Posts Tagged With: Conservative

Jesus’s Comments on Gay “Marriage”

 

This is a repost from Convert Journal. Thanks George.

Some people assert that Jesus never said that gays could not marry. This is wrong on so many levels. For starters, Jesus never explicitly said that men could not marry farm animals nor that women could not marry vegetables. Such wonky logic! The obviousness of these things in biblical times precluded any need for additional comment. In fact, these things were obvious to all for the entirety of human history until recently when some of us think that they have “evolved.”

The entire Old Testament was abundantly clear on homosexuality. For example, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22) or “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)   Was all this thrown out? NO – “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17)

Direct comments are not absent from the New Testament either. For example, “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Writing for Catholic Lane, Christopher Eden suggests that Jesus actually did address the issue of gay “marriage”:

Jesus’ stance on marriage was strong. When the Pharisees asked Him whether it was lawful for a man to give his wife a bill of divorce He responded, “The Creator ‘made them male and female…   a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’…   So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate?” (Matthew 19:4-6).

The apostles were stunned when He went on to say that only death could dissolve a (valid) marriage, and how anyone who divorced and remarried lived in adultery. “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry!” (Matthew 19:10) Jesus didn’t back-pedal; they had understood Him just fine. That was marriage in the Kingdom – marriage as it was before humanity’s Fall. Jesus knew it would be difficult, “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted” (Matthew 19:11).

Pay attention to what Jesus said next: “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” (Matthew 19:12). A man’s ability to be united tohis wife, sexually, was what made him a candidate for marriage. If he was unable to achieve sexual union because of a) birth defect, b) castration, or c) a vow of celibacy; then marriage was not his vocation.

The foundation of Jesus’ whole argument is biological. Unless “a man” and “his wife…   become one flesh,” there is no valid marriage. For Jesus, and for anyone committed to His teachings, it is impossible to speak of a “Christian same-sex marriage.” Jesus’ words rule it out absolutely. The parameters for marriage between Christians, the parameters for a sacramental marriage, have been set by Jesus and cannot be changed. “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away” (Luke 23:33).

Christians who argue differently undermine their faith. To make their argument they would have to assume that either a) Jesus was wrong on the nature of marriage (If so, He’s not God); or b) the Bible puts false words in Jesus’ mouth (If the Bible got Jesus’ words on marriage wrong, why believe it when it says that God loves us or Jesus died to save us from our sins?) There are some questions where Christians can honestly disagree with one another, but this is not one of them; Jesus teaching is plain, as is His warning to those who try to water His teachings down, “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels? (Luke 9:26).

Read the whole piece: Was Jesus Really Silent on Same-Sex “Marriage”?.

Categories: Miscellanea | Tags: , , , , , , ,

Chick-fil-a Kiss In

 

Here is a perfect example of why the left is the party of peace, diversity, inclusion, and tolerance.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Catholic Case for Romney-Ryan

 

From The American Catholic:

Fellow Catholics,

We are approaching the most important U.S. Presidential election for us – by “us” I mean theologically orthodox, politically conservative Catholics – possibly since 1960, when the election of the first Catholic president seemed so possible and actually occurred. I’m grateful to be a contributing member of The American Catholic during this election season, which is one of the most widely-read Catholic blogs in the country. This certainly won’t be the last thing I have to say about the presidential race, but rather the first.

When the GOP primary was getting underway, I was a firm Ron Paul supporter. I knew he would not and could not win, but I supported him anyway because I agree with him on most issues, particularly on the role of our government both domestically and abroad. To support Ron Paul was to support the drastic reduction of the federal government, to reject the arrogant assumptions of technocratic management of economic and social issues from the top-down, and to place a vote of confidence in individuals, families, and local governments to solve social and moral problems. I also believe that this is the fundamental political truth of our time: a state governed by militant secularists cannot possibly effect the common good as it is understood by Christians, people of other faiths, or even those secularists who recognize the value of the natural law tradition that has informed the politics of Western civilization since the time of Plato and Aristotle. And yet if we are destined to have secularists in power, we can at least work to limit their power by limiting government as much as possible.

The corollary of the political truth stated above is that one cannot simply discuss “the role of government” in the abstract, without considering who will actually run the state and what values and assumptions they take with them as they create and execute policies with coercive force. Who exactly will be deciding issues that affect your life and mine? Who will have coercive power over you and yours?

More important than what happens to me or my family, though, is how the Church will be affected by those who rule. Even in her most humiliated and rejected state, which the sex scandals have arguably wrought, the Church is still the light of civilization. If her light is extinguished, driven underground, or forced to hide in the shadows, then it is not simply we Catholics who will suffer (though there is certainly nothing wrong with suffering for the faith), but all of society. The Church can and has survived hideous persecution, but it is not clear that society can survive what it will inevitably become without the Church, as well as all of the other religious organizations that will be affected by federal policies, actively involved in public life. Finally, whether society recognizes its debt to the Church or not is irrelevant.

It may be that God has ordained this as a time of cleansing, a time during which the Church must be forced underground and reduced to a smaller size so that she can be tempered and purified. But we cannot know such things with any certainty. What we can know with at least a little more clarity, on the other hand, is what our duties are as Catholic citizens. It is my view that our first priority is to protect the right of the Church to publicly exist. Usually this doesn’t come up because usually the U.S. government does not enact policies that threaten this public existence. But the status quo has changed, and we now face the prospect of an open, vicious anti-Catholic regime in a lame duck Obama presidency. For this reason, I feel obliged as a Catholic to work for the defeat of Obama-Biden in 2012. In practical terms, this means supporting Romeny-Ryan for the Presidency.

 

If I haven’t already made it clear, Romney certainly wouldn’t be my first choice. But after Rick Perry crashed and burned early on in the primaries, it became clear that Romney would be the nominee. I never believed for a moment that Gingrich or Santorum would win the nomination, or Ron Paul for that matter. That a man like Romney represents the GOP is indicative of a number of problems that affect the party and will continue to affect it in the coming decades, but this is hardly relevant now.

I do not look at Romney as a man, but as a representative of the broad coalition of interests that support the GOP and resist the Democrats. I look at Obama in the same way, as a representative of an opposite coalition of interests that support the Democrats and resist the GOP. For better or worse, I believe the Church finds itself out of necessity in the GOP coalition.

The reason why is obvious. Put aside the academic policy debates for a moment. Put aside the debate over whether or not concern for the poor necessitates a confiscatory welfare regime, whether water-boarding is an intrinsic evil, whether being pro-life means being pro-subsidized single motherhood, or any of the other heated policy debates that politically-minded Catholics like to have. The reality is that the fate of the Church in the United States, which is not historically Catholic or majority Catholic, will necessarily be determined through a struggle of powers greater than itself.

On one side of the struggle is a coalition that respects the right of the Church to exist, even if it does not fully embrace all of her positions. On the other side of the struggle is a coalition that can barely conceal its violent hostility for the Church and is pursuing policies and programs that will have the practical effect of driving her out of public life. It isn’t my intention to make the hard case for that here, but most of us understand what the far-reaching implications of the HHS mandate will be. We understand that the kind of people who would propose and implement such a thing can be counted upon to press even further, especially when they no longer have an election to win. We are well within reason to label these people enemies.

As a matter of self-defense, then, we must work for the defeat of Obama this fall. There are other prudent reasons to do so as well. Obama’s vision of fairness and justice is irrational and warped. His recent statements on the HHS mandate are proof enough of this. In the view of Democratic Party, it is not simply our obligation to cough up as much as they determine they need to pump into another social program whose practical results are dubious; our refusal to do so is tantamount to actually taking control of someone else’s life and limiting their freedom. If I don’t want to pay for someone else’s birth control, this means I want to “control the decisions they make about their health” or something along these lines. This insane rationale can be extended to just about anything that can itemized by an apparatchik. There is no limit to what this regime believes it can demand of you in the name of its grand social vision, a vision which is sharply at odds, moreover, with the Catholic faith. As Pope Leo XIII wrote:

If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society. — Libertas, 10

There is no doubt in my mind that this is a perfect description of the HHS mandate and its underlying principles.

If God, in his wisdom, decides to punish us with four more years of Obama, I will see the good in it. I think it will motivate Catholics to organize and resist in ways they have not yet seen the need to do, and that out of this may grow something wonderful and transformative. But I cannot in conscience actively work for such an outcome. I believe my duty is to resist this categorically evil regime. That is why I will support Romney-Ryan for the White House in 2012. I will do so with a clear conscience as one who would defend the Church, the light of civilization and bride of Christ.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Gay Left is Soooooooo Tolerant

As they protest “intolerance” of a business that they feel “doesn’t want them here” they do a really good job at tolerating someone who they don’t agree with and showing him the love and compassion that he deserves.

When are people going to wake up and at least call the gay agenda what it really is? A movement that is NOT rooted in equality and tolerance, but a movement that seeks to squash, silence, and shame opposition. I mean if you’re going to support the movement, fine, but at least be honest about the real change you seek: the eradication of religion, the complete silencing and criminalization of dissent,  the elimination of most sexual boundaries this side of rape, and the disposal of family. If I can’t respect your position I can at least respect your honesty, but right now, there is no honesty here.

If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.

The  Gospel of St. John 15:18

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Santorum Sad Face

I was really excited yesterday to be able to vote in North Dakota’s presidential caucus. I was even more excited for the fact that I was going to get to vote for Rick Santorum, and was elated that Rick won in North Dakota and overall had a pretty good run last night.

But when someone, a fellow Catholic and conservative :( ‘s my choice to vote for Santorum I was utterly disappointed. While Santorum is my first choice, I realize that he is not everyone’s. But to sad face that I am voting for him? Please. Santorum’s stances on the issues and voting record are more than solidly conservative. Anybody who wants a conservative replacement for Obama can appreciate that. Furthermore, as Catholics we really should appreciate Santorum who is indeed Catholic, not a John F. Kennedy Catholic, but a true honest to goodness Catholic (with the exception of the death penalty).

Now I’m not saying that Catholics are required to have Santorum as a first choice, but no Catholic should be sad that somebody would choose to vote for Santorum. Since we are Catholics first and Republican second, we should be supporting the candidates who embody Catholic values. At the very least we shouldn’t be upset at the Catholics who do support these candidates even if they weren’t our own first choices.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , ,

This Much We Know

There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next – and some subscribe to no faith at all.

But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.

President Barack  Obama

The hypocrisy would be quite amusing if it weren’t about such a serious and gravely evil act.

Help make Obama a one-term president. It is time to get this extremely anti-life, anti-freedom, anti-honesty, anti-liberty, anti-Catholic, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-fiscal responsibility man out of the White House.

H/T to Jill Stanek.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abortion

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Idiocracy

Scenario:

I’m a liberal student at a Catholic university.

I’m also sexually active, even though I’m unmarried.

I know that the Church teaches that premarital sex is a sin, but you know what I don’t care. My body, my choice. The Church can’t tell me what to do.

I also know that my sinful choice comes with some consequences. I could get an STD. Or I could even develop a clump of cells in my uterus. Because I don’t want the responsibility that comes with being sexually active, I want to use contraception.

I also know that the Church teaches that contraception is a sin, but you know what, I need it for my health, and it is too expensive, so I think that the Church should pay for it anyway.

That’s right. I want to sin twice (premarital sex and contraception) and I want the Church to condone, approve, and subsidize it all! That’s my human right. I have a human right to birth control. I have a human right to have sex. I have a human right to make someone else pay for it.

END SCENARIO

Is it just me, or am I having a hard time thinking of the proper word for this mentality? Idiotic seems much too mild.

Last time I checked, birth control wasn’t a human right, but religious liberty was. I don’t know, though, maybe the Constitution has changed recently.

Look, as an American, I recognize that you can choose to have sex. I disapprove if it is outside the context of marriage, but you don’t answer to me, you answer to God. I also recognize that you can choose to use contraceptives. I strongly disapprove, and would encourage you to look at how contraceptives have been harmful in so many ways from their effects on women’s health, to the environment, from the objectification of woman to the decreased responsibility with sexual activity. But I’m not going to walk into your bathroom and flush your pills or puncture all the condoms in your glove compartment.

However, as an American, I have the right NOT to pay for your birth control. I have a right NOT to enable you to engage in immoral sexual behavior. You don’t have to agree with my moral standards and I don’t have to agree with your lack of moral standards. You don’t have to pay for our NFP classes, and I don’t have to pay for your birth control. It seems simple enough doesn’t it? You’d think. But some people have their heads so far up their…egos, that they just don’t get it.

It’s sad. And terrifying. But mostly sad. And terrifying.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

One Term

That State of the Union simply reinforced the fact that Obama needs to be a one-term president. More spending proposals, new government agencies. We don’t need a government to supervise us, but one that serves us.

Gah, I don’t even know where to begin.

I hope Santorum is our next president.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , ,

Oh No! North Carolina, How Disgusting!

Now I cannot say for certainty that these persons are pro-choice, for all I know that are staunch defenders of unborn babies. However, this typically is not the case when it comes to reactions like this. Isn’t the more disgusting issue the one where people don’t really flinch about abortion? A woman doesn’t have to stay in a shelter for 72 days before killing her baby. She walks right in like walking into a Great Clips. Its absolutely disgusting that dogs of a certain breed won’t get the chance to be adopted, but completely acceptable that children that fall under the categories of unplanned, unwanted, or impoverished won’t get the chance to be adopted? Its disgusting that North Carolina targets certain dogs to be killed, but not disgusting that the liberal left targets certain children, such as racial minorities, unwanted children, poor children, inconveniencing children to be murdered?

The freaking insanity of liberal “Christians”, so-called humanitarians, and “equal” rights barbarians of the left. Sorry, I just call them like I see them.

HT to All I Know Is Awkward Silence.

Categories: America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Adventure Journal by Contexture International.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers

%d bloggers like this: