Defending Aganst Defending Contending

Today I was directed to visit a blog called Defending. Contending.. This blog contains a lot of worthy material, but I was sickened by the fact that the Catholic Church was lumped together with Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Liberal Christians, and the Emerging Churches such as Mark Driscoll's Mars Hill Church. Here is the quote from the post by Pilgrim:

"Or whether it’s the Roman Catholic Church who in times past would burn you at the stake for merely possessing the Scriptures in your native tongue, but who now settle for pompously looking down their noses at you for daring to hold God’s inspired, infallible Word above that of their fallible, uninspired popes, priests, and man-made traditions."

What a completely foolish and ignorant statement to make. Let's take the two parts separately. First, Pilgrim recalls the time in the church's past when heretics were burned at the stake. I am certainly not a supporter of this practice, and I find it regrettable and reprehensible, but I also don't like hypocrisy. Pilgrim levels this charge (which is true) while ignoring the same practice committed by Protestants.

Pilgrim, are you familiar with the name Michael Servetus? If not, he was the person John Calvin had burned at the stake for heresy. You hypocrite! If you're going to hold a Church's history against modern members, you had better check your own history first.

Perhaps Pilgrim recalls reading in U.S. History about the burning of witches at the stake in 17th century New England? Was it Catholics that were trumping up false charges of witchcraft, imprisoning people, and burning them at the stake. NO. What's the difference Pilgrim?

Then Pilgrim attempts to make a comparison between the burning at the stake episodes from the Church's distant past to the erroneous idea that the Church (leadership) looks down their noses at people who read the Bible.

I'm growing tired of people mischaracterizing Church teaching because:

1. They aren't Catholic, don't know Catholic teaching, and listen to others in the same category.
2. Are disgruntled former Catholics whose parents didn't teach them correctly. [More on this in a future blog post], or
3. Know they are mischaracterizing Catholic Church teaching and do it anyway to further their own point of view.

Let me educate you Pilgrim, since I don't know which of these three categories you fall into. Throughout the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the book that contains a description of all of the Church's current beliefs and teachings, the primary importance of the Bible as the Living and Incarnate Word of God is stressed again and again. Throughout the Catechism, it is the Bible that is quoted far more often than any other source, and when other sources are quoted, it is writings of great historical teachers who have written about the sacred Word, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

I cannot think of a single instance where I have ever said to myself, "Hmmm...the Bible says X, but the Pope says Y. I know the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but I'll follow the Pope on this one." You know why? Because that isn't what we do, but that's exactly how you've portrayed us, Pilgrim. By doing so, you have discredited yourself and your blog, no matter what other things you say that are good and right. You can't be trusted.

Help Fight Discrimination Against Live Action

I was listening to the Cathlolic Channel on Sirius XM radio on Tuesday, and I heard a guest on the radio show talking about discrimination by YouTube against her organization. I looked up more information on her organization's website, and I was moved to show her my support in every way possible.

Lila Rose, the president of the organization "Live Action", has established a new media campaign against abortion. This is a young woman who isn't just talking about the Christian value of life, she is taking action, and doing so in a big way!

Her organization sends women (including herself) into Planned Parenthood clinics to expose some of the heinous practices occuring there. In her latest encounter in Birmingham, AL, she posed as a 14 year old girl with her 31 year old boyfriend seeking an abortion.

Did the clinic contact the authorities to report a case of statutory rape? No, instead the worker tried to figure out a way that she could get her the abortion without her parents finding out!

YouTube has made the decision to ban videos from this organization, since Live Action's support of life conflicts with their "values". Today, I signed the online petition to YouTube to reinstate Live Action's account. The corruption of Planned Parenthood needs to be exposed, as this is not an isolated incident.

Please join me in standing up for life and support Live Action and its brave young men and women.

Visit Live Action's Website

Sign the Petition

What are you Willing to Die For?

Yesterday I was reading various news articles online, and I came across a story with a headline that caught my attention. It was about a Florida woman who has driven the same car since 1964. In this article, she is quoted as saying "People don't want to talk to me anymore. They're tired of hearing about my Chariot (the pet name for her car)". She also said that she keeps a .38-caliber handgun in case anyone tries to steal her car. "Somebody's going to go down with me if I get in that situation," she said. "I'm not going down alone."

At the close of the article, she was asked if she considered trading in her car under President Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program, which gives $4,500 to motorists who trade in older cars with poor gas mileage. She replied: "He ain't gonna get mine. I'll die fighting for her."

On the one hand, I felt a sense of admiration for a 90 year old woman who still has this much passion in life. But then a thought occurred to me. Isn't this commitment, this love, and this willingness to fight and die horribly misplaced?

There are three things that are worthy of being willing to fight and die to protect; our families, our nation, and our triune God. Of these three, only one of these offers the promise of eternal salvation, and that is death in defense of our belief in God the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit. In 21st century North America, it is almost unthinkable to be put in a situation where we have to make the choice between saving our life here on Earth or professing our belief in Christianity and being killed for it. I believe that most of us would fail that test if it were put to us.

This woman in Florida is willing to die to save her car. Are you willing to die to save your soul?

Veterans Fight to Keep 75 Year Old War Memorial

A good friend and brother in Christ posted a video from YouTube earlier today with a story about yet another disturbing lawsuit brought forward by the ACLU. Unless the Supreme Court hears the case and overturns the lower court ruling, a 75 year old war memorial in the Mojave Desert is in danger of being taken down. Why? The reason is that the war memorial is a white cross and the memorial is on federal land. The ACLU argues that there should be no religious symbols anywhere on public land. As it currently stands at the time of this writing, the cross has been ordered to be covered up until the Supreme Court hears the case.

Now the fact that the ACLU has taken this case and is making this argument isn't shocking at all. We expect this from the organization that has defended NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association), fought against free speech rights of pro-life groups, and defended mock child pornography as free speech (provided that real children aren't used in the filming, of course). What was shocking to me was WHO the originator of the lawsuit was. Not only was he not even from the same state (the memorial is in southern California and this man lives in Oregon), but he claims to be a Roman Catholic.

I say "claims to be a Roman Catholic" because a true Christian of any denomination cannot have the hardness of heart to bring such a lawsuit. When a man puts government first and the holy cross second, he is not a Catholic and not a Christian, he is a statist. This person worships at the altar of Government, and I as a Catholic, Christian American rebuke him in the strongest possible way. Apparently he has nothing better to do than to make sure that his revered "separation of church and state" ideal is enforced, even when he knows that it will deeply hurt our veterans who have bravely fought and died to defend our freedom, including his.

If it weren't enough to rebuke him as unappreciative of his freedom and who earned it for him, this fraud of a Roman Catholic (that's right I said it!) seems to have forgotten who died for something vastly more significant than our great nation. It was Jesus Christ. He spent three hours nailed to the cross depicted in this memorial; He died so that my sins and your sins and this man's sins would be forgiven. What does this man from Oregon do to show how thankful he is for the cross? He asks that it be taken down because he would be offended to see it on federal land!

Perhaps he would make the argument that he doesn't mind seeing crosses at church, just not in public places. My response would be "get your priorities right". If statism is #1 to you and Christianity is #2, then it is pretty clear that you are worshipping the false idol of government.

I am confident that the Supreme Court will overturn this ruling from the lower court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Government is defending the memorial in the case. I pray that the heavily Catholic Supreme Court will defend the right of the veterans to memorialize the fallen in the same way that they have since 1934, by looking up at the gleaming white cross on the side of the road in the Mojave Desert. They have the opportunity to rebuke this man in a way that I cannot; by putting an end to this disgraceful lawsuit. A ruling in favor of the veterans won't change this man's heart, but it will restore a symbol of the sacrifices of so many veterans, and of the greatest sacrifice of all: that of Jesus Christ.