NEEDED 34TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT - JUDICIARY ACCOUNTABILITY

 The Church and the State may be separate, but a nation's success requires both.

The temporal success of the United States, to a great extent, is anchored in its structure, three separate but powerful branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. If you take one away, we end up with chaos, riots, and war. 

The same is true of religion in public life. Without the influence of religion's teaching on right and wrong, there would be no personal accountability or normal by which to past judgement, and again chaos, riots, and war would be the norm 

JANUARY 6, 2021: THE COURTS ARE TO BLAME FOR BEING A.W.O.L.

Imagine a basketball, football or baseball game without referees or umpires. Regardless of the existence of rules, without a judiciary that both sides agree to follow, fights, riots, and war would result. 

That is exactly what has happened over the past month after U.S. courts (especially SCOTS) refused to hear and adjudicate on the evidence regarding conservative claims of election fraud. 

By the courts refusing to hear the cases, they removed the judiciary from the three equal branches of the U.S. Government. When the executive and legislative branches quarrel and there isn't a third party to adjudicate the disagreements, riots etc are the natural outcome. 

We need a 34th Amendment to the Constitution that provides the mechanics for hearing such high-level cases. Not every case brought by people and institutions to every court in the land need be heard. Many are frivolous, which is why a court can dismiss a claim without hearing it. But when national interest is high, regardless of standing, especially when major branches of the government disagree, there needs to be a court of hearing that is orderly and lawfully conducted.

That is functionally what will solve the problem we've recently experienced.

THE CHURCH IS ALSO TO BLAME FOR BEING A.W.O.L.

On another level, as George Washington stated in his farewell address, the nation cannot stand without religious principle that informs a nation's or individual's morality. Here is the quote in context:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

But during the last months of conflict between liberal and conservatives, both promoting their own perspective of moral truth, where were our religious leaders in their role to publicly spark, enlighten, and encourage religion's role in adjudicating public morality? Where were bishops and pastors in the pubic square proclaiming the need, demanding the need, that what is morally right and what is truth be sought with all efforts?

I claim that the Church (our bishops and pastors), like the courts, were AWOL. They pulled themselves out of society, as if they had no space in the public debate. How utterly irresponsible that is. Religion is the basis of morality. George Washington believed that as do philosophers of any longevity. 

JUDGES NEED TO GET ON THE BENCH and

BISHOPS NEED TO GET IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE

ADDED January 9, 2021 with edits January 10.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION CONNECTION

The storming of the Washington, D.C. capital January 6, 2021 was entirely predictable, logical and reasonable. In the last four years, and especially the last few months, the government of the United States has ceased to function for and by the people. It has failed in many important respects. And the people are demanding justice, fairness, and the following of the Constitution as originally intended. 

The attack was the result of deep frustration by the people. It was justified because those in power were not listening. Pelosi, Schumer, Harris, and Biden all and others made excuses for the summer riots because of the people's pent up frustration over issues they deemed important. But now, when the patriots (and some radical infiltrators) make a stand in the seat of power (WITH D.C. SECURITY FORCE'S PERMISSION) and occupy the capital for a few minutes....oh, it's a terrible thing. 

No it was not terrible. It was reasonable, logical, and needed to wake our legislatures up to how selfish and broken down they are.  And yet, I predict, this is only a precursor of what's coming unless the government starts doing its job.

Aside from the August 24, 1814 burning of Washington D.C. government buildings by the British during the war of 1812, the historical event we need to remember is the FRENCH REVOLUTION.  You remember the French Revolution, don't you?  It was a time when the people got fed up with their government and the church living in luxury and repressing the common folk. 

It got to a point that the common folk rose up and slaughtered the rulers, including  the clergy. It lasted years. Many people today look back on the French Revolution as a time of unrelenting evil against the King and the Church. But it was predictable; it was a time of  Old Testament justice. I'm not so sure God didn't motivate, or allow the French Revolution, to wake the country and the church up to the consequences of evil governance.

The French Royalty and the French Catholic Church were corrupt. Terribly corrupt. Here in the U.S. we're not there yet, but we're close, we're on that track. But this is America not France. We aren't as lazy as the French. So the people aren't going to wait that long. What happened on January 6, 2021 in Washington D.C. was child's play compared to the French Revolution, but the cause was very similar. 

The people of the United States have been continually lied to for decades, and most spectacularly over the last 4 years since the 2016 election of Trump.  Regardless of whether or not there was election fraud during the 2020 election, it was the responsibility of the courts to adjudicate the claims fairly and throughly. And it was the Church's responsibility to promote (in the public square) the moral precepts of pursuing truth and justice and to repudiated lying and repression. 

But the U.S. legislature continued to lie. The courts abdicated their responsibility and walked away. And the church was silent, as if cooperating with the courts and the legislature. The government broke down. It was aided by the media and foreign agents who stirred unrest with false flag social media posts. The people were left with no recourse. And the novenas of Rosaries didn't seem to help. What's left?  Mob Rule.  The Church and the Government need to learn from the French Revolution that it's about the people and their right to a fair and honest government. 

What is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?

[A GRAMBUS post.]
Jesus IS Truth!  But, How Do We Know His Truth Today?

Opening Session of Vatican II

I have a friend who keeps debating me on the validity of Sola Scriptura—the position held by non-Catholic Christians, that the Bible Alone is the source of Truth for Christians.  Whereas, Catholics claim that the Truth of Christ was revealed all the way up to the death of the last Apostle, and the Apostles’ teachings were carried on through Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition includes the written Word—Holy Scriptures/the Bible, as well as Tradition passed down orally.  The Jews very carefully preserved their Oral Tradition, which helped give support to the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures in the Old Testament.  The same is true after Christ!

Furthermore, non-Catholic Christians sometimes forget how the Bible came to be.  Historically, the Bible wasn't even in existence until the Roman Church Council of Nicaea in 325.  The books of the Bible were not gathered into one place even until then.  There were hundreds of letters floating around, and the Council had to assess which were reliable as authentic sources, worthy of placing within a Holy Canon of “New Testament” Scriptures.  The 73 (Old and New Testament) books chosen by the Council of Nicaea happen to be the same books that are in the Catholic Bible today.  After 1,500 years of the Scriptures’ guidance in the Church, the Reformation of 1534 instigated the removal of 7 of those books from the Canon.  (But for you real history buffs), …even though Luther’s excommunication was is 1521, Luther’s translation of the Bible in 1539 still contained all 73 books.  (I know.  Stan and I held it in our hands at the Newberry Research Library in Chicago.) It wasn’t until the 1800’s that Protestant publishers finally changed the Canon by removing 7 of the books.  On whose authority, I don’t know.

Now, whether the original 73 or the secondary choice of 66, ALL Christians hold these Scriptures to be the infallible Word of God, …and they are!  But, most Christians are NOT aware that they have the Roman Catholic Church (under the leadership of the Holy Spirit) to thank for the very existence of the Holy Scriptures they hold so dear.   If all Christians were aware, maybe they would also believe the Church’s claims that She is the Church Christ said the Holy Spirit would lead into ALL Truth.

The Bible is just one piece of that Truth, but a very important piece. When unfortunately, in the 1500s (1521 ff) some split from the Roman Church during the Reformation, the Bible was the only Truth those who left could tangibly take with them.  Though fortunately, SOME of the Roman Church’s doctrines WERE kept, even though they are not FOUND in the Scriptures—like the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Doctrine of Christ’s Nature being totally human, and (at the same time) totally divine. Those are Truths the Original Church was lead into by the Holy Spirit.  I’m so glad to say that in matters of Faith and Morals, the Church has stood strong against heresies and cultural pressures (ie. Pressure in modern times to accept contraceptive methods.)

So, my second point is that Truth needs more than just a book (of 66 or 73 books) of writings.  Truth needs an infallible body to interpret and proclaim right doctrines from those writings that are based on the Mind of Christ through the leading of the Holy Spirit. 

Truth is not determined with just the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and you, as Stan and I used to think.  That’s how over 33,000 different denominations of churches have been started.  Stan and I thought we knew it all.  We had studied the Bible, memorized it, and formed our own opinions on what it all meant.  Yet, it was next to impossible to find a church that agreed with us 100%.  Once Stan and I realized it was not about US finding a church that agreed with OUR interpretation, but about God founding a Church, that He had promised to be lead into ALL Truth by the Holy Spirit, we suddenly realized we had things backwards.  That’s when we stopped church hopping and started trying to line ourselves up with that One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  And that has made all the difference.  We are now ready to give our lives for that Church, because Christ founded Her and kept His promises all the way through Her gnarled history up to the present day.  She has not been perfect in Her people or in Her practices.  She and her members have needed reform and received it—a little later than the Protestant Reformers would have liked.  But, Her doctrines have never changed.  And, Christ will never abandon Her, because His promise is true that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Holy Church and that He will never leave Her nor forsake Her.  She continues to grow and to promote infallible Truth in matters of Faith and Morals. 

In conclusion, I'd like to quote a hymn that is familiar to ALL Christians:

v1.  The Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ Her Lord.
She is His new creation* through water and the Word.

From heaven He came and sought Her to be His Holy Bride.

With His own blood He bought Her.  And, for Her life He died.

*[The Church was founded/created by Christ.]

v2.  Elect from every nation, yet one o'er all the earth,
Her charter of salvation, One Lord, one faith, one birth.

One holy name She blesses.  Partakes one holy food.*
And to one hope She presses.  With every grace endued.
*[The Holy Eucharist]

v4.  Yet She on earth hath union, with God, the Three in One.
And mystic sweet communion* with those whose rest is won.
O happy ones and holy!  Lord, give us grace that we.
Like them, the meek and lowly, on high may dwell with thee.
*[Communion of Saints]

BTW, according to I Timothy 3:15, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, …is the Church...  (not the Bible).

Church: Teaching Rules vs. Teaching Love

A friend wrote me:

I've been talking to someone who is interested in what the Church teaches but has a BIG problem with the Church hierarchy.

Basic argument:  If we love God we keep His commandments. Keeping His commandments out of love is BETTER than keeping them out of fear. And following God's rules are better than following rules made up by men.

Why doesn't the Church simply teach people to LOVE God - rather than focusing on the rules?"

Stan, do you have any knowledge of books or tapes?   Or, if you have thoughts on the subject they would be warmly welcomed!

My response:

I don't, off hand, have any books I'm aware of on that particular position.

But, I am very familiar with the argument and have a response that fits with my understanding of church history and teaching.

The difference between the motivations of love and fear is insignificant compared to the difference between obeying or not. It's like the decision to run a red light or not. We can NOT run the red light out of love for the government (a stupid concept) or we can NOT run the red light out of fear of being killed if we do. The goal of the red light is to protect us. (It's kind of a glass half-empty vs. half-full argument. In the end it doesn't matter. Are you an optimist or a pessimist by nature? Do you have a choleric or a sanguine personality?)

God's love is unconditional whether you obey him or not. But his reward of blessing and eternal life is very conditional on our obedience. It doesn't matter if we obey out of love of him or fear of him. The fear comes from the dastardly physical consequences. And so we come to love the law, because they keep us (if we obey them) from the consequences.  Thus, it might be a maturity thing. When we're a child we fear touching the stove, but as we grow older we love the fact that we were warned against touching it.

Love and Reward are not the same thing. People confuse the two concepts and wishfully but fatefully believe wrongly that if God loves me he will give me blessing. But that's failed logic. A loving father disciplines his children. Why? Because he knows that love must be consistent with right judgement and coincide with what is good, true and beautiful, -- that is natural law. True love is always cooperative with how nature works. Love is the same thing as truth. You can't separate them. Do I wear sunscreen because I fear getting a sunburn, or do I love sunscreen because it prevents the pain of a sunburn. I don't really see any difference. Use the sunscreen, enjoy being outside.

So, consequently LOVE and FEAR are the SAME THING, or they are on the SAME scale of values and motivation. They are the same coin, but different sides. (Any number of metaphors can come close to describing the relationship between LOVE and FEAR. It is a mistake (in theology) to believe they are different.

Society also has a problem with feelings of "guilt." But guilt is good when it keeps you from doing stupid things in the future. 

So, in the end it really does not matter if you obey out of Love, or obey out of Fear. The fact is that you are obeying. Just like you want to obey the laws of the land (or most of them). Do you love the laws of your state because they bring order, or do you obey the laws because you fear jail? Is there a difference?

One explanation is that different personalities are motivated by different stimuli or emphasis. Each of the four basic types of personalities (c.f. Brain Mapping) has it's own motivations.

Another explanation is that based on what kind of life we live, or what kind of day we're having we're going to be motivated some days by love and others by fear.

Human Beings tend to want to simplify everything and blame all effects on one casue. But nature tells us that physical effects have multiple causes. (c.f. The Butterfly Effect.) And so in this argument of Love vs. Hate, many people will want to say it's one or the other. This is known as the EITHER-OR fallacy. The answer—as is in most things—is not EITHER love OR hate, but AND-BOTH. It's a combination that saves us, and gives us life.

King David said he "loved" God's law. I love that. David is saying, "I love the fact that disobeying the law scares the hell out of me. I love what is right. I hate what is wrong. I love life, so I obey the rules. I hate death so I obey the rules." The rules don't change, but my motivations might. They are built into nature. Gravity cannot be loved or hated. It is a fact. Do you want to love the fact that you can stand up and not fall down (due to gravity and your body's ability to discern it and control your muscles), or do you fear gravity and are therefore careful about where you walk—not too close to the cliff of a canyon? In your day-to-day life, you'll use both of those motivations to stay alive and be happy. Thus, Love and Fear are on the same continuum.

My take on Church praxis (what it does in practice) is that the Church focuses too much on God's love with very little emphasis on the rules. I criticize bishops and priests for not teaching more on the fear of hell and condemnation for sin. (I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd benefit from a little fear preached into me about the consequences of sin.) Thus, we have cafeteria Catholics who ignore the Church's rules, and they will consequently pay God's penalty. Note, it is not the Church's self-imposed penalty. The church is simply telling you about God's penalty. I'd listen.

But many folks, like your friend, don't see that. Why?

People that dislike the Church's rules and claim the church focuses on the rules too much are doing one, if not all, of these things:

 A. They want to do what they want to do and not have anyone tell them what to do. (You probably know someone like that. Perhaps  you see them every morning when you brush your hair. I know I do.) It's easier to attack the Church and claim the rules are the rules of men when in fact this is God's Boat we're in, not the church's. People can't argue with God, so they pick something fallible and pretend the Boat belongs to man. Sorry folks. Man did not invent, create, nor does he control nature.

 B. They are listening more to social commentary that biasly reports what the Church teaches, rather than directly studying what the Church teaches. So much of what is in the news is interrupted by news writers based on their negative bias against the Church rather than on an accurate understanding of the Church. The recent flap about the Vatican correcting the women religious in the U.S. is a perfect example. Or the news media's interpretation of the bishops' condemnation of Obama's health care rules is another. In general, the news is wrong about what the Church believes and does.

C. Their pride does not allow them to accept that God has rules of natural law that require things of them. God loves us so much that he gave us gravity, and a whole bunch of other mechanisms that give us life. But if you whine about it and ignore it, you'll kill yourself.  You are free to make any choice you want, but you can't choose the consequence, God does that. Pride goes before a fall. Shakespeare intoned, "He who runs stumbles." The edge of the cliff is always there waiting, just waiting for the fool who says either (a) there is no God, or (b) there is a God and he's just like me.  Right. Hey, Jacko, can you fly?

D. They are not listening to the church's message of God's love that came through Jesus Christ, but only remember the rules (that God establishes, not man) and  they mistakenly claim the rules are made by man. Not so. (more on this below)

E. They generally do not believe that rules of any kind, really matter. Of course, they may be the first to point out that your grammar in a sentence is wrong, because the rules are not followed. Do you follow the rules of grammar because you love being understood, or do you follow the rules of grammar because you fear being misunderstood? I say, there's no difference. But having the rules are absolutely necessary to communicate and live in an ordered community.

The Church's job is to discern the immutable laws of the universe and compile a guide for living that can lead to happiness. That is where the Catechism and the rules it contains come from. They are anything but arbitrary, but they are arrived at BY USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which by the way the Church originally came up with. For over 6,000 years of human history Church leaders (if you go back to the Jewish fathers) observed nature, tried to figure it out and write down rules for behavior that would lead to happiness. (Have you read Proverbs or Sirach lately?)

Centuries ago the study of philosophy and physics WERE THE SAME thing. Then as we gained more understanding we saw the differences between metaphysics and physics. Then, mankind tried to answer the question WHY... which introduced the realm of religion. They all overlap—religion, philosophy and physics. Physics describes how something works mechanically (the body), philosophy tries to explain how the intellect intersects with all disciplines (the mind), and religion tries to explain WHY in terms of morality (the spirit).   All of these disciplines try to describe how to LOVE life and HATE death. Physics deals with atoms, Philosophy deals with thoughts, and Religion deals with origins, purposes and final disposition. ALL THREE, interestingly enough, deal with the dimensions of space and time we cannot perceive (there are more than ten all total). 

So, today, the Church (being historically involved heavily in all three disciplines) tries to focus on the religious and moral side by asking: What kind of rules do we need to follow IN ORDER TO LOVE GOD?   And in this case LOVING God, FEARING God, and LIVING HAPPILY are all the SAME THING.

BTW: Proverbs 9;10 says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Again, ALL THE RULES existed before the Church came around just like gravity existed before Newton came on the scene.  The Church just wrote them down like Isaac Newton wrote down the laws of Gravity. And by the way, when Isaac did that, he did it as part of the Church's system.  None of the rules are arbitrary by any measure. Only people that like to spit into the wind will think so.

So, in the end...if you want to find your way to the end of the maze successfully follow the rules. And rememer...

-- A person with no faith in God but who obeys God's rules of order will be blessed here on Earth and may or may not be blessed eternally based on God's omniscient judgment of how well that person followed their conscience (an individual's understanding of the rules).

-- A person with faith in God who does not obey God's rules of order will NOT find blessing on earth and may spend a lot of time in purgatory before getting to heaven. (Again the Church's job is to help maximize temporal blessing and speed our entry to heaven.)

The church's job, therefore, is to discover what is true and promote it for mankind's temporal and eternal benefit.  End of story.  Nothing is arbitrary. All is natural.