Category: Religion

Catholic Colleges and Bishops

http://ncronline.org/news/theology/bishops-colleges-find-good-collaboration-ex-corde-review

This writer attended several Christian affiliated colleges.  Many times I asked myself if the school I attended was Christian in any sense other than an active Chapel life.  It seemed that the philosophy, theology, ethics and morality of Christianity had no interaction with classroom presentations.  Once a student left the Chapel, it was exactly like every other secular based school.

During the Pontificate of John Paul II the relationship of Roman Catholic colleges and universities was highlighted by two events.  This author is presenting this from memory so minor details may be missing but the gist is the same.

Hans Kung is the name.  A Roman Catholic priest, writer, theologian and holder of the official chair of Theology at a German university, Father Kung wrote several items that were called into question by the official teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church.  He was required to clarify his positions and eventually, his explanations of what he taught were not judged adequate by the official Roman Catholic teaching authority.  The case was refered to Pope John Paul II, who after review, decided that Father Kung could not accurately and sufficiently represent the official Roman Catholic theology on subjects under his purview.  He was required by his bishop to relinquish the official chair of Roman Catholic theology.  Father Kung was not forbidden to publish his thoughts.  He was not stripped of his priesthood.  He was not accused as a heretic.  The narrow, and in this writers opinion, correct judgement, was that which was stated above.  Father Kung was judged to be not sufficiently committed to official Roman Catholic teaching for him to remain the official teacher of that position at a university.

The second is similar but involves an entire university, namely, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.  The Pope warned Notre Dame and other official Roman Catholic Universities that they could not have it both ways.  Namely, the university could not teach, promulgate, or promote distinctly unchristian or antichristian positions and remain an official university of the Church.  Please note, that his Holiness John Paul II did not say that presentations of other than Christian philosophies, theologies, ethics, morals or whatever, could not be treated at such a university.  What was required was a distinctly Roman Catholic analysis, critique and answer to those presentations which a reasonable Christian would regard as not in keeping with the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  Also note, that the Pope did not require the school to stop academic freedom, however, if the school wanted to adopt, teach, promulgate and promote distinctly unchristian or antichristian positions, it should give up its affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church and become just another secular institution.

Considering that so many of our finest American Universities, such as Yale and Harvard and just about all the ivy league schools were founded by Christians and supported throughout their founding years by the Christian Church.  And considering that if we were to look at the founding documents and charters of these school, the founders intended for the schools to teach, promulgate, and promote the distinct teachings of the Christian Church.  It is a sad commentary on academic fraud that these very schools attack, degrade, and dismiss Christianity and Christian philosophy, world view, ethics, morals and theology and even personal worship as not even to be tolerated.

It would be delightful and I think a meaningful exercise for all Christian denominations to begin dialog with colleges and universities that claim affiliation with the Church.  Since, it is my belief that most of these institutions do not subscribe in any meaningful way to the teachings of the denominations to which they claim affiliation, they should voluntarily give up that affiliation and declare themselves purely secular schools.  By the way, any specifically Church owned property, endowments, Teaching Chairs, fellowships, etc. should be returned to the founders.  If such things as property, and the like cannot practically be returned, a monetary amount should be appraised and the school pay that amount to the Church.  Of course, it would be hoped that the schools could reform themselves along the lines by which they were founded.  Although, this writer holds out little hope for this.

A Citizens Call to Action On Gun Control

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/mindset/a-call-to-duty/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CCR%2012-21-2012%20Prospects%20(2)&utm_content=

 

A very thoughtful and passionate prposal for citizen action in light of school invasion and children’s murder.

Why did the Republicans Lose?

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-mourning-mitt-not-much-215916231.html

This article is exactly why they lost.  It is because each individual Republican thinks of themself as being right.  They do not think as a party, or a movement or a political philosophy.  They think of themselves and themselves and themselves.  It is amazing that the Republicans get any votes!

This writer is chagrined that the feast of sharks has already begun.  The various Republican Presidential hopefuls have already fallen upon the wounded body of Mitt Romney with intentions of devouring him and demolishing everything he accomplished.  You say, “Did he accomplish anything?”  Yes, he moved the party to the right of center and away from the terrible defeat of Mc Cain in 2008.  He moved the party out of the TEA party label into the Republican label.  He sent the brand name Republican to the top of the voting chart for hundreds of millions of voters.  He ran a well-funded campaign that was disciplined, on message and well run.  He conducted himself and his campaign with forceful dignity and obvious integrity.  He and Ryan put their all on the field of battle and they held nothing of themselves, their talent or their resources back.  No, they did not win but to this writer, especially as I viewed the concession speech, they were true Americans, true Republicans and they did what all Americans admire, they did their best.  Yes, they lost, but you can lose and still be a champion. And Romney and Ryan are champions.

To the point that Romney made to his donors.  Well, first of all, this was a private conference call.  He spoke his mind.  I too speak my mind and when I write private letters to my friends, or make private phone calls to my neighbors I do not expect and I would deeply resent if what I said was broadcast.  Yes, Romney is a public figure and he cannot expect immunity from the scrutiny of a public press.  But why do we still not know what President Obama said during the raid on Benghazi?  Why do we still not know if he ordered people to stand down or if he ordered the military to rescue the ambassador?  It is because his associates do not betray his private words, they do not betray his conversations and they do not betray his trust.  Obviously, many feel that what is due Obama is not due Romney.  You say, “Such is life.”  Well, that may be so but I don’t agree and I don’t like it.

I invite a fair and objective analysis of what Romney actually said during this call and the famous 47% call.  Based upon what he considers the facts, namely that the dream act, Obama care and other actions of the Obama administration have favored certain groups above others, I would argue that Romney is merely reflecting a viewpoint shared by many others.  I listened to the phone call and felt that his main thrust was that faced with the power of an incumbant to not only promise favors but to actually give those favors, a challenger has little recourse.  That is a fact, in these areas an incumbant definitely has the advantage.

Lastly, the criticisms of the defeated candidate are from persons who think overly highly of themselves, are convinced of their own infallibility, and who want to be President.  Therefore, their critiques are skewered to reflect positively upon themselves and position them to benefit from Romney’s defeat.  What is distressing is that Romney did not treat them poorly, yet his reward for integrity is to be savaged by Christie, whom Romney chose for Keynote, by Jindal, who Romney favored with a highlight at the convention and by Gingrich who Romney defeated fair and square and who now shoots from ambush.

I think of President George W. Bush won election twice, the second election confirming the faith of the American people after the turmoil of chads and cits in Florida.  He ran an honest administration without scandal.  He rallied the American people after 9/11 and he led a economy which enjoyed a 4.8 % unemployment rate.  We had excellent relations with Russia, China, Europe, South America, and Israel.  We were respected by Arab nations as a fair and balanced nation that did unduly favor their antagonists.  Yet, the Democrat campaign led by the late Senator Ted Kennedy against George Bush prevailed.  Why? Not because GW Bush was a terrible president?  No! That just is not the case.  Rather, it is because people love to hate someone and our nation was led by Democrats into an eight year campaign of hate. It was the thing to do, the thing to say and it was definitely considered savvy to hate George W. Bush.  Why?  No reason but hatred.  An unfounded and unearned hatred that is much to our shame persists today.  Asked if they blamed Bush for our problems, pro Obama voters overwhelming said, YES.  But asked what specifically he did to cause our problems, the answer was that he was President when it went into the crapper so its all his fault.  None for the Democrat Congress and nancy Pelosi.  None for the greed of people who purchased what they could not afford.  None for the shoddy business practices of mortgage bankers or Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.  It’s all Bush’s fault and then we can go home and eat our Turkey.

The great sorrow of all of this was that Republicans then as they are now, were active participants in the blame game.  They too blamed Bush for their woes.  Not their fault that they did not do their job in Congress and block the excesses of a Democrat Nancy Pelosi majority.  Not their fault that they did not stand up to Democrat Harry Reid.  Not their fault that they lost contact with their constituents.  No it was all Bush’s fault!!

I am in NJ and in my town the Republican party in the 2010 election put up a party regular in a contest against Steve Rothman, a formidable Congressman.  They lost. Why?  Because the Republican party was not serious.  In this past 2012 election the Republican party didn’t even put up a candidate for the mayor of my town.  They left the Democrat un opposed.  Come on, fellas, what does it cost to at least put a name on the ballot?  Why did they lose in NJ?  Because the Republicans are not serious.  They accept the fact that this is a Democrat State and they do not try.

It is a very sad state when a great Republican party decends to the level of sharks feeding on wounded prey.  Did Santorum campaign hard for Romney? I think not.  Did Gingrich constantly encourage and fire up his constituents to work and give and vote for Romney? Hardly?  And Christie?  He gave Obama a shameless and obsequious display of support when he hosted the President during Sandy.

So, for this writer I look to the future and it does not include these three nor Pawlenty or Santorium.  They have used up their time and they have failed miserably both in the Primary and as loyal Republican supporters.   They have no great vision nor higher goal, other than themselves as President.  Shame.  I say that with sincere sadness of heart and pain of soul.

Ryan, for me, a definite YES.  Rubio, here too a definite YES.  And the Governor of Virginia, I think Yes, he was out there for Romney, let’s see if he abandons ship and crew while cursing the captain.

By the way, have you read Killing Kennedy by Bill O Reilly.  A really great book.  It will startle you, to say the least.  You may even be the type to admire the behavior therein described.  I don’t.  All of them are not really worthy of our admiration.

Will Obama Offer Romney a Cabinet Position?

There is a rumor that he will.  But you know about rumors!!
I think that offering Mitt Romney a cabinet position would be awesome.  Would he accept?  Let’s be honest and human, after all Mitt is a human so we all realize what a crushing emotional burden his loss is to him.  I am only his supporter and I feel really sad. Yet, would I be big enough to accept such an offer.  Truth…I don’t know.  I hope that I would and I probably would but I don’t want to be joe the righteous here.  Nonetheless, an offer of the President to Governor Romney would indeed be most gracious.  Hilary took the offer but it can be argued whether she did a good job.  Mitt would definitely do a good job but philosophical reasons may hinder him.  Yet, is it better be inside the halls of power influencing decisions, or outside shouting at the walls?  We’ll see.  This is all probably the citizen’s wishful thinking.  But if it were to happen it would be revolutionary.

Best Web Site Provider

My computer experience begins back at Atari and Commodore.  Over the years I have used many Internet services and many web site providers.   Recently, I came across the very best, the most comprehensive and the most affordable web site program and development site.

http://www.videotour.sitesell.com/successfull0.html

take a look, there are no tricks.  If you would like to have the best in site construction, SEO registration and i f you want to get your information, cause or product in front of the world (yes, the world) click and take the free tour.  It may change your world and yes, even your life…

No ROTC for Harvard

http://education-portal.com/articles/Coming_Out_in_ROTC.html  The President of Harvard University looks forward to the return of military ROTC now that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed.  I am a military Veteran of thirty years service.  During Vietnam Harvard was not there for me.  During the Iraq War, Harvard was not there for me.  During the Afghan War, Harvard was not there for me.  I feel that Harvard and schools such as Harvard should be denied the return of ROTC and should be refused any federal military related money for a period of not less than the time they refused to be there for ROTC.  I am not one to profane the sacred graves of our military dead.  As a US  Army Chaplain during Iraq and Afghan Wars, I was distressed that Harvard and snobby elitist institutions like Harvard refused to serve our ROTC population due to Harvard’s so-called “offense” at the US military ban on open homo and lesbian and transgender (whatever) behavior.  I often felt that the Harvard snobs should go to Afghanistan and Iraq where such behavior is not only banned but subjected to excommunication from the religion of Islam, and stoning by local Moslem congregants.  Let the tenured Professors preach their message of sexual behavior to the Imams and the “Al Sadr’s” in those Moslem countries.  But of course, they would not do that.  Academics practice tolerance and intolerance behind the ivy walls of what were once Christian colleges like Harvard.  They are tolerant of everything of which they themselves never need to experience and they are totally intolerant of anyone who suggests that intellectually and practically they are wrong. 

Now that the number of students attending such schools as Harvard is much lower and the obscene costs for such attendance are exorbitant, Harvard wants once again to feed at the military feeding bin.  For those who served and for those who returned  and for those who served and were turned away from Harvard and never returned, I say NO WAY.  Harvard should be denied any return of ROTC and Harvard should have every last penny of federal monetary assistance withdrawn.  Yes, some students will be hurt.  Let them enlist.  If they want federal assistance and refuse to defend the nation, their request for federal money should be denied.  Hey, you really should not have it both ways.  Many others were refused because they were willing to serve in the military.  Since you refuse to serve.  Pay the price.

Obama in His Own Words

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28  As I view this video I am concerned at why this information has been suppressed.  Oh, Yes, I am able to get it on the Tube (at least for now) but it is not broadcast and this part of President Obama’s story has successfully be covered up.  There is so much about the President that we do not know and this very troubling video indicates that his real agenda is much more influenced by “…my Islamic faith…” than it is by his love for America.  At times, as I listened, I wondered if he had anything good to say about anybody other than Moslems and Islam.  It would seem that Mr. Obama sees it as his duty to promote, extend and defend the religion of Islam as being, “…from the beginning of our nation…”  a vital part of the development of Democracy and the Constitution.  Is this some kind of academic dribble from Harvard?  It may be it is that because the Harvard of today, founded and funded for two hundred years by Christian Congregationalists is already divided between the secular anti Christian University and the modernist revisionist liberal protestant Theological School.  I would not be surprised if a student of the secular Harvard was taught that Islam and Moslems were as important, or even more important for the founding of Western European civilization and the same for the founding of the USA than our Judaeo Christian founders.  At any rate, this is must watching for anyone who wants to know about President Obama in his own words.  Yes,  this is an edited video but the portions shown cannot be ignored or excused by a claim against the editors.  After all, the words are Obama’s words and no one else’s.  Judge for yourself, dare to watch the video.  Is Obama lying to us about everything?  For ther Bush haters, just remember how you regarded President Bush and ask if your judgements are not duplicitous?

Roman Catholic Church Largest Helping Organization

http://www.romereports.com/palio/aid-to-church-in-need-brings-in-100-million-dollars-in-2011-says-report-english-7252.html  Amidst all the criticism of the actions of misguided priests, this larger picture is often overlooked, but it is not overlooked by the millions of people who get the help.  It is happening everyday and overshadows the paltry work done by many mega political powers.

Pope to visit Philadelphia 2015

s: What’s at stake in Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Philadelphia

    Jun. 08, 2012

By David Gibson, Religion News Service

Pope Benedict XVI leaves his general audience Wednesday in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican. (CNS/Paul Haring)

Nearly lost amid ongoing reports about the Vatican leaks scandal, Rome’s battle with American nuns, the American bishops’ battle for religious freedom, and the priest on trial in Philadelphia, was the news that, by the way, Pope Benedict XVI plans to visit Philadelphia.

Benedict made the announcement at the end of his visit to Milan on Sunday for the church’s triennial World Meeting of Families. The next meeting would be in Philadelphia in 2015, he said, and he planned to be there, “God willing.”

True, the trip won’t happen until 2015, and it may well not happen at all — Benedict would be 88 by then. Even if there’s a new pope in 2015, the City of Brotherly Love is still almost assured of getting a papal visit — new popes like to underscore continuity, and respect the plans their predecessors had in place.

In a larger sense, the visit would be about more than promoting family life, and in many ways it’s related to other Catholic issues now dominating the headlines. Here’s why.

It’s practical

Benedict’s only other visit to the United States, in April 2008, was to New York and Washington. One might think that he would want to visit the South or West, where the Catholic flock is actually growing, and to give those folks there a chance to see the Holy Father.

But Philadelphia is on the Eastern seaboard, and about the closest point in the United States to Rome. That’s no small consideration for a pope who has never been terribly vigorous and who now suffers from a painful arthritis-like condition that drains his energy.

The pope likely will face intense lobbying from U.S. bishops who want him to visit their diocese, too. While papal aides will try to resist such entreaties, another logical stop would be Baltimore — the “mother church” of all U.S. dioceses — and now headed by Archbishop William Lori, who has no small amount of influence in the hierarchy these days.

It’s pastoral

Philadelphia’s Catholics have been rocked by years of increasingly horrific revelations about sexual abuse by clergy, and the former head of priest personnel, Monsignor William J. Lynn, is awaiting a jury’s verdict on whether he will be the first church official ever convicted for helping cover up for clergy molesters.

Moreover, the Philadelphia archdiocese — one of the most storied and solidly Catholic in the nation — faces an unprecedented wave of closures and mergers, as well as a sobering $12.3 million operating loss for the last fiscal year. Philadelphia’s new archbishop, Charles J. Chaput, warned that those money troubles would mean a significantly downsized event — a papal rally of just 60,000 to 80,000.

Chaput said Benedict still wanted to go because of what it could mean to the city’s Catholics. “Philadelphia is in the midst of a very difficult time and I hope that (the 2015 meeting) will be a way of celebrating our commitment to be a church of the new evangelization that looks forward to the future with confidence and joy,” Chaput said after he appeared with the pope in Milan.

It’s personal

Chaput has emerged in recent years as a leading champion of the Vatican’s “new evangelization” as he uses his bully pulpit to argue forcefully for a strong Catholic voice in the public square.

Chaput has also undertaken a number of sensitive missions for Rome: leading an investigation of an Australian bishop who was eventually sacked for his liberal views, and helping to clean up the conservative, scandal-plagued Legionaries of Christ order. This visit is a papal pat on the back for Chaput.

Will the visit help Chaput earn a cardinal’s red hat? There are no guarantees, but retired Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali would be 80 in 2015, making Chaput eligible — and appealing.

It’s political

Even if the trip does not come off, the image of Benedict standing next to the Liberty Bell or other icons the city of America’s founding freedoms dovetail perfectly with the bishops’ campaign for religious freedom, which they say is threatened by government policies like the health insurance mandate for birth control coverage.

The bishops’ “Fortnight for Freedom,” which runs June 21 to July 4, consciously tries to link the Catholic faith with the American founding, and the prospect of a papal visit to Philadelphia drives the point home.

“It’s fitting that this gathering, which celebrates the cornerstone of society, will take place in America’s cradle of freedom,” Chaput said.