Pope Francis: If You Feel the Call to be a Missionary, Do It!


Pope Francis seems to be talking about missionaries who cross borders to share the Gospel. I agree with what he says about that. But I’d like to add that we need courageous people who will be missionaries for Christ to our own fallen culture, here in the “Christian West.”

Do you hear the call to speak more about your faith? Is God asking you to share Jesus with those around you? That is a tough call, but we all have received it by virtue of our own salvation.

We have the way to eternal life. If we do not share it with those who are perishing, we are not being polite, we are being terribly selfish.

YouTube Preview Image

Oklahoma City High School Bans Firefox from Student Computers Because of Mozilla’s Support for Gay Marriage. (Not So.)

 

Oklahoma City High School Bans Firefox from Student Computers Because of Mozilla’s Support for Gay Marriage. (Not So.) 

Did you do a double-take when you read that headline?

It is, I hasten to assure you, not true. As in, I made it up.

I made it up to make a point, and that point is that what’s good for the politically-correct goose ought to also be good for the traditionalist gander.

According to Fox News, California’s Ventura High School has “banned” Chick Fil-A chicken sandwiches for fear that the taste of a sandwich made by a company who held political views that run counter to … I guess the Ventura zeitgeist, if there is such a thing … might be “offensive.” Aside from the fact that this is a tempest in a crock pot kinda deal, it does tend to reflect the double standard we’ve got going here.

Imagine, if you will, if the made-up-by-me title to this post had been describing an actual/factual event. Can you wrap your mind around what would almost certainly be the plethora of critical blog posts denouncing “Christian bigots,” “dumb Okies” and probably the mothers of the school board members who had voted allowed this? I actually can imagine it, which is why I decided to write this post.

Because, you see, if it’s good for the politically-correct Ventura goose, then it should also be good for the traditionalist gander, wherever they reside.

From FoxNews:

Feathers have been ruffled at California’s Ventura High School, where the principal this week banned the football booster club from selling Chick-fil-A sandwiches over fears that people might be offended.

What, pray tell, could people find offensive about a plump juicy chicken breast tucked between two buttered buns?

Were English teachers put off by the restaurant chain’s grammatically challenged bovine pitchmen?Did the waffle fries and banana pudding milkshakes exceed the nutritional limits deemed acceptable by the federal government?

The answer, dear readers, is no. It seems Principal Val Wyatt’s ban has less to do with poultry and more to do with politics.

“With their political stance on gay rights and because the students of Ventura High School and their parents would be at the event, I didn’t want them on campus,” Wyatt told the Ventura County Star.

It was a sentiment supported by Trudy Tuttle Ariaga, superintendent of the Ventura Unified School District.

“We value inclusivity and diversity on our campus, and all our events and activities are going to adhere to our mission,” Ariaga told CBS News in Los Angeles.

Three Cardinals — and I Don’t Mean Baseball Players — and Their Grand Slam of Confusion

I’m late to the party.

But then, I often am.

It takes me a while to think through certain events. There are also times when it takes me a while to care about certain events.

The three cardinals — Dolan, Kasper and McCarrick — and their grand slam of confusion is a case in point. I’m going to take their statements/actions one at a time.

Lesseeeee ….

 

Cardinal Dolan and his parade.

It seems that the New York St Patrick’s Day Parade is going to allow a group of gay people to join in the march. It has been noted in some circles that the writers here at the Catholic Portal at Patheos have been — up to now — silent on this subject. I guess they overlooked — or perhaps didn’t like — the commentary by the Anchoress on this subject. For my part, I’ll attempt to add a bit of perspective from fly-over America.

I’ve been writing a lot about beheadings, mass murder and possible war. So, when I read that homosexuals were going to march in a parade in New York (which I hasten to remind you is almost 2,000 miles and a whole culture away from me) I thought, ummm … it’s a parade. Big whooping deal.

Then I heard that Cardinal Dolan was going to be the grand master at this hoe down, and I thought ummm … it’s a parade. Big whooping deal.

Then, I heard the plunk, plunk, plunk of the sky falling in the New York outpost of the faithful Catholic blogosphere and I thought ummm … it’s a New York thing. Big whooping deal.

To be honest, I’m sorta stuck at it’s a parade and a New York deal.

We’ll see how it comes off. If Cardinal Dolan ends up two-stepping down the road leading the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence or some such, I may decide that, in addition to being a parade, it is an embarrassment.

But basically, I’m still kind of caught up in the fact that we’ve got a blood-red Christian genocide going on and that, well, it’s not a parade. Or a New York deal.

 

Cardinal McCarrick and his newfound universalism.

Cardinal McCarrick attended a press conference arranged by the Muslim Affairs Council and managed to do such a good job of  Muslim apologetics that one headline brayed that “Catholic Cardinal McCarrick Embraces Islam.” All in all, it sounds like the Cardinal put on a pretty good show. It might help if he gave another press conference with Eastern Church leaders to show solidarity with our persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ. You know; just to even things out.

 

Cardinal Kasper and his protestantized view of the sacrament of marriage.

My colleague, Dr Greg Popcak already wrote a post about this, so I’ll pick up the salient quote from him. Here it is:

If a Catholic who is divorced and civilly remarried, without a decree of nullity, “repents of his failure to fulfill what he promised before God, his partner and the church in the first marriage, and carries out as well as possible his new duties and does what he can for the Christian education of his children and has a serious desire for the sacraments, which he needs for strength in his difficult situation, can we after a time of new orientation and stabilization deny absolution and forgiveness?”

I’m not any kind of theologian. In fact, I’m only a Christian and a Catholic due to enormous unmerited forgiveness. So, I “get” the desire to let people in, no matter what they’ve done. I also “get” that in this post-Christian world the Church is flat-out counter-cultural. I’m sure that these cardinals deal with the fallout of that counter-culturalism every day when they interact with civic and social leaders in the upper strata.

I’ve had a few doses of that poison myself.

I also “get” that, due to pew-sitting Catholics drinking great draughts of that cultural poison, divorce and remarriage are increasingly a source of alienation for many of the “faithful.”

However, I don’t “get” slam-dunking 2,000 years of Christian teaching in order to make the Church fit in with this fallen world.

I’m not big fan of the annulment process as it is used today, anyway. I know there are times when a sacrament may not have taken place at a wedding, and I also know that the Church always errs on the side of forgiveness and compassion.

I have benefitted from that forgiveness and compassion. When I accepted Christ and changed, no one else would forgive me. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, not only took me in, but treated what I had done as a thing of the past that did not pertain to me as I am now.

I will be grateful for this loving compassion and forgiveness to the end of my days.

I understand that this deep compassion and desire to forgive animates all that the Church does. But compassion can not overwrite the plain teachings of the Gospels. In fact, it is misguided compassion to try. The compassion that I received was a firm and abiding belief in the power of Christ to redeem sinners, including me.

If the Church had told me — as a number of denominations would have — that it was ok for me to be pro abortion (that was my public sin that others would not forgive) that would have been a terrible injustice to me, a false compassion that would have led me into deeper sign, and ultimately hell.

The Church has the same responsibility to the truth in the area of marriage, divorce and remarriage that it has about abortion.

The Church is bending over backwards to allow people who’ve divorced and remarried to come back into the fold. It does this via a somewhat complicated and terribly faulty annulment process.

As I said, I know that there are times when, for various reasons, a marriage is not sacramental and an annulment is justified. But I honestly believe that those times are much more rare than the number of annulments reflect.

I realize that this is one of the more contentious issues facing the Church today. But the fact remains that the facts remain. I know what I’ve seen. And what I’ve seen is people getting annulments for marriages that

they willingly contracted when they were free adults

they undertook after lengthy premarital counseling by the Church that took place in Catholic Churches

whose vows were given in front of many witnesses and before a priest

were not abusive but were cases where the people simply decided — for various reasons — to get out and go and get annulments so they could try again with someone else.

I know the annulment system is a mess because I’ve also seen people who entered into marriage

when both were drunk during the ceremony and they were both sleeping with other people at the time they married and they both knew it not getting an annulment  because they couldn’t get the paperwork filled out.

Add to that, I’ve also seen someone refused entry into the Church because they couldn’t get the paperwork filed out concerning a common law marriage from decades in their past.

The annulment process isn’t working for people who deserve annulments. And it’s chunking out annulments for people who should not get them.

But what the Cardinal seems to be suggesting is to toss the whole thing overboard and shake hands and call it even. In essence, what he’s leading up to is a revocation of the sacramental nature of marriage. I say that because, if marriage is a sacrament, you can’t undo it. Can’t. Not possible.

And if marriage, after 2,000 years, isn’t a sacrament, then what is? I mean, if marriage isn’t a sacrament, then why would Holy Orders, which is akin to it, be a sacrament?

The real problem with all of these actions taken by these various Cardinals is that they are deeply disturbing to the people who actually hold the Church together. I do not mean the hierarchy. I mean the pew-sitting Catholics who believe and try to follow what the Church teaches. It’s a mistake of Homeric proportions to abandon those people and go off chasing after the ones who have left the Church.

Remember when Jesus said, If you do not eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you will have no eternal life within you? His frank discussion of the sacrament of the Eucharist, of which this statement is a part, caused a number of people to abandon Him. They went off muttering about cannibalism or some such.

But Our Lord didn’t go chasing after them and say, Wait a minute, I didn’t mean it that way.

No.

He let what He’d said stand and He allowed them to leave.

If the princes of the Church start teaching that 2,000 years of Christian teaching on the sacraments is up for grabs because it’s an embarrassment to them, we are in big trouble. In truth, sex outside of marriage, including homosexual sex, is a sin. In truth, marriage is between one man and one woman and it is for life. In truth, there are radical differences between Christianity and every other belief system. Christianity alone has the empty tomb and the words that lead to eternal life.

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. There is no other.

On the other hand, it is just a parade and a New York deal, and it was just a speech, and then  another speech.

Confusing leadership is … well … confusing. In times such as these, it can be frightening. It seems to be almost impossible for the American bishops to give clear teaching on what is in fact the 2,000 year old teachings of the Church for which they claim to speak. They’re trying so hard to be loved by everybody that they trip over their own eagerness.

That scares people who’ve paid a great price to follow the Church, and it angers them. I think the best way to deal with that is to remember that it has always been so, and it will always be so until the Lord comes again. Your task is to stay faithful, in spite of it.

As for the New York parade deal; I just hope that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence stay away.

HPIM1680

Obama Meets with Eastern Christian Leaders. Hears of Plight of Persecuted Christians.

President Obama “dropped by” National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s meeting with Eastern Christian leaders for a forty-minute discussion about the Christian genocide in Iraq.

From Catholic News Service:

WASHINGTON (CNS) — Eight Eastern Christian leaders spent 40 minutes talking to President Barack Obama about the situation of Christians and other minorities in the Middle East.  “We felt how deeply moved he was by what was happening to the Christians there,” Lebanese Cardinal Bechara Rai, Maronite patriarch, said at a Mass later the same day at Our Lady of Lebanon Maronite Catholic Church. The Sept. 11 Mass closed the three-day inaugural In Defense of Christians summit. A conference organizer told Catholic News Service

The cardinal said each of the leaders from Eastern Catholic and Orthodox rites had a chance to speak individually to Obama, who the White House said “dropped by National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s meeting at the White House.”

Although the White House did not release details of the discussion, throughout the summit the Christian leaders spoke of the threat to Christians and other minorities posed by Islamic State militants, particularly in Iraq and Syria. Several said they were advocating religious freedom, an inherent right. They spoke of the need for local leaders and the international community to become involved in a solution because, as one Orthodox bishop said, “no one can possibly agree to a beheading.”A White House statement, read out near the end of the In Defense of Christians summit, said Obama reinforced the U.S. commitment to fight Islamic State militants and other groups that threaten the Middle East, as well as American personnel and interests in the region.

Send it Back: Surrogates and Killing Their Manufactured Babies

surrogates-for-hire-Google-Search.jpg
It’s the new hot trend. Go online and pick an egg donor from photos and order up a harvesting of her body in order to design a baby, made to your specifications. Then hire a “surrogate” (read that breeder) to carry the baby to term for you. And if the thing goes wrong, as biology is wont to do, why, then, order the surrogate to kill the baby for you. You know, like a Roman Pater discussing the upcoming birth of his child with the family Mater in this love letter from the front:

“Know that I am still in Alexandria…. I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered (before I come home), if it is a boy keep it, if a girl, discard it.”

This lovely practice of “discarding” baby girls —along with babies with birth defects — runs throughout recorded history. It is still practiced in parts of the world today.
Early Christians labeled the practice infanticide. They went out into the streets, got these baby girls, brought them home and raised them.

The idea that there is no Greek nor Jew, no male nor female but all are one in Christ Jesus was a startling Christian innovation. The teaching, which was formalized in writing as early as the Didache, that all human life, including unborn human life, is sacred, is another peculiar Christian innovation.

Today’s version of “discard it,” at least in the “civilized” West, is abortion. The neat tidiness of legal killing in a clinical situation has it all over any other mass killing field in history. There are no furnaces belching out smoke to run day and night disposing the bodies. No one sees the carnage except the medical staff. Even the receptionist who sits out front is left innocent of what is really happening.

Combine this take-a-number-and-wait killing field with the highly-lucrative business of harvesting and renting women’s bodies as if they were farm animals in order to manufacture made-to-order babies for sale, and you have the total commercialization of human life and human beings.

Call it “creating families” or whatever pretty little phrase you want to paste over its ugliness. This is the practice of commercialized medicine for hire, put to the service of creating, buying and selling people. It has nothing to do with the healing arts or medicine practiced to save lives.

It is the ultimate prostitution, and the “doctors” who do it are the ultimate pimps. It degrades women and babies to the level of chattel for the express and openly acknowledged business of buying and selling people.

The tripping up part, of course, is what if the baby-buyers decide at the last minute that they don’t want their new human widget. What if, say, there’s a divorce? Or the manufacturing process goes awry and the baby has a cleft palate or down’s syndrome or spina bifida. What if those designer genes turn out to be somewhat idiosyncratic?
In that circumstance, our “modern” baby buyers do the modern thing. They order the baby killed. It is, after all, their possession that they bought in good faith that it would be delivered as ordered.

Now, it’s defective. They’re behaving the way anyone would if the factory delivered the wrong purchase. They are sending it back. Consider these stories:

1. An Australian couple who was paying a woman from Thailand to carry their twin unborn babies as a surrogate asked the woman to abort one of the babies because testing had revealed one of the babies has Down Syndrome.The couple enlisted the woman, whose family was heavily in debt, to become their surrogate and to use IVF to become pregnant. She was subsequently found to be pregnant with twins but the initial joy turned to rejection when testing showed a boy nicknamed Gammy was diagnosed with Down Syndrome.The couple wanted the mother to have an abortion, but she refused and eventually gave birth to Gammy and his twin sister in Bangkok. The couple then refused to take Gammy back with them to Australia and left him in Thailand.

2. A British surrogate mother said yesterday that she is raising a disabled baby as her own after the child’s intended mother told her she did not want a ‘dribbling cabbage’ for a daughter.The healthy boy was taken home by the childless British couple whom the surrogate mother claims then rejected his unwell sister because of her disability.‘I remember her saying to me, “She’d be a ****ing dribbling cabbage! Who would want to adopt her? No one would want to adopt a disabled child”.’She is now raising the baby – identified only as Amy – with her partner and their other children.

3.  A British woman who agreed to become a surrogate mother for an American couple is suing them for allegedly backing out of the deal because she is carrying twins.Helen Beasley, 26, claims Californians Charles Wheeler and Martha Berman demanded she abort one of the foetuses because they only wanted one child.When she refused, they allegedly refused to have anything more to do with her.Miss Beasley, who is six months pregnant, wants to put the twins up for adoption. But under Californian law, parental rights in a surrogacy agreement go to the intended parents, not the surrogate mother.Miss Beasley, a single woman from the Midlands, already has a nine-year- old son. The two of them arrived in the U.S. a week ago.She said she could not afford to support the twins, so adopting them herself was not an option. But she claimed to feel very responsible for the babies.’You can’t help but get attached to them, and I just want the best for them,’ she said last night. ‘When they’re born, what happens to them? I can’t have them. I can’t do anything with them. They’re not mine.

4. “The View” host Sheri Shepherd reportedly wants “nothing to do” with her unborn childnow that her marriage has folded. Shepherd reportedly used IVF to conceive a child with her husband Lamar Sally but now is not interested in caring for the baby, who is being carried by a surrogate mother. 5. Doctors told surrogate mother Crystal Kelley, 29,five months into her pregnancy last year that the baby she was carrying had a series of disabilities. When the child’s parents told her they wanted to abort the foetus, she fled from Connecticut across the country to Michigan, where under state law she had legal rights as the child’s mother. … The baby was suspected to have a cleft palate, a brain cyst and serious heart defects. Doctors were unable to locate the child’s spleen or stomach, and gave the baby only a 25 percent chance of living a normal life They offered her $10,000 to have the procedure but Ms Kelley refused, demanding $15,000 instead in what she says was a “weak moment”. The parents refused, and reminded her of her contractual obligation to abort the foetus if it displayed signs of abnormality. If she refused, she would be sued for the fee she had already received, plus all the medical expenses and legal fees.

CIA says ISIS has 30000 Fighters. Turkey, Germany Won’t Join in USA-led Bombing.

 

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani places ISIS blame on Obama administration (IMAGE SOURCE: Monitor Mideast)

Tweedle dee.

And tweedle dum.

The various nations are playing Say Whaaa? about the president’s plans to bomb ISIS into oblivion.

Turkey — which is the geographic bridge between Europe and the Middle East and a next-door neighbor to Iraq — has decided that they are a no-go. Ditto for our friends in Germany.

According to International Business Times:

Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier questioned whether Obama’s plan of airstrikes and equipping moderate Syrian rebels was adequate. “We haven’t been asked, nor will we do it,” he said of the airstrikes. “We need to be honest with ourselves in the current situation, we don’t yet have a final, blanket strategy which guarantees that we’ll be successful against ISIS and similar groups.”

I hate to say this, but that position may be well taken.

If the CIA knows what it’s talking about (always a question) ISIS’ new notoriety and glorious beheading videos have recruited up to 30,000 wannabe serial killers to their ranks.  Bombing, without concomitant strategies to attack their funding, shut down their web sites and deal effectively with the people who are going to them from areas outside the Middle East will not achieve the destruction of ISIS. In fact, it could end up strengthening ISIS.

Meanwhile, the people most at risk from ISIS are joining the US. Ministers from 10 nations in that region committed to joining the US in armed opposition to ISIS.

From Voice of America:

Earlier Thursday, ministers from 10 Gulf and Arab nations said Thursday they are committed to joining the United States in a “coordinated military campaign” against Islamic State fighters who have seized large swaths of Iraq and Syria.After talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia with Saudi officials and U.S Secretary of State John Kerry, officials from the Gulf Cooperation Council, along with Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, said they are united against the threat from all terrorists, including Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. EgyptNon-Arab Sunni Turkey also attended the talks.

But two other powerful regional powers, Shi’ite-ruled Iran and Syria, were excluded, a sign of how strong the Middle East’s sectarian divide remains.The Arab states agreed in a written communique to take many of the steps U.S. President Barack Obama spelled out Wednesday in his newly articulated strategy for wiping out the militants – stopping the flow of foreign fighters, cutting off funds for Islamic State, providing humanitarian aid to those terrorized by the militants and rejecting what the ministers call their “hateful ideology.”

Notice that these states have agreed to work to cut off funding for ISIS. I can’t emphasize enough how critical that is. It is also critical for us to take a look at who is selling them arms and other supplies. This is large-scale support for mass murder.

The reason this is so important is that ISIS, for all its braggadocio, has no war-making ability in and of itself. None whatsoever. If ISIS cannot buy arms and supplies from actual, functioning governments who do have war-making ability, it is reduced to the knife that one of its murderers bragged about when he killed Steven Sotloff.

If we can cut off their money, stop governments from selling them arms and become more intelligent about the arms we are giving away, the dynamics of this situation will change dramatically and immediately. That includes not buying oil from them. The wells they have seized are stolen property. The money they get from the sale of this oil goes to finance mass murder and the destruction of civilization in a whole region of the world.

Personally, I am a big flummoxed by the plan to bomb ISIS back to the where it came from. It is true that 30,000 organized people with all their armaments are a bit difficult to hide. I have no problem whatsoever with bombing ISIS. I just hope that we actually bomb ISIS and not the surrounding countryside.

However, bombing alone has consistently failed to achieve anything other than chaos and ultimate defeat for those who have employed it. From the Blitzkrieg, to North Viet Nam, to now, bombing as a single tactical exercise has failed. Mind you, I am not advocating “boots on the ground,” (unless we actually do send a planeload of empty boots over there.)

America has had it with war of this type, and for good reason. Even though we carefully block the reality of war from our sight by hiding the disabled soldiers who come home and even, for a long time, refusing to allow photos of the returning caskets, the fact is, we are sending our people to die.

I think we can dismember ISIS by removing their money, refusing re-entry and imprisoning — for life with no parole and no press interviews and in a separate prison — those who join them and want to return to Europe/America/Australia, et al later, and by shutting down the web sites and recruitment venues within our nations. We also need to take a realistic look at our immigration policies.

Congress needs to stop throwing partisan pies at one another long enough to pass the laws we need to defend this nation. The president needs to stop playing the various parts of the electorate and sign those laws. Everyone that we’ve elected needs to start caring about America more than they do their political parties and special interest groups. The number one thing that scares me about this situation is that our elected officials on both sides of the political spectrum are games-players who are have been, at least up until now, unwilling to put America first.

Bombing fails as a single strategy. But it can be a decisive component of a more comprehensive strategy. Number one, before we do much of anything else, we need to stop feeding this beast and begin starving it.

My Questions about President Obama’s Address on ISIS

 

It’s almost too ironic that the president announced this on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11, which was the beginning of this war that appears to have ever-changing targets and no end.

I have several questions. First, it was around a year ago that President Obama wanted to bomb Syria because of allegations of the use of chemical weapons against ISIS. If we had gone ahead with that plan, it most likely would have destroyed the remaining infrastructure in the war-torn country and handed a total victory to ISIS.

I was totally against this, for a number of reasons. Among those reasons was my concern that bombing Syria would put these “rebels” (as they were called then) in power.

I’m raising this issue because I think it’s pertinent to last night’s speech. I want to wipe out ISIS. I regard that as a regrettable but necessary action to preserve civilization in the Middle East and stop the spread of violence into Europe, Russia, China, America and Australia.

I want to know that we’re going to be bombing ISIS, and not destroying the infrastructures of these countries. In more direct terms, bombing, if it doesn’t have the right targets, will not help end ISIS’ reign of terror. In fact it could do great harm.

Notice also the list of regions and countries that I said were menaced by ISIS. I know that looks like a broad swath for what is essentially a gang of murdering extortionists and pirates. But it is clear that ISIS is drawing murderers from the Muslim populations in all these areas. If the nations in question do not formulate more intelligent and self-preserving policies than they have followed up until now, they will most certainly find themselves dealing with this murderous and genocidal savagery on their home soil.

How does bombing play into that? Is bombing an effective and sufficient response?

I think that bombing will be an insufficient response unless it is accompanied by policy changes that address the issues of what we are going to do with people who go overseas to murder, rape and practice genocide then try to come back to the USA later. We also need to address the issue of how we are going identify people who are living here in the homeland who are funding and aiding ISIS.

I also wonder how, or even if, we are going to address the critical issue of who is funding ISIS. In military terms, cutting off funding to ISIS serves the same function as destroying the manufacturing plants of a nation that has actual war making power. It stops their war-making ability. It appears to me that those of us who oppose terrorist activities have been singularly ineffective at stopping the influx of what must be massive amounts of monies to ISIS.

I wrote two posts yesterday about a blog post calling for violent discrimination against Muslims. This was a single blog post on an obscure website. However, it is clear that ISIS is using the internet and other forms of communication to recruit what must be large numbers of murderers who are actually following through with the murdering. I’ve read that the videos of our reporters being beheaded will be (probably have been already) used to attract and recruit fresh murderers to this ignoble cause.

How are these calls to murder being channeled through the various communities where likely recruits are found? Is it done entirely by the internet? What part does word of mouth play in this? How are we dealing with these web sites?

I’m strongly in favor of freedom of speech. But direct recruitment of murderers to participate in the slaughter of innocent people who are then murdered in great numbers by these same recruits goes beyond the limits of what we ordinarily think of as free speech. It is akin to putting a murder for hire ad on the web. How are we going to deal with this?

We need to re-evalulate our laws that pertain to these issues and make the changes that are necessary to protect this country.

I want to think about this before I say more. Right now, what I mostly have are questions. In the meantime, I am interested in what Public Catholic’s readers think. I hope you will think these things through and share your ideas. I also hope that we can get beyond knee-jerk partisan sloganeering.

This is about genocide against Christians and other religious minorities, war that seems to be going on forever, and our domestic safety here in our homeland. Let’s put aside partisan loyalties and think about what is best for our country.

Here, for your consideration, is our president’s address from last night.

YouTube Preview Image

ISIS and Genocide are Satan’s Delight

 

Oklahoma plans to execute a murderer in the next few months.

This murderer raped an 11-month old baby to death.

How does it make you feel when you read the sentence? Would you like to volunteer to dispatch this man yourself?

That’s satan’s delight. The dark lord’s pay-back for atrocity is a triple hitter. First, there is the payback of the deed itself; the horror and suffering of the victim, the sadism and utter degradation of the perpetrator. Then, there’s the horror and rage of those of us who must deal with the after effects. And finally, there is the fall from grace of those who see it and are moved in their hearts to murder as revenge.

Every outrage is a trifecta for satan. Every time.

Consider for a moment how much more delightful government-waged atrocity is to this being of hate and death. Genocide, and its evil twin the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents of every group, feed his craving for annihilation.

If the heinous murder of one innocent child can make good people crave the taste of bloody revenge, the mass slaughter of millions can raise up the murdering beast in all of civilization. Genocide has the power to make monsters of us all.

The antidote to that, if you are a Christian, is the certain knowledge that these murderous rages of retribution, no matter how tempting they may seem, are of the darkness and not the Light. You can not follow Christ and yield to them.

Recently, a blogger on a small web site posted an article setting out the roadway to an American genocide against Muslims. I could sugar coat it, but that would be a lie. The roadway of discrimination leading to organized violence against a specific group of people was explicit and clear.

The resulting carrying on was due, at least in my opinion, to the fact that the web site is a Christian site. It was precisely because the worldwide response of Christians everywhere, ranging from the Pope to those who are victims of this genocide has been so completely Christian that so many people have latched onto this obscure web site and its blog post. It may not be much, but it’s the best they’ve got.

The bulk of this reaction was gleeful denunciation from the same people who have heretofore been mostly or even entirely silent about the genocide in Iraq. These are the same people who bash Christians day and night.

It was accompanied by a more muted See? It’s not just us! response from a few Muslim commenters.

The truth is, I understand and sympathize with the Muslim response, while I take the “outrage” from the consistent Christian bashers as a pose that is simply part of their on-going hazing of Christians in general.

The point to me is that this writer has gone over the falls of giving satan his delight. Christianity is the religion of life, not death. We stand for the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. We acknowledge that all human life is sacred.

We know that we will be persecuted and attacked for this. Our Savior told us that we would be persecuted for His name. He also told us that our reward in heaven would be great.

That does not mean that we are called to sit idly by while millions of innocent people are being slaughtered. Self defense is always allowed, and the defense of those who cannot defend themselves is part of that.

But we may not ever — ever — engage in bloody battles of vengeance aimed at expiating the rage and hurt we feel over the atrocities we witness. That savagery is not Christian. It is anti-Christ. And it dooms those who do it to the same hell where the followers of ISIS are sending themselves.

Make no mistake about it: God is not mocked. And calling for the indiscriminate slaughter of any of the people that He made in His image is mocking Him, big time.

ISIS and genocide are satan’s delight.

Don’t allow yourself to become his delight, as well.

Snowballs in You Know Where: Libby Anne Cooks Up a Pastoral Chicken and I Agree (Mostly) with Her

I believe that there must be snowballs in the infernal regions.

Today, I am going to applaud and link to a post on the Patheos Atheist Channel.

Libby Anne who blogs at Love, Joy Feminism is a wee bit put off because a “pastor” of some indeterminate denomination (or not) has managed to insult both men and women by reducing men to their most talked about appendage and women to … I can’t even say it.

Let’s just say that in my opinion (and evidently Libby Anne’s as well) this guy is one of those kinds of guys that people tend to refer to as actually being the appendage in question, as in “he’s a d—.” Or maybe, just for variety, they might say, “he’s a d——head.”

Whatever.

The point — at least to me — is that this nano brain is an embarrassment. I had to google him to figure out how he was, and when I did, I discovered that he’s a Really Big Deal in certain circles. His name, in case you’re wondering, is Marc Driscoll. Or, as he seems to be commonly referred to, “Pastor Marc Driscoll.”

I read a bit of his wit and wisdom about human sexuality, and I’m going to assume that he was trying to be … I dunno … cute? Maybe he was making an attempt to address adolescent males about sexuality and decided to get all clever about it. Add the fact that he’s clearly as tone deaf about women as a walking turnip, and you’ve got what we’ve got.

Or, at least that’s what I want to be believe. I want to think that he’s just another open-mouth-insert-both-feet dufus who doesn’t like women and tries to hide it, but who ends up letting it show because he’s unaware of how much he dislikes women. The world is full of these guys.

I said a moment ago that Marc Driscoll is an embarrassment. But I am not exactly sure who he’s an embarrassment to. Twenty-one former pastors of his church (I don’t have a clue how they’re organized, but the story says they have 21 former pastors) have made formal complaints against him for his bullying, intimidating behavior. I suppose they might read this little thingy he wrote and feel embarrassed. But those same pastors also claim that Pastor Marc (as he evidently likes to be called) taught them “sound doctrine.”

So, maybe not. Maybe they think that men are their appendages, and women are the … there it is again, and I still can say it.

Whatever.

Pastor Marc ended up getting ousted from what is said to be a mega church (maybe that’s why the 21 former pastors) from his own organization that he had founded because of his abusive behavior towards these other pastors. Based on my extensive experience with various men like him that I have known in politics, I would guess that if he’s uncontrollably abusive and exhibiting “ungodly and disqualifying behavior” toward other men who are almost his equals in his church, he must be a real treat for the women and girls to be around.

I’ve never known a jerk who wasn’t at least partly an equal opportunity jerk. If he was abusive with the guys, he was almost certainly worse with the women.

Which brings us back around to his absolutely bizarre whatever that he wrote about women, men, appendages and (I kid you not) what God was thinking when He created all of us. It appears that Pastor Driscoll not only knows the purpose for women, which is, it seems, to get laid, but he knows what God was thinking when He created women.

You see, Pastor Marc tells us, God made the male half of the human race with a particular appendage that had nothing much to do. After mulling this over, God decided to make the female half of the human race to give that appendage a “home.” In Pastor Marc’s homiletic,  men are an appendage and women are a purpose for that appendage.

Libby Anne goes on about this in depth and speaks to all sorts of female concerns, including our life-bearing, nurturing selves. She evidently was taught as a child that she was some man’s future wife. If I had been taught that, I’d be mad about it, too.

But I got lucky. I was taught from the get-go by my Christian parents that I could do anything I wanted to do. This wasn’t some pre feminist rap. It was about them, loving me.

I remember when I was a kid, reading a story in The Ladies Home Journal in which the author said that women’s bodies were made so that they could have babies, that having babies was the purpose of the female body. The underlying assumption was that the male body had no purpose except to be a home for men, whereas women … well, you get it. Looking back on it, the article was a dressed-up-go-to-town version of Pastor Marc’s sex ed thingy.

“That’s not true,” my Mama told me. “Your body was made for you to live in it. It’s yours.”

I got my dose of anti-Pastor-Marc early, and it stuck. Which I guess was my good luck.

One benefit of my raising is that when I read idiot commentary like Pastor Marc Driscoll’s, I know right off that it is commentary from an idiot. I also know, due to a lifetime of experience out there butting heads and competing in the open marketplace of full-speed, grown-up politics, that sexism knows no faith or philosophy.

I am telling you the absolute truth when I say that the meanest and most vicious sexists I’ve ever known were liberal men. I say that as someone who self-identifies as a liberal. As for running away from the Church to avoid sexism, you might as well stay home and fight it out. Because atheist men can be vicious sexists, as well.

You’ll find this kind of garbage — and much, much worse — anywhere you go.

I’m not chiding Libby Anne for her opinions. She has every right to them. In fact, I rather imagine that if we could put aside the shibboleths of label, she and I might sit down over lunch and find out that we have a lot of belief in common. I say that after looking down the list of her blog posts and seeing a whole chicken and a pot of things I disagree with.

I just know that women who think that God hates women have often been taught that by people in the church; the kind of people who would tell a little girl that she is not a full person in herself; she is nothing more than someone’s future wife.

I’ve been a wife for over thirty years and I like it a lot, but nobody ever told me my whole purpose for existing was to be a wife. Even now, after decades of sharing my life with my adorable and adored husband, I am not a wife only. Or only a mother. Or only a daughter. I am first of all myself, as is every other human being. You cannot give — to your spouse, your children, your friends or your God — what you do not have. You must first be wholly yourself before you can truly be with and for another.

But that’s getting all philosophical/theological and thoughtful. Which is moving a long, long way from Pastor Marc Driscoll and his bizarro thinking about men and women.

He is, as I said, an embarrassment.

TMZ Releases Surveillance Video of Ray Rice Attacking His Fiance. Ravens Finally Terminate His Contract

 

What does it take for a pro football player to be held accountable?

Mistreatment of animals will get it done in  a hurry. Just ask Michael Vick.

But beating up a woman?

Not so much.

After months of dithering about the Ray Rice fiancé beating scandal the Ravens have finally terminated his contract. This follows the NFL’s earlier defense of a two-game suspension of the running back and a standing ovation of support for him from fans. Ray Rice fans also lit up twitter with their supportive messages. 

His fiancé even went ahead and married Mr Rice six weeks after he knocked her out.

If it hadn’t been for TMZ, that’s where the story would have ended, with another woman playing maso to some guy’s sado and all the good old boys giving him back-slapping high-fives for his behavior.

Misogyny is not a problem of one group of people or one set of beliefs. Misogyny is a human problem. It has everything to do with letting the biggest and the meanest make all the rules and nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with true manliness or human decency.

Real men don’t hit women.

In fairness to Mrs Rice, she probably does not remember what her husband did to her. She may not remember anything that happened that day, or that week.

There’s no doubt that men are stronger than women. God made them that way for a purpose and that purpose is not to beat and batter their families. It is to protect and provide for their families.

I’m glad the Ravens were finally forced to do what they should have done the first day. I wonder if the fans who gave Mr Rice and standing ovation and who sent those supportive tweets are re-thinking their own behavior?

If you want to see the video, go here. Thank you TMZ for putting it out there.

From TMZ:

This is what a two game suspension looks like – Ray Rice delivering a vicious punch to his fiancee’s face, knocking her out cold … and TMZ Sports has the shocking video.

We’ve already shown you the aftermath outside the elevator … Rice dragging the unconscious woman on the floor.  But we’ve now obtained video of the punch that put her down, raising the question … What was the NFL thinking when it wrist-slapped Rice with such feeble punishment?

The incident took place Feb. 15th at the Revel Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City — after Ray and then-fiancee (now wife) Janay Palmer got into a heated argument on their way into the elevator.

Inside the elevator it’s apparent he strikes first … she hits back … and then Rice delivers the knockout blow.

The punch knocks Janay off her feet — and she smashes her head on the elevator hand rail … knocking her out cold. Ray doesn’t seem phased … and when the door opens, he drags her out into the hotel. 

An employee of the hotel  – which just shut down for good – tells TMZ Sports he was working there at the time and says the NFL saw the elevator footage before imposing the 2-game suspension.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/08/ray-rice-elevator-knockout-fiancee-takes-crushing-punch-video/#ixzz3CkxkUq3r

 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X