Are You a Hater or a Bigot? Or Are You Just Intolerant?

A reader writes:

I had a question that I needed to ask you. I just found out that the owner of Chick-Fil-A stated that he was against Gay Marriage. Personally, I agree with him, yet when I told someone on the Chick-Fil-A Facebook page that being against Gay Marriage isn’t the same as being “Anti-Gay”, they ended up calling me a “Hateful bigot”.

Does being against Gay Marriage automatically make me a hateful person or oppressive person?

I don’t try to hate anyone and I don’t want to be seen as hateful by others. I just feel conflicted. If you can help me understand how to resolve this conflicted feeling that I’m currently having, I would be very thankful!

It is difficult to know what to say the first time one encounters this type of claim, which is regrettably common.

Hatred and bigotry are real phenomena. They really exist. And they are evil.

It is natural to want to avoid them and to want to avoid being perceived as committing them. That is true in everywhere, but it is particularly true in our own culture, which highly prizes tolerance, understanding, and letting people “do their own thing.”

Precisely because there is such a strong aversion to these things in our culture, there is a perverse phenomenon that also occurs in which charges of hatred, bigotry, and intolerance are used to perversely express and create intolerance.

This occurs when accusing someone of these faults is done as a way of shutting down rational discussion, of stifling disagreement, and of wounding (emotionally or socially) the one against whom the charges are made.

People who make blanket charges of hatred, bigotry, and intolerance are themselves being intolerant, displaying bigotry, and may even be hateful.

Why do I say this?

KEEP READING.

Final Solution? Infant Circumcision Outlawed In Germany!

Sometimes today you encounter stories that are truly jaw-dropping, like this one being reported by the Washington Post.

Headlined, “The Crime of Circumcision,” it deals with a ruling issued by a judge in Germany that prohibits Jews from circumcizing their baby boys:

A district judge in Cologne, Germany, recently ruled that ritual circumcision is a crime, violating “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity,” which outweighs other parental and religious rights. “This change runs counter to the interests of the child,” the court concluded, “who can decide his religious affiliation himself later in life.”

Circumcision is a rite central to the Jewish faith and is, in fact, the rite by which a male becomes part of the Jewish community.

The circumcision of infants is also expressly commanded by Jewish law, which requires the circumcision of baby boys on the eighth day after birth.

Unsurprisingly, the decision is being condemened by religious folks:

German religious figures from all the Abrahamic faiths criticized the Cologne ruling, with particular outrage expressed by Jewish leaders. ­Dieter Graumann, head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, called it “outrageous and insensitive” and warned that a general application of the decision would “coldbloodedly force Judaism into illegality.”

KEEP READING.

Sr. Keehan Turns on Obama?

The news broke Friday that Sr. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Healthcare Association (CHA) has broken with the Obama administration’s plan to force abortion drugs and contraception on religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities that offer medical insurance.

The dramatic move was announced in a 5-page letter (PDF here) signed by Keehan and two CHA board members.

The move is momentous because Keehan famously broke with the U.S. bishops to endorse the original passage of the administration’s Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) and then broke with them again to endorse the Department of Health and Human Services abortion drug and contraception mandate, providing political cover for the administration.

Both acts were widely criticized, and it appeared to many that Sr. Keehan was a willing tool of the administration’s “divide and conquer” strategy for dealing with the Catholic community–playing the role of an alternative Catholic authority that could be pitted against and thus neutralize the voice of he bishops.

But she is not so willing today, it seems, and the new move must come across to the administration as an act of betrayal of it and its agenda.

In the letter, Keehan makes two principal points:

KEEP READING.

Liturgical Horror Story: Popsicles Made from the Blood of Christ?

A page on CNN’s web site is headlined:

Jesus Christ ice pops made from frozen, inadvertently blessed wine. No, we can’t believe we typed that, either.

The story goes on to explain:

Sebastian Errazuriz has used art to take on an array of issues: New York’s death rate, the Occupy movement, military suicide, children with disabilities, the brutal reign of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Now, the Brooklyn-based artist is taking aim at what he sees as religious extremism.

At a party this weekend celebrating New York Design Week, which begins today, the Chilean-born artist plans to hand out 100 “Christian Popsicles” made of “frozen holy wine transformed into the blood of Christ” and featuring a crucifix instead the tongue depressor that typically hosts the frozen treats, he said.

According to a related story:

“It’s not that I purposely want to get in trouble. I just believe if you are not doing work that can make people stop, think and discuss, then it’s better not to make any work at all,” he said.

Raised in a Catholic household, Errazuriz is now a “practicing atheist,” but he has many friends and family members who are religious, and he respects their beliefs. He has always been vexed by religion, however, particularly the practitioners who wish to force their beliefs on others.

KEEP READING.

Sisters in Crisis Special

This week the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome mandated a thoroughgoing reform of the largest leadership conference for women religious in the United States.

In an exclusive interview, Ann Carey joins Jimmy Akin to go in-depth on this dramatic announcement, why it happened, what it means, and what may happen next.

Ann Carey is a journalist who has been covering the subject of women religious for many years. She is the author of the book Sisters in Crisis: The Tragic Unraveling of Women’s Religious Communities.

According to the Vatican report, there are serious doctrinal problems associated with the activities and publications of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious–some which challenge the core of the Christian faith itself.

The leadership of the LCWR has also flouted the authority of the bishops, as when they publicly sought to neutralize the U.S. bishops’ leadership during the 2010 health care debate in Congress and when they later honored Sr. Carol Keehan, CEO of the Catholic Healthcare Association, which also broke with and defied the bishops over the issue of health care.

You can read more about this subject in an article Jimmy authored, which you can read online here.

How the LCWR will respond to the mandated reform is unknown, but in this interview Ann and Jimmy preview the dramatic developments that may lie ahead of us.

Thank you for letting others know about this program and sharing with friends!

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

Subscribe_with_itunes
CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.


JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 035 (04/21/12)

Today’s Music: Joy Trip (JewelBeat.Com)

WHAT’S YOUR QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?
Call me at 512-222-3389!
jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com
www.JimmyAkinPodcast.com

Join Jimmy’s Secret Information Club!
www.SecretInfoClub.com
Copyright © 2012 by Jimmy Akin

Get the Jimmy Akin Cast app for Android at Amazon.com.

Holy See Mandates Reform of U.S. Women Religious’ Conference

In a dramatic move, the Holy See has mandated the reform of the largest leadership body for women religious in the United States.

The mandate was issued with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI at the conclusion of a doctrinal investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), which was conducted under the auspices of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

The LCWR is an association of more than 1,500 leaders of U.S. congregations of women religious. Together they represent more than 80% of the 57,000 women religious in America.

In 2008, the Holy See initiated two simultaneous investigations of the state of women’s religious life in the U.S.

The first was a general survey of nearly 400 institutes conducted by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (CICLSAL). Its results have not been announced.

The second was a more focused doctrinal assessment of the LCWR. Details of the doctrinal assessment as well as the mandate for the reform of the organization were made public in an eight-page document issued by the CDF on April 18 and published on the U.S. bishops’ website.

 

Reasons for the Assessment

According to the document, during an April 2008 meeting in Rome, the CDF prefect, Cardinal William Levada, notified the LCWR presidency of an impending doctrinal assessment. He cited three principal reasons for the investigation.

KEEP READING.

New Marriage Mockery: Bride Marries Self

According to something on Yahoo called “Shine,”

Last week, Nadine Schweigert married herself in a symbolic wedding ceremony. The 36-year-old divorced mom of three wore blue satin and clutched a bouquet of white roses as she walked down the aisle before a gathering of 45 friends and family members in Fargo, North Dakota.

She vowed to “to enjoy inhabiting my own life and to relish a lifelong love affair with my beautiful self,” reports Fargo’s InForum newspaper . After the ring was exchanged with the bride and her inner-groom, guests were encouraged to “blow kisses at the world,” and later, eat cake.

Schweigert, who followed the ceremony with a solo honeymoon in New Orleans, claims the wedding was her way of showing the world she’s learned to love and accept herself as a woman flying solo.

“I was waiting for someone to come along and make me happy,” she told reporter Tammy Swift . “At some point, a friend said, ‘Why do you need someone to marry you to be happy? Marry yourself.'”

This display of clueless narcissism was not universally approved by those close to Schweigert. Among the critics, her remarkably clear-eyed eleven-year old son:

“He said, ‘I love you, but I’m embarrassed for you right now.'”

Obama Administration Partially Caves on Abortion/Contraception Mandate

From the National Catholic *Reporter* (not Register):

Taking a conciliatory tone and asking for a wide range of public comment, the Obama administration announced this afternoon new accommodations on a controversial mandate requiring contraceptive coverage in health care plans.

Coming after a month of continued opposition from the U.S. bishops to the mandate, which was first revised in early February to exempt certain religious organizations, today’s announced changes from the Department of Health and Human Services make a number of concessions, including allowing religious organizations that self-insure to be made exempt.

Also raised is the possibility that the definition given for religious employers in the original mandate could be changed.

. . .

News of the changes also came as a separate ruling on student health insurance coverage was announced by the Department of Health and Human Services this afternoon. Under that ruling, health care plans for students would be treated like those of employees of colleges and universities — meaning the colleges will have to provide contraceptive services to students without co-pay.

Religiously affiliated colleges and universities, however, would be shielded from this ruling, according to a statement from the HHS.

“In the same way that religious colleges and universities will not have to pay, arrange or refer for contraceptive coverage for their employees, they will not have to do so for their students who will get such coverage directly and separately from their insurer,” the statement said.

KEEP READING.

Who Is the Highest Ranking Human Female in the Church?

A FB friend writes:

Totally Serious with this question. With all the Dustup going on with HHS etc. and living in a “Liberal” diocese with it’s own collections of “Liberals” (or Insert Loons if you’d Like), We’ve gotten the Bishop’s Response, but where does one find the Highest Ranking HUMAN Female of the Church? I do realize who our Highest Ranking Female is, and I have prayed to her for helping me in my unbelief and confusion, but this is one of those questions when I heard it Really made me go Hmmmmmmm.

Unless someone has been baptizing female aliens, all females who are members of the Church are human females.

The highest ranking female is thus the highest ranking human female, who is the Virgin Mary, who I am assuming is the one the reader has prayed to. Rank, in her case, is assessed based on her relationship with King Jesus, her son.

At the present moment, however, the Virgin Mary is in heaven and thus is not active except through her intercession in the Church Militant (i.e., the Church here on Earth).

If the reader means, “Who is the highest ranking female in the earthly Church” then the answer will depend on how one interprets the concept of rank. This can be assessed by different criteria, including honor, power, and authority, both secular and religious.

I don’t know how you assess honor apart from power and authority, though there are various women who have special honor even though they do not have corresponding power and authority. These might include the Catholic queens who head some nations. They have notable honor in the secular sphere, though since most are in constitutional monarchies, they do not now wield significant power and authority.

The difference between power and authority is that power involves the ability—in practical terms—to get things done, to have an effect. Authority, by contrast, involves the legal prerogative to exercise power, whether one actually has that power or not.

In terms of which women have the greatest power, it might well turn out that some of the pope’s assistants have that. They may not have high-ranking (highly authoritative) positions, but in terms of their ability to influence the actual course of affairs. Some of these women are members of the papal household, they take care of the pope, they have his ear and can get messages to him whenever they want, and—I am led to understand—one such “behind the scenes” woman is entrusted with the sensitive task of writing some of the current pope’s public addresses, which means that words she writes can become magisterial statements when he endorses and utters them.

These women, despite their great influence, do not have legal authority, however, which is measured along a different axis.

Because the Church’s organization depends fundamentally on the apostolic succession instituted by Christ and conveyed historically through the sacrament of holy orders, no women are part of this apostolic-sacramental hierarchy. The members are all a subset (a small subset) of baptized males.

The apostolic-sacramental hierarchy, however, does not exhaust the Church’s administrative structure. For example, there are offices in the Roman Curia, which assists the pope in the administration of the Church, that do not require ordination.

In recent years, some women have been appointed to position in the Roman Curia, and in terms of legal prerogatives, some of these women would exercise a corresponding legal authority, apart from that exercised by members of the Church’s apostolic-sacramental hierarchy.

The relationship between the legal hierarchy and the sacramental hierarchy is something that awaits further clarification.

The more fundamental of the two is the sacramental hierarchy. In a certain sense, anyone who is ordained will always have powers that are not possessed by someone with a merely legal (juridical) office. On the other hand, those with juridical offices may possess the authority to do certain things that a person is not entitled to do merely by virtue of ordination.

The relationship between sacramental and juridical authority thus is complex and may well be clarified in the future.

Because of the complex relationship between sacramental and legal authority, it will never be the case that you can point at a woman with legal authority and say that she “outranks” a man who is ordained without qualifying the type of authority in question. You could, however, say that she outranks him with regard to certain legal powers, and that he outranks he with regard to certain sacramental powers.

The same is true of non-ordained men. They can in principle be given all kinds of legal authority without having any sacramental authority whatsoever.

Historically, the bestowal of legal authority in the Church has been tightly linked with one’s place in the sacramental hierarchy, but this has been loosening in recent years, and we will have to see what the future holds.

This all deals with the question of authority within the Church. The question of authority in the secular sphere (e.g., those women in national governments who wield secular power) is a completely separate topic that does not map onto this one.

Thus, whatever influence Kathleen Sebelius wields in the Obama administration, she is not the highest ranking female in the Church, regardless of her power to force abortion and contraception down American Catholics’ throats.

What do you think?

Don’t Be Deceived! Evil Obama Policy Now Even MORE Evil!

Attention, Catholics, Protestants, and everyone who cares about the causes of life, religious freedom, and freedom of conscience!

Do not be suckered by the “accommodation” announced today by President Obama and evil spokeswoman Kathleen Sebelius!

Under the guise of making room for religious conscience, the President has actually made the policy worse—far worse.

Here’s how . . .

The new policy mandates that insurance companies offer free sterilization, contraception, and abortion-causing drugs as part of their policies. According to President Obama himself:

Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services — no matter where they work.  So that core principle remains.  But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

Got that?

That’s worse than before.

Under the previous evil policy if you worked for an exempt organization—say, a church—then your employer could offer you an insurance plan that did not include sterilization, contraception, and abortion drugs.

Now there will be no such plans.

Remember that “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it” promise? It was a lie then, but it’s even more of a lie now. Whether you like it or not, your healthcare plan must be modified to include sterilization, contraception, and abortion drugs.

So the policy is actually worse than before. It’s expanding evil services under the guise of accommodating religious freedom.

That’s why abortion groups are cheering it.

It’s also deceptive, and here’s why . . .

The idea that it will be insurance companies that pay for such services is just a shell game. Where are insurance companies going to get the money to pay for these services? They aren’t the Federal Reserve. They aren’t empowered to create money out of nothing the way the Federal Reserve is.

If they’re going to pay doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to provide these things then they are going to pay for them with money they got from someone else.

Who else?

Why! The very same churches, church-related organizations, and individuals who are otherwise paying.

That’s right. That means that now the churches are being asked to pay for the very same services that they were not paying for under the previous policy, because previously they could offer their employees insurance plans that did not include these services. Now the plans will include these services, and the churches are paying for the policies with the legal fiction that the insurance company rather than they are paying for the evil services—unless the insurance company offers the organization a lower rate on the policy, in which case the burden of paying for the abortion drugs and other services is just sloshed around through different parts of their internal spreadsheets but is ultimately still borne by those paying for the policies.

It’s just a shell game.

And this is why this should be of concern not just to Catholics but to our Protestant brethren and our non-Christian friends who share a concern about the cause of life.

What this means is that we all will be forced to pay for these services, but with the payment trail hidden.

In effect President Obama is insisting that the entire American people must pay for abortion drugs, sterilizations, and contraception, only he is having the insurance companies “launder” the money so that we don’t feel like we’re being forced to pay for them.

So, even if you’re not a Catholic, even if you don’t oppose contraception, but if you do care about not funding abortion—or even if you just care about religious liberty and freedom of conscience—then you need to oppose this plan.

Do not be a sucker.

Don’t fall for this.

And don’t let it die over the weekend (notice it was part of the Friday news dump, so come Monday the Obama administration can try to dismiss it as “old news”).

TAKE ACTION HERE!

So what do you think? Will Obama be able to sucker enough people on this one?