Civil Unions for Homosexuals? (10/21)

Well-done homily on the subject. Worth listening to.

Is Pope Francis Starving For Attention? His latest disheartening comments about gay civil unions.

Pope Francis has once again made headlines over his careless comments. The mainstream media and world in general is fawning over his latest remarks in which he advocates civil unions for gay people. Rather than defend and explain Catholic doctrine, which he should do since he's, you know, THE POPE, he just randomly goes on some tangent about giving legal rights to gay people, etc.

His exact words in new documentary titled Francesco, state:

“Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.”

Why is the pope even commenting on this? Gay people do not have a "right" to a family. What does this even mean. People have the right to start a family, but gay people can't even procreate. So what does this mean? Does it mean a gay man has the right to live with another gay man and have a child or children live there as well? How is this a "right"?

Has Pope Francis forgotten that homosexual acts are sinful and condemned by the Church he leads? Affirming people living in sinful situations does not help them! I don't mind if he affirms their inherent dignity or says they have the right to respect, etc. That all makes sense. But to say a state has the obligation to create a special type of "marriage" for gay couples is absurd.

Again, it goes back to the basics. What is marriage? Is it any combination of consenting adults? Is procreation an aspect of marriage? Is a business partnership a marriage? I mean, marriage has a definition. If it doesn't have a definition, then it's meaningless. Why even have a word?

But if it does have a definition, what is it? Is it the union of 2 consenting adults? Okay, why not three consenting adults? Why are you limiting it? So if it can be any number of people, what else is in the definition? Does it have to be procreative? Well if it can involve gay people, then the answer is no. So now what is it? It's nothing. So what is there to want?

Some might say it's a legal arrangement. Well, you can have legal arrangements that aren't marriage. But marriage has always been something that is special and unique. It pre-exists Christianity. But it has certain key factors. It has been used around the world to create and sustain families. Gay marriage does none of this and it violates basic natural law.

This all boils down to a problem of non-specificity, a lack of clarity. St. Thomas Aquinas would define all of his terms and be very precise. He would use exact language. Fr. Ripperger points this out as well in many of his talks. He too will often define a word when using it so that everyone is on the same page.

On the other hand, look at Pope Francis. Specifics are his Kryptonite. As Patrick Coffin puts, he uses weaponized ambiguity. You can't just start with one premise and then throw the baby out with the bath water based on it. To put it concretely, just because gay people are human beings loved by God, it doesn't mean we throw out the definition of marriage that we have had for centuries. Just because we must respect everyone, it does not mean we must condone all activity. We need clarity on these things.

The pope has reneged on his duties. Is he waiting for someone else to preach sound doctrine? Has he forgotten that he is the pope, our spiritual father? It seems he has. 

I feel as though Pope Francis has abandoned his spiritual children. He has gone off seeking the approval and affection of "others". In this case, the "others" are the media, the secular world, etc. He is doing everything he can to get in their good books. He doesn't realize they are just using him. Does he think his actions are attracting the enemies of the Church into the Church? If he thinks that, he is sorely mistaken.

Men who leave their families to be with another woman almost never end up marrying that woman in the end. Once the other woman was done with him, it was over. So it is with the evil secular world. They will try to attract you, but once you're in, they spit on you and leave you in the dirt.

I recently read a quote from Pope Benedict XVI concerning Pope John Paul II. To paraphrase, he said Pope John Paul II never sought popularity or to be liked. He was willing to present the unadulterated truth and to "take the blows" that came with it.

Sadly, it seems we now have the opposite of this in Pope Francis.

P.S. I hate to be so harsh. I just feel upset by all of this. I hope the pope realizes soon what he is doing. In the meantime, we must always pray for him.

Trump and Biden Debate

I watched much of the debate last night featuring Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I will first and foremost say that I prefer Donald Trump over Joe Biden for many reasons. Whatever Trump may do during the debate does not change the substance of their positions. Having said that, let's take a look at the debate and what happened.

From my point of view, I cannot defend the actions of Donald Trump during this debate. He continually interrupted, made irrelevant points, etc. I think he discovered that he could flummox Biden by interjecting random comments. Biden often took the bait. He would go off his planned speech and try to address whatever word or phrase Trump through out. Trump used this to knock Biden off-kilter.

People were saying Trump was debating Chris Wallace along with Biden. I kind of get where they are coming from. Biden seemed like he was being attacked by Trump and so Wallace would step in to defend him. One commentator asked, why not just have the candidates in a room without a moderator and just have at it. At this point, that's almost what it was.

These are not just the actions of Mr. Trump. I have noticed this type of comportment in various debates, whether in the US or Canada or locally. Instead of both parties having an understood agreement that they will let the other speak, they seem to be using tactical bullying and talking-over to get their points across. It's more of a battle than simply a battle of words.

More civil debates seemed to rely on the premise that "I will let you speak and get your full point across. Ultimately I don't want people following you, and so it would be better for you to not even say your points of view. However, if I am to get my own point across, I will sacrifice the chance to interrupt you so that I can have a chance to speak myself."

Nowadays, it's more like don't let the other person get a point across lest people may be convinced by his argument. Make the other person look ridiculous, incoherent, etc. Perhaps they are attempting to appear dominant. The person who speaks over the other more wins?

Either way, I think it is a blow to what debates aspire to. As someone I know mentioned, if this were a high school debate, they would both be told to sit back down and get an F.

People choose sides, it's just what people do naturally. But I think you can be in favour of a candidate without condoning his behavior. I definitely do not want Biden to win, I think he has a very dangerous party and dangerous ideas. The style of debate is not the same as the platform of the parties. Therefore, I think Trump should win and lead the country. There is a lot at stake.

If you want to see a big difference from the new style of debate, check out a debate featuring Ronald Reagan. He argues well but he is still cordial and follows the rules of etiquette. If Trump is the proponent of Law and Order, it starts with your comportment.

Church and State: Covid

Catholic churches are reopening in Canada and around the world. I've noticed a few things that speak to a lack of separation of CHurch and state, and show the CHurch acquiescing to every request of the state without question and going overboard. Let me explain.

Churches were allowed to reopen about 6 weeks ago in Newfoundland, Canada. Unlike many other public places such as businesses, churches were some of the last places that were allowed to open. When they did finally open, they were limited to 50 total people in the church building. This is far less than the number allowed at other similarly-sized establishments. For example, the Basilica, which is one of the biggest churches in Canada, could only have 50 people.

Not only could they only have 50 people, they adhered to restrictions other places did not even consider. The church I attend has been following "protocols" far more strictly than anywhere else. You have to answer a survey each time you enter the building, then you have to wear your mask while you walk anywhere. When you sit, masks are optional because everyone is more than 6 feet apart with area cordoned off.

But one particularly strange part I found was the extreme lengths churches will go to announce every little detail of how to act while receiving communion, as if everyone is in constant danger. Again, nothing like this happens outside the church, such as in shopping areas and grocery stores. There is an announcement at the beginning of Mass, and then one right before communion. And it's not a small, short announcement either. It's a long, detailed message going into every possible detail about maintaining distance, sanitizing hands, how to receive communion, etc.

Remember, in NL, we only have one active case, and that is very recent, and it is someone under the age of 19 who is a known person. And yet, as mentioned, the church adheres to these regulations with more fervor than anywhere else.

But what upsets me the most is that never in any other area does the local church broadcast specific regulations and procedures for anything else. There is never any mention of only Catholics in the state of Grace being allowed to receive communion. They are seemingly quite lax in that area. Yet, when the state asks them to make an announcement on Covid, they don't know how far to go. They go way above and beyond, even beyond the wildest dreams of the most cautious politician.

Why is this? Why do they only seem to place value on temporal things such as government announcements and seem to downplay the importance of eternal things? It seems to me there is far more risk in the latter.

I'm not saying don't make any messages concerning Covid, but I am saying make other announcements. Perhaps announcing that the church is a sacred place and that people should not whisper throughout the Mass. Perhaps mention that only Catholics in the state of Grace should receive communion. Maybe talk about confession from time to time.

We shouldn't just always kowtow to what the government says. Whatever happened to separation of Church and state? We are only reinforcing the idea that the state and all the earthly orders of politicians are more important than Jesus Christ and our eternal salvation.

Modern-Day Obliviousness to Morality

Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.- Isaiah 5:20

It seems to me that as the world embraces more and more immorality, it ironically starts to think it is becoming more and more morally virtuous.

This became all the more clear lately as social justice warriors go around looking for statues of men who lived centuries ago to tear down because of their alleged imperfections. As though now that this latest generation has conquered all sin and is a paragon of moral virtue, it can now set its sights on bygone generations.

If this does not epitomize pompous self-righteousness, nothing does. While people of this generation hardly know or recognize the seven deadly sins or 10 commandments, they not only feel qualified to tell their own generations what they are doing or did wrong, but feel justified in searching for iniquities from the last 500 years.

I wouldn't even mind this so much if this newest generation wasn't one of the most immoral and hypocritical of our entire human history. They have taken the words above from Isaiah not as a warning but as instruction. Practically every sin imaginable is not only accepted, but celebrated and when this generation does target a particular sin, they almost always get it wrong by misidentifying where the sin is and why it is sinful.

The ten commandments are set up in order of importance. The first commandment, to Love God alone and to worship Him only is more important than the commandment to honor one's mother and father, which is more important than the commandment to not murder. Almost all of the 10 commandments are routinely violated by the latest generation. They have turned every commandment on its head and become quite passionate in arguing for the opposite. The same goes for the 7 deadly sins. Truly a reversal has taken place with them.

I remember at work one time a coworker joking about the idea that we would even need the 10 commandments. He laughed that they were obvious and so why would we need commandments to tell us what to do. There was a slight amount of truth in what he was saying. As Catholics, we hold that the 10 commandments form part of the natural law which is naturally knowable by all people. And yet, if these 10 commandments were so obvious, why is it that our society embraces the breaking of each one of them?

Take for instance the fourth and sixth commandments: honor your mother and father and do not murder. In Canada, with the introduction of euthanasia, it became legal to kill your mother or father. Most people are okay with this. It, of course, started out slow, saying that only elderly people with a terminal illness could choose to take their own life. Yet now, the criteria for who is "permitted" to kill themselves is ever-expanding. They are taking away the age requirement, as well as the terminal illness requirement. Now they are saying people with depression can kill themselves. What differentiates this all from suicide?

People are on board. They no longer honor their mother and father, and when they become too much of a burden, they encourage their parents to just end it. Parents, themselves not wanting to be burdens, are pressured into this.

Of course, some morally good doctors oppose killing patients as it violates their oaths. So does the government allow these good doctors to follow their consciences? Of course not. They are forced to send the patient to another doctor who will in fact kill the person.

The majority of Canadians, being highly immoral, have accepted state-sanctioned murder. They use Orwell-type words to sanitize what is truly happening, and phrase it as a personal choice and dignified. How can killing a vulnerable person be dignified for anyone? They publish articles by those who choose to be killed and without fail advocate this amazing system. We of course never hear any counter arguments.

I once read an article in the local newspaper where a doctor lamented the fact that in Newfoundland and Labrador, not enough people are killing themselves. He "blamed" strong families and other things on this negative situation. So he was trying to get the message out that offing oneself is a great choice and that you should avail!

It won't be long before this option to kill oneself becomes an obligation. People will be told they are selfish for opting to live longer. Bill Gates himself rhetorically asked in a public speech whether it's better to "let" an elderly person live longer or if it's better to hire 10 teachers. This rhetorical question will be asked of the elderly as well before long. They will be made to feel guilty for not doing the responsible thing of killing themselves once they reach a certain age or have a certain health prognoses.

This is just one example of a grave violation of the commandments. It would be easy to find dozens of examples of violations of each of the other commandments as well. But unlike any other time, we do not as a society condemn these violations, but rather celebrate them, and wonder how they can be expanded to include more people. We are surrounded everywhere we go with evil. Anyone who is good will be severely punished. This is just a friendly reminder of that.

If you decide to be a good person, just remember that you will be persecuted and prosecuted. You will face many difficulties. But I think if you are aware of this, it might make it a little easier to accept. Jesus Himself told us this:

The eighth beatitude says: "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Remember those words as you do what is right.