Walls and Christians

 "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel," the Pope told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.

Trump immediately fired back, calling Francis' comments "disgraceful."

"No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith," he said in statement. Trump added that the government in Mexico, where Francis spent the past five days, has "made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope."  (qtd. from http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/index.html)

Let's examine both statements, shall we?  First, Pope Francis' statement that a person who thinks only about building walls... is not Christian."  Mr. Trump is not "only" thinking about building a wall, he's also thinking about illegal immigration and also LEGAL immigration.  Trump does not oppose anyone coming to the United States LEGALLY, "the wall" is to keep ILLEGALS out - AND - provide a means of vetting those who seek entrance to the United States via the southern border.  "Fences (walls) make good neighbors," have you ever heard that?  When you know your boundaries you know how far you can go without offending your neighbor.  So, what about those who live behind huge walls?  Make note:

And that wall totally surrounds the Vatican City/State:

If walls make someone "not Christian" then should we be expecting the Vatican to tear down THEIR wall?  OR - do we believe that "wall" provides a level of security for the pope and the "nation" which is the Vatican?  Common sense points to the latter.

Now, how about what Mr. Trump said?  "No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith."  Well, we need to remind Mr. Trump, "freedom of speech" is something he will be sworn to defend and uphold if he is elected president.  The pope, or any leader, religious or otherwise, has the "right" to question whatsoever they choose to question.  The leader of the largest Christian organization on Earth certainly has the "right" to offer his opinion on how Christian, or lack thereof, another is. From the Christian perspective, a man is justified (or judged) according to his faith which is shown through his works.  (James 2:22-24) So, in Trump's defense, he has not yet built a wall nor has he implemented any sort of immigration reform - when and IF he does (IF he is elected) THEN we'll have something to judge.  Back to the point of this paragraph - the pope certainly DOES have the "right" to say or question anything he chooses - especially if we base that upon the United States Constitution and Amendments. 

Both Sides Make Amends

Within a day of the initial comments, both sides are playing down the situation:

Vatican spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi said:  "the pope's comments, which were denounced by Trump, were simply an affirmation of his longstanding belief that migrants should be helped and welcomed rather than shut off behind walls.

'This wasn't in any way a personal attack, nor an indication of who to vote for,' Lombardi said.

'The Pope has clearly said he didn't want to get involved in the electoral campaign in the US, and also said that he said what he said on the basis of what he was told [about Trump], hence giving him the benefit of the doubt.'

The Pope was great. He made a beautiful statement this morning,' he told a capacity crowd at the Myrtle Beach Sports Center, 'They had him convinced that illegal immigration is, like, a wonderful thing!' Trump exclaimed, referring to Mexico's government.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3454720/Popes-comments-Trump-not-personal-attack-papal-spokesman.html

I do not wish to turn the CathApol Blog into a political one, but politics and the Catholic Church do sometimes cross paths, as they have here.  My goal is not to defend Donald Trump here (I am still among the "undecided" when it comes to this coming election) - but rather to lay out the facts in a rational manner and allow the readers to make a rational (as opposed to emotional) reaction to what actually transpired and was said.  In the end, I believe the Pope and the Donald concluded on friendly terms.

Addendum:  Map of Vatican City:

Anti-Catholic Bigotry in Politics is Back in Style

In Washington state, the state I hesitate to say is where I was born and lived in until I was 24, the elections were being tainted by anti-Catholic bigotry.

I didn't know anything about Mark Miloscia or his politics.  Obviously, from the above he must be Catholic.  But really, "he has best represented the people of The Vatican."  What is this the 17th century, when Catholics were not only not welcome in the Colonies but were actively blocked from participating in any type of politics and had few rights under the "law?."  Is this the 18th century, when the only state were there was actual freedom of religion-Maryland, which was founded by Catholics-was taken over by protestants and it became illegal to practice Catholicism in the open?  Is this the 19th, were Irish Catholic immigrants were indentured servants with no rights and no freedoms as citizens?  Is it the 20th century where the public was told a Catholic candidate (including John F. Kennedy) would mean the U.S.A. would become a vassal of the Vatican?  To think that our country had not evolved past such prejudices is almost unthinkable and bodes no good for the future of our country.

The website listed at the top of the cartoon goes to a webpage that lists all of Mr. Miloscia's "sins."  From what I can gather from this list, Mr. Miloscia voted his conscience.  For instance, he voted against forcing Catholic Charities to pay for voluntary abortions and forcing all insurance carriers to cover contraception.  He voted against same sex "marriage" and "domestic partner" "rights".  He voted for a tax on adult entertainment materials which the web page author calls a "sin tax" on "playboys and marital aids."  He voted against the "Death with Dignity Act" (which unfortunately passed) which gives terminally ill and elderly people the right to "choose their time of death" in other words, giving people the right to kill themselves if they are suffering.  All of these issues are morally repugnant and against Catholic teaching.  Instead of berating him for voting "Catholic" they should be applauding him for voting his conscience.  After all, that is what the other side says there doing.

The irony is that Mr. Miloscia was a Democrat but left the party over these very issues.   He became a Republican candidate to put forward a more conservative agenda than the Democrats are willing to hear.  Washington state has become a liberal bastion and an embarrassment to all moral thinking and acting voters.  If I still lived in Washington state, I'd feel very ashamed at this campaign.  Portraying a Catholic as a nut case and a vassal of the Vatican because he votes his conscience is barbaric and the epitome of the smear campaign.  None of the things listed in the anti-Catholic smear ad seem to be "sins" at all, let alone deal breakers as far as a politician should be concerned.  I pray that Mark Miloscia stands his ground and votes his conscience despite the smear campaign, despite pressure, and despite election.

Also ironic are all the inconsistencies on the website.  The website says that Miloscia voted against forcing pharmacies to provide emergency contraceptives, voted against forcing employers to carry insurance for contraception and abortions but then accuses him of lobbying for large pharmaceutical companies, because of campaign contributions.  Says he "lobbies for the Vatican" yet sets up a page pitting his alleged record against out-of-context quotes by the pope which appear to oppose Miloscia stand on the pet legislation.

Go here to read Miloscia's side of the campaign.

While Catholics are only about 7% of the population in the state in which I now reside, at least this type of campaign hasn't happened here--yet.  However, much of the nation saw the "Black Mass" debacle in Oklahoma City on the news.  At least only 42 people (reportedly) attended the performance (in an 80 seat auditorium)  that was pointedly done to ridicule a true Mass and the Catholic Church.  Our Archbishop stood up for Christ and got an legal injunction for the return of the supposedly blessed Host that was to be used that night.
 
One of the few prejudices that are still politically okay--Catholic bashing. But while I can understand why people who hold completely morally opposite views might attack a candidate like Mr. Miloscia, I don't understand why other Christians wouldn't speak out.   Catholic entities such as Catholic Charities and abbeys that refuse to pay for contraception and abortions on moral grounds are being attacked.  Many other Christian organizations don't believe that affects them.  How about the pastors in Texas?  Does the fact that the new, openly gay attorney general is ordering pastors, under threat of criminal prosecution, to turn over copies of all sermons that speak out against homosexuals in general or her in particular get anyone's attention?  Our country is slowly but surely turning into a country that no longer believes in freedom of religion or a right of any Christian to have his beliefs affect his public life and decisions.

[Note: The above cartoon, although it can be found elsewhere online, has been taken off the original website by the anonymous author at the request of the Democratic opposition]

Sources:
http://markmiloscia.info/?61c7072da23a83a1edcb624bae192ead
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/10/27/anti-catholic-mockery-directed-at-miloscia-in-state-senate-race/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/11187557/Anti-Catholic-US-campaign-ad-reflects-lingering-bigotry.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/10/website-attacks-republican-candidate-for-his-faith/#ixzz3HI9sOTdj

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/25/republican-candidate-attacked-for-being-catholic/

This article is strictly the opinion of the post author--Cathmom5.

Mortal Sin

[Note:  This blog is directed to those who believe themselves to be good Catholics]

 

We learned in last week’s leaflet that Jesus instituted a Church with authority (Mat 18:15-18).  Now are we free to ignore this Church, preferring our own particular ideas, our own preferences?  In a strict sense we are free to do as we wish BUT for those of us who are Christians, we are most free when we follow God. 

As Christians we are to follow God as Jesus taught us.  We put our trust in His message and teachings.  As a famous 20^th century philosopher once said: “To trust Him means, of course, trying to do all that He says.  There would be no sense in saying you trusted a person if you would not take his advice.”  (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

Jesus advised us to listen to His Church when He told us to bring our disagreements to it in Mat 18.  Specifically, He told the apostles to tell it to the Church and if they will not listen to the Church then we are to treat them as though they are lost.  Jesus said: “tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And so we see that Jesus’ advice in determining the truth is to go to His Church.  On matters of faith and morals we also know that whatever the Church proclaims to be true is infallibly known to be true since Jesus said that whatever the Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven.  Since nothing untrue can be bound in heaven means that whatever the Church binds on earth must also be true.

Now, if you are aware of a Church teaching defined as true and binding but reject it anyway then you are freely going against the advice of Jesus as well as rejecting the authority of His Church.  If all these conditions are met, that is first, that you are aware of the binding authority of His Church and secondly freely reject it, which is a very grave matter, then you are rejecting the rightful authority given to His Church by God Himself.   You are perpetrating a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches in the necessity of keeping the Sabbath day Holy by going to Mass on Sunday?  If you are aware of this and freely neglect to go without good reason then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches on the grave matter of artificial contraception usage to be against the moral law?  If you are aware of this teaching of the Church and yet freely use artificial contraception anyway then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches that human life is sacred and to be protected?  If you were aware of this and also aware of the extreme abortion views of one political candidate while the only other candidate opposing him clearly had a better life-affirming stand but voted for the one with the extreme abortion proponent anyway then you committed a mortal sin.

Please, examine your conscience before receiving our Lord in the Eucharist.  Are you guilty of mortal sin?  If you are then I urge you to go to confession before receiving the Eucharist since you would be “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 1:27)

 

God Bless
Nathan

 

Missed past week’s leaflets?  Questions?  Comments?  Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com

Catholic Voter's Guide

Catholic Voter’s Guide

per·son
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.

Source: www.dictionary.com

_________________________________________________________

In trying to figure out who to vote for in any election it’s important to know where each candidate stands on the issues of the day. What they plan to do to help invigorate the economy, universal healthcare and what needs to be done about ongoing wars.

All of these, as well as others, are very important but to determine who is the one who better represents the people of the United States we need to figure out which subject has priority over all others. If both candidates agree about what we believe is most important then we are to look at the subject which has second highest priority and so on.

As concerned citizen, we are obligated to elect individuals who will look out for the lives of his constituents. Not only on the day-to-day issues but on life issues itself. Many individuals lose their lives in the fight against our country’s enemies and many also lose their lives when they are forcibly taken out from their mothers’ womb.

Both categories are important since both involve the loss of life but which one should be our priority when two candidates disagree on both issues? How are we to decide who to vote for when one candidate will fight to end a US war but will work to help facilitate easier abortions for all women while the other seems to want to continue armed hostilities abroad but will work to stop most abortions from being performed?

A couple of things to consider when deciding which issue should have priority. Although you may not agree with the necessity of troops in foreign wars, they at least have the means to defend themselves. They can either take cover, retreat or even shoot back. The baby in the womb can do none of those, and that’s why they are considered the most defenseless. A secondary thing to remember is the sheer number of casualties involved. For the entire Afghan war there is a total of over 3,000 deaths as of Sept 2012[1]. In fact, the sum of all U.S. soldier deaths from all wars in U.S. history (including the Civil War, World War I and II as well as the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars) we have a total of a little over 1.3 million deaths[2].

A single death from an unnecessary war is one too many and if you are against war in general then one death during war is one too many. But if one compares the number of deaths from ALL U.S wars put together this number comes to about equal the amount of deaths performed by abortions in an average year! In fact, the once special research affiliate of the abortion chain Planned Parenthood gives us national statistics that show an annual abortion rate of 1.2 million abortions[3].

The total number of deaths by abortions in the U.S. alone since its legalization is now over 54 million. 54 million living human beings, persons, allowed to be killed simply because they were unborn at the time. Any right to choose, or any other right at all is superseded by the right to life since what’s the point of having all other rights if one doesn’t have life?

I’ll leave it to you to figure out what kind of a free democracy we really are when we allow for the killing of the most defenseless among us, of those not yet born. What good is freedom if some aren’t even allowed to live? Where is their choice? Choose wisely, vote in support of the possibility of choosing for all human beings especially in choosing life.

---

[1] http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByMonth.aspx

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war#cite_note-defense.gov-83

[3] http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

Change We Can Believe In

I posted this once before, but didn't go with the political spin on it - so I thought I'd post it again and let your mind go on with what it means - both spiritually and politically.  Of course, the saying is based on a political slogan of the 2008 Obama campaign - but think about it.  Comment if you wish....

A Vote For Evil?

Catholic voters cannot support any candidate whose position is intrinsically evil.  Baltimore's Archbishop Lori preached recently.  Anyone who supports abortion is supporting murder, an intrinsic evil and no Catholic can, in good conscience or in good faith, vote for such a candidate.  Likewise, a candidate who does not uphold THE definition of marriage as being the union of a man and a woman and supports homosexual "marriage" - with homosexuality being an intrinsic evil and an abomination to the Lord - cannot be supported in good conscience or faith.  This really narrows the field for you!

Vote your conscience - vote your faith!  What good is your faith if you don't LIVE it and EXPRESS it?  Such would be known as a faith without works.  You can express yourself as a Catholic all you want, but when it comes to actually LIVING your faith, do you?  When you enter the privacy of that voting booth, do you pull the lever or fill in the blank for the candidate who supports the killing of innocent children in the womb?  Will you vote for the candidate who supports marriage or the one who supports the dissolution of the first Sacrament God instituted which is specifically for a man and a woman?  If you are not LIVING your faith, then you do not have a LIVING faith!  

^{James 2:14} What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?

The simple answer to St. James' question is NO!  That faith cannot and will not save him.  If you exercise your freedom to vote in such a manner that you're voting for someone who supports values contrary to your faith - that would be even worse than the "dead faith" St. James speaks of, for YOUR works actually become EVIL WORKS when you stand in support of a candidate who supports such intrinsic evils.

A Contrast:

Election 2012

Everyone who calls themselves a Christian needs to watch this...

We're all being tested, as by fire.

Limbaugh - Fluke

I don't want to use CathApol too much for politics - so when I have a political thought I will be linking to the a2zpolitics blog (which I also run).  For my view on the Rush Limbaugh v. Sandra Fluke hullabaloo, see link below:

http://a2zpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-apologizes.html

This link also includes Rush's apology and the transcript of what Ms. Fluke said before Congress.

Can Romney Win?

With Romney being a Mormon, do you think he could gain enough votes to actually win?  It's fairly common knowledge that one cannot win the presidency without winning the South.  With the South being so heavy with Southern Baptists and other Fundamentalists, does a Mormon really stand a chance of winning? 

Objectively, and secularly, I think Romney would make a very good president, I just think he has a huge gorilla on his back.

That being said, similar things were said about John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, and many didn't think he'd stand a chance of winning, especially in the South.  That is likely why Lyndon B. Johnson, a Southerner, was selected as Kennedy's running mate. 

Your thoughts?  Feel free to add a comment.