The Roman Catholic Church went through the process and ritual of selecting the next Pope, the head of that institution. By all accounts Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the man who has chosen the name, “Francis” has great humility. He cooked is own food, rode the bus rather than having a limo and doesn’t even wear flashy shoes. He is very concerned about the poor but the liberal media is in utter shock! The new pope is not in favor of same gender marriage or abortion. Not even contraception. Imagine, they hired a Roman Catholic to head the church! At times I thought some of the news personalities were going to become apoplectic. On one of the FOX shows Juan Williams expressed his dismay at the Pope’s lack of being up with the times and it was pointed out that the Pope is Roman Catholic and a requirement in taking the position is a pledge to uphold and defend the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Juan than said that lots of American Roman Catholics favor same gender marriage and abortion. The host then pointed out that the Church is NOT a democratic institution. Perhaps part of the problem is that our President and Congress also swear to uphold and defend the Constitution but once sworn in ignore their commitment and go on to do whatever they want in violation of the Constitution. Honesty, integrity and fidelity are not highly valued commodities among liberals and progressives.
Penn Jillette ( Penn and Teller ), author of ( God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales is obviously not a Christian. He is an atheist but one not unlike Benjamin Franklin. He enjoys the debate and exchange of ideas. He also looks for consistency between behavior and claimed belief. This made an interesting exchange between Jillette and Piers Morgan. Morgan is a Roman Catholic who essentially rejects the authority of Rome. Jillette defended Rome’s right to hold to and defend their doctrine and pointed out that Morgan isn’t really a Roman Catholic and should join a church that better reflects his beliefs.
Morgan is fairly representative of the spirit of the age among Liberals and Progressives. Truth is not arrived at through evidence and reason but is emoted. One may disagree with Rome in essential doctrine but then don’t pretend to be a Roman Catholic. I do not agree with Rome as I pointed out in ”Thus Saith Rome (this Journal also includes a history of the development of certain Roman Catholic doctrines) and that is why I am not a Roman Catholic. It should also be noted, and I am sure will irritate some of our readers, that Roman Catholics, Reformed and Evangelicals have a shared history and many doctrines in common. As it happens, Rome’s position on same gender marriage and abortion fall into this category.
Biblically, marriage is between male and female and for most of history, one male and one female. That is how it was in the beginning and Jesus Himself affirmed this Matthew 19: 3-6. (I would suggest that like divorce God allowed polygamy for a period of time due to the hardness of men’s hearts). For Liberals and Progressives sexual fidelity and respect for biblical teaching are not high priorities. We live in a time when sexual satisfaction is used to determine sexual morality. Public policy and personal positions may begin with something that is true but then is built upon with strange propositions which end up affirming positions that are at best untrue and at worst harmful. Two examples are at the base of this new controversy. The argument begins with the idea that humans are sexual beings. That is true. It moves on to the affirmation that some are sexually attracted to their same gender. That is also true. The next claim is that everyone should be allowed, no affirmed, in acting out their sexuality in the way that most satisfies them. This is not only untrue but is held very inconsistently and requires many caveats to sound reasonable. Someone may achieve sexual satisfaction by raping another. Well, sexual satisfaction now takes a back seat to something else, consent. In another case someone may achieve maximum sexual satisfaction with small children (pedophilia). Again, a caveat, the child is not old enough to make an informed decision.
Other issues arise in the area of sexual fidelity. Within a monogamous relationship (the biblical and Roman Catholic view) venereal disease and AIDS are not an issue. Sex with multiple partners is where these issues arise. This is another example of the inconsistent thinking of Liberals and Progressives. There are big moves lately to legislate on dietary issues with the move to Social medicine and Obama care because society will now bear the cost of all of its members. Therefore, the thinking goes, society has the right to decide what individuals are allowed to eat or drink. But if that is true then why can’t society and more specifically the Church degree monogamy between a man and woman as the only acceptable form of marriage. After all, Liberals and Progressives insist that all of us pay the health care costs associated with venereal disease and AIDS so why can’t we decide what should be socially and legally acceptable? Oh, yes, because that may make some feel bad. So what wins? Truth as dictated by emotion.
The Roman Catholic Church holds that all humans have rights and that innocent humans should be protected. Capital punishment, if used, should be applied to humans that have committed capital crimes, have been arrested, tried and convicted of those capital crimes. Reformed and Evangelicals agree with this doctrine. Liberals and Progressives on the other hand are opposed to capital punishment for the guilty of committing capital crimes but support capital punishment for the innocent unborn. Here a woman’s right to own another human based on where it lives trumps the right of the unborn human to protection. In their view Human Rights are Only for Some Humans. For Liberals and Progressives a woman has the right to own another human and to sentence them to death by dismemberment if she so chooses.
This plays out in the arena of finances as well. The video ”Illustrating Inequality” on The Dish visually shows how wealth was distributed, how the general population perceives how wealth is distributed and how it is actually currently distributed. I cannot attest to the accuracy of its statistical claims and although not directly asserting what should be done with this info makes innuendos about the wealth of the upper 20% being, “skewed unfairly,” it is “shockingly skewed,” and how most people feel it “should have” been distributed. The video assumes that life ought to be “fair.” But who decreed that life ought to be fair? What does “fair” mean? If “fair” is that all should have the right to pursue their dreams and better their life I agree. If “fair” means that all should have equal outcomes regardless of talents, ethics, effort, creatively, etc., I would and in fact most would reject that definition when put objectively but that seems to be where Liberals and Progressives key in on emotions as the arbiter of what is true. The video doesn’t ask questions like, “How did those with the most wealth come by that wealth?” In other words, was it gained honestly? Is Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs and others wealthy because they worked hard, had good ideas that were well marketed and provided valuable goods or services to others or were their gains illegal and to the harm of others as say a favorite of Liberals and Progressives George Soros who made his wealth by Black Market trading, collaborating with the NAZI’s to the harm of the Jews?
The video makes no mention that much of charity is funded by the very wealthy who take the benefit of being wealthy also has the responsibility of aiding those who are not as fortunate. Some of the billionaires take this so seriously that 40 of the Wealthiest Families banned together and pledged ½ of their wealth to charity.
And here we return to my original point. Whether you agree with the doctrines of Rome or not, they have every right to keep their pledge to uphold and defend them. If you don’t like their doctrines become something else with which you agree. I don’t agree with Liberals or Progressives and so I don’t join them. It is simple really.