My latest ecommerce website is about to launch, so I'll be back posting once I'm finished with it. In the meantime, check out the latest Catholic Carnival. It has an interesting theme around discernment.
Also, once again I ask that you pray for those affected by the Hurricane. And I know the Saints and Angels are praying with us.
God bless,
Jay
Our apologies for being scarce. Joseph and I have a speaking engagement this weekend and a ton of work besides, but we're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. By this time next week we should be showing up at the discussion again.
Also please pray for those affected by the Hurricane - especially the poor and sick, who are typically more affected by these types of disasters.
God bless,
Jay
Go see the newest Catholic Carnival. It's a great collection of articles about Catholicism and containing Catholic thought.
God bless,
Jay
Isaiah 22:20-23. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.This is not only an interesting Old Testament passage, it also foreshadows the future. As St. Jerome’s Commentary notes: the key of the house of David: Symbolizes authority over all in the royal palace. And note the reference to him being a “father” to others. Now fast forward to Jesus’s words:
Matthew 16:15-19. [Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter [rock], and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”Christ is clearly making a reference that all Jews would immediately know: the keys of the kingdom. Only this time it isn’t just the keys that bind in the house of David, but those which bind on earth and heaven. Peter’s faith resulted in his installation as our first Pope – and a spiritual “father to the inhabitants” as Isaiah refers to.
So, it’s pretty simple. Jesus promised us:
God bless,
Jay
A woven tapestry has always been an incredible work of art. Different colored threads meshed together by an artist’s skill comes together in “big picture” way that the threads never realize. This Carnival represents another fascination collection of colored threads, which weave together a beautiful tapestry. Enjoy.
Depending on God from An American Housewife is a very personal and captivating post on examining our own lives and how we abandon ourselves to God.
Everyone’s a Victim at Ales Rarus points out that claims of entitlement by Christians distract us from those who really need help.
Catholics & the First Amendment at Kicking Over My Traces explains that the understanding of the meaning of the Religion Clause has changed so markedly over 200 years that what used to guarantee a citizen the free exercise of his religion is now used to procedurally bar orthodox Catholics from public office.
Martyrs Celebrated within the Past Seven Days at Pondering the Word examines the meaning behind a week of Nazi martyrs and offers us something to reflect on.
Devout Catholic and Cool - It is Possible from Happy Catholic starts with an interesting vocations recruitment poster from the Archdiocese of Indianapolis and gets directly into how we can live in a secular society without losing our Catholic identity.
Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 137 -- Religious Denominations In The U.S. House Of Representatives at WILLisms breaks out the religious backgrounds of our representatives in the US House (see also the Senate).
The Ghost of Galileo: A New Dialogue on Evolution at TMH’s Bacon Bits takes a look at the recent developments in how the Church views Evolution (in light of Cardinal Schönborn’s article) from the eyes of a Catholic scientist.
What’s In It For Us? from Our Word and Welcome To It points out that we’re asked to give up a lot to become followers of Christ and asks “What’s in it for us?”
And Then She Returned Home from A Penitent Blogger reflects on life, death, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the last verse of the Gospel account of the Visitation.
My Bloglines List was Too Active Today at From the Anchor Hold along with the Catechism and Abbas of the desert, gives fellow bloggers good advice on how to handle the “Accuser of the Brethren.”
I Was Wrong About NARAL and Planned Parenthood at Ravings of John C. A. Bambenek talks about the proven false NARAL ad and how it's wrong to call it a lie because these groups actually believe that pro-lifers are extremists and clinic bombers by definition.
A Corinthians 13 Examination of Conscience for Families at Heart speaks to Heart provides us with an excellent examination of conscience for families and family members.
Lutherans and Crucifixes at On the Other Foot points out that if we ignore the crucifix in favor of a less "depressing" image, we risk forgetting why Christ came in the first place. He came to save our souls, not to hang with His buds.
God and Fate at Crusader of Justice explains why superstitions and reliance on fate don't mesh well with God.
The Blessed Ones at Exultet offers a captivating meditation based on a painting of the Madonna and Child by Mignard.
And this blog offers From On Being Catholic by Thomas Howard, which is a short excerpt from the book and my recommendation that you read it right now . . .
Thanks for your association with the Carnival. Enjoy the posts and
God bless,
Jay
I just finished reading Thomas Howard’s latest book, On Being Catholic, and I must say that I was very impressed. Howard is a convert to Catholicism and because of this he brings a unique view on the Church. This book is an excellent explanation of how Catholics see the world with a touch of inspirational spirituality. To underline the point, take a look at this passage:
Rank. Perhaps that is the word that may supply the clue necessary to open up the Catholic vision of God’s majesty to non-Catholics who worry that the ancient Church has stolen away the exclusive glory of God and has distributed it among a great multitude of interlopers.The “rank” of the noble men and women who throng the earthly king’s court is, of course, derived from him. The duke’s dignity not only does not subtract one farthing from the king’s majesty: it augments that majesty, as though to say, “See, see what nobility this sovereign bestows. See how he raises his servants to share his glory.” The awe that comes over us upon the entrance of one of the great barons into the presence glances immediately from his armor straight to the figure on the throne. The great ladies of the court, so serene in their fathomless dignity, decked with the vesture that, even in its richness, is scarcely adequate to the nobility that crowns them – they gaze on our awe with eyes that say, “To him. To him be all honor and majesty and might and blessing.”
This is the Catholic vision of God’s majesty. He is not a niggardly sovereign, sitting upon his riches like a dragon on hoard, sullen and wary lest anyone snatch the smallest coin from the heap, thereby subtracting that sum from his exclusive prerogative. There are, alas, widely espoused theologies that talk of God’s glory as though this were the picture and that grudge any spilling-over of that glory onto any creature. To listen to such theologies is to conjure the spectacle of a great king, solitary in his splendor and served by thralls, sycophants, and helots, forever groveling, forever scourged by their masters with, “Give him the glory! Be careful to give him the glory!”
It is an ironic refrain, of course, since the whole point of the splendid assembly of nobles is that indeed the sovereign receive the glory. To that extent the slave-driving master’s refrain is technically true. Bu there is something parsimonious about it all. Give him the glory, as though any remnant of cloth on me that is not a filthy rag somehow calls in question that glory.
But the grimmest khans, sultans, and pharaohs in their tyranny have not grudged their glory thus. The greater their retinue, the greater their splendor.
It is thus, says the Roman Catholic Church, with God’s glory. He is a God who crowns us with glory and honor (see Psalm 8). He is a God who has raised us and made us to reign with his own Son. He is a God who exults in ennobling his servants and who has made them his own kin, brought them into his banqueting house, and unfurled the banner of love over their heads.
This is what his bounty purposes for all who will receive him. “As many as received him, to them gave he the power to become sons of God.” Sons of God? Lord: I am not worthy that you should come under my roof. Make me as one of your hired servants. Let me hunt with the dogs for the crumbs that fall from your table.
You are to sit at my royal table, says his bounty to us all. You were indeed poor and wretched and blind and naked and so covered with wounds and bruises and putrefying sores that there was no remedy for your condition – no remedy, that is, but my grace. But now you are washed, you are healed, you are clothed with the righteousness of my own Son, the Prince of Glory. Your tunic, your armor and spurs and robe and the very diadem that glitters on your brow: those you have for me because I love my only begotten Son and wish to present him with this guerdon for his suffering. He shall see of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied. I have adopted you and made you coheirs with him of all my glory.
God bless,
Jay
This is so good I had to post the whole thing. From James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal:
No one seriously argues anymore that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided. Rather, pro-Roe advocates rest their case on policy grounds (warnings about coat alleys and back hangers, etc.) or, when they must argue the law, on the power of precedent. Of the five Supreme Court justices who more or less upheld Roe in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, three went out of their way to avoid endorsing the decision, emphasizing instead the allegedly high cost of the court's admitting a mistake:A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy, and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law. It is therefore imperative to adhere to the essence of Roe's original decision, and we do so today.
A jaw-dropping op-ed piece in today's Boston Globe suggests that these three justices got it exactly wrong. One Christopher D. Morris, "a writer and critic in Northfield, Vt.," argues that the Senate Judiciary Committee should subject the Catholic Church, and Catholic jurists, to special scrutiny:
Catholic bishops threatened to exclude Senator John Kerry from the Eucharist because of his support for Roe v. Wade. The Senate Judiciary Committee is now fully justified in asking these bishops whether the same threats would apply to Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts, if he were to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade.
The bishops have made this question legitimate because Americans no longer know whether a Catholic judge can hear abortion cases without an automatic conflict of interest. . . .
Asking the bishops to testify would be healthy. If they rescinded the threats made against Kerry, then Roberts would feel free to make his decision without the appearance of a conflict of interest, and Catholic politicians who support Roe v. Wade would gain renewed confidence in their advocacy. If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats, the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.
In other words, in order to preserve the bogus constitutional right to abortion, it is necessary to disregard the actual constitutional provisions for church-state separation and against religious tests for officeholders. It's yet another reason why Roe must go.
When Cuomo Made Sense
Yesterday we noted that the Roberts nomination had Mario Cuomo, on "Meet the Press" Sunday, talking like a Know Nothing, demanding to know if John Roberts would do what "the pope says." During the same show, Cuomo's interlocutor, constitutional scholar Douglas Kmiec, praised a speech Cuomo gave in 1984 at Notre Dame in which the then-governor of New York discussed the role of religion in politics. "It was eloquent," Kmiec said. "It was a wonderful presentation."We thought Kmiec was just being polite, but when we found the speech online, we actually found a lot to agree with. Here's the 1984 Cuomo:
The same amendment of the Constitution that forbids the establishment of a State Church affirms my legal right to argue that my religious belief would serve well as an article of our universal public morality. I may use the prescribed processes of government--the legislative and executive and judicial processes--to convince my fellow citizens--Jews and Protestants and Buddhists and non-believers--that what I propose is as beneficial for them as I believe it is for me; that it is not just parochial or narrowly sectarian but fulfills a human desire for order, peace, justice, kindness, love, any of the values most of us agree are desirable even apart from their specific religious base or context. . . .
I can, if I wish, argue that the State should not fund the use of contraceptive devices not because the Pope demands it but because I think that the whole community--for the good of the whole community--should not sever sex from an openness to the creation of life.
And surely, I can, if so inclined, demand some kind of law against abortion not because my Bishops say it is wrong but because I think that the whole community, regardless of its religious beliefs, should agree on the importance of protecting life--including life in the womb, which is at the very least potentially human and should not be extinguished casually.
No law prevents us from advocating any of these things: I am free to do so.
So are the Bishops. And so is Reverend [Jerry] Falwell [a 1980s "religious right" figure].
This sounds a lot like our Wall Street Journal article from May, "Why I'm Rooting for the Religious Right." Actually, we'd add that Cuomo or anyone else is perfectly free to advocate the policies he cites on strictly sectarian grounds as well. Making the case this way is foolish, though, since America is a highly pluralistic society, and "because the pope says so" will be sufficient to persuade only some Catholics and virtually no non-Catholics.
In any case, Cuomo's position then seems at odds with the prevailing liberal position today, which is that religiously informed arguments are essentially illegitimate, at least when they lead to conservative conclusions.
God bless,
Jay
The United Church of Christ is well known for a couple of reasons: they are extremely liberal and they are shrinking rapidly. In response to this, the UCC began running a commercial last year that featured bouncers refusing some access to church. In particular, they suggested that those who felt homosexuality was sinful were also racist (at least the bouncers went in this direction).
My question is: what do you think? In my mind the United Church of Christ is taking protestantism to a new level. Not only did they throw off the "oral Word" St. Paul discussed, they are also ignoring large parts of the "written Word" we all call the Bible. This isn't just Sola Scriptura, it's Sola Nada (so to speak).
Even if you confront a UCC minister or member directly about this Scripture, they ultimately all argue the same point, "we just see it differently" (even though they may have no backup in Scripture). Is this a situation where we can only pray and fast for them?
For those who don't realize, if you do follow Scripture you'll see that there are several realities. For example, sin does exist and we cannot condone it. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual acts and other perversions of our sexuality as well as abortion (which the UCC does not condemn). By ignoring God and suggesting that it is okay, the UCC is essentially lying to it's members and deceiving them into believing that they can do these and still be "good." It might feel good to tell others that everything is okay, but it isn't love, which is what we are striving for on earth. Love your neighbor as yourself; don't lie to him under the assumption that he cannot be a better person.
God bless,
Jay
Sorry for the lack of posts - I'm actually in the process of moving! (And Joe is having to help). We'll be back very soon, but in the meantime check out this week's Catholic Carnival, which has some excellent articles on Christianity.
God bless,
Jay
