I have been hearing about the book Connections that details the relationship between the Osama's group and Iraq. And of course, I had been hearing about all the little details for the last 2 years or so as well. This book collects them and lays out the story. I will buying it as soon as possible.

The Weekly Standard does a nice review of it.

I bring this up primarily to add to our discussion about Just War and Iraq. I have always held that the Iraq war was a Just War because of the behavior of Saddam and his attempts to gain WMDs, his cat and mouse games over inspections and his out and out violations of the cease-fire agreements and UN resolutions. I have also said that if there were any direct or overwhelming secondary evidence that linked Saddam to Osama, then the war in Iraq is a Just continuation of what we started in Afghanistan. I believe that the Pope did NOT condemn that war.

According to Catholic World News...

A bill before the New York Legislature would make it illegal for crisis pregnancy centers to refer pregnant women for ultrasounds.

This is extremely chilling for those working the front on the abortion war.

According to the April issue of Catholic World Report magazine, a study carried out at a network of crisis pregnancy centers in Massachusetts found that the percentage of women contemplating abortion who chose to continue their pregnancies jumped from 33 percent to 65 percent if ultrasounds were offered. Overall, when including missed diagnoses of miscarriage-- which were found with the ultrasound-- the percentage of women choosing not to have an abortion for any reason jumped from 39 percent to over 75 percent.

In other words if you prove that it's a baby, the maternal instinct will kick in. I am still flabbergasted at the other 25% though.

This is still a huge free speech issue. Also included in the article was the reasoning that if too many ultrasounds are harmful to the health of the child and mother...

Well what the hell is an abortion then? Mildly irritating?

Phil Brenan is an old school Catholic. In other words he believes what the Church believes and assents to its authority.

Recently 48 Dems in the US House sent a letter to Bishop McCarrick warning him that refusing communion obstinately pro-abort "Catholics" would reignite anti-Catholic biases.

Here is Phil's response.

You gotta love the audacity of some people to tell Bishops how to lead. And how to interpret faith and morals.

Also... haven't they noticed that anti-Catholic bigotry is already on the rise?

Mark Shea pointed this article out on his blog. Unfortunately, it's written by someone for the Detroit News. I grieve for my home state at times. It's bad enough we have a pro-abortion Catholic as governor, but we also have enablers.

Here is my response to the article as posted to the comments section online...

She simply misses the boat entirely on this issue. She seems to think that everything that the Pope says is Church doctrine and dogma. Not so. Abortion, homosexual acts, gay "marriages", fetal stem cell research, human cloning and euthanasia are all non-negotiable. They, by definition, take innocent human life or go against the moral norm. The Church's positions are unchangeable.

To be for ANY of these things is to be out of step with Church teachings. You would no longer be in communion with the Church as a whole. Therefore, you should not receive the ultimate expression of unity in the Church, communion.

Whether or not a particular war is just or whether the death penalty should be imposed or how to deal with the poor and lower economic classes are all matters of prudence. That means that the Church has no definitive position or definition on these things. They are things that you can validly take differing positions on from the Pope or any other Bishop and still be in good standing with the Church.

There is a huge moral difference between killing 1.5 million people in the womb every year and whether you should give tax credits to the poor to help them. While war and the death penalty will always produce dead people, you have to ask are these defensive measures? Are they the appropriate response? Is the response appropriate to the offense is it no more than necessary? There is no universal answer on these, and the Church has not absolutely defined the death penalty or any and all war as always and everywhere sinful as the above non-negotiables have been.

Finally Keenan doesn't seem to understand two simple things about the Eucharist and these issues. First is that the Eucharist is not a right to anyone who happens to drop by Church. You must be in a state of grace and free of mortal sin to partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Being at odds with clear Church teachings and being obstinate in the refusal to assent to Church teachings is dangerous ground. Second, Bishops are not telling politicians or anyone else to vote a particular way.

They ARE saying that if you vote incorrectly to uphold immoral actions, there will be consequences in CHURCH. There are always consequences. Sometimes they are good, sometimes bad. Politicians need to be reminded that you cannot separate your personal beliefs (if they really do believe in the personally opposed, but... line of crap) from your public actions. Is it OK to be personally opposed to slavery but not willing to impose that on others?

Why one and not the other?

There's a church called First Church of the Nazarene (wouldn't that be the Catholic Church?) near our house and like most Protestant churches they have a sign out front to put pithy little sayings. Currently it says "Following Jesus is about a person, not a path."

Translation... Faith alone saves us.

Now as a Catholic I recognize that it faith that moves us to do all else regarding our salvation. But if you take that sign at face value, you have to just believe in Christ and that's it. You're done. Pack your bags and hope you don't get airsick when you're raptured suddenly.

But is that really what Christ said and meant in the Gospels? I don't think so. Yes he said that you must be born of water and spirit to be saved. He said that you must repent and believe. There's so much that He said you must do. It doesn't make sense to pick one thing out and minimize the message of the Gospel to one small proof text.

Christ gave us the Church and gave it and Peter the power to loose and bind... That means to make rules and instruct the faithful on the meaning of what Christ taught. The Church has always taught that salvation involves more than believing in Christ and the Good News alone. There IS a path. The Church teaches that we must manifest our faith in our good works. We must be about the business of Christ which is bringing lost souls home to his Church... Loving God first and foremost... And loving each other as we love ourselves.

The parable of the sheep and goats plainly teaches that not all who claim faith in Christ are known by him or will enter the pearly gates. He makes plain that taking care of the temporal needs of the sick, poor and those in prison is the same as doing it to Him. Those that do so will please Him. Those that do not just might not want to pack sweaters for that rapture.

Thanks to Amy Welborn for this one. Saw it on her blog.

This was kind of "WHOA!!!!" when I saw it. Not every day you see an article about someone who heads up the state chapter of the largest conservative evangelical organization in the country become Catholic. I have to say that this is one brave couple. Many in the CC don't even beleive that we are Christians or have any hope of eternal salvation until we leave the cult we are in.

My prayers and a whole bunch of Hail Marys for this man and his wife.

A woman in France has admitted lying about 17 sex abuse and pedophilia accusations. She has caused one man to commit suicide and another almost died from his 93 day hunger strike. Marriages have ended in divorce. Children have been taken from parents. The man who committed suicide was incarcerated as a "preventative" measure.

Just to make the Catholic connection... The following is about a priest who was convicted as well.

'People say that because he lived opposite Badaoui he must have known about the abuse and must be guilty of molesting children because he did not denounce his neighbours to the authorities,' said Patrice Gence, a member of the committee. 'But Dominique would not want to denounce people he cared for. He lived among the most unfortunate people in our society. He wanted to help them.'

So he was guilty by association. He knew these people and so he must be guilty. Not too different than how many of our faithful, orthodox priests have been treated.

Well, we have yet another episcopal spine alert!

This Bishop was merely reacting to the statements of a Catholic public official stating that allowing for gay marriages was in line with Catholic teaching on inclusivity.

OK... Let me get this straight. It's inclusive to allow and encourage people to commit acts that are undeniably contrary to the faith, Scripture and the constant 2000 years of teaching by the Church?

Best quote from the article...

Josh Friedes, advocacy director of the Freedom to Marry Coalition, said, "Not only is he villainizing gay and lesbian couples and Catholics who support civil rights," Friedes said, "he is also attacking reform Jews and Protestant faith traditions that consider the unions of same-sex couples worth blessing."

And your point?!

This question has come up recently in our Maniacs discussions... As the only convert in the group I sometimes see things that Guvnur and Deke take for granted for instance. It's a matter of being to close to the trees to see the forest.

Anyway, we were talking about how some people call themselves Catholic without actually being Catholic. They don't go to Mass, participate in the Sacraments or have devotions. Some openly flout Catholic doctrine and dogma by being pro-abortion or having them. Some have multiple marriages. Some go so far as to actually join another Church.

And all through this they call themselves "Catholic". Why is this?

What I have observed is that it is one of the last vestiges of what was once a proud Catholic Culture. Being Catholic was at one time like your ethnic identity. It was similar to Jewishness. There is a racial and religious aspect to Jewishness and being Catholic had a sense of racial identity without being limited by race.

Ever heard a lapsed or practicing Catholic say "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic"? I used to scoff at that because I naively took it at the religious level only. After all the Catholic Church is not a national Church in the sense of the British Anglican Church or the Orthodox Catholic Churches which are separated from us. It is universal.

Anyway, somehow we have let these "bad" Catholics off the reservation as it were and let them retain the title because it is an identity that transcends normal identities.

But I believe we must reclaim the name. As much as it pains me, I believe that those that leave the Church in practice or in practical terms, must understand that being Catholic is too important to attach non-Catholic actions and positions to it. Our Church is the fullness of the faith left by Christ. How the most public of us behave is how others see us. How we live our lives and act on our Catholicity is how others judge our commitment to the faith.

When we let pro-abort pols remain "Catholics in good standing" or family members get baptized in the local mega-church (Six Flags Over JC here in the 'ville) and let them go through the motions of being Catholic when they feel like it...

Well we are the ones at fault after it happens a few times. That's right. US.

When we do not lovingly try to correct someone who has a flawed understanding of the Faith and how it is to be lived, we are letting them endanger their souls. And I believe we will have to answer for this as well. We will answer for what we do and what we fail to do.

We must not be afraid to take the heat for this either. We must remember that souls and their eternal salvation are at stake. This is not a matter of keeping the rules of some absurd secret order. It's not Royal Order of Buffaloes and it's not a social circle. It's the means and conduit of grace and salvation Christ left us. We should want all to be Catholic and those that already are to be good Catholics.

That said... Let's see what we can come up with to start righting the situation. Come on. Let's hear it.

I read the article and also am disgusted. Let me quote a few paragraphs to show you why.

Credibility problem

But he said that the Church was best served by the retirement of any pope by age 75, the age when bishops retire. These days, the media are more focused on the Pope’s health than his message, he added.

OK. So the media is more concerned with his health? And the point here? When the Pope was first elected, or at any time before age 75, was the media more interested in the Gospel, the "message" of the Pope? This is another case of those in the Church wanting the world to like the Church, because the Church conforms to the world. Sorry. That is back-asswards.

“As his age increases and his health deteriorates, his abilities are increasingly in doubt and the Pope is in some ways less credible. And we think it's important to tell him that, so that he gives some thought to standing down,” Pfister said.

See the above as to his credibility. What exactly about age makes one less sincere? Or less of a believer? What about advancing age takes away his moral voice? Or his Apostolic lineage? Again, we are see the attempt to make the Church conform to the world.

"The other thing is that he said he would like to make the Church fit for the third millennium. We think that in the third millennium it should be considered normal by Church leaders that the Pope retires, in order to preserve the credibility of the office.”

So ageism is the norm to judge the Church by? We decide that after a certain age, a Pope is an automatic idiot, lunatic, drooling moron? There is a huge difference between a diocesan priest retiring and a Pope retiring. What exactly would the former Pope do? Go live in a monastery? Piddle around the Vatican trying to stay out of the way? If John Paul II had retired 9 years ago, we would not have the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary. We would not have the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharista. We would not have the recent document on liturgical abuses. We would not have his incredible example of suffering for and with Christ. We would not have the image of JPII berating Clinton in Denver over abortion (and Clinton looking really pissed to boot!). There is no end of great things this Pope has done.

But the real question is this: Why do they want the Pope to step down? Is it really because they think he is a dottering old fool? Or is it because he has not succumbed to modernism? Is it because he holds fast to the faith as it has been handed on to him?

Must be nice to be paid to blog. Boss out of the office this week? :)

Go over to Dave Armstrong's blog...

There's a great entry on the RFBV of the Bible.

If you've ever debated or studied apologetics, this will have you smiling and laughing.

Until you remember that there are a great number of fundies and evangelicals that really do read the Bible this way.

In addition to all the stuff I put out there, cluttering up cyberspace, we've decided to expand the Blog team to 4. I'll let them introduce themselves to you and decide how much to say about themselves. Briefly, they are:

Guvner - A revert to the faith after several years spent wandering in the wilderness.

Deke (awaiting his username) - Cradle Catholic just about to begin studies for the Permanent Diaconate.

HeathenBoy - Our resident non-Catholic, self-professed Heathen. Yet he's more Catholic in his thinking than some Bishops we have seen.

May add another Maniac later. Who knows. Now all we have to do is get some publicity for this thing. :)

Most of you probably know who Jimmy Akin... He's the main apologetics dude over at Catholic Answers. And he's into all sorts of similar stuff to the staff here at Catholic Maniacs. What stuff?

Babylon 5 and its creator Michael J. Straczynski
Stargate SG1
Jonny Quest (Go Here)

And he seems to share similar views on a host of other issues. Check him out.

Go here.

The President of VOTF publicly shows his true intentions in my opinion. He is pissed because there are Bishops in the Church who DARE to uphold the timeless teaching of the Church. VOTF has so far stayed out of most non-abuse issues in the Church, but this guy felt the need to speak out in support of gay marriage. Note that he isn't speaking out against discrimination against the person. He thinks gays ought to get married if they want.

Remember the third goal of this group?

Promote and form structural change in the Church.

That goal, taken in context with the people who are leaders in this group, what they say privately at meetings and now publicly and who speaks at their events and what you have are liberal Episcopalians. These people are no longer objectively Catholic in my opinion.

Why?

Because they are rejecting key portions of the faith. These are:

1. Authority of the Bishops
2. Clear Scriptural teachings
3. The meaning and role of the Eucharist

The last one you may question. But look at the middle of the article where he regrets the politicization of the Eucharist. He basicly says that it's not proper to deny communion. Well, Canon 915 states that a person that publicly and obstinately persists in grave sin may be denied. As Cardinal Arinze says, if the should not receive, they should not be given. For the good of the person they should be denied per St. Paul's directive to not receive in a state of sin or be guilty of the body and blood yourself.

The group's intention seems to be to conform the Church to modern sensibilities. Anyone with half a brain should see this. Those that don't, probably agree with VOTF. The Church CANNOT and MUST NOT conform to modern sensibilities. Doing so, would strip the Church of its authority and role.

Just read an article about a gay wedding in the ECUSA. Seems a "priest" who is divorced (was married and had 5 kids) "married" his gay partner. He told his "bishop" in advance and was given the OK. But there was a big deal made in the media. The "bishop" basically defrocked him.

(Is that hate speech? To defrock a gay person? Seems iffy.)

Anyway, it seems as though the offenders were in trouble because it got all the press, not because they got "married". There are some "dioceses" in the ECUSA that will bless same-sex unions. We already know that there are many in the Anglican Union, which the ECUSA is a part of, that have no problem treating the gay lifestyle as normal and equal to heterosexual lifestyles.

How do they square this stuff with the Bible and with themselves? Without going into the details we know that there is nothing in the Bible that will bless, allow or even just ignore homosexual behavior. So they have that to ignore. And we know that they will allow the blessings of these unions and even elevate a known, admitted practicing homosexual to "bishop". That by the way would be fornication as well as homosexual acts.

So it's OK to fornicate for homosexuals and maybe get blessed, but not to cause a big deal about it, intentionally or not?

If it's so embarrassing to you that someone on earth should notice and be offended, what are you going to do when you stand before God for His judgment?

If you'll notice, there are two comments links on the new posts. Blogger.com has instituted an internal commenting module. I can keep the HaloScan tool or use the Blogger tool. Try out the new one, which is the link after the timestamp. I think I like the new one, but I don't know if there is a limit to the post size. Let's try it out and see how it works.

If you haven't subscribed to this, do it now.

Go here.

Read the archives here.

Karl often talks about personal stuff like his passion for hiking, but it's still interesting. He is most often talking about current issues in the Church or interesting apologetics that come up. This week's issue is about responses to the Catholic Answers Voters Guide for Serious Catholics and other issues.

As always, Karl is solid in his faith, logic and reasoning.

I missed out on so much stuff that could have been commented on. Darn it!

I will comment on several things though. The first is the statement by Bishop Aquila about pro-abort Catholics.

The Bishop, showing the proverbial episcopal spine that Mark Shea talks about, has said that pro-abort Catholics risk their very souls to damnation. In other words he comes out and tells it like it is!

His Emminence said that the situation with Kerry and others has forced his hand. He can no longer sit by and not speak out. Most telling was this statement:

I, as a successor of the apostles, cannot remain silent. I, as an apostle, must speak with the apostles and obey God rather than man and present to you the teaching of the Church on the proper relationship between our faith and professional life.

He knows his position and the inherent responsibilities that come with it. Not only are the bishops to teach the truth, they are to do so in communion with the Apostles as their direct successors. He understands that his position comes with great responsibility and he is not shirking it.

He is a leader.

OK, we are back up and running for the most part. Got the old PC running for the most part, though I am still somewhat wary of it lasting because of what happened. I will be replacing or upgrading this thing ASAP. In the meantime, I will be backing it up ASAP as well. :)

Man, there are times when I wish God didn't trust me as much as He seems to. My computer seems to have fried today. Was taking a break playing a game and it shuts down, pops and a smoky smell comes out of it. So, either I have burned out the power supply or the motherboard. Either way I am toast for a bit.

Someone say some prayers to the patron Saint of computers for me! And a few Hail Marys and Our Fathers.