A Vote for Evil?

Posted by Scott at 8/11/2012 08:30:00 AM

Re-printed with permission.

 

Catholic voters cannot support any candidate whose position is intrinsically evil. Baltimore's Archbishop Lori preached recently. Anyone who supports abortion is supporting murder, an intrinsic evil and no Catholic can, in good conscience or in good faith, vote for such a candidate. Likewise, a candidate who does not uphold THE definition of marriage as being the union of a man and a woman and supports homosexual "marriage" - with homosexuality being an intrinsic evil and an abomination to the Lord - cannot be supported in good conscience or faith. This really narrows the field for you!

Vote your conscience - vote your faith! What good is your faith if you don't LIVE it and EXPRESS it? Such would be known as a faith without works. You can express yourself as a Catholic all you want, but when it comes to actually LIVING your faith, do you? When you enter the privacy of that voting booth, do you pull the lever or fill in the blank for the candidate who supports the killing of innocent children in the womb? Will you vote for the candidate who supports marriage or the one who supports the dissolution of the first Sacrament God instituted which is specifically for a man and a woman? If you are not LIVING your faith, then you do not have a LIVING faith!

^{James 2:14} What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?

The simple answer to St. James' question is NO! That faith cannot and will not save him. If you exercise your freedom to vote in such a manner that you're voting for someone who supports values contrary to your faith - that would be even worse than the "dead faith" St. James speaks of, for YOUR works actually become EVIL WORKS when you stand in support of a candidate who supports such intrinsic evils.  [Blog site address:
 http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-vote-for-evil.html]

 

As Catholics we are obliged to vote pro-life but if the only two candidates to vote for can both be labeled pro-abortion then Cardinal Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the Vatican's highest court) said : “You may in some circumstances, where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/oct/10102806)

Why Homosexual Unions are not Marriages

 

 

 

Why should society sanction marriage at all?  Isn’t it the couple’s business and nobody else’s?

In fact, it is in society’s interest to recognize marriage, and that is why societies all over the world, throughout history, have done so.  The reason why is obvious:  In order to survive and prosper, societies need new members.

They constantly lose members – whether through illness, accident,  crime or simply old age.  One way or another, at some point, every single member of a society will die, and if these deaths are not offset by births, then the society will die.

Marriage, by its very nature, is the institution that brings new human beings into the world and raises them to be productive members of society.  If a society wants to survive and prosper, then, it is in its interest to recognize and help marriage in a special way.

Where marriage and families are threatened, society is threatened, and where marriage and families are strong, society is strong.

Society should not treat homosexual unions as marriages because they are not marriages.  Such unions are incapable, by their very nature, of producing children.  The parties do not complement each other the way that a man and a woman do.  A homosexual union is a fundamentally different thing than a marriage.  It isn’t a question of whether society should allow homosexual marriage.  It can’t.  No one can.

[…]

Since before recorded history, men and women have united to care for each other and to bring up children.  That happens in every culture, no matter where in the world.  In fact, a culture would die without those unions of men and women.  Marriage is thus a human universal, an institution that is built into human nature and that manifests itself in all societies.

But procreation is not the only issue.  Men and women are different in ways that go beyond reproduction.  Both physically and psychologically, they complement and complete each other in a manner that two people of the same sex do not.  These differences play an important role in raising children.  By setting examples of true fatherhood and motherhood, a husband and wife provide the kind of environment that helps children grow and develop properly.

You see, society is not denying marriage to homosexuals.  Instead, homosexual activists are asking society to redefine marriage so that the term applies to things that are not, in fact, marriages.

Even apart from procreation and raising children – as in the case of marriages which do not result in children due to infertility – the physical and psychological differences between men and women enable them to unite and thrive in a way two people of the same sex cannot.

[…]

When a country bases its policies on false premises, society suffers.  It does not matter what the policy is.  If its army misjudges the enemy’s position, it may suffer a crushing defeat.  If its economic policy is out of touch with reality, hard times will result.  And if a state becomes delusional about the nature of men and women, disaster is bound to follow.

This would be a further blow to marriage – beyond those it has already suffered from easy divorce, out-of-wedlock births, abortion, and contraception.

Any children being brought up by homosexual “parents” would also be harmed.  Whether the children were acquired by adoption, surrogacy, or

through a previous, heterosexual union, they would be raised with a false view of human sexuality and a defective set of moral values, as well as being denied the example of proper fatherhood and motherhood.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would lead to even further distortions of marriage.  If two people of the same sex can be married then there is no logical reason why other unions are not possible as well.  Polygamous unions with multiple spouses, of any combination of sexes, could follow.  Adult-child unions would be up for discussion.

There is the related question of nonsexual unions:  elderly friends, college roommates, etc.  If two people of the same sex can marry to obtain the legal benefits of marriage, then on what grounds would these people be denied them?

Applying the term “marriage” to unions other than those of a man and a woman ends up robbing marriage of meaning.  The logical end point of marriage redefinition would have to be recognizing unions of infinitely variable combinations of persons as marriages – otherwise you would be discriminating against some combinations.  When that happens, marriage – having become whatever you want it to be – has lost all meaning.

 

Taken from the booklet: 
Catholic Answers, Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages, 27 pp., 2012

[Which can be bought for a dollar at www.catholic.com/voteyourfaith]

Proof of the Resurrection

 

 

 

Using the very early Christian writings as reliably historical records only and not inspired texts helps us to show that our belief in Christianity is not based solely on a book by on a man, a God-man Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

There is evidence that Jesus’ disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.  We find in 1 Cor 15:3-8 an ancient creed spoken by Paul to the Corinthians>

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Cor 15:3-8 NIV)

This creed is generally agreed that Paul received it from Peter and James between 3 and 5 years after the Crucifixion.  Since they are the ones who gave the creed to Paul, Jewish Scholar Pinchahs Lapide says this creed “may be considered the statement of eyewitnesses.”  Here’s something more to consider that is often overlooked from this passage.  The large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning, over 500 people is another statement worthy of consideration.  Paul reminds them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned.  He says in effect, ‘If you don’t believe me, you can ask then.’  Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago.

Just because the disciples think they say Jesus though, doesn’t mean they really did.  There are three possible alternatives.

1.     They were lying

2.     They hallucinated

3.     They really saw the risen Christ

Which of these is most likely?  Were they lying?  If they were lying, it meant that the disciples knew that Jesus had not really risen, that they made the story about the resurrection.  But then why did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for their belief in the resurrection?  People often die for a lie they believe is true.  But if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it.  They wouldn’t have just been dying for a lie they mistakenly believed was true.  The disciples were willing to give up their lives for a lie they KNEW was a lie.  Ten people will not all give up their lives for something they know to be a lie.

To suggest that the disciples were lying is considered today by all prominent New Testament scholars as an absurd theory.  We can see why almost all scholars today admit that, if nothing else, the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them.  But to believe something does not necessarily make it true.  Maybe the disciples were wrong and had been confused by an hallucination.

The theory of mass hallucinations is another attempt at explaining the claims of the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection.  The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him.  This cannot be done with hallucinations.  Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections.  And what about Paul’s conversion?  Was Paul, the persecutor of Christians, so hoping to see the resurrected Jesus that his mind invented an appearance as well?

Since the disciples could not have been lying or hallucinating, we have only one possible explanation left:  the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus because they really had seen the risen Jesus.  So the resurrection appearances demonstrate the reality of the resurrection.  And the proof in the claim that Jesus Called Himself God (John 8:58 referencing Exo 3:14) is found in the Resurrection.  He is Risen!

Missed passed week’s leaflets? Questions? Comments? Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com

Written by a St. Denis parishioner

Forgiveness of Sins

Forgiveness of Sins

We find in 1 John 1:9 what we find throughout the Scriptures, that God does indeed forgive us our sins. John tells us that “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity.” Only God has the power to forgive sins but us Catholics believe that He can exercise this power through men.

But what does Scripture say about Confession? First, its important for you all to realize that this belief in the forgiving of sins by priests is something that has been believed before the Scriptures were ever written. Makes sense since they wouldn’t be able to write about something unless they already believed it. This Tradition has been passed down to us and part of it was written down in an inspired fashion and found its way in our Bible.

In the parable of the prodigal son, the son asks for his share of the inheritance from the father in effect saying that his father’s dead to him. He leaves and squanders everything and finally realizes what he’s done and decides to return home. The father, seeing his son in the distance, runs out to meet him with a hug and a kiss. Through one loving gesture, the father forgives the son – and the son hasn’t even made his confession yet! When he does, it seems the father hardly listens. The confession is not the most important thing here; the important thing is that his son has returned home.

Let’s have a look at the story of the paralytic man that was brought down from the ceiling because the crowds were blocking their access to Jesus as found in Gospels of Mark and Matthew. In the Gospel of Mark the story begins in the second chapter and as his friends brought the man down from the ceiling and “[w]hen Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” (verse 5) But the scribes sitting there were outraged at what he spoke saying: “It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Those who believe that no man can forgive sins, that only God can do that, are on the same camp as the scribes in this story. Generally speaking, to be in agreement with the scribes of the time of Jesus is not a very good place to be. Well, Jesus answered their objections with: “that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he turned to the paralytic and said – “Rise, take up your mat and go home.” In verse 8, chapter 9 of Matthew’s version, we see the scribes reaction to this revelation. When they saw this miracle “they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.”

Notice this last word. Matthew didn’t write that the authority to forgive sins was given to a man, he said it was given to MEN, plural. So now the question is do all of us have this authority to forgive the sins of others whom we may not even know as Jesus could do? James clearly points to the fact that only some men were given this authority because he writes to go get the elders so that their sins may be forgiven (James 5:14-15). But who received this authority?

To answer this question all we need do is go to John 20:21. These events are happening on the day of our Lord’s rising from the dead. All of His followers left and scattered. His disciples, the twelve locked themselves into a room for fear of the Jews. Jesus then appeared to the apostles in that locked room and said: “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” When He said this he “breathed on them” and said “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”(verses 21 and 22)

There are a few things to consider in these short passages. First we need to remember that only the apostles were in that room on the first day of His Resurrection (except for Thomas and Judas who weren’t there).

Second, Jesus said that He sends these apostles in the same way that He, Himself was sent. Going back to the story of the healing of the paralytic in Matt 9 verse 6, we know that “the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”. Therefore Jesus sends the apostles with that same authority, the authority on earth to forgive sins. And since He also has the authority to give this authority to others, then so do the apostles who then hand this authority to their successors all the way down through history to today’s bishops and priests.

Third, Jesus tells them that if they forgive the sins of any they are forgiven BUT He also tells them that if they retain the sins of any they are retained. For the apostle to know which sins to forgive and especially which sins to retain they need to have some kind of knowledge of them therefore we see the need to CONFESS our sins to these apostles or successors.

To recap, there are three main reasons why we ought to go to Confession for the forgiveness of our sins. Firstly because it has been set up this way since the very early years of our children in the faith, the Jews (see Leviticus 5:5-6 for an example of this). Jesus taught this same idea of the forgiveness of sins through those He appointed and gave such necessary authority that the Jewish people never had.

Secondly, both John and James mention the need to confess our sins to each other. These men tell us to confess our sins to each other but more specifically James says that certain men have this power to forgive the sins of others (James 5:14-15).

Lastly, we know that Jesus has the authority on earth to forgive sins (Matt 9:6) and that Jesus sends His apostles with the authority to forgive sins as well as the authority to pass this authority on to their successors all the way through history to our bishops and priests of today.

So true sacramental forgiveness of sins is a fulfillment of the sacrificial system of the forgiveness of sins of the Jewish people. It is also the power of God working through men (bishops and priests) and is instituted by Jesus Himself when He breathed on them and passed on this power through apostolic succession to the bishops and priests of today.

If you were dying of cancer and you prayed everyday for God to heal you, God could easily heal you instantly. But before that happens you will no doubt constantly visit the doctor to help you. Now say you are healed by the doctors help. It’s not the doctor that healed you, it was God. The doctor was just the intermediary for God. God used the doctor to perform His miracle. This is the same way that God uses a priest to administer the sacrament of confession to us. Sin is like a cancer and we need to go to the doctor (priest) to be healed. So why go to confession? Because Jesus Christ our Lord and God set it up this way. Who are we to say that we don’t need to go?

Missed past week’s leaflets? Questions? Comments? Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com