Pope Francis displayed St Peter’s bones at the closing mass of the Year of Faith.
These pitiful shards of bone are all that’s left of the earthly body of St Peter. But the Church which Christ built on his efforts is vast and growing.
Pope Francis displayed St Peter’s bones at the closing mass of the Year of Faith.
These pitiful shards of bone are all that’s left of the earthly body of St Peter. But the Church which Christ built on his efforts is vast and growing.
Warning: Rant ahead.
Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, is now running for Congress.
I have no problem with that. But he’s evidently written a book about and is now going around discussing the people he guarded while he was in the Secret Service, including both Presidents Bush and Obama.
I have a bit of advice for Mr Bongino, as well as other Secret Service agents: Keep your mouth shut.
The same goes for priests, nuns, counselors, therapists, doctors and politicians.
These are privileged positions which give those of us who hold them access to the deepest secrets of people’s lives. If you can’t keep your mouth shut about the deeply personal things that people share with you, then you shouldn’t be in a position of such trust.
What that means is don’t talk about the things your parishioners, patients, constituents, or the people you guard share with you. Don’t gripe about it, don’t gossip about it, don’t make fun of it, don’t talk about it or allude to it, or discuss it, even without using their names. Ever. To anyone. Period.
I don’t know anything about Mr Bongino’s politics, but if the story I read in which he discussed two presidents he protected are true, I know all I need to know about his character. If he can’t keep his mouth shut, he shouldn’t have been in the Secret Service, and he doesn’t belong in public office.
Albuquerque voters recently came out in support of late-term abortion in all its grizzly inhumanity.
The only explanation offered in the comments on an earlier post about this vote was a bogus bit of nonsense about how late-term abortion was “necessary” because of a “medical emergency.” I say this is bogus, because, well, it is bogus.
Look at the video below and tell me how the procedures these people describe are in any way medically better for the woman than simply delivering the baby and then trying to save it?
Among other things, the video describes a week-long procedure, having the baby alone in a hotel room, and birthing a dead baby while alone on a toilette. According to their web site, the abortion clinic in question does abortions up to 28 weeks of pregnancy, which is a viable baby. I keep wondering if the people who make these comments actually know what an abortion is, and how it’s done.
The pro abortion movement sells — quite successfully, I might add — abortion as a magical re-wind which just — poof!! — makes the woman un-pregnant. They cook up fantasy scenarios where a late-term abortion is actually necessary to save the woman’s life, when in truth it layers another load of medical procedures, as well as much less medical supervision, on top of what the woman would go through if she simply delivered her baby.
Abortion is not a magical re-wind. It does not undo pregnancy and make it never have happened. It kills the baby. That is the whole purpose of an abortion. Late-term abortions do this in a way that is both graphic and cruel to the woman, as well as the baby.
It is amazing to me that the same medical profession that lobbies so aggressively against home births based on how dangerous a home birth is, turns around and lobbies with equal vigor for women delivering dead babies alone on a hotel room toilette when the procedure is called an abortion.
One of the women in this video convinced the medical staff that she was 27 weeks pregnant, which is actually one week earlier than Southwestern Women’s Options does abortions. Twenty-seven weeks is a viable baby that would most likely survive delivery and go on to a normal life.
This circles back around to what I think is an important question: Why did Albuquerque voters come out in support of late-term abortion?
A lot of things influence elections. People tend to forget that elections are not decided by public opinion. Elections are decided by the people who vote. Politicians influence the outcome of elections by when they hold the election (Certain dates tend toward lower turn-outs, which are much easier for special interest groups to win.) and by how a ballot question is worded.
Advertising is also a major influence on elections, as is how strongly community groups such as the Chamber of Commerce come into the debate. If Albuquerque is anything like Oklahoma, the Chambers of Commerce in the big cities are pretty much owned by pro abortion Republicans with a smattering of pro abortion Democrats. There is a good bit of inter-locking between the Chamber’s inside group and the boards of organizations such as Planned Parenthood.
This is not true of the smaller chambers around the state, but they don’t appear to be taken all that seriously by the two biggies, at least not here in Oklahoma.
One question I have is how much the Albuquerque-Santa Fe chambers of commerce influenced this vote. Since this was a local vote, their influence would matter. I would guess, based on what I heard back when I was pro choice, that the Santa Fe chamber is pro abortion. That may not be true now, but it was true in the 80s and 90s. I don’t know anything about the Albuquerque chamber.
I would guess that the rank and file Albuquerque voter did not vote for late term abortion as it actually is, but rather for some fantasy version of late-term abortion that doesn’t exist outside of pro-abortion polemics. There is no question that late-term abortion is infanticide for the sake of committing infanticide. It has no other purpose. If people fully understood this, only pro abortion fanatics, eugenicists and those who gain from the procedure would be in favor of it.
I don’t think that describes the citizenry of Albuquerque. My question from an earlier post remains: What were the voters told and how were they influenced to vote in favor of the horror of late-term abortion?
If anyone has links to ads or other ways in which this vote was put together, I would love to see them.
From Live Action:
Would John Kennedy have kept us out of war in Viet Nam?
Any reply is conjecture. However, he had actually been to war. That is a far different perspective from the one we find in the long string of draft dodgers and never-serveds we’ve had in recent years.
My friends who’ve seen war are far less eager to commit American troops than my other friends who view combat from an armchair perspective. There was a time when the sons of presidents and men of great wealth and power, such as a vastly wealthy former American ambassador to England, fought and died in defense of this country.
Kennedy was of that time. He had experienced combat and nearly died as a result of it. His older brother had been killed in combat.
He knew the price.
How those life experiences would have influenced his decisions concerning Viet Nam, no one can say. But they would have been an enormous factor. Of that much, I am sure.
I lost people I care about in Viet Nam. I think their lives were wasted by incompetent military commanders and bad presidents of both political parties.
Here is a long speech from President Kennedy, talking about peace. I wish we had presidents today who felt the same regard for peace as this man.
This video is not a speech, but it gives a good idea of how President Kennedy was presented to the world back then, through the eyes of a more current journalist.
I have always found it difficult to comprehend the gulf between the fairy-tale photos of President Kennedy’s family life and the sordid tales of his personal sexual behavior.
I think the overall effect of learning that their beloved president had lied to them in such a fundamental way contributed to the cynicism about government that has grown in this country since his death.
Was everything what we thought we knew about him as a person a lie?
Who was this man?
(If you click on the link, it will give you a second link. Click on that, and it will take you to the video.)
JFK will be remembered long after the other dramas of the twentieth century are as obscure as the Hundred Years War is to people today.
This speech and the actions that followed it.
For the first time in history, human beings left this planet and stood on another part of the universe. It was a baby step, since where we went was our own moon. But it was the beginning of something that, if it plays out in future generations, will inevitably lead to JFK getting a mention in the children’s history lessons of the future.
If, on the other hand, humanity does not follow up on this first adventure into space and we simply molder here, this speech will be forgotten, along with everything else people did in the past century. Events seem all-powerful when you’re close to them. And then they fade. As people die and new adventures come about, they fade away altogether.
Here is Kennedy’s speech announcing the push to put Americans on the moon.
My mother’s comment after this speech was “the president taught the nation a Sunday school lesson.”
The question which I wonder about all these years later is whether or not President Kennedy would have been able to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he had lived. President Johnson used the grief of Kennedy’s assassination to help pass the bill. Also, President Johnson’s many years in the Senate leadership gave him enormous legislative skills and power that came into play in the passage of this law.
(It is a phenomenal speech, btw. Just ask any black person who lived under segregation. This speech was a white man, speaking to their hearts.)
I’m going to post several of President Kennedy’s most important speeches. I think that’s a better way to remember him on the 50th anniversary of his death than going back through the assassination.
The question I want to look at was what kind of president he was, and what effect his presidency had on history. I already have my opinion, but I’m interested in hearing yours.
This is a video of his Inaugural Address.
What if President John Fitzgerald Kennedy had not been assassinated?
1. Would he have gotten us out of Viet Nam?
2. Would his philandering have been exposed while he was in office?
3. Would Jackie have divorced him?
4. Would he and Jackie have had more children?
5. Would his bad health have killed him while he was in office, anyway?
6. Would he and Bobby have broken the Mafia in America?
7. Would Richard Nixon ever have been president?
8. Would there have been other, perhaps successful, assassination attempts against his life?
9. Would the 1964 Civil Rights Act have become law?
10. Would this country be a better place?
To join the conversation on Sex and the Single Christian Girl, or to order a copy, go here.
Our culture teaches young girls to look at themselves as meat. I could dress that up by using less harsh language, but the dressing-up would be a lie.
From the time they are babies wearing trollop fashions, to the days when they sit in sex education classes that push dangerous contraceptives on them, including the morning after pill, young girls are taught that their first mission in life is to be sexually available and sexually used.
There is some linguistic dressing up of this message. It is termed “liberation” and “women’s rights.” But it’s not. It’s about using social pressure to coerce young girls into sexual behavior that, based on what quite a number of them have told me, they don’t enjoy or find sexually satisfying. It is the old double standard, flipped over and made even more destructive.
Christian girls end up caught in a social and moral conundrum. On the one hand, they hear that sex outside of marriage is a sin. On the other hand, they hear that they have a “right” to use sex the same way that men use it.
This explanation degrades the girls, as well as the boys. Every one has a sex drive. Every one is more than their sex drive. People want things that hooking up not only can’t give, but that hooking up prevents. Things like self-worth, love, commitment, stability and emotional security.
Even Christian parents have fallen into the trap of stripping the security of a stable home and consistent family interaction from their children’s lives. Divorce destroys basic trust and security in children. Shooting from one activity to the next like a pinball destroys family time and inner peace. I won’t even go into the tsunami of damage that drugs and alcoholism do to children.
It has reached the point that girls who grow up in a stable home with parents who give them love and attention are the ones who are out of step with the culture. They are the girls who seem odd and out of place.
When everyone else is talking trash and getting laid and doing drugs, they’re the wallflowers who spend time in their dorm rooms or at home on Friday nights, wondering what, if anything, it profits them to live lives of purity.
Sex and the Single Christian Girl is written from inside that specific experience for those girls who live it.
The author, Marion Jordan Ellis, lived the life of growing up Christian and then throwing purity over for the hook-up culture. She experienced a radical conversion to Christ and then spent over a decade as a Christian single woman living in purity in a world that disses purity. When she finally met the Christian man who became her husband, she faced the new challenge of maintaining her chastity until she said “I do.”
The thing that sustained her in those years of single chaste living, and that she didn’t have when she slid into the hook-up culture, was vision.
Mrs Ellis makes the important point that a laundry list of “Thou shalt nots” is not enough to give a person the strength they need to follow Christ in our post Christian culture. She applies this directly and specifically to the situation of, as the title says, Sex and the Christian Single Girl. But the idea is equally applicable to all Christian living in a world and society such as ours, that is aggressively hostile to Christian values.
We can’t stand up to the culture by being against it. We have to be for something, and that something must be fueled by a deep and abiding passion. The answer Mrs Ellis offers is not the right answer, it is the only answer.
We are, all of us, beloved Children of the living God. Our lives are not our own. We belong to Him.
And we are worth more than the degrading behaviors that our culture teaches us are not only cool, but necessary and our “right.”
Hook-up sexuality is self-abuse.
It’s that simple.
Drug and alcohol abuse are a living death that, if they aren’t stopped, lead inevitably to a real death.
Divorce is ripping asunder the one flesh of soul and spirit that God has created in Holy Matrimony. It damages our children irrevocably, as well as impoverishing and grieving the husband and wife.
The answer to all this, is, as Mrs Ellis says, that vision thing. We do not see ourselves as the immortal beings of light that we truly are. We do not understand that we are made for eternity in heaven and that our every action in this life either adds to that future or it doesn’t.
Young women are worth more than the value our society has taught them to place on themselves. They are, first of all, Daughters of the King. They belong to Him and to themselves and, once they pass into adulthood, they are answerable to no one else. No one has the “right” to treat them as meat, including and most especially, themselves.
When I was little, I always knew, never doubted, that either one of my parents would die for me. I knew without a shadow or a flicker of doubt that my father would kill or die to protect me and that he would not hesitate about either one.
That is how parents feel and what they do. It is what our Father in heaven has done for us. When Christ hung on that cross at Calvary, that was God, dying to save each one of us. That is, as the Scriptures tell us, “the price” God paid for us.
Young women need to understand this about themselves and never forget it. Their salvation was bought at a great price that only a Father Who loved them would have paid. This culture teaches them that they are meat. But in truth and in fact, they are immortal beings of eternal light; daughters of the living God.
I recommend Sex and the Single Christian Girl to any young woman who is struggling with issues of chastity and self worth in this post Christian world. I also recommend it to parents of daughters who want to teach their girls how to live as the beautiful daughters of God that they are.
America and Afghanistan have reached a “bilateral security agreement” to keep troops in Afghanistan until 2024.
Discussions leading up to the agreement were marked by what at least one article terms “brinksmanship” over whether or not the United States would apologize for actions in the recent Afghan war. We stood tough on that. No apology.
However, our government has committed us — meaning you and me — to continue spending billions of dollars in Afghanistan for at least the next 10 years. If past is prelude, this agreement is actually an agreement in perpetuity. World War II was over in 1945, and the Cold War ended in 1989, but we still have troops in Europe. And Japan. And the Philippines. And … well … everywhere we can have them.
I realize that Afghanistan may be a special case. I do not want it used again as a staging base for further attacks on America. For that reason, it may actually be in the interests of the American people, and in the interests of “keeping us safe,” to extend the time we have a military presence there.
However, the budget deficit is a serious threat to our national security, as well.
If we keep troops in Afghanistan, what are we going to cut elsewhere?
The talk in certain political circles is all about raiding social security and closing down medicare to “balance” the budget. The people are who are doing this are actually engaging in a ruse. The reason for raiding social security (and other retirement plans) is not to balance the budget. It is to drain the last big pool of available money into the coffers of special interests.
There is no way we can even begin to balance our national budget without bringing an end to the real “entitlement” that is draining our public coffers, and that is corporate welfare. The biggest pork barrel out there is military spending. Military spending has gone far beyond what is needed to keep this country safe and has become an economic anvil around our necks that is going to sink us.
It is an endless trough where the corporate hogs feed. Instead of building the roads, public transportation and goods that this country needs to stay strong, our major industry has become endless war.
No one seems to ask the question: If generations of people living off welfare become habituated to the dole and lose ambition and incentive and settle into non-productive mire, what happens to corporations that do the same thing?
Should we keep troops in Afghanistan to stop it from reverting to a staging area for further attacks on America? Perhaps. I honestly don’t know for sure. However, if we do that, we need to cut military expenditures in another area. Either that, or we should all get ready for a future of extreme personal poverty and deprivation.
From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Wednesday that the United States and Afghanistan had finalized the wording of a bilateral security agreement that would allow for a lasting American troop presence through 2024 and set the stage for billions of dollars of international assistance to keep flowing to the government in Kabul.
The deal, which will now be presented for approval by an Afghan grand council of elders starting on Thursday, came after days of brinkmanship by Afghan officials and two direct calls from Mr. Kerry to President Hamid Karzai, including one on Wednesday before the announcement.
Just the day before, a senior aide to Mr. Karzai had said the Afghan leader would not approve an agreement unless President Obama sent a letter acknowledging American military mistakes during the 12-year war. But on Wednesday, Mr. Kerry emphatically insisted that a deal was reached with no American apology forthcoming.
“President Karzai didn’t ask for an apology. There was no discussion of an apology,” Mr. Kerry said. “I mean, it’s just not even on the table.”
After a war that stands as the longest in American history, the security agreement defines a training and counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan lasting at least 10 more years and involving 8,000 to 12,000 troops, mostly American.
Despite the sometimes harsh criticism from Afghan officials during the negotiations, the agreement includes concessions that the Obama administration could not win from Iraq during a similar process in 2011, leading to the final withdrawal of American troops there.
Now, the United States has at least an initial agreement from Afghan officials that American soldiers will not face Afghan prosecution in the course of their duties. And United States Special Operations forces will retain leeway to conduct antiterrorism raids on private Afghan homes — a central American demand that Afghan officials had resisted and described as the last sticking point in negotiations.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was as close as the Cold War came to a nuclear exchange. Here is the speech in which President Kennedy explained the situation to the American people.
I wasn’t there. What that means is that I don’t know exactly what arguments, claims and counter-claims led up to this vote.
What I do know is that Albuquerque voters turned back an attempt to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. We are talking about babies that a mere week or so later in the pregnancy might very well be able to survive if they were born normally and not murdered. I would guess that there were some pretty wild machinations involved in the campaign to “sell” late-term abortions to the public.
There is no reason, none, zip, nada, to do an abortion at this stage of pregnancy to save the mother’s life. Abortions at this time always involve putting the woman through a delivery. The difference is that the baby is deliberately killed first. Woman after woman, girl after girl has testified to the barbarity of “delivering” their dead babies alone in toilettes, hotel rooms and other non-medical places, all as part of a late-term abortion.
The difference between delivering the baby and then trying to save its life, as opposed to jabbing a needle through the mother’s abdomen to kill the baby and then forcing a fast labor and delivery and letting the woman deliver alone is the difference between
1. Good medical care for both mother and child
So what convinced Albuquerque voters to come out against a measure that would ban this barbarity? What inspired the healthy voter margin of 45% to 55% in favor of late-term abortion?
I don’t know, but I’m guessing that it wasn’t the truth.
One thing I do know is that this business of killing babies late-term in pregnancy does not benefit “women’s health.”
From CBS News:
The United States Supreme Court has decided not to intervene in the Texas pro life law that requires abortion clinic doctors to have hospital privileges.
That doesn’t mean that the Court has upheld the law. It also doesn’t mean that it has struck it down. It simply means that the Supreme Court has decided to let lower courts work.
I think it’s interesting that a third of Texas abortion clinics have been forced to close because of this law that requires them to meet the same standards as other outpatient surgery facilities and that also requires that the doctors who do abortions have hospital privileges.
I read what I think are bizarre opinions in the comboxes that laws like this are wrong because the people backing them want to limit access to abortion. That sounds a lot like the notion that abortion is everything and women are nothing.
Isn’t the primary argument behind legalizing abortion supposed to be that women will have access to safe and competent medical care? Why should abortionist be given special dispensation to perform surgeries without complying with the medical standards that are required for everything else? Why should doctors without hospital privileges being doing surgery in the first place?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion today indicating the Supreme Court will not get involved in a case out of Texas that has abortion facilities there appealing a law that has closed numerous abortion clinics that can’t protect women’s health.
In a big victory for pro-life advocates in Texas earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Lee Yeakel of the Western District Court in Austin and restored key portions of a pro-life law in Texas that will ultimately stop abortions and could close abortion clinics. Abortion clinics appealed that decision to the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia issued a ruling today saying the high court will not get involved.
“The underlying legal question — whether the new Texas statute is constitutional — is a difficult question. It is a question, I believe, that at least four members of this court will wish to consider irrespective of the 5th Circuit’s ultimate decision,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurring. “I would maintain the status quo while the lower courts consider this difficult, sensitive, and controversial legal matter.”
The justices voted 5-4 to leave Texas’ pro-life provisions in place and the four Democrat-appointed pro-abortion justices all voted to overturn the pro-life measure. Justice Stephen Breyer write a dissenting opinion saying he expected the case to return to the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy did not join an opinion or write their own, but they sided with Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
With the Supreme Court not intervening, the full appeals court has scheduled a hearing on the case for January to consider the lawsuit. The abortion businesses can proceed with the case there or ask another Supreme Court justice to intervene and stop the law from taking effect while the case continues.
“One generation away from extinction in Britain” is the phrase.
Lord George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, used it in a speech at the Shropshire Churches Conference.
There are news stories with quotes around the phrases saying it both ways.
The point is still the same. Decades of blundering around, chasing the culture and trying to be politically correct rather than preaching Christ have taken their toll. Acceding to the monster of extreme secularism (which, when it’s carried to its most aggressive end is a form of tyranny that seeks to wipe out religious belief) has backed the church in England into such a tiny corner of insignificance that it can no longer behave as a church.
In an odd sort of way, this is exactly what I’m trying and failing to talk about when I keep calling for the leadership in the worldwide Catholic Church to stop talking to one another and begin talking to the laity and to use simple, direct language to do it. They must stop hiding behind mush-mouthed theology-speak and start communicating with the larger culture.
Lord Carey talks about a need for ministries for young people as a way to revitalize the Church of England. My advice is far simpler: Preach Christ and Him crucified.
When Church leaderships, whatever the denomination, fall in love with themselves and their access to the various halls of power, they have fallen for the first and most pernicious form of corruption Christianity can know. I see it in a small form at the Oklahoma legislature when I see religious leaders subvert the Gospel they claim to follow in order to cozy up to political power.
This form of corruption happens in both the right-wing and left-wing churches. It is done by both the Rs and the Ds, although I will say that the Ds are much kinder in how they treat “their” religious leaders who step out of line than what I’ve seen from the Rs. The point here is that I’ve seen religious leaders toss their religious leadership out the window in order to not lose their access to political power.
The Church — and by that I mean all denominations that make up the body of Christ — has become too much in love with the world and too addicted to sitting at the big table at the front of the room at political gatherings.
The reason the Church of England is foundering is that it has made too many accommodations of the Gospels of Christ to fit the various political and social fancies of the days through which it has passed. There is no reason to get up on a Sunday morning and go sit on a hard pew to hear the same social/political claptrap that you hear outside the Church. That is especially true when the social/political claptrap in church is spoken in a mumbly, sneering manner.
My family attended the Episcopalian Church (which is the American version of the Church of England) for several years. Our first vicar was a good man. When he left, the bishop put a replacement in who was, in my opinion, a charlatan. This man, who also taught at one of our universities, stood up in the pulpit and bragged about how he had destroyed the faith of a Southern Baptist student who had come to him for counseling in a time of doubt.
He preached that Christianity was just one faith among many and that the miracles in the Bible were lies and that most everything in the Scriptures was untrue. He didn’t believe in the trinity, the Virgin Birth or much of anything else.
Why would anyone continue to go to a church that preached this nonsense? These are not the words that lead to eternal life. This is the teaching of the evil one, wearing vestments.
This is, hopefully, an extreme example. But tepid faith and compromised Christianity deserve to die because they are not the words that lead to eternal life.
If you preach Christ and you don’t back down or run away when the resistance comes, people will begin to fill your pews.
The world is a butcher shop. Young people today are so damaged by the excesses of their parents with their divorces and obsessions about jobs and career and me, me, me lifestyles that vast numbers of them cannot marry and form families of their own. Their values are so degraded by the sex education and oppressive amoral training in relativism that they receive in the schools that they cannot see themselves or other human beings as children of God.
They are easy prey for any amoral, destructive teaching that comes down the road. They are ignorant of Christianity. When a young person asks, in all honesty, “Who is Jesus?” as a young person asked a friend of mine recently, you know that the culture is post Christian.
People are dying spiritually, our whole Western world is dying spiritually. This vast spiritual vacuum will be filled with something, and it will not, in the end, be atheism. That philosophy is too cold, hopeless and shallow to sustain a culture.
The question becomes what will fill the God-sized hole in the people today if the Church continues down its road of self-absorption and cowardly accommodation to its own demise?
The possibilities are many, but the one true fact remains. Nothing and no one but Christ and Him crucified will suffice. Only Jesus Christ has the words that lead to eternal life. Our only hope as a culture and as individual people is the empty tomb.
People need Christ.
Let me say that again.
People need Christ.
They also need clergy who will stop pandering to the larger culture and preach Christ. The larger culture, which is increasingly dominated by the values of the pit, will react with anger to anyone who preaches Christ. The belittling, smearing and slandering will follow close on the heels of anyone who speaks for Jesus. That is no reason to stop doing it. It is confirmation of how badly it is needed.
The Church of England needs clergy who mean it. They don’t need ministries. They need faith. And courage. And conviction. And a willingness to live and die for Jesus.
The rest will follow.
From iOL News:
London – The Church of England is just “one generation away from extinction”, the former Archbishop of Canterbury said on Tuesday.
Lord Carey laid the blame at the feet of Church leaders who he said should be “ashamed” of their failure to bring youngsters into their services.
His stark message was echoed by the Archbishop of York, who told the General Synod that compared to the need to attract new worshippers, “everything else is like re-arranging furniture when the house is on fire”.
The Most Reverend John Sentamu told the Synod – where leaders will debate how to persuade traditionalists to accept women bishops – that they spent too long “arguing over words and phrases, while the people of England are left floundering amid meaninglessness, anxiety and despair”.
Lord Carey, who stepped down from Lambeth Palace in 2002, remains among the most high-profile campaigners for Christianity in the country. He said: “We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We are one generation away from extinction – if we do not invest in young people there is going to be no one in the future.”
The series of high-level warnings about a looming crisis comes at a time when Christian belief and the Church of England appear under attack on a number of fronts. Recent census figures have shown a decline of more than 10 percent in a decade in numbers of people who call themselves Christian, and the courts have rejected a series of pleas from Christians for respect from the law for their beliefs.
Last month, one of the most senior judges struck a blow. President of the Family Division Sir James Munby declared the courts are not Christian and “the days are past when the business of judges was the enforcement of morals or religious beliefs”.
Ministers – who ignored the Church of England’s objections to same-sex marriage – have gone so far as to threaten the autonomy of the Church of England by hinting that the government will intervene to force its hand if it cannot bring itself to approve the appointment of women bishops.
Lord Carey’s warning was delivered in a speech at Holy Trinity Church in Shrewsbury as part of the Shropshire Churches Conference 2013.
Patheos’ Beer Guy, Frank Weathers
My husband and I took a rambling drive through the Oklahoma hills yesterday.
We wound around the Talihina Drive and ended up at Pete’s Place in Krebs, Oklahoma. For those of you who don’t know, that means we were well and royally fed.
I admired the beer menu, and the good folks at Pete’s gave it to me. Here it is, for the perusal of all you poor folks out there who aren’t Okies. (And, of course, Patheos’ own beer connoisseur, Frank Weathers) I’m not a beer drinker, but those who are say that Pete’s and Choc beer are beyond compare.
This medicine is “good for your health, your heart and your whole life,” the Pope told his audience. “Don’t forget to take it.”
What is the ‘medicine’ the Pope is prescribing?
Watch the video below and see.
To join the conversation about The Thorny Grace of It or to order a copy, go here.
“You’ve gotta have a horse to ride.” That’s a saying from politics, meaning you have to have a candidate who can run the race and win. It comes from horse racing, where the meaning is obvious: Horse races are won astride strong, fast horses.
You’ve gotta have a horse to ride.
That is equally true with books, blogs, essays, poetry and such. In this case, the “horse” you must ride is the writer’s ability to string words together in a compelling fashion.
By that criteria, The Thorny Grace of It has a fine horse to ride. Brian Doyle, the author of this book, can write. His book, which is an anthology of essays he’s published previously in various magazines, hangs together on the power of his writing.
There is no single issue or idea in this book. It is not a book of argumentation. There is nothing didactic or issue-oriented about it.
It is, rather, a series of reflections on living life Catholic that are given to us in lyrical prose that can, at times, almost cross over into poetry. As such, the book moves your emotions first, long before it touches your mind. The essays, which range from a beautiful thought poem about a handmade rosary, to a hilarious description of an older brother tutoring his much younger brother (the author) in how to approach his first confession, are glimpses through a window into another person’s life of faith, family and love.
The author comes from a large Catholic family and has lived his life as a Catholic. His essays reflect that cradle Catholic, generational Catholic reality. The book talks about life as a Catholic schoolboy and life as a mature man who faces the loss of a brother to cancer. Much of the book is centered on the mass in a highly personal first-person stream-of-conciousness narrative of experiencing the mass from the pew at the back of the room.
Mr Doyle’s power of description paints word pictures that translate into visual pictures in your mind as you read through these essays. You “see” the light coming through sanctuary windows that land as bars of butter on the church floor. You feel the lesson of the waspy priest who hides his blindness, and you experience the poignance of taking a drive with a dying brother.
I wish I could write like Mr Doyle.
But I can’t.
What I can do is tell you that if you love beautiful writing about living life Catholic, then this small book of essays is for you.
Sign up for free newsletters and special offers