The media doesn't get religion. Someone who does gives them a well-deserved smackdown over the reporting done on the rescue of Steve Centanni.

- Posted by at 10:01 PM

Like something from out of the Twilight Zone, I came up a belief that can only be classified as bizarre. Someone happened to be complaining about a couple they knew, one an ex-atheist, who are planning on going to do missionary work with a small offshoot church. The problem is that they had once presented themselves for communion in the Church, and the person in question had issues with this.

So far, so good. Now where this gets weird is that the objection didn't arise from any particular beliefs in the Eucharist per se, only that they weren't presently Catholic. One of the pair was also excused because they'd been born Catholic, so that wasn't so bad. Already veering off into unknown territory, more comments were made scorning this couple's picking and choosing of their church based on personal beliefs. Normally, I'd be inclined to agree, except that in this case, the criticism was coming from a Catholic who does exactly the same thing, rendering the statement hypocritical. When this was pointed out, it was asserted that Catholics picking and choosing what doctrines they'll accept is not the same as non-denominational Christians making their own buffet. The only discernible difference I'm aware of would be the defiance of authority on the part of the Catholic, made worse since they should know better. The attitude is the same.

From what I could gather, it seems that being born Catholic or just being Catholic entitles one to certain doctrinal leeway (sex was the upshot of it all, it seemed) not available to those who prefer the non-denominational route. For all the errant opinions I've heard in my time, this is one of the few I just don't comprehend. And unfortunately enough, this person happens to be a catechist.

Memo to Bishop Kmiec - as part of your mission formulation, include something about catechists believing what the Church believes. The flock aborts enough potential vocations, you can't afford to have your catechists strangle those who make it into their hands.

- Posted by at 10:51 PM

Adapting a Latin phrase on my review packet...

Crede illis qui se veritatem petare dicit; dubita illos qui se eam diu habuisse dicit.

Believe those who say that they are seeking the truth; doubt those who say that they have had it for a long time.

The original phrase and translation:

Crede illis qui veritatem petant; dubita illos qui eam inveniunt.

Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it.

- Posted by at 1:25 AM

I'm not quite sure what exactly Marty Minto said that allegedly got him fired from a Christian radio station in Pittsburgh, but it sounds much more like poor delivery on his part than censorship or stifling of the gospel.

Often forgotten in the realm of evangelization is that delivery is very important to the goal of spreading the gospel. It's true that if Jesus were around today, he'd be a lightning rod of politically incorrect statements. But, just as in ancient times, the outcry would only be against what He said, not how. In the Gospels, we are frequently presented with Christ rebuking errant positions, but never in a way that anyone could find fault with.

That in mind, Marty Minto could easily have answered this question without offending anybody when asked whether he thought the Pope was in heaven. From the Protestant point of view, all he had to say was "I don't know" and explain that he had no way of knowing, since it's a personal matter. Instead, by putting out the born again angle, he essentially does pass judgment on all those born before Christ, who would have had no possibility of meeting the criterion. That is definitely going to offend, particularly those of us who don't think God would create people who never had any chance at a fate other than Hell (this is distinct from believing no one goes there).

This is largely a language problem within Christianity, since Catholics don't use that terminology, though spiritual renewal is part and parcel of its theology. We speak of Baptism as leaving an indelible mark on the soul, besides marking the initial restoration of sanctifying grace in the soul - a rebirth, in other words, although we also believe one can kill that grace later by sin.

The larger problem with Minto's statement is that it presents a viewpoint which a lot of people have problems with - namely, the fate of those who existed prior to Christ. They can't be born again, as it wasn't available, and a lot of people, myself included, have trouble believing that is the sole criterion. After all, the holy prophets of old did not have the option, nor did any of the people living prior to Christ. The concept of a just God does not square well with God creating people who never had any chance of salvation. This is one of the greatest problems born-again Christianity has trying to get its message out - it sounds very much like the elitist Gnostic groups of the ante-Nicean period who claimed salvation was only open to certain elect, and they happened to be it.

In specific response to some of LaShawn Barber's comments on this, there are a few observations:

- She is quite right in claiming Christ is the sole possessor of the power to forgive sins, along with all other divine powers. However, she does not seem to believe that Christ is capable of delegating them to mankind, as was God's way throughout the history of the Bible. In the Gospels, we see the apostles being given the power to chase out devils, a power which only God has, and also the power to baptize. It isn't exactly a big stretch to think that God can also give the power to forgive sins to them as well. Real Presence is also not a big stretch, particularly considering John 6.

- When God gave his only Son to the world, it was not for just a part of it, but the entire world. This easily follows from God's justice, since all men have been given a chance to accept the love shown by Christ. This is how people are damned, by rejecting Christ's offering, in which case, their sins are not forgiven by the sacrifice, since, as it was under the Jewish system for expiating sins, the sinner's responsibility to put his sins on the lamb so that they would be forgiven. It's not damnation by predetermination. God does know who the elect are, of course, but the choice is left to us whether or not to be one of that number.

- The Church was not exactly burning people left and right for what it considered heretical ideas. Inquisition records show that torture itself was rarely employed, death very infrequently. It certainly did try to weed out false ideas, as it had ample experience with them cropping up consistently throughout its history. It remains one of the greatest weaknesses of Protestantism that it has no mechanism to correct doctrinal errors, which is why the vast majority have lost their way in this last century.

It's depressing to count the number of people I know who say they believe Christ died for them, yet take an approach to faith and the Bible which essentially makes them Popes unto themselves, thus giving rise to all sorts of contradictions like Christians supporting things like abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, or any other of a host of moral no-nos.

- Posted by at 11:07 PM

The argument has been made before that good and evil are opposites and that one cannot be without the other. This sort of falls apart if the principle is extrapolated out to the extremes on either end. Can there be both a supreme good and a supreme evil?

The question hinges on the nature of existence. Is it good or bad? Existence being bad rules out the possibility of supreme good (as it is better for any given thing to not exist than to exist), while existence being good rules out the possibility of supreme evil (if it existed, it would have an element of good). Religions like Buddhism and some early Gnostic heresies believe in the former, while traditional Christianity teaches the latter (hence Hell and not annihilation).

I've never encountered any system where existence is neutral, where something which exists is equally good to something which does not. I don't know that such a position can even be argued, although it's also the only way to argue that there is both a supreme good and a supreme evil in eternal conflict. Although, since existence and non-existence are equally good, a supreme evil could also not exist and still be a supreme evil, which sounds kind of absurd.

So while the whole good and evil being equal and opposed to each other might sound logical, in reality, it only makes sense if one is stronger than the other. Personally, I think it makes sense to go with good being the stronger of the two, rather than the other way around.

- Posted by at 10:50 PM

Sometimes, you have to hand it to judges for letting their biases come into view, even if they aren't intending it. In his decision striking down California's ban on gay marriage, Judge Richard Kramer ruled that there was no 'rational purpose' for denying gay marriage.

Being in favor of gay marriage might be one thing, but labeling the world's 3 great religions as irrational on this point defies reason. All three have perfectly rational reasons for rejecting the practice - and yes, "God said so" IS a perfectly rational reason for those of us not deluded enough to deny God's existence - and there are reasons outside of religion as well for denying gay marriage. I wrote a paper on the topic last year for a Critical Thinking class, in the philosophy department of a secular public university, ripping the arguments set forth by Andrew Sullivan in favor of it some years ago. Since part of the criteria involved using logically sound argumentation, I doubt it was irrational, given it received an A.

If I can find rational reasons that stand up to a philosophy department's standards, I'm quite sure you can find at least one yourself, your honor. I'm betting you either didn't try very hard, or didn't want to find any in the first place.

But, to go beyond that and insult the intelligence of every practicing Christian in the country, and by implication Christianity itself, is far more revealing of the bias influencing decisions on this subject. It certainly sounds like war against religion, Christianity in particular, and cluelessness over what happens in countries that actively try to sever religion from all facets of the government.

Hopefully, this will get some people off the fence, before these nutjobs on the bench start deciding we're legally insane for holding our beliefs. Any legal system which rejects God's law as irrational has tyranny following not far behind it.

- Posted by at 12:14 AM

UPDATE: I'm retracting this post, since I wrote it on a faulty assumption which has since been corrected. My impression was that the Pontificator had made a decision not to leave the Episcopal Church, which is the context in which the post was made. Apologies to the Pontificator for misreading him that way these last several months.

I will leave the original post in the extended entry, since I don't like whitewashes, but I no longer stand behind what was written.

The Pontificator, an Episcopal priest, wrote a post on his blog today which resonated with the sentiments written by Zorak about a week ago. Zorak's thrust was this:

I can't read Pontifications. This guy just needs to bite the bullet and come over to Rome, and get over the Anglicans. Yep, they're wrong! Been wrong for about 500 years. It's very sad. Now, let's get your salvation underway.

That's more blunt and to the point than I would put it, but the basic idea is roughly the same. I do think he is in the worst of all possible worlds by remaining in a church he is certain is in apostasy. I liken it to my own often perilous state of falling back into serious sin knowing full well the theological and moral consequences - that's a far worse position to be standing in than someone doing the same sins without that depth of knowledge.

NOTE: I think I should clarify what I mean here. I am assuming, based on my reading of the Pontificator's blog, that he has come to the conclusion the Episcopal Church is in apostasy. Given that assumption, I think it is worse to stay there knowing that than it would be to stay with some doubts or stay while thinking everything was fine, comparing that to our culpability in sin.

Scanning the comments on this post of his today, I saw this one by the Pontificator which really irked me (it's number 7):

Rusty, I have to give you the same answer that I have given others who have asked me this question over the past eleven months: This is between me and the Lord. My own decision is absolutely irrelevant to anyone else.

That's not really true at all. As a priest, his decision is quite relevant to his flock, whether he stays, or whether he goes to the Catholic or Orthodox Church.

During the past month I have received a couple of emails from non-clergy individuals telling me that my criticisms of the Episcopal Church are worthless unless I back them up with an immediate conversion to _____. I confess I have been uncharitable in my replies to these these individuals. I am married with children. Though two of them are now financially on their own, the other two still depend upon me. What am I to do? I do not have another career to fall back on. What does duty demand?

The Pontificator asks entirely the wrong question. The question of what duty demands comes first in relation to God. That there are hardships is to be granted, but God promised us that they'd be coming. Financial well-being is among the worst of all possible reasons to remain in an apostasized religion, and one I cannot imagine being defended by any of the Fathers or Protestant Deformers. It's not easy, but the soul must be looked after first, as any given day may be our last.

While he may not have another career to fall back on, sometimes, you have to make the leap of faith that God will provide if you are willing to risk your well-being on His behalf. And I would advise that it be done sooner rather than later, for the time will come when the Episcopal Church demands either a profession of heresy or dismissal. The old orthodox minded bishops may have been willing to tolerate heresy, but heretics never tolerate orthodoxy.

I mention this not because of your own comment, Rusty, but because I want everyone to understand the dilemma in which many, or at least some, Episcopal priests now find themselves. We find ourselves serving an institution that no longer commands or deserves our allegiance. Where are we to go? What are we to do?

While I'm biased about where to go, I don't think there is honestly much choice about what to do in that situation - the decision to leave has to be made if one comes to the point where they know they are in the wrong church. Now if one is unsure of where to go, then a search has to be done, but I have no good answers about what to do in the meantime. Pray about it, fast about it, but for God's sake, do something!

- Posted by at 8:43 PM

Four protestors of a gay pride event in Philadelphia this past October are currently facing prosecution under hate crimes legislation for quoting Scripture to a group of marchers. The prosecutor deemed the remarks "hateful." If convicted, the maximum penalty is 47 years, on charges of criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct, and blocking highways. The judge has not dismissed any of the charges.

So, the preaching of orthodox Christianity as part of a public protest can now get serious prison time. Something tells me that if this goes to a conviction, regardless of how appeals come out, there is going to be a backlash which is going to make this past year's backlash against gay marriage seem like peanuts. And the Democrats cried foul over the claim that there was a movement to ban the Bible. I'd say those claims are vindicated with a prosecutor citing its text as hateful in a criminal hate crimes case.

- Posted by at 11:23 PM

...and says he "now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence."

The age of 81 is certainly a late date for Antony Flew to come to that realization, and is somewhat surprising after being an atheist for 65 years. True, it's only a conversion to Deism, but that has to be something of a blow to the Godless Europe to have the man the AP called "a leading champion of atheism" turn and pull the rug out from under them. I find it especially ironic and sweet that he bases his change of mind to scientific evidence, which Europe is too blind to see when it's staring them in the face.

True, he's only stating a belief in Deism, with a sort of minimalist, impersonal deity, but it's certainly progress for him. There's a whole legion of secularists and scientists who refuse to acknowledge even that much.

Pray for the conversion of the academics!

- Posted by at 12:54 AM

Via Pontifications comes this article written about 30 years ago by an Anglican theologian on the sin of homosexuality. It's quite direct and relevant to the heart of the incompatability of Christianity with this idea.

One of the biggest ironies of homosexuality, however, is that it falls utterly to pieces against the natural law as understood by the ancient philosophers and also against a pure evolutionary theory. The idea needs a religious explanation to ultimately survive, hence its hijacking of mainline Protestantism. Absent God's condonation of such acts, the only other possible justification is self-indulgence.

- Posted by at 11:59 PM

Rather unexpectedly, walking back home this evening, I was stopped by a pair of Mormons on campus, who tried to interest me in getting a free copy of the book of Mormon. I humored them amicably enough, dropping a few hints along the way of Joseph Smith's weird predictions, as well as Frank Sheed's name, whose Theology for Beginners book happened by chance to be with me.

As I'm sure other people have encountered, they can be very persuasive pitchmen, having the traditional Biblical quotes lined up to use. This particular pair mentioned they've been to Mass before, to see what it's like, as part of their investigation into faith. I wasn't entirely sure if that was true, but I didn't press the matter. In retrospect, I ought to have told them to drop by St. Michael's at 4:30 on Fridays for a more true picture of what Catholicism is like than they would get at a place like the Newman Center.

Anyhow, it's time to dust off some little booklets on Mormonism, just in case I happen to find them again. We at least managed to agree on the concept of a true Church, and since I sort of left an opening by taking their free "Book of Mormon" coupon (before ditching it into the trash later on the way home), they might listen to some other points I bring up another time.

- Posted by at 11:34 PM

Via Kathy Shaidle comes this bit of insanity over in the Episcopal Church reported on by Christianity Today.

The post looks into the Episcopal Church's promotion of worshipping pagan deities - and not just any pagan deities, but ones who actually got condemned back in the Old Testament (which ECUSA may as well rename the Old Tested and Rejected Statements, consistent with their finding hidden words everywhere).

They've come up with the "Women's Eucharist", which makes use of raisin cakes, referenced in Hosea 3:1 as things those who turned away from God loved, and worship of a "Queen of Heaven" who turns out to not be Mary, but an idol Israel had worshipped in defiance of God (Jer 7 and 44).

If ever there was a convincing case that the Episcopal Church has completely broken from the faith, this would have to be it. Falling into idolatry which the Bible has condemned is nothing new, but it's a sure sign God's not behind the shift, despite however many testimonials of the "spirit" being involved. There's a spirit involved all right, but it wants them for dinner, and is roping in quite a feast. Although ECUSA seems to have taken down the page, it's still cached in Google here, and will probably be used in worship at some future date.

Note to Frank Griswold, the captain of this sinking ship: Do the rest of us a favor and let yourself be replaced by Clark Griswold. At least that way, we could watch him hilariously wreck ECUSA with his good intentions and still get a happy ending out of it. As it is, this is like watching a bad horror film where the hero ends up as some hideously transformed beast and slaughters all the unsuspecting people dear to him.

Remember, Mr. Griswold, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, besides being amazingly clear of obstacles, which you don't seem to want. Unfortunately, the true road is narrow and comes with obstacles which must be overcome, not eliminated.

- Posted by at 2:38 AM

As I saw on Special Report tonight, Jews for Jesus is out doing a little evangelization work, financed in part by an evangelical church. A member of the Jewish National Council was complaining that these people aren't really Jews. And in reality, he's right. After all, there was a group of "Jews for Jesus" about 2000 years ago. That group, however, became known as Christians. Which is really how the modern Jews for Jesus ought to bill themselves.

Of course, I expect Jews are going to have the same problem with JFJ that Catholics have with CFFC - namely that these days your religion is defined more by what you say it is than what you actually believe. JFJ and CFFC are about as appropriately named as Christians for Allah, Blacks for the KKK, or Masonic Catholics. Even though those last 3 groups don't exist as far as I know, they would be what the first 2 are - contradictions in terms.

Might we bother classifying religious affiliation based on the definable, concrete doctrines of the religion instead of the relativistic mishmash of what people think a religion is?

- Posted by at 12:43 AM

Lifesite News is reporting that the Canada Revenue Agency, the equivalent to the IRS, told the Canadian Catholic Church and Evangelical Fellowship of Canada that they risked losing their tax-exempt status if they engaged in partisan politics during the recent election there.

However, it turns out that the CRA's definition of not engaging in partisan political activity is "one that involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office."

Gee, that's so refreshing. A Nazi-esque party of nutjobs could form themselves tomorrow in Canada and no religion could say a word against their party even indirectly. Forgive me, but isn't there a considerable crowd which blames German Christians for not speaking out enough against Nazis? Why a Western democracy is outlawing the very thing so many think should have taken place in a totalitarian regime defies reason.

You can't take a middle road - either religions are free to criticize all politics they find objectionable, or they are free to criticize no politics, no matter how horrifying they are in reality. Canada's policy implies that churches would have been overstepping their bounds to speak out against Hitler.

Apparently, the Canadian government would rather not have its religious groups address any issue over which there is political controversy among the parties, which is effectively the same as silencing them. Had such a policy been in place in the United States, our churches could never have said a word about slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage, prohibition, wars, unions, or virtually any other substantive thing, because political disagreement is a universal thing in all free governments, and the parties usually end up on opposite sides.

The logical reductio is that a church cannot without penalty tell its members how to practically apply their religion to their lives unless the political parties, secular things by nature, either all agree or disagree with that church's teaching. That implication is chilling, both because it restricts a religion's ability to give its members any advice on any controversial issue and because it makes the changing political situation trump religious beliefs, no matter how old those religious beliefs may be.

Gay marriage can be used as an example. Using these guidelines, a few decades ago, when all parties opposed gay marriage, gay marriage could be preached against. Now that there is disagreement politically, no religion can say anything about it unless they want to be taxed for their views - a potentially ruinous proposition for small congregations and a difficulty even for large ones. If all the parties eventually support gay marriage again, religions can theoretically preach about it again free of charge, though the point of that might be somewhat moot.

The Canadian government is telling religions to divorce themselves from the world entirely and not to play any part whatsoever in social debates, or to be penalized for saying anything at all about the questions of the day. A more militantly anti-religious policy short of outright persecution is hard to imagine.

- Posted by at 1:01 AM

John Kerry's been having a lot of problems with his Director of Religious Outreach position. His first choice, Mara Vanderslice, had participated in a protest at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York where she spit the Host on the floor. A curious choice considering Kerry's Catholic faith says she spit the savior of the world on the floor.

The second choice, Rev. Brenda Peterson, had filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court supporting Michael Newdow's attempt to strike the words "under God" from the pledge. She was also executive director of the Clergy Leadership Network, whose CEO is in favor of gay marriage. The group's sole purpose, according to Peterson, was a change in national leadership. If that's not a religious group acting as a political front, I don't know what is.

Now, Kerry has something of a problem when it comes to religion, and so with this position in his campaign. He wants to reach out to religious people, but faces a problem in that 2/3 of all frequent churchgoers vote Republican to begin with. A good portion of the 1/3 who vote Democratic are from black evangelical churches, a group safely behind Kerry already.

The problem is that religious people tend to be to the right of a good portion of the Democratic party, while Kerry can't move too far in that direction without angering his base. To keep the feminists happy, the director would have to be pro-abortion. To keep the gay activists happy, the director would have to be in favor of gay marriage. And to keep the civil liberterians happy, they would have to be strongly opposed to any religious presence in the government. But any director satisfying those three qualities is almost certain to turn off the vast majority of religious people, since any such person will sound a lot like a secularist.

If Kerry had any political guts, he'd appoint a religious outreach director who doesn't sound like some sort of liberal Protestant secularist, even if it might alientate some of his base. He can almost certainly afford to pick someone who is pro-life and who is opposed to gay marriage simply because the feminists and the gays aren't going to bolt the Democratic ticket over this, while some moderates may well be won over by a little intellectual diversity over at Camp Kerry.

However, since the Democratic party is run by the activists, unlike their Republican counterpart, I don't see this happening. Look for Kerry to blunder by picking a third candidate which the Catholic League will expose as a bad choice.

- Posted by at 3:28 PM