The Wussification of America

“If one strikes your cheek, turn and give him the other.”

Very nice words.  They were spoken by Jesus Christ.  It is these words though that pacifists focus on to the exclusion of everything else.  This is what they use to justify their unwillingness to fight back against their enemies.  You know what not being willing to fight back against your enemies should the need arise to do so gets you?  A community full of people killed by your enemies.  Because your enemies, should they decide to attack, won’t give a hoot if you choose to fight back or not.  In fact not fighting back just makes the job of your enemies that much easier.

“Let he who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.”

These are also very great words.  But who were they spoken by?  The very same Jesus Christ in Luke 22:36.

So how are these 2 phrases, both spoken by the same person, to be reconciled?  We are not directed to love violence.  However, we must be ready and willing to prepare ourselves to take up arms should the need arise to do so in order to defend ourselves.  This concept is presented to us the the form of the Just War Doctrine, which can be found here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

But those who erroneously focus on the first of the phrases coined by Jesus to the exclusion of His other one would have us give up our natural right to self-defense for some misbegotten notion that every enemy we have can be reasoned with.

I would also like to add that the enemy we currently fight, the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, is a singular enemy.  Number one Al Qaeda is not a nation, it is an organization that has a stranglehold on nearly all of the Arabian lands.  This enemy also, without shame, after inflicting lasting, grave, and certain harm upon us and our allies and rousing our mighty and terrible wrath, cowers behind schools, hospitals, mosques, synagogues, churches, and other places that have a large supply of human shields because they do not have the guts to fight us out in the open on the battlefield.

Advertisements

Moral relativism: Moral clarity’s exact opposite

In this blog I intend to discuss the difference between moral clarity and moral relativism and how one leads to liberty and the other to license.

Moral clarity is establishing a clear distinction between right and wrong, natural and unnatural.  This is done not on our own power but by recognizing that they are contained within the moral precepts inherent in the natural order which we inhabit (a subset of the divine order for those of us God-believers).  This leads to the formation of a Republic that governs fairly and justly, a Republic where you may have all the freedom you want provided that what you seek is not wrong and/or disordered.  And should you happen to do something that is rightfully considered a crime expect to answer for that crime, or expect to not be able to participate in some institutions whose rules are based upon natural law.   That sounds fair enough to me, that our freedoms must necessarily be limited by the constraints of moral clarity.  This is liberty.

Moral relativism, however, is the exact opposite.  Moral relativism states, quite simply: It’s all good.  Moral relativism rejects the notion that there must be a clear distinction between right and wrong, and in many ways attempts to state that there is no such thing as right vs. wrong.  this leads to a society where people are allowed to commit the gravest of crimes against humanity or live lifestyles that exist in total opposition to natural law.  Basically this is a society where wrongdoing has just as much respect as right doing.  This leads to those who believe that wrongdoing should be punished being called “haters.”  This isn’t liberty.  This is, quite simply, license.  And license cannot exist in a society that hopes to call itself free.

Jesus: Son of Man, Lamb of God

Why Jesus?  How is it He is God the Redeemer made flesh?  To better understand this, one must first understand the original Passover meal given to us in the Book of Exodus and the part the lamb played.  In chapter 12 verse 5 we are told that the lambs used had to be unblemished, that is one of the key words right there.  Lambs, as we know, are the most innocent and trusting of all the creatures of the world, and yet the Jews were directed to slaughter these innocent animals, eat their flesh, and smear their blood upon their lintels.  It is shortly after that that by God’s grace they are led out of slavery to the Egyptians.  So for the Jews to be free of the Egyptians, they had to sacrifice the lives of numerous lambs, unblemished and innocent (sound familiar yet?)

God did not do this just to free His Chosen from the Egyptians, he did this to prefigure to His Chosen how He would save them from slavery to sin.  In order to do this He would have to create a virgin womb by protecting the woman He chooses to be the Virgin Daughter of Israel, who would necessarily be the owner of this virgin womb, from the stain of the original sin, making her and the womb she possesses untouched by sin.  In this womb would he use the Virgin Daughter of Israel’s flesh for the unblemished flesh of the new Son of Man, into which God would pour His very essence, and thus would this new Son of Man become the unblemished Lamb of God, whose slaughter and sacrifice would free us from sin and purchase for us the means by which we can be restored to grace.  Some said that He could not have been the Messiah because the temple was not rebuilt.  But they forgot what constituted a true temple.  No building or construct of man could ever hope to house the full essence of Our Lord.  Yet the unblemished yet frail flesh of Jesus housed God’s full essence.  That would make Jesus a true temple and He did indeed willingly destroy this temple and rebuild it in 3 days (when He resurrected).  And thus in the Catholic Church the tabernacles are true temples as they house the Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord, the Lamb of God, appearing to us under the forms of bread and wine.

Unborn Children: Human Life from conception

“We hold these truths to be self-evident…that all are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.”

These immortal words are falling upon the ears of an increasing number of people who turn a deaf ear and blind eye to such words because of their amoral quest to elevate themselves to masters of life and death.  How have we sunk to this point in the life of our once great nation?

It is simply because too many people have been brainwashed into thinking that while we share our mother’s womb, we are not human, or that because we are inside her womb the mother somehow has the right to elevate herself to godhood and decide whether the baby lives or dies.

We know a maggot to be a fly in an early stage of development.  We know a pregnant female tiger to be carrying a baby tiger within her, a tiger in an early stage of development.  So how is it that we can justify saying that a pregnant woman is carrying something less than human when it is plainly obvious that what the woman is carrying is a human child in an early stage of development?

The simple fact of the matter is that we ARE human beings from the first moment of our conception, human beings in an early stage of development that continue to grow and develop.  Therefore an otherwise viable unborn child is entitled to the same right to live as the rest of us.  People attempt to justify otherwise by saying: “This child cannot reason, is not aware of his existence, therefore he cannot be human.”  Just because a child cannot reason does not mean that he does not have the capacity to.   All humans have the capacity, we just have to be taught how to use this capacity to its fullest possible potential, and there is a time to teach your child how to use this gift of reason.  Infants cannot reason nor are they aware of their own existence, yet we know that infanticide is the gravest of all crimes against humanity.  How is it then that abortion, the wanton murder of an infant, a child, while that child is residing in what should be the safest place for him, is somehow NOT infanticide of the worst kind?

Simply put, abortion IS infanticide, some people just like to think it’s not in order to somehow justify this insane notion they have that humans somehow have the right to determine who lives and who dies.

Mary and the Saints: Why we ask for their help

Many people wonder why we as Catholics call upon Mary and the Saints in intercessory prayer.  It is because we firmly believe, and rightfully, that to call upon those truly dead in both body and spirit constitutes necromancy.  But for those whose spirit lives on, are they truly dead?  Jesus tells us “Whosoever believeth in me shall have eternal LIFE!”  So it is established that in doing our best to dedicate our lives to Him, we shall be eternally alive when our mortal shells expire.  And thus anybody in Heaven (and Purgatory since Purgatory can only lead to Heaven) can pray for us to the Lord our God.  thus we are not practicing necromancy.  Also in the case of Mary, since she is conceived without sin, her body would not expire as ours does, since it is because of original sin that our bodies expire the way they do.  So that is why in her case we also believe she was taken by God up to heaven (i.e., assumed, not ascended as Jesus did, into Heaven), body and soul.

So we do have the authority to call upon those in Heaven or on their way to Heaven through Purgatory to pray for us.  For it is established that such people are eternally alive in Christ.  We can also ask our dead ancestors “If you are in Heaven, pray for us.”  That is because in their case we aren’t as certain of their eternal fate.  However when calling upon Mary and the Saints to pray for us we are truly certain that they are in Heaven because of the lives they led in the natural world of complete dedication to Our Lord.  So we can call upon them in intercessory prayer just as well as we can our fellow man.

That is our take on intercessory prayer in a nutshell.

Mary: Conceived without sin

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse unto thee!

One of our most popular intercessory prayers as Catholics, yet for others perhaps the hardest to grasp.  People say: Only Jesus was sinless!  This cannot be!  Brings back shadows of the time Zechariah disbelieved the will of God when he was told his wife would conceive and bear a son: John the Baptist.  And we know what happened to Zechariah don’t we?  For those that don’t: because Zechariah disbelieved God’s will, he was struck dumb.  In the case of Mary and Jesus, many people are under the mistaken impression that it was having a sinless nature that made Him unique.  It was not sinlessness that set Jesus apart from Mary.  What made Jesus unique is that He was and is the one and only example we have of a hypostatic union of 2 full and distinct natures, one fully human, the other fully Divine.  Both natures were present in their full measure.  In the case of His human nature, this means that his human nature was unblemished by the stain of original sin.  That is what is really meant when we say Jesus possessed a fully human nature.

In Luke 5:37 we have this verse:

And no man putteth new wine into old wine-skins; else the new wine will burst the skins, and itself will be spilled, and the skins will perish.

The Jewish people in those days stored wine in skins taken from the flesh of an animal.  So Jesus not only uses this to relate Himself to the people, but to relate the true nature of His Mother.  This passage refers to Jesus Himself because His Blood is the new wine by which we are saved (“Take this cup and drink from it, for this IS my blood…..”) and so that would thus make His skin, His flesh, new and unblemished.  But just as the Jewish people got new wineskin by taking it (from the flesh of another animal) so did Jesus take His skin, His wineskin as it houses the new wine, His Blood by which we are saved, from an outside source, His Mother, Mary.  So it would logically follow then that Mary’s flesh would, by the Grace of God, in anticipation of her agreeing to say “yes” to being chosen as the Virgin Daughter of Israel through whom God would give to us His only begotten Son, have been made untouched by the stain of Adam and Eve’s original sin.  And thus it is in Mary we find the fullness of that which we seek by dedicating ourselves to Christ.

As the old adage goes “No Mary, no Jesus….Know Mary, Know Jesus.”

I don’t know if this helps people to understand better our dedication to Our Lady, but there you have it.  We accord Our Lady not with the honor we accord to God and Christ (we call this honor “latria”) but we do accord her with an honor above that given to the saints (we call this one “dulia”) because she’s QUEEN of the Saints.  The word we have that describes the honor we accord our Blessed Mother is “hyperdulia.”

And we honor Mary with that title rightfully.  For Jesus is the head of Christian faith.  And we the faithful make up the members of the body of Christian faith.  In the natural world, no mother can give birth to a living head that has no body nor to a living body that has no head, for such creatures are, as St. Louis Marie DeMontfort states, “monsters in the order of nature.”  So it is the same in the order of Grace.  Mary could no more give birth to the head of our Christian faith without then giving US new birth as members of His Body.  If all she did was give birth to the living head (Christ without giving US new birth, then we would be as St. Louis again asserts: “monster in the order of Grace”

This is a longer dissertation than I had planned on.  However I love the Blessed Mother of Christian Faith with all my heart, imperfect as my heart is, stained by the most vile of sins, as any child would love his natural mother.

A word on liberty

I firmly believe that the current state of affairs in our once great nation is due primarily to one thing: people have begun to confuse liberty with license.  We as human beings are predisposed to acting in accordance with that which we know to be wrong and/or unnatural.  So thus does history show us that when a free society is built upon the basis of license, governed only by man’s own selfish whims, that society tends towards collapse from within.  A truly free nation, then, based on liberty, must be founded upon true moral clarity, a clarity that can only come from establishing a clear distinction between right and wrong and by extension natural and unnatural that all of society must abide by.  Because of man’s predisposition towards sin, liberty and the laws which protect it must therefore be constrained by the moral precepts inherent in the natural order whose laws we as human beings are fully cognizant of.

Man is predisposed towards sin because of one thing that sets us apart from any other form of life: our rational minds.  Animals are incapable of sinning simply because they have no rational minds.  I wonder if in some ways those animals are better off.  Because since our gift of a rational mind is tainted, it is both a blessing and a curse.  When used wisely and ethically, our rational minds can lead us to great achievements that mutually benefit society.  When used in an unwise and unethical manner, our rational minds become our greatest downfall and we thus drag society down with us whenever we use our gift unwisely.  So because of the dual nature of our rational minds, any liberty we have in a free nation must be restricted by a law that was, is, and forever shall be constant: natural law (for those of us religious a gift that stems from divine law).  This law, unwritten except upon our very being, binds us to the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, which in turn gives us the moral clarity by which to form a truly free republic.  This law, constant by the simple fact that it is not a man-made law but a constant force of nature, cannot be redefined by man, though as they say: It ain’t for lack of tryin’.  But in the end, a constant can only be one thing: constant.