ADMISSIONS! ADMISSIONS!! ADMISSIONS!!!
THE CATHOLIC INSTITUTE AND BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY (CIBT)
- 1-year Advance Certificate in Religious Studies (CIBT)*
- B.A. in Religious Studies and Church Administration (Univ. of Ghana)
- BSc. in Business Administration (Univ. of Ghana)
- BSc. in Public Administration (Univ. of Ghana)
- BSc. in Computer Science (Univ. of Ghana)
- MBA in Global Entrepreneurship (Catholic Univ. of Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy)
*NOTE: The Advance Certificate in Religious Studies programme is tailored for church workers, catechists, other lay ministers, Religious Brothers and Sisters, lay leaders of church societies as well as individual lay persons who want to deepen their knowledge and understanding of their faith.
LOCATION: Admission Forms for the B.A. and BSc. programmes could be downloaded from the website, www.cibtghana.net, or obtained from the CIBT Administration Block (located behind Ministry of Information and Adjacent to the GNAT Hall, Adabraka – Accra). Admission Forms for the MBA and Advance Certificate programmes should be obtained from the CIBT Administration Block.
DEADLINE: completed application forms should be submitted to Admissions Office, CIBT, by 31st August, 2015.
Enquiries: For any further information you may call: 0200638039 / 0205 4955 89 / 0307-033-547.
Or visit us at our website: www.cibtghana.net . Or E-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, CLEAR AND EMPHATIC OPPOSITION IS A DUTY.One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.” – Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Are you in need of a special favour from God? Do you want a prayer that can gurantee you God’s favour? This is it…it’s simple but effective. Try it
PRAYER TO ST. ANTHONY (Used when in need of a special favour)
O Holy Saint Anthony, gentle and kind Saint, your burning love of God, your exalted virtue and your great charity towards your fellow creatures made you worthy, when on earth, to possess miraculous powers of an exalted kind. Miracles waited on your word, and that word you were ever ready at the request of those in trouble.
The anxious prayer of bitter trial was never addressed to you in vain. To the sick you gave health, you restored what was lost; the sorrow-stricken were the object of your tender compassion, even the dead you raised to life when the wounded heart cried out to you from the depths of its anguish. When on earth, nothing was impossible to you except not to have compassion on those in distress and sorrow. Encouraged by this thought, and convinced of the efficacy of your intercession, I kneel before your holy image, and full of confidence, I implored of you to obtain for me
(Mention your request)
The answer to this my prayer, may require a miracle. Even so, are you not the Saint of miracles, who when on earth had but speak and the mightiest wonders were wrought? O gentle and loving St. Anthony, you whose heart was ever full of human sympathy, whisper my prayer into the ears of Jesus, who loved to liner in your arms. One word from you and my prayer will be granted. O speak that word and the gratitude of my heart will ever be yours. Amen.
*Pray it everyday for 9 days
*Believe you have received it
The church marriage is primarily sacramental marriage. People come to the church primarily for this part of marriage…sacramental part. The civil aspect is only a kind of ‘by product’. Thus any one who comes to the church for marriage is presumed to be doing so because of the sacramental aspect. After all the person could get civil marriage outside the church.
The gay marriage law is binding only on civil marriages so NO ONE can force the church to marry him as a gay couple because coming to the church is an option which the couple themselves take…and if you opt for church marriage instead of going to the courts then it means you are looking for sacramental marriage and not just a civil marriage which is freely offered in the courts. The sacramental marriage requires a male n a female….thats the qualification. So since gay couples do not qualify they cannot come to the church for marriage.
And no law allows them to sue the church for that reason because the church and state are independent bodies with independent laws. So in sum…no gay couple can ask the church for marriage…they don’t qualify. And if they want just civil marriage then the courts are their only option. They CAN NEVER sue the church nor its pastors and priests for refusing them civil gay marriage. You cannot give to Caesar what belongs to God.
Why gay couples cannot sue the church for refusing them marriage
1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.
I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS
2. The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator’s plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.
In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.
Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).
Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator’s plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.
Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).
4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)
II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.
Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.
From the order of right reason
The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.
From the biological and anthropological order
7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
From the social order
8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.
The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.
Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.
From the legal order
9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)
IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Dear parents and friends,
You cannot imagine how tiny I am but I am alive. Every day I grow a little bigger. I tell myself that one day, I will grow to be a big baby, ready to enter the world outside the womb.
But how’s life in the womb? Do you really want to know? Well, it is a beautiful world of its own. We communicate with our mother more than you can ever imagine. Yesterday, mum ate a thick messy stuff I didn’t quite like. I told her not to eat that food again. She listened but not before I had kicked and punched her with my tiny legs and hands.
I am surprised many, many people don’t know much about us- unborn babies in the womb. Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove that we are not alive, you must all give us the benefit of the doubt and assume that we are alive. Have you forgotten so soon what the Catholic Church says about us? I just know it because mum repeats it over and over again “Conception is the beginning of human life. From the time that an ovum is fertilized, a new life begins that is neither that of the father nor of the mother.It is rather the life of a new human being, with its own growth. It would never become human if it were not human already.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, 1974.)I hear and feel in the womb that some people don’t want us to live. Why do they think like that? Listen to me: if we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? We unborn babies know that the care of human life and happiness and not destruction should be the first object of all good governments.
Mothers and young girls, the biggest test of your worth is the way you treat every human being but more especially the weakest and the most defenseless.Even though I am still in the womb, I hear a lot about what people say about us. You remember Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta? She once said “There are two victims in every abortion: a dead baby and a dead conscience.”That is the reason you must never agree to abort us. The pain and guilt will always remain on your conscience. You can never get us off your mind. The other day, mum was conversing with another lady and I heard them clearly because I was wide awake. Mum said a lady and a gentleman had committed seven abortions together. They were students then.They finally got married but never had a child of their own during their entire marriage. The gentleman took to drinking and eventually became an alcoholic. Along the line, he lost his job. His wife could not cope with the situation and soon left the marriage to settle in the US. The gentleman is currently a nervous wreck in a psychiatric hospital. Mum said the man had been weighed down, over the years, with guilt and regrets. This should never happen to anyone.
I also heard mum say that being pregnant was very much like falling in love. “You are so overjoyed. There are no words that can express having a baby growing inside of you.” I think she must be sincere because she usually sings to me .The other day, mum visited the parish priest at the parish and they conversed for a long time. The priest said one day we would all be accountable to God for our decisions, actions and inactions.I am already hungry…..but remember this: each child is sent into this world with a special gift and the world will be poorer without that child.
Finally, if you are thinking of joining the abortion movement to kill us off, remember what President Ronald Reagan said many years ago: “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion is already born.” Mum told a neighbor she would join a group called Pro- Life. I understand the members fight for unborn babies. Yesterday, I said a short prayer for its members. I asked Jesus to make them bold and strong.
Now that you know our story well, don’t ever say that there are too many children in the world. It is like saying that there are too many beautiful flowers in the world. Goodbye for now…..I am feeling really sleepy now….
The writer is the Executive Secretary, Dept. of Social Communications, National Catholic Secretariat Accra. email@example.com 0241182862
- The sect now known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses was started by Charles Taze Russell, who was born in 1852 and worked in Pittsburgh as a haberdasher. In 1879, he began the Watch Tower—what would later be known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the teaching organ of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their headquarters is at Brooklyn, USA.
- In 1931, “Judge” Joseph R. Rutherford, the new leader, changed the name of the sect to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which he based on Isaiah 43:10 (“‘You are my witnesses,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘even my servant whom I have chosen…’” New World Translation).
- They don’t have churches; they have “Kingdom Halls” instead. Their congregations are uniformly small, usually numbering less than two hundred.
- They baptize by immersion and agree to work actively as missionaries. Many missionaries take only part-time jobs so they can devote more time to their evangelization. They have no separate, ordained ministry as is found in Catholic and Protestant churches.
- They have their own Bible, called the New World Translation, which is used by no sect other than the Witnesses. The New World Translation was produced because it buttresses Witnesses’ beliefs through obscure or inaccurate renderings. For example, to prove that Jesus was only a creature, not God, the New World Translation’s rendering of John 1:1 concludes this way: “and the Word was a god”. Every other translation, Catholic and Protestant—not to mention the Greek original—has “and the Word was God.”
- They don’t believe in the Trinity (they say only the Father, Jehovah, is God). They don’t believe Jesus is God; they identify Jesus with Michael the Archangel. The Holy Spirit is not a person but a force. They don’t believe in hell. The soul is mortal (not immortal).
- They believe in the battle of Armageddon: the final conflict between God and the Devil—the forces of good and the forces of evil—in which God would be victorious. This was first predicted to happen in 1914 then later pushed to 1975. Now, the Watchtower says that Armageddon will simply occur “soon,” and it is no longer tied to a particular, literal generation of people.
- The JWs operate no hospitals, orphanages, schools, colleges, or social welfare agencies. From their perspective it will all disappear in a few years anyway, so they don’t expend their energies in these areas.
- Members may be “disfellowshipped” for a variety of reasons, such as attending a Catholic or Protestant church or receiving a blood transfusion. Disfellowshipping is the sect’s equivalent of excommunication.
- They recognize the legitimacy of no governmental authority, since they believe all earthly authority is of Satan. They will not serve in the military, salute the flag, say the Pledge of Allegiance, vote, run for office, or serve as officials of labor unions.
- They don’t celebrate events such as Christmas, Easter or birthdays.
- No matter how peculiar their doctrines, they deserve to be complimented on their determination and single-minded zeal. If only Catholics and other Christians had such zeal for the Lord and their church…God bless you.