Tag Archives: Catholic Church

Frame the Truth and Stay on Message: Please Just Say “Marriage”

Lay Catholics logoBy Kim Lehman

Do you believe that marriage is, and only can be, between a man and a woman? Do you believe it is the bedrock of society? Finally, do you believe that Nature’s God instituted marriage in the beginning? If you said yes to all of these questions, this article is being written for you. Let me explain. Words matter and how you frame a message matters. In fact, whoever defines the language controls the message and frames it in their favor. This is why I am making the case that if you believe the above statement, then you can never use the word “gay” before the word “marriage.” If you do not believe me, then you should study the word battles in the abortion issue. It was through my work with the Right to Life in Iowa that I learned these important lessons of language—first being that you never repeat your opposition’s message or use “their” language. Please read on before you write again to defend marriage.

Again, you never repeat your opposition’s message in order to give your rebuttal. Don’t give them free space on your page. This is by far the biggest error of the right. The opposition said what they said to persuade, and they carefully crafted their words. They have the disadvantage since they must “change” culture, so they are not going to use your words. Christians and pro-life people react with very little strategy when they publish an article. To their credit they want to defend truth and are willing to step out of their comfort zone to speak up—great, and thank you. With that said, to their fault, they are not paying attention to how to fight the battle with words. Consider why the liberal papers flip pro-lifers’ words from “pro-life” to “anti-choice”. This is not an accident and has a definite motive behind it. They want their readers to view pro-life people as an “anti” kind of people, which has the subliminal effect of making the reader want to disassociate with an “anti” group, as opposed to reporting us as “pro” life, which would have a drawing effect. Take also into consideration the abortion industry’s use of “pro-choice” instead of “anti-life”. Why do you think the largest abortion group in the United States call themselves Planned Parenthood instead of Abortions Aplenty? The answer is obvious; they do not want people to view them as advancing more abortion. Words really, really, really matter when engaging in social issues.

Let this be the rule of thumb when you want to engage in the battle of words:

Whoever defines the word, frames the issue in their favor. So long as you use their language, you have yielded and helped them without even knowing it.

My hope is that my friends in this battle for marriage will be persuaded to stop using the opposition’s language. Make no mistake; marriage has been under attack for a long time. You do not have to look far to realize that the younger generation places very little value in the institution. Why is it under attack? I am convinced that marriage is a reflection of the triune God, and a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church, with Him as the bridegroom and us as His bride. So in fact, this is far more than what it appears. Let’s face it; God instituted marriage as his plan to populate the earth by creating each new generation and as a reflection of his love. Marriage is about a life-long commitment that includes bringing children into the world. If a couple is unable to have children, they can either adopt or serve mankind in another way. The order of society should still maintain a mother and a father uniting to pro-create and raise children. This is so obvious that it is a wonderment that so many people are confused today. However, it’s not the first time in history that people have lost their way on this issue. The question is: how did we get here? I believe a good place to start in understanding how America fell so fast as to devalue marriage can be found in Humanae Vitae, written by Pope Paul VI.

I contend that the other side has done a good job dismantling marriage by using propaganda. They took advantage of the fact that most people are lazy thinkers and do not like to be controversial. Reframing the language began with a simple word–“gay”, which at one time meant “happy” or “joyful”, yet now it means someone who has sex with the same gender. Not too long ago this sexual act was called perversion. In fact, because of this perversion God’s judgment fell on Sodom and Gomorrah, and men who engaged in this sexual act were thereafter referred to as Sodomites. Like all sins that lead to eternal death, it should be treated for what it is–sin that can be forgiven. Let’s face it, all of us are sinners and need to repent to be restored to God. However, it is evil to say that a sin is no longer a sin. In the case of sexual perversion, many now say that people are born this way. We are all born with a sinful nature—that is, a desire to sin. Not only is everyone born bent to sin, but we are all born with a sexual drive. The reality is, as sinners, we are all given the choice to act upon all types of sinful inclinations or to reject them to do what is right. No one is without sin. Make no mistake—there is no one without excuse. Nature bears witness to the truth. It is black and white. The problem today is that people are buying into the lie that we can’t help ourselves and therefore it must be okay. It is not okay and we must speak the truth, with love and with the correct words.

So let’s get back to what language to use or not to use in defending marriage. You must ask yourself again whether or not you truly believe that marriage is, and can only be, between a man and a woman. If so, then we can say with confidence there is only one kind of marriage. Right? Try not to contradict yourself by putting the word “gay or homosexual” with the word marriage. If it can’t be and doesn’t exist then do not speak it into existence. If you choose to use their language, they will use it against you. How? Once you allow them to create a new kind of marriage by using their language, all they have to do is say you are discriminating against “blank-marriage.” See how subtle, and yet so simple. You become your own worst enemy. This information is probably a decade late, but I’m hopeful that at least some will catch on.

For those of you who have the habit of using their language instead of saying “marriage”, don’t be undisciplined or lazy and think that what I just said doesn’t matter, for not only does it matter, it matters a lot. You must decide what you believe and then speak the words. Marriage stands alone for it is what it is. Do not help your opposition any longer by repeating “their message.” Please! Discipline yourself and stay on message.

If you were to ask me how I say it, I use these words:

  • Defend marriage (number one choice to say over and over again)
  • I encourage you to stop the destruction of marriage
  • I support marriage
  • Please support marriage with me
  • Marriage is a blessing
  • Marriage is under attack
  • Rebuild marriage for the sake of our children
  • Marriage has always been male and female, and I might add, will always be and cannot be anything but one man and one woman
  • We must not let marriage be dismantled
  • Encourage our children to marry
  • Society didn’t create marriage and therefore has no power to redefine it

Never call it “traditional Marriage” for that implies there is more then one kind of marriage (very subtle.) You will notice that your opposition will never say they are destroying marriage or dismantling it. They are very disciplined to use their own language and compel you to use it in rebuttal.

The objective for both sides is to frame the message to get agreement:

  • If you ask people if they support marriage, they will say yes
  • If you ask them if they want to destroy marriage, they will say no
  • If you ask them if society should help rebuild marriages in the US for the sake of our children, they will say yes
  • If you ask people if they want to protect marriage, they will say yes

Remember to frame the issue or your message in a way that the public will support. So stay on message and love all people, and for the sake of our loving God, never agree with a lie by repeating the lie in order to rebut it. Simply state your message. Why give them free advertising? Frame the truth and stay on message.

Best wishes,
Your friend in truth with love,
Kim Lehman, IA

TheKimmyView@aol.com

The Student Attacking GW Newman Center Priest is a False Priest in a False So-Called Catholic Church

Lay Catholics logoTwo homosexual students are attacking and trying to remove the Catholic priest who runs the Catholic Newman Center at George Washington University.  Why?  Because he teaches Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

Turns out that one of the aggressor students (Damian Legacy) toward Father Greg Shaffer (the Catholic priest at the Newman Center) was ordained as a priest in the heretical “North American Old catholic church.”

Here is an excerpt from The GW Hatchet story about Damian Legacy’s ordination:

“Now on the precipice of graduation, the openly gay student is an ordained priest within the North American Old Catholic Church, which encourages LGBT members to join its clergy. Legacy was ordained in October, and since then, has held personal morning masses and structured prayer sessions six times a day. He also hosts masses for other students in his City Hall room.”

Read the entire story from The GW Hatchet HERE.  It is entitled “Keeping the faith, defending sexuality.”  There is also a photo of the student appearing to celebrate (m)ass.

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.

EWTN “White” Smokes the Secular Media on Live Papal Election Coverage

Colleen Carroll CampbellDuring the Papal conclave, EWTN had the best backdrop, the best commentary, the best guests and the best coverage.  All of it free of odd secular political context.

Their live coverage on March 13, 2013 when the white smoke billowed from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel was not just better than the national U.S. television media.  It was superior.

Colleen Carroll Campbell who was EWTN’s anchor for the live event, gracefully moderated her guests when they didn’t know when the smoke would come or what color it would be.  The guests were knowledgable and interesting.  The guests educated the viewers on the history of the papacy, the conclave and many other things of Catholic significance.  The other national U.S. television media just couldn’t do it.  That’s why many, including myself, tuned to EWTN and received superior coverage.

I don’t mean to throw EWTN into a competition with our secular national media but, EWTN smoked them.  “White” smoked them!

I hope and pray EWTN can continue to do more.  They proved their superiority in this coverage of the conclave that elected Pope Francis.  God bless their good work.

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.

God Bless Pope Francis

Pope FrancisCardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Pope Francis.  He is from Buenos Aires, Argentina.  The first South American to be elected Pope.

Prayer for the Election of a Pope

Lay Catholics logo

Lord God,

Our eternal shepherd and guide

In your mercy grant your Church a shepherd

Who will walk in your ways

And whose watchful care will bring us your blessing.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,

Who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Ghost,

One God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

The Pope Urgently Calls Catholics to Counter President Obama’s “Radical Secularism” on Freedom of Religion

What did Pope Benedict say?

“… it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.”

“Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed CATHOLIC LAITY endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the FUTURE OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.”

- Excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI’s (paragraphs 6 and 7)  ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON THEIR “AD LIMINA” VISIT (Click for full Address):

When did he say this?

On January 19, 2012, the day before President Obama’s religious freedom crushing HHS mandate was announced.

Why didn’t you know about It?

Most Catholics don’t read the Pope’s letters and the letters are not reported on widely in the media.

Who is limiting religious freedom and denying Catholic individuals and institutions the right of conscientious objection with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices?

President Barack Obama

Do you trust Pope Benedict XVI when he says there are threats to religious freedom or do you trust President Obama when he says there are none?

Your answer here.

What are you going to do about it?

Your answer here.

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.

-END-

The USCCB is a Bishops’ Conference, Subordinate to the Catholic Church

Many Catholics and others don’t know what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is or what authority it has within the Catholic Church.
To know what authority and structure the USCCB has you must read the Code of Canon Law 447-459 (click here.)  Better yet, buy a copy of Code of Canon Law Annotated, 1993, “Red Code” (click here) (pictured upper left.)  Further, you must read Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter, Apostolos Suos: On The Theological and Juridical Nature of Episcopal Conferences (click here.) Dated May 21, 1998.

Apostolos Suos made clarifications and adjustments to the canon law relating to Bishops’ Conferences (Episcopal Conferences) and Pope John Paul II stated this fact in its 24th paragraph.

In an effort to help more understand what authority and structure the USCCB has, five questions are posed in this post and then answered below using the Code of Canon Law and Apostolos Suos.

Note:  The Code of Canon Law excerpts used in this article are from the Vatican website.  The Vatican website’s Canon Law translation is slightly different than the translation from the Code of Canon Law Annotated, 1993, “Red Code.”  Additionally, the Vatican website’s Canon Law does not include commentary while the Code of Canon Law Annotated, 1993, “Red Code” does include commentary.  The commentary is very important.

  1. What is the USCCB?  See Code of Canon Law 447:  A conference of bishops, a permanent institution, is a group of bishops of some nation or certain territory who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions… according to the norm of law.”
  2. Who are eligible to be members of the USCCB?  See Code of Canon Law 448 §1:  “As a general rule, a conference of bishops includes those who preside over all the particular churches of the same nation, according to the norm of Can. 450.”  See Code of Canon Law 450 §1:  ”To a conference of bishops belong by the law itself all diocesan bishops in the territory, those equivalent to them in law, coadjutor bishops, auxiliary bishops, and other titular bishops…”
  3. Who has authority over the USCCB?  See Code of Canon Law 449 §1:  ”It is only for the supreme authority of the Church to erect, suppress, or alter conferences of bishops…”  And See Apostolos Suos paragraph 20: In the Episcopal Conference the Bishops jointly exercise the episcopal ministry for the good of the faithful of the territory of the Conference; but, for that exercise to be legitimate and binding on the individual Bishops, there is needed the intervention of the supreme authority of the Church
  4. Can the USCCB, its officers, committees or staff carry out acts of authentic magisterium?  See Code of Canon Law 455  §4: “… to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.”  And Code of Canon Law 456:  “When a plenary meeting of a conference of bishops has ended, the president is to send a report of the acts of the conference and its decrees to the Apostolic See so that the acts are brought to its notice and it can review the decrees…”  And reiterated in Apostolos Suos paragraph 20:  “…the competence of individual diocesan Bishops remains intact; and neither the Conference nor its president may act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consent.”  And see Apostolos Suos paragraph 23:  “…when they exercise it jointly through the Episcopal Conference, this be done in the plenary assembly.  Smaller bodies —the permanent council, a commission or other offices—do not have the authority to carry out acts of authentic magisterium either in their own name or in the name of the Conference, and not even as a task assigned to them by the Conference.”
  5. When can the USCCB issue an act of authentic magisterium?  See Code of Canon Law 455 §1:  A conference of bishops can only issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself.  §2. The decrees mentioned in §1, in order to be enacted validly in a plenary meeting, must be passed by at least a two thirds vote of the prelates who belong to the conference and possess a deliberative vote. They do not obtain binding force unless they have been legitimately promulgated after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See.”  And clarified in Apostolos Suos paragraph 22:  In dealing with new questions and in acting so that the message of Christ enlightens and guides people’s consciences in resolving new problems arising from changes in society, the Bishops assembled in the Episcopal Conference and jointly exercizing their teaching office are well aware of the limits of their pronouncements. While being official and authentic and in communion with the Apostolic See, these pronouncements do not have the characteristics of a universal magisterium. For this reason the Bishops are to be careful to avoid interfering with the doctrinal work of the Bishops of other territories, bearing in mind the wider, even world-wide, resonance which the means of social communication give to the events of a particular region.  Taking into account that the authentic magisterium of the Bishops, namely what they teach insofar as they are invested with the authority of Christ, must always be in communion with the Head of the College and its members, when the doctrinal declarations of Episcopal Conferences are approved unanimously, they may certainly be issued in the name of the Conferences themselves, and the faithful are obliged to adhere with a sense of religious respect to that authentic magisterium of their own Bishops. However, if this unanimity is lacking, a majority alone of the Bishops of a Conference cannot issue a declaration as authentic teaching of the Conference to which all the faithful of the territory would have to adhere, unless it obtains the recognitio of the Apostolic See, which will not give it if the majority requesting it is not substantial…

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.

Obama Says It’s Not Fair That Women Pay For Contraception (Instead of Catholic Institutions)

President Obama was interviewed earlier this week on WWL TV in New Orleans.  The  interviewing journalist asked the President about ObamaCare and it’s mandate (HHS) in the context of religious liberty.

Some of what the President said was …, “country founded on religious liberty BUT,…” and he said “that (a) woman, she suddenly is going to have to bear the burden, the cost of that (contraception) and that’s not fair.”
See President Obama’s responses in minutes 2:04 to 3:12 in the video below:

http://www.wwltv.com/home/Obama-Not-fair-to-deny-contraception-coverage-at-Catholic-institutions-161876405.html

Obama Admin’s Impossible Claim that the Pope Supported Deferred Action on Children of Illegals

On Tuesday June 26, 2012 Barack Obama’s White House published a story titled;  Religious Leaders Support President Obama’s Stance on Immigration Reform (click for story)

In that post published by Cecilia Munoz (Director of the Domestic Policy Council for President Obama and formerly of the National Council of La Raza) the White House claims the support of Pope Benedict XVI on President Obama’s deferred action on children of illegal immigrants  (which was made on June 15, 2012) by quoting him on an address he gave about immigrants.

So, what’s the problem?:

  1. Pope Benedict XVI made these comments in an address to the Bishops of the United States on May 18, 2012!  Four full weeks before Obama’s order.  The White House gives a false impression from the Pope!  Below is how Cecilia Munoz wrote it:  Pope Benedict XVI recently stated, “The Catholic community in the United States continues, with great generosity, to welcome waves of new immigrants, to provide them with pastoral care and charitable assistance, and to support ways of regularizing their situation, especially with regard to the unification of families. A particular sign of this is the long-standing commitment of the American Bishops to immigration reform.””                                                                                           Below is the full paragraph from the Pope’s May 18, 2012 address with the link to the entire address:  “I would begin by praising your unremitting efforts, in the best traditions of the Church in America, to respond to the ongoing phenomenon of immigration in your country. The Catholic community in the United States continues, with great generosity, to welcome waves of new immigrants, to provide them with pastoral care and charitable assistance, and to support ways of regularizing their situation, especially with regard to the unification of families. A particular sign of this is the long-standing commitment of the American Bishops to immigration reform. This is clearly a difficult and complex issue from the civil and political, as well as the social and economic, but above all from the human point of view. It is thus of profound concern to the Church, since it involves ensuring the just treatment and the defense of the human dignity of immigrants.”
  2. The White House further gives the false impression of the Pope’s support by thanking him in the final paragraph by Munoz:                                                                                                     “We appreciate the support by the Pope, his fellow Catholic Bishops in the United States, and their Protestant, Jewish and other faith colleagues. We will continue to work with a broad spectrum of faith leaders around the country and the entire growing coalition of leaders urging Congress to pass comprehensive legislative reform.”

This sort of deception is hard to understand and it will not be tolerated by Catholics or our friends of good will.  It shows desperation.  Catholic Democrats must challenge President Obama to deal honestly with Catholics as must all Americans.

I will pray for him.  He is a man with a soul.  Let’s all pray for him.  His friends must insist he deals honestly with us.

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.

President Obama’s HHS mandate and “accommodation,” derive from Page 94 of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”

(Updated September 27, 2012) President Obama’s idea for the HHS mandate and “accommodation” (see video and transcript of President Obama’s “Accommodation speech”) comes from page 94 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals.  See excerpt below:

I have always believed that birth control and abortion are personal rights to be exercised by the individual.  If, in my early days when I organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago, which was 95 per cent Roman Catholic, I had tried to communicate this, even through the experience of the residents, whose economic plight was aggravated by large families, that would have been the end of my relationship with the community.  That instant I would have been stamped as an enemy of the Church and all communication would have ceased.  Some years later, after establishing solid relationships, I was free to talk about anything, including birth control.  I remember discussing it with the then Catholic Chancellor.  By then the argument was no longer limited to such questions as, “HOW MUCH LONGER DO YOU THINK THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN HANG ON TO THIS ARCHAIC NOTION AND STILL SURVIVE?”"

- Page 94 of Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky

According to President Obama’s actions, the Church cannot hold onto its beliefs and survive in the United States he is remaking.  The Church must submit to the archaic notions of atheism and totalitarianism held by Saul Alinsky (and his followers) and Barack Obama or it will be made to suffer and face extinction.  Though President Obama is unaware that he cannot defeat the Church, he does know he has a fight on his hands because we have said, “We will not comply!”

Keep in mind, President Obama was the executive director and lead organizer of the Developing Communities Project (DCP) in Chicago, Illinois (Obama is acknowledged by DCP in this link.)  DCP was an affiliate of Gamaliel Foundation, an organization that spun off of Saul Alinsky’s, Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF.)  The President of the United States is a student of Alinsky’s methods.  The Holy Father called out his radicalism (click here.)  The President is a radical.

Pray for President Obama, that he will abandon his radical, atheistic and totalitarian methods.

O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.

Peter L. Hodges Sr.