Whoever is not Against Us is For Us

clock September 30, 2012 12:39 by author John |

Millstone

At that time, John said to Jesus, "Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us." Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us. Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut if off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'"

The words of today's gospel are particularly timely and appropriate. Christ uses some very powerful and vivid images. For those that like to stir confusion and dissent into the people of God, this reading stands as a warning that they are not only causing harm to the souls of other people, but they are playing with fire, quite literally when it comes to their own soul.

We must ask ourselves, “Who is for us and who is against us?” Whoever is not against us is for us. This reading requires us to look carefully at those around us. Are those friends who tease you or “joke” with you about your large family, the rosary in your car, or the religious images in your home bringing you closer to Christ? Are they helping you grow in your faith? Are they “For us”?

Are the politicians we vote for really “For us”? Do they believe in the sanctity of human life? Do they protect the unborn? Do they defend the family unit against degradation from those who violate the natural law with unnatural acts and seek to call their deviancy “marriage”? Are these politicians helping you practice your religion? Are they respecting your conscience? Are they helping you raise holy children, who love God and His commandments?

On the other hand, you must ask the same questions in reverse. Are the politicians we vote for “Against Us”? Do they promote the destruction of human life? Do they allow or promote the murder of the unborn, calling it “choice”? Do they embolden the enemies of the family by promoting homosexual marriage and adoption? Are these politicians placing limits on the free exercise of your religion? Are they forcing you to violate your conscience? Are they making it harder to raise your children in the faith? Are they forcing sex education on your children who are too young to hear these messages? Do they mock your God and His commandments? Are they causing our children to stray from the faith?

Jesus tells us, “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimedthan wit h two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire” How can we not take a step back and think about this statement? What is Jesus saying? He is saying that your soul is more important than anything else in your life, even your body. If there is something that is holding you back in your relationship with God, get rid of it! If your friends are causing you to sin, or to be embarrassed by your faith, get rid of them. They are not your friends. If politicians are impinging on your religious freedoms or placing “stumbling blocks” between your children and God, get rid of them. Vote them out of office!

Jesus does not mince words about those who cause sin, particularly in children:
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,
it would be better for him if a great millstone
were put around his neck
and he were thrown into the sea.

Life is too short to fill it with sin, indifference, or people that cause these spiritual diseases. Cut it off! Get rid of them! Get yourself and your family to Heaven. That is your mission. That is the only thing that will matter in the end. God will not ask how many Facebook friends you have or how many times you voted for “your parents’ political party”. He will ask how ardently you loved Him and how earnestly you lead your family in the journey to Heaven.



Obama Wants Beyoncé to be a Role Model for His Kids

clock September 19, 2012 13:08 by author John |

President Obama claims Beyoncé couldn’t be a better role model for his children. Beyoncé. That’s right Beyoncé. The same Beyoncé that claims her half-naked performances are not a contradiction to her Christian faith, claiming about God, “I honestly believe he wants people to celebrate their bodies so long as you don't compromise your Christianity in the process.” I guess that is sort of like Obama defining sin as “being out of alignment with my values”.

Anyway, I thought there might be a few suggestions for better role models for his children. Here are a few:
1. Jesus
2. The Blessed Mother
3. Anyone that doesn’t dance around without their clothes on or promotes sin like immodesty, promiscuity, abortion, and unnatural relationships.


Just an idea.

 



Liberal Wisdom-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

clock September 14, 2012 07:37 by author John |

lib•er•al  ˈlɪbərəl,ˈlɪbrəl [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
3. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Remember when this was what liberalism stood for? Remember when liberals fought for individual freedom? It’s been awhile, but at one point, I think this was actually the case. Nowadays, being liberal means advocating for the government to take away your freedoms so that they can educate, indoctrinate and compel you to do what they think is best. Let me give you a few examples.

Sex education used to be the responsibility of parents. Given that the family’s attitudes toward sex and sex education spring from the fundamental moral values of that family, it seems fitting that this responsibility should be given to the family. This is not the case anymore. Liberals have seized this realm and forced on our children in public schools their anything-goes mentality, belittling and dismissing the concept that people can and should wait until marriage to engage in the marital act.

The care for the health of your child used to be an inalienable right of parents. In most cases, it still is, unless of course there is the possibility that you do not submit to the wisdom of the liberals regarding “reproductive health”, which of course is translated into plain English as abortion and contraception.  If your child has a headache and needs a Tylenol, you must first give your permission before they can have it. If on the other hand, that same child becomes pregnant, and has been convinced that they should just “have it taken care of” with an abortion, you do not have the right to know in some states that are run by liberals. If you don’t want your child to engage in the marital act before marriage, but your child has been convinced by the liberals that you are “outdated, archaic, or bigoted against women’s health”, there is free contraception waiting for that child at school.

Parents have a choice now if they would like to avoid having liberals indoctrinate their children. They can pay double for the education of their children by handing over to the government the tuition necessary to send their child to public schools by paying their property taxes, and then paying tuition to a private school for the actual education of their child. The other option is to pay the tuition only once, but to take the responsibility for educating their child into their own hands and engage in homeschooling. This is a noble and difficult task, which many parents cheerfully undertake so as to give their children the values, knowledge, and properly formed conscience which those children deserve.

Enter the liberals. A proposal from the UN, signed by President Obama now seeks to subtly undermine the right of parents to educate their children in this way. Furthermore, the ambiguous nature of the language in the bill would have broad and woeful consequences for any parent raising their child in a way liberals disagree with.

CatholicCulture.org has this story:

The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is urging the Senate not to ratify the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). President Barack Obama signed the treaty in 2009, and a Senate vote on ratification is expected this month.

“Article 7 of the UNCRPD gives government the ability to override every decision of a parent of disabled children if the government thinks that its views are in ‘the best interest of the child,’” said HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris. “This is a radical attempt to take away parental rights.”

The Vatican has also refused to sign this agreement due to the liberals inserting the mandatory phrase “reproductive health” into it. I think it is a requirement for any agreement passed at the UN to include that phrase, regardless of the subject the agreement deals primarily with. Here is the Vatican’s response to this:

We opposed the inclusion of such a phrase [reproductive health] in this article, because in some countries reproductive health services include abortion, thus denying the inherent right to life of every human being, affirmed by article 10 of the Convention. It is surely tragic that, wherever fetal defect is a precondition for offering or employing abortion, the same Convention created to protect persons with disabilities from all discrimination in the exercise of their rights, may be used to deny the very basic right to life of disabled unborn persons.

For this reason, and despite the many helpful articles this Convention contains, the Holy See is unable to sign it.

Now take a look at how clever the liberals are. If you oppose this article, you will be shouted off the stage as an evil person, who hates people with disabilities. Never mind the fact that the article takes away your parental rights, and promotes the evil of abortion. The article is titled “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”. If you oppose this agreement, that means you oppose what the title of the agreement says, right. Liberals just love straw man arguments. That is why they crafted this agreement in this way. They create a title that sounds noble and just, but subtly insert language that will work to take control of the upbringing of your children away from you if your child is disabled.

Now all they have to do is assert that little Johnny is disabled because he is left handed, or needs reading glasses or has a loose tooth. If he is “disabled” that probably means that you are no longer equipped to raise this child, and it is probably better off that the liberals do it for you. We are not quite there yet with the technology, but when we can determine all of these physical traits through a genetic test, then the liberals will be there, ready to monitor your pregnancy and check for these traits so that you don’t burden yourself or society with a child that is not “optimal”.

The only thing that can change the world for the better despite what the liberals say is prayer. Make that 2 things: prayer and votes. Get out there. Pray and vote!



On His Own Now

clock September 10, 2012 18:10 by author John |

 This summer we signed the 2 older boys up for soccer. It was a great experience and we had a lot of fun. The kids liked it too. Well, the four year old did. He loved it. Not only did he get to score goals and practice his trapping, passing and baby touches (dribbling), but the park where they had practice was about 50 yards from the train tracks, so about 4 times a practice the drills would have to stop so everyone could wave to the train going by.

The three year old wasn’t so inclined to participate. He has this genetic condition known as shyness. He gets it from my side of the family. His cousin had it for about a year, and his father (me) had it for about all of my life. Anyway, he decided that even though he and his brother make up 40% of the team, he was too shy to participate. It wasn’t because he didn’t know how to play soccer, either. I think that surprisingly, he is as good at soccer as his brother who has a year on him.

Anyway, he sat out the first practice (that’s all they do at this age apparently - practice). The next week I encouraged my wife to lure him onto the field by promising to hold his hand. Not only did it work, but my wife got to practice for free! Over the next 3 practices, she got pretty good, and he actually participated most of the time.

Suddenly, and unexpectedly on the second to last practice, he decided that he didn’t need to hold her hand anymore. He ran off to get a soccer ball and my wife just sort of shrugged her shoulders and slowly walked back to join me on the sideline with the 2 younger kids. The three year old didn’t even notice that mommy wasn’t there anymore. If he did, it was the way he wanted it anyway. He came up to me at the end of practice and told me all the cool things he did, like scoring a goal and passing the ball. We all celebrated the occasion with a tall glass of chocolate milk when we got home.

I didn’t get out of things quite as easily as I had hoped. Unbeknownst to me, the last soccer practice was actually a scrimmage against the parents. I dutifully participated, and I didn’t even have to hold anyone’s hand (most of the time). We did lose 7-1 however. Yes, that’s right one of the parents scored a goal. He claims it was an accident. I’m not so convinced.