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.

Our Homeschooling Program

Last week I posted on why home-schooling is one of the better choices for Catholic families and today I wanted to get a little more in depth with what this looks like practically. When we first started homes schooling, I have to admit it was a challenge to decide how we were going to apply this. There were many different companies to choose from with many different methods. There are also some big names in home schooling curriculum that have a ton of products that can get pretty expensive. Cost was also a major factor for us, due to being a single income household with 4 kids at the time. That narrows things down a bit, however we also wanted to make sure we were providing most effective product for our children.

I started with the home-schooling group at our parish. The mothers there were very informative and helpful in demonstrating options for us. It seems most people stuck with the big companies, specifically Seton and Mother of Divine Grace. There may be other large companies who offer programs, but these were the names that kept popping up. I would absolutely suggest anyone who is starting out with home-schooling to join the local h.s. groups to get good advice and recommendations. A lot of times, the families are experienced and can really make the transition easier.
At the time we started, I absolutely knew what I didn't want, and that was the common public school method/curriculum; we all know how poor public schools are in educating children in America. On the other hand, I have mixed thoughts on this. I also believe that many public school teachers do the best they can with what they have. Many time the fault lies on the parents and sometimes on the children themselves. The point being, there are many circumstances that play into how well a child is educated and I don't want to point the finger solely at public school.
Based on what I have experienced myself in public school and the inside information I received from my spouse(who at the time was teaching in a public school), that both the environment and the method public schools taught was ineffective. Therefore, picking a home-schooling curriculum that resembled public school seemed asinine. The interesting thing is, a lot of Catholic programs, curriculum and time lines are completely identical to public schools. This seems completely erroneous to think you will get better results with your children, when your giving them the same product that society is giving them. So whats the answer? The answer is a method that is proven by our Catholic Tradition and that is the Classical Method.
The Classical method is exactly what the names implies and that is the Classics. Children today are no longer steeped in the time tested and proven works of the great thinkers of time past. The same people who's works have lasted for hundreds of years and are still presented in good Catholic universities and sparingly in public ones. These works present Ideas, not random facts that kids must memorize for a standardized test. Ideas, but also morals. When a child reads the Grimm's and Anderson's fairy tales, they gain knowledge of right and wrong. The image of love between a man and woman are etched in their little brains and their vocabulary flourishes; that is if the proper translation is read to them. I mention proper translations, because we don't want the hard words removed from these beautiful stories. How else will they be able to properly articulate their own ideas if they haven't the tools to do so? Of coarse after the grammar stage of learning they will advance from the fairly tales to more mature level of literature, but not until the imagination has been properly nourished. Many of us today are suffering from a disease of underdeveloped imaginations.
Unless your blind, you may not have noticed, that schools are moving in a direction that is almost completely of the Natural Sciences. Technology and Science are inundating the course catalogs of schools. Science is a wonderful thing and nobody can argue the great advancements we have made. But when you sacrifice Christian culture for the next gadget, what you get is a society that is no longer concerned with Natural Law, Virtue and ultimately Holiness. So, a classical education is paramount in fostering both a strong intellect, but also a moral compass, which this world so desperately needs today.
Lets look now at how this is applied to the student at home. We do a hybrid curriculum which consists of both Mother of Divine grace and The Classical Christian Homeschooling method touched on in his books The Death of Christian Culture and The Restoration of Christian Culture. His books are not a homeschooling guide, but do provide a springboard to the idea of what should be taught. He also provides a list of  the "1000 Good Books" that children should read to prepare themselves for the "Great Books" of Adler. The Mother of D.G. catalog is simply found by googling them. We purchase their syllabi and pick and choose what we want to use out of them.
My children are all under the age of 7, so we have not yet ventured from the grammar stage, but one thing I will say, is that you should NEVER stress as to how far ahead or behind your child is in comparison to what some curriculum says your child needs to be at. Every child is different and pushing them when they are not ready to advance does more harm than good. Here is an excerpt from Senior that describes the problem with "advanced placement'' and pushing our children to move too quickly.
"A Chinese once criticized American education by saying, "You are always pulling on the flower to make it grow faster."  and At Princeton, under Dean Root, the students in the four-year college normally took five courses per year; the exceptionally bright ones were permitted to take four, on the grounds that for them it was really worthwhile to go slow. An education is not an annoying impediment to research or business, but a good in itself, indispensable to the development of the qualified person."
Do not worry about meeting some sort of imaginary deadline with your child. The slower the better and I would be willing to bet that he or she will be exactly where they need to be come time for college.
Lastly, I would highly recommend you just pick up a good book, hopefully one from seniors list and just read it to your children. Keep doing this until they can take off on their own, and then gently guide them toward sainthood. Remember, our goal is to raise Saints, not for them necessarily to become scholars. However, with Gods grace and our obedience, they may become both. 

The Bookshelf "The Medal of St. Benedict" Gueranger

So my most recent book binding project is "The Medal of St. Benedict". This was an interesting bind, because I used chromium tanned leather. This leather is primarily used in clothing and furniture. Normal book binding leather is tanned with natural ingredients and is called vegetable tanned. The difference is primarily in the feel and how the leather reacts to tooling and titling. I put a label on the spine made from veg. tanned leather for this very reason. 

The papers I used on this piece are again my own design. It is a pebbled marbling with a Spanish wave effect. The text block was sewn on bands and then rounded and backed in the traditional fashion. 

For the headbands, I used the same marbled paper wrapped on a piece of mizuhiki cord. I like this method, because its easy and it looks good. Its definitely not as strong and elegant as a sewn band, but its nice. 

Thats it for this one, but I did want to mention, I finished reading "The Life of St. Lydwine of Schiedam" and it was very good. I got a lot of spiritual fruit from it and I hope to start writing reviews on the books I bind and read, instead of just showcasing my bindings. 

Pax Tecum