Is Sterilization Acceptable?

I had a nice exchange with 2 of my co-workers last the other day.  Someway or another our conversation turned to pregnancies and what people can do to avoid them.  One co-worker is a non-practicing, nominal Catholic and the other was a non-denominational Christian.  

After I told them that I didn't agree with having a vasectomy.  The nominal Catholic laughed and said: “Wait, wait, lets see what the extremist has to say about this.”  When I told them that we shouldn’t ‘mutilate’ our bodies for our convenience he started giggling.  The purpose of medicine is to return our bodies to a natural state.  I said that it wasn't a natural thing to do to your body and so we shouldn't do anything to disrupt the natural functioning of our organs.   He (the nominal Catholic) just started laughing.  He thought that I'd disagree with removing a kidney stone since that was a natural thing.

My answer to that though was kinda simple.   I told him, and the other non-denominational Christian that medicine is suppose to repair or return the organs and body in general to its original purpose which is why wearing glasses is ok since it improves the functioning of the eyes and the same for the kidney stone.  The stone impedes the kidney from functioning properly hence it is ok to remove it.  The only thing he had left was to turn around and he kept smirking but he gave up the argument.  Hopefully I was able to plant a seed to both of them.  I have great hope that the other individual listening will chew on this for a while.  At least he seemed  to be receptive of this idea of the true role of medicine.  I just thought I'd share with you.  I hope they'll be more of those moments, I just hope I have a ready response when/if they do and please do not shy away from defending the Catholic position on moral issues.  Her reasons that the Church holds these positions are on very solid ground, we just need to go look them up and share them when the opportunities arise.

God Bless
Nathan

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.

Judge Not?

When we hear someone say, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," it is often in the context of a Christian pointing out sin or the sinful acts of others and someone coming to the defense of the "others" and/or the other person him/herself.  To "discern" good from evil is not the type of "judgment" which Jesus condemns in Matt. 7:1.  We are not called (yet) to judge persons (see 1 Cor. 6:2-3) but we are most definitely called to "discern" good from evil - and to warn our brethren when they are in sin, a near occasion of sin or living in such a way which may lead others to sin.  In fact, for us to turn our backs or say nothing when we witness the sin in others is not a form of love for them - for if they were to remain unrepentant in that sin and/or lifestyle then what we would really be implying is that we're OK with their condemnation; that we're OK with never seeing them again in all eternity because they chose a lifestyle here in this temporal condition which will have eternal consequences.  

I don't know about you, but I would rather be somewhat blunt with such a friend and/or family member than just try to "get along" in "comfort" in this life.  If somehow the Holy Spirit moves in their heart and brings them around, well James 5:19-20 speaks loud and clearly on this matter!   "My brethren, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him: he must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins."  Not all sins are "Deadly Sins" but when we are aware of someone who is either in such a sin or is living in a near occasion of sin, we cannot remain silent.  Ask yourself, HOW can you "convert" one if you're not discerning and HONEST with your friend/family member and point out their sin to them?  Who would "convert" if everyone around them are "making happy" and never talking about the 600 pound gorilla in the room? We HAVE to be discerning between that which is moral and immoral. 

Does this mean we condemn our friend or family member who is living in sin?  NO!  We still love them in all Christian charity.  They are still our friend/family member - but they have to know that we're not approving of such a lifestyle - and can never be approving of such.  They should know you're concerned and praying for them and their conversion - but you don't have to beat them over the head with it.  As our motto in the ACTS Family of Forums goes, "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.  But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they speak evil of you, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." 1 Peter 3:15-16.  In other words, always be prepared to give an answer, but do so in charity so that you do so in good conscience.  

I have been asked by a friend of mine to look into several articles regarding homosexual marriage.  Anyone who knows me must know that I will take the Catholic position on this matter - but I will look at these articles and will respond here in future postings.  As I said above, I do not judge homosexual persons - but I cannot possibly give my blessing to homosexual acts, but again - more on that in upcoming postings. 

Here are some excellent Scripture verses on judging compiled at Catholic Bible 101:

Leviticus 19:15:  "You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.

Proverbs 31:9: Open your mouth, judge righteously; maintain the rights of the poor and needy.
Matthew 7:2: For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
Luke 6:37: "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
(**NOTE—Here we see the link between judging and condemning)
Matthew 18:15: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
(**NOTE – Here is a prime case of Jesus telling us all to admonish the sinner).
Luke 7:40-43:  And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "What is it, Teacher?"  "A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.  When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?"  Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly."
(**NOTE – Here we see the use of the term “judged” in the context of judging someone’s actions, rather than personal condemnation).
Luke 12:57: "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?
(**NOTE – Once again, we see the use of the term “judge” in the context of judging actions, not condemning people and passing judgment).
John 7:24: Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

(**NOTE – Here Jesus commands us to judge people’s actions and deeds with “right judgment”.)
Acts 4:19: But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge;
(**NOTE – Another case of judging people’s actions, rather than the person).
1 Corinthians 2:15: The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
1 Corinthians 6:2-3: Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?   Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!
(**Note – No wonder satan hates Christians so much – we will be judging him one day!)
Hebrews 10:30: For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."
(**NOTE – Here we see that the Lord judges people. That in no way precludes us from judging whether or not people’s actions are sinful or not.)
James 4:12: There is one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you that you judge your neighbor?
(**NOTE – James says that we should not judge our neighbor.  Once again, this does not stop us from judging whether or not our neighbor’s actions (killing his wife, stealing money, etc.) is sinful. Note how this differs from James 5:20 above, where James talks about bringing a sinner back from the error of his ways (sinfulness)).

If you like this article, please share with your friends!   

. 

MercyMe - Kyrie Eleison!

Bart Millard from MercyMe has been getting "attacked" for stating the Bruno Mars halftime show at the Super Bowl was "awesome."  Here's his response posted on Facebook:

Seriously I love you guys. I really do, but you've got to find a bigger cross to die on. If me saying Bruno's performance was awesome can instantly tear down my 20 years of ministry, then I've been doing something terribly wrong! Oh wait I have been doing something terribly wrong! I've lived most of my life as a legalistic, judgmental, religious person. Not anymore folks. I'm a huge fan of music regardless whether Bruno misuses it or not. I'm a huge fan of sex, so is my wife...so is God by the way, regardless if the world abuses it. I'm also a fan of the word of God REGARDLESS if some of you people twist it to make a point. In other words, I'm no longer living my life based on what people say or think about me. My plate's already pretty full adoring my wife and kids and relishing in the truth that there's nothing I can do great enough to make Christ love me more than he already does and I can't be bad enough to separate myself from the spirit that dwells inside. So I'm gonna live life like I can't screw it up. I can screw "stuff" up...sure. And maybe some of you think I've screwed this post all up. Ha. But that's ok cuz grace works for even me. And as far as all of us being judged by our maker one day? That does not exist for the believer. There is and will never be any condemnation from Christ. When James talks about ministers or lead singers of christian bands being judged more harshly. He ain't talking about in heaven. He's talking about being judged by the Jesus police who prowl Facebook waiting to pounce. Ha. So what do I mean when I say find a bigger cross to die on? Live life doing stuff that matters like finding rest knowing Christ has done the work for you! I'm telling you, when you truly taste grace, life is a freaking blast! To know a perfect messiah came so we can have imperfect moments, like my Bruno worship apparently, and still be ok may be the greatest news of all! Heck if I'd known all of this was gonna come out of what I posted, I would've posted "BRUNO MARS FOR PRESIDENT!"

I really appreciate you guys. I would not have spent 9 yrs writing this if I didn't.

Welcome To the New
Bart

Annnnd here's a sample of some lyrics from our upcoming release

Flawless

No matter the bumps
No matter the bruises
No mater the scars
Still the truth is
The cross has made you flawless

Woohoo!

 Well, first off - I like to reserve the word "awesome" to God, and to God alone.  He alone is worthy of our "awe."  I would compare "awesome" to the Latin word for the worship due to God alone, "latria."  Certainly we can have appreciation for the talent of Mr. Mars, but the way he used that talent was for the Devil's purpose.  Seriously Bart, would you like your daughters to hear what Bruno was singing?  Or, worse, would you like to hear them singing "stick it in, stick it in" over and over again?  Come on, Bart - admit it, while not denying the "talent" of Mars and maybe even the Red Hot Chili Peppers, the "message" was about as anti-moral as it could be, and "Christians" should not be supporting that in any way, shape or form.

Lord have mercy!

Gosnell Murder Trial and Time Magazine

In the flurry of articles (like our previous CathApol article) hitting the scenes, Time Magazine online in their "Heatlth and Family" section published an article yesterday attempting to answer to the charge that the press isn't covering this case, and while the article starts out by recognizing the heinousness of "Dr." Gosnell's offenses, but after the first paragraph another article is inserted, "Why the Pa. Abortion Doc's Case Is About Poverty, Not Roe v. Wade" which closes with:

 It’s likely that he was the cheapest abortion provider around in a community that’s not accustomed to the highest health-care standards anyway.

As if that is supposed to justify the fact that "Dr." Gosnell was committing late-term abortions (beyond 24 weeks) and since the procedure would be rather difficult, he would induce labor then the child is born, ALIVE, and (in his terms) to "ensure fetal demise" he would stab into the baby's neck with a pair of scissors and cut the spinal cord.  Some report are that the babies are literally screaming in agony while he is doing this.

This is NOT about Roe v. Wade, it's about MURDER.  It is also about a "doctor" running  a "clinic" in unhealthy, unsanitary conditions and with a staff which. while administering "medicines" and other duties which normally would have been provided by a Registered Nurse, NONE of them were licensed to practice medicine.  The staff is facing charges as well.

Also in this article it includes a brief summary of the Report of the Grand Jury (which formally charged Gosnell on January 20, 2013) with these points:

• Fetuses, fetal remains and dismembered baby parts — especially, for some reason, baby feet — in bags, jars, milk jugs and cat-food containers kept around the clinic, in the freezer and in the basement; some containers were stored in the same refrigerator where clinic staff kept their lunches
• Instruments that were not properly sterilized or discarded, which allegedly spread venereal disease to several patients
• Cats roaming and excreting freely in the filthy clinic

Why was Gosnell "saving" these things, and especially "baby feet" - were these some sort of "trophies" for him?

It seems not always did Gosnell (I think I'll stop using "Dr." in his title) induce labor to remove the child from the mother as there are charges of "failure to remove all the fetal parts from a uterus, his puncturing a uterus, tearing a cervix and colon, and refusing to call in assistance from another hospital when a patient convulsed and fell on the floor."

Time's reporter, Belinda Luscombe, continues to describe "At least one woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, died in Gosnell’s care, after his untrained staff administered an overdose of Demerol" and then in the next paragraph goes back to saying this case has "much more to do with poverty than Roe v. Wade" and then provides another link on "The Complicated Link Between Abortion and Mental Health".

In short, it seems to this writer that Time Magazine is attempting to do some "damage control" because of their lack of coverage.  Yes, the report defends that several outlets reported this back in 2011 - ONCE - but then we look at the sensationalism of the Jody Arias trial we have to ask WHY?  Some outlets are beginning to give a bit more coverage, but not nearly in the proportion the Arias Trial is getting.

Please use the "share" buttons on this article to help spread the word!  "Like" it on Facebook, "Tweet" it on Twitter, etc.

Gosnell Murder Trial

Many of you may not have even heard of this until recently, if at all.  "Dr." Gosnell is on trial for murder with horrendous charges related to his abortion methods, some include testimony of an aborted baby literally screaming in agony as "Dr." Gosnell severs its spine.  The baby was born alive, and a "doctor" who is pledged to "do no harm" coldly murders the child.

Why haven't you heard?  This trial has been going on since March 18th!  It seems like all the major news networks are so obsessed with the Jodi Arias trial that they turn a blind eye to an even more graphic and tragic murder case.  Below is a shot of the seats at the Gosnell trial which are reserved for the press...

Do you hear the crickets!?  THIS is why you haven't heard - the "press" isn't there!  Well, don't feel bad, I hadn't heard of this prior to yesterday myself, but I'm hoping to make a change in that and do my part to echo the "news" about this case.  If you agree with me, please "share" this posting and help spread the word!  Tune out the Arias trial and start demanding to hear about Gosnell's trial.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Catholic School Respects Women

So what's the deal?  Mesa Preparatory Academy (MPA) has a girl playing baseball against boys.  On the surface one might think, "who cares?"   But in reality if you're a boy who is considering stealing second, and the second baseman is not a "man" at all, but a girl - do you put forth the full-out effort to steal, knowing that one of the possibilities is you're going to slide into her, and if you hit hard enough she may drop the ball and you'll be safe?  The same holds true in a double-play situation - it is the runner's responsibility to disrupt the second baseman in anyway they can, either missing the throw to him, or messing up the throw to first base.  The boys, coaches and faculty of Our Lady of Sorrows Academy (OLSA) respect women and out of respect for women, they forfeit the state championship game rather than put their morals off to the side for the sake of a game.

Some have argued that OLSA should not participate in a league which allows girls to play, but the league and all the other teams know the position of OLSA and in two regular season games between MPA and OLSA the young lady sat out those games, respecting the values of OLSA - but when it came to the championship game those values were no longer respected?  Why did she not insist upon playing in the regular season?  They know that OLSA would have forfeited those games as well, so why change their position at the state championship game?  The team, coaches and parents showing inconsistency and lack of fortitude is that of MPA.   So why should OLSA play in the league at all?  Again, the league and the teams know the position of OLSA and they said nothing prior to the state championship game.  The position of OLSA has been well known in the league and they have forfeited other games in other sports prior to this incident.

The mother of stated "I felt like any passionate athletic person would feel (in that situation)," said Sultzbach, who added, "I don't want our very first high-school baseball team to win the championship on a forfeit."  The insistence upon putting Paige into the game caused the forfeit.  The mother also said:  “This team has worked so hard,” she said. “They’re undefeated. They had one game left. At our school, we’re taught that when you start something, you complete it, and they weren’t done.”  Then they shouldn't force the hand of the well-known position of OLSA.   They knew going into the game that OLSA would forfeit if MPA played a girl.   

When the league began play Paige was not on MPA's team.  The first time OLSA became aware of her being on the team was the first time the teams met earlier in the season - and it was decided that Paige would sit out the game - which she did on the other time the two teams met in the regular season.  MPA, coincidentally, won both of those games.  The may have been able to win the championship without her too AND would have been playing OLSA on the same terms they played in the regular season.  Insisting that Paige played they guaranteed their state championship.

The bottom line is, the men/boys of OLSA have respect for women/girls - and will not put their boys up against girls in coed sports.   This is not the first time this has come up in this league - and it seems to be making national news this time because someone's mom wants some attention.

Related articles:
Huffington Post

Fox News

AZCentral (The Arizona Republic)

Patheos Blog

Healthy Porn?

Recently on a group (which I have since departed) one of the participants posted an argument for the healthiness of pornography in society.  The argument was essentially that "in the west" things are getting more and more open regarding sexuality, whereas "in the east" things are still more repressed.  The "healthy" argument states that pornography gives a "healthy release" of sexuality, and that all humans are sexual beings so such a release is necessary - be it in a physical sexual relation, or through pornography.

The point this proponent of porn misses is that ALL pornography is misdirected.  Why is it so?  The sexuality of persons involved in porn are being exploited by the producers of it.  Granted, some in the porn "industry" are paid, some quite well, but their bodies are being exploited in an immoral way.  Right now I can hear those in favor of porn crying out, "Don't force your morality on me!"  Well, "my morality" is not only based upon Judeo-Christian values, but upon the rights of each individual.  Let us examine this a bit more carefully.

The rights of each individual do not include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, where there is no fire.  Likewise, no one has the "right" to display their pornography where my 14 year old child can view it.  The ease of access to pornography, especially on the Internet, is an exploitation of those who may view it and be influenced by it, not to mention that those who are "viewed" are being exploited - whether they are reimbursed financially for this exploitation or not.

Why is pornography a morally wrong thing?  The participation in "the marriage act" by couples who are not married is a corruption of "the marriage act."  "The marriage act" is a gift from God, and it's a wonderful gift intended to bond husband to wife as they part from their respective parents.

The physical basis for "the marriage act" is also human reproduction.  This too is a wonderful gift from God allowing us to participate in the process of procreation with the Creator.  Any deviation from the physical completion of "the marriage act" is also a corruption of that gift.  Thus the "self gratification" which often accompanies pornography is itself a corruption of God's gift intended for married couples, not only as an expression of their love for one another - but also for the blessing of children to the family.  How many in the porn "industry" are engaging in "the marriage act" with the intent to produce children - or at least not with the intent to prevent the conception of children?  Once the intention becomes to prevent conception - or worse to terminate conception, right there the participants and supporters of this production (right down to the consumer) have crossed the line of immorality in regard to "the marriage act."

I have also heard the argument, "What if a husband and wife are using the porn to 'enhance' their own sexuality?"  One has to ask what led to this?  Why is not a healthy sexual relationship between a husband and his wife enough?  What led them to seek out external stimulation?  Is it rooted in one or the other seeking such "entertainment" outside "the marriage bed" and perhaps justifying their own guilt by introducing it to "the marriage bed?"  Then there's the support of the porn industry by such a married couple - it is a tacit endorsement of the immorality being conducted by the porn "industry."  How many of the participants in pornography are married to each other in a monogamous relationship?  Yet each time someone buys or rents such, they are lending their support to the porn industry.

What it essentially boils down to is pornography is hedonistic immorality.  Those who support porn do so because it pleases themselves, and they basically don't care about the ramifications it has upon others and society and more importantly the eternal well-being of souls.  Why should their lack of caring for the eternal well-being of souls (because many of them may not even believe in an eternal soul) be allowed to trample over the rights of those who DO believe in eternity?  And then they want the "freedom" to push THEIR morality upon the rest of us!  When laws are attempted to restrict the availability of pornography are proposed - the proponents are all over screaming for their "right" to "freedom of expression."  Again, I remind the reader, this is like screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire except this is on a spiritual level.  People in the theater may be hurt or even killed by this unordered exercise of what someone may feel is their "right."  Likewise, on the spiritual level, souls may be harmed or even "killed" by the actions of the porn industry - and they have NO RIGHT to endanger the souls of others, especially of minors.  Non-believers have no right to force their morality on me or my family!

The subject addressed thus far has been "porn" or what some would call "hardcore porn," but this can also be addressed to many of the television shows available to everyone, everyday being broadcast over the air or through cable to the television sets in virtually every household "in the west."  These programs (and some commercials too), which may not explicitly show every aspect of "the marriage act" as "hardcore porn" does, still portray non-married couples living together and sometimes even showing them in the bedroom engaging in "the marriage act," (be it under sheets or through camera angles which don't "show anything").  How is this not the pushing of the (lack of) morals by these television producers and actors upon others?  Certainly we can exercise our right to change channels, but not always is there a parent around who can enforce such an act within their house.  I must admit, there are times when I have been watching television and before you realize it, the scene has changed to something I'd rather not my children see.  When one thinks about it, WHY would we not want our children to see such things?  The "WHY" there is huge because if it's not "OK" for them to see it, why is it "OK" for an adult to watch it?  Simply because an adult can "sort things out better?"  Why put such deviancy in our minds to begin with that WE have to "sort it out?"

That being said, one cannot even drive down the road without being exposed to sexually centered advertising.  Society "in the west" has become so numbed to the exposure of sexual content in selling just about everything from beer to sex itself - that the reality of this exposure doesn't even register as something wrong, misdirected or immoral.

In short, if it is MY morality to not expose myself and my children to pornography, even the "soft porn" on television or billboard signs, and I have a RIGHT to my morality, then what gives another the "right" to force their more liberal morality upon me and my family?

Ectopic Pregnancy Abortion Morality

Ectopic Pregnancy Abortion Morality

Recently in CDF we had a discussion regarding the morality of NFP v. Contraception and that led to a discussion on the morality of abortion, the participant, "Joe," stated he opposed abortion in all cases except in cases where the woman would die - like an ectopic pregnancy. Straying from the topic a bit, but bear with me for a moment... Joe stood in opposition to NFP because he feels (felt?) that it was inconsistent to oppose artificial birth control (ABC) methods of contraception, but Natural Family Planning (NFP) was somehow OK. Joe's stance was very black/white - no "gray" area." Well, then in the process of that debate Joe said he opposed all abortion except in cases where the woman would die. Oops! Joe's morality just allowed for a "gray" area! Well, sort of. In reality ANY "abortion" at ANY time is immoral. If Joe's morality were to be consistent between his stance on NFP and ectopic pregnancy - he would have to say that even in the case of ectopic pregnancy, let nature take its course. However, the Church has taught (see below) that if one is treating the "diseased tissue" (the fallopian tube) which if left alone will burst - killing both the mother and the baby - then a salpingectomy (see explanation below) is permissible. Why? Because the intent is not to abort the fetus, but to treat the diseased tissue which will end up killing both mother and baby if left in place. The intent is not abortion, rather it is to perform a medically necessary surgery to save the mother's life. In this case it is not an abortion and should not be referred to as one. Sometimes drugs are used to kill the wrongly placed fetus and an abortion then follows - this is immoral and not allowed under any circumstances.

Below is some research I did while in this discussion and I wanted to preserve it for future reference - hence this blog entry.

==================================================
From CUF:

Ectopic for Discussion: A Catholic Approach to Tubal Pregnancies

ISSUE: What is an ectopic, or “tubal,” pregnancy? What moral principles must be taken into account in treating a tubal pregnancy? What alternatives are available that respect both the mother’s life as well as the life of her unborn child?

RESPONSE: A woman’s egg or ovum descends from an ovary through the fallopian tube to the uterus. While on this path, the egg is fertilized and naturally continues this descent and implants in the uterus. Sometimes, however, the egg is impeded in its progress and instead implants somewhere along the way. This is called an ectopic pregnancy. “Ectopic” means “out of place.” Ectopic pregnancies are often called “tubal” pregnancies because over 95 percent occur in the fallopian tubes. (fertilized eggs can also implant in the abdomen, ovaries, or within the cervix).

A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube. While the doctor would opt for the least risk and expense to the mother, all the options presented to her involve terminating the pregnancy. The mother, however, must respect both her life and that of her child.

There is no treatment available that can guarantee the life of both. The Church has moral principles that can be applied in ruling out some options, but she has not officially instructed the faithful as to which treatments are morally licit and which are illicit. Most reputable moral theologians, as discussed below, accept full or partial salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube), as a morally acceptable medical intervention in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

As is the case with all difficult moral decisions, the couple must become informed, actively seek divine guidance, and follow their well-formed conscience.

http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

==============================================

What If Both Lives Cannot Be Saved?

Q: If a woman has an untreated ectopic pregnancy, she and the baby will both die. That is inevitable. In this situation, is it permissible to have an abortion? The fetus cannot come to full term and will inevitably kill them both.

A: An ectopic pregnancy is one where a zygote implants out of place, usually in one of the fallopian tubes. By definition, an ectopic pregnancy is a pathological condition because a fetus cannot grow to full term there. Catholic moral theology has taught that the pathological section of a fallopian tube can be removed.

Catholic moral theologians speak of the principle of double effect. In this case, the primary goal is to remove the pathology that threatens a mother’s life. A growing fetus implanted in a fallopian tube will eventually rupture the tube, killing the mother and itself.

Removing that section of the tube has the secondary effect of ending the life of the fetus—a necessary but clearly regrettable action. This would not be a direct abortion, which is forbidden.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr2008/Wiseman.asp#F3

====================================================

Does the Church approve of surgery for an ectopic pregnancy?

It is never permitted to directly kill an infant (or any other person for that matter, with the exception of self defense, just war and capital punishment), and so consequently, it is immoral to perform an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, even to save the life of the mother. This is immoral, whether it is done surgically or chemically. There are now available medications (such as methotrexate, or just recently RU-486) that are commonly used for tubular pregnancies, and that directly cause the living fetus to be aborted. This is always immoral.

However, if it can be established that the fetus is already dead (by ultrasound examination, for example), then clearly the surgical removal of the already dead fetus for the health of the mother is entirely permissible.

The difficulty arises when the fetus is still alive. The mother’s life is endangered through internal hemorrhage at that time. The moral theologians hold different opinions as to whether it is permissible to intervene surgically to remove the ectopic pregnancy before the death of the foetus. Some say that surgical intervention directly kills the foetus, which is immoral. Others say that it is not direct killing at all, but it is the removing of a mass of tissue (including the placenta) which has fixed itself in the wrong place (the fallopian tube instead of the uterus), in such a way as to cause a tumor invading the mother’s fallopian tube, rather like a malignant tumor. Just as it is possible to operate on a tumor of the mother, (e.g., in treatment of uterine cancer) even if as a consequence and indirectly the child will die, so also it is moral, they say, to surgically remove this abnormal mass of tissue, which contains the fetus. It is an indirect and unfortunate, though necessary, consequence that the fetus will die, but this is not willed in itself.

The principle used in this second opinion is the application of the principle of double effect, or the indirect voluntary. This is moral, provided that the bad effect, in this case the death of the unborn child is not directly willed in itself, and that there is a proportionate reason (such as saving the life of the mother), and that the good effect, namely saving the mother’s life does not directly come from the bad effect, the death of the child. The understanding of this solution depends upon the grasping of the gravity of the proportionate reason. The fetus that lodges in the fallopian tube cannot survive in any case, and if the mother is not treated she may very well hemorrhage to death, or be observed in hospital for several weeks, and her fallopian tubes can be so damaged by the ectopic pregnancy left untreated that she might never be able to conceive again.

Since there are opinions on both sides of this question, both can be safely followed in conscience. Consequently, it is permissible to have surgery, provided that it is not a direct abortion, but the removal of invasive tissue, but it is never permissible to take medications to kill the live fetus.
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm