R. J. Grigaitis

In my last post, I put “same sex marriage” in quotes, or referred to such unions as “so-called marriages.” I did this because such unions are not marriages. It is impossible for persons of the same sex to marry each other. This is not a moral judgement, but a linguistic and biological fact.

The Latin word for marriage is matrimonium. Mater is Latin word for “mother,” and the suffix monium signifies an action, state, or condition.  Matrimonium literally means “state of motherhood.” Or more correctly, when a couple marry, the man leads his wife into motherhood.

It is biologically impossible for a woman to lead another woman into motherhood, just as it is biologically impossible for a man to lead another man into motherhood. Same sex marriages are a biological impossibility.

If a same sex couple insist on forming a immoral union, there are very few countries that will legally stop them. However, no country can change the biological fact that such unions are not marriages.

In my Weekly Thought titled Contra-Sexual, I end with the following statement:

While “homosexual” acts are sinful and cannot be condoned, so are hatred and discrimination. The argument I make about same sex attractions being disordered must not be used to discriminate against people with these attractions. The only Christian response to persons with same sex attractions is love and compassion.

No person that claims to be a Christian can discriminate against anyone who has same sex attractions. This, however, does not mean that a Christian should allow legislation to pass that would allow what is call “same sex marriages.” Stopping same sex couples from joining in what they call a “marriage” is not discrimination, but is the only responsible thing to do for these couples and for society.

So-called “homosexual” acts are harmful to the persons engaging in them and to society as a whole. By allowing legislation to pass that would attempt to legitimise such acts, one would be in part responsible for the sin committed by the persons that then participate in these so-called “marriages.” Any action that would condone ”homosexual” acts, even if law requires such action, is a sin against those committing these “homosexual” acts, and against society.

I am thinking of the 2005 case in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia where the local Knights of Columbus council declined to rent their hall to a couple for a lesbian “wedding” reception. This was not discrimination, but the only just thing for this council to do for the lesbian couple and for society. If they had not declined, they would have be in part responsible for the immoral union celebrated at this reception, and fully responsible for the message it would speak to their community; a message directly opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

This Knights of Columbus council did not discriminate against this lesbian couple, but let this couple know that what they were celebrating was not a wedding and not morally acceptable. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, however, did discriminate against this Knights of Columbus council by forcing them to pay the lesbian couple each $1000 plus legal costs. These Knights of Columbus were penalised by the British Columbia government for being responsible Catholics.

Discrimination against persons with same sex attractions is wrong, but not speaking up about the immorality of so-called “same sex marriages” is just as wrong.

The McDonald’s boycott worked, now it’s time to boycott Pepsi.

• Pepsi has produced TV ads that not only promote Pepsi but also promote the gay lifestyle.
• Pepsi gave a total of $1,000,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to promote the homosexual lifestyle in the workplace.
• Both HRC and PFLAG supported efforts in California to defeat Proposition 8 which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. HRC, which received $500,000 from Pepsi, gave $2.3 million to defeat Proposition 8.
• Pepsi forces employees to attend sexual orientation and gender diversity training where the employees are taught to accept homosexuality.
• Pepsi is a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

The boycott is intended to force PepsiCo to remain neutral in this culture war. Check out the website, and join the boycott.

http://www.boycottpepsico.com

Personally, I don’t drink Pepsi or Coke. They are both unhealthy choices. When I do drink a soft drink, it’s usually Virgil’s Cream Soda or Virgil’s Root Bear. They cost more than your average soft drink, but the taste is vastly superior and they are better for your health.

I can still join the boycott with PepsiCo’s Quaker brand. Make sure to check out all of the products of PepsiCo Companies.

Speechless…Silencing the Christians is a one hour TV special about the political agenda of homosexual activists. One of the things this TV special mentions is how the media censors Christians. Oddly enough, this is exactly what happened with two TV stations: WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids, MI and WSYX-TV in Columbus, OH. Both stations bowed down to the demands of a handful of homosexual activists and banned the showing of this TV special.

They said the program was “controversial.” The stations do not consider showing two lesbians or two homosexuals kissing or getting into bed with each other controversial. The stations do not consider all the profanity they air controversial. They regularly show network programs advocating the homosexual agenda, but those programs are not considered controversial. However, a special showing of Christians being silenced is controversial!

The manager of the Columbus station told American Family Association the station would not air the program because telling the truth about homosexuality did not represent “positive Christianity.” Are we moving to a time in the near future when local pastors whose services are broadcast will be banned because their sermons call the practice of homosexuality a sin?

You can watch the one-hour banned program here:
http://www.silencingchristians.com

I naively  found another heterodox author: Fr. Richard Rohr O.F.M. I started reading his book Jesus’ Plan for a New World last June. After a couple of chapters, I took a little break from it so that I could read the new translation of John Paul the Great’s theology of the body, Man and Woman He Created Them. After completing Man and Woman He Created Them and a couple other books, I picked up Jesus’ Plan for a New World again. I’ve now read the fist half of it, but have no desire to read the rest.

I was very enthusiastic about Jesus’ Plan for a New World as I read the Introduction and the fist chapter. I even thought of someone that I should suggest this book to. However, as I continued I thought to myself, “This book could be very easily misinterpreted to support an anti-hierarchical position against the Church.” After a few more pages I realised that it would be a bad idea to suggest this book to the person I was thinking of because he would likely come to some wrong conclusions about the Church. A couple of chapters later I realised it was I that was misinterpreting the first section of this book. The anti-hierarchical message found in this book is not a misinterpretation, but deliberate theme that begins subtly, and grows until it is overt. 

Once I realised that this book may not be orthodox, I checked the internet to see what I could find on Fr. Rohr. On his Wikipedia page, I found out that he does not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception, nor the teaching that only men can be priests. He also wrote a letter of support to Soulforce, a homosexual advocacy group. Judging by his chapter in Homosexuality and the Christian Faith by Walter Wink, Fr. Rohr believes that God views homosexual relationships as acceptable as heterosexual relationships.

Despite Fr. Rohr’s claim that he is in good standing with Rome, his Franciscan Superiors and the Archbishop of Santa Fe, his views are at odds with orthodox Catholic teaching. I would not recommend any of his works to faithful Catholics.

In my last post about Fr. McBrien’s new book, I gave a quote from St. Augustine of Hippo’s Sermon 295, On the Feast of the Martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Here is a different translation of that quote by William A. Jurgens:

Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, who He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.” For it was not one man, but the unity of the Church, which received those keys. In that way, therefore, Peter’s own excellence is foretold, because he acted the part of the unity and totality of the Church herself, when to him it was said, “I hand over to you,” what was in fact handed over to all.

This quote from St. Augustine seems to contradict another important quote on the keys of the kingdom of Heaven from Tertullian’s treatise on Modesty, again from Jurgens :

I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound of loosed in heaven,’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed.

Although this quote is from Tertullian’s  Montanist period, the above quote is accepted as orthodox because it has no content  relating to the Montanist Heresy.

St. Augustine and Tertullian seem to be saying different things. How is it then that the quote from St. Augustine and the quote from Tertullian can both be considered orthodox? They can both be considered orthodox because they are saying the same thing from opposite perspectives.

Tertullian makes it very clear that it was to Peter personally and not the Church to whom Christ gave the keys. Not only that, he also says that the power of binding and loosing has been given solely to Peter, even though Scripture clearly states that Christ is speaking to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:18.

Doesn’t Tertullian ignore the other Apostles in 18:18? No. The only way to understand him is by realising that the other Apostles only have the power of binding and loosing when they are in union with Peter. That is, Christ gives the power of binding and loosing to the Church, which, as  St. Augustine says, “Peter alone merited to represent.” As St. Ambrose of Milan said in his Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms, “Where Peter is, there is the Church.”

With this understanding we can see how St. Augustine can say that the keys were given to all without denying that the keys were given solely to Peter. Peter is all. That is, Peter is “the unity and totality of the Church herself.”