Friday, March 24, 2017

15 Confessions From Sex Addicts - YouTube

15 Confessions From Sex Addicts - YouTube:



'via Blog this'

Dancing With Mr. D.: Sick Sexism

In an article in the WallStreet Journal, Dr. Paul R. McHugh, distinguished professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins and their chief psychiatrist for almost three decades, wrote about a medical fact: sex change, or what is now routinely called "sexual reassignment surgery" is "biologically impossible". He also referred to what is routinely called "transgenderism" as a mental disorder. He further opined that those who promote sex change operations are not helping but hurting people with this disorder.
"This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken - it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes."
McHugh says the transgendered person's disorder is in the person's "assumption" that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature, similar to a "dangerously thin" person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are overweight.

The assumption that one's gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective "personal truth," said Dr. McHugh. Thus California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have passed laws barring psychiatrists, "even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor," he said.
Pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings "spontaneously lose those feelings" over time. For those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were "satisfied" with the operation "but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery.

Dr. McHugh also reported that there are "misguided doctors" who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer "puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous - even though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility.” Such action comes "close to child abuse," said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will "abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated. ‘Sex change’ is biologically impossible," he said. "People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder."


Because this disorder is not seen for what it is and allowed free reign and uncritical acceptance, it has morphed into further confusion concerning the meaning of the human person, as evidenced in the following video:

Saturday, March 11, 2017

A SHEPHERD SHEPHERDS

In a recent interview with Al Kresta, Archbishop Chaput offered the following take on our post-Christian society, discussed in his latest book:

“I think there are a lot of clever people in the world who have values and a plan or program different from the Gospel who very actively trying to promote a different worldview. I think if we just look at basic causes…”

One of his causes he sees as

“….the contraceptive birth control pill. It separated procreation from love as a possibility in the sexual act. Once you separate procreation from the other aspects of sexual encounter, all kinds of things happen. The nature of the family changes. What it means to be a father and what it means to be a mother changes. It is what has opened so much of the Western world to much more premarital sex — much more divorce, homosexual marriage, transgenderism that we are talking about these days. Those changes all have a root I think in a practical sense in the contraceptive pill. It also has its root in the intellectual trends that have been a part of our culture — since the 1930s really….”

At last, I can read in the social media a devout Churchman who puts his finger on exactly the force Paul VI had in mind when, at the close of Vatican II, he remarked that Christianity, the religion of God-Incarnate, had encountered the religion of man-made God, Chaput’s “trends that have been a part of our culture.” On June 29, 1972, Paul delivered an assessment of the state of the Church. As I noted in my book, Cardinal Silvio Oddi recalled it, the Holy Father told a congregation:

We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation. And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned instead was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.

The Pope then reminded his listeners of references in Scripture and the Mass to the aggressive and oppressive “power of darkness,” adding:

So we know that this dark disturbing being exists and that he is still at work with his treacherous cunning; he is the hidden enemy who sows errors and misfortunes in human history. It is worth recalling the revealing Gospel parable of the good seed and the cockle, for it synthesizes and explains the lack of logic that seems to preside over our contradictory experiences: "An enemy has done this." He is "a murderer from the beginning . . . and the father of lies,"[Jn 8:44] as Christ defines him. He undermines man's moral equilibrium with his sophistry. He is the malign, clever seducer who knows how to make his way into us through the senses, the imagination and the libido, through utopian logic, or through disordered social contacts in the give and take of our activities, so that he can bring about in us deviations that are all the more harmful because they seem to conform to our physical or mental makeup, or to our profound, instinctive aspirations.

This matter of the Devil and of the influence he can exert on individuals as well as on communities, entire societies or events, is a very important chapter of Catholic doctrine which should be studied again, although it is given little attention today.

Archbisop Chaput’s new book gives the matter the attention it requires. Read it.

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Who Do You Say That I Am?

A quick commentary on Fr. Longenecker’s latest, my observations in red.

A Schism in the Catholic Church?
March 5, 2017 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Headlines last week were proclaiming that a group of cardinals believe Pope Francis should step down to avoid a catastrophic schism in the Catholic Church.
Schism? What schism?
In fact, the modern Catholic Church is already in schism, but it is an internal schism, hidden to most people.

AS I noted in Smoke:
It is clear that the Church is facing a grave crisis. Under the name of 'the new Church,' 'the post-conciliar Church,' a different Church from that of Jesus Christ is now trying to establish itself; an anthropocentric society threatened with immanentist apostasy which is allowing itself to be swept along in a movement of general abdication under the pretext of renewal, ecumenism, or adaptation.
                                                -Cardinal Henri de Lubac, S.J., Christian Witness (1967)
The divide is very clear and yet virtually unspoken. Nobody dares to really speak of it. The divide runs between cardinals. It runs between bishops and archbishops. It runs between theologians. It runs between parish priests. It runs between liturgists and catechists, church workers, musicians, teachers, journalists and writers.
It is not really a divide between conservative and liberal, between traditionalist and progressive.
From Smoke:
….the schema of “liberal” (progressive, left) vs. conservative (traditional, right) which followed upon the close of Vatican II is wholly inadequate for explaining the present-day crisis of faith within the Church of Jesus Christ, though it is most unfortunate that usage of these terms persist among many Catholics and in the media today. Division within Christ’s Church is a clear attack by the evil one

It is the divide between those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Virgin born Son of God and that as the second person of the Holy and undivided Trinity established his church on earth supernaturally filled with the Holy Spirit which  would stand firm until the end of time, and those who believe otherwise.
Those who believe otherwise are the modernists.

Though space precludes representing my discussion of modernism, here is a tidbit:
Neomodernists also  raised questions, as we have seen, as to whether Jesus intended to found a Church, since they understand his mission as concerned only with inaugurating the Kingdom of God, i.e., delivering people from spiritual and physical suffering in this world, which is how neomodernists understand salvation.

They are the ones who think the church is a human construct. It is a historic accident that occurred two thousand years ago and succeeded by a few twists of fate and a few happy circumstances. Because the believe the church is a human construct from a particular time and place, the church can and MUST adapt and change for every age and culture in which she finds herself.

This is the great divide. This is the schism which already exists.
Is the church a divinely appointed institution established for the eternal salvation of souls or is it a social construct which sincere people have put together to make the world a better place?

This is the divide within the church today and every conflict about everything –from music, to architecture, to art, to Catholic education, from liturgy, to literature, from devotions to disciplines and doctrines–everything comes back to this basic divide.

Of course I believe the first: the church was established by God’s Son Jesus Christ our Lord for the defeat of Satan, the salvation of souls and the redemption of the world through the supernatural graces empowered by the sacrificial death  of Jesus Christ on the cross.
The schism already exists.
All that is required is for individual Catholics to decide which side of the chasm they reside.

 Lastly, to aid in the decision:

Satan’s strategy here is the time-honored one of divide et impera  –  divide and conquer. Remember, too, Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.” Quite simply, no ideology, no matter how sincerely embraced, may substitute for personal conversion.


Saturday, March 4, 2017

Hey, Hey, L.A., How Many Kids Did You Lead Astray?

In The Smoke of Satan, I penned the following:

The neomodernist ideology remains alive and well in the various religious education conferences held annually, the largest and most notorious of which is the Los Angeles Religious Education Conference.  A quick foray via the Internet shows that many victims of such theories are featured at the conference today. The Congress originated in the 1950s to educate catechists to teach the Faith more effectively, but by 1987 the influence of neomodernism on presenters at the Congress had produced a creedless, experiential catechesis under the auspices of Sister Edith Prendergast, yet another of our influential circle of religious education experts.


Perusal of both the Congress’s website and links to its speakers divulge ample evidence of the neomodemist opinion that catechesis no longer means passing on received doctrine because the Church can no longer say it possesses revealed “truth” from God. Thus participants were taught to discover truth for themselves by reflecting on their experience, with the role of the catechist now being to facilitate such reflection. And so it was that doctrine increasingly disappeared from the nation’s largest religious education conference much as it had from catechetical programs throughout the country, producing a veritable epidemic of doctrinal illiteracy in the United States. Here is 2017's latest example.

Friday, March 3, 2017

Dancing With Mr. D: Don't Shack Up

In my book I outlined the heresies embedded in the nouvelle theologie, masquerading neomodernism. It was "deja vu all overagain" when I read Michael Youssef's review of The Shack:


SIX MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE SHACK
Feb 24, 2017FOR YOUR GIFT OF ANY AMOUNT
The Shack Uncovered
This Spring, the New York Times bestselling book The Shack by William P. Young will come to the big screen. The emotionally charged story seems to offer a resolution to the problem of pain—those who are struggling with the question, “Where is God when the world is full of brokenness?” Though many readers have labeled Young’s story a compelling work of Christian fiction, discerning believers must ask themselves: Are The Shack’s underlying teachings Biblically sound, or a far reach from the teachings of God’s Word?
Though you might be swayed into thinking the god of The Shack is the same as the God of the Bible, there are several problems that arise if we take a close look at The ShackHere are six concerns that develop as Mack converses with Young’s caricatures of the Trinity.

LOVE VS. JUSTICE
Problem #1: According to Young, justice and love are at odds and cannot be reconciled. He reasons that God will never judge people for their sins because He is limited by His love. Neither will He enact eternal judgment upon those who reject Him or send anyone to torment in hell. 
But why would Jesus Christ die a criminal’s death on the cross if not to save us from something? What a wasteful and pointless act it would be if Christ did not take on our just punishment, the wrath of God, for our sin.
We cannot remove the wrath of God from Scripture. It is as surely a part of His character as His love and mercy are. But God’s wrath is not a human anger that flares up because of wounded pride or envy. His wrath is not self-indulgent, but rather, as theologian J.I. Packer says in his book Knowing God, “a right and necessary reaction to objective moral evil. God is only angry where anger is called for. . . . all God’s indignation is righteous.”
The Bible is very clear about why Jesus came to earth, humbly taking on the very nature of a servant (see John 3:16-18Philippians 2:6-7). Jesus Himself warned about the coming judgment and hell, commissioning His followers to proclaim the Gospel that the lost might be saved—that they might choose life (see Matthew 25:31-46Revelation 21:6-8). Ultimately, that is what every person must do: Either choose salvation through the atoning blood of Jesus or choose the wrath of the righteous God. 
Would Mack really want a God who would not punish evil? Would he be okay with a God who would not exert justice for the evil done to his daughter? Would God be good and loving if He said to Mack, “We’ll just let this slide”? Of course not. He shows us His love by both punishing sin and providing us with an escape: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). He is “the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished” (Exodus 34:6-7).
UNIVERSALISM: A PERILOUS PARDON
Problem #2: Another theme in The Shack that doesn’t square with the Word of God is the idea that God forgives all of humanity, regardless of whether or not they repent and believe in the redeeming work of Jesus. It is an idea rooted in universalism—the belief that all roads lead to God and that Jesus is walking with all people in their different journeys to God, whether they call Him Jesus or Buddha or Allah. In fact, Young asserts that there is no need for faith or reconciliation with God because all people will make it to heaven. 
The Bible is very clear that only those who call on the name of Jesus will be saved: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12. See also 1 Timothy 2:5Romans 10:9). Universalism is a dangerous and malicious lie. It leads people to think that it doesn’t matter what you believe, sin is not really a problem, and there is really no need for a Savior. Universalism single-handedly destroyed Christianity in much of Europe, and universalism is working hard to destroy the faith of remnant believers in the American church today. 
Jesus is not the same as Buddha or Krishna; He does not hide behind such false and impotent gods. He became flesh and dwelt among us that we might know Him. He wants us to know the one true God. He wants the glory that He deserves, for He alone is God: “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols” (Isaiah 42:8).
Are you willing to risk your eternal future on feel-good fluff? Sin is real. It is rebellion against God, and it requires justice. God’s justice and wrath were poured out on Jesus Christ to reconcile us to the holy God (see 1 Peter 2:24-25). But we must have faith in Jesus, confessing His lordship and believing in His resurrection.
Jesus calls out to us, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). Beware of the “broad road” theology of The Shack.
WHO IS THE POTTER?
Problem #3: In The Shack, the god character tells Mack that “submission is not about authority or obedience” and that the Trinity is even submitted to Mack (145). Young is suggesting that God submits to human wishes and choices.
The Bible in its entirety points us to the need to submit to God. Submitting is by definition yielding to the authority of another. God created man, and man cannot dictate terms to God. As Isaiah 29:16 says, “You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘You did not make me’? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘You know nothing’?” 
God does not answer to us; we answer to God. In this way we remain in His love: “If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete” (John 15:10-11). Submission is about obedience, and that’s because obedience is ultimately about love. Jesus Himself said, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching” (John 14:23). To minimize obedience is to minimize love for God.
THE LIVING WORD
Problem #4: Young alleges that the Bible limits God, implying that it was man who reduced God’s voice to paper: “Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book” (66). Thus the Bible is portrayed as inadequate to know God.
If the Bible were simply a book written by man, then it would be about as useful as The Shack. However, the Bible was written over the course of about 1,800 years with many different authors all inspired by the Holy Spirit. They all through various time periods and life experiences tell the same story, pointing us to the Messiah—Jesus, who is the very Word of God made flesh (John 1:1-414). 
It is through Scripture that God chose to reveal Himself to us. The Bible is a divine product. Jesus Himself trusted the Scriptures and used them to teach about Himself (see Luke 24:44-47). If the risen Lord values, trusts, and feeds on the Bible (see Matthew 4:1-11), should we not also look to it as the saving Gospel it is? Let us therefore heed Paul’s words:
Continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17
ENCOUNTERING THE SOVEREIGN, HOLY GOD
Problem #5: The God portrayed in The Shack seems casual and unconcerned with holiness, which is inconsistent with what we see in the Bible. Mack’s troubling disrespect and disregard for the Trinity would be impossible if he had encountered the sovereign, holy God. 
By presenting a god wholly different from the true God revealed in the Bible, Young mocks the importance and uniqueness of the Word of God. He makes the Bible equal to or less than whatever personal imagination anyone might have of God. Mack did not encounter the Holy God of heaven and earth in the shack, but a created god who is controlled and manipulated by man—like an idol that is put away in a closet and brought out when needed. The Shack exchanges “the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being” (Romans 1:23).

While it’s a righteous desire to want to know God, Mack’s fictional experience of encountering God is demonstrably inconsistent with what we see in Scripture. It's also a poor sequel to the true story we already have of God’s interactions on earth through Jesus Christ. When Moses asks God to show him His glory, God warns, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exodus 33:20)—such is the dangerous magnificence of the Father’s glory. We must be careful of assigning any image to Him that diminishes His holiness.
In Scripture, when people face the Lord, they fall down in repentance and worship. Isaiah’s response was: “Woe to me! . . . I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty” (Isaiah 6:5). When John is swept up to heaven in a revelation from God and sees the glorified Jesus, he falls at His feet “as though dead” (Revelation 1:17)! When Job was confronted by the Lord as He laid out His majesty, Job replies, “My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5-6). God is awesome, and we simply cannot stand in His presence. Neither can we live without Him. 
THE ULTIMATE QUESTION
Problem #6: In The Shack, Young tries to answer the important personal question of suffering—and he thinks the answer is to change who God is. But God has already answered this question perfectly according to His true and unchanging character. He answered it with the Gospel. He answered it on the cross. He answered it through Jesus Christ our Lord.
As we carefully consider the ideas presented in The Shack, the greater question we must ask ourselves is: Am I willing to accept God’s gift of eternal life as it is revealed in Scripture? Am I willing to accept God’s salvation the way He provided it—even if I want something else that accommodates my wishes, desires, and emotions? Am I willing to accept Truth over what makes me comfortable, realizing that Truth is what I need—for it alone leads to eternal life? 
We must not allow ourselves to be swayed by emotionalism. We must instead be like the Bereans, who “examined the Scriptures” rather than readily accepting what they heard as Truth (Acts 17:11). Because no story, no matter how compelling, can ever improve upon God’s story of redemption in the Bible. 

Beloved, the best place to meet God is not at the shack, but at the cross. For the Gospel is the greatest story ever told, and better still, it is true.

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Mercy Me!

Recently Pope Francis used the Gospel of Mark10:1-12 as an opportunity to encourage his own view on divorce and remarriage. Condemning hypocrisy and the “logic of casuistry,” Francis said that Jesus rejects the approach of legal scholars. This is the case. But in his rebuke to the Pharisees, what exactly does Jesus say about marriage?


So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” …and… Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.
Denouncing “doctors of the law” and the “rigid” application of Catholic moral doctrine is a recurrent theme in the Holy Father's homilies at morning Mass in the Vatican. But in his homily on the Markan passage, the Pope amazingly twisted the Gospel reading, if the Vatican Radio account is to be believed. The account, by Vatican Radio’s Christopher Wells:

 Pope Francis: In God there is both justice and mercy

“Is it lawful for a husband to put away his wife?” That is the question the doctors of the law put to Jesus in the day's Gospel.

Jesus does not give in to a casuistic logic, but always explains the truth.

They asked the question to once more put Jesus to the test, the Pope observed. Looking to Jesus' answer, the Pope explained what matters most in the faith:

“Jesus does not answer whether it is lawful or not lawful; He doesn’t enter into their casuistic logic. Because they thought of the faith only in terms of ‘Yes, you can,” or “No, you can’t” – to the limits of what you can do, the limits of what you can’t do. That logic of casuistry. And He asks a question: “But what did Moses command you? What is in your Law?” And they explained the permission Moses had given to put away the wife, and they themselves fall into the trap. Because Jesus qualifies them as ‘hard of heart’: ‘Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment,’ and He speaks the truth. Without casuistry. Without permissions. The truth.”

The logic of casuistry is hypocritical, deceptive.

But if this is the truth, and adultery is serious, how then, the Pope asks, does one explain that Jesus spoke “many times with an adulteress, a pagan?” That He “drank from the glass of her who was not purified?” And at the end He said to her: “I do not condemn you. Sin no more”? How does one explain that?

“And the path of Jesus – it’s quite clear – is the path from casuistry to truth and mercy. Jesus lays aside casuistry. Not here, but in other passages from the Gospel, He qualifies those who want to put Him to the test, those who think with this logic of ‘Yes, you can’ as hypocrites. Even with the fourth commandment these people refused to assist their parents with the excuse that they had given a good offering to the Church. Hypocrites. Casuistry is hypocritical. It is a hypocritical thought. ‘Yes, you can; no, you can’t’… which then becomes more subtle, more diabolical: But what is the limit for those who can? But from here to here I can’t. It is the deception of casuistry.

From casuistry to truth to mercy: this is the Christian path.

The path of the Christian, then, does not give into the logic of casuistry, but responds with the truth, which is accompanied, following the example of Jesus, by mercy – “because He is the Incarnation of the Mercy of the Father, and He cannot deny Himself. He cannot deny Himself because He is the truth of the Father, and He cannot deny Himself because He is the Mercy of the Father.”

Justice and mercy: This is the path that makes us happy.

“And this street that Jesus teaches us,” the Pope noted, is difficult to apply in the face of the temptations of life:
“When the temptation touches your heart, this path of going out from casuistry to truth and mercy is not easy: It takes the grace of God to help us to go forward in this way. And we should always ask for it. ‘Lord, grant that I might be just, but just with mercy.’ Not just, covered by casuistry. Just in mercy. As You are. Just in mercy. Then, someone with a casuistic mentality might ask, “But what is more important in God? Justice or mercy?’ This, too, is a sick thought, that seeks to go out… What is more important? They are not two things: it is only one, only one thing. In God, justice is mercy and mercy is justice. May the Lord help us to understand this street, which is not easy, but which will bring us happiness, and will make so many people happy.”
Oremus.