Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Insomnia download of the day
Librivox has a free audiobook of the Baltimore Catechism.
Monday, February 20, 2012
taking scripture out of context
So catholics tended to learn the bible as a story, where one got the lesson from Jesus, rather than an emphasis on quoting Paul out of context, which is usually what we hear in sermons by the preachers on the protestant stations on the TV
yet the cherry picking of verses often leads to someone cherry picking one verse out of context and then backing it up with another verse out of context.
I remember years back having a preacher use the verse "the sabbath is made for man not man for the sabbath" as an excuse to say everyone needs to obey the rules of the sabbath, which is made for all men.
when actually, in context, Jesus was saying the opposite: The sabbath was made as a day of rest for men in a society where work was 24/7, not a day when rules and regulations made it impossible for men to get any time for recreation.
Today's bible reading in my software bible is an example.
The quotation: 2 Cor 7:5-7
the meditation (I think the daily meditation is spurgeon but I'm not sure) was on 2 cor 7.
God comforts the downcast.
And who comforteth like Him? Go to some poor, melancholy, distressed child of God; tell him sweet promises, and whisper in his ear choice words of comfort; he is like the deaf adder, he listens not to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely. He is drinking gall and wormwood, and comfort him as you may, it will be only a note or two of mournful resignation that you will get from him; you will bring forth no psalms of praise, no hallelujahs, no joyful sonnets. But let God come to His child, let Him lift up his countenance, and the mourner's eyes glisten with hope.
Wonderful thought and wonderful exposition, saying that men cannot comfort us, but that God will comfort us in our sorrows. So rely on him alone.
But the full reading is exactly opposite:
For when we came into Macedonia, this body of ours had no rest, but we were harassed at every turn-conflicts on the outside, fears within. 6 But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, 7 and not only by his coming but also by the comfort you had given him. He told us about your longing for me, your deep sorrow, your ardent concern for me, so that my joy was greater than ever.
(from New International Version)
what's the difference?
In the first one, it says God is our comfort; in the second one it points out that God comforted Paul by using Titus and the other Christians.
The first is a comfort, but does not put responsibility on us, the second does.
No works emphasized, only grace. Say a prayer and go your way, folks...
Hmm....wasn't James a bit sarcastic at this type of christian?
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The "Hell Freezes over" post of the day
Father Landry also gives sermons on contraception, something very few priests do. He says he relies on Pope John Paul II’s argument against contraception, which he summarizes. “That God has made us fundamentally for love,” Father Landry said, “and that marriage is supposed to help us to love for real. In order for that to happen, we need to totally give ourselves over to someone else in love, and receive the other’s total self in love.
“What happens in the use of contraception, rather than embracing us totally as God made the other, with the masculine capacity to become a dad, or the feminine capacity to become a mom, we reject that paternal and maternal leaning.”
Father Landry argues that contraception can be the gateway to exploitation: “When that petition is made for contraception, it’s going to make pleasure the point of the act, and any time pleasure becomes the point rather than the fruit of the act, the other person becomes the means to that end. And we’re actually going to hurt the people we love.”
Thursday, February 16, 2012
heh. Sounds like Obama's plan to take over the modern equivalent from the catholic church.
EMV: In the novel, Joanna and the other nuns have taken the Oath, and yet they admire the courage of those who died rather than take it, such as the Carthusians and Thomas More and Bishop Fisher. I never realized that so many nuns did take the Oath and yet they were dissolved anyway. Why was Cromwell so determined to destroy consecrated life in England, especially when the monks, nuns and friars did so much good work in health care, education, and feeding the hungry?NB: It was a financial imperative. The country was approaching bankruptcy. The land grab of the monasteries—that is what it was—poured more than a million pounds into the royal treasury. The King and Cromwell assured people that hospitals and schools would replace the abbeys and monasteries that were emptied and often destroyed but that rarely happened. The money went to building new palaces and to war, mostly. Also the property was turned over to courtiers so that they would be more bound to the king than ever.
And the Nuns will be falling in line for him.
three false christs
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
This is not my opinion, but the analyst of Dick Morris. Apparently, the decision was made awhile back, and the press went along with the talking points.
A long article at the Not work friendly FR site.
I usually wouldn't take it seriously, except that Dick Morris, who used to work for Bill Clinton, is discussing it, and also because yesterday while looking up an unrelated item, I ran across this blogpost that included several links to articles that essentially said the same thing...
now, how would a scripture scholar have all those talking points so quickly to post on his website?
and here is the PC take at Mother Jones
quick: How many logical errors can you find?
All catholic bishops hate women and are pedophiles or pedophile enablers.
All catholics use birth control so what is the big deal (GetReligion analyses this false statistic HERE).
Guttmacher did say in its summary that “Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same, 98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women.”
But that’s not in any way an accurate statement of what its own survey found.
On the very same page, it explains that its survey was restricted to women aged 15-44, so that cuts out all women who were older than 44 at the time of the survey. And a footnote explains that a rather significant chunk of women were excluded from this figure of “all women” — namely, women who are pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant.” A later footnote says that the only women who had sex in the last three months were included in this group. Finally, included in this 98 percent figure of current contraceptive users are the 11 percent who report no method.
Then you hear that Catholic institutions already pay for it (except they often don't: Those who work for them often pay a "rider" that allows this, so the separate part of the policy, like dental insurance that in the US is not routinely part of your health insurance, is an extra add on)
The payment by catholic institutions was voluntary (One site mentioned DePaul University pays after they were sued by the EEOC, if this is true, the local bishop should have them countersue).
etc. etc. etc.
also what is not being noted: That the regulation doesn't only require church related institutions to buy contraception/abortifactant medicines as part of their insurance policy, but that ALL insurance policies will cover it.
Catholic hospitals, schools, charities, institutions: Check.
EWTN, which self insures (i.e. they have their own insurance policy for their members): check.
Employees who in the past chose insurance policies that didn't cover these things: Check.
Those of us who are self employed and pay for our own private insurance: check.
Someone wrote that the only way now to get out of paying for abortive medicine/contraception is to leave the country.
I'm going to have to check on my insurance policy, which covers me here but is based in the USA...
so the administration plans to attack religion to destroy his political enemies?
And they would use lies to do so?
I'm not a big political type, but I always heard that the combination of lies and deathmaking was dangerous.
But when the head of the Catholic health organization lets the white house release a statement saying that her organization backs the so called reforms , and does so before the so called reforms were announced, it makes you wonder. It especially makes you wonder when she does so very quickly, without having to bother to check the members of her organization.
This webpage suggests they have been getting a bit of flack on the matter:
CHA Will Review the Proposed New Rules for the HHS Mandate
Yup. Sounds like their email was full this weekend with complaints. Notice the subtle way they put it?
CHA looks forward to reviewing the specifics of the changes in the mandated benefits. Many members have called with questions about these since they were a concern as first published. On Friday, Feb. 10, 2012, we were notified that our organizations would not have to buy or refer employees for contraception and other services. We were also told that the self-insured plans would be accommodated in this. At this time, there are many unanswered questions about specifics. We now have the challenging work of reviewing the proposed rules, examining their impact and giving input before they are finalized.
Because many members have asked about specifics in the rules and also the process for applying for the one-year exception, we have included links to the rules and to the guidance on the safe harbor with this email.
As more is known about this, we will be getting that information out to the membership as quickly as possible.
here's another slimy article on how the bishops chose to "dialogue" with them LINK
If I remember, the bishops were worried that the administration would pull a fast one on them, and now that this has happened, maybe it will be a time for soul searching.
During the panel discussion with Sr. Carol, Bishop Lynch noted that relationships between bishops and Catholic health care leaders are "back on track" nationally following some highly publicized fissures in 2010. However, Archbishop Kurtz said relationships on "the grassroots level" may be less consistently stable. "That's an opportunity" for improvement, he said.
Volume 28, Number 3
Something has to be fixed
By SR. CAROL KEEHAN, DC
CHA president and chief executive officer
CHA and its members were profoundly disappointed to learn that the definition of a religious employer was not going to be broadened in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' rules for preventive services for women.
The impact of being told we do not fit the new definition of a religious employer and therefore cannot operate our ministries following our consciences has jolted us. The contributions of Catholic health care, education and social services to this country's development are legion. They have responded to the needs of all, not just Catholics. They have been delivered by many who do not share our faith, but share our commitment.
From President Thomas Jefferson to President Barack Obama, we have been promised a respect for appropriate religious freedom. The first amendment to our Constitution affirms it. We are a pluralistic country, and it takes respectful dialogue to sort this out fairly. This decision was a missed opportunity.
CHA has expressed concern and disappointment about this on behalf of the ministry. We have said the problem is not resolved, and we must have a national conversation on this. CHA is working closely with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities USA, the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities and others to look at options to resolve this. We will be discussing it at the CHA board meeting on Feb. 8.
all this sounds great: Until of course til you get to the last sentence:
excuse my cynicism, but I give it two or three days until Sister is back there praising the president instead of the church on CNN.
I assure you that we will use the time to pursue a correction during the one-year extension.translation: No, we won't say no. we will think about it.
We will give this issue priority and consult with members and experts as we evaluate options to deal with this.
translation: No guys, really. Let's think about it. Stop writing all those nasty emails.
Any suggestions, comments or questions are welcome.
pretty please with sugar on it: stop those nasty emails that we should go along with the church's teaching.
I promise to keep the membership informed as we move along in this effort.
until I go on CNN next week to back the president and praise him for giving us a year and the election is over until we decide to shaft the bishops publicly.
Please keep this important effort in your prayers as well.
But it does seem that those nasty emails might have done something...maybe giving her an ulcer on her delete button finger.
Of course, it could be worse: The Philippine RH bill, if passed, will fine you 200 dollars if you even criticize the bill.
and if Wikileaks is to be believed, it is being pushed down the throat of Filipinos by US taxpayer money.
Saturday, February 11, 2012