Saturday, August 11, 2007

“You can’t play for two teams”

It seems that the Knights of Columbus (K of C) are under fire for having 16 pro-homosexual "marriage" politicians in their organization with no plans on the horizon to expel any of them.
Read full story HERE in the Boston Herald.

This pro-gay "marriage" stance by the 16 Bay State lawmakers has been an issue since they all voted to defeat the Marriage Protection Amendment back on June 14th during the Constitutional Convention at the State House. Read story HERE regarding past concerns of the 16 lawmakers breaking their Knights of Columbus Catholic vows.

The issue of these 16 K of C members disenvowing their Catholic faiths in order to cave into special interest groups has also been an issue in other parts of the state. My friend Jake has had the following e-mail exchange with Tim S., who is the head of the 4th Degree K of C, and Tom, who is the District Deputy of the K of C in the North Shore region:

Jake:

Tom,

While I here you, and think none too kind of this mission statement stuff, I do think it is would be nice for members to discuss WHY we, as an organization are different from the Kiwanis, Masons, Jaycees, Women of Today, the John Birch Society, Africans for Peace, Democratic Party, Republican Assembly, etc. It does hit me as rather strange why anyone would join a Catholic organization, (such as the K of C) and then take actions that put political party above Christianity. Think Reg Tardiff supporting Barbara 'kill-them-in-the-womb' at Catholic hospitals L'Itallien for instance (vote a couple of years back to force Catholic hospitals to peform abortions).

Tom:

Worthy Brothers,

It is worthy for our Deputy Grand Knight to develop a local mission statement for our council, but it is not necessary. The mission statement, and the only mission statement, is on the Supreme Website telling the world who the Knights of Columbus is and what they stand for. We as a local council should only focus on developing our programs and how they help our church, community and membership. If we want to spread our own personal feelings on world topics, please do not send it through the K of C distribution lists. If you have concerns with the State and Supreme, please forward all correspondents to me and I will request a response!

Always in His Name,

Tom (Your Worthy District Deputy)

P.S. What is for supper on Wednesday???

Scia commenting on above e-mail exchange:

"We as a local council should only focus on developing our programs and how they help our church, community and membership."

What?????!!!!!! Doesn't traditional marriage, which is a sacred institution granted to Christians as a Divine right a "program" that helps our church and community? WHAT!!!!!! Are you for real Tom??? What "45 minute" Catholocism group do you belong to?

Out of all of the e-mail exchanges that I have read, I love Tom's ending post-script: What is for supper on Wednesday??? As if Wednesday's dinner is MORE important than taking a stance for scripture. Pathetic!!!!
As my friend Jake put it so perfectly when he said to me:
"These folks, I'm afraid, think the KoC is about Tootsie Roll drives, and blood drives and scholarships and occassional barbeques...."

Amen brother.

Tim S. responded:
However, Korten reaffirmed that "unless or until [the Church] defines this individual otherwise, our rules give us no foundation to expel anyone."

Until the bishops do something, don't expect the KofC to do anything. They will not expel someone who goes against the Church's teachings if the bishops won't. We will not stand in defiance of our priests and bishops. To boot these guys out, would be to say that we know better than the hierarchy, and as a Catholic Men's organization, we will never do that. If you have a problem, take it up with Sean Cardinal O'Malley.

Ending the e-mail dialog with a comment from a Christopher C. R. concerning the mission statement of the KofC:
"I'm confused....By definition of the Knights of Columbus...Is that not our "MISSION STATEMENT"... Why would we want to attempt to change that? Is there something wrong with what we are supposed to stand for that needs further definition?"
My words exactly Chris, my words exactly!!
I guess this issue is "one-up" for the "tossed salad version" of scripture in the world of the K of C.
My question: When are we going to have real MEN stand up for God and his true way of life?

18 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

“My question: When are we going to have real MEN stand up for God and his true way of life?”

Why would god need you to stand up for him? Isn’t he strong enough himself? And what’s wrong with women? Is there a problem if a real woman stands up for god?

Ken Weaver

6:45 AM, August 15, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

God's people need to stand on God's Word.

The church should shape the culture, not the other way around.

When "men of God" are more influenced by the world than they are by the scriptures, that's a problem.

And there is no problem if a real woman stands up for God...

8:29 AM, August 15, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When "men of God" are more influenced by the world than they are by the scriptures, that's a problem."

Why exactly is that a problem?

Ken Weaver

5:57 PM, August 15, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Proverbs 11:25

A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed.

oh...unless they are gay!

9:41 PM, August 15, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Ken, that's a problem because unlike you, most of us aren't 1800 years old ;-).

There's more wisdom in the Bible than there is in modern culture, even if you take away divine inspiration.

9:47 AM, August 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“There's more wisdom in the Bible than there is in modern culture…”

Can you be more specific? Many of our founding fathers had greater wisdom than any figure in the bible, even those blessed with wisdom from god. Maybe the culture of those that wrote the bible needed the laws within it to have a stable society, but today; in our society many of those laws are antiquated and downright violent.

Ken Weaver

12:52 PM, August 16, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

1 Kings 3:16-28:

16 Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. 17 One of them said, "My lord, this woman and I live in the same house. I had a baby while she was there with me. 18 The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us.
19 "During the night this woman's son died because she lay on him. 20 So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I your servant was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. 21 The next morning, I got up to nurse my son—and he was dead! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn't the son I had borne."

22 The other woman said, "No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours."
But the first one insisted, "No! The dead one is yours; the living one is mine." And so they argued before the king.

23 The king said, "This one says, 'My son is alive and your son is dead,' while that one says, 'No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.' "

24 Then the king said, "Bring me a sword." So they brought a sword for the king. 25 He then gave an order: "Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other."

26 The woman whose son was alive was filled with compassion for her son and said to the king, "Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don't kill him!"
But the other said, "Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!"

27 Then the king gave his ruling: "Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother."

28 When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice.

7:17 PM, August 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Tyler, I thought you might bring this up. The only problem is for me to refute it, it may sound condescending. Please remember condescension is not my intent.

First off if the women were prostitutes, why weren’t they being stoned to death? Isn’t that what they did with women guilty of adultery?

Secondly we still don’t know who the biological mother is; we only know which woman loved the child more. So instead of Solomon finding the biological mother he sidestepped the issue and went for something quite different. Love became the issue instead of biology. A lot like the issue of homosexual marriage. Solomon apparently believed love was more powerful than biology, why is it that the opponents of homosexual marriage want it to be the other way around on that issue? But I digress. The issue is Solomon’s great wisdom that was granted by god. Here’s the problem the way I see it. One of the greatest parts of being an American citizen is that we are innocent until proven guilty. If Solomon was so wise, why didn’t his society invent it first? No, his wisdom wasn’t strong enough for that ideal. It came from one of our Founding Fathers.

Ken Weaver

10:46 PM, August 16, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

1) How do you connect this story to homosexual marriage?

2) How do you know that there wasn't a policy of "innocent until proven guilty" at this time in Solomon's land?

I think, in looking at this story, it is obvious that the woman who doesn't want the child cut in two would be the mother. If not, then DSS clearly would have stepped in and granted the "I'm not going to chop her in half 'parent'" custody of the child.

If you want more wisdom, check the proverbs and the Gospels. Take a look at when the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in a lie about paying taxes, for instance, and see how He answered.

5:09 AM, August 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“1) How do you connect this story to homosexual marriage?”

I’ve seen people write that the love two homosexuals share is not the point. They say we can not legislate according to emotion. So they concentrate their ideologies on the biological, saying that the biology of the homosexual couple is what they are legislating. In this story of Solomon, biology means nothing, only the emotion the prostitutes felt according to the child.

“2) How do you know that there wasn't a policy of "innocent until proven guilty" at this time in Solomon's land?”

Numbers 5:11-31
11And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
13And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
14And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
15Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
16And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
17And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
18And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
19And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
20But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
22And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
23And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
24And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
25Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
26And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
27And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
28And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
29This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;
30Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
31Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

In a case such as this a woman must prove her innocence by remaining healthy. Her Husband does not have to offer any evidence against her. SO this clearly shows that guilt is there until innocence is proven.

“I think, in looking at this story, it is obvious that the woman who doesn't want the child cut in two would be the mother.”

I disagree; the woman who would rather have the child whole go to the other mother only shows an emotional attachment. It offers no other insight into the actual biological standard of mother to child. We know that not all mothers love their children. And when that happens and our child services department is able to intervene the child will go to hopefully a person who will love the child. Biology doesn’t mean that a mother will love a child; it is only more likely that way.


“If not, then DSS clearly would have stepped in…”

What is the “DSS?”

“Take a look at when the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in a lie about paying taxes, for instance, and see how He answered.”

Are you talking about Matthew 22:11-22?

Ken Weaver

5:25 PM, August 17, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Your translation of Numbers 5:11-31 is manipulated to try and fit/justify your argument in a very weak and desperate manner.

This text was not to be used by a capricious, petty or malevolent husband to badger an innocent woman. The subject of the chapter is consistent; the purity of the camp where God dwells (verse 3) is the burden of the passage not to show that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Wow, you really stretched this passage thin.

Not to answer for Tyler, but as for Matthew 22:11-22 especially verse 21 "...to God what is God's".: In this passage there is a distinguishing clearly between Caesar and God, Jesus also protested against the false and idolatrous claims made on the coins.

What are you trying to question/point out in this passage?

7:37 PM, August 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“This text was not to be used by a capricious, petty or malevolent husband to badger an innocent woman.”

I never said it was Scia. It was to be used by suspicious men, men who wondered if their wives were actually sleeping around. I’m sure many of the women had opportunities. But nonetheless it appears as it could be used by “capricious, petty or malevolent” husbands to kill their wives.

“The subject of the chapter is consistent; the purity of the camp where God dwells (verse 3) is the burden of the passage not to show that someone is innocent until proven guilty.”

What the passage was meant for is not the issue. I used the passage because it shows (pretty conclusively) that innocence until proven guilty was not one of the ideals that this society embraced.

“What are you trying to question/point out in this passage?”

Tyler had brought up “…Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in a lie about paying taxes…” I was asking if this was the passage he was referring to.

Ken Weaver

8:47 PM, August 17, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"What the passage was meant for is not the issue."

It IS the issue. You can not use a passage, translate it to fit your agenda and then say "...it shows (pretty conclusively) that innocence until proven guilty was (not one of the ideals that this)'what' society embraced." What is the issue is the translation in which is the "plot" of the passage in which I provided to you, not some "I will use and translate whatever piece of scripture that makes my point justified" so I can make a differing point. Scripture is not to be used that way Ken.

You contradicted yourself by first saying in a previous post:

"In a case such as this a woman must prove her innocence by remaining healthy. Her Husband does not have to offer any evidence against her. SO this clearly shows that guilt is there until innocence is proven."

And then saying in your most recent post:

"I used the passage because it shows (pretty conclusively) that innocence until proven guilty was not one of the ideals that this society embraced."

I am confused.

You stated to me:

"Tyler had brought up “…Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in a lie about paying taxes…” I was asking if this was the passage he was referring to."

Why????

9:12 PM, August 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“You can not use a passage, translate it to fit your agenda”

And why not? Are we as people not able to read between the lines in the bible? Christians twist passages in the bible to show that Jesus was the messiah and that their religion is the only one god honors. If Christians can do it, so can I. Is it because I’m not a Christian that I’m not permitted to do what Christians do so readily when it proves their point? If you, Tyler or OMD are allowed to use the bible to prove your points I should be permitted the same courtesy as well. Are you able to say that this society did believe in the custom of innocence before proven guilty by using a passage in the bible? Are you able to show that the passage I referred to doesn’t show what I believe it does? If you can’t do both, my statement stands. Just don’t tell me that I can’t use that passage because it was meant for a different purpose. The purpose of the passage was not the point to begin with; it was the culture behind the passage.

You said: You contradicted yourself by first saying in a previous post:

When I said: In a case such as this a woman must prove her innocence by remaining healthy. Her Husband does not have to offer any evidence against her. SO this clearly shows that guilt is there until innocence is proven.


And said: I used the passage because it shows (pretty conclusively) that innocence until proven guilty was not one of the ideals that this society embraced.

The both say the same thing don’t they?

“I am confused.

You stated to me:

"Tyler had brought up “…Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in a lie about paying taxes…” I was asking if this was the passage he was referring to."

Why????”

Tyler was attempting to show me I was wrong when I said many of our Founding Fathers had more wisdom than the characters from the bible. He told me look that passage up so I could compare the wisdom of Jesus and those of the Founding Fathers. I wasn’t sure which passage in the bible he was referring to, so I asked.

Ken Weaver

7:24 PM, August 18, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Ken -

Yes, Matthew 22:11-22 was the set of verses I was referring to. Thank you for finding it - I hope that you read it and saw some of the wisdom of Jesus as He answered the Pharisees trying to trap Him in a lie.

Now on to your point about Solomon.

Essentially what I get from your argument, when you come full circle, is this:

There is no wisdom in the Bible because I say there is no wisdom in the Bible, at least not greater than any I have seen anywhere else.

Does that just about sum it up?

How I got there was easy...you said that Solomon didn't use the "innocent until proven guilty" rule of law, that our founding fathers came up with that.

You pointed out that in the book of Numbers chapter 5 gives an example of guilty until proven innocent. I'm not even sure if this chapter lines up with the time of Solomon - but I digress. If you know that, you're a better Bible scholar than I am!

SCIA points out that this passage shows that God wanted purity in His camp. There is no indication that this shows a "guilty until proven innocent" rule of law - yet you say that you can stretch it to mean what you want it to mean - essentially saying what I have said above - that there's no wisdom in the Bible because you say there is no wisdom in the Bible.

As for Jesus being the messiah, are you aware of the 8 prophecies that Jesus couldn't have possibly chosen to fulfill, yet He did? And are you aware of the probability that just those 8 prophecies would be fulfilled in one man?

I'll give you some hints: Where He was born, who He was born to (for a mother), who He was born to (for a father), where His parents traveled when He was born, where His parents traveled shortly after He was born, how He was killed, how He was buried, and...there's one more...can't think of it, maybe it had something to do with the 30 pieces of silver that He was betrayed for...

Find the prophecies, find their fulfillment in the Gospels, and calculate the probability.

You have already proven yourself to be a very wise man, Ken, I know that you can figure this one out, or let Google do it for you!

8:43 PM, August 18, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“There is no wisdom in the Bible because I say there is no wisdom in the Bible, at least not greater than any I have seen anywhere else.”

Right on the money.

“I'm not even sure if this chapter lines up with the time of Solomon”

The time would have been different. However wouldn’t Solomon being in such good contact with god want to keep the same rules for his community that god had laid down prior?

“You have already proven yourself to be a very wise man, Ken, I know that you can figure this one out, or let Google do it for you!”

I’ll check it out.

Ken Weaver

7:41 AM, August 19, 2007  
Anonymous John O'Gorman said...

The Knights of Columbus was founded by Fr. McGivney as a Catholic organisation. Under its own rules it can suspend or expel members for failure to remain a practical Catholic, scandal etc.
No involvement of the clergy is necessary.

Just because most bishops have failed in their moral duty, is not good reason for the Knights to fail also.

5:21 AM, August 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Just because most bishops have failed in their moral duty, is not good reason for the Knights to fail also.”

Are you sure they failed in their moral duty?

Ken Weaver

12:11 AM, September 06, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com