Recently I got the term hypocrite thrown at me, a term that no one likes thrown at them. And the shameful part is that, in this case (and there are others), it was perfectly accurate for them to call me one.

But what occurred to me as I was taking my lumps was that I was being called a hypocrite not to attack the negative thing that I had done, but to attack that which I promote as a Catholic that I had failed to live up to. The point was not to get me to change my sub-optimal actions, the point was to get me to stop promoting the optimal ones. And when I realized that, I realized what was really at stake and I fought back.

I looked up the definition of the word hypocrite. Dictionary.com states it this way:

A person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

If we go by the dictionary definition, I’m not a hypocrite. I don’t “pretend” to have religious beliefs and principles. I very much have them. But I also admit that I fall short of them at times. By that definition, I’m not a hypocrite. At the same time I think the dictionary definition is more precise than the term’s broad use, the way it is most frequently used today. In broad use I would define it this way:

A person who supports one set of behaviors but does not always (or perhaps never) follow them.

I admit to that definition of being a hypocrite. There are times when I do not live up to the standards I create for myself and promote for others. I would never deny that.

But here’s the thing, and the reason for this post:

I’m proud that I promote the standards that I promote and no amount of my falling short of those standards will shame me into no longer promoting those standards.

So, I’m 50% proud to be a hypocrite. I’m proud that I stand up for what is right. I’m ashamed that I don’t always life up to it. I’m convinced that what I promote is right and good. I’m ashamed that I don’t always do what is right and good. I will do every thing in my power to continue to be a voice in society that encourages others to do the right thing. I fear, in fact I’m nearly downright confident, that I’ll continue to fall short of those same standards.

You can call me what you want. You can point out my hypocrisy. (I’ll even agree with you.) You can call me a hypocrite. You can mock me and deride me, but I will not be stopped. I refuse to ignore the truth. I refuse to stop sharing the truth. I refuse to be ashamed of promoting the truth. Plainly stated:

I’m 50% proud to be a hypocrite.

Today’s Quick Hitters:

• A blessed Easter to everyone! I had a great end to Holy Week and a wonderful Easter that lifted my spirits. I hope everyone else was similarly blessed.
• I was pointed to an article by Peggy Noonan about the priestly abuse scandal. In many ways she’s right, but I think her ennobling of the press is a stretch, particularly this “round”. There’s nothing new here in 2010. What happened in 2002, that I could agree with the value of the press’s role. But guess what, there’s nothing new here. There’s just a renewed attempt to tear down the Pope (and a very stretched attempt at that) based on the same old stuff. The reality is the Church has already changed and will continue to change in this regard whether or not the 2010 influx of reporting had happened. Now it’s just an attempt to tear down the Church.
• I must say that up until today I’ve been able to keep a healthy distance from all the articles about the scandal because I knew what was going on. But today, the shear magnitude of it, the unrelenting links to hit piece after hit piece got to me. And what is most frustrating about it is that, unlike Ms. Noonan’s assertion that they already are, the press COULD be a force for the right changes. There’s no doubt the Church has needed change and continues to need some. And with an enlightened approach the press could be catalysts for the right changes. The could encourage the Pope to continue making the changes he is already in the process of or encourage tweaks or improvements that would make the Church even stronger. Instead, the Pope and the Church as a whole have to struggle to make those right changes DESPITE the press. Such a shame.

For anyone who’s tried to come to this blog (hi Mom!) in the last year or so they’ve seen that it hasn’t come up and has been displaying some cryptic error. I tried a number of times to fix it because I wanted to bring the blog back and be more active about posting on it. Last night I took the brute force strategy. I completely deleted the old one and installed the latest version. Then I attached the new version to the old database and…

IT’S ALIVE!?!

So, what to expect from this blog moving forward… The main reason for bringing the blog back online is that I’m going to read Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” so that I can rebut it. I’ve heard from too many anti-religious circles how devastating it is to the idea that religion is a good thing and I’m curious to find out what his argument is. I’ll speak to what I expect it to be in a separate post.

I’ll also go back to posting on the political and religious news of the day when it’s worth reporting on. It won’t be as comprehensive as in the past, more just when I feel the need to rant. Finally, there will be more family stuff posted. Things we did, blessings received, pictures, etc.

Hopefully, you’ll be interested in visiting.

(NOTE: This is a post that originally was posted on my Cal blog, Excuse Me For My Voice. Because that blog is host to both Jason Snell and myself, I have moved this post to here, to remove any implication that I spoke for the both of us. The first 4 comments are also moved and so reflect having been posted on the other site (particularly #4).)

I want to talk about a matter of significant importance, one that it amazes me just how few people, including the justices of the California Supreme Court, seem to recognize.

This matter has nothing to do with religion, as I suspect most of my readers would guess that my perspective on the subject would guess, but simple logic and the principles on which this country is founded. In this post you will find no references to God.

The principle not only affects the immediate issue I’m going to discuss, gay marriage, but a myriad of other political topics, both conservative and liberal leaning, on which the country has been heading the wrong direction.

The principle is called legal privileges.

The word “rights” is thrown around these days with amazing abandon. Everybody has a “right” to an amazing number of things, if you believe the various pundits out there. We’ve got the right to affordable gas, health care, owning a car, to get various medical procedures, to do business with others whether or not the other party wants to, to own a home, to a free education, the list goes on and on.

The problem is that none of things are rights. Rights are things that all humans deserve. They are not granted by a government. They transcend every location and generation. They are inherent to the fact that we are alive and human. In fact, the declaration of independence makes this very clear:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The point is that rights are not granted by the government, they are upheld by the government.

As such, the list of rights we all have are few but broad in implication. We have the right to live out the course of our natural lives. We have the right to work to obtain the means to continue living (air, water, food and shelter). We have the right to freely associate with others. We have the right to believe what we want. We have the right not to be discriminated against because of who we are, as is separate from our actions. Really that’s about the limit of our fundamental rights. These rights transcend all governments.

Certain governments, including ours, extend additional rights to their people, rights that although not fundamental, make for a better society. Rights that likely make it easier for people to keep their fundamental rights. The right to freely publish and the right to bear arms fall within this set of extended rights. We in the United States are granted a number of these rights.

In any case, whether rights are fundamental, and thus apply to every human being, or extended, and then only apply to those within the government that has established them, rights are things that apply to EVERYONE.

All of this is a very long introduction to the concept of legal privileges. I wish I didn’t have to spell these things out so explicitly because it seems self-evident to me (and apparently to the founders of our country), but it apparently is no longer evident to the general public and much of the judicial system.

Legal privileges are things that either only apply to subsets of the population or if applied universally, can be regulated or limited in their application. All of our laws, that which is not in the Constitution, are legal privileges. Things like all of our social services, tax breaks, public services like fire protection, libraries and emergency relief, inheritance privileges, education, all of these things are legal privileges that the government has granted a wide swath of the public. Similarly all of the regulations that exist, how we must build a house (or stadium), speed limits and drivers licenses, banking rules, incorporation rules and the rest, they can not infringe on our rights and be just or legal regulations. These privileges and their corresponding restrictions are granted by the government for the good of the people. It is the government’s job (and in a democracy the people are responsible for making the government do its job) to decide what legal privileges and what restrictions are wise and for what reason.

All of this finally brings me to the topic of gay marriage.

Marriage, in the legal sense, is a privilege, not a right. If it were a right, the government would be forced to find the ugliest, poorest, meanest jerk of a man someone to marry him if he desired marriage. If it were a right, it could be denied to no one, not criminals, not polygamists, not gay people.

But marriage is a legal privilege. It is a set of laws that the government created with the purpose of giving privileges and protections to a man and a woman who come together to live together as one legal entity. These privileges include tax breaks, medical decision making power, inheritance incentives and other legal privileges.

As such, it is also perfectly acceptable for the government to regulate marriage and limit its applicability. There is no basis for a court stating that certain people, who don’t fit the definition of the privilege by their actions or fall outside the regulations created, have a “right” to that privilege. It just doesn’t make any sense to say that. Nobody has a right to a privilege.

Is that clear?

The final thing I’d like to reference is the commonly used argument attempting to equate the issue of gay marriage and inter-racial marriage. If you go way back to the top of this post you’ll see that one of the fundamental rights is not to be “discriminated against because of who we are, as is separate from our actions”. This is the factor that differentiates between inter-racial marriage and gay marriage. In inter-racial marriage the man and woman involved are not different in nature from a same-race marriage. Their actions are also the same and can fit within the same regulation on marriage.

Gay marriage is entirely different. Men and woman are not the same. It is acceptable to make laws regulating men from going into the women’s bathroom. As such, a marital relationship between a man and a woman is by the nature of the fact that men and women are different, a different type of a relationship than two men or two women. The actions in which that couple can engage, are again different. The most obvious example is that two men and two women can not duplicate the sexual activity of a man and a woman. They can simulate, but not duplicate.

As such, that is the inter-racial marriage comparison is a false comparison.

We did not plant these flowers:

We’re not sure how they got there. We don’t have any flowers like this in our yard:

It’s our little Easter Miracle! A reminder from God that He is out there and loves us all!

Today is Good Friday. The day that Christ died for our sins on the cross. For those who visit the site (instead of using an RSS feed) you’ll notice that the colors for today are black. It is the one day of the year where the Church colors are black.

Today the tabernacle is empty. God was killed for our sake today.

May this day, the pinnacle of the season of Lent and of the Triduum, help us to find forgiveness of our sins through God’s love of us. A love so strong that He gave his only Son for us.

I recently found out about CatholicsComeHome.org from Mark Shea’s blog (see blogroll) and I am amazingly impressed. I’ve asked myself for years why the Church is unable to put together well produced videos and the such that drive home the key points of the faith. CatholicsComeHome have figured it out. I’m most impressed by this video:

http://www.catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.phtml

The Church is constantly lambasted for a ton of things that are wholy inaccurate. The Church is responsible for so much good. Hospitals, Orphanages, Universities, Scientific Study, the order of Law, these are all things that found their current form under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church. So often Catholics find themselves on the defensive in these areas. It’s nice to see a video that makes it clear that the Church is a both a pioneir and a steadfast rock that can be counted on. Beyond our history, there is also the immense good that the Catholic Church does every day in this world. While the press likes to criticize the Church for not handing out condoms in Africa, the Church is instead responsible for the feeding and medical care of millions of poor in Africa and around the world every day.

I am incredibly joyed at a 1-minute video can communicate this so emphatically and positively.

They’ve got additional videos that are good too. Also lots of articles and information for those interested in returning to the Church.

As most of my readers know, I’m active in RCIA at my parish. Helping those with interest in the Church is definitely my calling. God has given me many gifts and primary amongst these that he asks me to share is my conviction for the tenets of the faith. However, after seeing surveys showing former Catholics as the largest religious group in the country next to Catholics, I ask myself if perhaps some, if not all, of my effort should be going into helping former Catholics come home.

I ask you to pray for me for guidance.

Since I’ve already taken on one hot-button topic today, might as well keep the ball rolling:

One of the main complaints brought up when a bishop or priest threatens to deny the Eucharist to a politician who supports legislation that is contrary to Church teaching is that it is a violation of the separation of Church and State. This is another one of those ridiculous assertions that has no basis in the truth.

For there to be a violation of the separation, one or the other must have some authority in the other. As an example, if the bishop could say that the politician couldn’t be elected because of his views, THAT would be a violation of the separation. Similarly, if the state could dictate who could have Eucharist in the Catholic Church, that too would be a violation of the separation. But that’s not what is happening in this case.

All the bishop is doing is saying “Look, when you step inside my building, you’re now on the Church’s turf. Here, you play by our rules.”

That’s no different than the government saying to the bishop as he enters the court-house for his speeding ticket saying “God has already forgiven me”, the court can say the same thing to him.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

With the California Supreme Court hearing arguments last week on whether it violates the California Constitution to disallow gay “marriage”, I thought it was wise to remind everyone things that the pro-gay agenda wants everyone to forget:

1. Marriage is a legal privilege, not a right. The goverment is allowed to extend privileges (like say tax breaks) to groups who do things that they desire (and thus limit who has access to those privileges).
2. It is desireable that all children be raised by BOTH their biological parents
3. No gay couple can BOTH be the biological parents of a single child
4. Marriage is an institution that encourages sexual couples to remain together for their life and therefore will raise together whatever children result from that union.

Pretty simple, yes? Government wants children raised by biological parents and gives benefits of marriage to those’s union has the potential to create those children. Gays can’t be biological parents, so gays can’t get married.

A further point:

When the government gives legal protections to a group, that convers certain things. It’s not just being tolerant of something, it’s ENDORSING that thing. It is a completely reasonable thing, speaking governmentally in a free society, that both gay people think their is nothing wrong with their behavior and that other people think their behavior is immoral. If the government says that gay “marriage” is acceptable, it is effectively saying that it is unacceptable for people to think gay “marriage” is immoral. When inter-racial marriage was finally allowed (and obviously good thing) it was a statement that other races are equal to whites. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE in the US to think that being black or hispanic (or pick your race) is a lesser race than whites. The same thing would happen with gay “marriage”.

As can be seen from countries like Canada where preachers are brought before “human rights commissions” for reading from the Bible, it is not acceptable in a society that allows freedom of religion to allow gay “marriage” and all that goes along with it. Gay “marriage” will lead to the outlawing of certain Christian beliefs.

Well, my fast continues apace and I’ve yet to break the rules of the fast: 1 meal a day, only drink is water.

There was one day were I came close, in fact I intended to break it when I started. It was a Sunday morning and I was starving. I wasn’t supposed to eat until dinner time so I sat down to have a snack. About 1/2 way through the snack I changed my mind and made it a full meal. The only catch was that I couldn’t eat dinner now and had to wait until tomorrow to eat. I had planned to each lunch the following day and then dinner the day after that to get back on track for eating dinner, but miraculously was able to last until dinner the next day to get back on track in one day.

I’ve also been surprised this year with my ability to do activities while fasting. Usually in the past I’ve pretty much been a stump on a log while fasting for sustained periods. My attempts at playing racquetball or going sailing clearly indicated that I was fasting and I performed beyond horribly. But this time, I’ve played racquetball a number of times with success and managed to build a bunch of shelves for the study. I haven’t gone sailing, which was partly planned and partly bad weather on the scheduled sailing days.

However, it’s pretty clear by my weight loss that whenever I exert myself I’m dipping into my reserves (so to speak). When I am not active, I find myself dropping a pound every 1/2 week or so. When I am active, I’ll drop up to a pound a day.

The downside of my lenten promises is that I’ve completely abandoned the Rosary and the Liturgy of the Hours. For whatever reason I haven’t been very good at that this time. While I’ve got no intention at this point at picking it back up for the remainder of Lent, I do hope at some point in the future I can get into a good routine.