Imagine these headlines: “Supreme Court rules, 5-4, that all cats can get dog licenses.” “All dog-licensing agencies shall issue dog licenses to cats.” “Kentucky animal-control clerk jailed after refusing to issue dog licenses to cats.”
We would laugh at the absurdity of the ruling because we can scientifically verify a cat is not a dog, or is it? The Supreme Court has changed the objective, natural and life-producing definition of marriage to a subjective, unnatural and sterile one. The basis for this change in definition is what? Love — yes, weren’t we told it is all about love? Remember: “Love wins,” and “How can I tell someone who they can or cannot love?”
Applying the “love” logic of the Supreme Court, we can change the definition of anything, disregarding any inconvenient reality or truth. In other words, we can define our own reality. Pope Benedict XVI called this way of thinking the “dictatorship of relativism,” and we are starting to witness the impact of this logic.
We’re already being told a man can be a woman, two plus two equals five or a white woman can be a black woman if the individual “feels” that way. Will not this type of thinking inevitably lead us to the conclusion that a cat can be a dog if we “feel” the cat is really a dog?
Kim Davis said “Yes” to truth and “No” to Caesar. May we all have the courage to do the same when called upon.
The Register, columnists, et al deserve the applause of subscribers for coverage given to the synod on the family. The presentation of talks and expressed opinions of the many participants, too numerous to list here, allowed us to feel we were part of the proceedings. We needed it — for we live in a world that has become antagonistic toward religion.
Therefore, I broach a subject that needs to be amended. “Conservative” Catholics were rebuked in front of the world as being “too rigid” — implying harm to the Church and some members. It is disturbing because the label “conservative Catholics” presupposes “liberal Catholics” — dividing the Church into opposing factions.
The truth is: The Roman Catholic Church is “conservative.” Catholics who adhere to Church teaching are not responsible for Catholics who do not live their lives in the same manner — nor should standards be lowered because some Catholics don’t believe in keeping standards. This nation foisted laws allowing deviance on all citizens; but civil laws do not change God’s laws. “Too rigid” will be used to justify wrong doctrinal and biblical interpretations — fomenting disobedience and wrong behavior. It will create insurmountable resentments; it will destroy unity.
Dedicated Catholics fought the legalization of four mortal sins in this nation, while many Catholics holding influential positions — repeatedly — gave the impression the sins were insignificant. Abortion has been legal for 42 years; sodomy and same-sex “marriage” are now legal; and euthanasia and “assisted suicide” exist legally in some states. Yet godless secularism was given the ammunition that “conservative Catholics are too rigid.” Why should anyone believe we uphold God’s truth or take us seriously?
Removing the Eucharist
Relevant to “Eucharistia” (Publisher’s Note, Nov. 15 issue): As I saw the title, I couldn’t help but always think of Christ, the source and summit of our holy Catholic faith. If the Eucharist is the summit, then, when a parish is extinguished and Jesus removed from that parish’s church, wouldn’t that be the most devastating act that could happen — that is, if we truly believe?
I am very familiar with the effects of Jesus being taken away in the 1960s from a parish. That area has a high rate of drugs, violence and overall loss of the knowledge of God. I don’t want the same thing to happen to us.
The editor responds: When a church is closed, yes, the Eucharist is removed, and the building is desacralized. It would be devastating if the people attending the church had no place to go for Mass. The bishops who have, regrettably, had to consolidate their dioceses through parish closings do so after extensive study and would not leave the faithful with no recourse to the sacraments.
Just a short message to thank you and the Register for carrying all of Father Raymond J. De Souza’s commentaries. He is an expert, and I very much appreciate his very knowledgeable insight and deep analysis of the goings-on in our Catholic faith.
“The Synod’s Fundamental Question: The Legacy of St. John Paul II” (page one, Nov. 15 issue) was excellent.
The same goes for Edward Pentin. He does wonderful investigative work on the true story behind the scenes. I applaud you for publishing commentaries/articles by these two top-notch individuals. God bless you and the entire staff of the Register, and keep up the great work that you all are doing!
Mary E. Harrison
The Dec. 13 issue page-one article “No Room at the Inn: Why Few Syrian Christian Refugees Come to the US” incorrectly identified a group of Middle-Eastern Christians airlifted to Slovakia as Syrians. They are Iraqi Christians who were internally displaced within their country. The Mass readings list for the Dec. 6 User’s Guide to Sunday, “John’s Hope” (Nov. 29 issue), was incorrect. The correct readings were: Baruch 5:1-9; Psalms 126:1-2, 2-3, 4-5, 6; Philippians 1:4-6, 8-11; and Luke 3:4, 6. The Register regrets the errors.