Question For Show: Safeguarding Against Activists?

[MMathis]

Anyone that thinks it is over, is wrong. It has never been about homosexuals getting married. They want to silence Christians and force acceptance of their lifestyle.

This is only the beginning, not the end of it. The lawsuits will start.

They now have equal footing, thanks to the editor of her school paper (Kagan) and several others. Can you picture what would happen if the Catholic Church spoke out against women or black people the way it speaks out against homosexuals?

Yes folks, the fun is about to start.

[TheEditor]

It strikes me that by comparison to the cultures of Rome and Corinth that first century Christians had to bear, we are living in Romper Room.

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

TheEditor I appreciate that you often speak outside of mainstream Christian thought. Do you think American Christians can develop something of a victim complex? Why do they cry so much over the fact that sinners are going to sin? I have trouble understanding it sometimes. The fact that gays can marry doesn't change anything at all about my witness or what I stand for, anymore than the fact that divorce is legal or getting drunk is legal or watching porn is legal.

[BrotherAlan]

MMathis wrote:

Anyone that thinks it is over, is wrong. It has never been about homosexuals getting married. They want to silence Christians and force acceptance of their lifestyle.

This is only the beginning, not the end of it. The lawsuits will start.

They now have equal footing, thanks to the editor of her school paper (Kagan) and several others. Can you picture what would happen if the Catholic Church spoke out against women or black people the way it speaks out against homosexuals?

Yes folks, the fun is about to start.

'

I definitely agree (and I also think this is an issue on which all Christians-- Catholics and non-Catholics, can unite). Indeed, the pro-Sodomites have successfully framed this "discussion" in such a way that our opposition to a grave sin, i.e., homosexual activity, is regarded as being uncharitable, i.e., as being akin to being racist and sexist. They were very clever in doing so-- clever like Satan, the father of their movement. And, when I assert this (i.e., that the Devil is the leader and father of the pro-Sodomite movement), I am not saying that all in this movement actually realize that the Wicked One is the leader of their movement-- in fact, I think most in the pro-gay movement do not realize that (although I do suspect that some do realize it). But, either way, I'm just asserting that, in fact, the Devil is the leader of this movement, as he has been behind the whole pro-death movement, i.e., the movement that has successfully pushed such things as abortion and contraception, in the modern world.

Now, I know that some may disagree with me on this, but, I am absolutely convinced that once the world accepted contraception, the acceptance of such things as abortion and homosexual activity was an inevitability. For, once one accepts contraception, one has to accept the principle that sexual activity can be used for some other purpose entirely OTHER than the generation of children (i.e., one can have sexual intercourse with absolutely no openness to children); and, once one accepts THAT principle, then one is going to be inclined, first, to accept abortion (for, if one uses sex for something entirely OTHER than the generation of children, eg., pleasure, then, WHEN a child IS generated, one must "solve" this "problem", and abortion is one easy "solution" to this "problem" of a child-- when, in truth, the very purpose of sexual activity is to generate a child!). Further, once one accepts the "contraceptive principle" that sex can be used for something entirely other than the generation of children, then there is no real reason to NOT accept such things as masturbation and homosexual activity as being okay-- in fact, there is no real reason to not accept ANY sexual activity as being okay (so long, as there is "mutual consent" among any human individuals who are involved), eg., orgies, beastiality, etc. The acceptance of contraception and the contraceptive mentality in the modern world totally opened the door to all of these sexual aberrations.

Blessed Pope Paul VI, the brave Catholic Pope who re-affirmed the traditional Christian teaching against contraception (and I emphasize traditional Christian teaching against contraception, and not only Catholic teaching-- for, it should be known and pondered that the Christian teaching against contraception was universally accepted by all Christian denominations-- not only the Catholic Church-- all the way up until the 20th century), very accurately predicted what would follow should contraception be accepted by modern society. Blessed Pope Paul VI wrote:

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions...(Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, no. 17-18; bold-faced mine)

So, my point in saying all this is that we, as Christians, need to recognize the root cause of the success of this pro-Sodomite movement: namely, the widespread acceptance of the contraceptive mentality. The solution, then, is to return to authentic Christian chastity, which recognizes that sexual intercourse is to be used only between a man and a woman who are married to each other, for the primary purpose of generating children, with the secondary purpose of further uniting the husband and wife in authentic conjugal love (which means that all sexual activity between husband and wife must at least be open to the generation of life, i.e., there can be no direct attempt to prevent conception). Again, I realize that many Christians outside of the Catholic tradition no longer accept this teaching-- but, to this I say, first, consider carefully the principles laid down here (for which reason contraception is to be considered wrong and the "contraceptive mentality" to be the "mother" of the "pro-Sodomite mentality")...and, also, consider that this traditional teaching against contraception is not only in the Catholic tradition, but actually is firmly rooted in ALL Christian traditions (the acceptance of contraception by many Christians is simply a recent departure from traditional Christian morality). Once Christians are united in their realization of what constitutes true chastity, and are willing to stand up for these beliefs, then all of us-- Catholic and non-Catholic alike-- can present an united Christian witness to the world which has, quite literally, gone mad with disordered sexual desires.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

[BrotherAlan]

dizerner wrote:

TheEditor I appreciate that you often speak outside of mainstream Christian thought. Do you think American Christians can develop something of a victim complex? Why do they cry so much over the fact that sinners are going to sin? I have trouble understanding it sometimes. The fact that gays can marry doesn't change anything at all about my witness or what I stand for, anymore than the fact that divorce is legal or getting drunk is legal or watching porn is legal.

First, I would say that the widespread acceptance and legalization of divorce WAS a terrible thing (and was, btw, like contraception, abortion, and homosexual activity, vigorously fought against by the Catholic Popes). The widespread acceptance and legalization of divorce was also one of those awful things that paved the way for where we are today-- divorce, contraception, abortion, the pro-Sodomite movement...all different facets of the same diabolical movement, and we should be concerned about it all.

The cause for extra concern now is that the pro-Sodomite movement seems to many of us to not be content with merely getting their "right" to "marriage" (sic!!), but, rather, they want everyone to APPROVE of their disgusting lifestyle. To cite just one example: in Mexico, the brave Catholic bishop down there recently spoke vigorously against his nation's legalization of this falsely-called "gay 'marriage'"; the response of the pro-Sodomites: they are filing charges against him for "discrimination"; similar things are being pushed in our nation (USA, that is). Like MMathis wrote, the pro-Sodomites have so successfully pushed their (demonic) agenda that they have convinced the world-- including many CHRISTIANS-- that to be OPPOSED to sodomy is uncharitable, uncharitable to the same degree as are such sins as racism and sexism. Again, like MMathis said-- consider what happens today when one makes racist and sexist comments: the world, justifiably, reacts vigorously against such a person (or body of persons). The way things are going (or have already gone), when the Catholic Church, or any other Christian body or individuals, speaks out against sodomite "marriage", the world, unjustifiably, will treat such a one as they would treat a racist or sexist....things could very well get ugly rather fast...I hope I'm wrong; I fear I'm not.

Though, that being said...we must remember Our Lord's words: "In the world you will have trouble; but take courage, for I have overcome the world."

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

[steve]

BrotherAlan,

I can't disagree with you, or the pope, on this point. I became convicted about contraception 32 years ago, and came to believe that conception is to be left in the hands of God.


dizerner wrote:

Why do they cry so much over the fact that sinners are going to sin? I have trouble understanding it sometimes. The fact that gays can marry doesn't change anything at all about my witness or what I stand for, anymore than the fact that divorce is legal or getting drunk is legal or watching porn is legal.

I am not bothered that the courts allow sinners to sin. That is a non-starter for discussion. Homosexuals have been sinning since the beginning of time, and Christianity has survived and thrived. The main issue here is the obvious intention of the courts to silence Christians. If a Christian can be threatened with jail for choosing not to photograph or make a cake for a gay wedding (though every other business can "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" with impunity), it is clear who the targets of this legislation are.

Again, we should consider persecution to be a Christian norm—and it has seemed strange to have gone so long in this country avoiding it. However, it seems naive to suggest that nothing has changed. Christians going to jail for simply following their Christian convictions has been exceedingly rare in this country. I suspect that the new normal will be Christians enforcing a gag rule on themselves concerning their controversial convictions in order to avoid prison sentences. State persecution may possibly turn out well for the health of the church, but it seems naive to think that the status quo will remain unchanged and that this simply is a continuation of sinners acting like sinners.

Since I enjoy the freedom to minister on the radio and the internet, I hope my suspicions are wrong. I am pretty sure that Bonhoeffer also hoped his suspicions were wrong.

[dizerner]

But even many atheists agree that being jailed for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding is wrong. It's not like Christians are alone on that, or that is the only unjust thing the government does to any people group. Why do we Christians deserve such a loud voice when so many others are getting unfairly treated as well? Isn't that doing the same thing as gays, make a voice that is louder than really represents our share of the issues? Not to mention that it looks to me like most Christians think appearing on a TV show or writing a blog article is affecting their culture more than getting on their knees and praying to their Father in secret. I agree persecution is coming and we should be prepared. I just think Christians would be a far more powerful witness if they showed more respect for others and more humility about themselves, instead of acting like forcing a theocracy is somehow the norm (and that is not to say, all are like that, however I do think this seems to be the general impression of the unsaved so far as I can tell).

Brother Alan, thank you for sharing the Catholic perspective. I particularly appreciate their stand against pornography, which I think is a far more relevant problem in the church.

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

I think it comes down to, in at least some cases, this nonsensical idea that has been bandied about on talk radio for years about "God's special hand on America", as if the Most High had some hand in writing the Constitution. I believe that there have been pockets throughout history in various nations where morality equal too or in many cases much worse than what we witness today, was mainstream behavior. And yet, Christians continued to live their witness and in some cases, die for it. To run the risk of sounding hubristic, if it's going to come, bring it on. I was raised a JW during a time when they expected grave persecution for JWs; there was a bit of a developing bunker mentality that they have largely abandoned now, but I still remember it well. We can anticipate the possibility, but there is a thin line between realistic caution and paranoia.

Brother Allan; one of the few contemporary Catholic writers that I have heard interviewed was Malachi Martin. He stated once that God must abhor politicking clergymen. One of the reasons he gave was that such politicking showed the fecklessness of the RC Church in moralizing the masses, and rather resorting to the big stick of government to do the heavy lifting. I tend to agree with him.

Regards, Brenden.

[BrotherAlan]

First, here is an article on the real possibilities (and current realities) of restrictions on Christians' religious freedom that could be (or already are) present with the political success of the gay rights movement, especially this recent Supreme Court decision: http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0701af.html

Secondly, while we must make a distinction between the political sphere and the religious/sacred sphere, we can not separate our practice of religion with our practice of politics (and vice-a-versa). The main reason for this is that, as Christians, we must not only be concerned with our rights as Christians, but, more importantly, we must be concerned with the rights of Christ, as the King of the Universe. As one of my pastors-- Pope Pius XI-- stated, "If the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights." (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, 24; italics added; see http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en ... rimas.html)

We must remember that it is objective fact, objective reality, that Christ is the King of the Universe, and, as such, it is due to Him, in justice, that not only all individuals, but even all societies and states, render Him due homage as King-- for, every king has a right to the homage of his subjects, and this is especially true of Christ. The manner in which societies render Him this homage may differ-- it need not be explicitly stated in a nation's laws that Christ is honored as its King (although, this does not seem to me to be at all a bad thing, but, rather, this seems to me to be the ideal case, even if it is not, in our day, very realistic in most nations), and, as stated, there is a distinction between the political sphere and the religious sphere (and, thus, a distinction between the secular state and the Church)...but, nevertheless, we as Christians must recognize that it is owed to Christ that each society and nation, in some way, recognize Him as their true King (and, for this reason, we in the Catholic Church have a special feastday devoted to Christ as King-- "Christ the King Sunday"-- in which we celebrate the fact that Christ is, in reality, the King of the Universe, and that He is owed the homage of a king by all persons and states).

We in the United States are not used to speaking or hearing things like this-- for, we pride ourselves in not having a king, and we also pride ourselves on religious pluralism (almost as if this is the ideal, whereas, in reality, though it-- a society with religious pluralism-- has afforded us, as Christians, the ability to practice our religion more-or-less as we wish, a society built on religious pluralism as the ideal is often not inclined to render Christ the homage due to Him as King-- and this is not good, for it is unjust...a society which fails to render Christ due homage as King commits a collective injustice towards Him). But, the reality, the objective reality, is that Christ is King...and, we, as Christians, must remember this, especially in light of such decisions as this recent Supreme Court decision (and the very possible political consequences that could follow in its wake). We must remember that we are not simply fighting for our rights-- we are, more so, fighting for the rights of Christ, the King of the Universe. We are fighting for His right to be rendered the homage due to Him as King of the Universe, as the King of each and every nation on earth-- including our own United States of America.

In Christ the King,
BrotherAlan

[TheEditor]

Brother Alan,

I cannot disagree with your sentiments. I also could never really disagree with the sentiments of Malachi Martin when would occasionally hear him interviewed. However, your views as, I am assuming an RCC Monk or Priest or what-have-you and those of Martin (a Jesuit) are probably envisioned quite differently from myself when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts of realizing them; as I have no doubt that the two of you would see this as only being realized through the very literal extension of a brick-and-mortar Kingdom of Christ, ie. the RCC.

Regards, Brenden.