You can learn Latin via podcast?
I think I might subscribe.
Stuff about me.
You can learn Latin via podcast?
I think I might subscribe.
Today someone tried to anonymously post a link in my comments to an anti-Catholic site.
I’m hoping he or she comes back to see if the link is there, but I doubt that will happen. These people tend to be drive-by linkers. They aren’t really concerned about dialogue, they just want to spam as many Catholic sites as possible.
Now I’m not really afraid of anti-Catholic propaganda. I’ve been satisfied with my ability to find answers to the questions they believe must be answered by every Catholic. The reason I deleted the link is that I won’t let my site and bandwidth be used to link to Viagra, mortgage, or explicit sites, and I won’t be let it be used to post anonymous links to other trash either.
If you are truly concerned for me because I am Catholic and think I need conversion, feel free to use my contact form, or if that isn’t working, post a comment that actually invites me to converse. Posting anonymous links is like throwing trash on my lawn. It doesn’t convince me of anything. In fact, it shows me that your thoughts aren’t worthy of consideration.
The Seattle Times published a profile on one of the most confused people I’ve every heard of. Ann Ann Redding is an Episcopal priest who has become a Muslim. Here is the strange part, she still claims to be a Christian.
“I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I’m both an American of African descent and a woman. I’m 100 percent both.”
Um, riiiiight. She doesn’t realize that her argument is a logical fallacy. Yes, one can be AoAD (American of African descent) and a woman because they aren’t mutually exclusive. But one can’t be 100 percent man and 100 percent woman, or 100 percent AoAD and 100 percent AoCD (American of Chinese Descent).
But what about those contradictions between being a Christian and a Muslim?
She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. “That’s something I’ll find a challenge the rest of my life,” she said.
Oh. The fact that Islam’s teachings are in direct opposition to the central tenet of Christianity is merely “a challenge.” How does she reconcile this?
“At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That’s all I need.”
She just declares they are compatible and it is so. When one ignores the reality of a situation, it becomes so much easier to live in ignorant bliss, doesn’t it?
But this isn’t the part that really gets me. I mean even the Catholic Church has its rogue priests. Have you ever run across a “Spirit of Vatican II” type? Whew! Looney!
But there are supposed to be checks on this sort of lunacy. Bishops in the Episcopal Church have authority over their priests. She can claim to be whatever she wants, but surely her local Bishop wouldn’t let her to remain a priest. Right?
Well, according to the Seattle Times, “the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.” He goes on to say that her announcement of being both a Christian (priest) and a Muslim hasn’t caused much controversy.
You gotta be kidding me! The Episcopal Church is in even more trouble than I thought.
(Hat tip: Powerline blog)
Paul at Thoughts of a Regular Guy wrote a post about Mitt Romney where he said:
“Are Mormons Christians?…as a Catholic, I might say the same about Protestants.”
There are great differences between Mormons and Protestants. Mormons believe that God was once a man. Protestants (like Catholics) believe God was always God. Mormons deny the Trinity. Protestants believe in the Trinity(like Catholics). Mormons believe we can become gods. Protestants (like Catholics) believe it is sinful to try to become gods (see Gen 3:5). Mormons believe that God had physical relations with Mary, Protestants hold to the Virgin Birth (like Catholics).
I am conflicted about Romney. I don’t want to support the idea that that his religion is correct. At the same time, I would rather vote for a candidate who supports my values (e.g. the sanctity of marriage, pro-life) which is more than I can say for any Catholic candidate for office. How sad is that?
Roman Catholic Blog posted about the heartbreaking story of a 19-month old boy who died last week:
AUSTIN, Texas (CNS) — Emilio Gonzales, a 19-month-old boy whose care became the focus of a debate over what constituted proportionate medical care, died May 19 at Children’s Hospital of Austin.
Emilio, who had been blind and deaf since birth, was admitted to the hospital Dec. 27 with a collapsed lung. He was also diagnosed with Leigh’s disease, an incurable disease which causes the central nervous system to break down.
Emilio’s mother, Catarina Gonzales, had obtained a restraining order forcing Children’s Hospital of Austin to keep her son on a respirator. He was on life support when he died.Â
RCB claims in the post title that the doctors wanted to kill the baby. But it isn’t that easy. This child suffered from an incurrable disease of the central nervous system. Bishop Aymond of Austin even said that the extraordinary treatment that the parents demanded “will only result in greater pain for Emilio, without curing or improving the condition from which he suffers.”
I can understand family members not letting go. The loss of the child must be painful beyond words. Yet at some point, it becomes cruel to artificially extend the life of a terminally ill patient. It seems that little Emilio was beyond that point. Claiming that the doctors wanted to kill the baby is an uncharitable judgement.
May Emilio go with God. Amen.
Lighting struck the Statue of The Sacred Heart of Jesus at the Mother Cabrini Shrine near Golden Colorado this past Saturday. The hands, feet, and base of the statue were damaged.
 Mother Cabrini Shrine is a beautiful place that attracts people for retreats and prayer.
 If you can give to restore the statue please contact:
Sr. Bernadette Casciano, M.S.C.
Administrator
Mother Cabrini Shrine
20189 Cabrini Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401
303.526.0758
sbcasciano@aol.com
The Anchoress comments today on potential catholic debate opponents against athiest Christopher Hitchens who promoting his newest book “God Is Not Great”. Among those who others have suggested is Peter Kreeft. In her conclusion, the Anchoress dimisses him (and all the other suggestions) as she believes those who have been best best equipped to debate Hitchens are already dead.
Not sure if she has ever heard Kreeft speak but if not, she might change her mind if she listens to some of his speeches.
Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost chastises another blogger for defending the view of some protestants that the catholic church is the beast in the book of Revelation.
Joe’s right because everyone knows that the catholic church is really the “whore of Babylon”. Sheesh!
This is why I still like Evangelical Outpost. I started reading it while I was an evangelical. Soon thereafter, I came into the catholic church. (Don’t worry Joe, not your fault.) He thinks clearly and doesn’t go for conspiracy theories. If I were to question any book of the Bible, it would be Revelation only because of what some on the fringe movements have done with it.
Amy Welborn has linked to an article about the United Church of Christ’s new TV commercials. The UCC press release describes the commercials:
The 30-second commercial begins with a shot of an African-American mother trying to calm a crying baby. Sitting in a church pew, the mother fidgets anxiously, as she endures disapproving looks from fellow worshippers. Eventually, someone in the wings pushes an “ejector� button to rid the church of her — and her noisy baby. Into the air they go flying.
In similar fashion, a gay couple, an Arab-American, a person using a walker, among others, get “ejected.� Finally, when a homeless person wanders in and takes a seat, nervous parishioners — expecting she’ll get the boot for sure — scoot away from her.
The commercial ends with a mood shift, where shots of diverse, friendly people set the stage for the announcer’s invitation: “The United Church of Christ — no matter who you are, or where you are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here.�
Now I’m not commenting on other churchs, but if you’ve ever been in a catholic church, you know people don’t get thrown out for having a crying baby. I don’t know if I’ve ever been to a mass that didn’t have a crying baby in it.
In my experience, churches (evangelical or catholic) are not biggotted like the UCC would want you to think. So why does the UCC want you to think all other churches are like that? Because they are loosing member’s and affiliated churches at an incredible rate. According to Biblical Witness Fellowship, a group within the UCC that is trying to reform the church, the UCC currently loses 27,500 members every year because of their liberal beliefs.
When churches start teaching that abortion is acceptable and homosexuality is morally equivalent to traditional marriage, people stop going. Conservative believers want to be encouraged to have higher standards. They go to church so they can improve themselves; they don’t get that message at a liberal church. People with liberal beliefs don’t need to go to those churches because they have no need to improve; they are already living up to (or down to) the ideals being preached.
So the UCC is in the awkward position of being approving all choices but dying because of it.
The San Francisco board of governors has passed a resolution criticizing catholic beliefs. The board demands the former Archbishop of San Francisco who now serves at the Vatican to withraw the directive that “Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.”
In addition the board claims that the church’s position is “an insult to all San Franciscans” apparently even those San Franciscans who support the church’s position.
The resolution concludes by saying, “Archbishop Neiderauer and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada.”
Clearly this is an unconstitutional attack on the catholic church. No government is allowed to use its power to prevent the free exercise of religion. The city government does not have the right to demand the catholic church to change its beliefs or practices.
The resolution is non-binding. Is there any doubt that if the city did have the ability to make the resolution binding that it would?
(hat tip: Roman Catholic Blog)