“A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.” - Socrates

The phrase, “There is no objective truth,” is used and abused in an attempt to justify and excuse hedonistic, deviant behavior and to attempt to dismiss the existence of God.  The world acts and talks without sound faith, logic, and reason while at the same time people want to be seen, respected, and thought of, as intelligent, smart, and on the cutting edge of the next best thing.  It seems to be that society condones foolish and mindless behavior and words, in the name of money, wealth, success, and power.

In a televised Mass on EWTN several months ago, Fr. Frank Pavone, spoke in his homily on the topic of abortion and politics.  As he is on the front lines of the fight against abortion, Fr. Pavone spoke about the philosophical and mental disconnections by so-called “Catholic” politicians, as they support the right for women to take the life of unborn babies.  Fr. Pavone asked rhetorically those politicians; you mean to tell me that you can believe the bread actually becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ at the point of transubstantiation, while at the same time you do not believe that life begins at conception?…it is easier to believe life begins at conception, because science has and does prove it.

It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.  (CCC 1375)

Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, He says. This word transforms the things offered.

And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body that He was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."  (CCC 1376)

This is at best a mental disconnection and absurd, which not only questions sanity but begs the question, what kind of life does that person lead?  By saying one thing and doing another, completely void of sound reason and logic while being an elected official who is called to lead, make decisions and serve. While many dispel the notion of objective truth, does it not stand to reason if the human body does not have water it will cease to function and in the end die?  It would be completely absurd for anyone to attempt to convince the world the human body does not need water.  They would be soundly mocked, laughed at, and thought to be crazy, let alone intelligent and respected, is this not objective truth?  It would seem such positions are sought with their own self interests based on pride, money, power, arrogance and wealth and not to serve for the good of humanity. 

The following is an interview transcript with Joseph Biden:

Taking his cue from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Biden has told a nationwide television audience that although he believes human life begins at conception, he will not impose that "personal and private" belief on others by voting to protect unborn children.

In a Sunday-morning appearance on Meet the Press, Biden told NBC interviewer Tom Brokaw that he accepts the Church's teaching that life begins at conception. But he argued that the Catholic teaching cannot be applied to non-Catholic citizens.

Senator Biden's inaccurate rendition of Church teaching on abortion could be challenged today in a very public setting. On Monday, September 8, Bishop W. Francis Malooly will be installed as the new head of the Wilmington, Delaware diocese in which the Democratic lawmaker lives. Biden is expected to attend the installation Mass this afternoon. Thus the new bishop may be challenged immediately to decide whether a Catholic politician who flagrantly violates Church teaching on the sanctity of life will be allowed to receive Communion.

During his Meet the Press interview with Biden, Brokaw reminded the senator that a few weeks earlier he had questioned Nancy Pelosi about Catholic teaching on abortion. When the host asked him to respond to the same question, Biden produced an answer remarkably similar to the one that Pelosi had offered.

"I'd say: 'Look I know when it begins for me,'" Biden replied. "For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my Church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths-- Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others-- who have a different view."

The vice-presidential candidate continued:

I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.

Like Pelosi, Biden claimed that the Catholic Church has wrestled with the question of when human life begins. Citing St. Thomas Aquinas (whereas Pelosi had referred to St. Augustine), he pointed out that a Doctor of the Church believed that human life begins with quickening, when the baby first stirs in the womb.

But St. Thomas Aquinas, like St. Augustine, was wrong about the biological facts-- facts which modern science has confirmed beyond dispute. Human life is present from the moment of conception. This is not a matter of faith, nor a question of Church teaching. It is a biological fact.

In his response to Tom Brokaw, Biden claimed that he was "prepared to accept the teachings of my Church." But the Church does not issue teachings on scientific questions. Where the Church does claim authority-- on the moral duties of believers-- Biden is not prepared to follow that guidance.
Again and again in the past 20 years, the Church has taught that Catholic lawmakers have a solemn obligation to uphold the dignity of human life, and that to fail in that obligation is gravely sinful. That is a matter of Catholic teaching, and if he is prepared to accept the guidance of the Church, Biden must shoulder his political obligation.

If he truly believes that an unborn child is a human person-- whether he reaches that conclusion foolishly, believing it to be an article of faith, or logically, realizing that it is an established biological reality-- Senator Biden has a moral obligation to protect that young life. This obligation is not a matter of confessional loyalty, but a duty under the natural law. Until late in the 20th century, the vast majority of American lawmakers recognized that duty, and laws against abortion were passed in all 50 states, invariably by legislatures in which Catholics were a minority.

Senator Biden says that the unborn child is a human life, and yet he refuses to protect that life, because some Americans do not recognize the humanity of the unborn. The senator's logic suggests that laws can be based upon entirely subjective criteria, so that human life can be protected only if everyone agrees that it is human life-- regardless of demonstrable facts. The same sort of subjective approach prompted Chief Justice Roger Taney (a practicing Catholic) to observe that since some Americans regarded their African slaves as less than human, those slaves had "no rights which white men are bound to accept."

When Nancy Pelosi appeared on Meet the Press two weeks earlier, her comments on abortion provoked a chorus of rebukes from the American hierarchy. The fact that Biden pressed ahead with the same arguments, ignoring the bishops' protests, shows that the battle is now fully joined.
In Madison, Wisconsin, Bishop Robert Morlino reacted angrily to Biden's televised comments, and tossed aside his prepared Sunday homily to focus on the question, realizing that this has become a topic on which Church leaders must speak forcefully. Bishop Morlino told his Sunday congregation:
Senator Biden does not understand the difference between articles of faith and natural law. Any human being-- regardless of his faith, his religious practice, or having no faith-- any human being can reason to the fact that human life, from conception until natural death, is sacred. Biology-- not faith, not philosophy, not any kind of theology; biology-- tells us-- science-- that at the moment of conception there exists a unique individual of the human species.

Bishop Morlino went on to say that while Senator Biden and Speaker Pelosi claim to be honoring the principle that religion and politics are separate realms, the politicians themselves are violating that principle by presuming to speak about Church teachings-- and stating those teachings inaccurately-- before a nationwide television audience. "They're stepping on the Pope's turf and mine," the bishop said, "and they're violating the separation of Church and state, confusing God's good people."
God's good people will remain confused as long as prominent Catholics continue to ignore fundamental moral principles and offer distorted presentations of Church teachings to justify their treason. The only effective antidote-- the only way to eliminate the confusion-- is for the bishops to present authentic Catholic teaching forcefully, and to let the world know that prominent Catholics cannot flout Church authority with impunity.

At his installation Mass today, Bishop Malooly will face a challenge. If Senator Biden attends the ceremony-- and especially if he receives Holy Communion-- his presence will be taken by millions of Americans as evidence that his public stand is within the boundaries of acceptable behavior for Catholic politicians. In his very first hours on the job, the new bishop must decide whether he can allow that impression to stand.   Lawler (2008)

Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl, disputes Pelosi's Statements, in the following link…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603215.html

While it is clear that human nature has a built-in, base desire for self-preservation, does that self-preservation mean using one’s power, wealth and money which is driven by pride, arrogance and unsound philosophical logic, faith and reason?  Does that mean that same desire, one has to reach and maintain positions of authority while not be questioned about mental stability to make philosophical assertions based upon sound logic, faith, and reason?  I would assert the world does not care what is right or wrong but merely the idea of obtaining and maintaining positions of authority driven by pride in order to be thought of, as intelligent, powerful, respected and wealthy.  While at the same time the world attempts to dismiss the objective truth and the existence of God, in order to justify and/or excuse hedonistic and deviant behavior.

                                  References

( 1995) Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday.

Lawler, P. (2008, September 9). Biden Joins Pelosi in Challenge to Church Teaching on Abortion. Catholic World News Brief.

Then He was not “just a good man…”

            A fourth distinguishing fact is that He does not fit, as the other world teachers do, into the established category of a good man.  Good men do not lie.  But if Christ was not all that He said He was, namely, the Son of the living God, the Word Of God in the flesh, then He was not “just a good man”; then He was a knave, a liar, a charlatan and the greatest deceiver who ever lived.  If He was not what He said He was, the Christ, the Son of God, He was the anti-Christ!  If he was only a man, then He was not even a “good” man.

But He was not only a man.  He would have us either worship Him or despise Him-despise Him as a mere man or worship Him as true God and true man.  That is the alternative He presents.  It may very well be that the Communists, who are so anti-Christ, are closer to Him that those who see Him as a sentimentalist and a vague moral reformer.  The Communists, have at least decided that if He wins, they lose; the others are afraid to consider Him either as winning or loosing, because they are not prepared to meet the moral demands which this victory would make on their souls.

If He is what He claimed to be, a Savior, a Redeemer, then we have a virile Christ and a leader worth following in these terrible times; One Who will step into the breach of death, crushing sin, gloom and despair; a leader to Whom we can make totalitarian sacrifice without loosing, but gaining freedom, and Whom we can love even unto death.  We need a Christ today, Who will make cords and drive the buyers and sellers from our new temples; Who will blast the unfruitful fig trees; Who will talk of crosses and sacrifices and Whose voice will be like the voice of the raging sea.  But He will not allow us to pick and choose among His words, discarding the hard ones, and accepting the ones that please our fancy.  Sheen, Bishop Fulton J. (p. 6-7)

How can anyone dismiss not only the existence of Christ but who and what He is and what He represents?  The questions Bishop Sheen poses cannot with any logic and reason be either dismissed or ignored.  The existence of Christ, in and of itself poses a dilemma to our moral compass whether we like it, want it, to or not.  History dictates this, the same as the existence of Hitler, Marx and Abraham Lincoln.  What Christ poses is a moral demand with authority that no world leader, political figure or vigilante did, can or will.

54” Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” (John 6:54-59)

4 “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. 6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.” (John 15:4-6)

1 “Who hath believed our report and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? 2 And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him: 3 Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.”  (Isaiah 53:1-5)

15 “Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”  (Matt 16:15-18)

43 “You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: 45 That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. 46 For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have do not even the publicans do this?” (Matt 5:43-46)

Can anyone pose such moral demands without being sane and actually be who Christ says He is?  How could someone raise a dead man, and be insane, yet have not only twelve men follow Him and His teachings, but an entire society and in turn a “Holy Roman Empire?”  It would seem one would have to deny history in large blocks of decades or centuries in order to dismiss or attempt to dismiss such events.  We can however, ignore history.  We can dismiss in our own minds because we want to live according to our own moral demands or lack thereof…

In history and time, water will rise to its own level, figuratively speaking in order to determine what is real and authentic and/or not.  Would it not stand to reason in view of people like, Marx and Hitler, time and history with sound logic and reason determine both of them mentally disconnected based on their attempts to fulfill their twisted and sick ideology of reality and the world?  Does history look upon such figures in a favorable light, if to be followed and/or imitated?  Does not history demand the use of sound logic and reason in order to understand events that took place?  I would assert that if either Marx or Hitler were sane, with a sound moral compass, history and humanity would not view them as evil dictators, which killed people on mass scales, in order to control and manipulate society and the world…just ask any death camp survivor.

Would it therefore, not stand to reason, Christ was not insane nor a political figurehead or Satan?  Examples of people such as Catherine of Siena, Therese of Lisieux, Francis of Assisi, Padre Pio, Pope John Paul II, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Pope Benedict and Thomas Moore, using sound logic and reason that followed the moral demands of Christ, are viewed with respect and admiration, to that of Hitler and Marx?  It is absurd to assert, not only is Christ insane but those that followed Him since 33 AD must also be insane?  As in scripture, the book of The Acts of the Apostles, taking place several years after the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, when Peter and the other apostle’s of Christ were arrested and brought before the council for questioning;

34 But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. 35 And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men. 36 For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. 37 After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. 38 And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; 39 But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God.  (Acts 5:34-39)

It is with the freewill people dismiss the moral demands of Christ, choose to live according to their own moral compass, as it is fun, easy, and more importantly- such a life makes no moral demands.  However, I would assert no sound logic (and/or philosophical) assertion can attempt to rationalize that God does not nor cannot exist.  While many use and feed the ego in order to be seen in favorable light in the eyes of the world, it is power, authority, and prestige that drive the ego with pride and arrogance.  No one that is philosophically honest, looking for the objective truth, can dismiss the moral demands that Christ puts forth to us.  One can, however, choose to ignore such demands based upon the overriding desire to feed the ego and pride to be our own Gods.  “But He will not allow us to pick and choose among His words, discarding the hard ones, and accepting the ones that please our fancy.”  Sheen, Bishop Fulton J. (p. 7)

                                     References 

(1958). Sheen, Bishop Fulton J.  The Life of Chirst. New York: Sheed and Ward.

(2007). Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, Retrieved from VulSearch  4.1.6.

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.” (John 15:18)

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.  If you were of the world the world would love its’ own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.  Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’  If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.  But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me.  If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.  He who hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.  (John 15:18-24)

Would it not stand to reason if the atheistic, hedonistic mindset of the world, did not hate Christ and simply “Agree to disagree” people such as Ayn Rand, Lady Gaga and others of the world not attempt to dispel, dismiss Christ, and His Church and go out their way to criticize, laugh and mock Him and His Church?

“In the most Biblical sense,

I am beyond repentance

Fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind

But in the cultural sense

I just speak in future tense

Judas kiss me if offenced,

Or wear an ear condom next time

I wanna love you,

But something’s pulling me away from you

Jesus is my virtue,

Judas is the demon I cling to

I cling to”

[Chorus]

“I’m just a Holy Fool, oh baby he’s so cruel

But I’m still in love with Judas, baby

I’m just a Holy Fool, oh baby he’s so cruel

But I’m still in love with Judas, baby…” Gaga (2011)

A fourth distinguishing fact is that He does not fit, as the other world teachers do, into the established category of a good man.  Good men do not lie.  But if Christ was not all that He said He was, namely, the Son of the living God, the Word Of God in the flesh, then He was not “just a good man”; then He was a knave, a liar, a charlatan and the greatest deceiver who ever lived.  If He was not what He said He was, the Christ, the Son of God, He was the anti-Christ!  If he was only a man, then He was not even a “good” man.

But He was not only a man.  He would have us either worship Him or despise Him-despise Him as a mere man or worship Him as true God and true man.  That is the alternative He presents.  It may very well be that the Communists, who are so anti-Christ, are closer to Him that those who see Him as a sentimentalist and a vague moral reformer.  The Communists, have at least decided that if He wins, they lose; the others are afraid to consider Him either as winning or loosing, because they are not prepared to meet the moral demands which this victory would make on their souls.

If He is what He claimed to be, a Savior, a Redeemer, then we have a virile Christ and a leader worth following in these terrible times; One Who will step into the breach of death, crushing sin, gloom and despair; a leader to Whom we can make totalitarian sacrifice without loosing, but gaining freedom, and Whom we can love even unto death.  We need a Christ today, Who will make cords and drive the buyers and sellers from our new temples; Who will blast the unfruitful fig trees; Who will talk of crosses and sacrifices and Whose voice will be like the voice of the raging sea.  But He will not allow us to pick and choose among His words, discarding the hard ones, and accepting the ones that please our fancy. Sheen, Bishop Fulton J. (1958, p. 6-7)  

It would seem Bishop Sheen’s words from fifty plus years ago asserts and/or reaffirms the words of Christ.  Would it not stand to reason those such as Ayn Rand and Lady Gaga, had/have to hate Christ?  If Christ was simply a crazy man, idiot or Satan himself, why would the world hate and mock Him?  It seems as Bishop Sheen said, “It may very well be that the Communists, who are so anti-Christ, are closer to Him that those who see Him as a sentimentalist and a vague moral reformer.  The Communists, have at least decided that if He wins, they lose; the others are afraid to consider Him either as winning or loosing, because they are not prepared to meet the moral demands which this victory would make on their souls.”  Sheen, Bishop. Fulton J. (1958, p. 7)  

If Christ did not make such high moral demands of the world, the world would not hate Him and simply “Agree to disagree,” perhaps that is too easy…? As Christ said, “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.”  (John 15:24) As doing good and avoiding evil is far from easy or fun.  Would it not seem reasonable to assert, because few people are willing to give up the materialistic, hedonistic life and vainglory of the world to follow those demands find it easier to mock, laugh at and hate Christ?  Is it not easier to have fun, do what it is that makes us feel good, rather than let anyone tell us what we do is wrong, immoral and unethical?  I understand no one in the world, especially in the United States wants or likes anyone to tell them what to do, let alone how to live their lives according to any code of moral ethics.  As people are raised to be independent, do what they want, when and how they want in order to make themselves happy, regardless of any moral demands, no one wants to be told that what they are doing and/or saying is wrong and immoral.  Hence hating and mocking the source of their consternation, sin and guilt. 

I would assert that if something or in this case someone, God was not tugging on the internal “Ought” within the being/soul of Lady Gaga, she would not mock and hate Christ and all that He is and represents to humanity.  Would she not simply “Agree to disagree,” and move on?  Why is it that those that are denying the existence of God, yell for artistic license when it comes to mocking and hating Christ but will not tolerate, when those of us in The Church point out their actions and words are immoral and wrong…?  Perhaps they are neither prepared nor willing to meet the moral demands, which Christ calls us to, instead based upon their own moral compass deny the existence of God, hate and mock Christ.

                                               

                                                          References

(Gaga Lady 2011 Judas - "Judas")Gaga, Lady. (2011). Judas - "Judas" [Music CD]. United States: Interscope Records.

(Holy Bible Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 1965) (1965) The Holy Bible Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

(Sheen Bishop Fulton J 1958 Life of Christ)Sheen, Bishop, Fulton J. (1958). The Life of Christ. New York: Sheed and Ward.