Ok actually it’s a post about Planned Parenthood and teaching sexual perversion but hidden cleverly within that post is a basic argument against morality by vote.

Stacy notes the planned parenthood course and his own alternative course on how to teach kids about sex to help reduce teenage pregnancy which involves other motivations.

This is the kind of basic common-sense curriculum kids really need. Simple messages like, “Stop Wanking to Porn, You Horny Freaks” and “There Were More Than 1.4 Million Cases of Chlamydia Last Year. Don’t Be the Next Case. Keep Your Britches On, Missy.” We must implement the Four Basic Principles of Sex Education:
Fear.
Guilt.
Shame.
And more Fear.

He notes that “most sex problems can be solved by basic common sense.” However there is a problem with basic common sense in that it doesn’t satisfy the desires of the people who are looking to gratify their senses.  They don’t want basic common sense, they want what they want.  This problem in fact is not new as St. Paul reminded us in his letter to the Romans:

For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not.  For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want.

Romans 7:18-19

So the natural inclination on man is to follow his animal instinct toward sin, which is why you have clear Biblical teaching on this subject and the consistent teaching of the church to back it up.

But what happens if rather than the clear teaching of the church you decide to select doctrine based on the whims of man?  As Andrew Sullivan and others have demonstrated it’s much to redefine what sin is rather than to actually resist it,

Let’s say for example a man is not getting sexual satisfaction from his wife.  Under the doctrine of the church to seek alternatives, such as pornograpy, or an affair is a matter of deliberate mortal sin, sin that separates us from God and requires repentance and sacramental confession to return to a state of grace.

But what if we redefine salvation to say:  Once saved always saved, suddenly it doesn’t matter if we consume all the porn we want, or sleep around or spend money on prostitutes since one can never lose their reward it’s not a problem.  So one can literally bathe themselves in sin and not fear for their reward.

Thus can a person conform themselves to an age and by redefining what is sexually acceptable for kids Planned Parenthood redefines acceptable behavior among those who have the least will, resistance (or desire to resist) bad decision that will last a lifetime.

But while we moan for our kids who make this mistake is this not the mistake of the Protestant reformers who decided to redefine scripture?  From that 95 Thesis nailed to a door with the intention to correct a scandal what has come.  Thousands of denominations that have proven themselves able to redefine not only doctrine but sin.

Do you think I exaggerate?  consider:

100 years ago,  every single protestant denomination considered birth control a sin, now 100 years later all have dropped it .  Who still stands on that point?  The Catholic church?

10 Years ago no  protestant denomination recognized gay marriage, now denomination after denomination is falling, but not the catholic church.

In fact just last week we saw the latest change from the Anglicans 

Priests had apparently felt that the ceremony — which asks parents and godparents whether they will renounce Satan — was too complex and confusing to people who don’t regularly attend church, so it was “quietly voted” out by the General Synod, the denomination’s legislative body, according to Religion News Service.

Rather than rejecting the devil outright, these parties will now simply be asked to “turn away from sin” and to “reject evil,” a development that has sparked some debate.

Too complex?  Renouncing the Devil is too complex at a ceremony of Christian initiation?  I’d be surprised, but as the Anglican church was founded on the basis of Henry VIII deciding  marital fidelity was too complex it not that much of a stretch to decide rejecting the Devil is just too tough for people to handle.

And that ‘s why the Catholic church is not and never will be a democracy, because morality and right and wrong is not a matter for vote, it’s something defined by God.  If you allow man to vote on sin then in no time it is done for man’s own gratification or wealth or standing.  Suddenly eternal truths are subject to what is popular that day.

What Planned Parenthood is doing today is the same thing, they are redefining the game, the goal is to find a way to justify action that will in the long run bring more of those kids to their doors seeking abortion, all of this comes from the redefining of morality and all of that comes from removing the Judeo-Christian values from the American ethos.

The irony of course is that in America a country founded primarily by protestants (with a notable exception Charles Carroll of Carrollton who ironically was the last surviving signer or the Declaration dying in 1832) it is the Catholic Church that remains the most consistent  in standing for basic morality and the eternal truths that our founding fathers fought for.

I’ll give the last words to John Adams

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

and to Christ and the apostles from the Gospel of John

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?  What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?   It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh  is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.  But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.  And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.  We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

John 6:60 -69

Benjamin Martin: What did I tell you fellas about shooting?

Nathan & Samuel Martin:Aim small, miss small.

Benjamin Martin: Aim small, miss small. Boys.

The Patriot 2000

Over the last two months I’ve taken up several devotions that I had hitherto not prayed in the past.  One of them is the Chaplet of St. Michael which I found in the Pieta Prayer Book which is an excellent collection of assorted Catholic Prayers & Devotions that I found in the house (you know I can’t quite remember when or where I got it from).

The book calls for an act on contrition to be said before starting the chaplet and provides the following one on page 15.

O my god.  I am heartily sorry for all my sins.  Because of them I deserve the eternal pains of hell, but mos of all because I have offended Thee my God who art all good and deserving of all my love.  I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace to confess my sins, to do penance, to avoid the proximate occasion of sin, and never to sin anymore.  Amen.

Although I said and continue to say this prayer before beginning my chaplet for the first few weeks I would tend to think or even add aloud, something like “doing the best I can” rather than “resolving never to sin anymore”.  It hit me that this was an unrealistic goal and my wife noted the same as she read the prayer aloud for me one day when we were driving.

But as I’ve read the scriptures more and more, studied the Catechism (yes I know I’m behind on my series the next part is in progress) read Catholic scholars  and listened to EWTN it occurred to me that questing the resolution “never to sin anymore”  was a trap so obvious one that I’m rather ashamed I missed it.

Consider this passage from Paul’s letter to the Romans

Through him we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith, for the sake of his name, among all the Gentiles, among whom are you also, who are called to belong to Jesus Christ; to all the beloved of God in Rome, called to be holy.

Romans 1:5-7a

Paul here is calling upon Christians to be holy, to be Saints and in doing so is simply echoing the direct call of Christ in the sermon on the mount

So be perfect,  just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:48

Note what Jesus is saying here.  He is not saying:  “Try your best”  He is not saying, “You’re only human so you certainly can’t reach the perfection of God.”  he says directly:  Be Perfect, just like God is.  and in the preceding verses he gives directly examples of what this perfection is.

You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’  But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

MT 5:21-22

  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’  But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  

Mt 5:27-28

 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’  But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mt 5:31-32

 “Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.  But I say to you, do not swear at all; … Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.

Mt 5:33-34a, 37

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’  But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. 

Mt 5:38-39a

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.  

Matthew 5:43-45

The natural reaction to these demands is something like this:  Seriously?  I’m not supposed to get mad at that idiot brother of mine? I’m supposed to look at Lynda Carter or Kate Upton and just think, “what nice girls”?  I’m supposed to stick with that pain in the neck spouse,  always tell the truth when I speak?  And not only am I supposed to let people just step on me.I’m supposed to love them when they do?  That does Christ  expect me to be?  A saint?

Yes, as a matter of fact he does.

And to be a saint means resolving not to sin, in fact it means even avoiding situations that might lead to sin.

Now this isn’t an easy task, but when Ron Washington managing the Texas Rangers hands the ball to Joe Saunders (0-5 6.13 ERA) does he say:  “You aren’t good enough to get those guys out, just throw the ball & do your best?”  Do the coaches of the last place Sixers, Houston Texans or Buffalo Sabers tell their players to get out on that court, field and ice and show them you can lose or to play for a tie?

Christ sends us out there to win, and he gives us the church as our coach, a church that has not only studied his perfect game plans but has studied the examples of those who have followed those game plans the best (the saints) to help us along.

And if we fail, he even provides us with the sacrament of Confession to allow us to put those failures behind us along with daily & weekly mass to be coached back on the winning track.

That resolve to not sin anymore, that means something it sets a high standard and that’s what we want.   If we set our goal for the perfection of heaven we have purgatory to cleanse us small failures to get us the rest of the way and will rejoice forever.

But if we fall for the Devil’s trap and resolve just to sin a little or not to do BIG sins, if we set our aim for purgatory or just good enough to avoid damnation we’ll fail, because the same cross winds that the devil will throws as we aim for the bullseye will be there if we just aim for the target and he will be very happy to welcome us to his kingdom if we fail.

Aim Small, Miss small.


*****************************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

July Rolls on and our hope of getting back to back months of meeting our financial goals continues

If you think this coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below and help keep the bills paid.

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 58 more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.

Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?

 

One of the things that has been a constant in the Pontificate of Pope Francis is his encouragement of the faithful to the Sacrament of Confession.

The Sacrament of Confession is one of the most powerful graces of the church. It doesn’t matter how horrible the sin is or even if you spent a lifetime in the most horrible sins. The Sacrament of confession allows one to wipe the slate clean, as one priest put it: Forgiven, Forgotten, Forever!

A basic tenet of Confession is the confessional seal a priest can not under pain of Excommunication divulge what is revealed in confession (although the person receiving confession may choose to do so). This is critical particularly with serious sin. People in general do not like to admit mistakes in trivial matters. How much harder must it be when you are dealing with horrible and embarrassing sins, sins that have been weighing people down for decades, sins serious enough to cause damnation?

And that’s why this story is so important:

The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that a priest must testify in a case about what he heard in a confessional — an order that would result in automatic excommunication and damnation, according to the doctrine and canon law of the Catholic Church:

This has produced a statement from the archdiocese that says in part.

A foundational doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church for thousands of years mandates that the seal of confession is absolute and inviolable. Pursuant to his oath to the Church, a priest is compelled never to break that seal. Neither is a priest allowed to admit that someone went to confession to him. If necessary, the priest would have to suffer a finding of contempt in a civil court and suffer imprisonment rather than violate his sacred duty and violate the seal of confession and his duty to the penitent.

This is not a gray area in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. A priest/confessor who violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic excommunication reserved for forgiveness to the Apostolic See in Vatican City, Italy.

In this case, the priest acted appropriately and would not testify about the alleged confessions. Church law does not allow either the plaintiff (penitent) or anyone else to waive the seal of confession.

Canon Law is very explicit on this:

Can. 983 states that “The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.” The punishment for breaking the seal is explicitly noted in Can. 1388: “A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae [by the commission of the act] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.”

There is one oddity here, while the diocese says the seal can NOT be released even at the request of the penitent several online Catholic sources say otherwise including Simona Fisher at the National Catholic Register:

However, a penitent may give a priest permission to talk about what was confessed. The penitent may release him from the seal.

and Fr. William Saunders at Catholic Education.org

However, a priest may ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to discuss the confession with the person himself or others. For instance, if the penitent wants to discuss the subject matter of a previous confession — a particular sin, fault, temptation, circumstance — in a counseling session or in a conversation with the same priest, that priest will need the permission of the penitent to do so. For instance, especially with the advent of “face-to-face confession,” I have had individuals come up to me and say, “Father, remember that problem I spoke to you about in confession?” I have to say, “Please refresh my memory,” or “Do you give me permission to discuss this with you now?”

Or if a priest needs guidance from a more experienced confessor to deal with a difficult case of conscience, he first must ask the permission of the penitent to discuss the matter. Even in this case, the priest must keep the identity of the person secret.

This is a rather important thing to clarify, is the ability of the penitent to release the seal limited to conversation with themselves or conversation concerning advice concerning the sin?  You will note in Fr’ Saunders example even with the release the priest can’t give the identity of the penitent.

It’s worth noting that the civil suit in question is being brought by the family of a penitent who wants the priest to corroborate the testimony of the penitent herself concerning a person unconnected to the church that supposedly abused her.  The priest is not accused of abuse here but the civil suit names both the late alleged abuser, her confessor and the church as defendants:

The petitioners claimed Bayhi was negligent in advising the minor regarding the alleged abuse and failed his duty as a mandatory reporter in compliance with the Louisiana Children’s Code. It also holds the diocese liable for failing to properly train the priest regarding mandatory reporting of sexual abuse of minors.

As this case has been through the courts for years it’s logical to assume that the Diocese interpretation is correct, after all if there was any confusion concerning it the family could have requested clarification from the vatican as this case has been going through the courts for years and was ruled on by a lower court (which upheld the confessional seal).

So what is going on here? I have a thought.

I think the purpose of the suit over the confessional seal wasn’t so  much to get the priest to testify, but to ensure he did not.

Let’s assume for a moment that if the priest testified and confirmed that yes indeed the girl confessed as she stated.  This would actually tend to excuse both the Diocese and himself.  Not only would any advice he gave would be subjective but as he is specifically forbidden to act upon any information he received under his obligation under the confessional seal he can not be considered negligent for said action even if he was able to discern who the person confessing was.

And of course such testimony would cover the Diocese as well as they certainly couldn’t:

#1 Train him based on events they didn’t know about

#2 Train him to violate the confessional seal.

However consider what a jury might think if the priest doesn’t testify in fact fights all he way to the supreme court to avoid it.

That might cause a civil jury to think that he and the Diocese has something to hide and given the history of the abuse scandal that would likely not be hard to sell to a jury.   (And for that ease the Church bears full responsibility as their cowardice in being more concerned with avoiding scandal than promoting righteousness led to that state).

But in order to get this effect they would have to demonstrate an attempt to get the priest to testify, thus they launch the suits in hopes of getting the Diocese to settle to avoid a possible bad result and if that didn’t get the desired settlement the expectation of defeat would still produce the ability to imply the refusal of the priest to testify meant he had something to hide.

Victory in that confessional seal suit however is a disaster for the civil case.

You must remember any penalties the priest would be subject to are civil rather than criminal.  With only cash at risk If a priest chooses to go to jail  for contempt rather than testify suddenly instead of looking like a person trying to hide something he becomes a person willing to go to jail when he doesn’t have to, for the sake of principle.

The plaintiff of course might have hopes that the US Supreme Court might reverse Louisiana but I have to believe that our friends on the left will be doing all they can to win this case for the sake of upending the sacrament.

And that’s the irony here, the goal is money and the path to that goal seems to be the destruction of the sacrament and it’s reputation.

Which I think will serve the left just fine.

The latest in our series explaining & decoding the Catechism of the Catholic Church or what does the faith really proclaim.

In our last entry we talked about man’s answer to God’s revelation and ended on how they are expressed in the creeds of the Church.

The Catechism notes that there have been several creeds out there recognized by the church

192 Through the centuries many professions or symbols of faith have been articulated in response to the needs of the different eras: the creeds of the different apostolic and ancient Churches, e.g., the Quicumque, also called the Athanasian Creed;9The professions of faith of certain Councils, such as Toledo, Lateran, Lyons, Trent;10 or the symbols of certain popes, e.g., the Fides Damasi or the Credo of the People of God of Paul VI.

193 None of the creeds from the different stages in the Church’s life can be considered superseded or irrelevant. They help us today to attain and deepen the faith of all times by means of the different summaries made of it. Among all the creeds, two occupy a special place in the Church’s life:

The first is the Nicene Creed the Norm in the United States is that at every sunday Mass & on every Solemnity it is recited.  This creed is extremely significant as the Catechism notes:

195 The Niceno-Constantinopolitan or Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from the first two ecumenical Councils (in 325 and 381). It remains common to all the great Churches of both East and West to this day.

Two things to note about the Nicene Creed.  In the new translation of the mass from the latin the English translation of the creed is slightly different that it was at the time of the publishing of the Catechism.  That is why at so many churches there is a plastic card with the various new translation of the various prayers to aid people who have been saying particular phrases for half a century or more both translations are below:

The other is the Nicene Creed, it’s worth noting that the English Translation of the Nicene Creed from the Latin used in the mass has chanced since the Catechism was issued.  I include both versions below.

Creed in the CatechismWe believe in  one God, the Father Almighty,

    maker of heaven and earth,

    of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

        the only Son of God,

        eternally begotten of the Father,

    God from God, Light from Light,

    true God from true God,

    begotten , not made, one in Being

        with the Father.

    Through him all things were made.

    For us men and for our salvation

        he came down from heaven:

        by the power of the Holy Spirit

        he was born of the Virgin Mary,

        and became man.

    For our sake he was crucified

        under Pontius Pilate;

        he suffered, died, and was buried.

    On the third day he rose again

        in fulfillment of the Scriptures;

    he ascended into heaven

        and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

    He will come again in glory

        to judge the living and the dead,

        and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,

        the Lord, the giver of life,

        who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    With the Father and the Son

        he is worshiped and glorified.

    He has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic

        and apostolic Church.

    We acknowledge one baptism

        for the forgiveness of sins.

    We look for the resurrection of the dead,

        and the life of the world to come. 

 

 

Creed in new TranslationI believe in one God, the Father almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the Only Begotten Son of God,

  born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial

with the Father;

Through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate

of the Virgin Mary,

and became man.

For our sake he was crucified

under Pontius Pilate,

he suffered death and was buried,

and rose again on the third day

in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead

and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

who with the Father and the Son

is adored and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic,

and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins

and I look forward to the resurrection

of the dead and the life of the world to come.

It should be noted that a dispute concerning the “Filoque” is significant historically but I’ll touch on that when the Catechism does.

The other creed regular prayed by Catholics is the Apostles creed which is prayed in the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy

I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary
Under Pontius Pilate He was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

In some countries the Apostle’s creed is the norm at mass but both are included in every Catholic Mass missal I’ve ever seen.  As the Catechism puts it

194 The Apostles’ Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles’ faith. It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is “the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith”.

 

The importance of the creeds can not be overstated.  They are the basic agreed upon pronunciation of what Christians actually believe and in the case of the Nicene Creed can be directly traced to a counsel of the early church saying exactly what true Christian is supposed to believe. (the latin “Credo” means “I believe”)

The Catechism at this point goes all in on the Apostles Creed.   The rest of this section, the next three chapters deals with the this creed phrase by phrase to explain  what it means and what the belief it professes signifies.

And that is where we will pick up next time.

 

The latest in our series explaining & decoding the Catechism of the Catholic Church or what does the faith really proclaim.

Last time we went into some detail on the truths of Apostolic succession and tradition are inspired by the Holy Spirit and commissioned by Christ and that they are not independent of but complementary to scripture

Now let’s talk some scripture

One of the most amazing anti-Catholic canards is the Catholics don’t read the bible or discourage the same, every single mass every single day 2-3 passages of scripture are read and homilies given from them. In the same way that Christ came to earth and spoke in the form of man the Holy Spirit of God through inspired scripture speaks in the written language (101) and the idea that the Catholic Church has little use for scripture is frankly an absurdity as the Catechism says:

102…You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”.  “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.

And that scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit says what God wanted said and does so accurately.

In one sense there is some irony here.  Muslims call Christians “The People of the Book” but while this might be true of some Sola Scriptura Protestants who were 1000 years in the future when Muhammad wrote the Koran this is not an accurate description of the Catholic Church

108…Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, “not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures.

Understanding scripture requires the ability to interpret it, so how does the church know what scripture really means?

Well if you want to know what a person is talking about you have to take into account the language they are writing in, the customs of the people their culture, style and how they lived.  An excellent example comes from of all places the movie Back to the Future:

Marty McFly:   Whoa. This is heavy.

Dr. Emmett Brown:   There’s that word again. “Heavy.” Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the Earth’s gravitational pull?

Doc Brown is a scientist Marty McFly is a teen but Doc can’t understand Marty because he doesn’t know the culture, just like  For  if a person in 1840 saw the sentence.  “Katy Perry is cool” they would assume she needed to come in and sit next to the fire and warm up.

111…The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

112 Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover…

That’s an important point, there was a person a few days ago who kept hitting me with a single verse but would consider nothing else, always beware when a person who uses a single verse standing alone like a club.

…The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.

Another key point remember after his resurrection he opened the apostles hearts to scripture (Luke 24:25) and on the road to Emmaus he explained scripture to the disciples who didn’t recognize him till the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:27-35)

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).

This is important, because the same people who wrote scripture were the followers & disciples of Christ who handed down the traditions that have been with the Church for nearly 2000 years, it’s in what the church has done from the very beginning and has continued to do.

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

Basically the truths of the Church make sense in God’s plan and Scripture confirms and explains these truths within the same.

Additionally it’s noted that Scripture is seen both has plan word. X happened to Y but events prefiguring others For example as mentioned in Eucharistic Prayer #1

Be pleased to look upon these offerings
with a serene and kindly countenance,
and to accept them,
as once you were pleased to accept
the gifts of your servant abel the just,
the sacrifice of abraham, our father in faith,
and the offering of your high priest melchizedek,
a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim

and of course Scripture instructs and allows us to observe the whole of God’s plan both through its words and events to guide us in our lives.

In the end as handed down through Christ and the Apostles it’s the job of the Church to figure out what scripture means but even more than that it was the Church that selected what Scripture is.

120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.

This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.

The full list was settled by Pope St. Damasus at the Counsel of Rome in 382 AD (over 1100 years before Martin Luther) and affirmed at councils in Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 & 419 AD ), Nicea 787  (700 yrs + before Luther) and  Florence (1438)

All of these predate Protestantism and then after Luther’s revision removing books & passages from the old testament the Church re-affirmed the canon of scripture at The Council of Trent (1545-1564) and Vatican I (1870)

There are many who try to minimize the old testament, in fact a Heresy called Marcionism claims it’s void but the Church strenuously object to this 

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

And of course as we said earlier God revealed his plan in stages as man could become accustomed to it.  Thus the old gets us to the New Testament and their most important part the Gospels.

125 The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour”.

And the Catholic Mass affirms this in how both the daily & Sunday Mass treats the Gospel.

If you are unfamiliar with the Sunday Catholic Mass the standard for is a reading from the Old Testament, followed by a Psalm, then a non Gospel reading from the New Testament (usually omitted in the daily mass except on feast days) During the Easter Season the old testament reading is usually replaced by a reading from Acts. Before the Gospel is read the entire congregation stands and the Priest (or an Ordained Deacon after being blessed by the Priest) declares the Gospel reading and the congregation all standing respond: “Glory to oh Lord”, at which point the Gospel is read, at the end of the reading the Priest or Deacon says: “The Gospel of the Lord” and the congregation responds “Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ”. Only then does the congregation sit.

Such is the primary of the Gospel that unlike the 1st or 2nd reading only a Deacon (after the Priest prays over him) or higher can read it at Mass. The only exception comes on Palm Sunday and Good Friday when the reading of the Passion of Christ from Matthew 26:14-27:66 Mark 14:1-15:47 or Luke 22:14—23:56 (Palm Sunday) or John 18:1-19:42 (Good Friday) is proclaimed with the Priest reading the words of Christ, various Deacons or lay people reading other lines and the whole congregation proclaiming the parts of the crowd calling for Christ’s Crucifixion.

After the Gospel comes the sermon usually based on one or all of the readings, often they are connected.in the sermon, as the Catechism says:

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

Bottom line no matter what your position, lay person, Priest, Bishop, Student, sacred scripture is like food for Christian life (141) and the Church declares most emphatically:

133 The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful… to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

That line from the Catechism should be memorized by every Catholic who gets told by a Protestant that we don’t believe in scripture, but more importantly it should be acted upon.

Thus has God through manifestation,  tradition oral & written and Scripture made himself known to man.  Now the Ball is in man’s court.

 

 

One of the things that I’ve made a point to do it over the years is watch MSNBC in the morning.

This brings two advantages, first of all it gives me n insight on what the left’s message & theme of the day is, but it also makes me stronger in my point.

If my arguments are of any value, they can stand up to the left arguments, and not the left’s arguments as repeated or spun by my friends on the right, but the left’s arguments in their own words.  (Much like my Bob Beckels on Da Magnificent Panel.

This is incidentally why the left is so adamant about keeping people from watching Fox news, they call it “Faux” news but they have actually created a “Faux” Fox in order to keep their own from hearing the right’s arguments in their own words

 

And that brings us to our secular humanist friends, who insists that Christians are simply ignorant people believing superstition.

One of the things I’ve noticed about such people in invariably will pull a verse, particularly from the old testament laws to hit Christians with.  It’s a great straw man when people have no familiarity with scripture but anyone who has read Acts concerning St. Peter and the council of Jerusalem could answer that without pausing for breath.

That being the case it would behove our secular humanist friends to become familiar with scripture, after all how can you critique what you don’t understand, or haven’t heard in context.  After all the scientific method involves actually studying things within their environment.

But where can they get such information and data in an organized way?  That’s easy the Daily Catholic Mass.

The Daily Catholic mass is the perfect way to understand scripture and prayer and the belief in it.  The prayers during the daily mass are crafted on a daily & organized basic, the same with the Eucharistic Prayers.   They are uniform throughout the country (with the occasional optional feast day) because this is nationally set a priest can’t spin it based on your presence.

But most important for your study is the scripture cycle.

Unlike the Sunday mass which operates on a three year cycle, the Daily Mass operates on a two year one.

Year one are Old testament readings grouped to tell a specific story, usually over the course of a week.  In Year two the 1st reading switches the the new testament letters.  Each year you get the full Gospel.

The Daily mass runs about 20 minutes in a local parish with the occasional high mass on a feast day.

If you are a humanist, who wants to make an intelligent case against Christianity it would make sense to invest 30 minutes a day 5 days a week to attend the Daily Mass, see Christians in their natural habitat, listen to their prayers, hear the scripture readings in their context that shape their beliefs.  Study them as they are, get the data needed to make your case against Christianity directly from the largest single denomination in the world.

Now is the perfect time because if you jump in at the start of July you’ll get half a year of old & half a year of new testament & the Gospels in full.  Of course if you want to do the full two year cycle for better data, that makes sense too.

So take up my challenge humanists, spend a year (or two) attending daily mass at a local church, the time it will costs you is a single sitcom a day and if nothing else the scripture references will give you a perspective on what many things within history & western civilization is built on.  See us as we are if you dare.

After all it’s the scientific thing to do.

The next in my series of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Today we examine Part 1 The Profession of Faith, Section 1 I Believe We Believe, and Chapter 2 God comes to meet man.

In our last piece we talked of the Catechism saying how man could know God by reason & his works but such knowledge by definition is limited by the capabilities of man.

Chapter 2 starts by noting that God decision to uncomplicate the matter:

50 …God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

The obvious question first question is all of this is why? This is answered in the last sentence of section 52:

52 God, who “dwells in unapproachable light”, wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son. By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity.

That’s a radical situation God creation rather than simply being a servant or a slave as Islam teaches. The concept of a man becoming a son of God is an astonishing evolution.

But such an evolution, shocking and dramatic that it is, has to come gradually.

53…St. Irenaeus of Lyons repeatedly speaks of this divine pedagogy using the image of God and man becoming accustomed to one another: the Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man in order to accustom man to perceive God and to accustom God to dwell in man, according to the Father’s pleasure.

This is basic common sense, as any parent knows a child has to be taught slowly, any person trying to learn a skill is brought along slowly till it can be mastered.

The revelations begin with Adam (54) and while that initial link was corrupted by sin (55) such links continued with Noah (56) but while God tries to nurture that link, sin, particularly pride leads to man error and the perversion of that link (57) leading to polytheism, idolatry and paganism, but even so upright men from Melchisedek to Job still give the example of righteousness.

This is key. Even in the lowest times, even in the midst of disaster there are those who recognize God and walk in his ways. It’s an important reminder particularly as things look so poor today.

It is at the point when things are looking low God makes his move choosing Abram who becomes Abraham (59)

60 The people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people, called to prepare for that day when God would gather all his children into the unity of the Church. They would be the root on to which the Gentiles would be grafted, once they came to believe.

This is an important point, the root is Abraham and the people of Israel and it is from and through that root that we are united to and to deny that root, to attack that root or to poison that root is to poison ourselves and that root was made strong by the saints of he old testament of Israel. And yes the Catechism is rather specific about that designation

61 The patriarchs, prophets and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honoured as saints in all the Church’s liturgical traditions.

That includes the holy women of the Old testament that the Catechism also notes (64) and it’s those prophets that lead to the final great revelation that of Christ.

And that revelation of Christ is the ultimate public revelation to the world and the Catechism makes it plain from in quoting St. John of the Cross

65…In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word – and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

Christ is the ultimate revelation but man being man continues to only slowly grasp it over time, but this also doesn’t mean that God has spent the last two centuries twiddling his thumbs either and thus comes the subject of private revelation.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history…

As not part of the deposit of faith they are not “required belief”. For example to be a Catholic one must believe the resurrection of Christ, one does not have to believe the Fatima apparitions, but the church using its discernment judges if such private revelations are worthy of belief, the bottom line:

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain non Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

If something claims to change Christ the or his teaching, it Bogus as the Son is his Father’s definitive Word;(73) and that definite revelation is to and is meant for the entire world for all time.

But that leads to the obvious question, how does the Church interpret what Scripture is what is says and what is actually revelation when it’s all happened 2000 years ago?

Well that’s a vital question and will have to wait for the next post.

The family is the primary unit in the state; do not tolerate any legislation which would introduce into the family those practices which are opposed to the natural law of God.

Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae 1968

CNN is running a series on the 60’s a chance to celebrate the time of some of the left’s greatest victories, but today let’s consider the other side of the coin.

If you ask members of the left what the low point of the 60’s were to them the first things out of their mouths would likely be the assassinations of either JFK, MLK or RFK.

The reality is of course quite different the murders of all three men helped the left immensely not only because they became martyrs for their causes but if you consider how a JFK 2nd terms would have run, how a MLK would have reacted to the destruction of the black family & how RFK would have reacted to abortion on demand, all in all I suspect they were much happier to have dead heroes they could shape in their image rather than live men who were strong enough to clash against their realities.

No if you had to pick the moment in the 60’s for the left that was the biggest disappointment, the most serious defeat, the single moment that confounded their goals the most during the 1960’s, it would be Thursday July 25th 1968.

That was the day Pope Paul VI released his encyclical Humanae Vitae

Post Vatican II the left had high hopes for this letter, with the liberalization of the mass the idea that the Church would follow the cultural changes rocking the western world, becoming more liberal on the subject of sex, on contraception and perhaps even abortion was considered not just a real possibility but perhaps even an inevitability.

This encyclical which the press & the left knew was coming was going to be the exclamation point on these changes and as the introduction was read aloud one might expect that change was coming

The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.

The fulfillment of this duty has always posed problems to the conscience of married people, but the recent course of human society and the concomitant changes have provoked new questions. The Church cannot ignore these questions, for they concern matters intimately connected with the life and happiness of human beings.

And when you got to the letter itself it began so hopefully for the left acknowledging the fears they were promoting but the causes they were fighting for:

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

It asked the question that the left wanted asked

3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort?Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

Ha!  The moral norms of the time required heroic effort, families had to be planned “rationally” as this letter progressed it looked so promising.

Even more important the Previous Pope had set up a commission to study these questions:

5. The consciousness of the same responsibility induced Us to confirm and expand the commission set up by Our predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, in March, 1963. This commission included married couples as well as many experts in the various fields pertinent to these questions. Its task was to examine views and opinions concerning married life, and especially on the correct regulation of births; and it was also to provide the teaching authority of the Church with such evidence as would enable it to give an apt reply in this matter, which not only the faithful but also the rest of the world were waiting for.

When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply grateful to all those concerned.

All the Ducks were in a row, the experts, the press and those who wished change to this last bastion of orthodox theology the walls were about to come tumbling down , then you got to section 8….

Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.

that was a bad sign for the left and it would get worse for the free love crowd in section 9.

Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.

I can hear their voices nearly a half a century later:  ” What’s this responsibility crap? Wasn’t he just talking about virtue taking heroic effort?”

Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare.”

Amanda Marcotte  was years away from being conceived yet I imagine her anguished scream echoing through time.

It continued to get worse for the left, in section 10 you had the Pope saying men had to exert control over his drives & emotions and that they are bound by the laws of God

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

and the body blows kept coming section 11 talked of Natural law & the “intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” a connection ‘ man on his own initiative may not break” (12)  is “in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.”(13) and explicitly excluded abortion, sterilization or ” any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.” (13 & 14)

Even worse in Section 17 he talked about the consequences of such choices

Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

this suggestion is the ultimate irony, at the height of the sexual revolution Pope Paul VI is arguing that birth control & abortion widely available will lead to the sexual objectification of women and he’s making that case in 1968.

Here in 2014 we can see this result clearly, how surprised might some modern women be to read a Celibate Pope seeing it a half century ahead.

And how much more might some people fighting the Obamacare mandate today be to read this:

Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. 

Pope Paul finished by calling for the promotion of Chastity for the common good & the public condemnation of social communication that promotes the opposite  (22) ” It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture or by pleading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities.”

and then addresses those with public authority (23), Scientists (24), Christian Couples (25) Doctors & Nurses (2&), Priests (28), Bishops (30).

So many liberals in the church, particularly in the clergy and those religious sisters who would be the LCWR today were convinced that this encyclical letter would say the exact opposite and their intent to ignore & undermine these teaching had a lot to do with the events described in Donna Steichen’s Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism in fact one might argue that it was this letter that produced their “Ungodly Rage”.

But the real rage was beyond those within the church who wanted to remake the body of Christ into their own image, it is those who were never part of the church. When you look at the fight against abortion, when you look at the defense of Marriage, and the case against the new modern cultural “norms” you see the Church at the forefront, furthermore you saw Popes like St. John Paul II & Benedict XVI making the fight.

Look at how so many institutions, political parties and even the Protestant denominations have folded over the years to the left, without the catholic Church what large worldwide organization would be there to oppose them, where would the world be today if Paul VI had written what so many in the world from the media to the NGO’s and many in the church wanted him to write instead of what the Holy Spirit intended?

Instead on contraception, gay marriage & to some degree abortion, even as rebels in the church try to undermine it, the church has stood like a rock and while things look bad right now (and will get worse) the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

And it will be that Rock that stood firm nearly 50 years ago upon which this fleet will eventually strike.

**************************

Olimometer 2.52

This blog exists as a full-time endeavor thanks to your support. The only check I draw to pay for this coverage and all that is done is what you choose to provide.

For a full month I ask a fixed amount $1465.

With the exception of January, 2014 remains a very lean year for our blog fiscally, If we can draw a mere $50 a day that will be reversed.

If you think this coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below and help keep the bills paid.

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.

Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?

 

The next in my series of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Today we examine Part 1 The Profession of Faith, Section 1 I Believe We Believe, and Chapter 1  Man’s capacity for God.

If you’re going to talk about faith you have to talk about belief,  the Catechism addresses this first by looking at the subject in general arguing that this is an innate part of man and that God draws men to him noting that Man has been searching for God since day 1.

28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behaviour: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:

There have been studies suggesting man is “Hardwired” to believe in God but that hard wiring can be overridden for many reasons:

29 But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man. Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

These are all things we’ve heard:  The day before I wrote this I was tweeted


It’s a variant “Why would a good God allow evil” but this comes in all flavors, Modern culture belief, narcissism, basic evil, fear (some of the greatest believers spent plenty of their early lives fleeing from God, and the least favorite scandalous behavior by believers.

People searching for God have two basic path to discover him, one of these methods is simply to look at the world around him.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made…

While the Catechism doesn’t put it this way I look at the mathematics and the odds and they simply scream God meanwhile there is humanity itself, are we just another animal, is there anything more?  The basic and one might even say instinctive and the basic moral codes in fact the conclusion of the existence of God

34 Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.

And this is a conclusion that can come via reason (though not without difficulty as Pope Pius XXII notes #37).  That’s  important because…

39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

And it’s that function that keeps us trying to help other get there

49 Without the Creator, the creature vanishes. This is the reason why believers know that the love of Christ urges them to bring the light of the living God to those who do not know him or who reject him.

Penn Jillette the noted atheist of all people noted this:

Believe me it would be a lot easier to not worry and let people burn but given what Christ went through for us, that would be kinda low.

Another day and another attempt to spin the faith by the left & via Time magazine.

Pope Francis and the Catholic Church increasingly have little patience with libertarian economic thought: this will clearly pose a problem to some lawmakers in Washington.

Oh does he? You mean the Pope is not in favor of paying ones bills or not spending what you don’t have? As a person who read the same documents in full that’s news to me.

And it would be news to the author of Samuel Gregg who authored  Tea Party Catholic: The Catholic Case for Limited Government, a Free Economy, and Human Flourishing. but that book needs to be ignored, why?

It was roundly rejected by Catholic progressives in the United States, most notably the National CatholicReporter’s Michael Sean Winters.

In other words it was roundly rejected by Catholics who don’t follow the church’s teachings and the paper Father Z calls the “National Schismatic Reporter”

The Washington Post being the Washington Post ran with the story of a conference that our Time Magazine opinion writer is going with

In Washington this week, the cardinal some consider the pontiff’s “vice-pope’’ mocked them outright at a conference called “Erroneous Autonomy: The Catholic Case against Libertarianism.” The Religion News Service story on the smackdown of trickle-down ran under the headline, “Catholic and libertarian? Pope’s top adviser says they’re incompatible.”

It was interesting to see how opposing views were handled

The Rev. Robert A. Sirico, of the Michigan-based libertarian Acton Institute, said the conference seemed designed to “create a straw man, shoot it down, and make political hay,” but did not accurately define or reflect views held by any but the most “extreme Randians or anarchists.” Not only is the market far from unfettered, he said, but there’s evidence that its expansion lifts people up rather than leaving them behind.He was invited to come and sit in the audience and be instructed, he said, but no libertarian Catholic was asked to speak or sit on a panel at the day-long event.

but that wasn’t the purpose of these people:

One of the conference organizers, Michael Sean Winters, whose anti-libertarian work the cardinal quoted extensively at the top of his remarks, said the event was very consciously not a debate, in the same way that during the Cold War, “the objective wasn’t to dialogue with communism; it was to defeat it.”

It’s a cute attempt to spin a false moral equivalence between fiscal libertarianism & the mass murder of millions and persecution of the church under communism almost as bad as the attempt to equate Libertarians argument about taxes with NARAL’s defence of killing children in the same piece.

(There is a reason why both the Post & the Time piece are classified as “Opinion”.

What kind of person makes such a ridiculous argument? Well in Time magazine it’s this guy…

Christopher Hale is a senior fellow at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. He helped lead national Catholic outreach for President Obama’s re-election campaign.

Surprise surprise, a  man who spent the last 6 years selling the most pro-abortion and anti-Catholic president of my lifetime to the clueless & uninformed strikes again.

Well given that the Democrats supports objective evil (abortion), considers marriage as defined by the church as bigotry and is specifically attacking the church through Obamacare they certainly can’t make the case for believing Catholics voting Democrat, therefore the plan is to make the case AGAINST the tea party.

There’s two problems with this plan, the first is reality.  The left’s economic policies don’t lift people out of poverty, it keeps them in it:

“The income gap between rich and poor tends to be wider in blue states than in red states. Our state-by-state analysis finds that the more liberal states whose policies are supposed to promote fairness have a bigger gap between higher and lower incomes than do states that have more conservative, pro-growth policies. . . . According to 2012 Census Bureau data (the latest available figures), the District of Columbia, New York, Connecticut, Mississippi and Louisiana have the highest measure of income inequality of all the states; Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, Hawaii and New Hampshire have the lowest Gini coefficients. The three places that are most unequal—Washington, D.C., New York and Connecticut—are dominated by liberal policies and politicians. Four of the five states with the lowest Gini coefficients—Wyoming, Alaska, Utah and New Hampshire—are generally red states.”

via Glenn, but their second problem is something a lot of secular and low information voters have missed.  While the left has done well in the culture wars in general there is a 2nd culture war that has taken place in the Catholic Church and while the secularists & liberals have been highly successful in the former, they have failed miserably in the latter as liberal orders are dying out while conservative ones are drawing vocations and conversions.

The irony of course is that fiscal libertarianism is not where the conflict with the church exists, it’s on social issues where strong libertarians most disagree with the church but since those positions tend to align with the left one can’t make that case to the faithful.

So if the left can’t win the faithful catholics to their cause the plan is to keep the nominal mass skipping Catholics as misinformed for as long as possible.

*********************************************

Olimometer 2.52

This blog exists as a full-time endeavor thanks to your support. The only check I draw to pay for this coverage and all that is done is what you choose to provide.

For a full month I ask a fixed amount $1465.

With the exception of January, 2014 remains a very lean year for our blog fiscally, If we can draw a mere $50 a day that will be reversed.

If you think this coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below and help keep the bills paid.

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.

Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?