Ten Areas of Deception of Catholics Part IV

I have now dealt with five of the "Ten Areas of Deception" in my previous three posts: Part I, dealt with the first 2 "deceptions", Part II dealt with the third "deception, followed by Part III dealt with some of the anonymous Protestant's problems with Mary and a couple of Marian sacramentals: the Rosary and the Brown Scapular.

*****************Part IV Begins here:
On to the next statements.
Next the anonymous author of the tract said:

[6] Catholics think the sacraments are a means of them receiving grace needed for salvation.

I would just like to preface my statements under this so-called "deception", that I do not believe any of his statements are indeed deceptions. However, Catholics do think the Sacraments are a means of receiving grace. Why? Because every single one of the Sacraments was instituted by Jesus Christ to give grace.

1) BAPTISM
This Sacrament was instituted by Christ and is necessary to be "born again" in "water and the spirit."

Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15, 16)

Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit." (John 3:5, 6)

The Catholic believes that the commands of Jesus are "the standard of Christian conduct." (Notes for Matt. 28:20) Jesus commanded the apostles to Baptize with His power. He gave them the power and the command to baptize. All Christians should take that seriously.

St. Peter took this commandment very seriously:

Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2: 38,39)

Baptism was an important command of Our Lord Jesus to all Christians. It was instituted in the Church at the very beginning.

"She and her household had been baptized" (Acts 16:15)

"Then he and all his family were baptized at once." (Acts 16:33)

"Crispus, the synagogue official, came to believe in the Lord along with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard believed and were baptized." (Acts 18:8)

Whole households/families were baptized. This was to make them Christians; the entire family, men, women, children, were baptized as Jesus had commanded.

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit." (I Cor. 12:13)

We were meant to be one in this baptism; it was both saving and unifying.

"Who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him." (I Peter 3:20-22)

Baptism saves. Those who actually study scripture, let alone Christian history will understand that. What else can be said about it? Why do some who call themselves Christians deny its value in the plan of salvation? If you are not baptized according to Jesus Christ's word, are you "saved?" In my opinion, you would be hard pressed to say "yes" if you believe in Scripture.

2) CONFIRMATION
This Sacrament completes Baptism with a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit and strengthens the Christian for their mission. This happened at Pentecost; the Holy Spirit came down on the apostles  and, by the way, they went out and eventually baptized about 3,000 people that day. 

"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you." (John 14:16, 17)

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit. It was a gift of the Spirit from the Father and the Son (or through the Son as the Orthodox would put it).  And, the apostles received the Holy Spirit 10 days after the Ascension of Jesus Christ.

And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. (Acts 2:3)

The early Christians received charismatic gifts or signs that the Holy Spirit was present. For instance, the apostles spoke in tongues--the languages of the people waiting to hear them speak. The laying on of hands was the passing on of the Holy Spirit by the apostles, which is the Sacrament of Confirmation.

"Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit." (Acts 8:17)

"And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied." (Acts 19: 6)

This laying on of hands is how the Holy Spirit was given to each successive generations of Christians. Today, the bishop lays his hands on the Confirmation candidates and they receive the renewing and strengthening of the Holy Spirit as promised us by Jesus Christ Himself.

3) EUCHARIST
What more is there to say about the Eucharist; Christ said it all. We, Catholics, believe what He said. It has been explained over and over and over by Catholic apologists since the beginning of the Church.

It is obvious to us that this Sacrament was instituted by Christ. The earliest account of the Sacrament in the Church is from the first letter of Paul to the Church at Corinth (I Corinthians) which scholars believe was written before the Gospel account.

"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was handed over, took bread, and, after He had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is My body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

(I Cor. 11:23-29)

Here we see how much St. Paul believes in the truth of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. If one does not discern the body and blood of the Lord, one brings judgment on oneself. How could a symbol bring judgment on anyone? There is no equivocation on this in Paul's account of the Eucharist and how it was passed down to him, and how he was passed it down to the church in Corinth.

But beyond St. Paul's account of the Tradition of passing down the Eucharist and its form, we see how Christ instituted this Himself, in His own words, witnessed by St. Matthew, one of His chosen.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to His disciples said, “Take and eat; this is My body.” Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.” (Matthew 26:26-29)

This is a straight forward command by Jesus (which "should be the standard of Christian conduct") "This is My Body" He did not say "This is a symbol of My body." He said, "This IS My Body." For Catholics, it is just that simple--He said it; we believe it. He also said the wine was "My blood of the covenant..." He did not say it was a symbol of His blood; He said it WAS His blood. For Catholics, it is just that simple--He said it; we believe it. (Yes, I repeated that on purpose.)

We also believe that John chapter six tells us how He explained the what the Eucharist would mean to His apostles before the Last Supper; what it means to us now.

So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen [me], you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me and this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”

The Jews murmured about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know His father and mother? Then how can He say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all by taught by God.' Everyone who listens to My Father and learns from Him comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the Bread of Life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from Heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the Living Bread that came down from Heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world."

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [His] flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent Me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will have life because of Me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:32-58)

Here the true Bible-believers, Catholics, believe Jesus and take Him at His word. See how many times He says EAT and DRINK, which one must do to have life. We take His explanation of Himself, the Bread from Heaven, at His word.

Then many of His disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it? (John 6:60)

If the disciples (not the 12 apostles) thought that He was speaking symbolically, why would they have a problem with it? It is obvious to those who have an open mind and heart that they were having a hard time accepting what He said because they took His words literally. In ancient times, telling the people to eat His flesh symbolically, would be the equivalent of someone saying "Bite me" today. It would have been an insult and the disciples could not imagine He was insulting them; He must therefore, have meant it literally.

The passage goes on:

Since Jesus knew that His disciples were murmuring about this, He said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?  It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” (John 6:61-65)

He asked them, as many Catholics asked Protestants, "Does this shock you?" What would be shocking if He was speaking symbolically? It would be insulting, as I stated previously, but it would not be shocking. Some Protestants like to explain it away by stating that Jesus said that the flesh is of no avail. Do Protestants really believe JESUS'S FLESH is of no avail? Then why in the world would one believe that Jesus was the savior of the world? If HIS FLESH is of no avail then what was the point of His dying on the cross? There would be no point. When He says flesh is of no avail, He is talking about the world versus the spirit. The words that he spoke which are "spirit and life" are His words that HE is the Bread from Heaven, that if we do not EAT His Flesh (bread) and DRINK His blood (wine) we cannot have LIFE. We believe Him.

We believe Jesus Christ at His word and believe, upon penalty of judgment, that He gave us His Flesh and His blood to consume; It is that which gives us eternal life. And, yes, the old accusation of cannibalism is a very old one. The early church had been accused of killing babies and eating them at their ceremonies. Not only was it not true then, it is not true today. And, no, the Body and Blood of Christ do not go through our digestive system to be excreted--one of the nastiest accusations a Protestant said on CDF once. Just as some nutrients are absorbed in the mouth before going to the stomach, so the Presence and Spirit of Jesus Christ becomes part of our souls before we even swallow the bread and wine. We don't excrete Christ; we become one with Him in Spirit and Truth.

The last statement under this "deception" says,

Such false teaching has also placed the Catholic in the mind set of thinking he must remain in the Catholic system to go to Penance and get communion (Holy Eucharist), which they also think should be worshiped as God.

i) It is not false teaching; it is Christ's teaching.
ii) The Catholic Church is not a "system"; it is the Body of Christ.
iii) I will touch on Penance next.
iv) Think about this: IF one believes that the Real Presence of Jesus is in the Bread, and IF one believes that means that it has transubstantiated (changed substance) into Jesus' real Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, why wouldn't one worship Jesus in the flesh? It only makes common sense. We worship Christ in the Flesh--not a piece of bread; as it is no longer bread but Jesus.

4) PENANCE

"I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to His apostles. In the above verse, He is speaking to St. Peter. He gave St. Peter the authority to forgive or not forgive.  What is forgiven on Earth is forgiven in Heaven.

In a different incidence after the Resurrection, Jesus Christ gave this power to all the apostles:

[Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so I send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”  (John 20: 21-23)

Here He gave an even more clear command. The apostles were sent out by Him as the Father had sent Him. He breathed the Holy Spirit on them and gave them a clear statement that they were to have the power to forgive sins. It is as clear as a blue sky.

And for the information of the Protestant, the priest is a physical representative of Jesus Christ in the confessional. There is nothing more comforting the actually hearing the words, "You are forgiven." It is relieving to hear it out loud. The Lord gave us five senses, hearing being one of them, and they enhance our spiritual experience in the church.

5) ANOINTING OF THE SICK

Christ and late His apostles healed the sick. Christ even brought people back from the dead.

People brought to Him all those who were sick and begged Him that they might touch only the tassel on His cloak, and as many as touched it were healed. (Matthew 14:35b-36)

"They drove out many demons, and they anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them. (Mark 6:13)


The tradition of anointing the sick is clear in this passage:

"Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint [him] with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven." (James 5:14-15)

The Catechism explains this Tradition very well:

1511 The Church believes and confesses that among the seven sacraments there is one especially intended to strengthen those who are being tried by illness, the Anointing of the Sick:

This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament. It is alluded to indeed by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord.¹²⁵  125 Council Of Trent (1551): DS 1695; cf. Mk 6:13; Jas 5:14-15.125 Council Of Trent (1551): DS 1695; cf. Mk 6:13; Jas 5:14-15.

1512 From ancient times in the liturgical traditions of both East and West, we have testimonies to the practice of anointings of the sick with blessed oil. Over the centuries the Anointing of the Sick was conferred more and more exclusively on those at the point of death. Because of this it received the name "Extreme Unction." Notwithstanding this evolution the liturgy has never failed to beg the Lord that the sick person may recover his health if it would be conducive to his salvation.¹²⁶  126 Cf. Council Of Trent (1551): DS 1696.

1513 The Apostolic Constitution Sacram unctionem infirmorum,¹²⁷ following upon the Second Vatican Council,¹²⁸ established that henceforth, in the Roman Rite, the following be observed: 127 Paul VI, apostolic constitution, Sacram unctionem infirmorum, November 30, 1972.
128 Cf. SC 73.

The sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is given to those who are seriously ill by anointing them on the forehead and hands with duly blessed oil - pressed from olives or from other plants - saying, only once: "Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up."¹²⁹  129 Cf. CIC, Can. 847 § 1.123 Jas 5:14-15.

It may help healing or it may prepare the sick for death, note that sins are forgiven in this Sacrament. St. James outlines the healing Sacrament clearly. Again, Catholics take this Scriptural Tradition literally. Asking the Lord for healing certainly is not a "deception".

6) HOLY ORDERS

The threefold division of sacred ministers (bishops, priests and deacons)  prefigured in the Old Law (high priest, priests, Levites) is clearly revealed in Scripture. Yet, most so-called "bible-believing" Protestant churches do not have them. (Rev. Donovan, EWTN contributor)

The Sacrament was pre-figured in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the Church.

So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. (Acts 6:3-6)

Here we see the twelve in a dilemma; they were too busy and needed men to help them. So they chose seven men to help with "serv[ing] at table", in other words the Eucharist, and laid hands on them and prayed over them. Those chosen became priests anointed by the bishops (apostles).

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13:2-3)

Here is another incident of the laying on of hands and sending. Here Barnabas and Saul are made priests to help in the work at Antioch.

And, the tradition of celibate priests came from the fact that they gave their whole lives to Christ and His Kingdom. It is also implicit in Scripture:

 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”                  (Matt. 19:10-12)

Here are other Scriptures describing the qualifications of the bishops (and priests) and deacons, and the use of this gift of the laying on of hands: 1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-9; 1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 4:16; 1 Tim. 5:17-19; 1 Tim. 5:22.

7) MATRIMONY

 Marriage is, as St. Paul states, a mystery (mysterion).  The Latin word used to translate mysterion is "sacramentum". The sacraments are mysteries (as Eastern Christians still call them), for  one thing is visible and something else is known by faith. By faith, matrimony is a sign of Christ and the Church, as well as a special calling. Mt. 19:10-11; Eph. 5:31-32.

 “For this reason a man shall leave [his] father and [his] mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband. (Eph. 5:31-33;  Paul is quoting Jesus as testified to  in Matt. 19:5 and Mark 10:7,8)

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19
These definitions and Scripture lists are from an EWTN article written by Rev. Colin Donovan called Sacraments in Scripture.

The anonymous author also said,

Because Catholics have been taught this way, they are trusting in the sacraments for salvation instead of the Lord Jesus as the Bible declares. 

On the contrary, we don't "trust in the sacraments for salvation instead of the Lord Jesus Christ." Each and every one of the Sacraments was instituted by Christ and attested to in the Scriptures. In obedience to our Lord, we depend on Him for our salvation. One of the things I don't understand about supposed "Bible-believing Christians" is that they don't actually obey Christ's commands in the Bible, ie, "Go into all nations...baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." In "trusting" in the Sacraments we are trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ironically, the author does not cite a lick of Scripture in his condemnation of Catholicism here.) The dependence on the Sacraments is not a "deception"; his is a false premise.

[7] Catholics confess their sins to a priest instead of to God.

Indeed Catholics do not confess their sins to a priest instead of to God. Confession in the Sacrament is confessing to God. This, again, is a false premise.  He (the anonymous author) said,

 "We can go directly to God, without a priest or Mary and get forgiven, if we go in repentance, sincerity and humility" (Luke 18:13,14)

This statement, to me, would seem to be the opposite of humility. Yes, we can "go directly to God" but we can also use the means of Confession He instituted. (See discussion above on the Sacraments).

And, I am not sure what he is trying to emphasize by citing the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. All who come to the Sacrament of Confession come in humility. One who is not humble and sincerely sorry is not, I suspect, going to go any where near the confessional, anyway.

I would counter his statement with these:

If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.        (James 5:15b,16)

Paul believes he was given the "ministry of reconciliation".

And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. (2 Cor. 5:18,19)

Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ.  2 Cor 2:10

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."⁴² The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."⁴³  42 2 Cor 5:18. 43 2 Cor 5:20. CCC 1442

Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."⁵⁴ 54 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1680 (ND 1626); cf. Ex 20:17; Mt 5:28.

When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."⁵⁵  55 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1680 (ND 1626); cf. St. Jerome, In Eccl. 10,11:PL 23:1096.  CCC 1456

Yes, we can go directly to God, but we can also go to the priest. He stands in the place of Jesus in the Sacraments, especially confession. Jesus is saying, "Your sins are forgiven you." It is powerful to hear those words.

Next,

[8]  Catholics who read and believe the Fatima Visions are dangerously thinking that Mary is our refuge and the way that will lead them to God.
[9] Many Catholics are just hoping to enter Purgatory and there get purged of their sins to afterwards go to Heaven.
[10] Catholics have been lethally misinformed about how to show their love for the Lord Jesus.

The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony

After watching a program on EWTN, I decided to rewatch and take some notes to share: 

Symbolon:  Living the Faith

Holy Matrimony

In the Rite of Marriage, the priest asks the couple three questions that shed much light on what marriage is really all about…

1.       Have you come here freely?  And without reservation to give yourselves in marriage?

2.       Will honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?

3.       Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and His Church?

Marriage is meant to be a free choice of each person.  It is meant to be a total giving of ones self, holding nothing back.  Love which is meant to be faithful all throughout ones life.  And, it is meant to be a love which is fruitful, goes outward and willingly accepts children as a blessing from God.  But to live a marriage that is free, total and faithful is not easy; we need God’s help, we need His Grace in the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Marriage is a Sacrament

                Marriage is a great mystery, a sacrament or sign of Christ’s love.  Eph. 5:32  Christ’s love, as well as “Married Love” is Free, Total, Faithful and Fruitful.  We can see these for signs in the marriage ceremony itself.  The priest asks the three questions of consent (see above) and these questions are not only present on the wedding day, be every day of married life.

                Why do we number marriage among the seven sacraments of the Church?  Whenever we take upon an office, and marriage is an office of a kind of service in the Church, God gives us a special grace in order to take on that office well and in this case it is to offer to love one other person in the same way that Christ loves His Church.  Each one is Christ to the other in the Sacrament of Matrimony.  It is extremely difficult, especially in this day and age, to live the life of matrimony – and Christ understands that and gives to us this special grace to live not in just a natural mode, but a supernatural mode which really makes us capable of loving others as Christ loves us.  Like in the Wedding at Cana, that couple did everything they thought was necessary – and still came up short, but Christ was there!  Jesus did not just give them the bare minimum to get by, but gave to them gallons and gallons of the best wine possible.  God does not give just enough to get by, but enough to make your marriage rich and powerful.

Marriage should reflect Christ’s union with the Church

                The first grace of matrimony is what we call the bond and this comes to be from the sacred promises the spouses make to one another.  As the word “bond” suggests, it binds the two together in a permanent relationship, like Christ to His Church.  So, strictly speaking, it isn’t that the Church doesn’t allow for divorce, but that the Church believes that divorce is impossible.  This bond that is put together by God cannot be broken by any human power and that is why we say when we marry, “till death do us part.”

Marriage is indissoluble – it’s a life-long commitment.

                Why can’t marriage just be a contract between a man and woman?  What would that promise sound like?  “I promise to stay with you in good times, in health and in wealth – until something better comes along.”  There would be nobody crying, there’s nothing beautiful about that, this isn’t what our hearts long for.  You would not be marrying a person, you would be marrying your own selfishness, you’re just marrying your own desires.  Instead of being a true covenant – it’s just an exchange of goods and services and you can just imagine the insecurity that would build in a relationship.  “Is my husband going to stay with me?”  “Do I need to stay thin enough for him to stay around?”  Then there’s the insecurity this would breed in the hearts of the children, “I don’t know if Dad is in this for the long run or not.”  In the end, it’s not a total gift of one’s self, it’s just a partial loan.  If marriage is supposed to be, as St. Paul said, a great sign of Christ’s love for the Church, then what does this say of Christ’s love for the Church?  You know, “I will be with you until the end of the age, or maybe I’ll stick around or maybe I won’t?”  This isn’t really the Vatican imposing her doctrines upon us, it is it is the longing of the human heart; every love longs to be eternal.  “I will love you, and no other,” this is what the human heart longs for, a love which reflects the divine.

Annulments

                You may have heard the term “annulments” in the Church, and it is a term which is greatly misunderstood.  It sounds as if the Church is making null that which would have otherwise been a valid marriage.  The proper term is “a declaration of nullity.”  This comes at the end of a long process in a court called a tribunal in which those engaged in the process of inquiry find that no marriage ever took place.  So, an annulment is not a Catholic divorce, it is a finding that no marriage ever took place in the first place and so there is nothing to divorce.

                Divorce is a legal term whereby a state or the government is dissolving a legitimate, valid, legal marriage.  An annulment is something completely different, it is saying that would appear to be a valid sacramental union between two people was not valid and there never was a real union to begin with.  How can that be?  How can two people walk into a church as singles, perform the ceremony and walk out as singles?  What could invalidate that union?  Well, let’s say the man is forcing the woman to marry him, or let’s say the woman is being significantly deceitful – like saying “I have a huge credit card debt” or “I have a boyfriend, and I don’t want to tell my potential husband because that could really ruin the wedding day.”  Obviously, these are going to be impediments to a valid sacramental union and so upon deep investigation and prayerful consideration, the Church will look back at that wedding day and if it was a valid marriage.  If it was, then the Church will say “What God has put together, let no man separate.”  These are the words of Christ, it is not the imposition of the Vatican upon us.  When Christ told the Apostles, “When you marry a wife, divorce her and marry someone else, you commit adultery.”  The disciples had a hard time with this!  They said, “If that’s the case, then it’s better not to get married.  If I can’t get divorced, then what’s the point of getting married in the first place?”  It speaks to the hardness of heart that Christ was trying to redeem in the first place.

                For making a marriage, consent is required.  One has to be free, not forced (feel fear) whether internally or externally.   Externally, one may desire to marry another person but if he or she is married to someone else, that is an external impediment to making that choice with this person.  The free choice to marry also has to be an informed choice.  Recall that marriage is to be free, total, faithful and fruitful.  So if, for some reason, one directly wills against what marriage is – perhaps one decides “I am not going to permit fruitfulness, that I don’t want to have children,” or perhaps one directly wills against the permanence of marriage in that “I’ll marry for a while, divorce and then marry someone else later,” in that case, you’re not really consenting to what marriage is and if you’re not consenting to what marriage really is – then you’re not really marrying.

Who can enter into a Sacramental Marriage?

      Two people who are:

• Baptised
• Opposite sex
• Free internally (they really choose this person to be their spouse)
• Free externally (not finding themselves in circumstances which make them unable to marry this particular person).

Full episodes available at:  http://www.symboloncatholic.org – though I did not find this one.  I watched this one on EWTN.

Another video, this one from Ascension Press:

 

Discrimination on Moral Grounds?

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I have a friend who has asked me about my position on homosexuality in specific situations going on in society today.  He is asking for a "Catholic" response, and I said I would oblige.  I've also invited co-bloggers, cathmom5 and Nathan to add to this article and I have posted the same or similar questions to a group of Catholic friends and will include some of their comments too.  For the most part, the responses have been written without pre-reading what others have to say.  This article/blog has become truly a group project, and I invite those reading along to add their comments as well in the combox section.

First question:  On Dec. 20, 2013 Uganda passed a law criminalizing homosexuality.  Persons found guilty of homosexuality could be sentenced to life in prison (which previously it was a death sentence, they dropped that provision before passing the law).  Is it right for a country to make it a criminal offense (with a life sentence) for someone's choice in sexuality?

Scott's response:  Well, first off does a country have the "right" to set its own laws?  Yes.  Now, when those laws may impinge upon the human rights of their citizens, is it our responsibility to speak out?  I would say yes to that too.  So, to directly answer the first question, I do not believe it is "right" for a country to criminalize homosexuality.  At the same time, I reiterate my (already known) position - that homosexual acts are "wrong" and considered an abomination to our Lord.  In my opinion such morality should not be subjected to civil law, it is covered in divine law.  For those who do not share our Judeo-Christian belief system is it "right" to force our morality upon them?  I would say "No."

CathMom5's response:  No, I do not believe it is "right" for a country to make homosexuality a criminal offense; but I agree that we cannot control the legislature or laws of other countries.  In light of the Christian tradition, every person is made in the image of God and deserves to be treated with respect.  While I believe that the homosexual act is against God's law also, I don't believe that someone should spend the rest of their life in jail (let alone lose their life) for it.  We, America, Christians, etc.,  have no business in foreign laws; however, we should speak out when human rights and human dignity are violated.  We cannot force them to change their laws but we can speak out against such laws that strip humans of their dignity.

Nathan’s answer to the first question:
Although countries have a right to make their own laws, as any sovereign country has, I personally disagree with these Uganda laws and as a country built on freedom I agree on its population to lobby their government to change those particular laws. 

In case you didn’t know, the Catholic Church actively lobbied the Uganda government against instituting these laws ever since they declared its intentions about this proposed law.  A Wikileaks headline tells us that a U.S. diplomatic cable dated December 15, 2009, reveals that the U.S. Embassy to the Vatican lobbied the Catholic church to oppose the proposed Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill.  According to the cable:

Embassy Vatican has actively lobbied Holy See officials to take a stand against pending legislation in Uganda that would criminalize homosexuality and in extreme cases, even punish it with death (reftel). On December 11, after the Ambassador raised USG (U.S. Government) concerns, Cardinal Antonelli Ennio, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, reaffirmed the Church’s position that legal approaches to homosexuality are inappropriate. Antonelli admitted that he had not followed the Uganda controversy closely, but agreed that Catholic bishops there or anywhere should not/not support the criminalization of homosexuality. The Ambassador urged the Cardinal to make sure bishops in Uganda understood this.

And so we can see that not only do the US representatives of the Church but also the Vatican as well agreed that these laws should not be instituted because we can read later on in that same cable:

…The Vatican likely will not want bishops in Uganda to support the criminalization of homosexuality, so Embassy efforts may well translate into Vatican officials communicating with bishops in Uganda to reaffirm the Church teaching that homosexuality is a personal moral decision, which should not be penalized in any way by judicial authorities. The Vatican, however, likely will shy away from instructing the bishops directly to denounce the bill, as bishops everywhere are given a lot of leeway in deciding how to conduct pastoral work in their own dioceses.

On December 10, 2009, the Vatican confirmed this stand when it released a statement which opposed “all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons,” particularly “the murder and abuse of homosexual persons are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is perpetrated by the State.” The statement didn’t reference Uganda by name, but that last statement was taken as an oblique reference to the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Shortly before Christmas Day that year, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Uganda, Cyprian Lwanga, denounced the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill in his annual Christmas message from Rubaga Cathedral. That message was broadcast over several Ugandan television channels.

These responses make sense since they are perfectly aligned with official Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality.  Here is a copy/paste from our official teachings of the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church on how we as Christians are to treat those with same-sex attraction:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Responses from other friends: 
"F" wrote:  I think the Uganda situation is indicative of what's wrong with our country. The people in any society have the right to decide for themselves what their society should stand for and what it will reject. Where the issues concerning homosexuality are put to the voters in our country, the homosexual agenda usually loses, which is why they go to the courts and legislatures.  Uganda and other African countries do not want homosexuality polluting their society, so they pass laws insuring it won't. I see nothing wrong with that.

And before anyone says homosexuality in itself is no sin, just remember what happens when you let the camel get its nose under your tent flap.

"A" wrote:   My personal view is that this law is on the same level as the repressive laws in the Islamic theocracies, those of pagan Rome and now of many other places.
Even after reading F's reply, I still would argue that the civil authorities - and that is who makes these laws and pretends to grant special rights  - whether in agreement or opposition to Divine Natural law - has no authority to do so.
IMO, civil authority is limited to control and regulate the safety and security of its citizens.  In all instances and matters where civil institutions have both authority and the duty to legislate the civil laws must coincide with natural and Divine laws.
Civil authorities may have the power and means to enforce laws, they have no right to impose sanctions nor to grant rights outside of their delegated authority - restrictions and punishments such as the 'law' you referred to, nor 'rights' to abortion, same sex marriages etc.
One can argue that civil laws which agree and coincide with Divine law are good, and I would grant that, but these laws would still be 'ultra vires' for the government, unless _all_ citizens agreed to live under that government - i.e I think that citizens can agree to abide to restrictions over and above what the strictest
minimum demands, but the government cannot impose extra duties or restrictions on its own, nor an a minority or even a large majority.
For, if we grant the majority that power, we have no reason to complain about the current state of affairs in the world.
OTOH, WWJD?

John 8:11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee.
Go, and now sin no more.

Ultimately, in none of these cases do the human courts have full knowledge of all the circumstances related to these 'transgressions', nor will the transgressors escape judgment altogether.  For Catholics we have confession for the rest, I would leave them to the 'just judge'.
While I am sure there is much more to this, these are the ideas I would base my argument on.

"O" (responding to "A")

"...this [Ugandan] law is on the same level as the repressive laws in the Islamic theocracies, those of pagan Rome and now of many other places."

I think a law may be described as repressive if, and only if, the law constrains a natural human desire to act. Laws which constrain unnatural human acts are in principle just laws. Such laws may denounce, prohibit, or punish unnatural behavior; these are matters of degree.  I think the severity of the law ought to be  restricted to that level necessary to protect or promote the commonweal.  The severity of the law is a matter of prudence for the governing body of the community.

People living in community, assuming they possess suffrage and political freedom, give up personal autonomy and submit to the restraints of justice as reflected in the community's expressed values (norms) and evidenced in the community's laws.

If Ugandans as a community believe homosexual activity is unnatural human activity and believe that tolerating such activity is contrary to the promotion of the commonweal then, it seems to me, the governing authority is obligated to evidence those beliefs in the community's laws.  Whether the law merely denounces or punishes is a matter of degree and prudence, but I think not principle.

"A" responds to "O" with:

"Whether the law merely denounces or punishes is a matter of degree and prudence, but I think not principle."

Point well taken, but:
If it is not a matter of principle, then would reasoning according to the same 'rules' not also give the 'community/government' the 'right' to confer 'rights' on its citizens, rights which promote " unnatural human acts ", 'rights' which condone/facilitate abortion, euthanasia etc, etc. ?? 

"O" replies:

I think not.

If the positive statement is true then so is its contrapositive.

Positive:

If a law constrains a natural human desire to act then the law is unjust.

Contrapositive:

If the law is [not un] just then the law allows [not constrains] a natural human desire to act.

Abortion and euthanasia are not natural human acts.

Scott says:
I would add, abortion and euthanasia are acts which do harm to others.  I believe laws should protect others, especially those who cannot protect themselves.  I tend to be on the side of saying we should not be legislating an act between two consenting adults which (other than to their eternal soul) is doing no direct harm.  

Nathan replies:
But Scott, the Ugandans could very well believe that homosexual behavior is an actual danger to their society as a whole seeing as even with less than 7% of the US population of men having sex with men but account for more than 78%% of new HIV infections among males in 2010. A good case can be made for Uganda to punish  homosexual behavior as a method of protecting Ugandan society as a whole. (Source)

"O" responding to Scott:

" ... we should not be legislating an act between two consenting adults which (other than to their eternal soul) is doing no direct harm."

May I interpret the above to the following conditional statement?

"If an evil act does no immediate harm to the actors then society ought not prohibit the evil act."

Since "immediate harm" does not include the universe of "harms," the following conditionals can stand with the above as equally true.

"If an evil act does non- immediate harm to the actors then society may prohibit the evil act."

"If an evil act does harm to the commonweal then society ought prohibit the evil act."

I would agree with all the conditionals stated above as true.  Society's prudence would  determine the immediate and  future states of "harm" as used above.

Second question:  Should states be allowed to establish in law that it is permissible to refuse business to homosexuals.

Scott's response: I would not necessarily be in favor of a law specifying that a business may be permitted to refuse business to any "class" of people.  I think we get into shaky territory when we legislate morality on one side or the other.  The fact is, businesses already may "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."  Using the law to beat people into submission over personal choices is a bit crazy.  The New Mexico case, where a photographer refused to shoot pictures of a same-sex union should not have been taken to court over this - the judge should have thrown this out as a frivolous case, but since he did not and even ruled in favor of the homosexuals, this story still (as of this writing) isn't over.

CathMom5's response:  Yes.  This is a different situation.  What happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to whomever we choose?"  I don't believe that any Christian should be forced to, say, bake and decorate a "wedding" cake for a homosexual couple if they feel that it means that they are implicitly approving of such a union when that union is against their Christian morals.  Or, a woman who owns a home that she rents rooms from as a Bed and Breakfast.  She was going to give the two women who showed up at her door a room until they told her that the were a couple.  She said that she did not want them in her home.  I would also say that it is a rare thing that there is only one business, a bakery, a B and B, etc. in the area.  So, why can't that homosexual couple find a baker, or a B and B, or whatever business, that will provide that service for them--I'm sure that they are out there.  I'm sure that in the cases that have gone to court and hit the news, the homosexual couple was not only looking for trouble but happy to have found it.   I don't believe someone should be sued out of business because they refused to provide a service for a homosexual couple. A business should have the "right to refuse service."  I believe that laws are overdue that uphold a business owner's right to refuse service.  Our laws, our courts, our society is bending over backwards to give this very small minority of our population not equality but privilege.

Please make sure that the argument does not start to go the "that is exactly what happened to African Americans" route.  This false similarity keeps popping up.  I remember arguing about the "rights" of homosexuals in a 90's philosophy class and this came up.  "This is just like what happened to blacks before the civil rights movement."  While there may be parallels on the surface, it is not the same.  African Americans and those of other races in this country should, and now do, have the same rights--heterosexual or homosexual.  Our society was biased against Blacks because of their skin color, not biased on moral grounds. In my opinion, homosexuals would not have much bias against them if their sex life didn't become their whole identity.  They get away with bullying people because they cry "prejudice," and our society lets them be bullies because of a guilt complex over the despicable things people have done in the past.  

Nathan's response:  States should not institute laws that permit some to refuse service to homosexuals PROVIDED that the government does not COMPEL business owners to perform actions that directly go against their deeply held religious beliefs.  A bakery owner cannot refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual individual simply because the owner disagrees with his lifestyle BUT the owner shouldn’t be compelled to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple if he feels that to do so would be a public expression of agreement with ‘same-sex marriage’.  It’s not that business owners want to “refuse service” to gays simply because they’re gay; it’s that some business owners — particularly people who work in the wedding industry — don’t want to be forced to employ their talents in service of something that defies their deeply held religious convictions.

Cathmom5 responds to Nathan: I think you expressed what I meant to say better than I.  I don't believe any business should be "compelled" to do business with anyone.   I agree that a business (like a bakery) should not refuse service solely upon a person's sexual or perceived sexual orientation.  However, the owner of  a bakery may feel that baking a wedding cake crosses the line into condoning or participating in the celebration of a ceremony, and they should neither be compelled to make the "couple" a cake nor be sued out of business because they refused to do so.  And as I said--Why can't they go to another bakery?  I doubt there are many towns where there is one, single bakery (especially in a place large city like Seattle where a small business is having a tough time surviving after being sued by a homosexual couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake).  It seems that some homosexual couples go out of their way to make trouble for business owners who take a stand on moral principles.  

Responses from other friends:
"A" replies:
Based on my previous comments, my answer would be 'No.'

"M" answers:
This is a double edged question because what gives anybody the right to discriminate against another person just because of sexual orientation. However, having a law in place to protect such individuals harms others because those same individuals have the propensity to make vexious law suits. 

Third question:  Should states be allowed to define "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman, only - directly excluding the possibility of "same sex marriages?"

Scott's response: While I do believe states have the right to define marriage for which they grant licenses to, for those states which are permitting same sex unions, they should not use the term "marriage."  The term "marriage" should be reserved to what it has always stood for, the union of a man to a woman, period.  Like it or not, in our Judeo-Christian based society, "marriage" has scriptural roots, not secular.  Even in most non-Judeo-Christian societies, the norm is that marriage takes place within religious ceremonies.  The term "marriage" should be reserved for those who partake in Holy Matrimony.  By the same token, those who are non-religious and are contracted by the state and have that union overseen by non-religious magistrates should refer to their contract the same way homosexuals should - as civil unions, not marriages.  I realize that it is commonplace to refer to any such union as a "marriage," but in reality, without the witness of God's representatives, it is just a civil union.

CathMom5's response:  Yes.  I do believe that should be up to the states.  If the vast majority of the people in that state want "marriage" defined as only a union between a man and a woman, than they should have the right to vote that into state policy or law.  After all, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles which includes the efficacy and morality of marriage.  However, it seems the politically correct minority of the moment gets to make laws in their favor.

Nathan's response:  Should states have a right to define marriage as between one man and one woman?  Since marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman for many millennia, the question should be ‘should states have a right to define marriage in any way they choose?’  And I believe we ought not change what has been tried and true for thousands of years.   The States have no right to change the definition of any word, especially at the whim of what is popular at the moment.  The best they can do is possibly invent a new word, like ‘civil union’ and give the individuals in such a union the same rights as a married couple has with whatever exception the States population might deem exclusionary (like adoption for example).

Responses from other friends:
"F" responds:
Of course they should. States, i.e., the people, have a right to define the moral and cultural parameters of their society.  Above all, they should not be subject to the deviant behavior and questionable morals of minorities who live in their jurisdictions.

"A" posits:
While I do wish the state's laws always agreed with my own convictions, it seems an inescapable conclusion for me, that if we give the state the 'right' to define morality, how will we argue against any law which defines something against our convictions, something we consider immoral?

"M" writes:
Homosexuals are a minority group and they are intent upon imposing their values on the rest of us.   I disagree with the Dalai Lama on this matter since I do not believe that the state can redefine marriage so that deviants can destroy what we have.

HOWEVER, that being said, maybe we need to look at the whole picture of marriage. At the present time the act of marriage is carried out according to the civil law.   If we were to rely upon the Scripture then we might view marriage in a different way because in the ancient times there was no ritual, just a coming together with the consent of the parents, and a brief ceremony where the marriage took place.   When we marry we say vows to each other and this is in fact the act of marriage.  The celebrant is nothing more than a witness to those vows that the bride and groom say to each other, the rest is just ritual.  There is a lot more to marriage than that ceremony and I think we all know this to be the truth. It is a coming together and it is a commitment to each other to live the rest of our lives together.

Our civil authorities are out of control and this is true because the wrong kind of people get elected to the Parliament. These are the people with an agenda to destroy our civil society in order to rebuild according to their vision, and heaven forbid that they should ever get the chance to carry out their plans.

Homosexuals had a legitimate complaint regarding discrimination that they have faced because their relationships have not been legally recognized.  The question is: do they need marriage to have those relationships recognized.  There has been a shift in how they are expressing their angst about the discrimination that they have faced from insurance companies etc. as well as hospitals.  Yes, they have legitimate concerns, but do they need the institution of marriage to remove those legitimate issues?   Some of what the homosexuals are doing to formalize their relationships is absolutely ridiculous, and that includes two women dressing up as brides, or one woman dressed as a groom and the other as a bride.

If they want to have a commitment ceremony then fine… let them have their ceremony.  The State can recognize the partnership by simply recognizing that these couples have the same relationship as two heterosexual people living together who do not have that piece of paper that is called a marriage certificate.  I see no reason as to why homosexuals could not have a civil union agreement. It seems that they want more for their own devious reasons.

Scott rewords Question 3:

Rewording that a bit.... Is a state allowed to define *civil* marriage to allow for unions that could never be considered sacramental by the Church? (e.g., granting civil marriages to divorced persons; civil marriages to someone who has not been released from a religious vow or is a priest; or, in this case granting a civil marriage to 2 people of the same sex?

"O" replies:

... if we give the state the 'right' to define morality ..."

The state's  right to define morality is, I think, a sine qua non.

• To be effective, a state must assume to itself a monopoly on violence. 
• To insure domestic tranquility, the state must provide a civil means for citizen redress.
• Morality is defined as the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior
• Therefore, the state must set moral standards.   

" Is a state allowed ... ?

When can one state judge another state's morality -- its definition of human rights?  Legal positivism, I think, prevents ever making such  judgments.

The philosophy of legal positivism prevents arguing for human rights outside the legal system per se.  Legal systems cannot criticize each other.  Other than lacking in internal consistencies, legal positivism does not allow argument regarding another state's jurisprudence.

If legal system A, claims that legal system B is immoral it must do so only from a reference to itself.  System B does not recognize the validity of system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless by system B.

The Nazis leaders used legal positivism to defend themselves at Nuremberg. The only reason, the Nazis claimed, that they found themselves in the defendants' chair at Nuremberg was that they had the misfortune of losing the war.

The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies, and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of Jews was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.

Jackson, the lead prosecutor, had to depart from the philosophy of legal positivism and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to prosecute the legal system of another country. He appealed to the basic principles of civilization in order to prosecute the jurisprudence of the Nazi legal system. To transcend human law, Jackson successfully took recourse to natural law -- the Creator's law. 
One, I think, cannot appeal this particular Ugandan law to natural law successfully because the natural law and the Ugandan law are harmonious.