 2012. Web. 5 Aug. 2014.

            <http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/bill-64>.

Daling, J.R., et al. “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer.”

Journal of the American Medical Association. 14 (1982): 247. Print.

Davidson, James, et al. Experience History: Interpreting America’s Past. Vol.2. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.

O’Connor, Karen, Larry J. Sabato, and Alixandra B. Yanus. American Government: Roots and

Reform. 12^th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2014. Print.

Reilly, Robert R. Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing

Everything. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014. Print.

“81 words: The Inside Story of Psychiatric and Homosexuality (Part 1 of 2).” All in the Mind.

Australian Broadcasting Corp. Natl. Radio. 4 Aug. 2007. Transcript. ABC. Web. 1 Aug.

2014. <http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/81-words-the-inside-story-of-psychiatry-and/3246684#transcript>.

Low Voter Turnout in Amerca.

The following is a discussion forum topic from my Political Science class. The topic is voter turn-out in America and we are to opine how and why it is as such. I did not go into great detail as to the moral obligation to vote as Catholics, but this does provide a framework to the idea of our responsibilities as people operating in a society. I hope later to develop this topic with more Catholic flare. Thank you and I hope you enjoy.

"If Americans live in such a great democracy, why do they vote at rates which are among the lowest in the democratic world? Why do other democracies have higher voter turnout? Is the problem psychological? Cultural? Institutional? Assuming that low voter turnout in the U.S. is a problem (an assumption you may wish to challenge), how would you attempt to increase voter turnout? Be specific." (forum topic)

 

The text says that one of the major reason why people do not show up at the polls, is that “they just don’t have the time”. This is an indication of the ignorance of the gravity of this exercise. As humans, we are faced with three problems knowledge, conduct and governance. I will not explicate on the first two for brevity, but the problem of governance is seemingly within our power to influence. Fundamentally, if we have the means of guiding the outcome of elections, we have the capacity to conform the makeup of those passing legislation. I bet if you ask anyone if it mattered who was elected to President, they would without question have a strong opinion on the matter; in fact, I’m reminded of the saying “it is not polite to speak of Religion and Politics” as evidence of this assumption. Why is it not polite, because people are passionate about their politico-philosophies and arguments may ensue. This begs the question: if we are so passionate about our beliefs, why not act on them; lack of motivation perhaps?

What is it that motivates us? Loss and pain is a great motivator for some; money and power for others. Every individual has their own distinct impetus to stimulate them to action. I myself feel very strongly about life. I have a large family and understand the importance of families in society, how they benefit both the society and the individual. Therefore, my awareness of this, urges me to vote and to protect the institution of the family and everything it represents.

This good, as I said, is not simply something that I want; it is something that is integral to the health of the society. Aristotle’s idea that man is by nature a rational and political animal, whose basic unit of society is the family, implies a responsibility that must be realized. We are all born into families, some may be broken, but the traditional family is the ideal paradigm that is the cardinal social unit making up larger units that are necessary for societal groups to flourish. This idea is a component of the larger good in which man has an obligation to pursue; it is a good that is common to all, i.e. a common good. All that being said, it would be against our nature to act against this responsibility.  

So then, what does it mean to be absent at the ballot box? Without question it is a dereliction of duty not to exercise the right and privilege that has been afforded to us. It essentially is a question of right and wrong – a question of ethics. A simple concrete example of this applied ethics would be to vote against an anti-Semite whose goal is the eradication of the Jewish race. You would be morally responsible in this fantastic and regrettably historical example to abstain from taking efforts to prevent their election. Now, not all appointments are of this gravity, but some are and do necessitate action. When these matters are neglected, the fruits of our labor – or lack thereof, are quite clearly seen. Our recompense is leaders who are want of virtue; who lead us down rocky paths.

Why then do we not vote? I say ignorance, both of our purpose in society and the consequences of being delinquent in our obligations. This also begs the question: does it even benefit us to have the ignorant voting? This idea would be hard to gauge, is morally questionable and would deserve thorough treatment in a subsequent work.

As Americans, I believe we have become fat; that is complacent in our privileged lifestyles - comfortable in our security and prosperity; honestly though, America is the only country in which its poor are obese. Most Americans don’t have an experiential knowledge of misfortune and suffering; yet, all one has to do is turn on the boob tube and see the strife taking place in other nations. The Middle East is a conflagration of disorder and conflict, Russia has invaded Ukraine, Israel and Gaza barrage each other daily with ordinance, Iraq is being revolutionized by Islamic fanatic terrorist groups, and the list goes on. Again, if you were to ask anyone in those regions if they were going to vote in the upcoming elections, (if there was one in which they could vote) they may think you crazy or just stupid. Americans have not been faced with these types of scenarios at the same rate and intensity as other nations; therefore, our experiences of them are merely chimerical.

Poor voter turnout in America is a problem of apathy, the eminence of which is not fully grasped. Is the problem of voter turnout psychological, cultural, institutional or due to ignorance? Yes, all of the above. If the incomprehensible debt that our nation has accrued, the rationalization of gay “Marriage” and the sanctioned killing of babies and our elderly are not enough to motivate  Americans to vote, it may seem we are in a darker place than I originally imagined. The only solution to this problem is a piece of pie and coffee; I would vote for that I think.  On a serious note, the text gives an indication of what helps voter turnout, voter turnout... “it is higher among citizens who are white, older, more educated, have higher income, belong to civic organizations, and attend religious services more frequently.”(American Government Roots and Reform Pg.387). Looking back at the three problems humans deal with: Education, Conduct and Governance, we see that education is integral to discovering our true end; without it, we suffer; with it we thrive. “The root of education is bitter, but the fruit is sweet” Aristotle
 

 

 

Whats Your Perspective?

As a father of a large Catholic family, there is always an underlying anxiety about the financial goings on in the household. There always seems to be something that has not been budgeted for, some unexpected expense or desire that one may need or want. This can become a serious problem for many families. It breeds a tension in the household and a topic for argument. There are a couple of solutions to this issue:  The first is to be more flexible in your budget and the second is a change in perspective. There are presented here a couple of problems. The first is financial discipline and the second is an improper focus on what is good.

                In regard to the fiscal responsibility, there are numerous methods of keeping better track of spending and book-keeping. My goal is not to focus much on this aspect, because by finding the solution to the second, the prior problem becomes easier to handle. The second problem or question, “What should be our outlook in regard to money and having enough of it?” is an important one, because I find no matter how often I read or hear in a sermon the idea of “spiritual poverty”, I seem over time, to frequently become distracted and soon forget the ever important concept of spiritual poverty. Spiritual poverty is an idea of dependence on God for everything. I have also heard it presented, regardless of the quantity of money you poses, you should always seek the lesser in degree and fewer in quantity of everything you acquire. This topic would not be complete unless we reference our Lord in the Beatitudes, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom.”

I believe we can all agree that most people stress about money; it always come down to the idea or belief that we just don’t have enough of it. I want to pose another question to you:  What would you do if you were very wealthy? I know the term wealthy is relative, but I mean, what if you had an amount equal to say… Bill Gates?  What would you do with that money that you could not do now? Take some time to really think about it. In my answers, I mentioned a few things about travel, giving to the poor, and of course a few selfish interests. Next, take those things or activities and scale them down a bit and ask yourself, is there a way I can have these things, but in a modest manner? I bet you would find that most of the things you mentioned can be done at a degree much more simple than before. Lastly, take those items after you had given them a touch of humility and tell me, are they any less meaningful after you have pared them down?

When we have more and do more, it isn’t hard to start expecting that we need to maintain that degree of living. Let us take a new car for example. If I were to go out and buy a new passenger van that my wife and I have been wanting, there are obviously a number of things that come with that new vehicle: a car payment, more insurance, gas expenses etc.  In a few years time, that car would have many miles accumulated and because we had purchased a new one, we are spoiled to that comfort. Consequently, when the time comes to replace that one, a precedence has been set. We have just developed a standard of living that may or may not be realistic or wise. Another example like this is a new electronic device. With this you have: the cost of the device, the monthly expense for Internet and also any accessories to protect it. In a year’s time that device has become slow and out of date and must now be replaced with a new and possibly more expensive version. This concept is applicable to all things in life, whether they are fancy new clothes, shoes, tools, etc; the list is infinite. You can easily see that with increased goods and increased quality, our standards increase and can become idolatrous if not checked; we become slaves to our goods in a sense. I bet we can all remember a time when we got in a little over our heads financially; I can remember more than just a few. This is why it is important to teach our children at a very young age the concepts of mortification and spiritual poverty. Practically speaking, if your child has some money and wants to purchase something, try to convince them to either do without it or choose the lesser option as a mortification. The concept will stick with them and much fruit will be born from this exercise.

Epicurus, a philosopher in the fourth century B.C. is known for his idea on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. This is where we get the term epicurean; which is one who seeks the finer things in life.  By reading this you may think that he sought after luxuriant things and lived the high life, this is actually not at all what he taught. His concept of pleasure wasn’t exactly what you think. By pleasure, he means the good and simple things; not some hedonistic approach to life. This term's meaning has been twisted over the centuries. He advocated a life that was simple and moderate; not too focused on any particular thing, especially food, sex or politics. As you can see, this idea goes pretty far back. It is easy to sometimes think that all our Christian ideas are novel; novel in the sense that they started in Christianity. I have recently been impressed to learn that many jewels of wisdom have been gleaned from the early philosophers and have been adopted by our beloved Faith.

To put a bow on this, I go back to the idea of perspective. What do I perceive to be good for me? What will produce the least amount of anxiety for my life? If we, as often as we can remember consider the teaching of poverty of spirit and seeking the simple and good, we will be able to eliminate a great deal of anxiety and stress about money in our lives. My recommendation to you is to get together with a friend, eat a sandwich, drink some home-brew and maybe go for a walk.  This is a modest replacement for going out to a nice restaurant, spending money on food you don’t need and time dealing with people you normally wouldn’t have to. Use your imagination; I’m in the process of redeveloping mine.

Pax

"Basic Idea" of the Protestant Reformation

I am currently taking a course in Political Science that is currently talking about the original colonization in the New World. As I was reading some of the notes from the Pearson company to supplement the text I read a statement that was not entirely accurate and I felt it merited a critique. I posted this response on the course discussion forum to promote some dialogue. This is the gist of the post:

The statement,"The Protestant Reformation was based on the idea that individuals should be able to talk to God without going through a priest.", which is found in the notes, is inaccurate.
The Catholic church has never taught that a priest is required for a Christian to "talk to God". It does teach and encourage all Catholic Christians to pray directly to God about and for everything. However, the Church does have a Magisterium/College of Bishops who deliberate on issues of faith and morals and safeguards the Catholic Faith from unorthodox and unqualified interpretations of Scripture and Tradition. The "basic idea" of protestantism is rejection of authority, stemming from abuses i.e. selling of indulgences. This rejection of authority, lead to disunity, a branching off of Luther and his followers, which resulted in further sects branching off eventually causing 33,000 different protestant denominations, most of which claim to be Christs true Church.
This original statement is a common misunderstanding of the concept of apostolic authority. The basic idea was based on rejection and opposition of the magisterial authority due to abuses by the Church at the time. The subsequent objections of specific traditions and Dogmas of the Catholic faith, were only a result of this fundamental opposition of authority by Luther.
The common protestant objection of a mediator between God and Man in relation to certain Liturgical Sacraments i.e. confession, didn't develop until later. With this in mind, it doesn't follow and seems ironic that a group of people opposed to mediation would revert to system of government that utilizes representatives to mediate for them as its new model of governance.
A critique would not be complete without a solution, therefore I suggest changing the statement to something more accurate; something like, "The Protestant Reformation was based on the idea that reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Henry VIII challenged papal authority and questioned the Catholic Church's ability to define Christian practice."(http://www.history.com/topics/reformation).


I am not opposed to an indirect democracy, but I felt it pertinent to point out the inconsistency of the type of government chosen by a primarily Protestant America who claims to be opposed to the idea of mediators (presented in the text notes from the Pearson Co.) and then proceed to form a governance based on this concept. I know there is more to this and I may be comparing apples to oranges; however, they are not completely disassociated since our governments are founded my Natural Law, which of course has its origination in God.