Catholics' worst enemies: Catholics

Once again it appears that Catholics may be fostering the rapid decay of the moral fiber of America. As the opening paragraph of a recent USA Today article reads, "Want to predict which state might move next to legalize same-sex marriage? You might count Catholics." The article says that the higher percentage of Catholics in the state, the more likely the state is to support 'gay rights' such as s*domite 'marriages'.

Unfortunately, many of today's Catholics seem to turn a blind eye to - or even assist in advancing legal protections for - these unnatural, abominable & sinful unions. They, perhaps, think they do so out of 'charity' - however, such actions are far from charitable.

It is important to recall that: [Note: Most items below taken from an earlier news brief]

* Scripture is the "ultimate authority" and it clearly condemns homosexuality. For example, consider these passages:

Lev. 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Deut. 22:5: "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God."

St. Paul, 1 Cor 6:9-10: 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 practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

St Jude, Jude 1:7: Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

* S*domy is one of only four sins that "cry out to heaven for vengeance".

* God is THE authority on charity and we know from Scripture that the all-loving God has condemned the s*domites to suffer eternal hellfire for their perversity (see Jude 1:7). Therefore, it is clearly not charitable to foster sins which may lead to someone's eternal ruin.

* Having a supposed "inclination" to something does not give one the right to act upon it or make it "not sinful" if one does act on it. For example, some persons may have an inclination to murder, adultery or fornication, but it certainly would be sinful - a crime - to act on any of these inclinations. It would be wrong to legalize the acts on the premise that someone had an "inclination" to the behavior. To act on these inclinations is a sin and a misuse of one's free-will.

* Rights originate from God. Things that offend God cannot be rights.

* Toleration of sin is NOT a virtue. Admonishing of the sinner is clearly Scriptural. For example, consider these passages...

"admonish one another" (St. Paul, Col. 3:16, Rom. 15:14)

"admonish them sharply" (St. Paul, Ti. 1:13)

"admonishing everyone" (St. Paul, Col. 1:28)

"If your brother sins, rebuke him" (Jesus Christ, Lk. 17:3)

* Consenting to another's sin makes one an accessory to sin.

* To grant "rights" to persons for the purpose of engaging in perversion is itself perverted!

Rather than enable s*domites to continue in their sins by promoting 'gay friendly' laws, faithful Catholics who really love homosexuals should seek to protect them from legislation that will ultimately harm both themselves & others, and they should consider appropriate ways to help those who feel they have this inclination to repent & live chastely.

It is certain that Catholics who have joined forces with the Church's enemies - even unknowingly - necessarily become, in a sense, enemies of the Church. Obviously, it is not charitable to become an enemy of the only true Church of Christ, nor will it well-serve the souls of such persons. By joining in insidious 'gay rights' efforts that foster sin, Catholics harm themselves, others, and the homosexuals they supposedly have "charity" for. It would be far better for everyone if they directed their efforts instead to assisting homosexuals in their plight, whether by prayer, education, or other appropriate efforts. True charity calls for loving the sinner, but it also requires that we HATE the sin - not foster it.

Reminder: "Hating the sin", referring to certain persons as "enemies", etc. does NOT mean that one should cause (or wish) harm to anyone. Rather, we should treat others with compassion and lovingly assist them as we are able (e.g. via prayer).

[7/29]

Call now or pay later

Evidently you are made of money. Well, at least that's what the government appears to think. Besides forcing you to cough up the usual sums for Medicare, 'Social Security', property taxes, sales taxes, state taxes, city & local taxes, phone taxes, fuel taxes, utilities taxes, etc., Uncle Sam seems on a relentless path to force you to open up your wallet even farther. Ostensibly forgetful of record unemployment rates and the present recession, the "public servants" in the nation's capital are feverishly working on devising new schemes to part you from your hard-earned funds.

They already use your taxes to pay for abortions, for benefits for s*domite "partners", for failed public "education", and for a host of other 'pet projects' that you may vehemently object to. But they manifestly don't care. Recently, they voted to spend outrageous amounts to "stimulate" the economy. And where do you think that money will ultimately come from? The taxpayer, of course. Sadly, your so-called "representatives" in government didn't bother reading the bill they voted on to make sure it was prudent, they didn't sufficiently investigate the reports they based their conclusions on, they didn't bother trimming out wasteful spending, and they didn't bother asking you what you wanted. They just voted for it. No surprise, but early reports already show this 'stimulus' has been a failure. And it is only expected to get worse.

Not daunted in the least by this, your 'public servants' have ventured forward to spend your hard-earned tax money buying troubled companies. Again, you got no vote. Still not satisfied, they are moving ahead with absurdly costly & harmful programs to "regulate" the climate and nationalize healthcare (which is almost certain to include coverage for contraception & abortions, and likely to cover healthcare for illegals). Again you'll get no vote. You'd think they'd at least have the decency to read the legislation they enact, but no. Nor will they commit to giving the public a week to read proposed bills that will have a major impact on their lives. That's just too much to ask of these 'public servants'. Rather, your elected government officials expect you will just "shut up and pay".

Unfortunately, our bishops have not helped much by (1) "enthusiastically" supporting "climate change legislation" that opponents say will result in "the largest tax increase in American history" and have only a "miniscule effect on the process of climate change", and (2) by their apparently promoting "comprehensive healthcare coverage" for illegals...all paid for at your expense, of course.

Certainly, we are called to pay taxes...

"Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due." (St. Paul, Rom.13:7)

...but there is obviously a limit to what is morally acceptable. A bit of sanity from Popes seems in order:

"[I]t is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes." (Pope Pius XI, "Quadragesimo Anno")

"Public authority therefore would act unjustly and inhumanly if in the name of taxes it should appropriate from the property of private individuals more than is equitable." (Pope Leo XIII, "Rerum Novarum")

As citizens, we must take the time to demand that our government put an end to the wasteful spending of our tax money. Tell your government officials that you expect them to fully read & carefully evaluate any legislation they vote for. If you can't afford higher taxes and energy costs, tell them that (who can afford such things?). Tell them you object to their funding of abortion, s*domite 'partner' benefits, etc. as well as any other immoral and irresponsible spending of your tax money. Tell them it is wrong that you have to cut back on necessities while they squander your tax money. Tell them you don't want new taxes for "climate change" legislation or for nationalized healthcare. Tell them you object to their burdening your children & grandchildren with enormous debt. It is very important to express your concerns to them now, before it is too late. They have acted with apparent disregard for you in the past, however there is one thing they likely still care about - their reelection. Make them fear for that. Stand firm and vow to do what you can to ensure they will not get reelected if they do not do what you ask of them. Even if you "have no time" to make the call, you must find the time somehow. If you don't, you will certainly pay the price later - literally. And don't expect that it will be cheap.

[Note: Click link for contact information: White House | Senate | House of Representatives | State Legislatures]

[7/6]

The Real Climate Change

Considering the recent "doom & gloom" report issued by the White House, it seems a good time to contemplate the "global warming" agenda. Not being a scientist with fancy credentials, these thoughts won't be lofty or technical, but more a probe of the impetus behind the movement and some of its unanswered questions.

To begin with, the report - authored by governmental agencies, universities & research institutions - says that global warming is...

* "unequivocal"

* happening now

* caused primarily by humans

* effecting the entire U.S.

* worsening

* already partially irreversible

* affected by choices made today

Grave predictions are associated with this report. For example...

* More floods, tornadoes & hurricanes

* "Significant" increase in heat related deaths

* Harm to crops

* "Extreme" heat waves

* More air pollution

* Increased occurrences of wildfires

* Water shortages

* Increase in insects

* Harm to the economy

Scary stuff. But, yet some things may nevertheless be found questionable with regard to the "climate change" movement. For example:

* If "global warming" is so certain and "unequivocal", why do thousands and thousands of scientists disagree?

* If "global warming" is true, why were scientists in the recent past concerned about "global cooling" - a supposed coming "ice age"?

* "How can they predict global warming 100 years into the future when they cannot predict the temperature accurately for next weekend?"

* How can they prove that "warming" isn't normal & cyclical? How do they counter critics' claims that the supposed warming is "moderate and not unprecedented"? That these are simply normal & natural climate cycles?

* How can they prove "warming" isn't caused by natural changes with respect to the sun as some suggest?

* How can they prove their "climate models" are accurate, especially in light of the deficiencies some say exist?

* If "global warming" was caused by humans, why might certain elements be traced back to periods of history in which it would have been impossible for people to have been the cause?

* If "global warming" was true, why have "propaganda pieces", such as Gore's movie, been shown to contain "substantial inaccuracies and false claims"?

* If "global warming" is getting worse, why was one recent year noted as the "coldest year of the decade"?

* Why have the alarmists "overlooked or downplayed" benefits that some "atmospheric changes" have supposedly brought?

* Have they concretely proven (not just alleged) that mere humans - who make up only a very small part of this planet - have caused such a catastrophic impact? ("In the absence of fire, could a lone fly heat up the entire Empire State Building?") And furthermore, have they even remotely considered the planet's - like the body's - remarkable ability to "heal" itself?

* How can they prove (not just allege) that human behavior is the driving force in "global warming"? Why do critics point to the insignificance of human factors in comparison with naturally occurring factors (e.g. volcanoes)?

* How do they counter critics' charges that their "cause & effect determinations are erroneous"?

* Are some supposed effects of "global warming" - e.g. erosion - really just normal occurrences that are to be expected? Didn't they occur many times in the past - long before humans could have been "responsible for global warming"?

* How can we trust their results as "scientific" when it would have been impossible for them to accurately compare temperatures over long periods of time? Remember that reliable measurements are available only for more recent years. They obviously must have based their findings on mere "estimations and calculations" - not actual empirical data. [And, even if changes could be reliably measured over the small span of the past 50 years, this wouldn't prove that observed variations are anomalies. Perhaps such variations have occurred repeatedly over past millenniums. Without reliable measurements for the past thousands of years, we couldn't know for certain.]

Also...

* Why does some significant evidence appear to contradict their theory?

* Why does the mainstream media fail to report evidence which is contrary to the alarmists' claims?

* Why is equal press time not given to those who reject the concept of "global warming"?

* Why are alarmists' claims given a good deal of attention when they are made but when they are disproved this fact is given little or no attention?

* How can we be absolutely certain that alarmists' claims are scientifically rather than politically motivated?

* Do we really believe government can "stop" climate change?

* How can they disprove critics' claims which speak of "faulty science", "lack of evidence", "untrue claims", "misrepresentations", "a hoax", "inaccuracies", "exaggerations", "lies"? Since they make the claim of "global warming", it seems the burden of proof must rest with them.

* Is it true that some dissenting research papers have been ignored? That certain "researchers" ignore opposition? That they gloss over findings which disagree with their already held positions? That "intimidation tactics" have been used? That dissenting scientists are "afraid" to speak out because they may lose research money or be ostracized by colleagues - or have their careers ruined?

* How do they counter charges that some have a financial interest in the outcome of supposedly "scientific" findings regarding "global warming"?

* Isn't it a bit convenient that such an extreme alarmist report has come out while legislation regarding "global warming" is stalled in congress? As one person said regarding the report, "One has to hope it will influence how people think about particular legislative proposals."

* How can we be assured that this is not simply "scare tactics & fear mongering"? Alarmists point to "catastrophic changes", "an enemy threatening public health", a "state of emergency" and say there is no time for delay. And there is, of course - conveniently - no time for debate.

Ultimately, what is most scary about this movement is the effect it will likely have upon us and on our freedoms. Don't we have very good reason to fear that this is an agenda to further tax & regulate people, take away freedoms, redistribute wealth, raise prices (especially for fuel), promote abortion and euthanasia, and gain power? Isn't this some very handy "artillery" to force people to make unwanted or harmful lifestyle changes (e.g. have fewer children; drive smaller, less safe cars)? Isn't this the perfect opportunity to advance the agendas of global government and depopulation? Haven't we seen over and over again how those in power provoke fear and then profit from it? Haven't we experienced many false alarms in the past - supposed "crises" that simply vanish away without coming true? Doesn't sad experience show us that we can't blindly trust alarmists and politicians, especially those who have agendas? Don't their actions already illustrate that the "fear mongering" will eventually lead policy-makers to discover new "environmental crimes" which could result in persons being fined, sent to jail, or even (in some countries) receiving the death penalty?

Isn't it already troubling that children are being indoctrinated into accepting "global warming" as an indisputable fact? Isn't it also unnerving that everywhere we go someone tries to brainwash us into acceptance of the "global warming dogma"? Isn't it bothersome that those who don't accept "the party line" on 'global warming' are likely to be ridiculed & ostracized?

Finally, even if global warming was actually true, could we safely trust politicians to "fix" this supposed problem if they hold anti-Christian values, if they are anti-life, and if they have no qualms about "taxing us into the poorhouse"?

Again, not being a scientist and thereby not able to evaluate the highly technical arguments on their merits one may simply consider what is readily observable. If nothing else, the above point to some serious "red flags" with regard to supposed "global warming". Besides, biblically speaking, isn't it fair to say that the end of the earth will be advanced by moral sins rather than "environmental sins"? Scripture doesn't speak of the end of the earth coming due to some "impersonal" crumbling of ecosystems but rather in relation to Christ's second coming. Obviously the real end of the world won't be preventable merely by adopting "green" policies.

Lastly, it is true that there is one climate change prevention effort that IS undisputedly worth our efforts. That is preventing THE real "global warming" that we may experience after death if our souls are not saved. And the threat of this "climate change" is undeniably real. Not only that, but it is eternal, unfixable, and is the direct result of each sufferer's own actions. It is incumbent upon each of us to do all we can to avoid this "global warming". Fortunately, preventing this dreaded "climate change" requires no scientists, politicians, regulations or taxes. [6/17]