Ha! At Acts of the Apostasy. Though I need to talk to LarryD for stealing my ideas before I have thought of them.
The Democratic Party has come out with a new logo and I have to admit the design is pretty good. Nice and simple with a good color theme. Follows the ubiquitous Obama logo and repeats the change meme. Hey it worked in the last election and no doubt change is coming on November 2nd.
Though while the logo is quite good I think it needs some improvement. When I first saw it I saw the circled D as OD and overdose is a good definition of the modern Democratic which has OD’ed on spending. But no that is only one aspect. Here is a much more accurate logo.
Now that is much closer to the modern Democrat party which will do anything to advance abortion, Embryonic Stem-Cell Research, Euthanasia and pretty much all aspects of life and death. They don’t really need a new logo, but to follow the Logos.
I admit to being partisan in that I believe in most of the principles of conservatism (now if only the Republican politicians also did so). Yet I would be much happier if the only things Democrats and Republicans disagreed on were prudential approaches to solving problems instead of selecting lesser evils. As it stands though now the Democrats support multiple intrinsic evils and the Republicans dismiss the intrinsic evil of torture.
While the Democratic Party remains the Party of Death, for me this will be a more apt logo for them.
As 18 doves flew into the skies over the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament Saturday night, more than 100 diverse Sacramentans blessed copies of the Quran with roses of love.
Again and again they uttered the refrain, “Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me” at the entrance to the downtown church framed by white statues of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. A musician with a white guitar accompanied them.
Representatives of Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, B’hai, Mormon, Sikh, Vedic Druid and Muslim beliefs read scriptures from the great religious texts – including six verses from the Quran calling for all faiths to live in harmony.
Irfan Haq, speaking on behalf of Sacramento’s Muslims, told the rose bearing crowd outside the cathedral, “On this day September 11 – this day of infamy and darkness – what we are witnessing is a new beginning for Sacramento, for America – this is the America the world needs to see.” [Source]
This is just as dumb if not dumber than burning Korans. You show religious tolerance by respecting those with other beliefs and supporting religious freedom. You show religious Indifferentism by blessing or holding sacred what you don’t believe to be either. You respect the beliefs of others because of their human dignity not necessarily because of the beliefs themselves. I am not any way offended if a non-Christian does not consider the scripture to be sacred or holy. In fact I would be more offended if they do so against their own belief.
It is especially dumb that Catholics were involved in this travesty. The Koran is the invention of either a liar, mad man, or someone demonically deceived. Islam is simply a Christian heresy that arose from the heresies of the time of Mohammad in his region and cobbled together other ideas You don’t bless heresies. You can call what is good and true in the Koran to be good and true and being a Christian heresy there are certainly those aspects in the Koran. But as a whole this book teaches error that leads people astray. Blessing a book that says that Mohammed is the last prophet and that he received his message from Archangel Gabriel is to bless lies. Catholics blessing a book that says Jesus is not divine and denies the Trinity is a rather odd target for a blessing.
I can only hope the Archdiocese did not give permission for this.
So exactly what is this? Another brilliant parody form perhaps Creative Minority Report, Acts of the Apostasy, or any of a number of excellent Catholic blogs which engage in parody? Sadly I wish this was the case, unfortunately it is from an actual pamphlet from the Papal Visit Team of “helpful terms” for I guess the media and others.
“Where are you going?”, “I am going to the Holy Sacrifice of the Gig to see Jesus’ Headline Act for a enjoyable, fun, and exciting time.
As bad and misplaced as this pamphlet is, it is not surprising in the least. It is the very mindset of so many people who would make the Church “Relevant.” And as often is the case their idea of relevant is an antonym for reverence. This is the idea of bringing the Church up-to-date which also often manages to throw the “baby Jesus” out with the bath water (or Holy Water in this case). The Madison Avenue approach of appealing to Catholics and others by transforming truths into buzz words.
Again we have more good intentions providing building supplies for highway constructions to a certain point South.
I really have to laugh at the word “Liturgist” becoming “Performer, Artist”, surely this is exactly how so many of the modern liturgist view themselves. The heck with delving into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and trying to under the theological aspects and the historical developments – hey lets turn it into an Improv where the text of the Liturgy are semi-guidelines which can be expanded upon or removed. Still I ponder the development of the word Liturgist – which seems to be a modern invention. A true student of the liturgy like Romano Guardini and of course our present Pope would hardly think of themselves as liturgists. It is easy to see looking at for example the Masses at the annual L.A. Religious Conference the Performer Artist aspect of the liturgist.
This pamphlet also reminds me of why I am a critic of Life Teen since what this pamphlet tries to do is pretty much exactly the same that Life Teen tries to do to present the Mass to teenagers. As if adding electric guitars and pop music provides a suitable way to bring Catholics deeper into the Mass and to develop a pattern of worship of God that will keep them coming back to Mass in the future when they are no longer teens. Plus why is it that Life Teen which was started by an abusing priest who is now excommunicated has not gotten the same treatment as the Legion of Christ? Sure there is a difference between a religious order and an apostolate, but both are based on a founder’s charism.
One positive thing about the pamphlet is that I guess it is good to see that members of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy form the 60s/70s managed to find new jobs.
Anyway, it’s a Sunday and I got a gig to go to.
I remember Mark Shea once writing that the culture which now, and properly, attacks priests for having sex with children will one day attack the Church for not condoning sex with children. This is not an exact quote, but since he is a fellow Chestertonian I doubt if he will mind.
I am reminded of this because of a new column by Peter Hitchens about Peter Tatchell who is prominent in the ‘Protest the Pope’ campaign. He reminds us of Peter Tatchell previous support of allowing sex with children.
For on June 26, 1997, Mr Tatchell wrote a start ling letter to the Guardian newspaper.
In it, he defended an academic book about ‘Boy-Love’ against what he saw as calls for it to be censored.
When I contacted him on Friday, he emphasised that he is ‘against sex between adults and children’ and that his main purpose in writing the letter had been to defend free speech.
He told me: ‘I was opposing calls for censorship generated by this book. I was not in any way condoning paedophilia.’
Personally, I think he went a bit further than that. He wrote that the book’s arguments were not shocking, but ‘courageous’.
He said the book documented ‘examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal’.
He gave an example of a New Guinea tribe where ‘all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood’ and allegedly grow up to be ‘happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers’.
And he concluded: ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures.
‘Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13.
‘None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’
Tip of the Jester’s hat to the reader who sent this in.
Much as been said about Stephen Hawking’s new book “The Great Design” and that he basically says the universe does not need God to exist. In his new book he writes a detailed explanation of his new equation proving that indeed matter can come from nothing. Forget ex nihilo nihil fit since his equation indeed shows that out of nothing matter can spontaneously arise. Hard to argue with the mathematical proofs he provided and of course as a brilliant physicist he would use the scientific method to prove his case. Someone devoted to science as he is wouldn’t venture into philosophy to make his case.
Oh wait – that is what he did. And as many atheistic philosophers before him he is a much better physicist than philosopher and makes rather simple philosophical errors. Intelligent Design is often critiqued as a non-science since it is not using the scientific method and arises with a volitional explanation. Though when Stephen Hawking’s does the same thing and enters the realm of philosophy and not repeatable experimentation I somehow doubt we will hear the same complaint. Only a very educated man could say something like “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist” and think that the statements means anything. Though I do believe in a spontaneous creation of BS. Fr. Barron replied to this statement.
Well, first of all, which is it: nothing or the law of gravity? There’s quite a substantial difference between the two. If Hawking is saying that the universe, which is marked in every nook and cranny by stunning and mathematically describable intellegibility, simply came forth from Nothing, then I just throw up my hands. The classical philosophical tradition gives us an adage that is still hard to improve upon: ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing comes nothing). Any teacher worth his salt would take a student to task if, in trying to explain why and how a given phenomenon occurred, the student were to say, “well, it just spontaneously happened.” Yet we are expected to be satisfied with precisely that explanation when it comes to the most pressing and fascinating question of all: why is there something rather than nothing? In my dialogues with atheists, I often come up against this total non-explanation, and I can only smile ruefully. Apparently, the affirmation of God involves far too great a leap of faith, yet the assertion that the universe just popped into being is rationally compelling!
It was scientist and Catholic Louis Pasteur who debunked the widely accepted myth of spontaneous generation and it is rather sad to see someone of Stephen Hawking’s status to advance a spontaneous generation of the universe out of nothing.
I also wonder if the title of his book was intentionally ironic. A book that in part denies God’s existence is called “The Grand Design”? I guess that would be spontaneously designer-less design. Really from the materialistic worldview shouldn’t it be named “The Random Happenstance”, “Inferring meaning on the universe for no reason”, or “Nothing Matters: How nothing spontaneously produced matter.” I really have to question his seeming first cause of the law of gravity existing and thus the universe can exist. Hmm, was there a originally just a chalkboard with the law of gravity written on it that exploded into the big bang? Someone smarter than me – and that doesn’t take much – can hopefully explain to me how gravity could exist without matter? We infer a scientific law based on observations, I didn’t realize that the law itself could create the matter we observe.
I do think the Stephen Hawking could do with the same reply that God gave Job and his friends in Job 38.
[1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:
[2] “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
[3] Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
[4] “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
[5] Who determined its measurements — surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
[6] On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
[7] when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Related Reading:
- Stephen Hawking should first consult a young child, then a dictionary, then…
- Stephen Hawking & More Tiresome Atheism
Update: Jimmy Akin reviews the book in the first of two posts on the subject and offers a good critique and the fact that the book does not deny the possible existence of God.
Despite opposition from Vatican, group officially welcomes new female priest
A woman was ordained as a Catholic priest in the Valley on Saturday in the kind of ceremony the Vatican recently condemned as one of the church’s most serious crimes.
Elaine Groppenbacher received holy orders from Bishop Peter Hickman of the Ecumenical Catholic Communion, one of several liberal Catholic offshoots in the Valley. The ceremony took place at Guardian Angels Catholic Community, which meets in Tempe. [Source]
And for the funniest line of the year.
A cradle Catholic, Groppenbacher said she began to drift from the Roman Catholic Church in college. She tried a non-denominational Bible church for a while, but realized, “Tradition is in my blood.”
Hmm, must have had a transfusion.
Funny how if a man such as Pope Michael I in Kansas declares that he is Pope he gets very little media attention because they know that he is not the Pope and has no valid claim to declare himself as such. Yet if some women gets someone from another church to say that she is a priest – well that is all fine and dandy and “official” don’t you know. It’s all about equality and discrimination and who cares about the theology of the priesthood anyway.
Really though I must admire these women for going against the hierarchy and staking their claim. In fact their example has encouraged me to do something that I have been hesitant about. Besides being faithful to the Church is not what it is cracked up to be following that narrow path and all. Thinking about the issue of equality I realize that it is not fair that I am not a Catholic priest. I am just as capable of saying Mass, hearing confessions, etc as any man who is a priest.
Just because I don’t have a vocation to the priesthood should not mean that I can’t be a priest. Being married is only a side issue. The fact is that the Church is persecuting me by saying that the priesthood is a vocation and that it is a vocation I don’t have. How is that fair? I have often thought about celebrating the Mass and saying the consecration, yet just because I don’t have a vocation to the priesthood I am barred from doing so. Thinking about what it is like to be a priest has been with me since I came into the Church. It is simple justice that I not be barred from the priesthood and thus it is a right and simple justice that the Church of male dominated hierarchy of men with vocations to priesthood should recognize my prophetic claim. Sadly though I see no movement in the Church recognizing my right to be a priest regardless of my actual vocation.
So I have decided to stand in faith and do something about this. I denounce the oppression of men without vocations. As of today I am officially starting the Men Without Priestly Vocations Ordination Conference. I hope to enroll like-minded men without priestly vocations to start this prophetic movement within the Church. We will seek to be ordained by people outside of the Catholic Church with no authority or even ability to ordain us to go ahead and ordain us making us Catholic Priests. In fact I am thinking about having a call to be a bishop within the Church and maybe even a Cardinal.
So if you have felt cheated for not having a priestly vocation and would still like to be a priest than the MWPVOC is for you.
Did you drop out of seminary because you did not a a vocation to the priesthood? If so the MWPVOC is for you.
Growing up did anybody ever tell you that you don’t have a vocation to the priesthood. The MWPVOC is for you too!
Ever think that the only think that separates you from your parish priest is that he has a priestly vocation and you don’t. Join the MWPVOC now.
Annoyed that women without vocations to the priesthood are getting all the attention? Then join us in the MWPVOC.
Just because Jesus picked the Apostles and the Holy Spirit gives vocations now should not stop you from appointing yourself as priest, especially if you feel you want to be a priest.
Plus if you join Men Without Priestly Vocations Ordination Conference we will send you a free media kit so that you can get attention for defiantly opposing the Roman Catholic Church and proudly proclaiming your prophetic status. Don’t worry you won’t have to know the theology of the priesthood when talking with reporters, just knowing the right buzz words and about how you are a devout Catholic and perhaps a sad story about wanting to be a priest yet being barred discriminated against because of a lack of vocations. The official Church does not admit men without sarcerdotal vocations even though in the early Church no doubt there were men without priestly vocations elevated to the priesthood. Rome has closed its ears to objections to the requirement of priestly vocations, but if we stand strong we will be heard as progress is finally made within the Church.
To kick off Men Without Priestly Vocations Ordination Conference we will be doing some advertisement during the upcoming papal visit.
* Fr. Powell, one of those men with a vocation to the priesthood, writes today On the impossibility of women’s ordination
It often seems that Catholic Charities is infected by the same problems that CCHD has. The national leadership and individual chapters are often run and staffed by people with a very narrow view of Catholic Social Teaching and not that infrequent with those who defy Catholic teaching. For example before Catholic Charities in Boston stopped doing adoptions because of the state law forcing homosexual adoptions, they had already been doing them somewhat covertly. The same pretty much occurred with Catholic Charities in San Francisco. Or you have the case of Catholic Charities of Richmond (CCR) for their involvement in procuring an illegal abortion for a 16-year-old Guatemalan girl in their care. It is hard to remember a statement from Catholic Charities that has made me cheer because of a strong defense of Catholic teaching. This does not deny the good work that Catholic Charities does do, but that does not erase the evil that sometimes occurs.
The latest bonehead decision of the national organization is to give the Centennial Medal to the Catholic Health Association. Yes the same group who defied the bishops and decided pushed for ObamaCare. Because I guess leading the way for public funding of abortion is oh so compassionate.
A passionate voice for compassionate care, the Catholic Health Association stands with the poor and disenfranchised and advocates for services and solutions that reflect dignity and respect for all people. CHA is the largest group of non-profit health care providers in the nation.
Yes an advocate for the poor and disenfranchised unless their current domicile is the womb.
Plus at their awards dinner they are having pretty much nothing but President Obama supporters who donated money to his campaign. It would be pretty hard to justify having super-biased Obama supporter and MSNBC reporter Norah O’Donnel be a main speaker, but alas they do.
“I think this is a very significant story and scandal. And I think one that could eventually bring down the Pope, I do. And I think that it’s going to rock the Catholic church. I think this is something that’s been simmering for a while. These allegations directly connect the scandal to the Pope. ” – Norah Donnell.
“I sent Maureen Dowd a note, because there need to be more woman in the church. And nuns have been cleaning up for priests for decades, if not centuries, and there needs to be more women in the Catholic church.” Norah O’Donnell.
Of course anybody who has actually been to a Mass or to the local diocesan offices will wonder where are all the men? But of course that is not what she is talking about, just a veiled call to woman’s ordination which Maureen Dowd was also whining about this year. Yeah, such a fine choice for a speaker.
I have given to Catholic Charities in the past. No more, I we go with a more accountable charity such as Food for the Poor.
Protests are planned throughout his four-day trip to England and Scotland, the first papal visit since John Paul II’s pastoral visit in 1982 and the first-ever official papal visit to Britain.
One group of women, Catholic Women’s Ordination (CWO), will have its message plastered on the side of the buses as they travel along key routes, including past Westminster Hall, at the Palace of Westminster, where the pope is set to deliver a speech to Britain’s civic society on September 17.
The group has paid 15,000 pounds ($23,130) for 15 buses to carry the message “Pope Benedict – Ordain Women Now!” for a month.
“We do not want to be disruptive, but I think the church has got to change or it will not survive,” CWO spokeswoman Pat Brown told Reuters.
“I am quite hopeful at the moment because I think the church is in disarray.” [Source]
Quick the Church is in disarray, let us take advantage of the situation to change dogma. Well I am sure the Arians felt the same way.
Actually I am quite concerned about this. We must protect the Pope from seeing such a bus sigs. Any exposure could lead him to deny the constant teaching of the Church and something infallibly defined by the ordinary magisterium. I mean the constant pressure of the very small amount of attempted women’s ordinations. Plus there are those protests by angry women on street corners with signs. I got to admit they really pulled out all the stops now springing for a bus advertising campaign. I mean how could you get more persuasive than a five-word slogan? Plus the rhetorical flourish of using the word “now” followed by an exclamation sign. Besides just because something is the will of Christ does not mean we should keep following it. If Jesus only knew about equality there would have been six women Apostles and his mother would have been one of them.
Update: Here is a funny parody on this subject from the always funny Alive and Young blog:
I am perplexed why 24% of the population would think an obvious atheist is a Muslim. — Catholic Minority Report on Twitter
Well the actual Pew research pew said it was up to 18% of people who believed that the President was a Muslim. What I thought was more interesting and much more of a story is that 46% answered down’t know to the question “What is Obama’s Religion?”, which was up from %36 percent. There is that old question of “What if you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” and it looks like almost half of America says no to this question. Seems doubtful that Americans would answer “don’t know” if this had been asked about President Bush. The President certainly does not wear his religion on a sleeve or any other article of clothing for that matter. Even among Democrats only 46% identify him as a Christian.
The answer that people thought he was a Muslim is of course what made the headlines because of course trying to broadcast the stupidity of people is what makes headlines, especially if you are trying to make a specific segment look dumb. But of course there were all those people who believed 9/11 was an inside job — so finding people who believe things such as this is no difficulty.
Now if I had to answer this poll question it would be rather difficult to answer. I certainly don’t think he is a Muslim. I think where the confusion comes into play is that he is very sympathetic to Muslims and his apparent buddying up with Muslims over Christians lends to that. His announcements at the start of Ramadan are much more of a event than a simple message he releases for the start of Lent. His first television appearance after becoming President was on Arab TV and his next two speeches were to Muslim leaders. It is quite obvious his friendliness to dominate Muslim countries with nary a word of rebuke for any human rights violations. To think of the President as a believing Muslim is to equate religious belief with appeasement. If Obama prays five times a day, it is to a mirror.
As to his being a Christian we should first look to the fact that he says he became a Christian after being raised in a non-religious background. So he could very well believe in Christ, but acting like the majority of progressive Christians in that they become radically inconsistent and have a version of social justice involving government that is in no way the fullness of Social Justice. Jesus says let the little ones come to me and Obama votes to send them to Jesus on a much earlier schedule then intended. Being so radically pro-abortion if he is indeed a Christian then he is a very wicked one. Hypocritical Christians are nothing new. He wrote very little about his conversion to Christ in his books and it was in light of seeing people from churches doing good and he would not be the first to convert for this very reason.
Now I move into the area of pure conjecture. I certainly can not read the President’s mind and to know with any certainty his actual belief in Jesus. As an armchair observer if I was going to guess the President’s religion by his actions I would say he was either an atheist or an agnostic. I would choose agnostic as more likely since it is a form of voting present, something that State Senator Obama had much practice at. He would not be the first politician who joined a church for reasons other than worship.
Ultimately it is really hard to separate some forms of progressive Christianity from atheism/agnosticism. They can both align on many of the same causes without feeling out of joint and when it comes to abortion the arguments for it are usually identical. The same can be said for many other issues such as euthanasia, same-sex marriage, etc.
Regardless I offer a simple prayer for the President. If he is not a Christian I pray he converts. If he is I pray he becomes a better one.
Which brings me to the next story that is getting so much attention and besides the world needs another pundit spilling pixels on the issue of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.
First off those that put this issue as a religious rights one are quite misguided. If no Mosques were allowed to be built in New York City or in any other city for that matter it would be another story. The question is not whether Muslims can build places of worship, they certainly have that right and living in a country which follows the God-given right of religious freedom they have been and are able to do so.
The real issue is a prudential one as to the location of this Mosque to be built. This is an area where people are certainly entitled to weigh in on this precisely because it is a prudential issue and not one involving rights. As is often the case too much of a debate gets involved in side issues and do not focus the attention where it should be.
We have heard that the builders of this Mosque/Islamic Center is for purposes intended towards reconciliation. This is certainly a laudable goal and just for the sake of argument let us say that this is indeed the actual motive. If I had a project whose aim was for reconciliation on a sensitive subject and as I proceeded I found that I was causing much more heat than light, I hope that I would see that my efforts for such a reconciliation were causing more harm than good. So if the prudential question is if they are causing more harm than good than I would say this building should be built elsewhere on this point alone. After all they could build an Islamic Center elsewhere in the city with the same goal and if their motive was actually reconciliation could show that there are indeed Muslims who find the attack on 9/11 repellent and not morally acceptable in any way’I find the side issue of the proposed building site not really being part of ground zero a rather odd one. Even if you consider a building actually damaged during the attack on 9/11 not part of ground zero it is still adjacent to the site and many of those who lost loved ones during the attack don’t see this a very effective argument.
Add in to this equation that the person behind this has said things in the past that were not intended towards reconciliation, you have to wonder about the motive behind this in the first place. Islamic Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf said “I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue.” and that the United States deserved the attack on 9/11. It is hard to see how this whole issue is not a deliberate provocation with not interest in reconciliation or religious dialogue. So if a Mosque/Center was to be build by ground zero than one of the last people who should do this would be him.
But like too many things a reasoned discussion on this is not possible because it gets mired in a topic not to the point such as religious freedom. The President framed his support based on this idea and ignored any prudential arguments on this. Interesting that the left often accuses the right of seeing things in black and white when really there are just so many shades of gray, yet they often do precisely this. I am so glad he is concerned about religious freedom and the next time a Catholic adoption agency is forced to close down because of state laws mandating homosexual adoptions he will be denouncing this action. No doubt he is already planning to write a speech denouncing the lack of religious freedom in the Muslim world and will be advocating that Saudi Arabia allow at least one Christian church to be built there.