2 posts tagged “truth”
Admit it. We’d rather have what we want than have the Truth because we’ve discovered the Truth denies us everythembeding we want! It is the awful truth about Truth that it takes away our opportunity to enjoy life, to be free, and to pursue happiness. Who would want all that taken away from them? Well, certainly not me!
Someone will surely protest that “the Truth will set us free”! I’m here to say I’ve tried the Truth and it ain’t for me.
Have I lost my mind? I don’t believe so. Not yet anyway. What prompted that little bit of sarcasm (and yes, it was sarcasm) was yet the latest evidence that a Truth must be accepted in order for that Truth to work in our lives. Some Truths are self-evident, some not so much so but all of them must be accepted or they work against us, not for us. An example: gravity, we are told, is the force that keeps us anchored to terra firma so that we aren’t thrown off the planet and become so many bits of space debris. We accept this Truth because it is self evident – something is keeping us down – we might as well call it gravity. If you choose to argue against that Truth then you will, rightly, be asked to supply the alternative explanation. That explanation might make you look foolish, it might cause others to think you’d gone bonkers. Likewise, the sky, on a clear, beautiful day, is blue. Can you argue against that? If you do not accept that Truth then what do you do? Not accepting Truth can eat up a lot of your time.
So
what started me up this time? The New York Time and the Los Angeles
Times – two articles that couldn’t be more different and yet more
alike.
The LA Times printed what was described by NewsBusters as “a fawning article” about a former Catholic priest named John Carroll. He’s described in the article’s headline as a “Devout Catholic . . .” and then begins with this description of Carroll as
an idiosyncratic Catholic, a former priest who still celebrates his faith yet rejects the very roots of its doctrine, viewing Christianity's promise of eternal life as "destructive" and the cross as a symbol of Roman Emperor Constantine's lust for power.
Ok, so I read this sentence and my first reaction was “this guy’s a crackpot” (read the article, you’ll see more what I mean). But my next reaction concerned the author of the article (Gina Piccalo, Times Staff Writer) who must be either completely ignorant (and I mean completely) about the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church or have a deep dislike for the Church. What else could explain her understanding of this man as “devoted” yet “idiosyncratic”, as someone who “still celebrates his faith” but at the same time “rejects the very roots of its doctrine”. Give me a break. Mr. Carroll is not much better than Jack Chick or Dave Hunt in his devotion to the Church.
In contrast the NY Times published an op-ed that, to me at least, was essentially an admission that it’s (and the Dem’s) pro-choice stance is contributing to the defection of large numbers of Democrats from the party. You’ve got to read this article – as far as I’m concerned it’s the most amazing thing that it was even published!
Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into ’08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because “security moms” saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion.
Here we have an icon of the Liberal Left’s movement publishing something that says exactly the opposite of what it has been preaching loudly for years. We are constantly barraged from the media with so-called “news” that seems to indicate that pro-lifers are the minority! Again and again we hear from Democrats and their friends in the media that virtually everyone in America support “a woman’s right to choose”. Apparently we’ve been lied to, but we already knew that didn’t we?
I’ll leave it to you to read Melinda Henneberger’s article and you’ll be amazed at the point of view she sees the Democrats as having. They apparently have truly been hijacked by the minority simply because that minority manages to scream more loudly than the majority or perhaps it’s because they actively promote their agenda with big dollars.
Perhaps I’ve been a tad incoherent in this post – I apologize. Fundamentally I see in the contrast between these two articles a similarity that extends beyond faith and abortion. In the “devout Catholic” who rejects the core tenets of his faith and the political party who have failed to listen to their constituents about a matter as serious as abortion I see this country and our diverse culture going down the proverbial potty. At the core of each of these articles is someone’s absolute refusal to accept Truth. Why do we typically refuse anything? Because it isn’t what we want! What’d I tell ya.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for our dear country.
Our Lady of Fatima, sanctify our clergy.
Our Lady of Fatima, make our Catholics more fervent.
Our Lady of Fatima, guide and inspire those who govern us.
Our Lady of Fatima, cure the sick who confide in thee.
Our Lady of Fatima, console the sorrowful who trust in thee.
Our Lady of Fatima, help those who invoke your aid.
Our Lady of Fatima, deliver us from all dangers.
Our Lady of Fatima, help us to resist temptation.
Our Lady of Fatima, obtain for us all that we lovingly ask of thee.
Our Lady of Fatima, help those who are dear to us.
Our Lady of Fatima, bring back to the right road our erring brothers.
Our Lady of Fatima, give us back our ancient fervor.
Our Lady of Fatima, obtain for us pardon of our manifold sins and offenses.
Our Lady of Fatima, bring all men to the feet of thy Divine Child.
Our Lady of Fatima, obtain peace for the world.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Let Us Pray:
O
God of infinite goodness and mercy, fill our hearts with a great
confidence in Thy dear Mother, whom we invoke under the title of Our
Lady of the Rosary and our Lady of Fatima, and grant us by her powerful
intercession all the graces, spiritual and temporal, which we need.
Through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
Recently the Chairman of the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune said
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,"
"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behaviour] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behaviour,"
The headlines now read "No apology ..." , "...declines to apologize ..." etc.
What should General Pace apologize for? His statement stands on its own merit - he believes homosexual acts are immoral. Billions of people around the world believe homosexual acts are immoral. NB -- To say that a homosexual person is immoral would be a ridiculous, unjust, and unsupportable assertion (though the homosexual activists would have you believe that's precisely what we say!. I don't believe that any more than I believe all Middle Easterners are terrorists, or that all Muslims are Jihadists, or that all our politicians are simply out for themselves. To assign immorality on the basis of who you are rather than what you do is simply not right or just. On the other hand it is also not right nor just to be forced to say you believe something that you do not believe and that, in fact, you believe is wrong!
It is simply beyond belief that in the United States of America I could be required to state publicly that I believe homosexual acts are not immoral. If I am compelled to apologize for what I believe then I am, in essence, being asked to deny what I believe. To deny what you believe is to implicitly assert belief in what you did not believe.
Where does this stop?
