Well Said, Catholic League

The Catholic League strikes back at atheists critics with truth!


ATHEISTS MUST APOLOGIZE FOR HITLER

Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacts to the way British atheists are handling Pope Benedict XVI's trip to their homeland:

The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to "reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century." Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of "a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God."

The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.

Why should atheists today apologize for the crimes of others? At onelevel, it makes no sense: apologies should only be given by the guilty. But on the other hand, since the fanatically anti-Catholic secularists in Britain, and elsewhere, demand that the pope—who is entirely innocent of any misconduct—apologize for the sins of others, let the atheists take some of their own medicine and start apologizing for all the crimes committed in their name. It might prove alembic.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall.....!

I just finished reading The Jesuit Guide to (almost) Everything: A Spirituality for Real Life by James Martin, SJ. It was an enjoyable read. The author has a remarkable ability to communicate his thesis in a manner more akin to sharing a story with your uncle on the front porch, in the heat of a South Carolina summer (while drinking sweet tea of course). The book is popular Catholic spirituality that is accessible to all readers. I do recommend it.
As someone who is new to Catholicism, I have only the slightest degree of familiarity with the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The author describes these exercises and their application to everyday life. There was one specific part of the Exercises that caught my attention immediately, though. In fact, I put the book down to ponder this portion.
Towards the end of the Exercises, retreatants are invited to contemplate the Resurrection of Christ, generally. One specific example of this meditation, offered by St. Ignatius, really intrigued me. He suggests to ponders the meeting of Jesus and His Mother, after the Resurrection. Oh, to be a fly on the wall!
Of course, scripture is silent on this meeting. However, logically, it would eventually have taken place. Besides, the meetings' absence from Holy Writ should not trouble a Catholic, or any Christian for that matter, due to the fact that scripture NEVER states that it is the only source for Christian beliefs. As an aside, more that three centuries passed wherein Christians did not have an official, standardized canon. During this time, Christians worshipped, prayed, and held beliefs, without a Bible. But I digress.
Imagine the amazing meeting between Christ and His Holy Mother! What joy! What tears! I think it is quite certain that Mary knew something was afoot, from the visitation of the Angel Gabriel. But, even if she knew down to the very last detail, I doubt it would have stunted her reaction in any way. A mother's love is usually unbounded. The Blessed Mother's love for her Son would likely have surpassed all loves, since it was also a love for God (as Jesus was and is the Second Person of the Godhead). I don't think there would have been a dry eye in the house, at this meeting. This would be like Heaven. Any ambiguity of the crooked lines of God's planned of redemption were clarified in that meeting. It was Christ returning home to His Blessed Mother and, also, Her (and all possible bystanders) getting a glimpse of Heaven, where "He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, (for) the old order has passed away."

Christ's appearance to His Blessed Mother and all others is a culmination of revelation and a preview of His statement, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!"

Burning the Quran ???

A church in Gainsville, FL is proposing International Burn A Quran Day. As a former Muslim, I have a some thoughts.
1) Politically, this is a bad move. It will just inflame the Muslim masses and let us be honest. It does not take much to get them going.
2) Aesthetically, it is not a good thing. Despite the doctrines and origin of the Quran, the calligraphy and the recitation of the Quran is noteworthy for it's artistic value.
3) As regards civil liberties, I believe this church is, absolutely, within its rights to burn the Quran or any book. I would support the legality of burning the Bible too (though not like it or do it myself).
4) From a religious perspective, I believe that the Quran is simply a book of Biblical stories (given a heretical spin) and Semitic folklore articulated as Arabic poetry. Whatever is good (morally, historically, or spiritually) is based in the Judea-Christian tradition. The other stuff (likes the gems of wife-beating, misogynism, jihad, violence and general intolerance towards non-muslims) rounds out the collection. I have a general aversion to burning books (any books). But f there was a book whose influence I would like to see eradicated, it is the Quran. In the final analyse, I would say it is a bad idea to burn it, but I do not hesitate to put it on the list of books that screwed up the word.

Salve Regina Video

What does marriage mean?

This article from the National Review Online is wonderful. It would be great if those who adamantly push for so-called "gay marriage" would read it. That is, however, probably too much to ask, since I don't think they get the National Review Online on the planet Zircon. Be that as it may, I am recommending the article because it gets to the point of marriage. This is, basically, the crucial question. If we are entertaining ideas of changing the definition, we had better be sure we understand why the institution developed in the first place. As G.K. Chesterton said it (and I will paraphrase him, in true Chestertonian style, since I am unable to find the quotation....before walls are torn down, we should be sure why they were erected. For a hedonistic nihilist, these questions may be off the radar, but their corresponding answers are no less necessary.

Priceless Wisdom!

I have not posted to my blog very frequently, so I thought to post something that should be common knowledge, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "Gay Rights" activists have been repeating the lie that same-sex attraction is inborn and deserves that same legal and cultural protections as natural marriage. This allegation has NO BASIS in scientific fact. I guess their minds are made up. Perhaps we should not burden them with the TRUTH !

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

"Never put a period where God has put a comma" and other NONSENSE

I was walking past another non-descript, non-denominational, and (like most who have willingly or unwillingly erred from the chair of the Fisherman) non-biblical churches the other day and saw a sign that said "Never put a period where God has put a comma" on the outside of the building. The statement seems benign (please disregard, for the sake of this discussion, the latin meaning) and, in fact, loving. However, upon further inspection, it is nonsensical. I make such a blunt judgement on it because the statement contains a logical fallacy; what is called BEGGING THE QUESTION (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point").

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but the questions that it begs are quite obvious.
1) What is a period, as regards revelation?
2) What is a comma, as regards, revelation?
3) Who has authority to decide which is which and where they should be placed?
4) Whom did Jesus say had the authority to make such judgments.

There are even more questions that can be asked, but these are enough to get anyone started. I am unsure what would be the intent of anyone utilizing this statement is. So, I will steer clear of indicting their intentions. It seems to me, though, that the statement is being made with an eye to "progressive revelation"; likely, in order to justify an moral view that is inconsistent with biblical revelation.

I could go into a long rebuttal of this statement, but there is really no need. The fourth question is the only one that is is relevant for professed Christians. Who was appointed to make judgements on Scripture and Tradition (don't forget 2 Tim. 2:2 & 2 Thess. 2:15)? Generally, the Catholic Church and, specifically, St. Peter and the Apostles were given this authority. This, in my mind, is the end of the discussion. Jesus makes it clear, "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." This was a statement made to the Apostles in the Gospel of Saint Luke. For anyone who is faithful to Christ, this should end the debate and pray for the grace to be obedient to the Church that Christ himself founded.

"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Tim 3:15