The One Question a #Catholic Who Dissents With the Church Must Ask

This post is a result of the ongoing attacks on the Catholic Church by Anne Rice, a popular and very gifted writer, who returned to the Catholic Church in 1998. Before, she authored some of the most well-known series of vampire novels, several being made into movies. After her return to the Church, she wrote several fictional books about Jesus Christ, Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana and Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt.

Then, last summer (July 28, 2010 to be precise.), with great fanfare, she left the Church. But she didn't just leave, she had to explain her reasons:

"It was very painful," Rice tells NPR's Michele Norris. "But I've always been public about my beliefs, and I've always been public about wanting to make a difference."

Rice says although there were "last straws," there was no one event that caused her to reject organized religion.

"This is something that had been going on really almost from the beginning of my conversion in 1998," she says. "From the beginning, there were signs that the public face of Catholicism and the public face of Christianity were things that I found very, very difficult to accept."

Still, Rice says she tried her best to ignore the facets of Christianity she didn't support and concentrate on the ones she did. As time wore on, though — and as Rice continued to live and study as a Christian — "more and more social issues began to impinge on me," she says.

Rice says the final straw was when she realized the lengths that the church would go to prevent same-sex marriage.

"I didn't anticipate at the beginning that the U.S. bishops were going to come out against same-sex marriage," she says. "That they were actually going to donate money to defeat the civil rights of homosexuals in the secular society.

"... When that broke in the news, I felt an intense pressure. And I am a person who grew up with the saying that all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing, and I believe that statement."

Though the author's son Christopher is a gay rights activist — as well as a bestselling author in his own right — Rice says that his sexuality was not instrumental to her decision to forgo Catholicism.

From her original statement on The Huffington Post, Rice sums it up:

I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life.

I think Rice is being disingenuous when she claims that her son's sexuality was not instrumental in her decision to leave. Especially in light of her current crop of attacks on the Church where she focuses primarily on the Church's doctrine on homosexuality. (Link to her interview with her gay son, Christopher.) Fr. Longnecker provided an excellent observation of Rice's position with his post, Nice Anne Rice?

I will give credit to Rice for being honest. She has made it clear what doctrines of the Church she disagrees with, namely the refusal of ordaining women as priests and sanctioning same-sex marriage. Rice said something very important in the quote above: "From the beginning, there were signs that the public face of Catholicism and the public face of Christianity were things that I found very, very difficult to accept."

This can be said of almost every Catholic. There are doctrines that are hard doctrines and cause great struggle in our hearts and minds. We wrestle with these doctrines because we'd rather the Church didn't make such a fuss over it. We'd rather there not be such a clear delineation between beliefs we approve of (and the Church does not), and beliefs we do not approve of (But the Church does).

Rice is not alone in her questions. However, she, like many other dissenters I have observed, have not admitted to asking the one question that would make a huge difference.

It's a very simple question: Why?

Why does the Catholic Church believe the priesthood is only for men? Why does the Catholic Church not approve of same-sex marriage? Why does the Catholic Church reject contraception? Why does the Catholic Church condemn abortion?

Dissenters do not seem to be intellectually honest with their attacks on the Catholic Church, at least not that I know of. Too often, dissenters readily agree with modern culture and reject Catholic doctrine because it doesn't line up with popular political thought. I have to wonder how often someone questioning the Catholic Church really takes the time to understand why it believes what it believes; and, approach this inquiry with an open mind and heart, being willing to change if God shows them the truth.

It reminds me of high school. No young teen wants to stand out from her peers because she believes something different. No one wants to be ridiculed for being "uncool" by disagreeing with the majority.

And so it is with dissenters. Under the guise of "progress," they have quickly jumped on the bandwagon of other malcontents who ridicule the Church for being "backwards" and call her doctrines outdated. Somehow they believe that the issues that existed during Jesus' existence on earth were so far removed from our present-day concerns. It is as though some of them believe that Jesus Himself never presented difficult choices to His followers.

Here are a few:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it." - Matt. 10:34-39


"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. - Matt. 7:13-20


I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe."

For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." Jn 6:48:69

There are many, many more hard sayings of Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus constantly confronted the beliefs of the day and did things that were radically different from the status quo. He spoke to a Samaritan woman at the well when men didn't talk to women they didn't know, let alone a Jew speaking to a Samaritan. He supped with sinners and the unpopular tax collectors. He stepped in to save a woman from being stoned for adultery and forgave her. He praised the worship of an immoral woman while chastising the "righteous" men for not showing Him hospitality or compassion. (Notice how often He interacted with women? And praised them?)

There is story after story about Jesus loving people while condemning sin. He spoke in parables but the message is clear to those who will ask questions and listen. For every parable, every encounter with mankind, Jesus Christ preached forgiveness and freedom; forgiveness from sin, and the freedom that comes from obeying God and His commandments.

There is trust involved. Much trust. For the dissenters, that is a hard truth. Instead of trusting the Catholic Church that the doctrines she has passed down from generation to generation are the truths taught by Jesus Christ; they have chosen instead to believe that these doctrines were nothing more than the imaginings of powerful men who simply wanted to control everyone. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Accept Jesus Christ's teachings or reject them. But do not think that the Catholic Church has concocted beliefs that are contrary to His teaching. Jesus Christ's words are as powerful and radical today as they were over 2,000 years ago. And the crux of one's introduction to Him begins with the question He asked of Simon Peter: Who do you say I am?

Simon Peter's answer became the foundation for the Church. And it needs to be the foundation of any Catholic who has put their trust in Christ. Without it, He's relegated to "just another teacher" and the slide into secular humanism, will be a short one.

'America' Magazine's Name Calling of #Catholic Conservative Bloggers Misses Mark

America Magazine recently published an article written by Fr. James Martin regarding another article about conservative Catholic bloggers. I will start off by saying that I will strive for charity in my observations.

I agree with Fr. Martin regarding the overall tone of the Internet. When I first visited the Internet in 1997, it didn't take long to discover the virtual alley fights that occurred within the comment areas of online opinion pieces. It didn't bother me too much, though. Those who only commented to taunt and bait people, I learned, were called "trolls." They were often mocked and newcomers were told to "please don't feed the trolls." In other words, they were to be ignored.

I've ignored my share of trolls and also occasionally responded to their complete lack of intellectual honesty. But something is happening now within the Catholic blogosphere that I think is disingenuous. Which leads me to the article from America Magazine.

I was half-tempted to register with them just to leave a comment before saying, why bother? The slant of the article was offensive enough for a conservative Catholic and I'm not yet ready to accept the premise of it -- which is: Conservative Catholic bloggers are unloving and should take the log out of their own eye before judging someone else.

Unloving and Judgmental?

I've seen this argument before. It's usually hauled out when another Christian wants to defend either an erroneous belief or sin. Fr. Martin's position seems to indicate that constructive criticism is only available to those with a bunch of letters behind their names:

Second, many of these attack-bloggers betray little theological knowledge. It is one thing to be informed by a theological scholar with years of relevant experience working at the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for example, that your article or book or lecture is not in keeping with the tenets of the Catholic faith. Or to have your work critiqued by someone who has carefully considered your arguments and, after weighing what you say regarding the tradition, responds in charity. It is quite another to be attacked with snide comments by someone barely out of college who spends his days cherry-picking quotes and thumbing through the Catechism in an endless game of Catholic gotcha.

This line of reasoning is at complete odds with the belief that examination of the Church is for everyone -- not just those with a theological background. If I remember correctly, Jesus didn't hang out with the "theological" gurus of His day, He hung out with those who would receive Him, the simple as well as the wise. In fact, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple, although this does not mean easy. Centuries ago, it was an accepted belief by many Catholics that "only the priest" could read the Bible and tell them what it meant. I'll never forget when I attended a "Christ Renews His Parish" retreat with my mother; we were given our own Bibles and an elderly woman exclaimed in shock, "Oh, no! I can't read this! Only the priest can and then tell me its meaning!"

She was reassured by the retreat leaders that indeed, the Bible was written for her because God would use it to draw her closer to Him. So in other words, every Catholic has two very important books to help us draw closer to God and receive the graces of the Church: The Bible and the Catechism. As far as I'm concerned, I don't need to be working at the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in order to know what is aligned with Catholic doctrine and what isn't. All of the doctrine is clearly defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This was the whole point of having the Catechism. The fact that criticism is coming from "someone barely out of college" who uses the Catechism for direction (in which case I say "hoorah!" for that devoted young person), doesn't matter. What matters is upholding the truth of Catholicism.

And, it goes without saying but I'll say it anyway, to speak that truth in love.

Narrow-minded? Or Committed to Fidelity to the Church?

Fr. Martin continues:

Third, the focus of their blogs is almost risibly narrow. Here are the sole topics of interest, in the order in which they cause foaming at the mouth (or on the keyboard): homosexuality, abortion, women's ordination, birth control, liturgical abuses and the exercise of church authority. Is this really the sum total of what makes us Catholic?

Again, a disingenuous argument. It assumes that speaking of hot-button social issues is "narrow" and by implication, unloving. And, unfortunately, it is hypocritical. Who in the Church is championing the cause of active homosexuality? Who has been on an unerring track to pursue women's ordination? Who has said one can be Catholic and pro-choice at the same time? And who has been the biggest instigators of liturgical abuses? Certainly not conservative Catholics. In every one of those areas, it has been liberal Catholics who have rejected Church teaching, tradition, and Biblical instruction, in order to embrace worldly (and often sinful) philosophies that bring division and confusion to the Church.

Criticizing cultural issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion is a moral cause, and one I thought as Catholics we were called to challenge. When we see Catholic high schools not only accepting practicing homosexuality by their students but actively promoting it; you bet conservative Catholics are going to speak up. And we don't need a degree from a pontifical college to know it's wrong.

When those criticized respond by saying such challenges are "unloving" and "judgmental," I can only refer them to the Bible. Jesus Christ said many hard things during His time on earth. Was it loving to cast out the money-changers from the temple? Shouldn't He instead have said, "Gentlemen, this isn't the place for such activity, for it is a holy place. Please, kindly take your tables and merchandise elsewhere. Thanks." Would that have made an impact?

Jesus was angry and there was no mistaking it. He took the road of unleashing His righteous anger because of His love for His Father and a desire to see Him glorified outweighed His concern for offending people. He was upset that an area which was to be a place for worship and meditation was instead transformed into the equivalent of a busy mall.

I see conservative Catholic bloggers in the same light. They have endured many, many years of seeing the Mother Church maligned by those who would not defend her against the world. Yes, there is anger and frustration. I've already seen attempts by faithful Catholics to appeal to their bishop, often to no avail. There have been efforts by many to first write to their priest, and then write to their bishop if they didn't receive a response. There have been times when these same conservative Catholics tried to meet with the proper authorities to share their concerns. And the responses? They've varied from being ignored to condescension to at times, outright hostility toward those who refuse to march in lockstep with the "culturally-correct" view.

There have been orthodox seminarians who have been kicked out of their training because they didn't believe in women's ordination or recited the Rosary. There have been radical, feminist, lesbian nuns who seem to find more meaning in New Age practices than Catholic devotions. There have been faithful young Catholic graduates who can't find a job teaching in a Catholic high school because they're "too conservative" and thus, "narrow-minded."

The list goes on. In most of those cases, Catholics have looked to their priests and bishops to defend the Church and Catholic doctrine only to be dismissed and at times, mocked. One only needs to read The National Catholic Reporter to see the depth of the problem. Thankfully, not all priests and bishops respond in such manner. Many of them are faithful and understand the dilemma, often counseling their flock to love, to forgive, and to continue to uphold the truth.

The truth of the matter is that the Internet has finally given a voice to conservative Catholics and they're using it. No longer content to wait for a response from either a priest or bishop, Catholics have taken to the blogosphere to vent their frustration and question certain Catholic leaders' allegiance to the Magisterium. In fact, these Catholics (and I'm one of them) are exercising their "judgment of moral conscience" which, according to the Catechism, encourages a Catholic to do good and avoid evil.

From the CCC on The Judgement of Conscience:

1777 Moral conscience, 48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. 49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ. 50

Finally, a Call for Action

What I believe conservative Catholic bloggers desire is for their church leaders to stand strong against a world that is increasingly hostile to the faith. If the Church looks like the world, and acts like the world, is it still the Church? We indeed are to be transformed into the likeness of Christ, and yes, this involves sacrificial living and compassionately caring for the sick and wounded in our culture. But it also includes setting the captive free.

I loved my re-entry into Catholicism. I had finally made the decision to formally return to the Catholic Church after wrestling with it for a year. I made an appointment with a parish priest (who would end up being my parish priest) to discuss the issue. From my investigative efforts online, I realized that my husband's prior marriage could end up as a sticking point regarding my return and obtaining the Church's convalidation of our marriage. After confirming that I would need an annulment, this dear priest leaned across the table to look me directly in the eye and say, "I know it's difficult. But aren't you glad the Catholic Church cares about you enough to tell you the hard truth?"

I said, "Absolutely. And you know what I feel? Loved. Because I know the Catholic Church cares about my soul."

The priest smiled compassionately. The truth had been told to me in a loving manner, but it was uncompromising.

And that, ultimately, is what we as Catholics should all desire. That in a world full of darkness, the Church would shine the light and be steadfast in her mission -- to bring the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ to the poor, the needy, the lonely, and yes -- those entrapped in sin. Part of that mission includes confrontation. I pray that we continue to have meaningful dialogue, but make no mistake. That dialogue needs to be recognized and respected by all, no matter which side of the pew you occupy.

Dr. Ken Howell, Reinstated by the University of Illinois! #Catholic

This is fantastic news, not only for Dr. Howell, but for all who cherish our freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Continue to hold Dr. Howell and all Christian teachers in prayer. The battle is heating up.

Earlier today we received confirmation from the University of Illinois that it is reinstating Dr. Kenneth Howell as an adjunct professor this fall. The University terminated Dr. Howell’s employment earlier this summer after a student complained that he was “offended” by Dr. Howell’s academic discussion of the Catholic Church’s position on homosexual behavior in an Introduction to Catholicism course. The student was not even enrolled in the class.

In a letter to ADF, the University states that Dr. Howell will be asked to teach Introduction to Catholicism this fall. This is a tremendous win for Dr. Howell’s academic freedom and First Amendment rights. However, ADF will continue to monitor the situation.

Full article

Will It Matter? Diocese of Peoria to Meet With UI Officials Over Firing of Howell #Catholic

I'm not sure whether to remain hopeful or not regarding a scheduled meeting between the officials of the University of Illinois and the Diocese of Peoria, regarding the firing of Catholic Professor Ken Howell.

This issue is far more important than the reinstatement of one professor to his job. It is the harbinger of truth regarding freedom of religion and speech in our country. When a university offers a religion course -- and then decides to punish the explanation of that religion's tenets, the noose has been tightened in many ways upon individuals freely expressing themselves.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during that meeting. How can the University of Illinois defend themselves? They knew Dr. Howell was Catholic, and the course he taught was called "Introduction to Catholicism." It isn't a secret that Catholicism does not believe homosexuality is an accepted sexual choice, and within the Catechism, is called "intrinsically disordered."

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (CCC, Part Three: Life In Christ, Section 2: The Ten Commandments, Article 6: The Sixth Commandment, II The Vocation to Chastity, Chastity and Homosexuality)

If one were to take a course called "Introduction to Judaism," they would find that sexual relations between men is clearly forbidden by the Torah (Lev. 18:22). Although the sexual act is forbidden, they, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, also makes the distinction between act and orientation; the latter being a desire that presents a choice to act upon or not. I suspect that speaking of "choice" in a religion class in regard to homosexuality, would also be punished.

And that is the source of my growing concern. Not that the concept of freedom of religion and speech is at stake, but the idea of personal choice. Never more has it been made clearer than in today's culture that there is no such thing as decision and choice.

The outcry from the radical progressives isn't so much that the Catholic Church says homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered," but over the claim that personal choice is involved. There are still many who believe homosexuality is genetic. But many lesbians disprove that theory by openly admitting they became a lesbian for political reasons. So there is no "gay gene" as much as some may want it.

And the world's idea of "personal choice" has no rhyme or reason. It isn't a personal choice if one is living a homosexual lifestyle but yet it is a choice for a woman to kill her unborn child. It isn't a personal choice for an impoverished youth to kill someone (because they were raised in an unhealthy environment and "couldn't help it") but it is a personal choice for that same youth to join hateful, racist organizations under the guise of "empowerment."

For the University of Illinois, it isn't a personal choice to allow a diversity of opinion but it is a personal choice to punish and condemn a person or group for expressing their own personal opposition to other people's personal choices.

Because at the end, we as Christians aren't supposed to "judge." Judging, in the world's terms, basically means Christians believing what they believe. I know very few Christians who hang around street corners and tell people they're going to hell if they continue to sin and not repent. Most churches have been successfully neutered on that count. But there are a few bastions of morality hanging around and the Catholic Church is one of them. Because the world has silenced many by egalitarian philosophies, those who dare to stand and name their own beliefs that contradict the world's; are targeted not just for punishment, but extermination. Sound familiar?

Cases such as Dr. Howell's are meant to convey this threat: Oppose us and you will be destroyed. Dr. Howell is a good professor. His students voted him as one of the campus' best. But that didn't matter when it came down to it because one person was able to trump all his accomplishments with the accusation that Dr. Howell was being "hateful." Even if the class was an introduction to Catholicism, and even if it is historically known and proven that the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality is rooted in Natural Moral Law, it doesn't mean anything when compared to the more modern position of "anything goes."

When it comes to hatred, the legion of professors espousing hatred for the United States and Western Civilization is ignored. The perversion of American history is ignored. The expulsion of our military recruitment offices from university campuses is ignored. The false accusations of the Duke lacrosse players was initially ignored. The harassment and physical violence toward guest speakers who represent fair debate on issues such as immigration, is ignored. Ann Coulter had a speaking engagement for a Canadian university cancelled because the animals who call themselves students were throwing rocks and sticks at her. But not one person who claimed to represent "diversity" of viewpoints, could be found to defend any of those situations.

This is what the world has wrought. Under the cloak of "inclusivity" and "diversity," it instead has ushered in a new age of fascism. All opinions and arguments are accepted -- as long as it agrees with their worldview. If it is outside of that worldview, forget it. You're suddenly looked upon as a neanderthal, barely able to rub two sticks together for fire.

We who are Christian know the score. We know that the world has hated and will always hate the truth. I suppose I should be grateful that Dr. Howell's was able to last as long as he did in the den.

Bishop Trautman, the Liturgy, Tradition, and Rubrics #Catholic

This past Sunday while at Mass, I had another one of those "aha" moments regarding the liturgy. It has to do with children. First, my understanding of children and security:

Children need a loving home in order to grow into secure adults. A home where love and protection exists will give a child the necessary sense of security that enables him to absorb the rest of his world. If a child is worried about being fed or avoiding physical abuse, then not much is left of their reasoning skills to analyze the world. They are in constant survival mode. It isn't a surprise then when these children become teenagers -- living off the street, always in survival mode, never looking beyond themselves in order to contribute something meaningful to society.

This past Sunday, I realized this is one of the gifts of the liturgy. It gives God's children a sense of security. When we uphold tradition, we are strengthened and bonded to one another in a spirit of unity. However, the tradition must have its historical connection explained, otherwise it can become an empty shell of ritual that fails to communicate the blessings it was meant to convey.

This is what happened to me as a young woman: I saw no connection to the past with regard to tradition. The liturgy had become dry and lifeless because during my spiritual formation -- it was not consistently explained (and consistent is the operative word) how the liturgy began with Jesus and the Last Supper and then traveled all the way to me. I never received that explanation of continuity, which makes me wonder how much my life would have been different if I had. I was restless, looking for security, and since I didn't understand what the Catholic Church had, I left.

Family identity is a powerful thing. In my own family, we joke about certain traits as being a part of our identity. Why should it be any different with God's family? We also have traits, those of God's Son, Jesus Christ, which we should seek and embrace with full affection. Traits such as compassion, forgiveness, love, mercy, kindness, discipline, and a commitment toward doing what is right. Study Jesus Christ and you'll see those traits and more. We are to follow Him and the world is to recognize it and say, "They have been with Jesus." (Acts 4:13)

So where do we, as God's family, learn about our identity? Where is that identity strengthened? I say the liturgy is what supports that identity, shapes it, and emphasizes it. The liturgy, as it has been passed down to us from generation to generation, gives us a sense of security as it reminds us that God is in control. He loved us enough to sacrifice His only Son for our salvation. He will love us enough to provide for everything else we will need.

The new English translation of the Roman Missal is about to be introduced to the United States Catholic parishes. There has been much debate about it, and from what I can tell, the most vociferous responses have been from those who want to continue experimenting with it. It doesn't seem to phase them that this "experimentation" led to thousands of Catholics leaving the Church because the liturgy was neutered. They also seem to defy further proof by not only ignoring the growing encroachment of sinful philosophies such as radical feminism and homosexuality, but receiving such with open arms.

In 2005, Bishop Donald Trautman gave an interview in which he reflected upon the liturgy and the reasons behind the changes. First, I had no idea the revision of the Roman Missal was in the works for that long. But what struck me was the bishop's views on liturgy. For instance (emphasis mine):

The people who are fighting to go back to Latin, for example, had a wonderful experience when Mass was in that language. They're saying they met the Lord that way, and they're trying to keep that form, not understanding that the form and language of the liturgy is never an absolute. Only God is absolute, and there are different ways we express our love and our prayer.

"Fighting to go back to Latin" seems misunderstood. Latin never was outlawed or in Catholic Church terms, abrogated. (I had to look that one up. Abrogated: to abolish by authoritative action, to treat as non-existent.)

And why can't the form and language of the liturgy be absolute? This statement doesn't sit well with me. I am a firm believer in absolutes with every fiber of my being. I admit I struggle with understanding God's mercy toward us who are sinners. But I believe with everything within me that if God is absolute, then He has given His Church absolutes to follow. There is a right way, and a wrong way. Disrespectful money-changers in the Temple found out from Jesus' righteous anger that their way was the wrong way. The sinful woman who washed and anointed Jesus' feet with her tears and perfume, found the right way.

Whenever someone starts to talk about something "never being an absolute," red flags start flying all over the place. For instance, Bishop Trautman talks about the Latin Mass as though those who love it are trying to fight some evolutionary impetus toward a more civilized understanding of the liturgy. However, from everything I've been observing and studying, almost the complete opposite seems to be true. After over 40 years, the liturgy has been abused, often remade into a worship of self. Obviously I'm no liturgist, but when you have a priest dressing up on Halloween like Barney the Dinosaur and an EMHC woman wearing devil's horns on her head, even I can recognize that something has seriously gone awry.

What happens when children have no adult supervision? Sure, they may feel delirious with their freedoms, but does this serve them well? Do they know how to act responsibly or is that freedom an exercise in self-indulgence that often leads to bad judgement?

This is what I see when I discover liturgical abuse which to me, stems from a worldly idea to "experiment" and cast doubt on any such old-fashioned idea as an "absolute." To me, a priest is indeed a spiritual father. We have a crisis of fatherhood right now in the Catholic Church. We need strong fathers who aren't afraid to lovingly discipline their children. We need men who will stand up and say, "Yes. There are such things as absolutes and our liturgy contains them, for they are the bones of our faith - these bones are what holds the Body of Christ together." We need fathers who will ensure that we get the proper nourishment in order to have strong bones, because believe me -- the world is looking to break our bones.

When I look at fathering, I cannot help but be thankful for my own father. (Hi, Dad!) He taught my brother and I absolutes. There may be a few ways to complete a task, but there are more wrong ways than right and he taught us as many "right ways" as possible. I grew up recognizing that there is a reward from seeking God's right way. Our heavenly Father protects us and provides for us. Nothing happens to us that is not for our own good. As Christians, we grow into an understanding that life is not always easy, but God uses every circumstance to draw us closer to Him and to mold us into the shape of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Because of my earthly father, and my heavenly one - I am a fairly secure woman. I have my moments where I may feel a little anxious or shaky, but for the most part -- I know God is in control. When I attend the Traditional Latin Mass, that message is sent to me strong and clear. I am worshipping God as He has been worshipped since the beginning of the Church, not necessarily because of the Latin (which wasn't spoken by Jesus or His disciples), but because the Latin has preserved for me the meaning of the liturgy. The Latin hasn't been tampered with or forced into some wacky "experiment." The Latin language is solid, like a mountain, a sure plane to stand upon, a sturdy oak tree to hold onto.

Again, Bishop Trautman shows his opinion of standards (emphasis mine):

In Roman Catholic liturgy, we have rubrics-the liturgical laws that define how a priest is to celebrate Eucharist, how a congregation is to respond. But do we want to be rubricists, legalists? No, it's the spirit of the law that we want to live.

Why is it that following the rubrics is cast in a legalistic light? Is tradition always such a burdensome yoke that we must fight to escape? Why are the rubrics not presented as beautiful treasures that help guide us to safety? There is commonly an accusatory tone toward the rubrics when progressive Catholics speak of them. It is narrow-mindedness and uncreative thought that leads to such opinions.

I hear this "spirit of the law" often named when conversation turns toward religious matters. But what about the spirit of the law? Do we really know it well enough to start going off the tracks into our own imaginations? There is a saying among artists: You first need to know the rules before you start breaking them. When we're talking about our faith, I don't believe we can break any rules and not pay for it. The moment someone says, "Well, I know what the rubrics say but I'm going to do it this way instead," is the moment a slippery slope has been introduced. Because no matter how badly we'd like to think of ourselves as being honorable and capable of doing the right thing; there is a greater chance of us doing the wrong thing because we forget the rules.

We need to be constantly reminded of the rules. If for nothing else, because our flesh is a wild thing, never relenting from seeking its own will.

And so the rules to me are the rubrics. To me, we are to live "the spirit of the law" in our daily lives. But for our Sunday obligation, the rubrics within the Mass are to instruct us, remind us, and encourage us not to forget what Jesus Christ has done for us.

For those of us who yearn for that security and the Catholic identity that binds us together, I believe this new translation will do something good. It will start the process of cleaning up the house and putting it back in order after reckless and irresponsible teenagers had an unsupervised house party. Let the renewal begin.

Gnashing of Teeth: The Growing Hatred of Christianity #Catholic

I love the American Thinker's contributor, "Robin of Berkeley."

For those who are unfamiliar with her, "Robin" is a psychotherapist living in Berkeley, California -- and in her words, a "recovering liberal." Robin has some truly amazing insights into our current political world. She takes on everything from the vapid robots who idolize President Obama, to global warming paranoia, to Sarah Palin, to pondering whether Jesus Christ is a Marxist. If you've not read her before, I'd suggest starting at the beginning with her first article (located at the bottom of the list, which is linked above) and work your way up. I've read her columns aloud to my husband a few times on long car trips and then we discuss them. It's good stuff.

This latest column is brilliant in its ability to pinpoint people's hatred of Christianity:

It's funny how trivial events somehow get seared into your brain. This one is from years ago, when I was enjoying a yogurt on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley.

Suddenly, a large exotic bug appeared and started dancing around. Its iridescent colors caught the sun and glistened like a rainbow. A crowd formed to watch its antics in shared delight.

Out of nowhere, a lunatic pushed through the crowd. I'd seen this guy before -- paranoid, menacing. His rage toward the bug slit me like a knife. The insect was getting attention, people were happy, and he was out for revenge.

The man bolted through the crowd, possessed. He jumped on the bug, over and over and again. People gasped. A child cried. And then, as quickly as it began, it was all over.

Silently, numbly, the crowd dispersed. The man, now triumphant, smiled hideously. I threw away the yogurt, which was now rendered tasteless.

I'll never forget the look of blind hatred on that man's face. It communicated this: "I want what you have."

And: "If I can't have it, I'll destroy it."

She goes on to explain that while perusing a local bookstore for books on Christianity, she noticed how many mocked Christianity. Many books were obvious in their disdain and outright hatred of this particular religion. She wondered why people couldn't just move along if they didn't like Christianity. Why did they have to try to destroy it?

Why, indeed. I have been reminded lately of all the scripture verses that say "there shall be wailing and a gnashing of teeth." I never thought I'd see anything in my lifetime that would equate such an expression. I was wrong.

This phrase brings to mind the babbling of Janine Garafalo when she accused the Tea Party of being racist, and Bill Maher who said that the American people were stupid and had to be led to change that was best for them. Joy Behar, who is as joyless as they come, claimed Christianity is no different than terrorism. These people make the most outrageous statements, but because it is anti-Christian, not only is it tolerated but applauded.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (Rom. 1:28-32 RSV)

Robin says this (emphasis mine):

In the past I would simply put on my therapist cap with people like these. I'd probe their childhood for evidence of maltreatment. I'd label them as narcissists and antisocial personalities.

But now I have a different worldview, one that goes much deeper than just the psychological. Now I understand that this world is infused with the Divine. And that there is a competing force, one that is the polar opposite.

I now have a word for that creepy feeling deep down in my gut. And I finally understand the source.

Now I see what's really behind the campaign to banish religion; it's to render us utterly helpless. Because after all, without God, what protection is there in this brutal world?

Exactly.

It is becoming more evident that those who do not believe in God, those who reject Christianity, are no longer satisfied with merely rejecting something with which they don't agree. They need to destroy it. Because if these haters cannot obtain joy and contentment from their own poor choices, they are determined to destroy anything that gives that very joy and contentment to others. This is why we see a rise in militant atheism, radical political ideologies that leave no room for faith, and why national leaders are desperately trying to squelch something like the Tea Party movement which obviously is rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs.

I've met a few liberals. And from my interactions with the most radical of them, I have concluded 1) they never grew beyond their childhood emotional wounds and 2) they are determined to make the world pay for that injustice.

When I was in grade school, I had my share of mean-spirited teasing and mockery. I used to come home in tears, not understanding why I couldn't fit in or just simply be left alone. It was a difficult time in my childhood, but then something profound happened. I asked for a personal Bible as a Christmas present when I was twelve and got it. I started to read the Bible and pray. It was then that I first started to understand that one of the things required of me as a Christian was to forgive my enemy.

This grace to forgive our enemies frees us from our natural fleshly desire to seek vengeance. Without it, we would constantly keep score, attempting to "level the playing field," and try to ensure that life would be fair for everyone. Except it doesn't work that way. Life is never fair but what is more important is our response to it. Our response can either make or break our attitude, our emotional health, and either bless those around us or curse them.

I think we're witnessing the cursing.

Those who see us are now faced with a choice. Either consider the Man called Jesus Christ or reject Him. Either admit you are a sinner in need of salvation from God or reject Him. Either humble yourself before God and deny yourself or continue seeking the empty promises of the world. Many cannot or will not consider Christianity. In their mind, it is filled with rules and authority and relinquishing control over one's life. Unbelievers want nothing to do with it. They'll continue hurtling down the road toward a cliff because that's what they want to do.

Meanwhile, for those of us who try to warn them, (and are safely kept on the side of the road by the hand of God) we are beginning to see that many of them would like to first take some of us out on their way to that cliff. The good news is that we can continue to pray for them. And as far as I know, there isn't any invention or law in existence that will prevent us from doing just that.

The Superiority of Christ Over "Personal Liberation" #Catholic

KKollwitz provided a link in his last comment that was further commentary on the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It is a very long article, but well worth the read if you have time. ("Carl Rogers and the IHM Nuns: Sensitivity Training, Psychological Warfare and the 'Catholic Problem'" by Dr. E. Michael Jones) It presents a fascinating (albeit, sad) tale of psychotherapy in the sixties and even how some of the groundwork for it was laid in the 1940's. After reading the article, there is no doubt in my mind that what was done to those nuns in the sixties was nothing less than psychological warfare with the objective as destroying the Catholic Church and overall, Christianity.

I have had my concerns about psychotherapy for some time. I am not completely against it and have had a few therapy sessions, myself. But my concern has been with those who practice it and are anti-Christian, who look to psychotherapy as a way to be "liberated" without acknowledging that there is such a thing as sin and sin keeps us in bondage. If a therapist claims that a person is being "repressed," the obvious question would be: repressed by whom? And usually the answer to such a question is: repressed by rigid belief systems such as religion, that only seek to control an individual.

But really, who is trying to control whom? When the psychotherapists got a hold of those nuns, they knowingly sought to control them by leading them away from the Catholic Church. By claiming they were introducing the nuns to "personal liberation," they placed them in another type of bondage -- one where they were trapped within endless self-reflection and worldviews that had only their voice and the voice of their fellow therapy participants as their point of reference. Soon after the psychotherapy experiment began, the sisters were released from attending daily Mass, which before was mandatory. Consistent prayer and meditation, which occurs during Mass, was removed. It's not a surprise that the nuns began to look to one another and their therapists as their guides.

I have an apology. In my previous post, I made a judgemental comment about the Bishop at the time and questioned the leadership that would allow such experimentation to take place. Lo and behold, it was Cardinal James McIntyre, who was cast in an uncharitable light with National Catholic Reporter's article, "Vatican, U.S. Women Religious Tensions Go Back Decades": (emphasis mine)

1968 –Cardinal James McIntyre of Los Angeles demands that the Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters back down from the changes in dress, work and living arrangements approved by the community’s chapter – and submit to his control instead -- or be forced out of the order. In what became a national scandal, the great majority of sisters refused to give in, and left to form a community separate from hierarchical control.

Well, no wonder His Eminence had issues with what was going on. It was obviously clear to him that the changes at the IHM seminary were not good ones and could only lead to chaos. History has proven him right. As a matter of fact, the more I learn about Cardinal James McIntyre, the more I like him. I may be highlighting him more in my blog because I suspect this man's good character and devout Catholicism has been misrepresented in print and I'd like to honor him. Anyone who sends his priests to John Birch Society meetings to be educated about the evils of communism, is a good guy in my book.

Any type of evaluation of oneself cannot address the root source of the problem -- which is sin; apart from a thorough examination of the claims of Jesus Christ. Only by renouncing self (as opposed to elevating it), will bring the peace that is sought. In renouncing, is a beautiful and joyful embracing of who we were created to be -- in Christ. "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Phil. 4:13 NKJV) If that's not an "empowerment" statement, I don't know what is. But the key component of that statement is the dependence and surrender we have with God through His Son, Jesus Christ and by the grace and power of His Holy Spirit.

Too often, people place their trust in humanistic philosophies when in fact, placing their trust in God through Christ is exactly what they need and what will bring them health, healing, and a right mind and heart. Approaching God in humility will result in an abundance of grace, which brings peace and wholeness. Apart for Christ, there simply is no peace.

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. (Eph. 2:11-16 RSV)

The Left's Schizophrenic Battle With Self

(Photo courtesy of LIFE, Location: San Francisco, California, Date taken: April 1967, Photographer: Ralph Crane)

Earlier this morning, I read a post by the powerfully prolific Robert Stacy McCain, that exposed a dilemma of many progressives. However, because leftists are masters of self-delusion and obfuscation, it's no surprise they're unable to see the irony of their current beliefs.

McCain referenced an essay by Mark Lilla in the New York Review of Books. I'll use the same quote by Lilla:

[W]e need to see [the Tea Party movement] as a manifestation of deeper social and even psychological changes that the country has undergone in the past half-century. Quite apart from the movement’s effect on the balance of party power, which should be short-lived, it has given us a new political type: the antipolitical Jacobin. The new Jacobins have two classic American traits that have grown much more pronounced in recent decades: blanket distrust of institutions and an astonishing—and unwarranted—confidence in the self. They are apocalyptic pessimists about public life and childlike optimists swaddled in self-esteem when it comes to their own powers.

He had me at "unwarranted confidence in the self" and "childlike optimists swaddled in self-esteem."

How old is this guy? From a quick search, it seems as though Mr. Lilla is about fifty-three. Perhaps he's developing Alzheimer's or did too many drugs in the seventies but suffice it to say - our country was built upon the concepts of self-determination and independence. And in the sixties, this little idea called "self-actualization" came into play. As a matter of fact, I'm in the midst of watching a BBC documentary called "A Century of the Self." I find it fascinating but also tragic; for an obsession with self can often lead to an unbalanced life and in its extreme, mental illness.

I was stunned to find one portion of this documentary tell the story of how nuns were duped into allowing radical psychotherapists test out their harebrained idea of "personal liberation." (As the documentary stated: "The convent, anxious to appear modern, agreed to the experiment.") The result?

The nuns decided to discard their habits for ordinary clothes. And the psychotherapists found that they had "unleashed a sexual energy." (I have no idea who was driving the bus at this point but I think it's safe to say their bishop had no idea what was going on.) One nun seduced one of her classmates, and then seduced the mistress of novices. Within a year, 300 nuns (more than half of the convent), petitioned the Vatican to be released from their vows. Six months later, the convent closed its doors. All that was left was a small group of nuns and they had become radical lesbian nuns. The rest gave up the religious life. (One of the psychotherapists, when asked about the nuns giving up religious life, said, "Yes. They became persons." How amazingly ignorant.)

That's what can happen when "personal liberation" and an elevation of self meets religion. And that entire deconstruction of morals was the fruit of the fatalistic sixties. From the end of this portion of the documentary:

Self exploration was spreading rapidly in America. Encounter groups became the center of what was seen as a radical alternative culture, based on the development of the self, free of a corrupt capitalistic culture.

I highlighted the schizophrenic battle cry, the one sounded by many leftists during their youth, which was: Capitalism is bad because it "forces" a person to adhere to a rigid set of rules and has no compassion or concern for others. But the development of self? Why that was a higher ideal! Why not do whatever made one "feel good?" Sex, drugs, experimentation of any kind - all was perfectly acceptable and even encouraged by those who claimed to be "personally liberated."

Now we fast-forward to today, where Marxists walk the halls of the White House and Communists wear suits. Suddenly, according to the Mark Lilly's of the world, self-esteem is bad. Forget the fact that this is what has been spoon-fed to our children over the past forty years. The leftists now want everyone to believe that encounter groups and "empowerment" sessions were helpful to a point, but realized the error of their ways.

Quite frankly, they went too far. Now the country is too self-aware and independent for their taste. Now you have the pesky little problem of people running around, challenging the government to leave them alone and quit interfering with their lives. If I didn't know any better, I'd think I was living in a 60's redux with Holly shaking her fist at "The Man" in the Oval Office, raking him over the coals. But I suppose that kind of umbrage was fine for Holly as long as she was smoking dope and sleeping her way through the bands at Woodstock.

Now that we have responsible taxpayers (those who already have given years of productivity to our country), questioning the government and claiming self-sufficiency - suddenly they're the bad guys. The Tea Party folks are "expressing" their personal liberation mentality but gosh darnit, that just doesn't sit well with the hippie generation that now is grown up and desperate to control everything.

Ironic, isn't it?

Bill Ayers, Rape, and Selective Political Posturing #tcot #sgp

I read an article on Robert S. McCain's blog ("The Progressive Legacy of Bill Ayers: Sloppy Seconds for Social Justice") that so unnerved me, I was shaking by the end of it. Few things set me off like the topic of rape. Not only is the very act vile and evil, but the politicization of it is just as vile. There are almost no words to describe the anger I feel when others rationalize it. However, I'm sure you know I have a few words. Oh, yes. A few, indeed.

First, the nightmarish story of a young woman who went to college with Bill Ayers and agreed to attend a party with him. Both got drunk. Neither was an excuse for what happened next. While she was in Ayers' dorm room, he barred the door and told her she wasn't allowed to leave until she had sex with his roommate and his own brother. If she refused to have sex with his roommate (who was black), then surely she was a racist. Because she felt trapped, and because Ayers was such a genius at using guilt - she gave in. She described having an "out-of-body" experience as she was consumed with self-hatred by her own willingness to fight. Ayers' brother, thankfully, declined to rape her.

McCain goes on to describe a more recent event. A young American woman, desiring to help Haiti and fight against injustice and oppression - ended up getting raped by the very object of her rallying support: a black man. In McCain's comment section, she claimed she was "asking for it" and got what she deserved. If you scroll down the comments, you'll see my response.

This type of thinking from the American woman, who is obviously a liberal, is the kind of half-baked mush coming from our institutions of so-called higher education. I remember years ago, Marilyn French's famous quote from her book The Woman's Room: "all men are rapists." I remember how the feminists marched across campuses throughout the country, insisting on "taking back the night." I imagine the American activist in Haiti would have much in common with such a protest. And therein lies the problem.

Is rape subjective? Is it acceptable in one situation but condemned in another? Obviously it is, at least according to Amanda Kijera pretzel-style logic. On one hand, women are brainwashed with radical feminism in college to look at all men with suspicion and assume there is a rapist within each one, waiting to pounce. On the other hand, they are taught that throughout the world, minorities are oppressed and as such, may retaliate in anger because of it. The "acting out" (which is swiftly nipped in the bud when coming from a toddler), is tolerated by the left because they think their success is somehow "stealing" something from those who, more often than not, are unwilling to make the effort.

It is warped logic and universities excel in it. Now you have the unfortunate result of a young woman who bought the lies, the twisted ideology, the misdirected shame and anger - who is forced to live with the tragic consequence of abuse. And amazingly, she is grateful for the experience. Friends, that to me is the pinnacle of crazy. When you call evil, "good," it's time to re-examine your values or at the very least, return your feminist card.

I have many targets toward which to aim my anger. The liberal school system for indoctrinating the young woman. The men who believe it's no big deal to rape someone. The rationalization of such a heinous crime. The excusing of the crime because the perpetrator was oppressed. And finally the woman who acts as though it is the paragon of virtue to silently remind herself that although life and dignity have been squeezed out of her, it's understandable because the poor guy can't get a job.

It's not. Rape is never acceptable and will always be an act of power and control over a woman. I ask you to pray for Amanda, for her safety and for her willingness to be honest with herself and a therapist. Healing after such an event will take time but can be done.

However, the healing can't even start when a woman refuses to acknowledge that what was done to her. It is wrong. It is not acceptable. And under no circumstances, should it be tolerated.

Ignorant Women March Topless, 'Enraged' When Men Ogle #tcot #sgp

This has to be one of the more stupidest stories I've read for awhile. A group of Portland women marched topless to protest society's "double standard" when it comes to partial nudity. Seems they're ticked off that men can run around topless without fanfare but everyone makes a big deal when women do the same.

Honestly. Sometimes I wonder how women can be so dense.

I almost don't know where to begin with this story. There are so many erroneous presumptions that it's difficult to believe these are intelligent women protesting what obviously, eludes them. Unfortunately, in my state, we do have a statute that does not consider breasts "private parts." I discovered this in a roundabout way when I was browsing a brochure of an annual festival. This festival (which I have not attended nor would I), had a portion of the first page devoted to alerting festival-goers to "chill out" because "they were 'just boobs.'" I was appalled. The notice continued by saying that it was legal for women to be topless and to please not stare or make lewd comments to women when they were partially nude. Gosh. Who would ever think men would do something like that?

Here's the problem I have with it. First, it isn't an issue of a woman being afforded the same "freedom" as a man. Topless men are not objectified in American culture and if a small group of dense women think they can suddenly change society's perspective on this - after all of the "skin" magazines, the pornography, the rated R movies, the "girlie bars" with topless waitresses, etc., etc. - then they deserve all the ridicule they get.

Secondly, like it or not, these parts of a woman's body have been designed for two purposes: 1) as a way to prepare a woman for sexual intercourse and 2) as a channel to bring life and nourishment to a newborn baby. Sorry if this is too graphic or bold for the topless women, but there you have it. Despite all of the teasing that occurs in the media regarding "moobies" or male breasts, the sexual and primal connotation will never, ever be given to them.

In fact, if anything, the breasts of a man versus the breasts of a woman are prime examples of how women and men indeed are different from each other. I know this is difficult for the topless women crowd to understand because they consistently try to to pound a square peg into a round hole. It isn't the same nor will it ever be. Men can go topless and people usually don't care. (Unless you're being served food from him in which case, ew. Who wants a man's half-nude, hairy torso hanging over a plate of linguini?) But a topless woman has and always will elicit quite a different reaction.

I am sure there are plenty of men who understand perfectly well what I'm saying. And many men are all too willing to say, "Sure, why not? Go for the partial nudity!" But as a woman who knows that God has called the female gender to be so much more, and so much more dignified, I am protesting myself at this ridiculous inverse objectification of women. The fact that such public demonstrations are led by women make it all the more pathetic.

Here is their convoluted logic - and I have to admit I enjoy pointing it out:

1. Women who work within the "skin industry" (exotic dancing, pornography) are "oppressed and objectified by men." This is bad.
2. Women who decide to trot down a street and take off their tops are liberated. And woe to the man who oogles them. This is good.

So these women believe that just because it's their choice, that men should not react the way normal men react? Oy,veh.

Many of the women engaged in this craziness are lesbians, in which case they couldn't care less what a man thinks. But it does make me wonder. On one hand, these types don't want to used by men. But yet think nothing of cheapening their own worth by exposing themselves.

I suppose some will do anything for a little bit of attention. And in the end, that's the message I get from these stunts. A desperate cry for attention and validation. Very, very sad.

Jesus Christ: The Ultimate Revolutionary #tcot #Catholic #sgp

One of the things I love about Jesus Christ is how He exposed the enemy's strategy - that lies and hatred imprison but truth sets the captive free.

Socialists who try to co-opt Jesus Christ's message have it all wrong. Jesus Christ wasn't coming to "force" the government to treat men and women fairly. He came to break the chains of the devil, to free mankind from the bondage of sin so that all may have a relationship with God. Only with Jesus Christ is there true freedom, which is why the enemy has controlled evil dictators from day one and steered them toward one ultimate goal: the total and complete destruction of the Christian faith.

Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Liberals - the whole lot of them, are so ignorant of history that it is almost embarrassing. Actually, it's shameful. But then again, those who subscribe to such political ideology aren't exactly friends of Christianity, either.

I propose a change in perspective, a realization, and perhaps a heavy acceptance, of what exactly we're dealing with as we watch the world crumble around us. This is an ancient battle and one that has not touched the United States of America until now. It's easy to focus on the political ramifications of the healthcare "reform" bill because it's obvious. It's close to the surface and an easy mark. Americans know it is wrong for the government to dictate whether they have health insurance or not. Americans did not want this bill but it was forced upon them. All of the protests, the rallies, the letters, the phone calls, the heated "town hall" debates - all of it didn't matter to the politicians who claim that this is a solution. Even though 59% of Americans made it very clear they did not want this healthcare reform bill, the politicians not only turned a deaf ear to them, they patted themselves on the back as they made backroom deals to ensure it went through.

Again, liberals don't know history.

All we need to do is take a good look at Cuba. Michael Moore, the permanently-deluded darling of the leftists, created a film, "Sicko" that glorified the socialist Cuban healthcare system. What many people do not realize is that there are three different tiers of healthcare in Cuba. One for foreigners (who pay cold, hard cash for the privilege), the Cuban elite, and then the average Cuban. From the National Review, The Myth of Cuban Healthcare:

To be sure, there is excellent health care on Cuba — just not for ordinary Cubans. Dr. Jaime Suchlicki of the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies explains that there is not just one system, or even two: There are three. The first is for foreigners who come to Cuba specifically for medical care. This is known as “medical tourism.” The tourists pay in hard currency, which provides oxygen to the regime. And the facilities in which they are treated are First World: clean, well supplied, state-of-the-art.

The foreigners-only facilities do a big business in what you might call vanity treatments: Botox, liposuction, and breast implants. Remember, too, that there are many separate, or segregated, facilities on Cuba. People speak of “tourism apartheid.” For example, there are separate hotels, separate beaches, separate restaurants — separate everything. As you can well imagine, this causes widespread resentment in the general population.

The second health-care system is for Cuban elites — the Party, the military, official artists and writers, and so on. In the Soviet Union, these people were called the “nomenklatura.” And their system, like the one for medical tourists, is top-notch.

Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched. Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. Hospitals and clinics are crumbling. Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, whatever home is. If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce. In Sicko, even sophisticated medications are plentiful and cheap. In the real Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market.

A nurse spoke to Isabel Vincent of Canada’s National Post. “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year. If you have any pills in your purse, I’ll take them. Even if they have passed their expiry date.”

The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent. Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice. When they travel to the island, on errands of mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry. One told the Associated Press, “The [Cuban] doctors are pretty well trained, but they have nothing to work with. It’s like operating with knives and spoons.”

And doctors are not necessarily privileged citizens in Cuba. A doctor in exile told the Miami Herald that, in 2003, he earned what most doctors did: 575 pesos a month, or about 25 dollars. He had to sell pork out of his home to get by. And the chief of medical services for the whole of the Cuban military had to rent out his car as a taxi on weekends. “Everyone tries to survive,” he explained. (Of course, you can call a Cuban with a car privileged, whatever he does with it.)

So deplorable is the state of health care in Cuba that old-fashioned diseases are back with a vengeance. These include tuberculosis, leprosy, and typhoid fever. And dengue, another fever, is a particular menace. Indeed, an exiled doctor named Dessy Mendoza Rivero — a former political prisoner and a spectacularly brave man — wrote a book called ¡Dengue! La Epidemia Secreta de Fidel Castro.

Che Guevera's daughter praised the socialist U.K. healthcare system, but from what I've read, the conditions are deplorable. Recently a young 22-year old man died from thirst in a U.K. hospital because he couldn't get water from the 'lazy nurses.' It is beyond appalling. It is horrifying to think that a developed country would descend to this point of inhumanity. It's not the first case I've read of socialism's failure to provide healthcare to those in need. There are other stories and it's heartbreaking to read them. And I loved the last line of that story about the 22-year old man: This week a task force called on nurses to sign a public pledge that they will treat everyone with compassion and dignity. Are you kidding me? It takes a public pledge signing to remind nurses of what their responsibilities were from day one of nursing? Truly unbelievable.

Such a pledge hasn't been necessary for U.S. healthcare - but may be on our horizon.

Back to freedom and truth. Last night, Ann Coulter was prevented from giving a talk at a university in Ottawa, Canada by a group of ignorant students, wielding sticks and stones. (They elevated the childish chant to reality and yes, they could have broken bones.) What is so amazing is how those who think of themselves as defenders of whatever is good and right - are so deluded as to think that stifling free speech is a good thing. Such people can't even see the irony in their position. They are blind. How is it that a student can claim that one person's freedom to their own opinion is "wrong" if it doesn't line up with what they believe - is a good thing for intellectual discourse? Why not try to prove the other person wrong with spirited debate? Instead, leftists would rather muzzle those they disagree with instead of debating the merits of the issue. Could it be that they are incapable of the job?

Freedom is the only clothing Truth can wear. And Freedom cannot exist without Truth. The two are inextricably joined and cannot flourish without the other. Only when truth has the freedom to exist will societies receive truth's reward. Which is enlightenment, advancement, prosperity, development, innovation, and creativity just to name a few. In other words: light. Look at history. Whenever truth has been oppressed, there has been darkness - society in bondage. No growth. No real creativity. No prosperity. It has always, always led to enslavement and ultimately death.

Those who hate truth, hate freedom. Those who hate freedom, will... (wait for it) hate Christianity. Because of Jesus Christ's words: The truth will set you free. And Who is Truth?

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

It is amusing to me that liberals in the Catholic Church say, "But that is your truth," when faced with such bothersome issues as sin and Christianity's "narrow" views. They are quick to point out that "truth" in their estimation, is subjective. However - when someone expresses an opinion that collides with their worldview (in essence, that person's truth), it's abominable to them, outrageous - and must be silenced at all costs. It is hilarious, actually, when you try to point that out to them. Sadly, a sense of humor is one of the first casualties when transforming into a liberal robot.

I recently volunteered for a local politician's campaign. Although I sense darker times for our country, I cannot help but fight it. I will continue to freely express my opinion on this blog as long as I can and thank God that for today, I do live in a free country. But in order to continue to live freely, I must fight for truth. As Orwell said, "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

And that is why Jesus Christ was the ultimate revolutionary. He dared to tell the truth to His disciples, to Pontias Pilate, and to the world.

Are Catholics Not Allowed to Be #Catholic? #tcot #sgp

I turned on the comment moderation because this post may upset some and quite frankly, I'm done with nasty combox rants. I'm all for spirited debate but viciousness? No.

You may have heard about the lesbian couple in Colorado who tried to enroll a child in their care into a Catholic school, knowing the Archdiocese had a policy not to accept children from same-sex couples. The Archbishop of Denver, Archbishop Chaput, made it clear that the school could not receive a child from a couple that were knowingly out of unity with the Catholic faith. His response (emphasis mine):

“In many ways times have changed, but the mission of Catholic schools has not,” the prelate stated. “The main purpose of Catholic schools is religious; in other words, to form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values.”

Archbishop Chaput also stressed that the “Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are 'bad,' or that their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman.”

“These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society,” he said. “The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

In light of this, the “policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves,” said the prelate.

“Our schools are meant to be 'partners in faith' with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible.”

Full article

As you can imagine, this didn't sit too well with the "diversity" crowd. But I am touched by the eloquence of Archbishop Chaput and the brave stand of Fr. Breslin, who made the decision not to admit the child to the school. It isn't easy to stand for the faith when so many acquiesce to the culture, in spite of a religious conflict.

Here is what puzzles me. If you join a club, there are rules. Because you want to belong, you adhere to the rules. But there must have been something about that club that compelled you to join. When people join a church, they are compelled by its tenets of the faith, their commitment toward service, or the many things a church does (At least I hope so.). One does not make such a decision with their eyes closed.

So who doesn't realize that the Catholic Church does not acknowledge same-sex marriage, and in fact opposes it? Who doesn't know that Catholicism teaches that those who have homosexual tendencies are called to lead a celibate life and to carefully handle relationships with those of the same sex? Unless a person is living under a rock, the answer would be, no one.

There are plenty of churches and schools who would accept a gay couple. Why isn't this lesbian couple attending a Methodist church and sending their child to that school? I truly cannot fathom the motivation someone has to make choices that will deliberately be confrontative and cause difficulties. What must that be like, getting up every day and intentionally planning to force a religious institution to bend to your will because they believe something you don't?

Here's the deal, activists. You have a choice. There are plenty of other alternatives to the Catholic Church. Purposefully causing problems and throwing tantrums when you don't get your way doesn't strike me as very "Christian-like," either. If you can't respect the Catholic Church's beliefs, then perhaps you don't belong there. Because following Christ isn't about following what is popular. It's about laying down your life for Him.

I'll close with a quote from Charles Danahur's article, "Tolerance Goes Both Ways, Denver":

Some people will not be satisfied until the church is either run out of business, is silenced or abandons all principle. We may never all agree but hopefully we can be tolerant of the church's position and respect their dedication to the faith.

Catholicism, Social Justice, and the Health Care Debate #tcot #sgp #Catholic

When I returned to the Catholic Church, I was aware of its allegiance to promoting "social justice." I've had a few readers comment about my position, wondering if perhaps I was being too hard with my criticism. The recent health care issue in the U.S. has brought it to the surface again as many priests and their bishops push for health care reform under the guise of "social justice."

I understand that Catholicism has long been an advocate for the disadvantaged in our society. Part of the reason I returned has been my lifelong admiration of its pro-life stance. No other church has been as committed to life issues as the Catholic Church. I also have been proud of Catholicism's history as the creators of the first hospitals and schools. Throughout the world, you will find Catholics who are dedicated toward educating and caring for orphans, and also caring for the poor.

However, I see a vast difference between showing compassion to those who are in need versus becoming "activists" for their situations. Jesus said we will always have the poor with us. He spoke often about how we were called to love and show them mercy. He did not say we were obligated to storm the gates of the Roman government demanding justice for them.

I read an interesting article on Inside Catholic about a Catholic's response to the health care reform debate. The man wrote a letter to his priest, emphasizing his dissatisfaction with the promotion of a certain viewpoint. Unfortunately, it would seem the priest did not appreciate an honest opinion and instead took the opportunity to belittle and condemn the man.

From the article:

Unfortunately, there are clergy who not only contribute to the misunderstanding but also treat respectful disagreement with condescension. The following e-mail was passed along to me by an acquaintance who wrote to his parish priest to question the wisdom of placing the nation's health-care system in the hands of the federal government. (I've edited the e-mail to protect the identity of its author.) The priest's response:

It is so unfortunate that you have such a myopic vision and have made the conscious decision to NOT learn anything about Social Justice, that you would rather listen and believe the words of Hannity and Limbaugh rather than [local bishop's name] or any Roman Catholic authority on the teachings of the Catholic Church especially in the area of Social Justice and the Social gospel.

I was contacted by Bishop _____ and [another bishop's] Secretary. They both were disappointed in your mindset and your refusal to learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I pray that someday you will spend the time and effort to learn, understand and comprehend the Church's view on Health Care Reform, Immigration Reform, and the understanding that the Body of Christ isn't made up of only those people you believe to be given the recognition. With that being said, I do not want you to send me any E-Mails or forward any articles that are contrary to the teachings of the Church. I pray that God may have mercy on you (emphasis added).

The lack of pastoral courtesy requires little comment, except to say that this sort of demeaning clerical tone pushes the suppliant further away and exacerbates the discontent.

It is proof once again, of the divide between the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholics in the pew. Like the immigration reform issue (which the U.S.C.C.B. supports) the health care reform issue exposes another major disconnect between leadership and laity. I don't care how you slice it, the health care reform is not about health care. It's about control. It's a Trojan Horse the U.S.C.C.B. has gladly received, believing it to be a good deal for the needy. However, at what cost? Not only will there be a huge financial burden placed on the taxpayer, there will be an overall loss of freedom for our country.

If the government is in charge of healthcare, they will be able to dictate what businesses must do to insure their employees. More regulations will be on the way regarding what we can eat and drink. And anyone who doesn't believe healthcare will be rationed is living in a fantasy world. Nothing the government touches ever succeeds. In fact, whatever the government involves itself with only grows more bloated and inefficient. Their takeover of the automobile industry hasn't helped. We all know the incompetency of their schools. And now they want to take on healthcare.

Here is my ultimate beef with "social justice." It isn't anyone else's responsibility to gain justice for me but myself. No one is in charge of my life. I'm the CEO, the owner, the one who makes choices whether I do something or not. Thank God I had parents who taught me the importance of personal responsibility. Sadly, many in our society never learned that lesson and as a result, they are constantly looking for others to save them.

Those who promote "social justice" are only too happy to accommodate them. They rush in with a Messiah complex, eager to tell someone how to live their life. Meanwhile, the person who is in a difficult place rarely realize that they've given up their freedom in the process. I have no problem with helping anyone. But I do have a problem taking care of someone when they are able to take care of themselves. I have a problem with those who can work but refuse because it's easier to depend upon government subsidies. I have a problem with those who make a series of bad choices and then depend upon the government to bail them out.

I have a problem with a religious organization who tells me that being concerned about such things is wrong and claims I don't "understand."

Here's another thing: The U.S. government, on its present course, is in direct competition with the Catholic Church.

How? Because the government wants to take the place of the Church by providing "justice." I can't help but wonder where the U.S.C.C.B. thinks its going to land when all the dust settles. I don't think its too far-fetched to say that the government will be quickly eyeing church property and tax-exemption status to fill their coffers. If the U.S.C.C.B. thinks its going to get along famously with the government because they share the same concerns, I'd say think again. Marxism and Communism have little love for religion. As a matter of fact, they hate it. Religion brings truth and truth brings freedom. They won't have it. St. Maximillan Kolbe and other priests who died in the concentration camps are proof.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to our bishops. These are men who have served the Church and have taken vows to love her and prepare her children for the afterlife. But I strongly disagree with them on these issues. Like the writer said in the article quoted above, "There is no 'Church view' on health care reform but there is a position taken by the bishops conference." I'm saddened by how some bishops are turning a deaf ear to the people by dismissing them as clueless. I'm all for spirited debate. What I'm not for is a "sit down and shut up" directive.

Throughout history, the Catholic Church has made a tremendous difference in the lives of millions. It has contributed to the success of many communities and countries. I am proud of my heritage as a Catholic and continue to be as the Church shares itself with the world.

However, I find it disturbing that while many in our country have fought for a "separation of Church and State," those same people are silent when the Catholic Church joins forces with the government when it is in their interests. Why is it acceptable to criticize "the religious right" when they object to an obvious persecution of their faith (such as banning the religious connotation of Christmas) but yet religion involved with politics is fine - as long as the religion supports the current party line? When President George W. Bush was in office, Christians often heard about its unacceptable level of influence. But now that we have a different President, suddenly its okay?

Color me unimpressed and unconvinced. Mixing government with religion has never bode well for its citizens. I fear we're about to experience this truth even more if we remain on our current path.