My concern is that this reflects in some way the acceptable deviance of society. Clearly we have a problem with pornography addiction in our country. There is now no stigma to walking in a store and trying to buy a porn magazine. You can simply go online, believing (wrongly so) that you are anonymous while surfing the internet. People who wouldn't have considered pornography ten years ago are surfing it regularly online.
How can we fix this? Or can we? Pornography is intrinsically dangerous to people and societies. It increases the violence against women. It hurts marriages and marital relationships. It changes the way the user feels about love. And it exploits women in unspeakable ways for money.
I really this this in part goes back to our loss of the sense of sin. I wonder how many who view pornography realize they are endangering their soul - for all eternity - for a small amount of pleasure that can't ever fulfill their desires. If only they felt that Jesus Christ was looking over their shoulder as they engaged in this. Or even better, picture the Virgin Mary crying at your side as you surf the dark side of the Internet.
If you have a pornography problem, do something about it. Know when you are tempted and stay away from the computer. Put software on your computer that will stop you from viewing it. If you have children, you should do this anyway - they certainly shouldn't be sucked in at a young age. And most of all, pray.
If you know someone who has problems with pornography, pray for them. And pray for the women of our society, who seem to be exploited more as every year passes.
It is rare for Hindus to convert to Christianity or any other religion. According to a survey released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life earlier this year, eight in 10 American Hindus who were raised in the faith remain so as adults.
"I did not have an overnight epiphany like so many people do," said Mr. Jindal, calling his conversion a "very intellectual-based journey," where he studied countless religious texts. "Given my background and personality, that was an important part of the process." But, he notes, "I don't think you can 'read' yourself into faith. I had gotten to the point where I knew what history had to say about this person named Jesus and what he had done on Earth. . . . I think at some point you have to take a leap of faith."
God bless,
Jay
And sorry for the lack of posting lately. Summer has kept me personally very busy, but hopefully I'll be posting again soon.
God bless,
Jay
"For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven..."
They say:
"For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven..."
Has anybody else noticed this? I am curious to hear what people think since it is so subtle and don't know anyone who feels so strongly about omitting the word "men" from the Creed. Personally, I understand the word "men" in that case to mean "humankind" and not just males. It seems pretty obvious to me that Christ did not come only to save males and not females. Also, one should probably err on the side of obedience before deciding to change a statement of the Faith that has been formulated by the bishops at the Council of Constantinople.
When the bishops come together at a council and clarify a disputed matter, it is a strong statement of our Faith. I might be wrong, but my guess is that people who feel the need to omit "men" in the creed probably have issues with other teachings of the Church that are not politically correct. Unless someone responds with a good argument to drop or change it, I think it would be better to keep the word "men" in the Creed .
God bless,
Daniel
"What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!" This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, "An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle," In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, "All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way." Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.
Now, I'm still trying to figure out why only 62 messages (you'll have to guess which 62 friends are least likely to be raptured). But it also appears that it's $40 a year until the rapture, which could be some time off (I'm not sure what Hal Lindsey's latest date is, but he could possibly be wrong).
As a slightly technical guy, I should point out the obvious problems from a technical perspective. But Ken Magill at Direct magazine has already done a good job of explaining the realities:
Also, let's say the service gets 10,000 subscribers. That's 620,000 messages coming all at once from IP addresses that previously have shown little to no activity. As a result, Internet service providers' anti-spam filters will most certainly block or divert them into recipients' spam folders.
Who's going to be around at You've Been Left Behind to conduct ISP relations? Maybe the group should employ a staff of the damned to make sure things go smoothly after all those who are saved disappear. Some Unitarians would probably be up for the job--they're such an amenable bunch, after all.
Otherwise, imagine Satan standing at the gates of hell laughing manically and telling a seemingly endless procession of new souls: "You should have checked your spam folders! MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"
Lastly, envision the circumstances under which this service will operate: Among other things, four horsemen will have come riding out of the sky, the forces of righteousness will be locked in the ultimate battle with the antichrist, celestial trumpets are blowing, and the gates of hell are open and beckoning.
And someone's going to say: "Wait just a second while I check my e-mail?"
So if you don't understand the Mass, you tend to see the book of Revelation as only a difficult explanation of the end of time. And interesting human concepts like The Rapture are invented to explain it. It's important to note that the Rapture is primarily a 20th century concept, with little to no precedent for the belief. At this point in time there are multiple versions of the belief in the rapture: pre-millennial, post-millennial, even those who are essentially mid-millennial.
So what is the Truth? Jesus Christ will come at the end of time and separate the wheat from the chaff, taking the wheat to heaven. Those who haven't achieved holiness, but aren't in mortal sin, will be perfected through purgatory.
I pray that through the Sacraments, we all become wheat for Jesus.
God bless,
Jay
John 20:21-23. [Jesus was alone with the disciples] Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
In my old Baptist faith we viewed forgiveness much as Martin Luther tended to; we considered ourselves "saved" at one point in time and basically forgiven for everything from that point on (assuming we were really "saved"). So why would it matter if anyone can retain the sins of another person?
Another point of view: Jesus is taking a power that only God has, namely the power to forgive sins, and giving it to mere humans. As my protestant friends are fond of pointing out: why confess sins to a priest, I can go straight to God. That's a wonderful point of view - and it is true, we can go straight to God in prayer - so what is Jesus doing here? Why is He giving the disciples the power to not only forgive the sins of others, but to retain them? And what does it mean if a disciple "retains" the sins of another?
The Truth is beautiful and perfect, however it is only found in the Catholic Church. This is one of those passages of Scripture that only the Catholic Church can explain (as I've posted before). Jesus also offers the apostles the ability to "bind" and "loose", which is basically the same power (Matthew 18:18), but this is only given to the apostles. Is it carried down to their successors over time? Practically, why would Jesus give this power to the apostles and not allow it to be carried down through the ages? Is it only needed just after He ascends to heaven? That would be a difficult argument to make. And it is clear that this continues (at least in the minds of the apostles):
2 Corinthians 5:18-19. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, no counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
1 Corinthians 5:3-5. For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced a judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Confession is one of the Sacraments most visible in the Bible (there are other verses - and books like James - that cover confession). Together these verses alone build a strong basis that the apostles were given the power to forgive or retain sins by Jesus Himself and they believed this was passed on (at least to Paul).
Speaking as a former protestant, Confession is very effective. First, it gives you knowledge (when you leave) that you are completely forgiven for your sins (assuming you meet the conditions of confession). Second, I can personally tell you that you try harder not to sin when you have to go tell someone exactly what you've done wrong. At the least it makes you pause before committing the same sin over again!
God bless,
Jay
God bless,
Jay
Dr. Daniel Halperin, who led the research team from the Harvard School of Public Health, went as far as saying "We need a fairly dramatic shift in priorities, not just a minor tweaking". The group's report, released in Science magazine, found that male circumcision had a dramatic effect in curtailing the transfer of the HIV virus, while efforts to promote condom use did not affect the spread of AIDS in Africa.
The researchers discovered that programs designed to discourage sexual promiscuity had a strong positive impact in several countries. Uganda had the most successful program. Their government-backed campaign produced a reported 50% drop in the number of people reporting multiple sexual partners. Comparable programs led to a reduction in the rate of HIV infection in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Ivory Coast as well.
I hope this is reported on all the major media networks, not just Science magazine and Catholic World News. The truth about the effects immoral behavior must be exposed.
In Christ,
Daniel
The recent scandal involving Archbishop Wuerl of Washington DC and notoriously pro-abortion politicians being given communion at the papal Mass is the most recent example. Wuerl has argued that "any decision to bar prominent politicians from receiving communion should be made by the bishop in their local diocese after clear efforts to persuade and convince the person that their actions are wrong and bear moral consequences." I understand that refusing someone communion is a strong and difficult action. But how does this reconcile with what the Church has stated about pro-abortion politicians not receiving communion?
This seems like displacing responsibility to me. Can't the bishops work together to stop the confusion on the matter, especially since the repercussions are so important? I mean, we're talking about the Eucharist here; God Himself, the center of our faith, not some small tradition with a little "t". We are dealing with abortion - the biggest war and lie the world has ever known. I agree with Cardinal William Levada, who states that this kind of thinking is dabbling in "territorial morality". How is it possible that things change so much from diocese to diocese within the same country? If I'm missing something here I welcome the correction.
How confusing and how sad, especially when one of the biggest things the pope stressed was unity. We have to pray, pray, pray and storm heaven with sacrifices for that unity.
In Christ,
Daniel
In advance, he has released a video statement to Americans (you can read the text version here). I hope Christians of all stripes and persuasions will take this opportunity to listen the Pope and hear him call you home (he is the successor to St. Peter, the first pope). Here's the AP's take:
Also, pray for his visit - may our ears be opened to hear the truth!
God bless,
Jay
God bless,
Jay
God bless,
Jay
"The Cross had asked the questions; the Resurrection had answered them.
The Cross had asked the question: How far can Power go in the world? The Resurrection answered: Power ends in its own destruction, for those who slew the foe lost the day.
The Cross had asked: Why does God permit evil and sin to nail Justice to a tree? The Resurrection answered: That sin, having done its worst, might exhaust itself and thus be overcome by Love that is stronger than either sin or death.
Thus 'there emerges the Easter lesson that the power of evil and the chaos of any one moment can be defied and conquered, for the basis of our hope is not in any construct of human power, but in the Power of God Who has given to the evil of this earth its one mortal wound-- an open tomb, a gaping sepulchre, an empty grave.'
...Whence shall come our hope for the Church? It will not come from the world, for if the world loved the Church, the Church would be no salvation to the world. If it were not hated, it would be weak. It is only because the fires of its Truth are blinding evil eyes and convicting them of sin and judgment, that the world vainly tries to put them out. And though the world is tearing up all the photographs and blue-prints of a society and a family based on the moral law of God, be not disheartened. The Church has kept the negatives..."
I hope you have a wonderful Easter! Christ is Risen, let us rejoice in Him!
God bless,
Jay
]]>
If you look at the timeline since the protestant "reformation" there is a clear trend. You start with one offshoot from the Catholic Church: the Anglicans. From there division begins to shatter the Anglican communion into two, then five, then hundreds of churches, all with a slightly different theological bent. As the division increases, these small churches get further and further from the Truth. In our day we have the "non-denominational" church, which basically means the pastor is following whatever whim moves him this week, so the theology becomes changeable and unclear. I read this definition of a system of theology recently:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
The answer is simple: nothing. In fact, this definition is a form of self-worship, since the minister and followers attempt to "kill Gods who do not belong to the black community." First, this implies that either there are many "gods" or none (God is an illusion that we shape). Second, it implies that we have control over God, rather than the other way around. Third, if Christ died today (Good Friday), this definition accepts that God only died for black people, not for white.
Don't get stuck on this definition: there are white racist churches out there as well. The point is that without explicit protection from Jesus Christ, theology tends toward a god that we control. A god that is small, obedient, and doesn't ask the hard things from us. Thankfully I'm Catholic and I have the promise of Jesus Christ that my Church will never fall into this trap and never fail. But I have to pray for those who invent their own religion: may the scales of arrogance fall from their eyes. And may they accept in faith that God is real and Jesus loves every single one of us.
My prayers are with you on Good Friday.
God bless,
Jay