Psychiatry has inverted the natural cause of things so that patients think of themselves, more as victims rather than active agents of bad or evil behavior.

Sigmund Freud [Courtesy: Wikimedia]

One of Alfred Hitchcock’s best pictures was his 1953 film I Confess, the dramatic story of a parish priest accused of a murder. The plot was complicated by the fact that the real murderer confesses his heinous crime to a priest in the confessional. The scales of justice weight the priest’s life against the sanctity of the Seal of Confession. Hitchcock treats the priest’s conundrum with artistic style and grace that respected both the priest’s right to life and Church doctrine.

While the Hitchcock film was a box office success, American culture has so changed in 50 years that a cynical public would swiftly reject its priestly sympathies. Thoughts of confessing one’s sins or the Seal of Confession are foreign concepts to a secular society that does not accept sin or sinners. Hollywood’s traditional portrayal of the priesthood has all but disappeared from the big screen. The heavenly smiles of Barry Fitzgerald and Bing Crosby as parish priests have relinquished the spotlight to the sodden alcoholic and the child-molesting pervert.

Human beings will always need to unburden themselves from the pangs of conscience. Sins create guilt and guilt seeks a healing confession. Those who find the confessional repugnant now look for inner peace in other venues. Some bare their souls to the local bartender. Others choose the unfettered freedom of the psychiatrist’s couch over the solemn privacy of the confessional. In this modern confessional, validation and approval substitute for penance and forgiveness.

The Psychiatrist encourages the sinner to focus, not on the evil or harm of the patient’s behavior but on the subconscious causes and nurture issues that have prompted his actions. Psychiatry has inverted the natural cause of things so that patients think of themselves, more as victims rather than active agents of bad or evil behavior.

In his book, Peace of Soul, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen maintains that every sin seeks its release. If a sin does not come out in confession, it will manifest it in many other ways, often with harmful personal and social consequences. An unrepentant society is one which has lost its anchor in a cultural sea of death and despair.

The Catholic Church has always preached the dangers of falling into the spiritual traps, known as the Seven Deadly Sins. These sins, pride, covertness, lust, envy, anger, sloth and gluttony, are the linear descendants of original sin, which left man seriously flawed and susceptible to their deadly influences. A society that has rejected any notion of sin based on Revelation and has been weaned on moral relativism, tolerance, and non-judgmentalism is seriously unable to recognize the abject evil that spiritual vices produce.

Due to popular indifference, the Seven Deadly Sins have been relegated to the dusty archives where medieval notions are shelved. Instead of providing material for an examination of conscience, they have been reduced to advertisement fodder, such as in a recent commercial for a wireless company that makes an EnV phone.

Many sins are inherently evil. The leaders of the French Revolution, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau and the Philosophes, rebelled against the idea of evil. Since then Liberalism has dedicated itself to explaining away the idea of evil by attributing the apparent evils of life to the abnormalities in an individual’s upbringing or environment.

No individual did more to take sinners out of the confessional and put them on the couch than Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) the Father of Psychoanalysis. He believed that each personality was divided into the ego, id, and superego. Most babies start out on a purely subconscious level or the id. The ego or the rational side of the human personality develops from the id, enabling the child to negotiate realistically with the world around him. The superego or conscience evolves as the child learns the moral values of his society, often creating an interior conflict between values and desires. The ego mediates the selfish needs of the id and idealistic demands of the superego.

The adoption of an uncritical superego is dependent upon the child resolving the Oedipus Complex. This is the collection of unconscious wishes involving sexual desires, of a male child for his mother. The keys to understanding Freud’s twisted impact on American culture reside within this idea. He used the Oedipus Complex to justify his own aberrant sexual actions and impulses that emerged from his hostility toward his father Jacob and his strong affection for his mother Amalia. In his 40s he was plagued with several phobias and an obsession with dying. In 1896, not only did Freud’s father die but he also kicked his cocaine habit and begin an incestuous relationship with his sister-in-law, Minna Bernays.

According to E. Michael Jones’ 1993 book Degenerate Moderns, Freud made a complicated religion-sexual system that will not only provide explanation but the fulfillment of all his deeply held desires as well to appease his troubled conscience. He spent his life militating against the universal standards of sexual morality that would have condemned his illicit behavior. His Oedipus Complex exonerated him from his desire for Minna because his violation of nature’s oldest taboo had put him above nature, sin, and God as well. His psychological theory paved the way toward a universal pathology because he believed that even normalpeople are only borderline neurotics.

Not all of the turmoil that began in the 1960s can be laid at Freud’s doorstep. The main culprit in this destructive social transformation has been the Frankfurt School of Social Research, which paired Karl Marx with Freudian psychology. Cal State University psychology professor Kevin MacDonald has produced the best analysis of its parasitical relationship with American Society in his essay The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Origin of the Therapeutic State, which appeared in the Spring 2006 edition of The Occidental Quarterly.

The Frankfurt School originated as the Institute of Social Research in the University of Frankfurt in Germany in the 1920s. Jewish millionaire Felix Weil, who was a noted patron of the left, founded the Institute. By the 1930s the University of Frankfurt had become a bastion of leftist thinking. With the election of Adolph Hitler in 1933 the Institute was branded a Communist organization and many of its members fled Germany for the United States. In America its leading proponents Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Herbert Marcuse developed a culture of critique that would undermine the West in the manner theorized by Sardinian Communist Antonio Gramsci.

To the Marxists, the West was a citadel of oppression and domination that had to be destroyed. MacDonald concentrated on their plan to subvert the Western institutions, such as the family, religion, culture, and patriotism that stabilized American society. They planned a Balkanized model of a multi-cultural society where minority groups and their interests had a priori moral value, while cohesive groups are viewed as pathological and subject to radical criticism.

In his Escape from Freedom, cultural Marxist Erich Fromm argued that people sought refuge in fascist movements because they were afraid of the responsibilities of freedom and choice. The religions and racial solidarity of the majority frustrated this public will. The same rules never applied to minorities who were always considered above and beyond the need for rules and regulations.

Herbert Marcuse was another notable member of the Frankfurt School who spent many years teaching in the United States. In his Eros and Civilization, written in 1974, he promoted Freud’s theory that Western culture produces pathology because it represses sexual urges. This results in perpetual unfreedom and suffering.

No American institution better represented this unfreedom than the family. Igor Shafarevich identified the family as the central target of the cultural Marxist in his 1975 essay, Socialism in our Past and Future. The Marxists took advantage of the fact that the traditional family rests on sexual restraint and the nurturing of children. The Frankfurt School realized that anything that disrupted family harmony worked in their favor.

Both Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno put the traditional family under the microscope of their Critical Theory. In his Eclipse of Reason, Horkheimer contended that all modern ills, including Nazism, collectivism, mental illness, and criminality are due to the oppressive nature of family life. Their goal was to deconstruct the family until its strength and vitality had evaporated. The linchpin to family stability was the father. Weaken the mother and the sons will turn into bad husbands and fathers. Devalue fatherhood and the family will likely tumble.

Taking a leaf from Rousseau’s Emile, Horkheimer reasoned that from birth a child naturally resents the domineering aspects of civilization, especially from submitting to the autocratic will of the father. Constant parental discipline took its toll over the course of a child’s life. The child who did not rebel against the father’s tyranny was mentally ill. Those who valued high moral standards, long-term marriages, and practiced chastity, were all considered mentally ill. Obedient children become conformists, who will march to the drumbeat of demagogues such as Adolph Hitler. The Catholic Church had the same negative affect on a spiritual level, using fear and intimidation for control.

Adorno went even further in his book, The Authoritarian Personality. The book promoted the idea that Westerners who identified with family, nation, or race suffered from a psychiatric disorder. The psychological traits instilled by an autocratic father, according to Adorno, invariably lead to anti-Semitism, racism, and homophobia, the great pathologies of the 21st century. Many of the pathologies of the 1960s counterculture revolution found their expression in Adorno’s book, including parental rebellion, illicit sexual behavior and scorn for upward social mobility, Christianity and patriotism.

The disciples of the Frankfurt School dedicated their energies to weeding out the loyal remnants to the traditional institutions of family, nation, and religion, so as to create the vacuum for a Marxist state. In their ideal world the United States would become a therapeutic state a national infirmary of souls. The Marxist rhetoric of the Frankfurt School had established its beachhead after the war in the public school system through the writings of John Dewey and his progressive education. With the exclusion of religious-based instruction from the public schools, millions of children lost their best defense against the moral intrusion of government and civil organizations like HEW, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU.

According to Marxist rhetoric, all murders, rapists, prostitutes and thieves were sick or just misunderstood. The jargon of the psychiatrist’s office had replaced that of the criminal code. The liberal principles of the French Revolution have melded with the Freudian subconscious, to create a non-judgmental and tolerant public whose first impulse was to ascribe, even the most heinous crime, to the agent’s poor upbringing, alienation from his peers and inability to communicate his darkest fears. The criminal is in a word, sick, in need of, not revenge-oriented punishment, but therapeutic counseling. To them criminality and immorality were maladjustments to be cured by education.

In just over a generation, America went from a nation of individual families to a multicultural tribe of conflicting groups. The solidarity of the group had replaced the natural family. The country was now a loosely assorted mosaic of warring lobby groups and cultural identity partisans.

All personal problems were transformed into psychological problems, to be treated with counseling and/or pharmaceuticals. Before the country had realized what had happened, it was a Prozac Nation, whose first impulse was not the confessional but the medicine cabinet for the alleviation of its feelings of guilt and Angst. Librium, Ritalin, and Prozac became the drugs of choice, devastating the American family as it vainly tried to keeping up with the Joneses in material, social and academic success.

The modern society that has emerged from the 50 years of Marxist influence in American schools and in many churches is antithetical to the basic tenets of Christianity. In an August issue of Chronicles Magazine, French professor Claude Polin describes this state of mankind as living in a state of unhappiness and wretchness. He emphasizes that it is not God’s fault but man’s. These serious social problems are the result of the original sin that the modern world denies. It was not God who made man unhappy but his sinfulness. This is in perfect accord with Bishop Sheen’s Peace of Soul.

To alleviate the human condition God sent His only Son to redeem the world and raise man back to its original status before the fall. Jesus not only opened the Gates of Heaven but also provided man with the grace and a plan for his salvation. Christ’s revolutionary outlook on life truly changed the way people had lived at that time. Jesus taught a revolution of the soul, which offered to throw out the old wineskin of the Mosaic Law and replace it with the new wineskin of agape.

To facilitate and perpetuate this revolution, Christ chose his successors on earth and established his Church on the Rock of St. Peter. The Church brought love and forgiveness where there had been none. It emphasized modesty and humility where people were lustful and proud and urged people to do good works and love their enemies. Men are unhappy because they have ignored the Church’s moral teachings on sin and become so attached to their temporal lives, as Polin suggests, beyond all reason that they have lost sight of the true meaning of life.

God could have made men so that they would never fall into sin but then there would not have been free will. All man has to do is avoid the sinful ailments that threaten to induce the nation into a coma of lust, greed, laziness and anger that will destroy him from within. This is not only good advice, it is also a prescription for happiness. Once the soul has completed its inner revolution, it will be immune to the material entrapments of the world, the flesh, and the devil. When this has been accomplished, all the Frankfurtian prescriptions of the modern world cannot infect the soul with a victomology that brings only emotional immaturity, spiritual death, and national suicide. Unfortunately the pendulum seems to be moving farther to the left.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

WHAT IF THE LITURGY OF THE MASS IS A KEY ELEMENT IN EXPLAINING ALL THAT IS HAPPENING TO THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD AT THIS TIME???

 

Pope Francis, Ratzinger, and the Problem of the Liturgy of the Mass

OnePeterFive
PinterestPocket

Editor’s Note: Pope Francis, in a recent address, claimed that the “liturgical reform [i.e. the Novus Ordo Mass] is irreversible.” Vatican specialist Sandro Magister has said that many interpreted these words “as a halt ordered by Pope Francis to the presumed reverse course signaled by Benedict XVI with the 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.” Magister alsosubsequently published parts of an article written by Cardinal Robert Sarah on the matter of the two forms of the Latin Rite of the Mass. It is in this context that Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, former president of the Vatican Bank, has written his own reflection on the matter of the Mass. We consider it an important contribution to the discussion and thus present here a translation, edited for our audience, of his original Italian article published last month at Formiche.net. Gotti Tedeschi will also be a speaker at the upcoming 14 September Summorum Pontificum Conference, together with Cardinal Gerhard Müller and Cardinal Robert Sarah.


The current pontiff (Francis) recently affirmed that he considers the liturgical reform, initiated by Vatican II, “irreversible.” This irreversibility sounds like a challenge, if not a censure, to the former pontiff, (Benedict XVI), who had authorized the celebration of the pre-conciliar mass with his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. In these days, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship himself, Cardinal Sarah, proposed (in an interview with the monthly journal La Nef) a liturgical reconciliation aimed at integrating the pre-conciliar liturgical rite with the conciliar one.

Well, the reader will say, why should these “clerical conflicts” matter to us? With all the problems there are, why should we preoccupy ourselves with the liturgy? Are we not helplessly witnessing the collapse of a civilization, of a culture, and of moral values, and they are wasting our time with discussions about the liturgy? But what if the liturgy of the Mass was a key element to explain everything? NOM (Nuovo Ordine Mondial [New World Order]) and NOM (Novus Ordo Missae [New Order of the Mass]) coincide both in their acronyms and their times of implementation. It is good to reflect on this debate, which is not about the form, but about the substance (of the liturgy), which is not at all the same in the two cases cited above, and the one in question is about the consequent effects, on the conduct (also economic) of the faithful, which affects the whole of society, not just Catholics.

Let us refer now, to explain with an example, to the relationship between the liturgy and the economy. Since the economy is in itself a neutral instrument that produces good or bad as a function of how it is used, it is important not only to know how to use it, but how to give it meaning, an end. This meaning is a function of the meaning that is given to life itself, a function of what is believed, of the faith that is held and is wanted to be lived. The faith we are speaking of conquers and revives thanks to the Church’s Magisterium, to prayer and the Sacraments. Among these, the first is the Mass, whose value is a function of the liturgy used, which makes it become, or not, the source of all the graces needed for the works of the faithful. For this reason, the liturgy of the Mass strengthens the faith and becomes an “incubator” for the aspirations to that personal holiness from which the whole of society benefits.

The economy should be able to satisfy some human needs thanks to the consumption and instruments of labor with which man achieves. But the economy only works if man has identified and knows how to satisfy his true global needs, which are, in addition to material ones, intellectual and spiritual ones. If this does not happen and only material satisfaction is favored, the economic medium takes on a “moral autonomy” and degenerates, causing economic crises, and these, yes, are “irreversible” and damaging. As we have seen in recent decades.

I have tried to explain that the spiritual need (for the Catholic) is satisfied above all by the Sacraments, the Mass is the most important of these, and the liturgy makes the Mass fit or not for what it is supposed to accomplish, to foster thanks, given that the liturgy is substance, not form. By “corrupting” the liturgy of the Mass, adapting it to the supposed need for it to be simplified (as is often the case with the conciliar liturgical rite, left too much to the “creativity” of individual celebrants) and by reducing, relativizing, and often confusing the value of the Sacrament, there is a risk of depriving those who participate of the aforementioned spiritual nourishment, because the purpose of the Mass is not to be celebrated, but to change man by influencing his behavior.

The liturgy can be corrupted by the acts performed in celebrating the Mass, in the words spoken, in the positions of the priest, in the prayers recited, in the chants, in the thanksgiving, in the intentions to renew the Sacrifice, etc. All of this fosters the inner participation of those attending, which gives validity to the purpose of the Mass. By desacralizing the Mass, it is evident that the moral crisis that is therefore created causes a crisis in behavior, specifically in the economy, which is more sensitive to moral guidance. Hence, the material misery caused by the moral crisis is not “the economy that kills”, but rather, man who uses it poorly because he gives it an errant meaning.

The liturgy of the Mass that Benedict XVI had granted with his motu proprio was not to please “four traditionalists”, it was to save and make available a valuable means that is certain to create the fullness of wealth for man. To prohibit it would be to create the risk of losing the meaning of life, and thus, of total poverty. Without the meaning of life, the economy becomes an end in itself, only oriented to material satisfaction. An economy whose ethics lack a strong and lively faith can hardly stand. After all, why should one do good if evil gives one more advantages? Especially if one allows oneself to believe they are “justified”?

The liturgy and economics are indirectly correlated, the common element being the heart of man, which is nourished by the former and gives meaning to the latter. The Conference on Summorum Pontificum, with the presence of Cardinal [Robert] Sarah and Cardinal [Gerhard] Müller, will be held in Rome on September 14 [2017] (at the Angelicum).

Translation Mr. Andrew Guernsey

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

WHAT IS THERE NOT TO LOVE ABOUT COMMUNISM – PLENTY, YET THE BERGOLIAN REVOLUTION IS INFUSED WITH LOVE OF IT

 

Featured Image
Pope Francisco imparts the blessing to Ana Maria and Mabel, daughters of Esther Ballestrino – photo credit: Ultima Hora
John-Henry WestenJohn-Henry WestenFollow John-Henry

NEWS

In new interview, Pope Francis reveals heavy influence by Communist woman

VATICAN CITY, September 1, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — In a newly published book-length interview, Pope Francis reveals that a Communist woman had a marked impact on his political thinking. “She taught me to think about political reality,” says Pope Francis of Esther Ballestrino De Careaga. “I owe so much to this woman.”

Francis brought up Bellastrino when author Dominique Wolton asked him about women who were a major influence in his life. “She was communist,” Francis readily admits, adding “she gave me books, all Communist.”

Exclusive excerpts from the interview were published in Le Figaro Magazine this morning. Politics and society: Pope Francis speaks with Dominique Wolton will be released in French on September 6.

George Neumayr, author of an in-depth look at Pope Francis called The Political Pope, notes that Ballestrino was the young Jorge Bergoglio’s boss at the laboratory where he worked. “She introduced him to communist periodicals and literature,” Neumayr told LifeSite in an interview. “When she got into trouble with the authorities, he hid her Marxist tracts in a Jesuit library.” “The reporter John Allen says that when her family asked for her to be buried in a Catholic cemetery, Bergoglio ‘readily consented’ even though he knew she wasn’t a believing Catholic.”

While some Catholics might view Neumayr’s work as irreverent, the author’s highly referenced work unveils a grim picture of a Pope heavily influenced by communism. Asked to describe the Pope’s attitude towards communism, Neumayr said, “He tends to speak of communism in benign terms … He told the Italian press that he wasn’t ‘offended’ if people call him a communist since he has ‘met many Marxists in my life who are good people.’”

Neumayr points to Pope Francis’ communist influence in politics both outside and inside the Church. “As I describe in the book, he rolled out the red carpet for Raul Castro, which flabbergasted Cubans who have suffered under the heel of his communist thuggery,” he said.

Inside the Church, Neumayr notes that Pope Francis has embraced Liberation theologians who were banned by his predecessors. “Liberation theology, which is an attempt to incorporate socialism into Catholic theology, was marginalized under Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI,” he said.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THE PRINCIPLE ARCHITECT OF THE SAINT GALLEN CONSPIRACY IS DEAD, BUT THE HARM DONE TO THE CHURCH LIVES ON IN THE BERGOLIAN REVOLUTION

 

Featured Image
Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor DIOCESE OF ARUNDEL & BRIGHTON
Dorothy Cummings McLeanDorothy Cummings McLean

NEWS

BREAKING: Cardinal believed to have led the effort to elect Pope Francis dies

LONDON, September 1, 2017 (LifeSiteNews): Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor of England has died of cancer.

Murphy-O’Connor, 85, was the Archbishop of Westminster, and therefore England’s leading Catholic churchman, from 2000 until 2009. Born in England of Irish parents in 1932, he was ordained to the priesthood in 1956 and to the episcopate in 1977. Pope Saint John Paul II named him a Cardinal in 2001.

The Cardinal was also one of the group of clerics dubbed the St. Gallen “mafia” by Cardinal Godfried Daneels. Its goal was to radically reform the Church to make it “much more modern.”

The informal group came into existence sometime around 1996.  Besides Murphy-O’Connor, members included Cardinals da Cruz Policarpo, Martini, Danneels, Silvestrini, Husar, Kasper, and Lehmann. These prelates thought they could have a “significant impact” on future papal elections if each of them used their network of contacts, according to Danneels’ authorized biography co-written by Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens.

The group allegedly lost its impetus in 2006 after failing to have their preferred candidate elected in the 2005 conclave. While the group has been accused of being involved in a plot that led to the resignation of Pope Benedict, these claims have been denied by former bishop of St. Gallen, Ivo Fürer.

But while Bishop Fürer stated that the St. Gallen group did not officially meet after 2006, and therefore could not have been involved in a plot to force Benedict XVI to resign, this does not mean that the group was inactive.

According to Austen Ivereigh, Francis’ biographer and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor’s former assistant, days prior to the March 12 conclave in Rome, Murphy-O’Connor was tasked by the St. Gallen “mafia” with informing Bergoglio of a plan to get him elected. Murphy-O’Connor was an old friend of Bergoglio.

As Ivereigh described in his 2014 book on Pope Francis, Murphy-O’Connor was also tasked with lobbying for Bergoglio among his North American counterparts as well as acting as a link for those from Commonwealth countries.

“They first secured Bergoglio’s assent,” wrote Ivereigh. “Asked if he was willing, he said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the Church no cardinal could refuse if asked. Murphy-O’Connor knowingly warned him to ‘be careful,’ and that it was his turn now, and was told ‘capisco’ – ‘I understand.’”

“Then they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man, arguing that his age – 76 – should no longer be considered an obstacle, given that popes could resign. Having understood from 2005 the dynamics of a conclave, they knew that votes travelled to those who made a strong showing out of the gate,” he wrote.

Because he was over the age of 80, Murphy-O’Connor was not able to vote in the Conclave, but was present at the pre-Conclave gatherings. On March 2, an anonymous cardinal who was not able to vote in the conclave told Italian news service La Stampa that, “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” Murphy-O’Connor was later named making the same comment in a July 2013 piece that appeared in the Independent.

The English Diocese of Westminster was restored to the Roman Catholic Church in 1850, just over twenty years after the Catholic Emancipation Act. Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was the tenth post-Reformation Archbishop of Westminster and the first not to die in office. His successor is Vincent Cardinal Nichols.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

DON’T BLAME HOUSTON’S LACK OF ZONING LAWS FOR WHAT HAPPENED IN THE FLOODING BY HURRICANE HARVEY

AMFPhotography / Shutterstock.com

 

{ I was born in New Orleans but my family has called Houston home since 1933.  One thing I hated about Houston was its lack of zoning laws.  That lack is a reflection of the average Texan’s opposition to governmental control over the use one makes of their own property.  But freedom from governmental control over land use through sensible zoning laws can produce the kind of chaos that characterizes many of Houston’s neighborhoods.  

I suspect that the catastrophic flooding of Houston by Hurricane Harvey will produce calls by progressives for the enactment of very strict zoning laws.  As the following article demonstrates that would be wrong.  }

Don’t Blame Lack of Zoning Laws for Houston Floods

THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE

The rain in Houston has barely stopped and the flood waters have yet to fully recede, but already a narrative has been created in the media, led by ProPublica, but with a lot of people and publications playing follow the leader, that blame the severity of Harvey’s impact on the region squarely on the city’s lack of zoning codes.

Unfortunately, it’s nonsense.

First things first: Hurricane Harvey dumped a record amount of rain on Houston. According to the Los Angeles Times, the region received more rain in a few days than they normally get in a year. One of the meteorologists the Times interviewed said that it was over a trillion gallons of water and that the amount was unprecedented for the continental United States.

According to NOAA, only a handful of cities get more rain in a year than Harvey brought to Houston. No one could have planned for this devastation because no one ever anticipated it being a possibility. No storm drainage system in the country is built to handle that much rainfall in that little time.

As far as Houston’s lack of zoning goes, it’s a myth. Stephen Smith pointed out nine years ago that Houston’s lack of normal land-use zoning has not prevented the city government from mandating minimum-parking requirements, setbacks, minimum lot sizes and all the other thousand ills that flesh is heir to. More than that, the main difference in the built environment of Houston and other cities that have experienced the bulk of their growth in the automobile era (one is tempted to write Anthropocene) is that infill development is much easier.

Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Jacksonville, and Tulsa all have downtowns with modern glass towers, acres of surface parking, subdivision after subdivision of single family detached residential on a hierarchy of streets feeding into a network of freeways.

Publications like ProPublica, Quartz, and Newsweek also have argued that zoning would have required developers to leave more of any given lot’s area as unpaved, preserving the wetlands and prairie that absorb water. But as Charles Marohn of Strong Towns pointed out, the wetlands that were filled could have accommodated 0.02 to 0.1 percent of the rain Harvey brought.

Another fact that ProPublica’s narrative missed: Other cities, in addition to having zoning, have faced extreme flooding events from much less rain than Houston received this month. According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, for example, severe flash floods result from as little as two inches of rain in 25 minutes and enormous storm drains have been built under the city to cope. How big are they? Big enough that around 1,000 people live in them. Hurricane Sandy caused major flooding in New York and New Jersey with just seven inches of rain, according to NASA.

Moreover, according to the Center for Neighborhood Technology, 92 percent of urban flooding takes place outside of designated floodplains, so restricting development within the floodplain is not effective. Flooding in cities around the country may not be as severe as that caused by Harvey, but urban flooding is still a national problem. Between 2007 and 2011, flooding in Cook County, Illinois, caused about $773 million in damage.

The relationship between impervious surface area and flooding seems to be very close, although the CNT found ambiguous evidence on this point. Only 10 of the 23 Cook County zip codes with the most flood insurance claims were also where the most impervious surface was. This is probably because they, like the people blaming building regulations for flooding, have got the short end of the stick: As two-thirds of the surface area in the typical American city is devoted to parking and roadway.

According to Charlie Gardner, around 20 percent of Downtown Houston is surface parking, while another 40 percent is devoted to streets—while in a typical city built before the 19th century, only about 15 percent of land would be devoted to roadway. This huge amount of urban land given over to asphalt dwarfs the amount of space available for housing and parks. Writing at Planetizen, Todd Litman calculates that as much as 4,000 square feet of land per automobile is given over to roadway and parking—that’s a lot of land consuming taxes instead of producing them. For comparison, according to Michael Lewyn, until 1998 the minimum lot size in Houston for a new home was 5,000 square feet. This is important because standard planning practices are based around retaining storm water on site, meaning that buildings need large green space foot prints to absorb water, but if the effect of such regulation is to separate buildings, then they could lead to more driving and hence more asphalt.

Even then, geography matters: According to economist Phil Magness, some of the worst flooding, in terms of water volume, occurred in the rural areas along the Brazos River.

What lessons can we learn from Harvey? Geography and geology are important to how cities handle severe storms and sea level rise. More importantly, cities do not need historic storms to suffer from flooding and the 60 percent of a city’s surface area devoted to parking and roadway likely exacerbate flooding more than residential or commercial development. Compact, walkable cities of the types advocated by New Urbanists should be better able to deal with urban flooding.

Matthew M. Robare is a freelance journalist based in Boston.

This article was supported by a grant from the Richard H. Driehaus Foundation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on DON’T BLAME HOUSTON’S LACK OF ZONING LAWS FOR WHAT HAPPENED IN THE FLOODING BY HURRICANE HARVEY

WONDER OF WONDERS: SYLVIA POGGIOLI GOES TO NORCIA, WHAT IS HAPPENING TO NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, IS IT FINDING RELIGION???

Father Martin Bernhard of Norcia

Sylvia Poggioli Goes To Norcia

Look, everybody, the legendary Sylvia Poggioli of NPR found her way to Norcia, and our monks. Excerpts:

The church and a nearby monastery had been home to a community of Benedictine monks, most of them from the U.S. After a series of big tremors last August, the monks sought shelter at their dilapidated grange on the mountainside high above the town. For months, they’ve lived in tents while they built more permanent housing on the mountainside, in what will now become their new monastery.

Today, the hypnotic notes of Gregorian chants echo across the mountainside as the monks celebrate Mass inside a brand-new chapel, built in wood. Choirmaster Father Basil Nixen, a native of Arizona, says medieval Gregorian chants make up what he calls the “life-beat” of their lives.

“We are chanting, singing our prayers about four, five hours a day,” he says. “So it has a very important role, it is what unifies us as a community, brings us together.”

More:

Piero Coccia, a mason who has been working for the monks for many years, is grateful for what they’ve done for Norcia.

“The monks have symbolically brought St. Benedict back to his birthplace,” he says. “And economically, they’ve been vital to our town, not just attracting tourists but also showing solidarity and helping those whose homes were destroyed.”

And, about Birra Nursia:

It’s brewed with the water from the nearby Sibylline Mountains and is called Nursia, from the town’s Latin name.

The beer has become a popular item in Norcia shops and restaurants, along with other local specialties — cured meats and truffles.

“We very intentionally chose the name of the town for the beer to involve the townspeople, involve the rich culinary and cultural and spiritual tradition of this town,” says Brother Augustine Willmeth, the brew master. He’s from South Carolina.

Read — or listen to — the whole thing here.

If you’ve read The Benedict Option, you know that these monks and the life they lead is one of the key inspirations. Here’s a passage about what they mean to all of us Christians, Catholic and otherwise, if we’re open to receive the grace:

As I was preparing to leave the Monastery of St. Benedict after my stay, I mentioned to Father Martin how unusual it is for a place like this to exist at all in the modern world. Young men taking up a tradition of prayer, liturgy, and ascetic communal life that dates back to the early church—and doing so with such evident joy? It’s not supposed to happen in these times.
But here they are: a sign of contradiction to modernity.

Father Martin flashed a broad grin from beneath his black beard and said that all Christians can have this if they are willing to do what it takes to mount the recovery, “to pick up what we have lost, and to make it real again. “There’s something here that’s very ancient, but it’s also new,” Father Martin said. “People say, ‘Oh, you’re just trying to turn back the clock.’ That makes no sense. If you’re doing something right now, it means you’re doing it right now. It’s new, and it’s alive! And that’s a very powerful thing.”

Leaving Norcia and going back down the mountain, a pilgrim might envy the monks the simplicity of their lives in the quiet village. The serenity and solidity of Norcia and its Benedictines seem so far from the tumultuous world below, and you shouldn’t be surprised if you miss it before you’ve even reached the train station in Spoleto. But if you have received the gift of Norcia rightly, you do not leave empty-handed and unprepared for what lies ahead.

For the brothers and fathers there will have given you a glimpse of what life together in Christ can be. They will have shown you that traditional Christianity is not dead, and that Truth, Beauty, and Goodness can be found and brought to life again, though doing so will cost you nothing less than everything. And they will have shared their ancient teaching, tendered by the hands of monks and nuns from generations of generations for a millennium and a half—wisdom that can help ordinary believers, doing battle in the modern world, not only hold firm through the new Dark Age but actually to flourish in it.

I am beyond thrilled that the major national media are discovering the secret of the Monks of Norcia. If it takes beer to get the media to Norcia, well and good. But there is something deeper and far more important brewing on that mountainside. If you want to be part of the rebuilding, here’s one thing you can do from where you are right now.

Posted in , . Tagged , , , , .
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on WONDER OF WONDERS: SYLVIA POGGIOLI GOES TO NORCIA, WHAT IS HAPPENING TO NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, IS IT FINDING RELIGION???

THE SAD TRUTH IS THAT THE USCCB IS PROBABLY INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING SUCH A CLEAR STATEMENT OF BELIEF AS THE NASHVILLE STATEMENT

 

Why the Rejection of the Nashville Statement on Sexuality is a Rejection of the Bible

For Bible-believing Christians, what is there to disagree with?

The Nashville Statement covers the most basic of the basics, reaffirming what the Church (and Synagogue) have believed about marriage and sexuality for two millennia

 

By MICHAEL BROWN

Published on September 3, 2017 

THE STREAM

If a group of astronomers issued a major document stating that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth, it would be greeted with a shrug of the shoulders. Who didn’t know that? Why, then, has a recent statement by Christian leaders affirming the basics of biblical sexuality been greeted with such protest from other professing Christian leaders? It is because these other “Christian” leaders have rejected the authority of the Word of God.

For those who haven’t read the Nashville Statement, the Babylon Bee, a Christian satirical website, actually sums things up well, and with some well-placed sarcasm:

It says some really controversial stuff for Bible-believing Christians, like that God made Adam and Eve as (trigger warning) male and female, that marriage was created by God to be the union between one man and one woman, that He loves people with gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction even if He doesn’t approve of all of their actions, and that He offers His grace and mercy to sinners of all stripes.

Yes, just the most basic of the basics, reaffirming what the Church (and Synagogue) have believed about marriage and sexuality for two millennia and offering grace and mercy to all. That’s why, when I was asked to be one of the initial signatories, I signed on without hesitation. What was there to disagree with?

LGBT Activists Attack the Nashville Statement

Yet in response to the Nashville Statement a headline on the Huffington Post declared, “Hundreds Of Christian Leaders Denounce Anti-LGBTQ ‘Nashville Statement.’” The Post called the statement “divisive and bizarrely-timed.” It noted that it “drew harsh criticism from many other Christians, members of the LGBTQ community and even the mayor of Nashville.”

Need I tell you that this article was penned by Antonia Blumberg for the Post’s “Queer Voices” section?

Of course LGBT activists and their allies will condemn a statement that reaffirms God’s standards for marriage and sexuality. Why should that occasion surprise?

Likewise, a September 1 op-ed piece in the New York Times stated:

This week, an influential group of evangelical Christians publicly doubled down on intolerance in a message about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people that represents a renewed commitment to open bigotry.

Yes, “The Nashville Statement’s harm is more than symbolic. The hateful beliefs it endorses have real-life, devastating consequences.”

And who is the author of this article? Eliel Cruz, a self-described “leading bisexual activist.”

Are you seeing a pattern here?

The ‘Problem’ is With the Bible, Not the Statement

The problem is not with the Nashville Statement. It is with the Bible, since the statement only reaffirms what the Bible clearly teaches. Namely that: 1) God made humans male and female; 2) marriage, as intended by God, is the lifelong union of a man and a woman; 3) homosexual practice is always sinful in God’s sight; 4) God offers forgiveness for all human beings through the cross of Jesus; and 5) those who struggle with same-sex attraction or gender identity confusion can be welcomed into the Body of Christ like any other struggling individual, as long as they do not celebrate or affirm that which is wrong.

And that’s why a counter-statement, called the Nazareth Statement, issued by LGBT “Christian” leaders and their allies, affirms all the talking points of LGBT activism, including:

  • That “our wide spectrum of unique sexualities and gender identities is a perfect reflection of the magnitude of God’s creative work” and that is wrong to limit God’s creative intent “to a gender binary or that God’s desire for human romantic relationships is only to be expressed in heterosexual relationships between one man and one woman.”
  • That it is wrong to argue that “God intended human romantic relationships to be limited to one man and one woman.”
  • That is unhealthy to force “individuals to embrace a gender identity that matches the cultural assumptions based on their biology.”
  • That one cannot judge Christian orthodoxy based on views about homosexuality but that is not Christlike to hold to traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality or to refuse “to openly dialogue with LGBT+ people.”

Talk about turning the Bible upside down!

According to this counter-statement, gender is what you perceive it to be. Your biology doesn’t determine your gender. Men can have God-blessed sex with men and women can have God-blessed sex with women, provided it is “covenantal.” And it is unchristian to uphold Christian standards of marriage and sexuality.

That’s why I say that people who have a problem with the Nashville Statement have a problem with God and His Word. It’s that simple.

What’s Trump Got to Do With It?

There is, however, one more angle to discuss, and that is the connection to Donald Trump.

You might ask, “What in the world does President Trump have to do with this statement on sexuality?”

It appears that some Christian leaders are upset with the statement because some of the signers endorsed Trump or serve on his advisory faith council, as if this somehow disqualifies a biblical statement from being biblical. What kind of logic is this? And what of the fact that other signers were strong Trump critics? And what of signers like Rosaria Butterfield and Christopher Yuan, both of whom came out of homosexual practice and are compassionate gospel witnesses with a non-political message of reconciliation?

A misleading headline in the Washington Post reads, “Why even conservative evangelicals are unhappy with the anti-LGBT Nashville Statement.”

The Nashville Statement should be affirmed by all those who love Jesus, love the Bible, and love the LGBT community.

Yes, “‘Had white evangelicals leaders … withheld support for Mr. Trump after the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tapes, maybe their opposition to same-sex marriage would be viewed … as a principled, rather than a bigoted, position,’ said Skye Jethani, a prominent Chicago-area pastor and author.”

With all respect to Rev. Jethani, virtually every evangelical leader I know expressed disgust with those tapes. Some of those leaders spoke directly to candidate Trump about them (and in strong terms). And all agreed that this was an ugly part of his past that he himself regretted.

And does Rev. Jethani really believe that liberal Christians, LGBT activists, and the secular media would have greeted our statement on biblical sexuality any differently today if none of us had voted for Trump? Does he really think that we were not already mocked and vilified for the principled, biblical stand we had taken for many years prior to this?

Love and Truth Go Hand in Hand

The Babylon Bee asks the question, “Who has signed the Nashville Statement?” The answer?

A whole mob of fringe, hate-filled bigots with zero credibility, such as John Piper, J.I. Packer, Mark Dever, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, Francis Chan, and Matt Chandler. Just look at that list of theological lightweights — couldn’t they at least have gotten some people who’ve proven themselves as faithful witnesses of Christ?

In contrast, the Washington Post quoted from almost no nationally recognized conservative evangelical voices, despite its bold headline.

The Bee also notes, with full sarcasm:

That those supporting the Nashville Statement are not doing so because they believe the Word of God, but because they are homophobic, neo-nazi white supremacists who worship Donald Trump — which makes sense, as long as you don’t think about it for longer than about three seconds.

Precisely so.

I’m all for dialogue with professing LGBT Christians. I have often apologized for the church’s past failures in our treatment of those who identify as LGBT. And I constantly preach on the need for a baptism of love for those who identify as LGBT.

But love and truth go hand in hand. Which is why the Nashville Statement should be affirmed by all those who love Jesus, love the Bible, and love the LGBT community.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What is the Nashville Statement and why are people talking about it?

On the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling to legalize same-sex marriage, Gallup polled how many LGBT couples are married today. The results: gay marriage is up 33% in the past year.

LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE
.
.

NASHVILLE —A coalition of conservative evangelical leaders laid out their beliefs on human sexuality, including opposition to same-sex marriage and fluid gender identity, in a new doctrinal statement.

It’s called the Nashville Statement and the national coalition says it’s their response to an increasingly post-Christian, Western culture that thinks it can change God’s design for humans.

Since it was released Tuesday morning, the Nashville Statement has received both praise for its clarity and has been denounced as harmful to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

More: More than 150 evangelical religious leaders sign ‘Christian manifesto’ on human sexuality

In recent years, attitudes toward those who identify as LGBT have shifted dramatically in the U.S. The Pew Research Center says the majority of Americans think society should accept homosexuality. A 2013 survey reported that 92% of LGBT adults said society accepted them more in this decade than they had in the previous one.

Here’s what we know about the Nashville Statement:

What does it say?

The Nashville Statement lists 14 beliefs, which are referred to as articles. Each of the articles includes a statement of affirmation as well as a denial. They’re not new. But they cover a range of topics from a prohibition on sex outside of marriage to the connection between biological sex and gender identity.

Here’s what article 10 says:

“WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.

“WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.”

You can read all 14 and the rest of the statement at the bottom of this article.

Who put it together?

The Nashville Statement is the work of the The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The Louisville, Ky.-based group was formed in 1987.

The council’s website says it has helped several religious groups, including the Nashville-based Southern Baptist Convention, promote “gospel-driven gender roles.”

How did the Nashville Statement get its name?

It’s named after Nashville because a coalition of scholars, pastors and other leaders finalized a draft of the statement in Nashville, said Denny Burk, president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, in an email.

The group met last week at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center during the annual conference for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. The public policy arm of the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. hosted the coalition during their conference, which focused on parenting.

“There is a long Christian tradition of naming doctrinal statements after the places where they were drawn up: Council of Nicaea (325), Council of Constantinople (381), Council of Chalcedon (451), etc.,” Burk said.

There’s more recent examples too, including The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s founding document.

Who signed the statement?

More than 150 conservative evangelicals from across the country are listed as initial signatories.

Among the signers who have been involved in national politics: James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Focus on the Family, and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in the District of Columbia.

Dobson and four others — Senior Pastor Ronnie Floyd of Cross Church, which has four campuses in northwest Arkansas and southwest Missouri; Pastor Jack Graham of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas; President Richard Land of the Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, N.C.; televangelist James Robison, founder of Fort Worth-based Life Outreach International — also are members of President Trump’s evangelical advisory board.

Leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention signed on, too: Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Steve Gaines, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis.

Who doesn’t like it?

The mayor of Nashville for one.

Mayor Megan Barry, who as a Metro councilwoman officiated some of the city’s first same-sex marriages when they became legal in Tennessee, took issue with the statement’s moniker. She called it “poorly named” in a Tuesday morning Tweet and said it “does not represent the inclusive values of the city (and) people of Nashville.”

Lauren Mesnard and Nikki von Haeger are the first same-sex couple to get married in Davidson County, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case to overturn bans on the marriages across the nation on Friday June 26, 2015. Sam Simpkins / The Tennessean

Several other Nashvillians echoed the mayor’s thoughts.

It’s received opposition from across the country, including from Christian and religious leaders.

What do the signers have to say in response?

Prominent conservative author David French took issue with Barry’s statement in his Wednesday column for the National Review.

French, who lives in Maury County and signed the Nashville Statement, argued that Barry’s comments are a declaration of the state against the church, not merely an argument for the separation of church and state. He also points out that Barry is speaking against what some of the people in her city believe.

“Megan Barry is expected to have a position on civil rights and civil liberties, but that’s a far cry from stating that Biblical orthodoxy is incompatible with the ‘inclusive values’ of a city that’s located in the heart of the Bible Belt,” French writes.

Follow Holly Meyer on Twitter: @HollyAMeyer

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

THE NASHVILLE STATEMENT

 

“Know that the LORD Himself is God;
It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves…” -Psalm 100:3

Preamble

Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century find themselves living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being. By and large the spirit of our age no longer discerns or delights in the beauty of God’s design for human life. Many deny that God created human beings for his glory, and that his good purposes for us include our personal and physical design as male and female. It is common to think that human identity as male and female is not part of God’s beautiful plan, but is, rather, an expression of an individual’s autonomous preferences. The pathway to full and lasting joy through God’s good design for his creatures is thus replaced by the path of shortsighted alternatives that, sooner or later, ruin human life and dishonor God.

This secular spirit of our age presents a great challenge to the Christian church. Will the church of the Lord Jesus Christ lose her biblical conviction, clarity, and courage, and blend into the spirit of the age? Or will she hold fast to the word of life, draw courage from Jesus, and unashamedly proclaim his way as the way of life? Will she maintain her clear, counter-cultural witness to a world that seems bent on ruin?

We are persuaded that faithfulness in our generation means declaring once again the true story of the world and of our place in it—particularly as male and female. Christian Scripture teaches that there is but one God who alone is Creator and Lord of all. To him alone, every person owes glad- hearted thanksgiving, heart-felt praise, and total allegiance. This is the path not only of glorifying God, but of knowing ourselves. To forget our Creator is to forget who we are, for he made us for himself. And we cannot know ourselves truly without truly knowing him who made us. We did not make ourselves. We are not our own. Our true identity, as male and female persons, is given by God. It is not only foolish, but hopeless, to try to make ourselves what God did not create us to be.

We believe that God’s design for his creation and his way of salvation serve to bring him the greatest glory and bring us the greatest good. God’s good plan provides us with the greatest freedom. Jesus said he came that we might have life and have it in overflowing measure. He is for us and not against us. Therefore, in the hope of serving Christ’s church and witnessing publicly to the good purposes of God for human sexuality revealed in Christian Scripture, we offer the following affirmations and denials.

Article 1

WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church.
WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God.

Article 2

WE AFFIRM that God’s revealed will for all people is chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.
WE DENY that any affections, desires, or commitments ever justify sexual intercourse before or outside marriage; nor do they justify any form of sexual immorality.

Article 3

WE AFFIRM that God created Adam and Eve, the first human beings, in his own image, equal before God as persons, and distinct as male and female.
WE DENY that the divinely ordained differences between male and female render them unequal in dignity or worth.

Article 4

WE AFFIRM that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for human good and human flourishing.
WE DENY that such differences are a result of the Fall or are a tragedy to be overcome.

Article 5

WE AFFIRM that the differences between male and female reproductive structures are integral to God’s design for self-conception as male or female.
WE DENY that physical anomalies or psychological conditions nullify the God-appointed link between biological sex and self-conception as male or female.

Article 6

WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.

WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.

Article 7

WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture.
WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.

Article 8

WE AFFIRM that people who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God through faith in Jesus Christ, as they, like all Christians, walk in purity of life.
WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.

Article 9

WE AFFIRM that sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from the marriage covenant and toward sexual immorality— a distortion that includes both heterosexual and homosexual immorality.
WE DENY that an enduring pattern of desire for sexual immorality justifies sexually immoral behavior.

Article 10

WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.
WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

Article 11

WE AFFIRM our duty to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to or about one another as male or female.
WE DENY any obligation to speak in such ways that dishonor God’s design of his image- bearers as male and female.

Article 12

WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ gives both merciful pardon and transforming power, and that this pardon and power enable a follower of Jesus to put to death sinful desires and to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord.
WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ is insufficient to forgive all sexual sins and to give power for holiness to every believer who feels drawn into sexual sin.

Article 13

WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender self- conceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one’s biological sex and one’s self-conception as male or female.
WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ sanctions self-conceptions that are at odds with God’s revealed will.

Article 14

WE AFFIRM that Christ Jesus has come into the world to save sinners and that through Christ’s death and resurrection forgiveness of sins and eternal life are available to every person who repents of sin and trusts in Christ alone as Savior, Lord, and supreme treasure.
WE DENY that the Lord’s arm is too short to save or that any sinner is beyond his reach.

Denny Burk

President, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Russell Moore

President, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

President, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

John MacArthur

Pastor, Grace Community Church President, The Master’s Seminary and College

Rosaria Butterfield

Author of The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert

Ligon Duncan

Chancellor & CEO, Reformed Theological Seminary

H. B. Charles, Jr.

Pastor, Shiloh Metropolitan Baptist Church

Frank Page

President & CEO, Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee Former SBC President

Kevin DeYoung

Senior Pastor, Christ Covenant Church

Jerry A. Johnson

President & CEO, National Religious Broadcasters

Karen Swallow Prior

Professor of English, Liberty University

James MacDonald

Founder and Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel
Former SBC President

John Piper

Founder & Teacher, Desiring God Chancellor, Bethlehem Seminary and College

J. I. Packer

Professor of Theology, Regent College

Tony Perkins

President, Family Research Council

Sam Allberry

Speaker & Apologist, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

Francis Chan

Author & Pastor, We Are Church

Steve Gaines

President, The Southern Baptist Convention
Pastor, Bellevue Baptist Church

Christopher Yuan

Speaker & Author, Moody Bible Institute

Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth

Author & Speaker, Revive Our Hearts

Alistair Begg

Reverend, Parkside Church

Mark Dever

Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church

Matt Chandler

Pastor, The Village Church

James Merritt

Pastor, Cross Pointe Church

James Dobson

Founder, Focus on the Family

Wayne Grudem

Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary

D. A. Carson

Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

R. C. Sproul

Founder & Chairman, Ligonier Ministries

Marvin Olasky

Editor in Chief, World Magazine

Andrew T. Walker

Director of Policy Studies, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Dennis Rainey

Founder & Former President, FamilyLife

Daniel L. Akin

President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Heath Lambert

Executive Director, Association of Certified Biblical Counselors

Randy Alcorn

Director, Eternal Perspectives Ministries

Fred Luter

Senior Pastor, Franklin Avenue Baptist Church
Former SBC President

Jack Graham

Pastor, Prestonwood Baptist Church

Initial Signatories

Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only

J. D. Greear

Pastor, The Summit Church

Bryant Wright

Senior Pastor, Johnson Ferry Baptist Church
Former SBC President

Johnny Hunt

Pastor, FBC Woodstock Former SBC President

Mark L. Bailey

President & Senior Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary

David French

Senior Writer, National Review

Jeff Iorg

President, Gateway Seminary

Robert A. J. Gagnon

Scholar and Author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice

C. J. Mahaney

Senior Pastor, Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville

Chuck Kelley

President, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

Alastair Roberts

Scholar & Author of Heirs Together: A Theology of the Sexes

O. S. Hawkins

President, GuideStone SBC

Todd Wagner

Pastor, Watermark Community Church

Darryl Delhousaye

President, Phoenix Seminary

Don Sweeting

President, Colorado Christian University

Jason K. Allen

President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

K. Erik Thoennes

Professor and Chair of Theology, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

Paige Patterson

President, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Sam Storms

Lead Pastor for Preaching and Vision, Bridgeway Church

Samuel W. “Dub” Oliver

President, Union University

Jason G. Duesing

Provost, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary & College

Burk Parsons

Copastor, St. Andrew’s Chapel

Kevin Ezell

President, North American Mission Board

Thom S. Rainer

President & CEO, LifeWay Christian Resources

John M. Frame

Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology and Philosophy, Reformed Theological Seminary

Thomas White

President, Cedarville University

Jeff Purswell

Director of Theology, Sovereign Grace Churches

Erick-Woods Erickson

Editor in Chief, The Resurgent

Vaughan Roberts

Rector of St. Ebbe’s Church (UK)

R. Kent Hughes

Visiting Professor of Practical Theology, Evangelism and Culture, Westminster Theological Seminary

Richard Land

President, Southern Evangelical Seminary

Ronnie Floyd

Senior Pastor, Cross Church Former President, Southern Baptist Convention

Matt Carter

Pastor of Preaching and Vision, The Austin Stone Church

Eric Teetsel

President, Family Policy Alliance of Kansas

Ray Ortlund

Pastor, Immanuel Church

Michael Reeves

President and Professor of Theology, Union School of Theology (UK)

Randy Stinson

Senior VP for Academic Administration and Provost, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Thomas Schreiner

Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Bruce Ware

Professor of Christian Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Afshin Ziafat

Lead Pastor, Providence Church

Owen Strachan

Associate Professor of Christian Theology, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Bryan Carter

Senior Pastor, Concord Church

Candi Finch

Assistant Professor of Theology in Women’s Studies, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

James Robison

Founder & President, LIFE Outreach International
Founder & Publisher, The Stream

David Mathis

Executive Editor, Desiring God

Hershael W. York

Professor of Christian Preaching, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Dorothy Kelley Patterson

Professor of Theology in Women’s Studies, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Jack Deere

Author and Speaker, Grace Church

Jonathan Leeman

Editorial Director, 9Marks

H. Wayne House

Academic Dean and Distinguished Research Professor, Faith International University

Michael Goeke

Associate Pastor, FBC San Francisco

Stephen Strang

Founder & CEO, Charisma Media

Anthony Kidd

Pastor of Preaching, Community of Faith Bible Church

Chris Larson

President & CEO, Ligonier Ministries

Curtis Woods

Associate Executive Director, Kentucky Baptist Convention

C. Ben Mitchell

Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy, Union University

Ken Magnuson

Professor of Christian Ethics, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Mary Mohler

Director, Seminary Wives Institute

Jim Shaddix

Professor of Expository Preaching, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Juan R. Sanchez

Senior Pastor, High Pointe Baptist Church

Mary A. Kassian

Author, Director, Girls Gone Wise

J. P. Moreland

Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

Joel Belz

Founder, World Magazine, World News Group

Christiana Holcomb

Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom

James M. Hamilton, Jr.

Professor of Biblical Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Bruce Riley Ashford

Provost and Professor of Theology & Culture, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Nathan Finn

Dean, School of Theology and Missions, Union University

Darrell Bock

Senior Professor, Dallas Theological Seminary

Daniel Heimbach

Senior Professor of Christian Ethics, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Hunter Baker

Associate Professor, Union University

John N. Oswalt

Visiting Distinguished Professor of Old Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary

Malcolm B. Yarnell III

Research Professor of Systematic Theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Mark Daniel Liederbach

Professor & Vice President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Matthew J. Hall

Dean of Boyce College & Senior VP of Academic Innovation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Paul Weber

President & CEO, Family Policy Alliance

Russell Shubin

Director, Salem Media Group

Charlotte Akin

Homemaker, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

E. Calvin Beisner

Founder & National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

James A. Borland

Professor of New Testament
& Theology, Liberty University

Jose Abella

Lead Pastor, Providence Road Church

Joy White

Homemaker & Assistant Professor of Women’s Studies, Cedarville University

Rhyne R. Putman

Associate Professor of Theology and Culture, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

Peter Jones

Executive Director, TruthXchange

Jeff Struecker

Pastor, Calvary Baptist Church

Micah Fries

Senior Pastor, Brainerd Baptist Church

Bob Lepine

Vice President of Content, FamilyLife

Allan Coppedge

Retired Professor of Theology, Asbury Theological Seminary

Don Buckley

Physician, Spanish Trail Family Physicians

Donald A. Balasa

Adjunct Faculty, Trinity International University

Eric C. Redmond

Assistant Professor of Bible, Moody Bible Institute

Phillip Bethancourt

Executive Vice President, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Gregory Wills

Dean, School of Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Barry Joslin

Professor of Christian Theology, Boyce College

Bryan Baise

Assistant Professor of Philosophy & Apologetics, Boyce College

Rebecca Jones

Volunteer, truthXchange

Nathan Lino

Senior Pastor, Northeast Houston Baptist Church

Casey B. Hough

Senior Pastor, FBC Camden

Daniel DeWitt

Director of the Center for Biblical Apologetics & Public Christianity, Cedarville University

David Schrock

Pastor for Preaching and Theology, Occoquan Bible Church

Donna Thoennes

Adjunct Professor and homeschool mom, Biola University

Grant Castleberry

Pastor of Discipleship, Providence Church

Adam Greenway

Dean, Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, & Ministry, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Katie McCoy

Assistant Professor of Theology in Women’s Studies, Scarborough College

Rhonda Kelley

President’s Wife, Adjunct Faculty, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

Kenneth Keathley

Senior Professor of Theology, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Evan Lenow

Associate Professor of Ethics, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Daniel Patterson

Vice President for Operations and Chief of Staff, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Sean Perron

Chief of Staff, The Association of Certified Biblical Counselors

Jeffrey Riley

Professor of Ethics, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

Colby Adams

Director of Communications, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

David Talley

Professor of Old Testament, Biola University

Michael L. Brown

President, FIRE School of Ministry

Dannah Gresh

Co-founder, Pure Freedom

Paul Felix

President, Los Angeles Bible Training School

Travis Wussow

VP for Public Policy, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Keith Whitfield

Assistant Professor & Dean, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Matt Damico

Associate Pastor of Worship, Kenwood Baptist Church

Colin Smothers

Executive Director, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on THE SAD TRUTH IS THAT THE USCCB IS PROBABLY INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING SUCH A CLEAR STATEMENT OF BELIEF AS THE NASHVILLE STATEMENT

I DO NOT KNOW JASON SCOTT JONES, BUT I WISH I DID BECAUSE HE IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF US AND YET HE IS EXCEPTIONAL IN THE WAY HE RESPONDED TO GOD’S GRACE

 

Fr. James Martin Burned the Bridges to My LGBT Friends

By JASON SCOTT JONES Published on September 2, 2017 

 

This week I had two old friends drop me. One’s female, one’s male, and each lives with same-sex attraction. I’d never been preachy with them. I’d answered their questions honestly, when they asked me what I believe. And we respected each other.

That’s a lot harder now.

Why? Because Father James Martin, S.J., advisor to Pope Francis, is claiming that Catholics can and should approve of same-sex relationships. Now neither of these friends wants to speak to me. They think I have the option of accepting their sexual lifestyles, but I’m just willfully refusing. Out of a mindless nostalgia for old social norms.

The Zeitgeist and the Prince of This World

Every day has its fashionable heresy. In the 1930s in Europe, that was vain and wrathful nationalism. In the 1960s and 70s, it was envious Liberation Theology.

In today’s Zeitgeist it’s sexual issues that are holding Christians’ good names hostage, even their livelihoods. That word in its literal sense means “Spirit of the Age,” but perhaps it’s more fruitful to call it the Spirit of the World, of the Prince of this World.

He knows what he wants and how he can typically get it. In past ages he spoke to our vanity, wrath or envy. But in this lackadaisical age the Tempter has lowered his sights. He tries to lure us away from the fullness of Christian truth by speaking to baser, more elemental appetites: Our lust, but even more, our sloth.

Christian Sloth Feeds Indifference

He goads and threatens us to look at our neighbors and shrug. What business is it of ours if people sink into sad and sinful lifestyles? It’s not worth getting called names like “bigot” and “hater” to warn perfect strangers against that. (So long as they don’t frighten the horses, you know.)

We have plenty of pastors eager to christen such lukewarm indifference as “pastoral” charity, “dialogue” or “welcoming.” In reality it’s spiritual laziness.

Each of us shares a little differently in the brokenness of Creation, the bitter harvest of Adam’s sin, whose side effects Jesus didn’t come to wipe out all at once, but to suffer along with us and sanctify. The greatest temptation for Christians has always been to pretend otherwise — to imagine that Jesus’ mission was to eliminate all pain and sacrifice. That urge goes all the way back to Peter, who tried to stop Our Lord from completing His mission on the cross.

Remember what Jesus said to him? “Get behind me, Satan!” It’s an ancient error, to mistake the grove at Gethsemane for a brand new Garden of Eden; to try to replace the Cross with some rainbow-colored maypole.

I know these truths all too well, because I long wallowed in our postmodern sexual brokenness. Still today I am tempted by sloth to shrug at sin, to keep shallow friendships in place and win the bored applause of the public. But with God’s grace I fight against it. It was only that grace that pulled me out of the ditch in the first place.

So let me tell my story.

Waiting for My Testosterone Levels to Drop

I was an atheist until I was in my late 20s. I felt nagging doubts about this arid, airtight worldview. But I strategically delayed giving them any further thought until … my testosterone levels began to decrease a little. Finally I couldn’t fend off any longer my conviction that God existed and His name was Jesus.

But I kept my new faith secret for more than a year. Why? Because I was still sleeping around. I didn’t believe I could stop it. The women were all “consenting adults,” so I couldn’t bring myself to see the harm in it. I prayed for help, but felt like it never came.

Of course I was fooling myself, first of all about the harm I actually caused. There were broken hearts, STDs and at least one abortion. Men who choose to live promiscuously don’t know how many of their “partners” choose to have an abortion — perhaps without even telling them. Some won’t find out until the Day of Judgment.

Chastity is a Real Virtue

I say all of this to make it clear I am no church lady. I’ve struggled and still struggle with sinful inclinations and wrong habits. But thanks to clear and persuasive spiritual formation and God’s patient grace, I came to understand that Chastity is real. That it’s a central Christian virtue. I’ve fought to practice it within my marriage, and model its importance for my children.

So I understand what it means to be tempted and fail in matters of sexuality. That’s why I’ve never been “hawkish” on homosexual issues. I’ve followed the Church in its teachings, but I’ve left it to others to preach that part of the Gospel.

Until now.

A Prophet of Apostasy

Father James Martin is one of the most media-savvy priests in America. He pals around with Martin Scorsese and appears on network TV. And now he’s using that fame and influence for evil. As Joseph Sciambra wrote here, Fr. Martin is building bridges to the LGBTQ community with thin, rotten pieces of wood; with half-truths and lies.

This prophet of apostasy endorses the shrug of indifference that most straight Christians have toward the struggles of their brethren with same-sex attraction. He’s saying that faithful Christians like Sciambra are wasting their time. There’s no need to struggle. Just “go with the flow.”

Contrast that with Cardinal Robert Sarah, or the pastors who drafted and signed the Nashville Declaration. I thank God for them. They know how challenging Christ’s teaching on sexual morality is, especially in our culture today. When your inclinations and the media and the law sing in harmony, there is just one discordant note: the Gospel. It’s unchanging, unchanged, a stark tone that calls us back from our selfish passions.

The Millstone Maker

I love my friends with same-sex attraction, as I love other sinners, and love myself. We’re sinners all. And I hope beyond hope that all my friends and I can live lives of chastity, peace and joy. I know how challenging that is. It is for me. And because I’m a modern Christian, I suffer from the sin of presumption. I feel that God loves us all and forgives us all and we will all be redeemed regardless of how we live. That is how I feel.

But I also think. And my thoughts cause me to doubt. I worry about my friends’ relationship with God and their eternal destiny. I worry even more about the despair and loneliness that I see in the “gay community.”

Father Martin is lying to my friends. He is lying to your friends. He is lying to young Catholics with same-sex temptations who long to live chaste and holy lives. When a pastor with such credentials and such a platform joins the world and its Prince’s chorus, countless young people will inevitably take this as an endorsement of their temptations.

Father Martin is piling up millstones, and chaining them round his neck.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Jason Jones FEATURED

jones jones prolife

Jason Jones
Jason Jones
Jason Jones
Jason Jones

Travels from Kapolei, Hawaii

Jason Scott Jones is a filmmaker and human rights activist. He works directly to aid the homeless, peoples facing genocide, and women with crisis pregnancies.

Jones began working in defense of life while attending the  University of Hawaii. There he founded the Pro-Life Student Union and served as State Chairman of  Young Americans for Freedom.  Jones would go on to serve as director of Hawaii Right to Life, national youth director of American Life League, grassroots director of Brownback for President, and public relations director for the world’s largest international pro-life organization, Human Life International.  He has appeared in defense of the most vulnerable members of the human family on ABC, Fox, CNN, and hundreds of radio programs nationwide.

Jones is the Founder of HERO [Human-Rights Education and Relief Organization] a non-profit that promotes human dignity regardless of ability, age, status, race, or geography.  He spearheaded a HERO initiative to bring clean water to suffering refugees in South Sudan. In 2009, despite the government’s warning of unsafe travel, Jason visited Darfur and inspected 26 new water wells and distributed $2 million in food, medicine, and other aid.

Movie To Movement, which Jones founded, aims at transforming the culture by promoting films with a message of beauty, truth, and love.

Jones is co-executive producer of BELLA, recipient of The People’s Choice Award at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival.  BELLA has inspired hundreds of women in crisis pregnancies to choose life.

Jones was associate producer of The Stoning of Soraya M., which won both the NAACP Image Award in 2010,and the L.A. Film Festival Award in 2009; and Eyes to See (2010). Jones’ most recent film and brainchild, Crescendo, hit theaters in February 2013.  It was mainly screened at fundraisers for crisis pregnancy centers, for which it raised more than $5 million in support of women in need.

Jason Scott Jones is a film producer, author, activist, and human rights worker. Jones was an Executive Producer on the 2006 film, Bella, which won several film industry awards, most notably the People’s Choice Award at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival. Jason was the Associate Producer of the 2008 film, The Stoning of Soraya M., which won the NAACP Image Award in 2010 as well as the Los Angeles Film Festival Audience Award in 2009.

He was Producer in 2012 of the TV movie Mother Marianne: Portrait of a Saint and an Executive Producer of the new film Voiceless coming out in 2016. His short films include “Eyes to See” (2010), “Crescendo” (2011) and “Sing a Little Louder”(2015). He works directly to aid the homeless, peoples facing genocide, and women with crisis pregnancies. He is president of Movie to Movement and the Human Rights Education Organization (H.E.R.O.). He lives in Hawaii. The Race to Save Our Century is his first book and regularly contributes to The Stream. His first book, The Race to Save Our Century: Five Core Principles to Promote Peace, Freedom, and a Culture of Life, appeared in September 2014.

Jason lives with his wife in Hawaii and is the proud father of 7 children.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on I DO NOT KNOW JASON SCOTT JONES, BUT I WISH I DID BECAUSE HE IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF US AND YET HE IS EXCEPTIONAL IN THE WAY HE RESPONDED TO GOD’S GRACE

WHAT DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAY ABOUT SUICIDE

El_Greco_021-large

 

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE APPEARS ON THE WEBSITE OF VATICAN RADIO

Following the shocking and tragic death of a priest in Ghana, who committed suicide not too long ago, Bishop Joseph Osei-Bonsu of Konongo-Mampong in Ghana has issued a statement explaining the teaching of the Catholic Church on suicide, including the question of whether one who commits suicide is destined to go to hell  or whether such a person can be given a church burial or not.  Below is  the statement:

This article seeks to present the teaching of the Catholic Church on suicide. What is suicide?

Suicide is uncoerced, intentional self-killing. It should not be confused with the willing surrender of one’s life in self-sacrifice, such as in defending another unjustly attacked, in delivering health care to the highly infectious sick, or in witnessing to one’s faith in persecution. In these instances, one does not will one’s death but accepts it as an inevitable result of doing what one feels called to do to serve justice, mercy, or faith.

In health care, refusing “ordinary” means of treatment is considered suicide. Refusing “extraordinary” means is not suicide but more accurately understood to be humbly accepting the inherent limitations of the human condition and letting a fatal pathology run its course.  “Assisted suicide” is a related concept which emphasizes helping someone to take one’s own life by providing the means and knowledge of how to do it.

A number of theories have been developed to explain the causes of suicide.  Psychological theories emphasize personality and emotional factors, while sociological theories stress the influence of social and cultural pressures on the individual. Social factors such as widowhood, childlessness, residence in big cities, a high standard of living, mental disorders, and physical illness have been found to be positively linked with suicide rates.  We cannot here engage in a discussion of these theories, as our main focus in this article is on the teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to suicide.

The Catholic Church opposes suicide by appealing to the principle of the sanctity of life and its related principles of the sovereignty of God, human stewardship, and the prohibition against killing.  The religious argument claims that life has been given to us to use and to make fruitful, but that it ultimately belongs to God and so is not for us to end when we so choose.  Consequently, we must be mindful that the preservation of our life is not something discretionary but obligatory.  We must preserve and nourish both our physical and spiritual life.  In this connection, the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts, “Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him.  It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life.  We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honour and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of” (CCC #2280).

To take one’s own life violates God’s sovereignty over life, attacks human dignity, and is an offence against the proper love of self.  Suicide violates a genuine love for oneself and one’s neighbour – family, friends, neighbours, and even acquaintances.  Other people need us and depend upon us in ways we may not even know.  As the Catechism says, “Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life.  It is gravely contrary to the just love of self.  It likewise offends love of neighbour because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God” (CCC #2281).

Suicide has traditionally been considered a gravely wrong moral action, i.e. a mortal sin.  Therefore, objectively, suicide is a mortal sin.  However, we must remember that for a sin to be mortal and cost someone salvation, the objective action (in this case the taking of one’s own life) must be grave or serious matter; the person must have an informed intellect (know that this is wrong); and the person must give full consent of the will (intend to commit this action).  In the case of suicide, a person may not have given full consent of the will.  Recent studies which have paid attention to the social and personal circumstances surrounding suicides show that they are not often voluntary acts and so, while they may be mistaken and morally wrong, they are not always blameworthy.  Fear, force, ignorance, habit, passion, and psychological problems can impede the exercise of the will so that a person may not be fully responsible or even responsible at all for an action.  Thus, while acts of suicide are objectively immoral, the degree of culpability for suicide depends upon the state of mind in which the act is done.  In this connection, the Catechism states, “Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide” (CCC #2282).  This qualification does not make suicide a right action in any circumstance; however, it does make us realize that the person may not be totally culpable for the action because of various circumstances or personal conditions.

Like the Church, our traditional societies consider suicide to be morally wrong and unacceptable.  Among the Akans, for example, it is regarded as an abomination.  It is regarded so seriously that in the past the dead person was subjected to a judicial trial before his burial and was invariably found guilty.  The presumption was that by committing suicide the person was trying to run away from some serious crime that he had committed.  Such a person was hurriedly buried after “the trial” without the usual honours given to a person who did not die through suicide.

We may contrast this traditional Akan treatment of those who commit suicide with how they are treated by the Catholic Church today.  While the Church holds that death by suicide is a grave or serious sin (mortal sin), the Church nonetheless prays for those who have committed suicide, knowing that Christ will judge the deceased fairly and justly. It is the belief of the Church that only God can read the depths of our soul. Only He knows how much we love Him and how responsible we are for our actions. The Church’s view is that we should leave the judgment of those who commit suicide to God.  The Church still teaches that there is a hell, understood as a definitive separation from the love of God, but leaves it to God to decide who should go there.  The Catechism, however, offers words of great hope: “We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to Him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives” (CCC#2283). Therefore, we offer Mass for the repose of the soul of a suicide victim, invoking God’s tender love and mercy, and His healing grace for the grieving loved ones. The Church also prays for the close relations of the deceased, that the loving and healing touch of God will comfort those torn apart by the impact of the suicide.

The Church teaches through her acts of public worship known as the liturgy, and the liturgy on occasions like these stresses God’s mercy.  There are many passages that stress God’s abundant mercy.  We cite just a couple.  According to Psalm 103:10-12, God “does not deal with us according to our sins, nor requite us according to our iniquities. For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is his steadfast love towards those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us”.  According to Isaiah 1:18, “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are like crimson, they shall become like wool”.

In earlier times, people would often be denied funeral rites and even burial in a Church cemetery. However, some consideration has always been taken into account of the person’s mental state at the time. Canon Law no longer specifically mentions suicide as an impediment to funeral rites or church burial.  Canon 1184 of the Code of Canon Law mentions only three cases of those who can be denied funeral rites or a church burial: (i) a notorious apostate (someone who has renounced the Christian faith), a heretic (someone who holds or teaches doctrines contrary to those of the Church) or a schismatic (someone who has broken away from the church); (ii) those who requested cremation for motives contrary to the Christian faith; and (iii) manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral cannot be granted without causing public scandal to the faithful. These restrictions apply only if there has been no sign of repentance before death.

The local bishop weighs any doubtful cases and in practice a prudent priest should always consult with the bishop before denying a deceased person a funeral Mass.  A particular case of suicide might enter into the third case – that of a manifest and unrepentant sinner – especially if the suicide follows another grave crime such as murder.  In most cases, however, the progress made in the study of the underlying causes of suicide shows that the vast majority are consequences of an accumulation of psychological factors that impede making a free and deliberative act of the will.  Thus the general tendency is to see this extreme gesture as almost always resulting from the effects of an imbalanced mental state and, as a consequence, it is no longer forbidden to hold a funeral rite for a person who has committed suicide, although each case must still be studied on its merits.

Right Rev.Joseph Osei-Bonsu, Bishop of Konongo-Mampong, Ghana.

(Source: The Catholic Standard, Ghana)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on WHAT DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAY ABOUT SUICIDE

THE CASE FOR USING MORE LATIN IN THE CELEBRATION OF THE LITURGY, YES EVEN IN THE NOVUS ORDO

 

 

Cardinal Ranjith on Latin in the Liturgy

 

 

THE LITURGY GUY

25 MAR 17

[ Emphasis and {commentary} in red type by Abyssum ]

In the final of three posts excerpted from Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith’s address at the first Sacra Liturgia conference, we focus on the near universal removal of Latin from the liturgy of the Latin Rite.  In precise and simple words, Cardinal Ranjith explains the role that the liturgical language of the Church plays in communicating the supernatural meaning of worship, as well as protecting it from doctrinal error.  As he notes in his talk, “The role of the lex orandi in determining the lex credendi of the Church is very much valid in the case of its use of Latin in the liturgy.”  Taking this into consideration, it becomes clear as to why so many who should know better so adamantly oppose the use of Latin today.  An anthropocentric liturgy has no use for Latin.

Cardinal Ranjith on Latin in the Liturgy

“With regard to the use of Latin in the liturgy it must be stressed that what the Council decreed was that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36).  It allowed the use of the vernacular in the following areas:  the readings and directives and some of the prayers and chants…With regard to Gregorian chant too the Council was circumspect in that while opening up to “other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony” it stated that the Church “acknowledged” Gregorian chant as being proper to the Roman liturgy and “should be given pride of place in liturgical services” (n. 116).  This limited concession of the Council allowing the use of the vernacular in the liturgy was rather adventurously extended by the reformers in that Latin almost totally vanished from the scene and became the best-loved orphan in the Church.

“This I state not because I am a fanatic of the Latin language.  I come from a mission land where Latin is hardly understood by most of my community.  But it is a fallacy to believe that a language needs to be always understood by all.  Language as we know is a means of communication of an experience which most of the time is greater than the word itself.  Language and words are thus secondary and follow the experience and the person sharing it in importance.  Language always carries with it a kenosis –an impoverishment in its expression. The more this experience undergoes trans-communication into other languages it tends to be increasingly less expressive of the originality of what happened.  The word “OM” in the Hindu liturgy, for example, is untranslatable.   Besides, the oriental religions use a language which is strictly limited to their prayer and worship forms.  Hinduism uses Sanskrit, Buddhism uses Pali, and Islam, Koranic Arabic.  None of these languages are spoken today.  But they are used for worship…

“The liturgical use of Latin in the Church, even though it starts somewhere in the fourth century A.D., gives rise to a series of expressions which are unique and which constitute the very faith of the Church.  The vocabulary of the Credo is quite clearly filled with expressions in Latin which are untranslatable.  The role of the lex orandi in determining the lex credendi of the Church is very much valid in the case of its use of Latin in the liturgy.  For doctrine often evolves in the faith experience of prayer.  For this reason a healthy balance between the use of Latin and that of the vernacular languages should, I believe, be maintained.

“The re-introduction of the usus antiquior –the older form of the Roman liturgy –by Pope Benedict XVI was thus not a retrograde step as some called it, but a move to bring back to Sacred Liturgy a deeper sense of awe and mysticism and a way in which the Pope sought to prevent a blatant banalization of something so pivotal to the life of the Church.  This initiative should be given due value and support.  It may also lead to the evolution of a new liturgical movement which could be a step in the direction of the “reform of the reform” which has been an ardent desire of Pope Benedict XVI.”

The complete address, along with the remaining talks from the first Sacra Liturgia conference, are available from Ignatius Press in a single volume edited by Dom Alcuin Reid.
{I must confess that during the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s I was an active member of the Liturgical Movement seeking the introduction of the vernacular language in the celebration of the Church’s Liturgy.  My goal was achieved in 1962 when Pope Saint John XXIII promulgated a revision of the Order Miss which called for the parts of the Mass addressed to or by the people to be in the vernacular. That successful reform of the Mass of the Council of Trent was sabotaged by the Concilium (a Vatican office headed by Monsignor Anabale Bugnini established by Pope Paul VI to implement the Vatican Council’s Decree, Sacrosanctum Concillium)  which produced the Novus Ordo which completely banished Latin and the subsequent push by progressives to make the Novus Ordo the only form of the Mass.  I and others who had worked so hard in the Liturgical Movement felt betrayed.}
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment