Bibles to become illegal?

With the passage of the "hate crimes" legislation in the U.S. House, there is fear that freedom of thought and speech may be threatened. Not only does this bill call for increased penalties for crimes against "protected classes" (e.g. sodomites), but it also allows for grants and assistance from the federal government to prosecute crimes against these classes. Putting aside for now the important question of whether or not penalties & law enforcement efforts should be identical in the case of two identical crimes, it is important to consider the effect such legislation is likely to have on our freedoms. While proponents of the legislation may claim that such laws only punish violent acts, history shows that this legislation may be used as a tool against freedom of speech (as in the cases of those arrested for quoting Scripture passages condemning homosexuality). This legislation clearly poses a threat to our religious freedom. In fact, we may soon live to see the day when quoting the bible - even from the pulpit - will be a punishable crime of "hate speech". And after that it's just a short step to banning this "hate literature" all together... [4/30]

Former bishop's excuses countered by "strongly worded" statement of priests

Former bishop and now Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo has brought scandal to the Church with the allegations that he fathered three children with three different women. Although he asked forgiveness, he refused to resign. He also said that "I am human, and therefore nothing human is alien to me" and further insisted that he told the truth. Rather than referring to his repeated acts of fornication as mortal sins (or even sins for that matter), he recognized "personal errors" and said that "the more important thing was "valuing, perhaps belatedly, but strongly, the blessing of human life."

Well, perhaps that is one way to look at it (especially if you're the guilty party who wants to keep your job rather than the poor illegitimate children who have been deprived of a proper family). But wouldn't it be better for souls if we instead considered what Scripture has to say on the topic? For example, consider the following passages...

1 Cor. 6:9-10: "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Rv. 21:8: "But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

When it comes to the serious sin of fornication (not to mention breaking your vows, abusing your position, depriving children of a proper home, etc.), shouldn't one be reminded of "unpleasantries" such as mortal sin & eternal hellfire? Rather than tolerating your excuses, shouldn't the fear of God be put in you? Can you even imagine a sinner coming up to Christ calling their sins "personal errors" and giving the excuse that "I am human, and therefore nothing human is alien to me"? Rather, wouldn't they be more likely to fall to their knees and beg forgiveness?

Fortunately in this case, some priests have spoken out forcefully regarding this grave situation, saying "If we fall into sin, not only do we repent and ask for forgiveness, we also assume the consequences without looking for cheap excuses or childish justifications". They also addressed responsibility, temptations, fighting for values, the value of celibacy, and the former bishop's harm to the family. Please, more plain speaking like this and fewer excuses! [story here] [4/28]

Putting her faith first

Rather than putting her own interests first, Mary Ann Glendon, a former ambassador to the Vatican, has declined a prestigious honor from Notre Dame due to their honoring of Obama at their upcoming commencement. In her letter to ND's president she states, "as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions 'should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles' and that such persons 'should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.' That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it." Her letter was released to the public in order "to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision". Way to go, Mary! [4/27]

Bishop calls on Catholics to abandon "abysmal apathy"

It's refreshing to read Bishop Tobin's call to Rhode Island Catholics to abandon their "abysmal apathy" and help the state maintain its "moral sanity." His writing states that...

* "The march toward gay marriage across our nation is relentless"

* Homosexual behavior is "unnatural and gravely immoral", "offensive to Almighty God", and "can never be condoned, under any circumstances"

* "The threat to our religious freedom is real, and imminent"

He then reminds the laity of their responsibility "to get involved in public life, to transform the secular order into the Kingdom of God." Thank you, Bishop Tobin! Let's hope & pray that his words will have the desired effect. [4/24]

No more excuses

Now that Bishop D'Arcy has publicly issued a statement to the faithful, perhaps any remaining "controversy" can be put to an end. The bishop stated unequivocally that "I consider it now settled - that the USCCB document, Catholics in Public Life, does indeed apply in this matter." It will be interesting to see what happens. Could one be allowed to hope that Obama may be disinvited from ND's commencement? Or at least not be given an honorary law degree? Time to start praying... [4/22]

Great grades, but what about Catholic teachings?

Notre Dame's 2009 valedictorian has gone on record saying that the "opportunity" to have Obama speak at ND is "unbelievable and incredible". Unfortunately, she means this in a positive sense. She called Obama a "great leader" and praises that he "continues to live by those values... He sticks with his values and his ideals". How is it that this obviously intelligent student doesn't see that it would be better in his case - e.g. the case of the most pro-abortion president in history - if he gave up some of his "values and ideals"? Even if one conceded any positive "values & ideals" to the U.S. President, how can they be "of much value" if the man doesn't respect even the most basic right to live? Maybe ND needs to add another class to its roster concerning the importance of holding all Catholic teachings without exception. "For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it." (Jms. 2:10) And, further, how can such a smart student not see that for a Catholic University to give Obama an honorary law degree when he seeks to break the most basic of all laws - the right to life - is scandalous & most definitely not worthy of praise? [story here] [4/20]

What about chain of command?

After condemning Notre Dame's Obama invite and then warning about protests against it, Bishop D'Arcy now says he may join in a protest. While this is good news, why can't he simply stop the entire event? As "king" of his diocese, shouldn't he be able to say the word & put an end to it? Is he implying that a school enjoys higher authority than a bishop - even though a bishop "reigns supreme" in the diocese (under the Pope, of course)? [4/17]

Forgive me if I'm not surprised

It appears that four Texas PP clinics have been caught doing "illegal abortions" (of course all abortions illegal in the moral sense) - that is, abortions without a license. But does anyone really find it surprising that PP violates human laws considering that it kills babies for a living? How can anyone expect an organization to respect mere human laws if its "mission in life" requires rejecting the most basic laws of Almighty God? When you reject the basis for all law - the Divine Lawgiver - can you expect anything but anarchy? And finally, doesn't it illustrate the problem perfectly that an organization which kills babies by the thousands isn't in trouble for killing them, but that it did the killing without "the proper paperwork"? The only thing that's surprising here is that someone is surprised. [story here] [4/16]

Selling Out

To comply with "gay equity" laws, the majority of 'Catholic' adoption agencies in the UK have "sold their soul" and will now help sodomites adopt children. So how is it that employees at such agencies can dedicate a great many hours assisting children and then turn around and act against the best interests of these helpless youngsters by placing them in the care of perverts? How can they throw off their Catholic identity as if it was a piece of old clothing? Do they forget that even nature itself dictates that children should be entitled to both a mother and a father? Do they care more about receiving government funds than they do about the welfare of children? Do they fear their government more than they fear their judgment? Perhaps a reminder about millstones (cf. Mt. 18:6, Mk. 9:42, Lk. 17:2) might help. Let us also remember that Jesus said we must "not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more... Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna" (Lk. 12:4-5). Despite the fact that sodomy is one of the four sins which 'cry to heaven for vengeance', do they perhaps expect a "free pass" from the Just Judge because they are following "the law"? Please, someone remind them that "Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church and "greatest theologian in the history of the Church") For the good of the children and all other parties involved, pray that these agencies will have a change of heart. And, pray that those in the U.S. will not follow their lead. [4/13]

With 'converts' like Blair...

It seems obvious that something was missing in the faith formation of Tony Blair, who recently 'converted' to the Catholic Church. Did someone forget to tell him that doctrines aren't based on polls or "evolving attitudes" but rather on eternal truths received from God? Did someone forget to mention to him that God is unchanging? Did he enter the Catholic Church thinking the Church could be molded like clay into whatever fashion he pleases? Did no one mention to him what 'scandal' is? Did no one cover sin? Did they miss passages in Scripture such as 1 Cor. 6:9-10? Blair needs to be publicly rebuked (cf. 1 Tm. 5:20) for his scandalous statements and forced to undergo proper faith formation. If he refuses to change his position, does he not become a heretic? As such, maybe he could be taught first-hand what the term "excommunication" means? Pray that those who will be entering the Church this week are properly formed & faithful, and that they will not follow this example. [4/8]

Making a 'god' out of human life?

We all know that abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and the lot are scourges on our nation and on our world, but could they be merely symptoms of the fundamental problem? When we allow the very Flesh & Blood of Christ to be mishandled in our churches for decades (e.g. think of 'Communion in the hand' and the fact that particles of the Holy Eucharist which fall to the floor are continuously trampled on by Catholics at Mass), when the faith of Catholics is so weak that the majority do not believe in the Real Presence (despite what Scripture says in 1 Cor. 11:27,29-30: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord... For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying"), when priests who mishandle the very Body of Christ are allowed to continue in ministry, etc. are we not bringing upon ourselves such scourges? If we started focusing on the more fundamental and more serious problems, would not many of these other scourges clear themselves up? While no one can deny the sacredness of human life, human life comes nowhere near the sacredness of the all-holy God. That is why comments like those of the former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy City ("I mean nothing, nothing is more fundamentally important to Catholic doctrine today than the sanctity of life") are troubling. If we really want to end abortion, let's not make a 'god' of human life. Rather, let's focus on what's most important - God. If we really did this, wouldn't everything else fall into place? [4/6]

Stop Calling Yourself Catholic

Question: What's worse than the senate voting down the conscience protection law? Answer: The fact that this proposed law lost because a majority of so-called 'Catholics' voted against it. What could a decent Catholic find objectionable about allowing health care workers who object to abortions not participate in them? Apparently these 'Catholics' don't see anything wrong with killing babies, but somehow find it wrong to permit people to exercise freedom of conscience. Since the law was defeated by a vote of 41-56, it is clear that the 16 'Catholics' who voted against it can bear the blame. [story here] [4/4]

"Hate what is evil" (Rom. 12:9)+

It's hard to say whether lack of faith or poor catechesis are more to blame, but apparently many of today's Catholics have entirely lost their moral compass. A recent Gallup poll showed that...

* 40% of 'Catholics' find abortion morally acceptable (vs. 41% of non-Catholics)

* 67% of 'Catholics' find fornication morally acceptable (vs. 57% of non-Catholics)

* 71% of 'Catholics' find divorce morally acceptable (vs. 66% of non-Catholics)

* 61% of 'Catholics' find having an illegitimate child morally acceptable (vs. 52% of non-Catholics)

* 54% of 'Catholics' find homosexual relations morally acceptable (vs. 45% of non-Catholics)

Perhaps if Scripture readings at Novus Ordo Masses regularly included passages such as the following - rather than the "feel good" passages parishioners usually encounter - we would not suffer so many dissident Catholics...+ [Note: All passages below are from the New Testament]

* 1 Cor. 6:9-10: Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

* Rv. 21:8: But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

* 1 Jn. 3:8:Whoever sins belongs to the devil

* Heb. 10:26-27: If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.

* Gal. 5:19-21: Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

* Mt. 7:13-14: Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.

+Reminder: Scripture references and translations may vary. We make no guarantee regarding any item herein. We recommend reading Scripture in full context in an appropriate Catholic Bible. Consult appropriate, competent Church authorities for assistance in interpreting / applying Scripture. Interpretation and application of Scripture should not be contrary to the perennial, official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Do not take Scripture passages out of context. Do not inflict or wish harm on yourself or others, break laws, take unsuitable/incautious or inappropriate/drastic actions, or take figurative items literally. We are not responsible for any interpretation / misinterpretation, application / misapplication, use / misuse, etc. of Scripture. Use of site is at your own risk and is subject to our terms of use. Click here for important cautionary statement and other important terms/information

[3/30]

What nerve!

Apparently certain Portuguese bishops think they are free to openly and blatantly contradict the Pope on matters already decided by the Church. No wonder that even secular news agencies consider the Pope's "worst enemies" to be those inside the Church. In one recent case, a bishop said that a moral evil could be "ethically obligatory"! Another had the nerve to say that Pope Benedict's orthodox comments were "equivalent to consenting to the death of many people” - despite the fact that empirical evidence proves otherwise. Another bishop said that some persons "cannot avoid" having intimate relations! One Portuguese bishop said the Pope's advisers should give him "more learned advice". Perhaps these advisers could give "more learned advice" by suggesting the removal of certain bishops? [3/30]

How do they sleep at night?

Would you stay with your doctor if he failed to tell you about serious risks associated with treatments he gave you? Would you change health plans if your insurance carrier required that doctors not advise you of these risks? Ten dollars says Obama wouldn't stay with such a doctor or health plan. So, how can he nominate a judge who has ruled against laws requiring women be informed about health risks of abortion? How can it be an "undue burden" to learn about these risks? Where is the so-called compassion for women? How do these life hating 'public servants' sleep at night? [3/28]

Archbishop Burke's Recent Comments

Catholics who are refreshed by hearing orthodox Catholic prelates speaking plainly will surely appreciate the recent comments of Archbishop Raymond Burke, formerly of St. Louis and now Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura ("leader of the Church's supreme court"). These comments included statements that Canon 915 clearly forbids administering Holy Communion to those publicly and obstinately in grave sin ("The Canon is completely clear, it is not subject in my judgment to any other interpretations"), that laity should pressure their bishops and priests over the scandal of notorious sinners receiving Holy Communion ("I would encourage the faithful when they are scandalized by the giving of Holy Communion to persons [who] are publicly and obstinately in sin, that they go to their pastors, whether it’s their parish priest or to their bishop, to insist that this scandal stop"), that when a president promotes and implements anti-life legislation he could be "an agent of death", and that "President Obama uses this word 'hope' in a way that for us is very disturbing. We need to have hope, the hope that is founded in Jesus Christ, alive for us in the Church; Jesus Christ who gave His life for everyone without exception, and with a particular love for the suffering and for those who are the most defenseless." His comments were given in a recent interview with an anti-abortion activist & convert, Randall Terry, and shown to the National Press Club in Washington on March 25.

Update: Burke apologizes that comments were used to attack bishops, but not for substance of his comments (story here)

[3/26, updated 3/27]

God Help France

Recent polls paint a dire picture of the Church in France, a traditionally Catholic nation. Not only do a large number of French 'Catholics' want the Pope to "step down", but over 80% of those surveyed want the Church to change its position on abortion & birth control. Many French 'Catholics' also want the Church to change its teachings on divorce and sodomy. Perhaps they would also like Jesus to change his teachings to suit their sinful inclinations? Wake up, France. [3/24]

They Don't Really Want Choice

Those who claim to be "pro-choice" once again display their true colors - they don't want a woman to make a real choice - they want her to have an abortion. If they truly wanted a woman to make a choice, they wouldn't seek to prevent her from viewing an ultrasound of the child in her womb. They'd rather have her think it was a "blob of tissue" than see the fingers, toes, and face of her child. As reported by LifeNews, "When used in pregnancy centers, ultrasounds persuade most women to keep their baby." But so-called "pro-choice" advocates don't like this "choice" - so they oppose bills like the one Sebelius is under pressure to sign requiring that pregnant women be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound. Some put forth the excuse that it "creates more obstacles to women already facing a tough decision." They also don't want pregnant women to receive information on the health risks posed by abortion. Since when does limiting information help a woman make a choice? Clearly, they don't want her making a real "choice". Rather, they simply want her to kill her baby. But then again it isn't too surprising that those who advocate murder also consent to lies and deception. [3/18]

More Faithful Translation of Novus Ordo: A "systematic and well-managed dismantling of the vision, theology and ecclesiology of Vatican II"?

It's hard not to scratch one's head over comments such as "Critics say the new, more literal word-for-word translation [of the Novus Ordo] is part of an attempt to roll back the progress made decades ago" and over concerns that the more faithful translations might "alienate" persons from the Church. One priest finds it troubling that the Pope isn't listing to "critics" and is concerned that the Pope may suffer "another major embarrassment" by correcting Mass mistranslations. Things are surely backwards when making a translation more accurate could be construed as a major embarrassment that might alienate persons from the Church. Should not these persons rather have been alienated when the less accurate translations were "forced on the people in the pews" (as the above mentioned priest refers to the introduction of these more accurate translations)? Further, should the Pope be more concerned about "critics" or faithful sons and daughters of the Church who are entitled to accurate and orthodox translations of the Missal? Was St. Paul nervous about what his critics might think? Was Jesus? [3/17]

Will Chinese Government Block Access to Vatican Website?

With the announcement that the Vatican website will soon include the Chinese language, fears are circulating that the site may be blocked by the Chinese government. As reported by Reuters, "China's communist government does not allow its Catholics to recognize the Pope's authority and forces them to be members of a state-backed Catholic organization." It is believed that the site may be blocked by the Chinese government if it finds anything to be "objectionable or unsavory" - e.g. criticism of the Communist Party, reports of nominations of bishops, discussion of the supremacy of the Pope, etc. Pray for the persecuted Church in China! [3/16]