How we lost Marriage

6 May

Wait! I know what you’re going to say about how Marriage is alive and well. It’s not alive and well, it is fractured and broken. The Church has been cleaved in two by political activism and social progressives recently in an effort to finish Sacramentally what was started in the late 60’s civilly by recognizing the divorced and remarried without annulments which effectively lays the same waste to Sacramental Marriage, just as no fault divorce did to the civil side of marriage.

We lost Marriage when we allowed No Fault Divorce. Since so many don’t understand what no fault divorce meant here is a definition from Wikipedia:

No-fault divorce is a divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage does not require a showing of wrongdoing by either party.[1] Laws providing for no-fault divorce allow a family court to grant a divorce in response to a petition by either party of the marriage without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence that the defendant has committed a breach of the marital contract.

California started the downward spiral of marriage in 1969 by making the marital contracts, both social and legal, unenforceable. In fact the state now had effectively redefined the contract as only binding on the man who was responsible to fork over half the assets and pay child support in addition – adding insult to previous injury when an unfaithful spouse decided to leave him for her lover.

Lost to history was the fact that feminists opposed no fault divorce unsuccessfully, as they saw it leaving women vunerable. I will repost the arguments against it here – also from Wikipedia:

The National Organization for Women opposed the introduction of no-fault divorce in New York state because it would allow a party who actually is at fault to obtain a divorce in which “alimony, maintenance [and] property division” would be determined without the judge considering “the facts, behavior and circumstances that led to the break-up of the marriage”.[10]

A paper published in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, written by Douglas Allen, on the economics of same-sex marriage, argues that the introduction of no-fault divorce led to a six-fold increase in just two years, after a century of rather stable divorce rates. Also, the law increased the rate at which women entered the workforce, increased the number of hours worked in a week, increased the feminization of poverty, and increased the age at which people married.[11]

Stephen Baskerville, a political scientist at Howard University, argues that no-fault divorce rewards wrongdoers, reduces the need of marital binding agreement contracts at the public’s expense, and helps women take custody of their children at the husbands’ expense in many cases where the man has done nothing wrong. He also adds that a ban on divorce will not work, because people will separate themselves and be in a permanent state of adultery, or they will create a hostile home environment for the children.[12]

If one is to be truthful – the divorce rate has soared, the number one factor in the poverty of women and children is single motherhood. Marriage not only lifts women and children out of poverty but also lifts the father up socially and economically as well.

I know some readers will be defensive about single mothers claiming this is a fallacy, but the facts get in the way and the facts constitute a damning indictment of single motherhood and out of wedlock births. I suggest you read this study from Ohio State University.

Once the marriage contract became unenforceable – it was left to rely only on the commitment of the spouses which was often based on a feeling of being in love, and not a binding lifetime commitment from which true love would grow over time. This led to more divorce, more single motherhood, more broken homes, and more hurt children.

It also led to most men in the current generation choosing not to marry – as freely available birth control has lowered the price of sex from a lifetime bonded commitment before God and enforced by the state to as little as 15 mins conversation and a cup of coffee. The financial risks of marriage to men, as well as the emotional devastation wrought by the ability of their spouses to tear their lives and finances apart, keep them from their children, and have the same state who refuses to enforce the marriage contract enforce child support laws with an cruel iron fist. It took longer than I expected for men to catch on.

This was exacerbated by the state taking over the husbands role as provider – allowing a woman to cast off her husband without cause and then be supported by public assistance so that all taxpayers in the country can then support them.

If we had at fault divorce – women who were wronged would be much better protected and could receive alimony preventing them from being wrongly cast off, men who were wronged would be much better protected and not loose their home and retirement, and Marriage would become the refuge it once was – based on a committed partnership raising the whole family up. What we have now is destroying our society.

I don’t know that there is a way back — and if gay marriage is allowed it will further trivialize marriage and result in continued poverty for women and children. and the side effect that men no longer revere women, but in general use them until they are tired of them and cast them off. I suspect it will do marriage in entirely – outside of strictly sacramental marriages. The consequences to women and children – as well as to men are too dire to ignore.

Ask yourself what possible benefit does no-fault divorce offer? When you realize it does not offer any benefit to men, women, or children, but instead harms them all. Then you work with your state legislators to repeal it state by state.

We will have to take back one thing at a time to retake our society. Since the family is the building block of society, let us start with taking back marriage and restore the building block by getting rid of the failed no-fault divorce experiment.

Prayerfully,

Colin

Supreme Court Arguments – What I heard

28 Apr

I listened today to all of the arguments on both questions before the Supreme Court. You can and should listen to them – either streaming or as a download you can put on your media device. To be honest in Question 1 there is a rather exciting part with a very zealous man who informs the court in a high warble and very energetically that they will all go to hell if they rule for same sex marriage.

Arguments for Question #1:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1

Arguments for Question #2:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q2

Now – here is the fun part. Question #1 is to determine if there is a constitutional right to Gay Marriage. It is a lively debate, where one of the defenders of marriage (from Michigan) did a horrible job IMHO. He danced around issues, was unclear, and took off on tangents. His circular arguments consistently seemed to make the case for Gay Marriage, whether it was his intention or not. In the end I found myself asking what the people who selected the lawyers were thinking! The Justices seemed to have a better grasp on the issues than he did and had to use leading questions to draw him to the correct argument — or away from a quagmire of an argument.

Now- Here is the Scary part. The justices under Question #1 clearly laid out the case that if they ruled that there was a constitutional right to gay marriage, then it would have wide ranging ramifications. Those ramifications would include all clergy performing marriage would be required to marry gay people regardless of their religious beliefs in order to protect the civil rights of Gay people. The idea of exceptions for religious reasons while interesting would only institutionalize the very discrimination and marginalization that Gay Marriage proponents have made the basis of their case. The justices pointed out that it would leave priests who refused subject to arrest and prosecution for violating the new civil right of Gay People to marry.

Maybe Cardinal George was more correct than we knew when he said that his successor would die in prison, his successor would be martyred in the public square, and his successor would pick up the shattered pieces of society and begin rebuilding as the Catholic Church has done for 2000 years.

Question #2 is not a fun part – it deals with the aftermath should the court rule that there is not right to gay marriage and thereby nullify all the gay marriages performed. IMHO this is a conundrum of the courts own making by refusing to hear the case earlier, or issue stays to stop gay marriages from occurring until the issue could be resolved. I think the group defending marriage missed the key point, which I felt was that if one state redefines marriage unilaterally – should all states be forced to accept their redefinition? What if a state allowed people to marry horses? Would all states have to recognize that marriage? The bias of the liberal judges like Sotomayor and Ginsberg is clear in their questioning. In truth I would have to admit that the same is true of Alito and Scalia whose bias is also evident from their line of questioning. The swing judges were hard to read and as usual Clarence Thomas said nothing.

In conclusion – Pray for America, The Court, and the Church. Based on what I heard today my only hope for marriage or religious freedom is now in prayer. In the event we loose at the supreme court the first and foremost political action should be to get our states out of the marriage business. Set it back to the Churches who have governed it since long before the federal court “invented” civil marriage. Our priests will be forced to follow in the footsteps of the orthodox church in Chicago that simply no longer performs civil marriages – only sacramental ones.

Pax Christi,

Colin

The Riots in Baltimore – An Opinion

27 Apr

The Baltimore Riots highlight something for me. America does not suffer as much from fiscal poverty as it does from Moral and Spiritual Poverty. So many have watched the changes in America in the last two decades with a sense of loss and shock that such anthropological regression could happen here. It is, but how do we stop it?

I think the solution lies in restoring a moral and spiritual base to the American people. You feed their bodies, but without feeding them morally and spiritually they will never feed themselves. You become and enabler of their anthropological regression which has enslaved them instead of leading them to freedom and self-respect by weaning them from government dependance. We must work to restore people dignity and their hope. What you are seeing in Baltimore is the incoherent misdirected rage of hopelessness. Their spirits are broken and shackled by their utter dependence on government, and their souls are lost from decades of progressive attacks on religion. Their bodies are broken by AIDS, drugs, violence, homelessness, and hunger. Most importantly, the very formation of these young men and women is damaged by the notable absence of stable two parent families. There needs to be a father in the home, or the thug culture that has captured so many young minds will be inextinguishable.

Today though, thanks to “Uncle Sugar,” a husband has become a disposable commodity. Enshrined into law by no-fault divorce, the marriage contract is only as good as the whim of one’s spouse. While women will say they take the brunt of the damage, I have seen too many men deeply financially damaged and emotionally shattered through no fault of their own to accept that women are the only ones hurt and the men are fine. In the inner cities, it has often been generations since the majority of households had a father and mother in a stable marriage in the home. This is possible because if a woman decides to leave her husband, no matter what her reason, the government offers support to her and any children. The husband gets a child support judgement and a shattered soul. It does not take long before this results in men unwilling to commit to marriage and women being used in a marital fashion and bearing children from multiple men without a husband. They raise these children on welfare at the taxpayers expense and receive larger payements for each child they bear out of wedlock. The Government, in effect, encourages immoral behavior. These children grow up in a multigenerational welfare family with no hope because the help they needed was not provided, nor did they have a successful role model to emulate. As Americans, we all too often get the idea that money can solve all problems, and, if it doesn’t turn out the way you expected, more money will make it better. That is arrogance. We all pay the price when these children grow up uneducated, violent, and socially disruptive just as we pay the price for the system that makes them that way.

How to fix it? What would I do? I’d bring back SHAME. Yes SHAME. Shame is a good thing. It reminds us when someone has broken the moral rules of our society, and a people without shame are a people without any moral compass. I would ban no-fault divorce because it is destructive to families and teach that civil marriage is a binding social contract, the breaking of which brings shame on the family. I would put the adultery criminal statutes back on the books. Too often, I have to read in the news about a man who catches his wife with another man and kills her or both of them. I read similar stories about women. On this issue there is no legal justice available to the aggrieved spouse. Civil and criminal penalties will offer a man recourse to restore his stolen honor and see the guilty punished. It will slow the rate of the murders of errant spouses, eventually seeing it end as people obey the morality requirements of the marital social contract. For those that find this reprehensible, I suggest never to marry and never to have sex with another person’s spouse. Society needs marriage as an anchor. Marriage is a crucible that forms men, creating a need in them to put their family before them, and focuses them on their home and family instead of what gets them the most pleasure for the least amount of effort.

Next, we need to give people hope. I worry less about wether it is Catholics, Sikhs, Buddhists, Protestants, or Mormons that bring spirituality, morality, and hope to these aggrieved people than that it is done. The churches must supplant the state in caring for the morally and spiritually poor. To truly give hope, we must teach them the value of work and help provide a viable path to self sufficiency.  This means education, apprenticeship, and job training programs instead of simple welfare payments. Anything less, is nothing more than continued slavery and subservience to the state. It robs them of their dignity, and we must help them get their dignity and hope back.

The stakes are too high to ignore this problem.  The alternatives are to help them in this way now, incarcerate them, or keep them on the dole for life. I would hope we chose to help.

Pax Christi –

Colin

Sweet Cakes – A Christian Family Under Attack by Evil.

25 Apr

Sweet Cakes by Melissa as a business is gone, close, shuttered by the state. The $135,000 fine is against a family of 7 with no business anymore who now stand to lose everything they own and their childrens home for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake because it would constitute a great sin to facilitate or participate in a homosexual wedding.

The Gay people still had a cake and wedding from another baker. What they are doing here is nothing less than hateful and evil. This is about destroying families that stand up for the Christian faith.

We CAN make a difference. We CAN make them whole if everyone who reads this gives a small amount, we can change this tragedy into joy for this family.

If we are the Body of Christ – then he are his Hands, and we should be healing this family.

DONATE HERE: http://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/christian-couple-faces-135000-fine/

GoFundMe killed their Campaign – claiming it was somehow “illegal”, but then claims it is going to give them the finds previously collected? When their own policy says all funds in such situations should be refunded. All I can see in this is more LGBT Bullying. This the move to Samaritans Purse, where the LGBT lobby has no power. Lets make this family whole. A few dollars for each of us together will make a huge difference for this faithful family.

From: The Daily Signal

An Oregon administrative law judge recommended today that the bakers who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding should be fined $135,000.

“[T]he forum concludes that $75,000 and $60,000, are appropriate awards to compensate [the same-sex couple] for the emotional suffering they experienced,” wrote Alan McCullough, administrative law judge for Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries in his proposed order.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa located in Gresham, Ore., say the fine is enough to potentially bankrupt their family of seven.

The dispute began in January 2013, when Aaron denied Rachel Cryer a wedding cake after learning there would be two brides in her wedding.

…………
One of the women, whose name was redacted to protect her privacy, listed 88 symptoms as grounds for compensation. The other, whose name was also redacted, listed 90.

Examples of symptoms include “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

Harmon, the Kleins’ lawyer, told The Daily Signal that during the hearing “there was no expert testimony.”

The witnesses at the hearing were the two women who were requesting a cake, one of their mothers, one of their brothers and another family member. There was no doctor, there was no psychologist, no expert testimony at all.

In collecting the fine, Harmon said the state isn’t just pursuing the Kleins’ business assets, but their personal livelihood as well.

“An important thing to understand about the damages the state is claiming in this case is that the [fine] isn’t going to come from liquidating business assets,” she said.

Their business is gone. They don’t have business assets so when we talk about [the fine], it’s personal. It means that’s money they would have used to feed their children that they can’t use anymore.

In September 2013, after facing public backlash, the Kleins had to close their bakery.

From Sweet Cakes by Melissa’s Facebook Page:

The gofundme account that was set up to help our family was shut down by the administrators of gofundme because they claimed it was raising money for an illegal purpose. We have told gofundme that the money is simply going to be used to help our family, and there is no legitimate breach of their terms and conditions. We are working to get the account reinstated.
However, in the mean time, if you would like to donate, you can do so here:http://www.samaritanspurse.org/…/christian-couple-faces-13…/
For all of you who gave to the gofundme account before it was shut down, we so appreciate your love and generosity. Gofundme has told us that we will still receive those funds.

Sincerely,

Colin

PRAYER REQUEST FOR RONNIE M.

3 Apr

405524

I have a prayer request for everyone willing to stop for even a moment and say a prayer from Ronnie M.
Then please also say one for his wife Lisa, and their children.

Ronnie is currently in the ICU at St. Francis Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. He has small cell Lung Cancer that has moved to his pancreas and he is currently on a ventilator which doctors cannot seem to wean him off. His family are being told by doctors that the situation is hopeless, but those who believe in Christ know that nothing is truly hopeless and they are staying with him and praying for him continually. They are hoping for a miracle to prove the doctors wrong, but willing to accept God’s will should he not recover.

As I have been in his position and survived,  and then recovered against all medical science; and since a young girl Kathryn who was in the same position and from my town was also prayed for – she recovered against all odds. We know that prayer works! In truth the family needs the prayers just as much. It is physically and emotionally exhausting to deal with a critically ill family member for weeks on end.

Today being Good Friday, it is a wonderful day to stop and pray for another – just as Jesus prayed for his executioners saying “Forgive them Lord, They know not what they do”.

If anyone feels inclined to offer some assistance to the overwhelmed family like feeding pets, or making meals, or just providing a human shoulder to lean on – by all means please contact me via email, Facebook, or comments here and I will pass your information to Lisa M.

Thank You in Advance for your Prayers!

Colin

St. Jerome on Both Marriage & Divorce and Remarriage

2 Apr

Caravaggio_-_San_Gerolamo

Of late I have heard many people spouting that the prohibition on Divorce and remarriage was not always so in the Catholic Church. I have heard them say that the early church was not firm in it’s teachings on this matter. I have heard it said that Jesus taught “compassion” trumped the Sacrament of Matrimony.

I beg to differ. More importantly, St. Jerome himself (author of the Latin Vulgate Bible), very strenuously objects. Read what he had to say on the indissolubility of marriage and then ask yourself if you truly accept and believe authentic Catholic Teaching from the very beginning of the Church.

There is a gem in the last paragraph that explains exactly why celibacy was considered better, because in the Catholic Church the Yoke of Marriage is a very heavy one, as the Apostles themselves realized.  It can be a joyful one only if men and women work together in marriage. This letter makes clear just how seriously Christians took marriage in great contrast to societies they lived in who openly supported divorce (romans, jewish people, etc..)

Oh yes – there is one other item to be pointed out – if the wife is put away for “fornication” it would mean that she was put away because it was discovered that she had been unknowingly promiscuous before the marriage. After the marriage it would have been properly termed “adultery”. Misrepresentation is one of the clear grounds for declaring the marriage nullified – meaning it never happened and thus she would not be an adulterer because her husband put her away and she remarried. St. Jerome is wonderful in his clarity.

Letters of St. Jerome 360 AD. Letter #55 Paragraph 3

3. I find joined to your letter of inquiries a short paper containing the following words: ask him, (that is me,) whether a woman who has left her husband on the ground that he is an adulterer and sodomite and has found herself compelled to take another may in the lifetime of him whom she first left be in communion with the church without doing penance for her fault. As I read the case put I recall the verse they make excuses for their sins.We are all human and all indulgent to our own faults; and what our own will leads us to do we attribute to a necessity of nature. It is as though a young man were to say, I am over-borne by my body, the glow of nature kindles my passions, the structure of my frame and its reproductive organs call for sexual intercourse. Or again a murderer might say, I was in want, I stood in need of food, I had nothing to cover me. If I shed the blood of another, it was to save myself from dying of cold and hunger. Tell the sister, therefore, who thus enquires of me concerning her condition, not my sentence but that of the apostle. Do you not know, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman which has an husband is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if, while her husband lives, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.Romans 7:1-3 And in another place: the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.1 Corinthians 7:39 The apostle has thus cut away every plea and has clearly declared that, if a woman marries again while her husband is living, she is an adulteress. You must not speak to me of the violence of a ravisher, a mother’s pleading, a father’s bidding, the influence of relatives, the insolence and the intrigues of servants, household losses. A husband may be an adulterer or a sodomite, he may be stained with every crime and may have been left by his wife because of his sins; yet he is still her husband and, so long as he lives, she may not marry another. The apostle does not promulgate this decree on his own authority but on that of Christ who speaks in him. For he has followed the words of Christ in the gospel: whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, commits adultery.Matthew 5:32 Mark what he says: whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.Whether she has put away her husband or her husband her, the man who marries her is still an adulterer. Wherefore the apostles seeing how heavy the yoke of marriage was thus made said to Him: if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry, and the Lord replied, he that is able to receive it, let him receive it. And immediately by the instance of the three eunuchs he shows the blessedness of virginity which is bound by no carnal tie. Matthew 19:10-12

Pax Christi,

Colin

Clarifying the RFRA Disinformation

30 Mar

anti-rfra_1427512085780_15709012_ver1.0_640_480

On the RFRA – so many are missing the point. This is not about hate.  Baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding is an act of facilitation or participation in an invalid sacrament, namely a gay wedding, as is catering, photographing, floristry. That is the core objection. It is not about their gayness, it is about the grave mortal sin of participation in an INVALID SACRAMENT of Marriage. This whole debate is so distorted by off topic rhetoric that it’s gotten ridiculous.

This is no different than it being a mortal sin to facilitate or participate in an abortion – meaning if you even if you just provide gas money or loan the car to transport someone to an abortion then you committed grave mortal sin.

If I was a baker I wouldn’t bake a wedding cake for a divorced couple marrying without annulments in place either. No Christian pastor should marry them either unless he bases his religion on his feelings, rather than the direct teaching of Christ.

Luke 16:18
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

This should not be hard to understand. There is no prohibition on selling them most any other things, or providing services that don’t cross the line (IVF and Abortion being examples of a service that crosses the line – because of the Doctrinal Teaching in Humane Vitae). This does not mean Catholics are going to refuse to serve them lunch, save their lives in a hospital,  sell them a stereo, or allow them to use a laundromat.

What this does mean is that no Catholic business owner will be sued for refusing to facilitate or participate in an invalid sacrament or a mortal sin like IVF or Abortion. If only we could get those protections to employees.

This law is not about Christians in particular. This law will also protect a Jewish or Muslim butcher from having to slaughter a pig – which is a grave mortal sin in both religions.

These laws are already in place in 40% of states, and most of them have been since the Clinton administration for many of them. Bill Clinton (D POTUS) signed the federal version of this law, and Chuck Schumer  (D, NY) (another liberal) was the one who sponsored the bill. So it confuses me as to why liberals and Democrats would be angry over a law that their own like minded people championed.Professor-Marci-A.-Hamilton-RFRA-State-Map-October-2014-MEDIUM

I’m filled with a combination of sorrow and disgust that people just don’t seem to get it, and keep banging on the “Hate” drum without even knowing what they are talking about. There are days I wish people would read the Catechism cover to cover before delving into public debate about Catholics, or what they believe.

Pax Christi –

Colin

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 371 other followers

%d bloggers like this: