How many times have pro-death speakers been invited to speak at Catholic universities in recent years? How much protest did you hear? Last May, Catholic Answers and other groups published long lists of Catholic universities that opened the door for commencement speakers who did not represent Catholic teachings. Protest was fairly limited to these groups and one or two bishops. Suddenly Notre Dame’s invitation to the president draws lay people and bishops out of the woodwork to protest and to stand up for the truth about the sanctity of life.

Archbishop Chaput out of the Archdiocese of Denver offered a statement that beautifully articulates exactly why Catholics are rising up. Is the sleeping giant (the Church, not the bishop) awakening in America? What wonders will God work when His saints finally arise?

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Once again, the great orator couches his decision in terms that make the opposition unreasonable and self-serving, stating that his decision ensures that no scientific data will be “distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda.”

President Obama further opined:

“Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry,” Obama said. “It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

The problem with this line of thought is that the ban on federal funding did nothing to inhibit free and open inquiry. It simply said that federal money would not fund this particular area of scientific research for moral reasons. Taken to its logical conclusion, federal funding should be granted to groups that want to step over other moral lines as well. How can someone with the president’s policy pick and choose which moral lines can be crossed? Let’s experiment on Alzheimer’s patients in ways that will lead to their deaths. Let’s do lethal experimentation on the handicapped. After all, “It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

Let’s be clear here. First of all, stem cell research that does not destroy human embryos has developed an increasing numbers of successful treatments. Embryonic stem cell research, which has been prodigiously funded by private sources, treats none. The reason for the failure of embryonic stem cells is that they grow too fast and too unpredictably, resulting in tumors and other abnormal growths. So, why would be be pumping more federal money into research that has born no fruit? One word – money. The scientific or medical company that does develop a cure based on patented stem cell lines has legal custody of that cure. This is not true of adult stem cell developments, since the cure has its source in the patient’s own body.

So, who is serving a political agenda? Obama’s decision potentially benefits “big business” medical research companies much more than it will benefit patients, despite his propaganda about finding cures and advancing medical progress.

My fellow Catholics, what price will we pay for our socially liberal administration that has so far shown no signs of decreasing the body count on the war, but every sign of increasing the body count of our innocent unborn?
[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The first installment of that payment has already come due. As fully expected of a Democrat president, Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy by executive order, despite his promise to govern from the center and to listen to opposing voices. This policy prohibited tax dollars from being used to fund abortions in other countries (especially to fund the United Nations Population Control Fund). Our tax money may now be used to kill unborn babies in the name of fighting poverty. This move is a strong statement that the way to fight poverty is to keep poor people from reproducing. It is also a sign that President Obama is going to be more of the same as far as Democrat government goes. President Obama claimed that rescinding the Mexico City Policy would “settle” a “divisive issue” and bring unity. What nonsense. All he has done is to tip the argument toward death and to enrage advocates of life.

In all fairness, we have to admit that most of the buzz about Obama advancing the Culture of Death has been based on what he might do in the future. Rescinding the Mexico City Policy is the only concrete action he has taken so far. However, this action seems to be an indication of things to come.

Also in fairness, we must admit that the news about President Obama is not all bad. He has made at least three decisions that I think show some wisdom. First, he has overturned President Bush’s order that prohibited the states from enacting stricter vehicle emission standards than the federal standards. This action by President Obama returns control of clean air standards to the states, showing perhaps an understanding of subsidiarity (though it could just be typical Democrat environmentalism). It will also force automobile manufacturers to make some necessary changes that market forces have been unable to bring about.

Secondly, President Obama called for the removal of the contraception funding that Nancy Pelosi added to the economic stimulus package. He did so in response to pressure form Republicans and form pro-life advocates, perhaps showing that he is willing to listen to opposing voices after all. There is hope here. However, I am suspicious that his decision was to fight this battle later. If I am right, we haven’t seen the end of the contraception funding issue. For now, though, we can count this decision in the president’s favor.

Thirdly, President Obama has built on President Bush’s idea of “Faith-based initiatives,” except that he has expanded it to include nonreligious social organizations. As long as he does not include faith-based groups, I fully support the change. Supporting community organizations is an effective way to care for people’s needs. Local organizations know the needs of their people better than the removed federal government. Once again it is a sign that President Obama understands the principle of subsidiarity.

Unfortunately, these good decisions pale in scope and weight compared to the funding of abortion abroad. Lives of innocent babies are not a cost I am willing to pay for two small good actions.

What about the lives saved by not electing the war-mongering Republicans? I argued during the presidential race that I did not think that any president could simply withdraw us from the war. So far, indications point to my judgment being correct. Obama made a largely symbolic gesture of closing the Guantanamo Bay prison (some would say more than symbolic, since those prisoners may now be brought to speedy trial and finally receive justice), but early indications are that the war is business as usual – as it almost has to be for the sake of strength in the war against terror and justice for the Iraqi people who would greatly suffer in a power vacuum.

My purpose in this analysis is not to promote a partisan criticism of President Obama. To narrowly focused conservatives, Obama can do no right. Just as President Bush could do no right to narrowly focused liberals (the claims that Bush ranks among the worst presidents in history are utterly ridiculous). I want to be sure to point out what our government does right as well as what it does wrong. However, where innocent human lives are concerned, it is important to keep careful watch. An otherwise good president who advocates the killing of innocent lives is not a good president.I have to wonder if pro-Obama Catholics are keeping track. In the end, what cost will they pay for their choice? Only time will tell.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

When we got to each home, the families welcomed us warmly, gratefully accepted the gifts, and conversed with us freely. Then, my wife asked (as nonchalantly as possible), “Are you involved with any of the churches in the area?” Immediately, a wall went up. The suspicion was palpable. I could almost here the thought, “So, here’s the catch. This is why you’re being so nice. You’re trying to get me to join your religion. I knew nobody would be so generous without an ulterior motive.” Jodi felt it too. After a hesitant answer, “N . . . no. We’ve always meant to, but . . .I’m not really into the church thing just now,” Jodi replied, “Well, part of what we’re here for is to be sure you know about the greatest Gift of Christmas.” We then gave them a gift of age-appropriate Catholic books for the children and the conversation moved on.

By the end of our visit, the families were invariably comfortable with us again, but I left with an uneasy feeling. As Catholics, my wife and I should have known how to evangelize, but we should also have known how to evangelize like Catholics.

When most of us think of “evangelizing,” we think of the evangelical version. “Do you know Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? Would you like to pray to accept Him into your heart?” For most evangelicals, once such a prayer is said, it’s job done. Such a version of evangelization is foreign to Catholics, but sharing the Gospel and leading people to the faith should not be. Catholics know that faith is not about a single choice. It is about an ongoing relationship with Jesus through His Church. Catholic evangelization is about establishing a relationship with a person and bringing Jesus into that relationship. Catholics don’t use acts of charity as an opportunity to make new members. Acts of charity speak of Christ in themselves — they are the message. We establish a real relationship through acts of charity and Christ becomes part of that relationship.

I felt badly about doing such a poor job evangelizing, but perhaps without reason. Our act of charity spoke volumes to the families that we visited. Our personal conversation, getting to know each other, established a relationship. By telling the families that we were there as Christians, we told them that God is love. Perhaps an ongoing relationship would be possible with one or more of the families, and through that relationship the family could come to know Christ.

The experience made me reflect on how we respond to our culture. This Christmas has had an unprecedented number of attacks on Christianity. From the “There is no God” sign put up by Freedom from Religion in Washington to the “Pink Nativity” featuring to Joseph figures and two Mary figures put up by homosexual activists, there has been plenty for Catholics to react to.

But what is the best response to a culture that has not only rejected Christianity, but views it with suspicion? We have been for too long coasting on our existing infrastructure, promoting the faith among the faithful and engaging in battle against those who would upset the cultural Christian status-quo. Not that we should stop doing these things, but they do nothing to speak to our culture. If more Catholics would discover and exercise a Catholic evangelization, what power would we discover to transform the culture form the inside?

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

And that is essentially what lukewarmness means: it is not using, not receiving, the life and power of God; it is in the latter stages a positive resistance to the offered power, a positive refusal to listen to the voice of the Spirit. We have no further interest in the life and the power and the voice; we are bored. So at the end we find we are in hell — and it is this that makes the eternity of hell, and the fact of hell at all, an obvious inevitability, given free will: we have turned ourselves into people of this sort, and people of this sort are precisely people who cannot turn again because they made it impossible, and being unable to turn again they cannot live with God, they are eternally, irredeemably, enclosed in their shelf of boredom.

In Matthew 23:31, Jesus says, “Therefore, I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” Many people have speculated on what might constitute “blasphemy against the Spirit.” Theologians seem to agree for the most part that Jesus is not referring to a specific action or denouncement, but of a persistent state of the heart that closes oneself to grace. Fr. Vann’s description of lukewarmness rings like a true understanding of the unforgivable sin.

The choice made by angels (spiritual beings) to follow God or to reject Him is a perfect choice that changes the heart once and for all. Human beings are not as close to perfection (being unchanging) as angels so our choices form our hearts slowly over time. Eventually, however, our hearts become just as unchangeable as the hearts of angels. When we are in the presence of the Beatific Vision in heaven, we will not desire to choose anything but God’s love. When we close ourselves off to that love completely, we become unable to receive the grace that God offers us to change our hearts. Hell truly is our choice – chosen over and over again through time until we become a place where God is absent.

I love Fr. Vann’s description of lukewarmness and of hell as boredom (I also love the description of Hell as ultimate loneliness). A red flag should probably fly up when we realize how many Catholics seem bored with their faith – not just with the music at Mass or with their pastor’s homilies, but with living the life of faith altogether. More importantly, we should carefully guard our own hearts. There are times when my faith still feels like an obligation that I complete to hedge my bets against eternity. At these times I have to admit that I find my life of faith boring. When I realize that I am bored only because I have been closing myself off to grace, I return to a living relationship with God and rediscover the adventure that He is inviting me to live.

The antidote to lukewarmness – to boredom with faith and life – is the virtue of fortitude. Fortitude is the courage to live life to the full – the way God intended it to be lived. This means first and foremost to live life in faith, in a living relationship with the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. It also means cooperating with grace in order to quest for the greatest good that life has to offer. For me, that means striving to love my wife and my children as selflessly as I can. This is a great adventure, both in the sense of the challenge and in the sense of reward. It also means seeking to serve God with the gifts He has given me. This means teaching and writing. I have always found both teaching and writing a great adventure. When I have the fortitude to live as God plans for me to live, I find life to be an exciting adventure. When I lack in fortitude (and its child virtues patience and perseverance) I find life frustrating and boring.

God wants us to lead lives of goodness and adventure. Whether or not we do depends very much on our response.

Divine Pity by Rev. Gerald Vann.
Father Vann uses the beatitudes as a springboard for a discussion on living the Divine Life as fully as possible.  He identifies the subtle ways that Christians fail to fully live out the beatitudes, the virtues and the life of love. The social implications of the Beatitudes (the subtitle of the book) comes in with Father Vann’s persistent theme that we do not exercise the Christian life in a vacuum, but within a family. 

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.