Tag Archives: Opinions

Aggie Catholics: Catholics Stop Too Soon In Evangelizing

by

God won’t save us without us saying “yes” to His grace! This means our choice makes all the difference in the world, so why aren’t we offering more opportunities to others to make this choice?

It can be as simple as asking, “would you like to make the choice to turn your life over to God today?” or something similar. There are several reasons someone might choose not to do this:

we are uncomfortable with asking because we don’t know what it looks like ourselves.

we find ourselves not wanting to be “pushy”.

we are afraid they might say “no”.

we believe it sounds “too Protestant”, but that simply isn’t the case – look at the biblical evidence – God invites, we are to choose to respond:

“Come, follow me,” Jesus said -Matt 4:19

“After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him, and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.” -Luke 5:27-28

Notice that not everyone chooses to follow Jesus:

“Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be [a]complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.” -Matt 19:21-22

The apostles and the rich young man have to respond to the call and grace of God for it to work within them. Some choose it, some do not. Just as Jesus did, we have to respect their freedom as much as God does – which allows them the freedom to say “no”. This does not mean we give up on them though.

The Eunuch chose to receive God’s grace:

“The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.” -Acts 8:34-38

Notice that Philip asks the Eunuch if he believes. It is his choice that is voiced publicly! The only place we Catholics have kept this explicit statement of faith is in the Sacraments – you have to choose baptism (or have your parents do it for you), choose reconciliation, choose to receive Communion, choose to marry, etc. The choice is paramount.

via Aggie Catholics: Catholics Stop Too Soon In Evangelizing.

via Aggie Catholics: Catholics Stop Too Soon In Evangelizing.

» We Are a Species That Kills Our Own Young | ABQ Journal

by

3

» We Are a Species That Kills Our Own Young | ABQ Journal

by Sid Gutierrez – Retired Astronaut

The issue of abortion really comes down to two very basic observations and the answer to a single question. First, the observations. If an abortion really involves the removal of nothing more than growing tissue within the womb, then no justification is necessary. If abortion actually involves taking the life of an innocent unborn child, then no justification is sufficient.

So the only question that needs to be resolved is whether that which is growing within the womb is tissue or child. Arguments not addressing this question are irrelevant.

Krueger provides the answer to this question in her article. She describes the proposed requirement to “view a play by play obstetric ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of the unborn child” as a “gruesome experience.”

Why would it be gruesome? I recall my wife and I listening carefully in the doctor’s office for the heart beat of our unborn children. My grown daughters now proudly place ultrasound images of their unborn children on Facebook for all of their friends to see. These actions are viewed as beautiful and joyous, not as “cruel.”  Click to read the full article

 

Be Ready for the Infant King

by
The Holy Night by Carlo Maratta

Who will come to the stable
On Christmas Day?
And what will they take away?

Wise men, steadfast and earnest, came,
Instead of palace music,
They heard the donkey brae.
A lowly sound and sight,
Yet their wonder unallayed.

Many come rejoicing,
To behold the Newborn King,
Bowing low,
While angels sing.

Christ comes for all
But not all come.
Some come, behold, then fall away,
Being rootless, they merrily go their way.

Father God prepared a voice
To announce His Only Word,
A messenger, born before, to go before.
Another child, spared Ramah’s plight
To live and pierce Sin’s long night
John, O, John, still cries, “Repent!”

Prepare if you would follow.
At Jerusalem’s Gate,
Many cried, “Messiah,”
Who would soon cry, “Crucify.”

Whose will will you do,
When the music fades in life?
Pride prides itself on ‘my way,’
Confounds with will and strife.

Without a ready, willing heart,
Nothing changes Christmas Day.
Corrupt hearts go on corrupting,
All the while the kingly Infant cries,
As throughout His life,
“I am the Way.”

Whose heart will live in yours
As angelic songs fade away.
Will you simply leave the stable
To follow your own way?

Come, O come, rejoicing!
Praying for a change.
Receive the Babe within your Heart.
Beg Him forever stay.

©2010 Joann Nelander

Kagan Competence Questioned

by

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey writes:

“Without any judicial experience, Kagan has to rely on her performance at the Court as Solicitor General over a short period of fifteen months — and at best, it’s mixed.”

Lack of preparation will out. Morrissey’s case for Kagan’s competence or incompetence to be on the Supreme Court is made based on her own bad:

ORAL ARGUMENT OF ELENA KAGAN

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLEE GENERAL KAGAN: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:

I have three very quick points to make about the government position. The first is that this issue has a long history. For over 100 years Congress has made a judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections and this Court has never questioned that judgment.

Number two –

JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait, wait, wait, wait. We never questioned it, but we never approved it, either.  And we gave some really weird interpretations to the Taft-Hartley Act in order to avoid confronting the question.

GENERAL KAGAN: I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this Court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case — first the contribution limits, then the expenditure limits that came in by way of Taft-Hartley — and then of course in Austin specifically approved those limits.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don’t understand what you are saying. I mean, we are not a self — self-starting institution here. We only disapprove of something when somebody asks us to. And if there was no occasion for us to approve or disapprove, it proves nothing whatever that we didn’t disapprove it.

GENERAL KAGAN: Well, you are not a self-starting institution. But many litigants brought many cases to you in 1907 and onwards and in each case this Court turns down, declined the opportunity, to invalidate or otherwise interfere with this legislation.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But that judgment was validated by Buckley’s contribution-expenditure line. And you’re correct if you look at contributions, but this is an expenditure case. And I think that it doesn’t clarify the situation to say that for100 years — to suggest that for 100 years we would have allowed expenditure limitations, which in order to work at all have to have a speaker-based distinction, exemption from media, content-based distinction, time-based distinction. We’ve never allowed that.

Secular Sex Abuse and Abusers

by

The Anchoress | A First Things Blog:

“So, the secular institutional world may soon find itself forced onto the same learning curve that has impacted and the Catholic Church over the past few years; that world too may find itself finally forced to confront the filth that too often stays hidden. The confrontation -painful as it may be- will ultimately be for the good.”

Judge Speaks on Murphy Case – Shame on NY Times

by

Thank you Anchoress: Murphy Case – NY Times Never Talked to Judge

Thank You Fr. THOMAS BRUNDAGE, JL

Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy

Then-presiding judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee gives first-person account of church trial

By Fr. THOMAS BRUNDAGE, JLC

For CatholicAnchor.org

To provide context to this article, I was the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003. During those years, I presided over four canonical criminal cases, one of which involved Father Lawrence Murphy. Two of the four men died during the process. God alone will judge these men.

To put some parameters on the following remarks, I am writing this article with the express knowledge and consent of Archbishop Roger Schwietz, OMI, the Archbishop of Anchorage, where I currently serve. Archbishop Schwietz is also the publisher of the Catholic Anchor newspaper.

I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero. Continue reading →