Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:01 I'll start by reading some excerpts from letter I got from Rita. Marker. Dear father, you may not be familiar with the name Barbara Wagner, but what happened to her? It could happen to any of us. Barbara is 64 years old. When she went to her doctor a few months ago, she got some bad news. He told her their cancer, which had been in remission for two years, had returned, but then she got some good news. Her doctor told her about medication that would likely slow her cancer's growth and extend her life. He gave her a prescription for it. Barbara was relieved to get the prescription and since she had healthcare coverage to the Oregon health plan, she felt very optimistic. It tint take long for hopes to be dashed like all of us, whether we were covered by private health insurance or government health plan, Barbara had to get authorization for payment of the prescription. Instead of getting that authorization. Barbara got a letter notifying her that the Oregon health plan wouldn't cover her prescription, but the letter didn't leave it at that.
Speaker 1 01:09 Okay.
Speaker 0 01:09 The letter told Barbara that the plan wouldn't cover the prescription to slower cancer but would cover assisted suicide.
Speaker 0 01:21 You might think that what happened to Barbara as an isolated incident, but it isn't. After a story was reported in a Eugene, Oregon newspaper, other Oregonians came forward to say they had received similar letters and the chairman of the commission in charge of the health plan acknowledged that those letters were being sent. We all know that healthcare insurers, whether government or private programs, our former life could authorize the least expensive prescriptions and treatments. So what happened to Barbara shouldn't have been a surprise. Health insurance plans look at the bottom line, so they're far more likely to prove payment for the least expensive option.
Speaker 0 02:04 Anyone who lives in a state where assisted suicide is a medical option, we'll face the same type of difficulty getting treatment that Barbara did. It won't make any difference if they have private insurance or a government health plan. The force of economic gravity inevitably leads in that direction. After all, what could be more cost effective than authorizing a $100 payment for assisted suicide drugs? Barbara Wagner's story serves as a warning to all of us, not just to people live in Oregon. The same thing could happen anywhere. Assisted suicide becomes legal. In a few weeks, Washington state voters will be deciding whether to adopt the Washington death with dignity act. That ballot initiative is virtually identical to Oregon's law. No matter what happens in Washington, there's no question that similar laws will be proposed in other states.
Speaker 0 03:09 Euthanasia, just the next battle and the ongoing triumph, how the culture of death and on the trajectory we're currently on. Odds are it won't be too long until this becomes mandatory for the terminally ill for the aged, for babies born with serious birth defects for the seriously today, disabled for all the useless feeders. How did our beloved country get to such a point euthanasia portion, embryo and fetal tissue research perversions Galore, including these new fangled so-called marriages, which craft neo paganism? How have we become such a degenerate people? How did we get to this point?
Speaker 0 04:12 We got here by the destruction of the basic building block of society and that's the family. This morning we'll consider two key major contributing factors that destruction, they're painful issues. We don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings, but the two main factors that have contributed to the destruction of family or first disastrous misunderstandings about the nature of marriage and second disastrous misunderstandings about the nature of the marital act. Let's just take a moment to make sure that we have the correct understanding of these two issues. Marriage is a contract that results in a relationship if of their own free will, a man and a woman validly make that contract of marriage. Then God makes the relationship. They consent to be man and wife, and then God takes them at their word and he makes themselves for life. This relationship is Sacramento. If both parties are baptized, so just what is the contract that results in marriage? Here's the contract. A man and a woman give and accept an exclusive and perpetual right for acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation of children. That's the marriage contract. This contract is exclusive forsaking all others. This contract is perpetual until death do us part. This contract is limited. It's limited to acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation of children and the terms of this contract were determined by God himself.
Speaker 0 06:25 God created marriage and he created it with two specific purposes. The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. The secondary purpose of marriage is a mutual help and comfort to the spouses and the remedy for concupiscence. The general principle is everything in conformity with those two purposes. The primary and secondary purpose of marriage is good and permissible. Anything opposed them is evil and forbidden. That's the background. Now, if that is background, let's turn to the current disaster. We'll start with a misunderstanding about marriage. Now, from the beginning, Protestantism has suffered from serious fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of marriage. Now I'm going to spend a few minutes talking about Luther here. It's not a cheap shot and part of him to send it from Lutherans, and a major part of my seminary training was actually paid for by Lutherans. I'm serious, but if we want to see the roots of our current disaster, we simply can't ignore the influence of Martin Luther.
Speaker 0 07:33 So that's where we're going. Okay. Number one, according to Luther, marriage is not a sacrament from which an immediate falls that marriage is an affair, the state and not of the church it is working titled the Babylonian Captivity. Martin Luther explicitly denied that marriage is a sacrament and then in a work called of God's word, and I quote, I advise in everything that ministers interfere not in natural Lonial questions. First, we have enough to do in our own office. Secondly, because these affairs questions of marriage, because these affairs concern not the church but are temporal things pertaining to temporal magistrates. Therefore we will leave them to the lawyers and magistrates. Close quote, Martin Luther isn't this precisely the issue that we're dealing with right now in regards to these new fangled a so called marriages that's become an issue of lawyers and temporal magistrates. There's actually a sort of fearful symmetry in the fact that these first broke out in Massachusetts cause the pilgrims who landed there believed that marriage was simply a civil contract to be governed by the state and not the church.
Speaker 0 08:55 And now here we are. So that's first. Second, according to Luther, the marriage contract is not necessary. Perpetual. In other words, divorce is permissible. Luther has a whole series of reasons for divorce, ranging from adultery to willful desertion to persistent irascibility to serious incompatibilities, and incredibly enough, even after the birth of offspring. Divorce in his mind is permissible if impotence should subsequently arise. Other grounds according to Luther, are obstinate, refused the honor, the death, and the most unbelievable to me personally, divorce is allowed in the case of one partner coming down with a serious illness.
Speaker 0 09:41 Number three, according to Luther, the marriage contract is not necessarily exclusive. In other words, in some cases, one does not have to forsake all others. If either party to a marriage can't restrain himself, Luther says, and I quote, let him or her Wuhan other in the name of God close quote. There's a lot more of this stuff. I won't quote it. It gets worse. On January 27th, 1524 Luther stated quote, I admit that I am unable to prohibit a man from marrying several wives. It does not contradict holy writ close quote. That wasn't just hot air. He really meant that quote in an opinion. On the permissibility of divorcing Katherine of Aragon, it's Henry, the ace legitimate wife, which Luther delivered on September 3rd, 1531 Luther openly and candidly pronounced the marriage of the king to be indissoluble. So his marriage to Katherine is indissoluble, but in order to satisfy the king pointed out this is Luther with the permission of the Queen Henry might.
Speaker 0 10:43 Now these are Luther's very own words. Henry might marry an additional queen and conformity with example, ancients who had many wives on August 23rd Malac. Then another so called reformer also declared in favor of this big amiss opinion saying, these are my lengthens words. They king may with a good conscience. Take a second wife. Well, retaining the first close quote. Now we all know that Henry eight did not take that course of action, although the whole issue at stake was it simply question marriage and who precisely got to determine the rules. Church lost in that case as well. Henry opted instead for Syrah, polygamy. He just, as he tired of one wife, he traded her in on a new model. Back to Luther. In December, 1539 Phillip of Hessa Protestant ruler, who was well aware of Luther's pronouncement regarding multiple wives. Phillip has specifically requested a written approval to engage in big Ami by taking another wife in addition to the one he presently had on December 10th Luther and Melanchthon replied in writing to fill up sitting among other things that this marriage would not be contrary to the laws of God and therefore could be contracted by Phillip because of a necessity of conscience.
Speaker 0 12:02 That said, conscience clause in a Protestant ceremony on March 4th, 1540 with Luther's written approval and in the very presence of lengthen Phillip of Hessa married a second woman while retaining his wife. So in principle, obviously not necessarily the day to day practice, most couples, but in principle from the very beginning, Protestantism is suffer from profound errors about the nature of marriage. And as we all know from the beginning, the United States of America has been a profoundly processed country. And so when the divorce tsunami hit the so-called no fault divorce laws, when that struck in 1970 spreading out from California to every state soup New York, by 1985 it hit a population of Protestants that theologically at least had no consistent opposition to the notion of divorce. And at the same time, a Catholic population had been softened by the rebellion against church teaching and the sexual revolution, the 60s as of 2004 39% of marry Protestants and 25% of married Catholics divorce.
Speaker 0 13:19 The social effect of this has been indescribable. I mean what I'm going to say, but it is doubtful if a full out nuclear war could have wreaked as much havoc in our beloved country in 1880 Pope Leo the 13th prophetically worn mankind regarding the results of divorce. Listen carefully what the Holy Father has to say. Quote, truly, it's hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce mutual kindness is weakened. Deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied. Harm has done to the education and training of children. The seeds of dissension are sown among families. The dignity of womanhood is less than than brought low and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men divorce tens to the certain destruction of society. Close quote, the vicar of Christ.
Speaker 0 14:30 All right. Now let's quickly turn and consider the misunderstandings about the marital act. In 1930 the church of England broke all historical precedent when resolved that married couples could lawfully use contraceptives to limit or avoid parenthood. Since then, every other denomination, both Protestant and eastern has gone along until now. At this point, the Catholic church stands completely alone and condemning contraception. What happened here in the United States for the sake of time, who only briefly considered a legal history, that's only one aspect, but it gives us an overview. In 1930 in the United States and the Comstock laws, distribution of pornography, contraceptives and abortifacients were still illegal in 1936 case brought by none other than Margaret Sanger, founders of international planned parenthood. 1936 case, the federal government was forbidden from interfering with contraception distribution by doctors, but they still remain banned by state statutes. In 1965 the case brought by the woman who's in charge of planned parenthood of Connecticut.
Speaker 0 15:44 The Supreme Court struck down the state's right to ban contraceptive distribution, two married couples at the same time. They produced out of nowhere this mythical right to privacy that exists in the shadow or the penumbra or the amber, the constitution somewhere that nobody can find it except them in a 1972 case. The Supreme Court then extended this right to unmarried couples and then those two precedents were used in the Satanic 1973 case Roe v Wade, which decriminalized abortion as well as the 2000 Lawrence versus Texas case, which decriminalized all manner of perversion. Today virtually all private, non procreative noncommercial acts between consenting adults are decriminalized federally protected behaviors and should somehow a child be conceived in spite of all the chemical and physical barriers. While the right to abort that child is also federally protected. The result is this in our legal system and certainly in the current understanding the general public, the marital act is a a form of recreation B has no necessary relationship to marriage at all.
Speaker 0 17:03 C has no necessary relationship to procreation at all. And d outside pro-life circles, abortion is seen by great number of people is an unpleasant but unfortunately necessary. Last dish type of emergency contraception. That's where we're at today in these United States. 40 years ago, 1968 Paul Paul, the six prophetically warned mankind regarding the result of decriminalizing contraception. Listen carefully to what the pope has to say. Quote, consider first of all, how wide and easy road contraception opens up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experiences needed in order to know human weakness and to understand that men and especially the young who are so vulnerable on this point have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law so that they must not be offered some easy means of avoiding it's observance. It is also to be fear to hit the man growing yous to the employment of contraceptive practices may finally lose respect for the woman and no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer has respected and beloved companion.
Speaker 0 18:47 Let it also be considered that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of the moral law, who will stop rulers from favoring even imposing upon their peoples if they were to consider it necessary. The method of contraception which they judge to be more efficacious. Close quote, Vicar of Christ the other 13th and Paul the six. Absolutely right. Look around out there. What do we see? Latchkey children, lonely, confused, lost youth despair, drunkenness, drugs, divorce, promiscuity, parm perversion, planned parenthood, paganism, empty parishes, consolidations in parish closures, dying neighborhoods collapsing. Social structures, a so called vocations crisis. All rotten fruits has a culture of death. All rotten fruits of the claps of the family. All signs of the certain destruction of society.
Speaker 0 20:25 Yeah. As we faced this culture of debt. The question was, how did our beloved country get to this point? How do we become so degenerate? And the answer is we've rejected the warm and loving hand of God rejected the natural law and his divine law. Divorce and contraception are not trivial little issues, not by a long shot. If the United States of America were actually run in accordance with the laws of God, it would be absolutely impossible for someone who supported either of these evils to even sit on the board of a mosquito control district if we were run in accordance with the laws of God, but we're not by a long shot do I wish we had a political party, a political movement that was serious about promoting the social reign of Christ the king and banning these terrible evils? Of course
Speaker 1 21:25 course.
Speaker 0 21:28 The politics is the art of the possible at this time. It's simply not politically possible to ban divorce or contraceptives. Does that mean we accept them? Absolutely not. We can't. They're both terrible evils. He did. I am unaware of a single candidate anywhere who's campaign against these evils as well as against his horrible spectra of abortion. Anyone that accepts contraception is not parole life. Period. Okay, so what do we do? We have an election come out. Is the answer to not vote at all?
Speaker 1 22:17 No.
Speaker 0 22:20 Catholic prolife attorney Christopher Ferrara makes an excellent point in this regard. Quote, I believe Catholics in America are now facing a situation analogous to that which obtained or the Intel in elections of 1946 and 1948 even though it was not a question of legalized abortion, but rather the threatened electoral ascendancy of Communists Pius the 12th declare to the faithful that and here are the holy fathers actual words, quote, it is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right man or woman to take part in the elections. He who abstains particularly from laziness or from cowardness thereby commits a grave sin on mortal offense. Close quotes.
Speaker 0 23:18 We have to vote. Given that we are to vote, what are the principles? Keeping in mind that politics is the art of the possible and even though it's not possible this time to band divorce and contraception, many other attended evils still and may be very well possible to hold back the political ascendancy of absolutely committed pro abortion fanatics in us. Among other things, it may be possible to finally overthrow Roe v Wade and turn the issue back to the states at the minimum. Keeping all that in mind and having read our local bishop <inaudible> statement which says in part quote, we have a responsibility to limit evil if it is not possible at the moment to eradicate it completely closed. Quote this week I called up a priest whom I regard as a very reliable moralist and I pose this question to him. Suppose there is an election in which neither candidate is a good moral example, but one of the major candidates is a fanatic, completely committed to abortion and the other is inconsistent in his opposable to abortion.
Speaker 0 24:38 Supposing an election like that, is it possible for a completely committed pro-lifer to vote for one of these candidates without sin or must he look to a candidate from a third party who's completely committed to the pro-life cause? In short, his answer was this, yes, obviously one can vote for the pro-life third party candidate. That's obvious. Then he said, but since politics is the art of the possible, one could also vote for the major candidate who is inconsistent with his opposition to abortion without sin. If the voter judged that the most prudent action would be to try to place an official in office that at least would not be hostile to the promotion of the moral law in regards to abortion. Even if that official himself was not a particularly exemplary person and was inconsistent in his stance, it's an important election. All we have to do is look at the bishops to see a clear sign of its importance without meaning to be disrespectful.
Speaker 0 25:46 Whenever we ever seen so many bishops speaking out on a political issue and actually making sense, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I mean it. When have we seen this? It's remarkable. They're serious. Over in St Louis, Bishop Herman is literally using apocalyptic language, and I mean literally read a statement. So we need to vote. We're not allowed loud, morally to vote for any committed pro Boart fanatics. It is permissible to vote for an authentic pro-life Kennedy of any party or to vote for a candidate from a major party who is inconsistent with his opposition abortion. If we judge that, that is the most prudent action to limit abortion given the circumstances, we need to vote, but we need to pray. We need to pray to our lady, especially in her titles of the Maca conception or lady of Guadalupe, who need to pray. Saint Michael the Archangel, and we should give some real serious consideration to doing some fasting between now and the election. NAF drawl. Some devils are only cast out by prayer and fasting.
