What he say

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. - President Obama

The President is quoting albeit selectively from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The President is also quoting 1st Cor 13:11 "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child [set aside childish things]." Of course quoting Scripture calls for context, and in verse 10 we see the reason for putting aside childish things, "But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." The heavenly things are perfect, the worldly things imperfect, or 'in part'. In the world "We see now through a glass in a dark manner: but then", in heaven, "we shall see face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known."

Please continue to pray for our President, that he may see those not quite born not as a collection of cells but "face to face", that the President realize the biggest civil rights issue of the day is when does a human get human rights, and that the President also realize what the founding fathers clearly wrote, that these rights are God-given, not from men.

You also might ask that the President at least quote the Declaration of Independence completely and in context too, as a kind of secular prayer...

Pray, Hope and don't worry

This is the answer, provided by St. Padre Pio, to the question, "What does this all mean?"

The question was posed here by Patrick Madrid.

Please ask a priest to say a Mass for the conversion of President Obama, who really must be classified as Pro-Abortion and not Pro-Choice. Also pray for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in some cases sides with liberals and at other times with “originalists,” those who profess to hold a more tradition-minded interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Kennedy will be the fulcrum or swing vote in any Supreme Court decision about the free exercise of religion clause in the Constitution allowing for a religious conscientious objector status. This is critical because of the coming (and already arrived) Legal coercion for Catholic Hospitals, and Catholics and Christians in general, to be forced to act against their religious beliefs, e.g. Catholic hospitals being legally required to provide abortion, Catholic Charities being legally required to place adopted children with homosexual couples, and Catholic Churches and businesses being legally required to perform and host homosexual marriage ceremonies. Read Judge Robert Bork's thoughts on this at EWTN.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

"I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so I am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid."
"You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth."
"How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws."

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

"But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."

"I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership . . . When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows."

"In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular."

"There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust."
Martin Luther Kingfrom Letter from the Birmingham JailApril 16, 1963

Newspeak

The triumph of ideology - Chuck Colson - Breakpoint - 1/16/2009 8:30AM

Lisa Saunders of County Down in Northern Ireland has four children, ages 7 to 14. As you might expect, she has plenty of experience helping them with their homework. But nothing in her experience prepared her what she recently discovered while helping her son.

When she consulted the 2007 edition of the Oxford Junior Dictionary, she was surprised that the words "moss" and "fern" were no longer in the dictionary. That made her curious about what else had been omitted. So she compared the 2007 edition to the six previous editions and what she found "horrified" her.

Gone were words like "coronation," "willow," and "goldfish."

In their place were words like "MP3 player," "blog," and "biodegradable."

Not surprisingly, words reflecting Britain's Christian heritage were especially hard hit: "abbey, altar, bishop, chapel, christen, disciple, monk, nun, pew, saint," and "sin" were all axed. Even Christmas took a hit: "carol," "holly," and "mistletoe" were removed.

In their place, kids got "tolerant," "interdependent," and "bilingual."

Saunders is concerned that eliminating "so many words associated with Christianity will have a big effect on the numerous primary schools who use it."

That's exactly the idea. The head of the children's dictionary at Oxford University Press admitted as much. She said that "the environment has changed." "We are also much more multicultural," she added. And she said that "people don't go to Church as often as before" and "our understanding of religion is within multiculturalism."

In other words, we judge our religion by our ideology — in this case, multiculturalism — not vice-versa. What Oxford University Press sees as changing with the times, others see as discarding Britain's cultural and religious heritage.

As one Buckingham University official put it, "[Britain has] a certain Christian narrative which has given meaning to us over the last 2,000 years. To say it is all relative and replaceable is questionable."

What masters the Brits are of understatement. As writer Erin Manning pointed out, at the same time Saunders exposed the verbal vandalism, a prominent philosopher has written a new book arguing that "Europe must call itself Christian."

In Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians, Marcello Pera writes that Europe's only hope for unity lies in acknowledging its Christian roots. It is "Christianity's concept of the human person as created in the image of God" that justifies European "values," he wrote.

He warns that if Europe cuts itself off "from these Christian principles...[it] will have destroyed [its] constitutional heritage" and leave itself vulnerable to attack from those hostile to its values.

What makes Pera's argument remarkable is that he is an atheist! His book came in response to questions posed by Pope Benedict.

That an atheist philosopher is ready to acknowledge Christianity's role in defining Europe exposes how preposterous these dictionary antics are — a kind of foolishness whose impact can be felt far beyond "numerous primary schools."

Holy Cross: Jesuit, not Catholic

This semester, the Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture will sponsor a series of four film screenings coordinated by Rev. Lloyd Baugh, S.J., International Visiting Jesuit Fellow in the Department of Religious Studies at Holy Cross College. The films will be shown at 7 p.m. in Rehm Library.

As you know I try to filter so much of the information coming in on the Pro-Life and Christian Religion (especially Catholic) front, as I understand if you read something in my emails or on my blog it is usually understood to be a recommendation from me. With that in mind, and my history of being critical of some of the happenings at Holy Cross College (It’s a Jesuit College – it’s just not Catholic!), I will still pass along the following information about a movie series the Jesuits are presenting. I really can only recommend the first film, the others are for the guy with black turtle-neck and pony-tail crowd.

Jan 27 Tue in the Reim Library, Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964) by Pier Paolo Pasolini. Pasolini is not a believer, but followed the text of St. Matthew. Roger Ebert said in his movie review, "Pasolini's is one of the most effective films on a religious theme I have ever seen, perhaps because it was made by a nonbeliever who did not preach, glorify, underline, sentimentalize or romanticize his famous story, but tried his best to simply record it."

Jan 29 Thu Denys Arcand’s Jesus of Montreal (French 1989). They love Arcand at the Cannes film festival, but this allegory of Jesus’ life and passion through the acting group portraying Jesus’ life and passion really sounds like a film for pseudo-intellectuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_de_Montreal

Feb 2 Mon. Valerio Zurlini’s Black Jesus (Italian 1968) another allegory by this former Italian Resistance fighter, Communist party member, and eventual suicide, this time Jesus is an African Anti-Colonial leader; based on Patrice Émery Lumumba (2 July 1925 – 17 January 1961) was an African anti-colonial leader and the first legally elected Prime Minister of the Congo Republic after he helped to win its independence from Belgium in June 1960. Only ten weeks later, Lumumba's government was deposed in coup during the Congo Crisis. He was subsequently imprisoned and murdered under controversial circumstances.

Feb 4 Wed. Mark Dornford-May's Son of Man (isiXhosa, English and Setswana, with English subtitles 2006) Jesus as South African man preaching non-violence during the civil war.
Dornford-May told Reuters "We wanted to look at the Gospels as if they were written by spin doctors and to strip that away and look at the truth," - so this would be the Gospel of Mark Dornford-May, not the Gospel of Mark.


If you want a good movie, I do recommend joining Lisandra’s efforts to bring Not Easily Broken, to Worcester. http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/noteasilybroken/site/
She needs 1000 people to commit to seeing the film in order to get Show Case cinemas to bring the movie here. Please advise if you'd be interested to add your names to our list. It won’t cost anything until you go to the movie.