Friday, March 25, 2011
You've got to hand it to them. Every now and then, the Death Merchants of the world come up with something so refreshingly honest that it deserves our applause. Let's face it, there aren't a whole lot of folks out there who are willing to just go Margaret Sanger and speak their minds about what's really driving the contraception and abortion movements in the world.
Beyaz, a birth control pill, has decided to go all-in in promoting their message:
It's all about selfishness and greed. Babies are bad. Things are good. Of course, we've known this. To see it so blatantly admitted on such a large scale by the manufacturers of such products is pretty amazing, though.
It's also very sad that society has deteriorated to the point where a company can feel comfortable hawking their wares with basic message of "Greed is good." Any time you see clips of Michael Douglas making this statement, it's used as an example of excess and evil. If it means the destruction of life, that makes it not just ok, but praiseworthy.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Some cultures deserve to be destroyed. Assyrians, Aztecs, communists. You get the picture.
Our own modern culture should be at the top of the list as well.
Why does this notion create such a sense of revulsion to those to whom it is presented?
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Well, thank the European Court of Human Rights for straightening that out for everybody. Justa quick note as I'm in a hurry.
The director of the Vatican press office is welcoming today's ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, which found that crucifixes can be displayed in Italy's public schools.
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi said in a statement that the Holy See received the ruling "with satisfaction."
He called it historical, noting the widespread opposition to the court's November 2009 decision that the presence of crucifixes in schools was an affront to human rights. Italy was joined by more than 20 countries as well as a number of non-governmental organizations in appealing the '09 ruling.
Consider this. Where exactly does any court get the authority to pronounce on whether or not the display of a crucifix is appropriate? I get made fun of quite often for pointing out that modern notions of religious liberty and church/state separation are essentially paths for religious indifferentism and practical atheism in a society. This is a good example, even though the court came to the "right" conclusion.
Just think of it this way. When a society says that it's the place of a group of creations to pass judgment on the right of the Creator to be given His due recognition, something is wrong. The only real counter to this is to basically place all religions on the same level (religious indifferentism). Once all religions are regarded as equally true (or false), the beliefs associate with them are emptied of meaning for the public. Once religious beliefs are de-emphasized as inferior to the public culture, statutes, or whatever, man has taken the place of God. What's left is basically atheism, regardless of what kind of lip-service one pays to the situation.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
I would like to celebrate this lovely occasion with a reminder to all readers here of Patrick's glorious life as a Baptist missionary with our annual posting for this date.
That's right all you Catholic folk. St. Patrick was a Baptist. Dr. LK Landis said so. It must be true.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Canadian Anglicans will hold discussions this spring about whether baptism is necessary for taking part in communion -questioning a requirement of Christianity that has existed for 2,000 years.
WooHoo! It's a party at the Anglicans'!
This is all coming from the National Post, so if there are inaccuracies, take it up with them. Anyways, looking at the story, there's a lot of instructive stuff. For example:
"Official teaching is you have to be baptized first..."
There are "official" Anglican teachings? Who knew?
But a number of clergy across the country feel strongly about this as an issue and many have approached their bishops about allowing for an 'open table' in which all could take communion," said Archdeacon Paul Feheley, who is the principal secretary to Archbishop Fred Hiltz, head of the Anglican Church of Canada.
Ah, now this is the Anglicanism we've all come to know. If enough people feel a certain way about a topic, then anything and everything that we know from Divine Revelation can be tossed out the door to make way for the sentiments of men.
Rev. Gary Nicolosi said that if Jesus did not discriminate about who he invited to his table, then the Church should follow his lead.
Yeah, I wonder if this guy is familiar with some of the recent readings. I'd say casting someone into the outer darkness is pretty discriminatory on Our Lord's part.
"How, in our multicultural and pluralistic society, can our churches be places of hospitality if we exclude table fellowship with the non-baptized? This is not an academic question," wrote Rev. Nicolosi, the pastor at St. James Westminster Anglican Church in London, Ont., and an official Church consultant on how to build membership.
Notice the shift here. He introduces the topic as being something about what Jesus would do. Ultimately, that isn't the real motivating factor. It's about society and conforming to the standards of the world.
"In Canada, a growing number of the population is not baptized. Included are people from different religious traditions or people with no religious affiliation at all. Quite likely, some are our grandchildren or great-grandchildren, whose parents neglected or refused to have them baptized.
"How can the church effectively minister in a post-Christian world where a significant percentage of the population is not baptized? Some Anglican churches are attempting to meet this challenge by becoming open and inclusive faith communities, ready and willing to support people in their spiritual journeys."
Well gee, Gary. How about trying this as a solution?
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you
Continuing with the real force behind all this, Gary provides some stats:
In an interview, Rev. Nicolosi noted the Church is losing 13,000 members a year and that those who remain now have an average age of 60. He estimates that just 500,000 Anglicans are left in Canada, down from 1.3 million only a few decades ago.
Many who come to church do not feel welcome because they are not able to fully participate, he said. It is akin, he added, to inviting someone for Sunday dinner and not feeding them a meal.
Of course. Communion is just a meal, after all. This reminds of something Flannery O'Connor once said: If the Eucharist is just a symbol, then to hell with it.
Hey, if the Anglicans are losing so many members, why not have a carnival at every service with rides and ponies? It could be like Coney Island. That would pack the parishioners in.
"If the teaching has been that baptism leads to communion, I don't see why communion can't lead to baptism," said Rev. Nicolosi.
Ah, yes. The Almighty "I" has declared that the economy of salvation works this way.
Rev. Ephraim Radner, professor of historical theology at Wycliffe College, an Anglican seminary in Toronto, rejects the idea that changing 2,000 years of tradition will make the Anglican Church stronger.
"The Eucharist isn't a welcoming exercise," he said. "It is about Christ's sacrifice on the cross. It's not a meal like any other meal.
"It has been a clear and consistent practice through all of Christianity and shows that a baptized person has committed himself or herself to Jesus."
He said to eliminate the requirement would water down what Christianity stands for, and he is concerned that leaders of the Church do not find the suggestion alarming.
"It's dangerous," he said. "It makes God and Christ not as holy and demanding and wonderful as the Church has taught."
Bad news, Ephraim. You best head for the ordinariate. This stuff won't play in the Schori Communion that is ascendant among your brethren. I feel bad for guys like this, but you'd think they would have caught on by now. Once you break fellowship with Peter, it's all downhill from there.
Monday, March 7, 2011
I saw this in a Zenit article. It's a short bit about an Orthodox delegation discussing the East's view of ecclesiology. See here:
Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus affirmed that "Orthodox theology is primarily ecclesiological..."
He underlined the Orthodox interpretation of ecclesiology, which is not confessional, but rather stresses the existential experience of the church.
I wonder how many Orthodox would agree with this. Of the ones I know, absolutely none. Given the emphasis the East places on the Creeds of old, I'm not sure how this guy can classify their ecclesiology as "not confessional." Frankly, I don't even know what this existential experience stuff is supposed to mean.
Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?