As Usual the Proggies Have It Wrong…. What the Pope Is Actually Saying!

The Proggies think they understand everything.  How can an anti-religious political ideology understand any religion, their teachings and their origins especially when the proggies cherry-pick passages from the Bible to prove their pathetic points.

Fay Voshell says it all…

HuffPo and other liberal publications can stop rejoicing. The Pope has not turned into a radical progressive.

On the contrary, he is merely affirming what every pope before him has said.

The Holy Father is merely making the proper distinction between the pastoral role of the church and the church as the Christian counterculture confronting the evils of society. He is advising the faithful not to forget the two aims of the Church, one of which is loving evangelization and discipleship; the other of which is firm confrontation of the distorted standards of the world.

The pastoral role of the Church is basically as follows: All sinners — that’s all of us — are invited to accept the forgiveness of God freely offered through the gospel of grace. Each is invited to travel on the Christian journey of sanctification, seeking every day to become more like Jesus Christ.

The countercultural role of the Church means that at the same time the Church has a pastoral and evangelistic ministry that includes anyone who is a seeker of The Way, the Church takes a radically prophetic stand against the contemporary assaults on a transcendent God, his character and his commands. The Church retains its unyielding ideals and clear, unchanging directives concerning sexual behavior, marriage, and the sacredness of life. Such ideals remain bedrock foundations.

Progressives should not, then, expect the pope to endorse their agenda in any respect. Such matters as gay marriage, eradication of the distinctions between the sexes, and abortion on demand will not soon be endorsed by the leader of the Catholic Church.

The Left should expect to be deeply disappointed in this Pope.

Thank God.

Artist Depicts obAMATEUR Trampling the Constitution

obAMATEUR Tramples the Consitution

Discuss, have at it.

Let’s see, for example …. just recently Barak Hussein Obama ignored the religious freedom and “practice thereof” (1st Amendment for you products of government schools) of millions of Americans by FORCING them to disregard their religious beliefs, through the actions of the Dept of HHS regulations by not extending an exemption, and to provide insurance which covers contraceptive medications and other procedures by Catholic business owners, Catholic hospitals, etc. etc.

Also notice that it does not take effect until after the election, since he is too much of a coward to defend his position during an election year.

Of course the usual liberal and drone reaction (especially wally’s) will be:

 Here is a little reminder for us conservatives when trying to argue with drones (like wally):

Game. Over.

So let me get this straight.. Translators of the CHRISTIAN Bible are now leaving out the terms “Father” and “Son of God” from new translations of the BIBLE because– now get this… it is offensive to– MUSLIMS.

A controversy is brewing over three reputable Christian organizations, which are based in North America, whose efforts have ousted the words “Father” and “Son” from new Bibles. Wycliffe Bible Translators, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers are under fire for “producing Bibles that r…

Read, as they say, the whole story on how to get a budget road bike for free.

Hey, Guys, How About Another Evolution Thread?

We always seem to have fun with these – and the set-up asking Perry about evolution is an excellent place to start.

Perry answered the question well – no one knows how old the earth is, kid.  Rather disgusting that you can hear mom trying to prompt the kid to ask gotcha questions.  This is the level of the debate we’re going to have in 2012.

But, that aside, one of the more amusing aspects of the whole debate is the way the other side gets itself tied up in to knots.  Demanding that unless hard, provable science, it just has no place in the debate.  Missing is any understanding – any reasonable thought – about the fact that the person demanding that science be the measure of all things does not even begin to put the marvel of man in to the equation.  As G K Chesterton put it in The Everlasting Man:

It is not natural to see man as a natural product. It is not common sense to call man a common object of the country or the seashore. It is not seeing straight to see him as an animal. It is not sane. It sins against the light; against that broad daylight of proportion which is the principle of all reality. It is reached by stretching a point, by making out a case, by artificially selecting a certain light and shade, by bringing into prominence the lesser or lower things which may happen to be similar. The solid thing standing in the sunlight, the thing we can walk round and see from all sides, is quite different. It is also quite extraordinary, and the more sides we see of it the more extraordinary it seems. It is emphatically not a thing that follows or flows naturally from anything else. If we imagine that an inhuman or impersonal intelligence could have felt from the first the general nature of the non-human world sufficiently to see that things would evolve in whatever way they did evolve, there would have been nothing whatever in all that natural world to prepare such a mind for such an unnatural novelty. To such a mind, man would most certainly not have seemed something like one herd out of a hundred herds finding richer pasture, or one swallow out of a hundred swallows making a summer under a strange sky. It would not be in the same scale and scarcely in the same dimension. We might as truly say that it would not be in the same universe. It would be more like seeing one cow out of a hundred cows suddenly jump over the moon or one pig out of a hundred pigs grow wings in a flash and fly. It would not be a question of the cattle finding their own grazing ground but of their building their own cattle-sheds, not a question of one swallow making a summer but of his making a summer house. For the very fact that birds do build nests is one of those similarities that sharpen the startling difference. The very fact that a bird can get as far as building a nest, and cannot get any farther, proves that he has not a mind as man has a mind; it proves it more completely than if he built nothing at all. If he built nothing at all, he might possibly be a philosopher of the Quietist or Buddhistic school, indifferent to all but the mind within. But when he builds as he does build and is satisfied and sings aloud with satisfaction, then we know there is really an invisible veil like a pane of glass between him and us, like the window on which a bird will beat in vain. But suppose our abstract onlooker saw one of the birds begin to build as men build. Suppose in an incredibly short space of time there were seven styles of architecture for one style of nest. Suppose the bird carefully selected forked twigs and pointed leaves to express the piercing piety of Gothic, but turned to broad foliage and black mud when he sought in a darker mood to call up the heavy columns of Bel and Ashtaroth; making his nest indeed one of the hanging gardens of Babylon. Suppose the bird made little clay statues of birds celebrated in letters or politics and stuck them up in front of the nest. Suppose that one bird out of a thousand birds began to do one of the thousand things that man had already done even in the morning of the world; and we can be quite certain that the onlooker would not regard such a bird as a mere evolutionary variety of the other birds; he would regard it as a very fearful wild-fowl indeed; possibly as a bird of ill-omen, certainly as an omen. That bird would tell the augurs, not of something that would happen, but of some thing that had happened. That something would be the appearance of a mind with a new dimension of depth; a mind like that of man. If there be no God, no other mind could conceivably have foreseen it.

Try as they might, the fundamentalists of evolution cannot get ’round the fact of man being what he is.  We don’t naturally follow from what came before.  We are similar to chimpanzees in a large number of ways except in those ways which make a man a man.  Elsewhere, Chesterton notes that it isn’t a matter of a chimp doing something badly and man doing it better – man does things that no chimp ever did, or ever could do.  Go back a million years and there is nothing in the simian species you can find which indicates that at some future date, quite by accident, one of them will randomly evolve a capability and a desire to decorate his body with paint or clothes…there is nothing in the animal world or the concept of evolution which prepares for the time when a creature will suddenly spend time and energy making art, that indelible signature of Mankind.

And as the evolutionists refuse to consider this – a plain fact – the debate grinds forward in a rather sterile manner, and ever more clearly becomes not a defense of science and truth, but a mere desire to suppress an uncomfortable thought:  perhaps it isn’t all an accident?  Maybe there is a design and a purpose in the universe?  Maybe there is even a Designer who wants something of us?

My thinking on this subject is rapidly leading me to the conclusion that, at bottom, this rigid, hysterical demand that we turn away from what common sense proclaims is, in the end, no more than a fierce desire to defend adherence to a lie.  As it turns out, the lie being adhered to is the first lie of hell – “you will be like gods”.  Beings who evolved by accident from a senseless universe of no purpose owe nothing to anyone…they need not serve, and they are free to rule as far as their own power and inclination leads them.  Introduce even the possibility of God and purpose in to the universe, and all of a sudden you become a debtor who owes someone every last thing you have.  Some of us react with joy to this discovery and eagerly seek to thank our Benefactor…others furiously reject this and demand not only their right to believe differently, but further demand that no one else even bring up a question which casts doubt upon the evolutionist viewpoint.

To me it is a matter of perfect indifference whether the world is 6 billion or 6 thousand years old.  It doesn’t alter in the least the actual facts I have to deal with every day.  I don’t care if someone teaches about a 6 billion year old world and a slow, purely accidental evolutionary development.  I also don’t care if someone teaches that the world sprang directly in to being as it is at the command of God in 6 literal days.  Far more important, to me, than the mechanism of existence is the fact of my existence, and what I shall do with it.  But regardless of what I think, the fact is that those who hold to a rigid, ideologically blinkered view of the creation of the universe are trying to advance a particular agenda – an agenda which doesn’t so much question God but seeks to ban His presence from the public square.  My view is that the fight between Evolution and Design is not about the relative merits of the viewpoints, but about the right of people of different views to engage in the debate.

The gotcha questions to Perry are part of that larger design – that effort to de-legitimize a different view.  The attempt was to try and trip Perry up and hold up Perry and the whole concept of a Divine order to ridicule.  And, so, we have to fight this out – if for no other reason than to defend human reason and liberty.  Reason because people who think can come to widely different views; liberty because if those widely different views cannot be brought in to the public square, then none of us are free.

Morality on the Cheap

Ad Week has the details on MTV’s new campaign to get people to care:

Every day, our global community faces an endless list of serious issues, from famine to poverty to global warming. Now, evidently as part of an MTV campaign, Twilight star Nikki Reed is asking people everywhere to “give a ****”—both figuratively and, ahem, literally.

“I may be famous, but I actually give a ****,” the actress says in the sort-of-mock PSA below. The Give a ****movement, she says, is based on the Dalai Lama’s theory (heavily paraphrased) that “If enough people take the time to simply give a ****about the world’s problems, even if they don’t actually do anything but just give a ****about them, the world’s problems will cease to exist.”…

You know, it could be that merely saying we care is not as important as acting as if we care.  I know that being generous is difficult – it eats up time, money and resources which one can spend on the self.  I, myself, am not nearly as generous as I can be…C. S. Lewis put it best when he judged that if charity doesn’t pinch a bit, then it isn’t enough.  In other words, unless you are giving up something for yourself, then you’ve really given little (see Mark 12:41-44).  While it is at least somewhat of an advance to actually take thought for the sufferings of the world, if there is no follow-through to action, the thoughts tend to moral sterility.

My worry here is that we are falling ever further in to a morality on the cheap.  Sort of like the self-esteem nonsense in public schools where kids are taught to feel great about themselves even if they don’t accomplish anything.  The world is filled with suffering…and no amount of thinking about it and wishing others well will do the trick.  We actually have to get our hands dirty and help the less fortunate.  I am concerned with the lack of challenge here – the stroking of the modern ego where everyone wants to feel that they are swell, even though all of us are sinners – not one of us having the right to feel we’ve ever done enough, loved enough or helped enough.

A better program might have been to show someone getting off the couch, setting aside the video game and going out to find someone who needs help.  They are all around us…right now, probably not a thousand yards from where you sit reading this, there is someone who needs help.  But to ask you to do that requires more than just some sort of nebulous, half-morality…it requires an appeal to conscience; an appeal to the fact that we are all of us creatures; contingent beings who owe every last thing we have to Another, and thus have a moral obligation to do what is right, not just think about what is wrong and feel good about ourselves for so doing.

An American Pope?

Interesting bit of news over at NRO:

For weeks, rumors were swirling that the retiring, scandal-plagued cardinal archbishop of Philadelphia, Justin Rigali, would be replaced by Charles Chaput, archbishop of Denver. Yesterday, word came that it was official: Chaput, a member of the Franciscan order of Capuchins, would go to Philadelphia…

…A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post about the possibility of an American pope, as relayed by Inside the Vatican editor Robert Moynihan from one of his Vatican sources, “Father Jeremiah.” At the time, I totally missed the pun Father Jeremiah closed with, when he said it may be time for a “cappuccino.” But in an e-mail this evening, Moynihan confirmed what many readers had told me in the interim — that the cappuccino Jeremiah was talking about was a member of the Capuchin order: “This is what I meant when I told you a few weeks ago that it may be time for a cappuccino. Rome has seen the need for this type of profound, traditional Catholic spirituality . . . and not only in Philadelphia.”…

Archbishop Chaput only rose to prominence a few years ago but his clear thinking, firm defense of basic truth and willingness to challenge a spiritually vitiated society have marked him out as a man to watch.  And Benedict XVI is already 84.  Naturally, no one knows how long Benedict will live – he certainly is vigorous for a man his age.  But it isn’t like he can count on 10 or 20 years.  So, this move (as well as others) are clearing the decks for what will come after.

It would be interesting to see a man of the United States elevated to St. Peter’s chair – and also interesting to see what a relatively young, vigorous and deeply spiritual man like Chaput would do.

A Small Judicial Victory for Common Sense

A triumph of common sense over political correctness – from CNA:

An Illinois judge’s July 12 order will allow Catholic Charities to continue its foster care work in three dioceses, despite an attempt by state officials and the governor to end the partnership.

“This is a great win for the 2,000 children under the care of Catholic Charities, protecting these kids from the grave disruption that the state’s reckless decision to terminate would have caused,” said Peter Breen, Executive Director and Legal Counsel at the Thomas More Society.

Breen said that Catholic Charities, with the legal assistance of his organization, “will continue this fight” to continue “the high-quality foster and adoption care that the Catholic Church has provided for over a century to Illinois children.”…

As you might have guessed it, liberalism is at the bottom of this – Illinois passed a law last December entitled Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act which, its sponsors said, would allow for civil unions but would not in any way, shape or form interfere with those faith-based groups which were doing charitable work in Illinois.  It was specifically asked, in legislative debate, if this bill would prohibit faith-based institutions from dealing with foster care and adoption – and the answer was “no”.  It was this assertion which may have allowed enough Illinois legislators to swallow “civil unions” – as long as people of faith are protected, who can have an argument against anyone – gay or straight – having a civil union?  Presto, the law was done.  But that was without anyone reckoning on the ultimate desire of leftwing activists…whether or not gay people shall be married, civil-union’d or shot to the Moon is irrelevant…what is relevant is whether or not faith can be attacked…especially the Catholic Church part of it.

Because the Catholic Church will not place a child in a gay or cohabitating home (so, you see, it isn’t about gays for the Church…it is about the Church’s adherence to Christian sexual morality), someone in the Illinois government – clearly with an anti-Christian axe to grind – decided to terminate Illinois’ contracts with Catholic Charities regarding adoption (any gay person with a gripe would be a person just being a jerk – plenty of adoption agencies in Illinois will adopt out to a gay couple…and even Catholic Charities would refer a gay person to such agencies should a gay person happen to wander in to a Catholic adoption agency).  Didn’t matter that Illinois doesn’t have the facilities to take on the thousands of kids under Catholic Charities’ care; doesn’t matter that the Illinois government has proven routinely incompetent in dealing with such social issues, didn’t matter that kids lives would be disrupted…all that mattered was bashing the Church, bashing Christianity, bashing morality.

Fortunately, a judge has seen right through this and put, at least temporarily, a stop to it.  Hopefully now some wiser heads will prevail and some sort of accommodation can be worked out so as to ensure that the kids are taken care of.  But this this what is so wrong about our society – liberal ideology has so infected is that even something as common-place as a Church caring for orphans has become politicized, and the realm of lawsuits.  There is a sickness in liberalism – some sort of disease of the spirit which generates such mean spirited actions.  This should never have happened – in any decent society, it wouldn’t have happened.  A small victory for common sense – but common sense should not have had to take the field of battle; it should have been automatic that no sane person would ever dream of challenging the care of orphans.