Monthly Archives: October 2016

Amerio: The Church’s Militant Refusal of Divorce is Pro-Woman

It has been forgotten that the indissolubility of marriage is a great bulwark protecting women. In societies without the honor of this indissolubility, men can treat women like beasts and instruments, moving from one woman to another. Women become the object of pleasure alone.

Thus it is that Christianity’s unique and emphatic teaching on marriage as both monogamous and indissoluble is a great defense of women. The Church uniquely contributed to the true equality of men and women with her Founder’s teaching on indissolubility. (See R. Amerio, Iota Unum, p. 203).

Any softening of this teaching is abhorrent to the very nature of the Church, which is entrusted with God’s oracles, to expound and defend them. For God’s law is the direction of man to salvation, to health and life. For man to defect from that direction is for man to run away from genuine fulfillment towards empty cisterns, dead shores, smoky air.

Therefore, it is of utmost importance, for the love of God and also for the good of humans, especially of women, that the Church protect at all times the indissolubility of marriage. To admit to the Eucharist divorced persons who have been “remarried” civilly is to forego this duty. It is to fail to guide the straying sheep back to the fold. One would do very badly, in counseling a “remarried” divorcee, to advise him or her to go to the Eucharist. Even, God forbid, should this or that bishop, or nearly all bishops, look aside and not ask or subtly suggest or hint at its possibility, the Eucharist remains a marriage feast for those who are in the state of grace and living in an objectively correct situation. If one is ignorant, while living in an objectively evil situation (state of life), one should be corrected. The good willed will surely accept correction, and be the more glad for it.

So, it is anti-woman to allow “remarried” divorcees to the Eucharist, until they abandon this gravely evil situation.

Did Paul Read “Wisdom”? Food for Thought

There are some striking resemblances of Wisdom and Romans. This does not “prove” that Paul read Wisdom, but it may suggest it.

FIRST: The Bible does say that belief in God is so correct and available that one is a “fool” who does not believe in him. But only in two places does the Bible teach that God’s existence can be known from the things he has created. Those two places are Wis 13 and Rom 1.

Wis 13: “All men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists, nor did they recognize the craftsman while paying heed to his works; but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars … were the gods that rule the world…. If me were amazed at their power and working, let them perceive from them how much more powerful is he who formed them. For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator…. Even they are not to be excused.”

Rom 1: “What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse…. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.”

SECOND: Wisdom speaks of God’s mercy sparing all, so that they may repent: “You overlook men’s sins, that they may repent” (Wis 12:23).

Rom 2: “Do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

THIRD: Wisdom 12 offers a theodicy for God’s judgment against the nations. Each nation was offered the chance to repent, yet they did not. God is not to blame. Only those deserving of punishment are condemned. Romans 2 offers a similar theodicy, with less detail but broader (indeed, global) scope.

FOURTH: The themes of excuse, judgment, condemnation and reward, death being deserved, are present in each text (Rom 2 and Wis 6 and 12).

More on Clinton vs. Trump

I have been listening to NPR of late. And also reading articles favoring Hillary (or insufficiently denouncing her) by misguided Catholics. These cause me to give some reasons for arguing for Trump against Hillary.

But first, what does NPR do to me? Soft music, sometimes a bit Jazzy (though still softly). Soft voices. Everyone on NPR has the same voice. Would that there were a word for that voice. Articulate, not heavily accented, no hard consonants, …. Makes you drift asleep. It’s as though I’m in a salt water bath at some spa. “Must be true, it’s so gentle.” That’s what NPR does. NPR’s intellectual talk is like the soothing music in a doctor’s waiting room. It puts my brain asleep. But nice rhetoric guys. Not just their polish is polished; their content is thoughtfully ideological. You’re not smacked over the head, with clear and direct statements as you are in conservative talk radio. No. You’re given some anecdote. Some specialist talks about a particular situation. Breaks out a few key principles half way through the analysis. And then the jazz begins, and they go to something else. Those principles, of course, = a message when two synapses happen upon one another. Outcome: Trump is crazy, Hillary is great.

Example: Just today they interviewed a guy who contended, from a “study” of course (cough cough: “Objective study”), that those who support Voter ID Laws are just “scared”. Of course, he would never say so in so many words. But said so he did. We are supposed to conclude: “No rational reason for such laws.” The genetic fallacy! This is classic genetic fallacy. The real issue is this: Do you or do you not want the actual, registered person, to vote? Further, do you or do you not want a prepared, disciplined person to vote? Answer: Only a fool would want anything less. But it takes a certain discipline to obtain and carry your ID card with you. If you forget it on election day, you are not prepared! Why should I want you to say something about who should be next president, railroad commissioner, etc.? The actual debate should confront head on the pro/con issues concerning Voter ID. But NPR, being ideological, wants to manipulate people into thinking such laws are nonsense, when any right-thinking person knows they are not nonsense. Enough of sleep-inducing soft voices!

As for the misguided Catholics, I’m sure all are sufficiently aware of their arguments, which make them look so noble, so aloof from the tangled web of this horrible election. Let us do get down and dirty, nitty and gritty, with real issues.

Whereas Hillary will appoint the most vociferously pro-choice judges, Trump certainly will appoint better ones and may well appoint good ones.

This same contrast can be said of sundry executive orders, which have immediate real world effects both domestically and abroad. Again, the same contrast can be said of sundry appointments of various offices in various departments, wielding great power.

Whereas Hillary will appoint the judges zealously supportive of unnatural sex rights, Trump certainly will appoint better ones and may well appoint judges with good views.

This same contrast can be said of sundry executive orders, which have immediate real world effects both domestically and abroad. Again, the same contrast can be said of sundry appointments of various offices in various departments, wielding great power. Think, in this regard, of “accreditation” policies and the so-called “fairness” doctrine being wielded to the death of Catholic schools and schools that uphold the natural law.

Whereas Hillary will appoint the judges not supportive of the rights of parents to educate their own children, Trump certainly will appoint better ones and may well appoint judges with good views.

This same contrast can be said of sundry executive orders, which have immediate real world effects both domestically and abroad. Again, the same contrast can be said of sundry appointments of various offices in various departments, wielding great power.

Whereas Hillary accused the likes of Trump and Bush for the problem of the 2008 recession, a major contributor to that recession was the Bill Clinton government, forcing banks to offer loans for housing, without due discretion and judgment concerning an applicant’s ability to pay. This caused the loan bubble, drove up housing costs, and greatly magnified the 2008 devastation. This is Democratic thinking, abstract “rights” thinking, that fails to heed the concrete, that fails to heed the local centers of decision (subsidiarity) and foists upon one and all (bankers, in this case) a stark law not grounded in common sense. Democrats shoulder that bubble. Trump, by contrast, is a man of common sense. His policies regarding loans cannot possibly be worse, and in all likelihood will be much better than Hillary’s. To be sure, Bush also contributed. So: Do we need someone who will certainly double down on this kind of reckless behavior (Hillary) or someone who might mitigate it (Trump)?

Hillary and Obama pulled our soldiers from the Middle East before an adequate peace and government was settled and operative, thus causing the tragedy of refugee crisis and ISIS. This is a living, major threat to world peace.

Obama, whom Hillary supports in this regard, is recklessly attacking Assad and risking major confrontation, indirect or direct, with RUSSIA. This is a situation warming up, becoming close to hot. Yet Hillary tries to terrify Americans about Trump being undisciplined with red buttons.

Whereas there is a major “body count,” a devastating wake of dead bodies associated with the Clintons through the past 30 years, convenient deaths of sundry persons who had apparently incriminating knowledge of the Clintons or who slighted the Clintons, Trump has perhaps fired some people and stiffed others whose work was not satisfactory. Trump as a man is hardly someone to invite inside your house in front of the wife and kids. But his office as president shall be to rule. Do we want to give drone-strike power, arresting-any-American (without-warrants) power, to Hillary? Are we so terrified of a free-wheeling tweeter that we run to embrace a death-dealing traitor?

Whereas anyone of good will would have embraced a peaceful transition in Lybia, we have now good reason to think that Hillary killed a real, high-level, serious peace deal under Gaddafi. Why did she kill that deal? Why did she not send in troops to Benghazi?

Whereas Trump has not “shown” his tax return to us, who have no “right” to see it anyway and for which, were it truly criminal he would be put away anyway, Hillary through the Clinton Foundation received massive amounts of donations from foreign investors, and offered them “pay for play” with her high office. This is downright treacherous. For this alone, she should be imprisoned. Real, criminal, treacherous activity vs. the reticence to reveal a tax return. “But it is so easy for him to do; he must have something very sinister to hide!” My response: “Is that the explanation? Again, he would be put away were there something sinister there. But he is not put away. Ergo. Furthermore, the media would distort the return and pounce upon it, distracting attention from real issues. Ergo.”

Whereas Trump thinks building a wall a good idea, Hillary thinks loosing the dam of unvetted refugees and open door policy is the charm. I might beg to differ with Trump on the efficacy and cost of the wall, but I won’t be so silly as to play the “pope” card on him. That smacks of the worst clericalism and also on the worst forgetfulness of doctrine. For as I indicated previously (in another post), it is not intrinsically evil for a nation to guard its borders and monitor the flow of immigrants. That is called sanity and order. Only rebels try to undermine the right of sovereign nations to do this. Only rebels, I repeat. Lawless rebels. Agitators. Vandals of justice. Chaos-makers, not sons of peace. Hillary’s policy is clearly insane. Trump’s is a waste of money, needless aggravating, etc. That said, something has to be done about insuring proper, vs. improper, immigration.

Whereas the Trump foundation indeed gives money to charity, the Clinton Foundation gives to charity apparently 15 cents on every dollar it takes in. Haiti just got hit by a terrible hurricane. They were recovering from a major disaster 6 years ago. Bill Clinton was put in charge of the recovery process. Large amounts of money was given. However, the Haitians apparently suffer just about as badly now as then, very few houses / shelters having been built. Lots of travel expenses for the Clintons and their employees, but not much action. What kind of “charity” is this? See this video on the President of Haiti accusing the Clinton Foundation of robbing Haiti by withholding donations.

And what about the far east and missile technology? Hillary’s husband sold our missile technology, and our encryption technology, to China. This is no real threat to us? Sure, Trump most foolishly complained about Japan and others. However, not everything in the complaint was off target. Many have already come to the conclusion that Japan needs to rework its constitution and develop a military. Quickly. The same should be said of Germany. Their constitutions are out of date. That could be said without risk of offending the ally. But seriously: Does anyone really think that Trump would cut Japan off and let it dissolve into the sea? Is this seriously what you think? Hillary’s hubby can sell real technology to those really not our allies, and you make a fuss over a foolish remark. The remark should be called foolish, even reckless, but it is a remark without any teeth.

Whereas Trump sometimes Tweets offensively, Hillary exposed us to enemies and committed crimes against our national security by using that private server. She also showed contempt of our laws and government by having her cellphones destroyed and her hard drives wiped clean. Thanks be to God for the “hacks and leaks” that have exposed this nonsense. Again, for these irresponsible emails, with [C]onfidential content, Hillary should be put in prison.

Trump: A free-wheeling tweeter vs. Hillary a death-dealing traitor.

As another blogger put it: Trump is a second rate fire fighter, but Hillary is a first rate arson.