Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00 <inaudible>.
Speaker 1 00:24 I've been very impressed. You know the name of the father and his son. Holy Spirit. Amen. 62 years ago, frank, he noted that the happiness of society as a whole or the generality of men and women and still more of children is bound up with the health of marriage. It provides the one stable framework, the underlying security without which men and women and children still more feel the wretchedness of their insufficiency. The happiness of our society as a whole of men and women and still more children is bound up with the health of marriage. Well, you don't need me to tell you. In our society the generality of men and women, especially children are not happy and that's largely because of the breakdown of the family. It's largely because in our enlightened times, the situation with marriage is almost a complete disaster to disaster biblical proportions.
Speaker 1 01:29 It isn't just the immense numbers of those wounded by divorce or the immense numbers wounded by all the shacking up going on. It isn't almost universal use of contraception and sterilization. We've now reached the point. We have very powerful factions in both our government and our society. Clamoring for the nationwide institution of the San Francisco style, so-called marriages and for the dreek criminalization of polygamy, and the verbal engineering has been so wildly successful. You even hear men of good world will using weird phrases like traditional marriage, traditional marriage. That's kind of like saying circular circles as opposed to square circles and triangular circles. Traditional marriage words are important. They're very important. Verbal engineering always proceeds social engineering,
Speaker 1 02:31 verbal engineering, always perceived social engineering. When we start hearing the words being changed, every alarm bell should go off. See, what are we talking about here? Verbal engineering always proceed. Social engineering sort of paranthetically historical observation. As we pointed out before, this particular social experiment hasn't been tried once before in history. This is not the first time. It's the second time. The ancient Jewish commentaries known as the mid rash explicitly refer to these San Francisco sort of marriages in two places. We will edit this for the sake of the little ears. Quote. The generation of the flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for perverse unions.
Speaker 0 03:25 Close quote.
Speaker 1 03:28 In other words, the sins which provoked the great flood real long, the lines of what we have going all around us these days might be a really, really good idea to stay in the state of grace.
Speaker 1 03:46 Let's try to put the current disaster in some sort of context. Consider this prophetic passage pen by frank sheets. 62 years ago. Frank sheet are treatment of anything must depend in the last resort on what we think it is. For instance, we treat people one way and cats and other because of idea of what a man is and what a cat is. All our institutions, family, school, trade union, governments, laws, customs, anything you pleased grew out of what those who made them thought a man was. If you want to understand them profoundly, you must get at the idea of man that they express. There are periods of human history when is not immediately and obviously necessary to make this sort of profound inquiry. When institutions are long established, functioning healthily, serving happiness, the mass of men may very well decide simply to live by them and ask no questions. But when anything goes wrong with an institution, so we have to decide whether to amend it and if so, how or to scrap it. And if so, what to put in its place. Then the question, what a man is immediately becomes not only practical, but if the first practicality, you cannot know how men should be treated until you're quite clear what a man is.
Speaker 1 05:20 But in the whole of our social life, man is overlooked. Man is simply taken as a word, the label for a particular kind of be the kind to which we belong ourselves and nobody stopped for any serious consideration of what the word means. We proceed immediately to consider how to make the creature happier without ever having asked what the creature is. It should be just the other way around. When some new proposal is made, which affects the way men live, our immediate reaction is always ask, will it make men happier? But this should be the second question, not the first. The first question should be, does it fit the nature of man?
Speaker 1 06:11 The total ignoring of this question runs all through modern life. Education provides an illustration perfect enough to be almost farcical. Throughout most of the Western world, the state is regarded as the normal educator. The situation is taken as normal when in fact it is grotesque. There are hundreds of definitions of education, but one may take as a minimum definition, one which should be accepted by practically everybody that education is to fit men for living. Suppose you were to write to the education department of your state something to this effect. I note that you are in the business of fitting men for living. Would you mind telling me what a man is? The only possible answer would be that we live in a liberal democracy. Every man is entitled to accept any religion or philosophy that he pleases and according to its teachings hold his own view. That man is matter or spirit or both or neither. The state does not decide among them. It is wholly neutral. Who does not know what a man is.
Speaker 2 07:19 Okay.
Speaker 1 07:21 If you're then to write further and say, I know that that is a state you do not know what a man is. Do you know what living is for? The answer could only be the same. That is a matter of from each citizen to defy decide for himself. The state is neutral. The state does not know. I've called this grotesque and that is to flatter it, to be fitting men for living knowledge without knowing what man is, what life is for, but without even thinking the questions relative relevant indeed without ever having asked them. It is odd beyond all words. It does not strike people as odd and the depth of their awareness of its oddness is the measure of decay, of thinking about fundamentals at every turn, not only in education but in the whole life of society. The treatment of human beings by one another and of citizens by the state needs testing by the question, what is man?
Speaker 1 08:22 And it is never asked. The state does not know what man is and is taking more and more control of man's life. Close quote frank sheet in the whole of our social life man is overlooked when some new proposal is made, which affects the way men live. Our immediate reaction is always to ask, will it make men happier? But this should be the second question, not the first. The first question should be, does it fit the nature of man? The total ignoring of this question runs all through modern life at every turn, not only in education, but the whole life of society, the treatment of human beings by one another and of citizens by the state needs testing by the question, what is man? And it is never asked. The state is taking more and more control of man's life. It is not know what man is and just a few lines put to paper some 60 years ago, frank chute captured the essence of virtually every political and social problem in our time, including the current marriage disaster.
Speaker 1 09:30 That may sound like an exaggeration. So besides these new fangled so-called marriages, these square circles, I will offer two other examples. First example, not long ago, someone inspired by Frank Sheet wrote to the commissioner of the Kansas State Department of Education, ask him to explain exactly what was the primary and fundamental purpose of public education in the state of Kansas. In its response, the commissioner make frank makes Frank Sheetz point, and I quote, dear ex, your question about the primary and fundamental purpose of public education in Kansas is one that I've asked often over my career. There's no one single policies are, who has you asked can recite a single official position of the state of Kansas on this matter? Fundamental questions of governance must be answered by our Constitution. The relevant part of our Kansas Constitution is in its article six which says the legislature shall provide for intellectual, educational, vocational, and scientific improvement by establishing and maintaining public schools, educational institutions and related activities. That is the most direct answer to question that I believe there is dot.dot with my sincere best regards, signed the Commissioner of Education.
Speaker 1 11:02 Now stop and think about that for a moment. Here we have the response to a simple question about a fundamental issue, a response made by very important official from the executive branch. In fact, the very man in charge of this program, and we find that he's unable to answer the question, even though as he says during the course of his career, he's often asked himself that same question and the best you can do after a career running this program is to quote the legislative branch to the effect that by Golly, we don't really know what we're doing here, but we're doing it
Speaker 0 11:47 <inaudible>
Speaker 1 11:50 and that year, according to the Kansas State Department of the spit, spent $11,588 per pupil doing it, whatever it is.
Speaker 1 12:04 Second example we've heard from the executive and legislative branches, let's not leave out that judicial branch. How about this absolute gem from the planned parenthood versus Casey decision of the United States Supreme Court? There's the one that upheld Roe v Wade. I quote from our Supreme Court at the heart of liberty is the right to defend one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. Close quote at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of the meaning of the universe and the mystery of human life, our institutions, Mary marriage, family, school, government, customs, law, all our institutions and deed, our whole society are just collapsing before our very eyes. They're dissolving and an acid bath of unbridled, unquestioned secularism. And here we see distilled into just one line, the very essence of the whole anti cultural agenda that's led us to this pretty past.
Speaker 1 13:13 There's at least four hidden assumptions in that one statement there condensed into it. First hidden assumption, there is no god or even if he does exist, both the individual and the society are totally independent of him and of his authority. Second, hidden assumption. Consequently, there exists a right to engage in behaviors and to make laws with absolutely no reference to God or to his rights. Third Assumption. Human nature is simply an intellectual or cultural construct and forth that both the individual and society have an absolute and virtually unrestricted freedom in regards to politics, morals, or religion. All four of these notions are summed up in this one line. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. They don't mean that they don't mean that. Just try exercising your right to define your own concept of the universe and leave the IRS out and see if our supreme court will back you up. Good luck on that one. They don't mean it word games. We shouldn't be surprised to learn. That particular line is also be invoked as a basis for the legal arguments to establish the square circle. San Francisco style marriages in the whole of our social life man is overlooked when some new proposal is made, which affects the way men live. Our immediate reaction is always to ask, let make men happier, but this should be the second question, not the first. The first question should be, does it fit the nature of man?
Speaker 1 15:10 What is man frank? She our civilization, the one that used to be called Christian is based upon the Id our ancestors had of what man is. That idea was clear, strong, universally accepted. They arrived at it not by looking at Man, by listening to God summarized. It was this man is a creature of God living in a universe created by God, but he differs from every other being in the world because God made him in his own image. This special lightness to God is not in man's body by which he's akin to the animals, but in his soul, which is spiritual, immortal and meant for eternal union with God by setting his will against God's man, it damaged himself and lost oneness with God. God became man and died to save all men from this derelict condition and these three ideas, image of God, immortal spirit, redeemed by Christ.
Speaker 1 16:16 You have the dommy elements, net concept of man that went into the building of our civilization. Close quote and you don't need me to point out to you that each one of these three ideas, man is made in the image of God. Man has an immortal spirit. Man has been redeemed by Christ. Each one of those three ideas are explicitly denied by our culture at large, at every turn in the whole life of society, the treatment of human beings by one another and of the citizens by the state needs testing by the question, what is man and it is never asked. The state does not know what man is and is taking more and more control of man's life. Once we see the concept of man on which are now crumbling, civilization was built. That man is a creature, a creature of a loving God.
Speaker 1 17:09 Then we're beginning to touch on the heart of the matter because marriage is also a creature, a creature of a loving God, and that it's actually the most basic fact about marriage, that it's a creature that means God created it. He created, he knew exactly what he wanted marriage to be. He didn't forget anything. He isn't going to learn anything. He isn't going to have any new ideas and he sure doesn't need our advice. He's got marriage is what it is as a great pope. Pius 11 stated quote, the nature of matrimony is entirely of the free will of man marriage and the laws of marriage cannot be subject to any human degrees or to any contrary agreement even of the spouses themselves. Close quote the vicar of Christ. In other words, marriage is what God made it to be and God makes the rules, which means that its essential nature can never be changed. What a difference it would make if only everyone recognized this again and also recognize the implications. Just think about the ass. Absolutely astronomical amounts of unhappiness, misery, fights, drunkenness, insane legislation, social chaos, especially eternal damnation that could be avoided.
Speaker 1 18:35 Okay, so what is marriage? Marriage is a contract that results in a relationship. It's a contract that results in a relationship. Here's the exact contract that a man and woman make. Bikes changing balls, the man and the woman give and accept a perpetual and exclusive right for acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation of children. That's the contract, a man and a woman give an accept a perpetual and exclusive right for acts which are themselves suitable for the generation of children by validly making and then constantly in that contract, the two become more closely related to one another than a brother is to his sister or father is to his son. And that relationship is made directly by God. That relationship is perpetual, which means it lasts till death. It's exclusive, which means that only that man and only that woman are involved and no one else.
Speaker 1 19:36 And it's limited, which means a couple only has the right for acts which are themselves suitable for the generation of children that what marriage is. So marriage is a relationship which results from a contract. The contract is made bikes changing valves, and once the contract's made God makes the relationship will go quickly over the contract again. And I want everybody to pay attention because there's something very important here for everyone to notice. Please notice in this contract terms like love or feelings or emotions of any sort. I don't enter into the question as important as they might be. They're not terms, the marriage contract, they're not what it's actually been contracted for. In other words, the contract actually has nothing to do with fairness or how people feel or whom they claim to love. So listen carefully again to the terms of the contract, the man and the woman give and accept a perpetual and exclusive right for acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation of children. It's so important to understand because this flies right in the face of all the arguments made by the engineers. All the proponents of the square circle, San Francisco style, so-called marriages.
Speaker 0 20:55 Okay.
Speaker 1 20:56 In the whole of our social life, man is overlooked when some new proposals made, which affects the way men live, our immediate action is always to ask, will it make men happier? But this should be the second question, not the first. The first question should be, does it fit the nature of man?
Speaker 0 21:14 Yeah.
Speaker 1 21:16 There's been a new proposal. The square circle marriages. The first question we should ask is, does it fit the nature of man? Do The San Francisco styles, so-called marriages fit the nature of man? Of course not. The are by their very nature, unnatural, perverted. We're talking about sins against nature. Here we're talking about sins that cry out to heaven preventions. We're talking about sins. It's so provoke. God. Did He pour down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities destroying them completely in court, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly, sit close. Quote Second Peter two six. This is so important for us to understand. We started by pointing out that the happiness of society as a whole as bought up with the health of marriage because marriage provides the one stable framework, the underlying security without which men and women and children still more feel the wretchedness of their insufficiency. And yet not only the wider circles of American society even know anymore what marriage actually is. We're actually going to enshrine these perverse monstrosities and then we're going to persecute anyone who dares, resist, or speak out against them in any way.
