Imprisoned for Christ: Cardinal Van Thuan

I once worked with a woman who had lived through the fall of Viet Nam and then stayed in the country after the communist takeover.

She told me that where she lived, the officials would call someone in for questioning. She said that this person was never seen again. They simply vanished.

When they called her to come in for questioning, she and her large family stayed up all night discussing what to do. They decided to walk out of Viet Nam under darkness and take their chances on the open sea as stateless refugees. They did this as an entire family group.

She cried when she told me of the terrible things that happened in the boats with the other refugees.

Long story short, she and her family ended up in Oklahoma, where, when I knew her, they were working together to build a new life.

This lady was not a Christian. She was a Buddhist. They were rural people who had never had contact with the Americans during the war. Her crime was that her family was a well-to-do family who owned a granary in her small town. She was also an attorney.

Cardinal Van Thuan committed a much worse crime, one that continues to be punished in Viet Nam today. He was a Christian. Not only that, he was a leader in the Catholic Church.


The result was that Cardinal Van Thuan spent 13 years in solitary confinement inside a Viet Nam prison. He was so completely shut off from the world that most of his friends and followers thought he was dead. I would guess that what happened to him was somewhat like what happened to the people my friend knew: He went in, and was never heard from again.

I’ve read The Miracle of Hope by Andre Nguyen and Van Chau and also The Testimony of Hope which is a retreat Cardinal van Thuan gave for Pope John Paul II. I recommend both books to those who want to learn more about this great man of Christ.

My archbishop, Archbishop Paul Coakley, ordained our newest priest on June 29. Here is what he said:

We are living in an age of increasing indifference or even hostility toward faith and toward the Church. The generation of priests ordained today will, I suspect, witness increasing persecution and perhaps even a new age of martyrdom. It is already happening in other parts of the world.

Given certain signs of our times today, it is naive to believe it could not happen here. It is important, therefore, to be clear. The priesthood is not a career; it is not a path for those seeking a comfortable life. The priesthood is a vocation of radical commitment and radical dependence on Jesus Christ, who came not to be served but to serve.

I’m glad my archbishop realizes this and has the courage to say it publicly. Far too many priests are either unaware of it, or indifferent to it. As a Public Catholic in the political realm, and more specifically as a Catholic Democratic elected official, I’ve been on the tip of the sword for a long time now. I can tell you without reservation that I saw this coming way back for the simple reason that I was the object of so much excoriation and social/verbal abuse in my office because of my faith.

I had the advantage of perspective, since I had been in office in the 1980s, then left to raise my kids and was later re-elected to the same position. The changes in attitude and behavior toward Christians by non-believers was stark. However, most Christians were reacting by either allowing themselves and their faith to be co-opted so they’d feel comfortable with this new world, or by withdrawing into their Christian friendships and refusing to see it.

I knew it was a matter of time before it started expanding to other Christians who try to follow the Gospels but who were not in the hot spot of being Democratic elected Catholics. I found then, as I do now, that not many people want to hear the truth of what is happening. This attitude further isolates the Christian who is being attacked for Christ and also encourages the attackers to continue. At the very least, we need to stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Christ when they are attacked for the faith we hold.

These head-in-sand Christians compare themselves to people like Cardinal van Thuan and say, I’m not afraid of being arrested in the middle of the night and put in solitary confinement for 13 years, so there is no problem here.

My answer to them is the same one alcoholics anonymous says to its adherents who claim they aren’t so sick since they’ve never done what that other drunk next to them has done: Not yet.

If you consider where we are now compared to where we were even 10 years ago, I don’t believe you can honestly say that this country, and indeed the whole Western world is not on a trajectory of overt hostility and verbal abuse and lately legal discrimination against Christians. If this trajectory is not reversed, it will inevitably end up at active persecution.

This video about Cardinal van Thuan describes a priest who was Christ’s man first. May his tribe increase.

YouTube Preview Image

Conscience Rights and the Obama Administration

Standing Against Christian Persecution

The USCCB released a new video today discussing the war on the right of conscience in America.

I think it’s a powerful video that expresses the issues far better than anything I could say. All Americans should be upset about what the Obama administration is doing to our First Amendment liberties.

YouTube Preview Image

Even Water Moccasins are Cute When They’re Babies

Even water moccasins are kind of cute when they’re babies.

Kind of.

However, it doesn’t take too long before they turn into fat, stinky, ugly poisonous death dealers that will come at you over the water like they were on patrol.

If they bite you, I guarantee that it will ruin your day, your week, possibly your life.

But they do look harmless when they’re babies. As, I would imagine, do Black Mambas and Gaboon Vipers.

Everything has its harmless-appearing phase. But some things are snakes right from the beginning, and if you take them in and try to cuddle up with them, it’s a matter of time before they teach you the reality of what they are and the damage they can do.

It’s much the same with blind hatred of groups of people. It can seem kinda cute at the beginning, when comedians and quipsters are making funny comments at their targets’ expense. It can even seem a good thing when social custom and the first few laws start the process of tamping down on what seems to the rest of the world as the excesses of behavior of the group in question.

After all, it’s reasonable. And besides, they’re bringing it on themselves.

But somewhere — and it’s not too far — along the line, the baby snake proves that even when it’s a baby it can kill you. Cuddle a baby rattler, and you’ll find out. It’s much the same with hatred of a group of people. Almost before you know it, you’ve tripped over into the dehumanizing concept of they-bring-it-on-themselves so saying-hateful-things-about-them and limiting-their-freedoms-is-reasonable-and-good.

The first serious victim of the poison of prejudice and discrimination is the purveyor of the prejudice, the practitioner of the discrimination. Once you believe it’s ok to hurt people just because, you’ve successfully chipped a bit of the gold-plate off your own goodness and let the cheap clay that’s inside come through.

You damage your own soul long before you begin to really damage the people you decide it’s ok to attack and hate.

I’ve said this a number of times, but the idea seems to float by some of the readers here without latching on and growing roots. Violent persecution is not the beginning of the process. It is the end result. It begins as the cute little snakey thingy of quips, mockery and derision that make up social practice.

I don’t know if it’s a refusal to see, or the concept really is difficult for some people. But life is not just a frozen section we call right now. It is a continuum. In fact, what we call right now is already past when we say the words.

Little hatreds grow into big prejudices, and big prejudices turn into discriminatory practices and laws, which turn into discrimination, which, over time, becomes persecution that leads to violence and ends, ultimately in genocide.

It really is almost like a row of dominoes falling over.

That’s why I find myself scratching my head and wondering “Are they for real?” every time I read a comment saying that, yes, there may be “some” violent persecution of Christians in “other places,” but in America, there is no such thing.

While it’s true enough that Christians are not jerked from their beds and drug into the streets to be beaten, raped and tortured here in America, it is also true that we are being subjected to overt pressure from our government and from social practice to restrict our beliefs to behind closed doors. It is true that what began just a few years ago as trendy criticism, some of which was even true, has, in some quarters, become nasty, Christian-baiting hatred that seeks to intimidate and isolate Christians.

We are faced with an increasing number of regulations and laws that seek to limit Christians in the free exercise of their Constitutional rights.

This is happening in America and in much of the rest of the Western world.

I am putting a brief video below about a street preacher in Britain who was arrested for saying that homosexuality is a sin. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with what he said or not, the question is, does he have the right to say it?  If the same restrictions had been placed on homosexuals a decade or so ago, they would not have been able to conduct their movement.

I would have been up in arms if anyone had arrested a gay activist for saying any of the many wacky things they’ve said down through the years, including when a queen in full drag sang “Your son will come out tomorrow” outside the National Democratic convention a few years ago. They’ve got a right to do this.

And so, if the West is going to continue to have free speech, does this preacher.

YouTube Preview Image

Samuel Adams: Once Might be a Mistake. Four Times is a Pattern.

Boston beer company jim koch

Jim Koch, founder and chairman, Samuel Adams Beer

 

Kathy Schiffer wrote a post yesterday that moved Samuel Adams beer from a purveyor of too-politically correct advertising to dedicated Christian basher and misogynist. 

I wrote a couple of days ago about the Samuel Adams beer commercial in which the company aired an ad that conflated their beer with the Declaration of Independence and then paraphrased it to take the words “endowed by their Creator” out of this quote?

Once the not-so-surprising backlash began, Samuel Adams issued the meaningless comment (I wouldn’t call it an apology) that they were just following the guidelines of the beer manufacturer’s association. I assume that Samuel Adams beer is a member of this association and voted on these “guidelines” which hardly makes them binding. The comment is, as I said, meaningless. 

However Kathy moved the discussion to a whole new level by informing her readers of Samuel Adams’ past behavior. She is speaking of Samuel Adams’ company chairman, Jim Koch, when she says (emphasis mine):

It appears that Mr Koch made the usual lame comment when the public got angry. “We are not in control of the program,” he claimed, “and it was never our intent to part of a radio station promotion that cross the line.” In 2002, Boston Beer Company Chairman Jim Koch (pronounced “Cook”) was the so-called Grand Marshall of the “Sex for Sam” stunt, a radio contest on WNEW-FM in Manhattan.  Syndicated radio shock jocks Opie and Anthony staged a contest, challenging couples to engage in sexual activity in risky public places:  in taxis, in ATM vestibules, in the Disney Store and—wait for it!—in St. Patrick’s Cathedral.   Couples earned points (5, 10 or more) for each tryst in a public place.  The couple who succeeded in engaging in sexual intercourse in St. Patrick’s Cathedral were awarded 25 points for their effort.  The only way to earn more points was to engage in coitus at Koch’s feet—for which enterprising exhibitionist couples earned 30 points.

There are a few holes in the denial I put in italics. 

First, as Kathy points out:

Of course, this was the third time Koch’s company sponsored the “Sex for Sam” contest. And while acknowledging that his “presence on the show was a lapse in judgment, a serious mistake,” Koch has avoided describing just what he was doing in Opie and Anthony’s studio.

Along with handing out bottles of Sam Adams to contestants who stopped by the studio to take a break from having sex in cabs, ATM vestibules, and the Disney Store, Koch also served as the contest’s official “celebrity” voyeur. That meant if couples had sex in front of Koch, they were awarded 30 points (by comparison, sex in St. Patrick’s Cathedral was worth 25 points).

According to the audio clips you’ll find below, Koch watched as five couples attempted to obtain those 30 points (only two, um, succeeded). While Koch said he felt embarrassed for the three couples who failed to complete the act before him, he told Opie and Anthony that the competitors were, “awesome, all of ‘em, better teams. The quality gets better every year. (To read the rest go here.)

Second, he was advertising on and participating in the Opie and Anthony Show. Does anybody remember Opie and Anthony? They’re the sorry excuses for men who “interviewed” a “homeless” man and laughed approvingly and joked with him as he described in graphic terms how he wanted to rape and beat then Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and also how he wanted to rape First Lady Laura Bush to death. I’ve heard a recording of this routine. I am not going to say more about it, because it makes me too angry. 

One ad might mean that the advertiser approved the campaign and was not aware of exactly what each specific ad had in it. Lame comments about following their own manufacturer’s association guidelines are admission that they knew, approved the ad, are not sorry and think we’re all stupid enough to buy their little comment as a reason. 

Stop making excuses

But four times is a pattern, especially when three of those times involved active participation by the company’s founder and chairman. It moves the question from political correctness carried to the point that we are now editing the Declaration of Independence (which is bad enough) to deliberate Christian and Catholic bashing. The kind of thing the company sponsored on Opie and Anthony puts them outside the line, or at least it does with me. The fact that they supported Opie and Anthony …. no words.

I believe that the “comedy” routine about the First Lady and Secretary of State came after Samuel Adams’ beer sponsored the Sex for Sam promotion. But it is in keeping with what the continuous message of the show. Opie and Anthony had one “joke:” degradation of women and overt misogyny. In my opinion, misogyny, including incitment to violence against, and in some cases such as the one concerning the First Lady, murder of women, for laughs was the Opie and Anthony show. 

Frankly, I don’t see how any decent human being would ever advertise on Opie and Anthony, based on their misogyny and support of violence and degradation of women. 

My advice to those who want a clean conscience: Lay your money down for a product that does not support Catholic bashing, Christian bashing, dehumanizing and degrading exhibitionist sex and does not buy advertising on shows that promote the rape, battering and murder of women. 

 

 

 

Freedom Isn’t Just about Fireworks

Red fireworks wallpaper 2

Today is the 5th of July and everyone in my family is back at work.

I asked my husband and sons why they weren’t taking today off and got explanations that amounted to one thing: Habit. They go to work. Every day.

It wasn’t until I got up this morning, and started … um … working … that I realized I’m just like them.

However, less habitual people all over this country are enjoying the second day of a four day weekend. It’s baseball, apple pie an hot dogs all around.

The questing arises: What are we celebrating? Is it freedom from the tyranny of foreign powers? Or is it freedom from the tyranny of our own government? When the signers put their names to the Declaration of Independence, they didn’t have an argument with the Czar of Russia who was trying to invade these shores. Their argument was with the government that had planted them here and that had governed them for over two-hundred years since.

They, every single one of them, was born under the English flag, had grown up under the rule of the English king, and had, until very recently, regarded themselves as English.

What changed? Distance and time had given them the freedom to think for themselves. They were inspired by the Gospels that taught that all human beings matter, that ever hair on our heads are numbered. This ethos of human dignity which began when the Son of God had chosen to be born in a stable rather than a palace had been the mustard seed of the Kingdom that was growing and expanding throughout the world.

Paine

Thomas Paine

The times were right, of course. Political philosophers had moved on from the cynical practicality of The Prince to the cynical idealism of Common Sense. If you haven’t read these two documents, I encourage you to do so, and then to compare them. The change in outlook of a few hundred years and one ocean is striking.

There is a whole world of difference between “If an injury is done to a man, it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be considered,” and “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the sufferings of supporting it.”

The difference between these two outlooks is the experience of living free. Distance from England and the rigors of the frontier had worked a kind of magic on these American colonists. They had learned the power of thinking for themselves. While no one would ever claim Thomas Paine as a devout Christian, he lived in a Christian society, breathed Christian air and was influenced deeply by the Christian call to the value of each individual human person.

Machiavelli

Machiavelli

Machiavelli, on the other hand, while an observant Christian, lived in a Christian world that was half-caught between the call to human dignity that the Gospels demanded and the entrenched and cynical society in which he lived. Despite living in a faith-filled world, he was unable to realize the true meaning of Christian faith, which is human freedom.

The question I have, is which direction are we going?

Does Thomas Paine’s statement:

“I have always strenuously supported the right of a man to his own opinion, however different that might be from mine.”

Or Machiavelli’s claim:

“Men are so simple of mind, and so much dominated by their immediate needs, that a deceitful man will always find plenty who are ready to be deceived.”

Reflect our current way of thinking and living?

Are our minds and hearts governed by the singing phrases of our founding documents, or have we sunk into a mire so deep that Machiavelli would abhor it?

Machiavelli was not nearly as Machiavellian as those who’ve never read him would lead you to believe. His treatise was common sense politics of his day and in many ways of any day, including ours. On the other hand, Thomas Paine was a young revolutionary with a young revolutionary’s hot-blooded fervor.

This country was birthed by thinkers who believed in the power of the individual to think for himself. But I wonder if it is not more and more being governed and educated by thinkers who have gone past Machiavelli and into some new dark realm of governance by means of lies and propaganda that was an impossibility in yesterday’s pre-tech times.

Thomas Paine said, “A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.”

I do him the honor of holding my own opinion, including disagreeing with quite a few of the things he said. However, in this, as with a lot of his thinking, Thomas Paine was exactly right.

 

The Orwellian Press and Our Right to Know

O EDWARD SNOWDEN RUSSIA facebook

Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden is the source of leaks that allowed the American people to learn that their government had them under surveillance. 

Not, mind you, that the government had suspected terrorists under a legitimate, court-ordered surveillance based on some sort of evidence that gave probable cause of wrong doing. 

Nope.

The government had and has all of us, or at least those of us who use email and cell phones, under surveillance. It is scooping up our private thoughts and dumping them in a database to be analyzed. Then, if the analyzers want to go forward, they go to a shadowy, non-public, hidden away, behind closed doors “court” to get permission to read your mail and listen to your conversations.

Or, at least, that’s the way it’s supposed to go. We have to assume that our government, which has lied to us about so much, is telling us the truth … this time. If they aren’t, the truth may be much worse even than this sinister scenario. 

Just to make a point, I want everyone to raise their hand if they know who is on this “court,” or where it meets, or, what its rules are?  

Anybody?

Now, here’s the cherry on top this particular little scoop of ice cream. The prez says — and members of Congress have acceded to this claim — that he informed our “duly elected representatives” about what he was doing and that they signed off on it. 

That means that the elected officials who are owned by the left were in on it. And the elected officials who are owned by the right — Republicans and Democrats both — were also in on it. 

To make this even more bi-partisan, the Democratic president is only doing what the Republican president before him had done. The law which allows the most massive surveilance fishing expedition in the history of spying since the late, great Soviet Union was authored by Republican members of Congress.

In other words, everybody’s wholly-owned puppet Congressperson was in on it. 

1984

Which mean that the press that toadies to the interests that own these Congresspeople, in other words, the press that serves the same master as our “duly elected officials,” had to swing into damage control. 

They aren’t going to do anything about the most massive violation of civil liberties in the history of the Republic. 

The press won’t even go there. 

Their plan is to kill the messenger. 

It turns out that the person who told the American people what I think anyone with half a brain would agree we have a right to know is a man named Edward Snowden. He’s the leaker who “violated” the agreement he made as a condition of his employment to not talk about the things he saw on his job. 

I ask you: Which has pre-eminence; the “agreement” Mr Snowden signed, or the oath every single one of these elected officials took to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?”

Every one of the elected officials who signed off on this travesty of putting the American people under surveillance violated their oath of office. Every. Single. One. 

Another question is, do the American people have a right to know their government has them under surveillance? Or is the Orwellian press correct, and the whole problem is really about how Mr Snowden “compromised” what they like to call “national security?” 

The same government that put us all under the gun of government surveillance has done its best — along with its puppet press — to make Mr Snowden into evil personified. They’ve gone after him with everything they’ve got. 

James Rosen

In the meantime, they’ve done all they can to harass and punish the reporter who wrote the story. 

Because, you see, a government that puts its people under surveillance is just naturally going to be a bit hostile to the First Amendment. Governments who do things like this need darkness, not the light of a free press, to do their spying. 

All this puts certain sections of the press under enormous pressure. On the one hand, their “mission” is to bring down President Obama and replace him with someone who is owned by the same folks who own them. So, they see this scandal as raw, juicy meat. On the other hand, it turns out that “their” boys and girls in Congress are just about as responsible for using gestapo tactics on the American people as the guys on the other team. It’s hard to do this right without goring their own precious ox. 

The press on the “other” side of the divide has long accused the politicians they try to bring down (you know, the ones in the opposite political party) of violating “civil rights.” How to defend their guy in the White House and all his minions?

The answer my friends is obvious. Demonize the man who decided that the American people’s right to know these things trumped his employment agreement. 

This is not, as the press and government claim, about “national security.” 

Mr Snowden did not sell information to our “enemies.” He gave it to the American people. 

And we have a right to know. 

The reason people in government are so apoplectic about all this has nothing — and I repeat, nothing – to do with “keeping the American people safe.” They are enraged because they got their pants pulled down in public. Mr Snowden let everyone know that they — not him, but they — are the traitors here. They are the ones who have attacked the Constitution. They are the ones who have violated our liberties. 

But that’s not the worst of it. The worst of it is that the government watchdogs, the “free press” that is supposed to keep us safe from tyranny by letting us know these things, is in the bag for the government. 

The corporate press is not a free press. It’s a propaganda machine that protects the interests of its owners. It appears that in this case, the interests of its owners lie in supporting the government against the one thing that the American press has always staked its banner on — the American people’s right to know. 

Marriage is a Mess and Homosexuals Didn’t Do It Redux

Marriage

I think we need to look to ourselves first when we consider the post Christian society we are entering.

The move to create a system of discrimination against Christians in this country is well under way in the Western world, including America. Christian business owners are being penalized and forced out of the public square by laws that do not allow any exemptions for their faith. Universities and colleges increasingly demand that Christian groups leave campus. Public figures are scolded and harassed if they mention the name Jesus.

We are going to have to chose who we will serve, and we’re going to have to do more than talk about it or make it into a political issue. If we want to follow Christ, we are going to have to follow Christ in the way we live and what we do in our own lives and families.

Before we begin to deal with the mess we are facing in the larger culture, we need to consider our own contributions to how we got here. One of those contributions is the way we have treated our own marriages and our own families. I am going to write a post soon talking about the way we have abandoned our children to the public schools and the larger culture and allowed that culture to shape their values, thinking and beliefs.

But for this day of fasting and prayer for marriage and religious freedom, I will just use a old post of mine to revisit the question of why marriage is such a mess and who is responsible. Hint: It isn’t homosexuals.

Family

I support traditional marriage. I have a public track record and the scars to prove it.

I voted to put an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution on the ballot that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. I also authored and passed a resolution memorializing Congress to begin hearings on an amendment to the United StatesConstitution doing the same thing. That is as much as I can do to support traditional marriage from my elected position.

It’s not a complicated issue to me, and it has almost nothing to do with what marriage is not. It’s about what marriage is. What marriage is begins with the law. Marriage under the law is and should continue to be a union freely entered into by one man and one woman. But legal definitions are just the scaffolding we use to support the social structures of how we order our lives. The actual edifice, the reality of marriage as it is lived, is something much more complex and important than that legal definition can impart.

We focus our national attention on the definition of marriage under the law. We wear out our keyboards writing about it and revile one another over our positions on it. But despite the accusations and counter-accusations that season our debate, we ignore the home truths of marriage in this country today. The truth is, marriage has been a mess for quite some time. And homosexuals weren’t the ones who messed it up.

Homosexuals didn’t set off the epidemic of divorce in this country. Homosexuals didn’t create the millions of feral children who spend most of their time alone, raising themselves on video games, drugs and interactions with their peers. Homosexuals don’t cheat on our spouses. Homosexuals don’t break into our homes and yell and curse at our families. They aren’t the cause of the rising number of unwed births and the global pandemic of abortion. We did these things. Marriage is a mess and it was heterosexuals who messed it up.

We insist that the legal definition of marriage should be a union between one man and one woman. But we behave as if it says that marriage is a union between one man and one woman at a time.

I know that is tender for many people. I know that divorce cuts people in half and leaves them with broken hearts and shattered lives. I know that some marriages are so bitter, destructive and even violent that they have to end. I know that even if you want to hold the marriage together, sometimes your spouse won’t. I know all this, and it gives me pause writing about these things. I don’t want to pick at half-healed wounds and start them bleeding again.

But the truth is that serial monogamy is NOT monogamy. Serial marriage is not marriage between one man and one woman. And heterosexuals, especially Christian heterosexuals, have a responsibility before God to care for and raise their children, cherish their spouses and build enduring stable homes which can nurture a true family. Heterosexuals who have failed to do this are the root cause of most of the social problems we face today. They, not homosexuals, are the ones who have brought marriage to the sorry state it is in now.

I have a public track record of supporting traditional marriage. I’ve got the scars to prove it. But I think that supporting traditional marriage, especially traditional marriage in the Christian sense, means more than being against same-sex marriage. I think that as Christians we are required to look past what we’re against and find what we are for. It isn’t enough for Christians to be against same-sex marriage. It certainly isn’t enough to do as some have done and whip people up into a rage and then cash in on that rage to advance your political career. That is just cheap demagoguery.

Leadership, especially true Christian leadership, mandates that we don’t just get people worked up against something. We have to lead them forward to something. In the case of marriage, we should be for true Christian marriage and we should live that kind of marriage in our own lives. Christians must be FOR marriage as a loving, giving, living institution that cocoons young children in a world of stability, positive discipline and love so that they can grow up and create loving homes of their own.

The bond between husband and wife, as the Bible says, makes them “one flesh.” This doesn’t refer just, or even primarily, to the physical union of marriage. Sex, apart from this bond of love, is a physical act. But true marriage is a spiritual bond. The deep, life bond of trust and mutual dependence that is marriage nurtures everyone within its reach. Marriage creates not just family, but home. I  do not mean a building where you sleep. Christian marriage creates home that is a refuge from the coldness of modern life.

This isn’t a hypothetical for me. My home and my husband are the living sanctuaries of my life. I could not endure the pressures of being a Public Catholic and all the controversy and criticism that engenders if I wasn’t able to go to my house, shut the door, and be Home.

Marriage is the progenitor of life, family, emotional safety and abiding peace in this life. It is a sacrament, given by Our Lord, to enable us to walk through life together and not alone.

If we are going to “save marriage” in this country, we certainly do need to resist efforts to alter its legal definition. But we also need to begin living the sacramental love and fidelity of marriage with our spouses and within our homes. We need to do this because it is what God intended for us. Marriage is His blessing on our lives and through it we can become blessings to our whole society.

Frank Weathers has another take on this question here.

Pray for Marriage

We are called to a day of fasting and prayer today for marriage and religious freedom. 

I think this is an excellent way for us to clear our minds and settle down into this new post Christian reality in which we live. We can no longer look to the larger culture to teach our children our values. We can no longer look to the society around us to give us courage and sustain us in our Christian walk. 

In this new reality, Christians are going to have to look to one another for their support in this life. We all must rely more on God and less on the government and our larger society to be our strength and our guide. 

I don’t think this has sunk in on most of us yet. Prayer and fasting, repentance and asking, are the best ways for us to begin to face this new reality. 

Here is a prayer from the USCCB. I plan to pray it several times today, along with the Divine Mercy Chaplet. 

Prayer In Defense Of Marriage

 

God our Father, we give you thanks
for the gift of marriage: the bond of life and love,
and the font of the family. 

The love of husband and wife enriches your Church with children,
fills the world with a multitude of spiritual fruitfulness and service,
and is the sign of the love of your Son, Jesus Christ, for his Church.

The grace of Jesus flowed forth at Cana at the
request of the Blessed Mother. May your Son,
through the intercession of Mary, pour out upon us
a new measure of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit
as we join with all people of good will
to promote and protect the unique beauty of marriage.

May your Holy Spirit enlighten our society
to treasure the heroic love of husband and wife,
and guide our leaders to sustain and protect
the singular place of mothers and fathers
in the lives of their children.

Father, we ask that our prayers
be joined to those of the Virgin Mary,
that your Word may transform our service
so as to safeguard the incomparable splendor of marriage.
We ask all these things through Christ our Lord,
Amen.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.


 


YouTube Preview Image

USCCB: Tomorrow is a Day of Fasting and Prayer for Marriage and Religious Liberty

Tumblr mgmjltaSyG1s3tphho1 500

Bride and groom, praying before their wedding.

I think we’ve exhausted the emotional discussion about Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision.

Now is a good time to turn to prayer. Propitiously, it is still the Fortnight for Freedom and tomorrow is Friday. The American bishops have called us all to a day of prayer and fasting tomorrow for the intention of marriage and religious liberty. For you Protestants out there, “intention,” when it’s used in this context simply means that what you are fasting and praying for is marriage and religious liberty.

Fasting does not mean that you go without food and water. It means that you abstain from eating meat. You can eat fish. You can eat cheese, eggs and other sources of protein. The whole purpose is to exercise a bodily discipline as a form of prayer and penitence.

That word “penitence” brings me to something I think we should all consider, and that is how we have failed personally in our fidelity to Christ. I am going to concentrate to my failings in terms of marriage and religious freedom. I haven’t divorced anyone, and since my religious conversion I have moved ever steadily toward a Jesus orientation on these things. The Catholic Church and its teachings have been both a guide and a source of strength in this regard.

However, I did a lot of things back in my anti-religion period that contributed to the mess we are in now. I’ve repented, gone to confession, been forgiven. But the knowledge that I did them has given me a slightly more generous take on those who are making the same mistakes now that I did then. I know that if God can convert me, he can convert anyone. I also understand that you can’t know what motivates another person to do the things they do.

All you can do is pray for them. That, based on the reaction to a post I wrote earlier this week, is something I think we should all try to do more of. We cannot change the world for Christ by destroying those who do things we see as sinful. We have to convert them. The only way to do that is to remember, always, that they are people in need of God’s love and that the only Jesus some of them may ever see is one of us.

I am asking each of you to join the bishops tomorrow in a day of prayer and fasting for marriage and religious freedom. You might also consider asking God to use you in the battle that lies ahead. But remember: He can not and will not do that unless you yield it all to Him, including your pride and anger. This kind of yielding is not a once for all thing. You have to go back and do it again over and over almost every day you live.

We’ve got work ahead of us, people. It’s not a matter of changing laws so much as it is winning hearts. The best way to do that is to begin by letting God change our own hearts.

Friday Fast for Life, Marriage
& Religious Liberty 
June 28, 2013
St. Irenaeus
Greetings!

Thank you for participating in the Bishops’ Call to Prayer for Life, Marriage, and Religious Liberty! 

 

This week was a big one for marriage. Today’s reflection is on St. John the Baptist, a witness to marriage – to the death.

We’re still in the Fortnight for Freedom, coming into the second week. Remember to visitwww.fortnight4freedom.org for latest news!

  Gray

Intention

For the courage to keep witnessing to the truth and beauty of marriage, the lifelong, fruitful union of one man and one woman.

Reflection

  

St. John the Baptist, whose birth we celebrated on Monday June 24, was a martyr for truth and justice, particularly the truth about marriage. He was put in jail, and ultimately executed, because he rebuked Herod for marrying his brother’s wife, Herodias (see Mt 14:3-12 and Mk 6:17-29). St. John the Baptist’s defense of marriage cost him his head.

In his Angelus address on Sunday, June 23, Pope Francis said of the saint, “He died for the sake of the truth, when he denounced the adultery of King Herod and Herodias. How many people pay dearly for their commitment to truth!”

Today, standing up for the counter-cultural truth of marriage as the lifelong, fruitful union of a man and a woman can be difficult and lonely. But Christ is always with us and asks us to be witnesses of His loving truth, which is worth defending, no matter what the cost. As our Holy Father exhorted the crowd, “Forward, be brave and go against the tide! And be proud of doing so.”

St. John the Baptist, pray for us.

Did you know?

On Wednesday of this week, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and refused to rule on the merits of a challenge to California’s Proposition 8. In a statement, Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone called Wednesday “a tragic day for marriage and our nation.” They said, “Now is the time to redouble our efforts” in witnessing to the truth of marriage.

Learn more about Proposition 8 and DOMA from this backgrounder.

Contact Information

The DOMA Ruling: Guessing What it Means

Doma is dead

 

I could try to sugar coat today’s ruling. I could also try to minimize what I think its impact will be. However, that would not be honest. I can only write what I think. Anything else would be a lie. 

We are, as Catholics, going to have to unravel today’s Supreme Court ruling a bit and absorb it. Only after we do that can we “Keep Calm and Catholic On” as some people advise.

First, we need to know what we are keeping calm about and what we are Catholicing on in the face of. Here, for what it’s worth, is my first take. I reserve the right to alter this as time goes on and I learn more. For now:

I think today’s Supreme Court ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional on the basis of equal protection is a watershed. 

It tips the table over and opens the way to reorganize our society along destructive lines. While today’s ruling does not legalize gay marriage by fiat, it creates a pry-bar that will open the doorway to creating a de facto legalization in practice. 

Many of the impacts of today’s ruling are going to come pretty fast. Federal institutions will change how they deal with marriage almost over night. The pressure for states to comply will also begin almost immediately.

There are far-reaching implications to federal law that tunnel their way into the corners of almost every state activity. Given that the proponents of these changes are well-funded, supported absolutely by the media and now by federal law, I believe that things are going to get increasingly dicey for anyone who wants to take a stand for traditional marriage. 

We already have a number of examples, many of which I have written about extensively on this blog, of how the “right” to gay marriage quickly becomes a “right” to infringe on other’s freedoms. This ruling, with its broad-ranging basis in equal protection, will open the way to legal arguments favoring even more forceful infringements of our religious liberties. 

Politically, I believe that this ruling and the movement behind it are going to create another fracture in the body politic. I will be surprised if we do not see the two political parties line up along these fault lines. Those of us who go to the polls and vote will be pushed, as we have been with abortion, to vote according to these social issues rather than other things such as the continuous cycle of wars, and the growing threat of economic bankruptcy of our nation. 

If I’m wrong, and nothing changes, I’ll be only too happy — ecstatic, in fact — to say so. 

I am not saying these things from a place of despair. I do not feel anything like despair. What I feel is a determination to stand for my Church and for Jesus, come what may. There is nothing that is final in this life except death itself, and even that is only final in this life. We can heal our culture, but we have to begin by healing ourselves. 

This is our time, and these are our challenges. 

There are a few things I’m going to ask you to do:

1. Face facts. This is our situation. So be it. 

2. Pray for those who oppose us. If you do this, it will not only help them, but it will take the anger out of you and let you think clearly. It will also give you the strength and determination Christians are going to need. 

3. Give yourself time to be upset. Take a few days and feel it through. Then, get over it and get back into the battle. Do not fight yesterday’s war.

4. Focus on your own family first. In particular, how are you going to protect your children from the propaganda in our culture? 

Here is a brief analysis from the Maddowblog on MSNBC. I chose them because, while all of the media have become gay marriage advocates, MSNBC seems to be speaking almost directly for the leadership in this movement. As such, they give us a good look at what these activists are thinking and planning. 

It will take some time to digest the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, but as MSNBC’s Adam Serwer noted

 , the “likely consequences for same-sex couples who until now have been denied legal recognition by the federal government are difficult to overstate.”

Families headed by married same-sex couples will now be recognized by the federal government as families. Servicemembers fighting for their country in far off lands will not have to worry about their spouses being denied benefits. The same-sex spouses of Americans who are not U.S. citizens will not be denied green cards on the basis that their marriages don’t count.

But there was something that NBC News’ Pete Williams said this morning that’s also worth keeping in mind. For those who can’t watch clips online:

“The interesting thing here is that the court has said that DOMA is unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection — meaning that it’s discriminatory. Now, the importance of that is, if the Supreme Court had struck it down on a narrower basis — by saying for example that the federal government doesn’t have the power to determine what a marriage is, that’s a matter for the states — that would have been a very narrow ruling.

“This is a very broad ruling. If the Supreme Court is saying here that the federal government can’t make distinctions between same-sex and opposite-sex couples in terms of what marriages the federal government will recognize, then this is an opinion that can be used by proponents of same-sex marriage to attack laws in other states.”

It can and will be used exactly that way, and for marriage-equality supporters, it suggests the DOMA ruling in U.S. v. Windsor is not only a breakthrough victory today, but it will continue to offer opportunities for further victories fairly soon.

 For a different take on the ruling, check out Keep Calm and Catholic On by Joanne McPortland. 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X