Getting Real About the Latest Mockery of the Nativity

So this is going to be short and to the point (shocking, I know). As it's gone viral in the last week or so, you've probably heard about the "gay nativity" featuring two St. Joseph's kneeling next to the infant Jesus. It's ridiculous for so many reasons, but it's clear that the secular world (and even Christians who support redefining marriage) are having  field day with this, with one same-sex attracted person commenting on Twitter that they are "beaming". Why though? Why does this bring joy to people? Others though, responding to Fr. James Martin's ineffective denouncement ("it's banal... [and] silly") of such a horrible and sacrilegious image, gave this opinion:

"What you’re missing here is, while the idea of Jesus having two fathers may seem silly to you straight people, to gay folks, it isn’t. It’s a powerful affirmation of their right to exist in religious space that has systematically excluded them. Don’t call it banal."

First off, it's much more than just a "silly" notion; it goes against all respectable sensibilities of the Christian, whether they are gay or straight. Here's the point I want to make to people who support this, and I'll use pop culture so it's crystal clear to secularists...You say that it's OK to depict Jesus having two fathers. You say "it's a powerful affirmation of their right to exist in religious space". It is not an affirmation; it shows that you either A) despise the Christian faith and wish to mock it and its adherents, or B) you are a Christian that does not understand the Incarnation or the basic tenets of the Christian faith; in other words, you have no idea what you're talking about. Jesus had a Father, our heavenly Father, and a foster father in St. Joseph. Call him a stepfather if you want, or a guardian. These are terms we use today, right? By displaying this imagery of a "gay nativity", you are implying that God the Father and St. Joseph are involved in a homosexual relationship and that Jesus' mother, Mary, has no role to play. This is straight up blasphemy; it's much more than just silly or banal. When anyone says that Jesus had "two dads", it's no different from saying that someone has a biological father who died or is far off for some reason also has a guardian in his step father or legally appointed guardian who happens to be male. Would it be fair to use such a child's situation as a platform to support (and make "powerful affirmation[s]" for) state sanctioned same-sex marriage? Of course not!

Adoration of the Shepherds- Lorenzo Sabbatini

Regarding "Thoughts and Prayers"

With the horrific shooting at a Baptist church in Texas over the weekend, many people are angry. And rightfully so. Many are demanding for action as well. They should be. But what is really disturbing, and this has been a trend in recent times, is that people all over are declaring that they are "fed up" with others sending out their thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families. Actor Wil Wheaton, who was replying to a tweet from Paul Ryan reminding people that prayers were needed, said this:

"The murdered victims were in a church. If prayers did anything, they'd still be alive, you worthless sack of s***."

Wheaton later made an apology (that wasn't really an apology, but a justification), but many people on social media showed their displeasure in his choice of words. But on the other side, many people across social media agreed with Wheaton, and took it even further. One person in my own newsfeed opined that "God is sick of your prayers." This is what the irreligious nature of a secular culture has brought us: a thinly veiled tolerance for people who believe in God, but whenever someone talks about their faith, even in times of tragedy, that faith in God is mocked.

I will agree with these secularists on one point though: thoughts are pointless. Let me explain why.

Titian- Christ on Mount Olive

The Magisterium and the Dilemma of Dissent: New Essay on Catholic Stand

A couple weeks back, I recently posted an essay on Catholic Stand in response to comments made by Melinda Gates, wife of the multi-billionaire Bill Gates. In an interview with the BBC, Mrs. Gates made it clear that she and the Pope “agree to disagree” on the morality of contraception.

She opined, “It’s been a while since [the Catholic Church] revisited this topic [of contraception] — but I’m still optimistic that they might [change the teaching] over time.” This is a reference to Blessed Pope Paul VI’s remarkable encyclical Humanae vitae, in which he reconfirmed the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. You can see a preview of my essay responding to such dissenting or "cafeteria" Catholics below, with the link to the actual essay again provided at the end.

How does Gates gauge whether a certain thing or activity is “right” or not? Does she believe that the Church can make an accurate pronouncement on the morality or sinfulness of a certain action? 

Apparently not, as she outright rejects what the Church teaches on contraception. If she believes she is doing “the right thing for women” by promoting contraceptives, then the Church, by doing the opposite in condemning the use of contraceptives, must be doing the wrong thing. Two contradictory things can’t both be right and true. In this case, either Gates is wrong, or Christ in His Church is wrong. And if it’s the latter, all those who profess to be Catholic have quite the dilemma.

You can read the rest of the essay over at Catholic Stand.

Jesus Among the Doctors- Albrecht Dürer

Separating Brainwashing From Evangelizing Children

I came across an awesome article by soon-to-be-deacon Joe Heschmeyer the other day, where he addressed the following question: "Is teaching children religion brainwashing?" Apparently, as he mentioned in his essay, 86% of respondents to this question on Debate.org thought the answer was "yes". How profoundly sad. Religion, once seen as a virtue (and still seen as one by the Church, see CCC 1807) by virtually all people in the Western world, is now seen as a vice, and has even been called "child abuse" by certain proponents of the new atheism; of which I would argue is a new religion in itself... but I digress.

The entire article is an excellent read, and I urge everyone to read it before continuing. Here's a good sampling from Heschmeyer's essay:

As Christians, we’re called to proclaim the Gospel to the entire world (Matthew 28:19-20), but in a special way, to teach the next generation about the faith. The Shema Yisrael, the core of Jewish morning and evening prayer, comes from Deuteronomy 6:4-7: 

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." 

So you can’t be a faithful Christian (or Jew) and not teach the faith to your children. But it’s more than that. Christianity isn’t just your dad sitting around musing about what the afterlife might or might not be like. The God of the Universe entered history in the Person of Jesus Christ, and He taught, died, and rose from the dead. And Christians don’t just believe in this as as an abstract idea, but have a personal relationship with this same God. So it’s not just speculation on the Christian parents’ part: it’s rationally trusting the expert, the one Person qualified to tell us these things. It’s also sharing the most meaningful relationship you have with your loved ones. 

And finally, not teaching your kids still teaches them something. If you really believed Christianity was the most important truth in the world, if you really believed it was the surest way to knowing God and to happiness in this life and eternity in Heaven, you wouldn’t hesitate to share it with the people you loved most (especially those entrusted to your care for formation: your children).

That same selection from Deuteronomy is something that I often see included in my recitation of Compline (Night Prayer) at the end of each day. It's a beautiful thing to reflect on, and whenever I read it, I think about my own kids. Heschmeyer brings up a great point; why would you hesitate to share the faith that comes from Truth Himself with your own children? This essay is a great answer to the question that was posed on Debate.org, but I'd like to add a couple of points to my own, piggybacking off of what Heschmeyer has written.

Jesus Falling Under the Cross

Redefining Marriage Leads to the Dissolution of Marriage

Today I had the unfortunate luck to come across a story where I found out a family had been torn apart because of one spouse's fear that she "might miss out on my chance at happiness". It's the story of a relatively famous, non-denominational Christian blogger, Glennon Doyle Melton, to leave her husband and pursue a relationship with U.S. women's' soccer star Abby Wambach. In a not so surprising twist, Wambach had just divorced what the state calls her wife not that long ago. But the whole same-sex marriage issue isn't the part that makes me so sad; it's the part about how a wife did not keep her marriage vows to her husband and has left her three children to pick up the tab. It's the culture of divorce in the Western world which should cause all Christians much sadness.

Jean Auguste Henri Leys- Wedding in Flanders in the Seventeenth Century

Secular Media Gives More Backhanded Insults to the Church Hierarchy

I came across an article in the New York Times that talked very highly of the new Archbishop of Newark, Cardinal Joseph Tobin, while at the same time very slyly made it seem that Cardinal Tobin was different from any bishop not only in Newark, but virtually across the globe as he fancies himself a regular guy who asks others to call him "Joe" when trying to work out clandestinely at the gym.

"As the pope has made clear over the past three years, fancy lifestyles, formality and regal titles like Prince of the Church are out of style for cardinals. So is an emphasis on the divisive issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, even though the church’s underlying position on those issues has not changed.

"Instead, in the pope’s view, the church should emphasize humility and service to the poor. It should be multicultural, welcoming different styles of worship. It should reach out to other faiths and stand up for immigrants, refugees and nuns.

"And that, church experts and members of his flock say, is a close description of the priorities of Cardinal Tobin, who will be heading east just after Christmas to lead the approximately 1.5 million Catholics in the Archdiocese of Newark."

Of course, we have to remember this is the same New York Times that "doesn't get religion". One commenter on the article observed how:

"The phrase 'different kind of Cardinal' seems to condemn all other cardinals as "the same" in the sense of indistinguishable from each other and lacking all of the positive characteristics this particular Cardinal exhibits. How is that not a backhanded insult to the other Cardinals, to the leadership of the Church in general and divisive purely by implication? The press certainly doesn't get religion and demonstrates that fact by pushing its own leftist views on what it is that makes Cardinals 'different' in any laudable sense."

Still other commenters, among them Catholic, praised the article as "excellent" or "splendid". Really? Let's take a closer look at this, but please be sure to read the entirety of the NYT article before going on.How this article can be called "excellent" or "splendid" is beyond me. There's some awesome bits in there about Cardinal Tobin's life and his devotion to the souls he pastors, but it's obvious the article (and its author) has an agenda to push with all its insinuations on the characters of many other prelates in the Church. So what if Cardinal Myers preferred to be called "Your Grace"? That, and they give no evidence of him preferring to be addressed as such, and even if he did I'm sure he wouldn't mind if he wasn't addressed by that title, as the article insinuates.

Abortion Is Safer Than Childbirth?

There's been a lot of confusion going around the interwebs in recent months regarding the safety of childbirth. Thanks to a ridiculously deceptive and patently false video, several pro-choicers now believe that having an abortion is actually safer than giving birth. Let that kind of logic sink in for a minute. Well, it would take longer than a minute... seeing as the assertion is anything but logical. Somebody quoted this "revelation" in response to a post on social media regarding a woman who died from complications following an abortion. The following is the short conversation that ensued, with the person making the claims in red, my thoughts in blue, and the thoughts of others in the conversation in various different colors:

Should We Ever Disregard the Law and "Follow Our Hearts"?

Perhaps this post won't make total sense, as it's more a stream of consciousness type deal I'll be writing here. I apologize in advance if it isn't totally coherent, and really, this is going to be my sounding board so I don't lose the thoughts floating around in my head. It's just that something really bugged me about the homily given by a visiting priest at Mass today, and it left me scratching my head, trying to figure out what point the priest was trying to get across. Now I don't think there's anything wrong with this man, he is a priest following his vocation and brings us the Eucharist, but there are some questionable things that he says, and it's a bit disconcerting. The part that really got me was when he said that mantra we all seem to hear from the secular world and Hollywood: "Follow your heart". Seeing as we're humans who suffer from concupiscence, it might not be good to always follow our heart, especially if by "heart" we mean our "conscience" and "good intentions", as the connotation seems to mean so often today.

Sacred Heart of Jesus with Saint Ignatius of Loyola and Saint Aloysius Gonzaga- José de Páez 

Christians Sharing Worship Space With Muslims: When Is It Too Much?

Apparently, at an Episcopalian Church in Washington D.C., there are two congregations sharing the same worship space at different times: Christians and Muslims. My curiosity was piqued when I saw the lede for the article on the story, and after reading it, I have to say I'm thoroughly disappointed in the leaders of this church, and in some Episcopalians who proclaimed they were "proud" of this church and pastor for what they did. I'm all for tolerating other people's religion, but not in the sense that the buzzword of "tolerance" has in the modern-day lexicon. Instead, what I see, is that at one service at this Christian church, the God-Man is not being worshiped as He should be.

Secularists and Short Memories

Apparently, everyone is losing their minds over what Pope Francis just said on his latest papal presser. And this goes for reactionaries and secularists alike. The full text of Pope Francis' off-the-cuff answers to the media can be found here. Now, one can argue on whether or not it's necessary to apologize for wrongs that have already been absolved in the Sacrament of Confession or those that are non-existent to a specific person, but the main focus should be this: what the Pope said isn't really all that new.

For whatever reason, many secularists, and even several heterodox (or those tip-toeing the line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy) and liberal-minded Catholics, seem to think that Pope Francis is the first pope to have ever been compassionate or Christ-like. This is just empty rhetoric and does a disservice to all the great things previous popes in the last century have said about those who have been marginalized and treated unjustly in accordance with the dignity and love that is supposed to be given to every human being.What we have to realize is that Pope Francis is very different from Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

On Gorillas and Human Children

You know what's really sickening about this whole Cincinnati Zoo situation? That fact that so many people seem to care more about a gorilla than a human boy. That we anthropomorphize an ape and are callous to the plight of our fellow man. I have seen so much vitriol showered upon the parents of this boy, and so much sadness expressed for the death of an animal, yet no one has talked about how this traumatic situation has affected (and will CONTINUE to) affect this little 4 year old boy. This is something that will live with this boy forever and you can be sure that he will have issues that will be prevalent throughout his life due to his 10 minute ordeal in the gorilla's enclosure. Instead of anthropomorphizing a gorilla, we should be worried about the mental (and physical health) of this scared little boy, a human being.

Because of internet anonymity, it seems everyone on various blogs and news outlet websites has become an armchair judge, jury and executioner. There aren't enough facts to go on to call these parents "negligent", and there aren't enough facts to mock the mother who called out to her boy that she loved him by saying "if she loved him why'd she let him get in the enclosure. Nor is it fair to say that these parents are worthy of the "Darwin award" and this 4 year old boy won't make it to adulthood with these parents. These are all comments I've read by people who are making a knee jerk reaction to the situation. Watch the video below and get the facts. Did you know that this boy also had a 7 or 8 year old sister who was horrified at what had happened, and saw the gorilla get shot as her little brother was in between the gorilla's legs at the time of the shooting? Could it be that the parents were tending to this little girl and took their eyes off the boy for a second? If your a parent of multiple kids (as I am) you know that this might happen occasionally, God forbid, and it doesn't make you a negligible parent.

Can We Stop Pretending the "Satanists" Want to Lead Us in "Prayer"?

There are moments when something so absolutely absurd flashes across your computer screen, you actually have to sit back for a minute, laugh, do a face palm, and then reflect on how ridiculous our society has gotten as far as political correctness, earnestness and integrity goes. I think everyone remembers when about a year ago, the Satanic Temple was trying to get a statue of Satan put up in Oklahoma and in Michigan. Well, these guys are at it again, as I saw this headline pop up:

 Phoenix Council Members Try to Block Satanic Church From Giving Meeting Prayer

Read that again... a Satanic "Church" is trying to give a prayer. You might be wondering why I've put "Satanists" and "Church" in quotations. Look no further than the article itself. An excerpt from the link above:

"The city has a long tradition of opening council meetings with an invocation and, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, that cannot be limited to certain religions or beliefs.

"...Phoenix City Attorney Brad Holm said any religion can call the city clerk’s office and request to give the prayer, which is chosen by a rotating pool of state Senate members. 

"'We’ve gotten a lot of ridiculous questions, like are we going to sacrifice babies and what we’re calling blood libel,' [Stu de Haan with the Satanic Temple] said. 'There’s nothing ever like that in Satanism.' Instead, de Haan said the religion is a kind of metaphor for rebelling against tyranny and favors 'logic and reason over superstition and the supernatural.' 

"'We should have our voice and we believe that reason should trump superstition in general,' he said. The group does not believe in Satan as a deity. De Haan said the religion is made up primarily of agnostics or atheists."

Archangel Michael slaying Satan -Agnolo Bronzino

How A Black Cat Tried to Discredit Philosophy

So the other day as I was perusing my news feed, I came across something that made me laugh. No, it wasn't a cat video, but it did involve a feline. Luckily, I've blocked just about everyone from my news feed. It's not even an exaggeration. I just get so tired of seeing updates on food, selfies, and especially seeing all the hateful rhetoric, polemics, and unintelligent memes that is used to insult Christ and Christians alike. Apparently I missed one, because this ridiculous meme came through which tried to compare metaphysics and the like with science. Perhaps you've seen it before:

In the running for most unintelligent meme ever...?

Although I've seen others say so, this meme is not clever in the slightest. The variation I saw took a much more condescending tone ending with "looking for a black cat with a f***ing flashlight." What a great way to get a point across. Anyway, it shows a complete disregard for what all these subject matters pertain to, and all it does is make very apparent that whoever created this meme doesn't adhere to what science actually stands for, but scientism. Let's look a little closer at these claims made, and see why they are so easy to debunk once we try to think a little bit.

"A" is For "Asinine"

I hope that the title doesn't offend... oh who am I kidding. I've never been one to be politically correct. Webster's dictionary defines asinine as: "extremely or utterly foolish". I think that pretty much sums up the Freedom From Religion Foundation's (FFRF) constant attempts to subvert the Christmas holiday by putting their giant atheist "A" next to Christmas and Hanukkah displays throughout the country. There's one of these up, for instance, in downtown Chicago, which I had the misfortune of seeing this year, and asinine was indeed the first word that came to mind. You can see a picture of what's included in the display HERE. Here is what some of their displays read:

At this season of the Winter Solstice, we celebrate the birth of the Unconquered Sun — the TRUE reason for the season. As Americans, let us also honor the birth of our Bill of Rights, which reminds us there can be no freedom OF religion, without having freedom FROM religion in government.

And another fun, totally erroneous one:

...[this sign] has been erected... to encourage the non-religious to come out of the closet, eradicate the negative stereotypes of the non-believers, promote rational thinking over superstition, and ensure that our government remains completely neutral on the subject of religion vs. non-religion.

Could you hold yourself back from pounding your head on your desk as you read that? I know it was hard for me. Here's five reasons why these statements (and the erecting of a giant "A" for "asinine"... I mean "atheism") are illogical, ill-informed and ill-placed.

The Bill of Rights

Answering Ridiculous Claims to the Dating and Purpose of Christmas

Some of the kids in my religious education class were mentioning that they heard it said that Jesus wasn't actually born on Christmas Day. I told them they were right, and luckily that opened the door for some more discussion (well, as much discussion as some 6th graders can have I suppose...) on the topic of the dating for Christmas. There's plenty of excellent sources out there that can describe all this in more detail than I, but allow me to summarize the claims and rebuttals to why Christians celebrate Christmas in December, and I'll sprinkle some links to relevant articles throughout, so all can see and read more on the subject. Let's do this in a question and answer format, and make things a little easier to digest:

So what’s the deal with the date for Christmas?

Over the past several years, several atheists and others have claimed that when it comes to the celebration of Christmas, we're "a few months off due to trying to convert Pagans." That really isn't true, although it's a common narrative today. First off, Catholics and other Christians aren’t celebrating Jesus’ birthday on December 25th… we are celebrating the BIRTH of Jesus, the Son of God!

The first objection to the idea that Christmas is simply an adapted pagan festival is the simple fact that the early Christians were adamantly opposed to paganism in all its forms. They had inherited from the Jewish people the conviction that the pagan gods and goddesses were demons, and if you worshiped them you were demon possessed. That’s why the catechesis for Christian converts took so long and involved so many careful exorcisms. That’s why the early Christians would not offer so much as one grain of incense to the pagan gods. That’s why, rather than do so, they were willing to be martyred for Christ; they were deprived of their property, exiled, imprisoned, tortured and killed.

Gerard van Honthorst- Adoration of the Shepherds

Facts and Brief Dialogue on the Planned Parenthood Scandal

Recently in the news, we have seen the Center for Medical Progress blow the lid off of the illegal activities going on at Planned Parenthood and how they are profiting off of abortion through the sales of fetal body parts, and in some cases, entire bodies. This hasn't been covered to widely on a national level since the initial video was posted back in July, as it seems to be getting buried under the rug by many liberal and pro-abortion media outlets. However, the ninth video as just been posted this past Tuesday, with more to follow. You can watch the most recent video HERE, and view the full length, unedited interviews here.

Abortion Protesters

Now if you recall, also during the same time all this controversy started, there was another story that made national headlines: Cecil the Lion. Believe it or not, there was more national outrage over the killing of this lion, instead of the illegal activities happening inside a Planned Parenthood clinic involving human beings. Below is a discussion on Facebook that started on a friend's wall; his words will be in blue. He wanted to show how our priorities might be a little backward when a lion gets more coverage than the sale of human body parts. Another person, whose words will be in red, responded defending Planned Parenthood. I and another person (that person's words will be in green, mine in regular black font) gave a rebuttal. Once one sees the research that I presented this person, it's hard to understand how there is still confusion and disinformation being spread on this issue. We'll start from about where I enter the conversation. The only edits below are to each participant's names: