Should the Lord’s Prayer be Changed?

Oh sure, this isn’t about a possible tape of the President saying the “N” word, or the latest dirt on Omarosa. Nothing of that consequence. And by the way, I had to look up the spelling of the name Omarosa. That’s how much I care about her.

No, the following isn’t about really important things, it’s only whether the Lord’s prayer should be changed, as the Pope suggests.

from Breitbart:

Changes to Lord’s Prayer to Be Made Official in Italy

The Italian bishops conference announced Tuesday that changes to the Lord’s Prayer proposed by Pope Francis will take effect in Italy this November. read more

Can Catholics Impeach the Pope

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Not being a Catholic, I can say I am neither a particular fan, but certainly not a detractor of the Catholic faith. To me, it’s just one of many Christian faiths. In other words, although I am Christian, I have no skin in the Catholicism game, so I can write as an objective observer.

As an objective observer, I believe the Catholic Church has a serious problem. No – it’s not a problem of religion, faith, or the faithful – it’s a leadership problem.

Since he was installed in 2013 as the 266th Pope, we’ve known that Francis leaned a bit to the left. So much so that conservatives have written many articles dedicated to this topic. And that is unusual for mostly political authors to write about specific religions, other than citing them to make a point.

But I personally have written 2 or 3 articles and recorded a podcast regarding, not Catholicism or the Church, but of Pope Francis. Simply put, the Pope is at the very least, a leftist, and at worst, a communist. There is simply no way of sugar-coating it. He is a redistributionist and global warming fanatic, and has softened the Church’s stance on abortion and homosexuality. These are not merely political stances that can be tweaked over time. These are centuries-old Catholic traditions, as well as set-in-stone tenets of Christian faith. read more

The Pope has Taken Another Hard Left Turn

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I’ve expressed my perplexity with the present Vicar of Christ in the past and it doesn’t appear I’ll be jumping on his band-wagon anytime soon.

By all accounts, Pope Francis is a good guy. Of course he’s a good guy – he’s the head of the Catholic Church – revered by millions! But, as I’ve stated before – I’m not Catholic – so to me, he’s just a man – flawed like me and you.

That being said – I have been tough on him in the past and as I am not Catholic, when he says or does something I consider to be a bit off (in my opinion), I call him on it – the way I would anyone else, or anyone might do of me.

Among the many faults we conservatives find of the left is their use of moral relativism. Being that the Pope appears to have liberal and socialist leanings, his use of moral relativism should not be surprising. But this doesn’t seem to jibe with a laymen’s view of the Catholic Church – which has always been culturally or socially conservative.

Yet this Pope has waded into a number of hot social and political topics since being elevated and most of his opinions have taken a decidedly liberal bent – and this one is no different.

On a plane ride back to the Vatican from a trip to Poland, Pope Francis revealed his thoughts on Islamic violence. He said: “I think it is not right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right and this is not true.” read more

Both Trump and Christie are Big on Protectionism

by: the Common Constitutionalist

When Chris Christie first exited the Republican presidential primary, I figured he would then throw his endorsement to one the establishment candidates left in the race. But then he threw his weight (pun intended) behind Donald Trump.

Other than both portraying themselves as tough talking, gravy-stained champions of the blue collar set, they didn’t appear to have a lot in common. Well, I found one thing both Chrispie Creme and The Donald share a desire for – and that is protectionism.

Protectionism is one of Trump’s major platform items. He of course will never describe it as such, but he’s been telling us for months how he will make great trade deals with China, Vietnam, Japan and Mexico. A large component of these “great deals” is tariffs slapped on these countries in an effort to drive up import prices thereby making American made products more competitive.

That my friends (hat tip – John McCain) is protectionism. It’s the government manipulating the free market (as if there is such a thing) in order to artificially pick winners and losers.

What actually happens is that companies which are then “protected” from less costly competition are free to raise prices. In effect the government just creates a monopolistic economy where the end user, the consumer, always loses in the end. read more

By Cracky, the Pope is Indeed Catholic!

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

The College of Cardinals has chosen a new Pope. Okay, now what? What do those who choose to call themselves Catholic do now?

Evidently the new guy, Pope Francis, is a theological conservative, for want of a better term. I guess we will classify him as a theological traditionalist, that way I won’t offend liberal Catholics.

I am not a Roman Catholic, nor any kind of Catholic. I do know broadly, as do many non-Catholics, a few of the basic tenets, or rules of Catholicism. They are against abortion, Pope-Franciseuthanasia, women priests and homosexual marriage. There are, I’m sure, many more Catholic tenets, but those four are evidently the hot button topics of contention in today’s Catholic Church.

As a non-Catholic, my obvious question to those who are, is why are these contentious issues within the church?

Any traditional religion has a certain set of, carved in stone rules that a practicing member of said religion must follow to remain in that churches good standing.

Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Muslims all have rules that must be followed. So I am both confused and amused at the number of reports asking whether the new pope would be more likely to moderate the church’s views.

Well, as I said, I am not a Catholic, but I do know enough not to ask God to moderate. Why would anyone think that the Pope would come in and just start turning the whole religion upside down? Did anyone really think that the new Pope would get up and announce that the church will now be pro-abortion? Of course any thinking person would never expect such a thing.

But of course we know, at least to my regular readers, that American liberals are liberals first and whatever else after that. Whether they claim to be Catholic or some other religion they are still liberals first. That is why, for example, liberal American Jews will vote in a president and administration that is clearly no friend of Israel. Liberal first, then Jew; easy as that.

As we know, liberals don’t think, tCatholic ruleshey feel. If one doesn’t think about the absurdity of the statement, one could comfortably ask if the church will now support abortion or women priests. It is not a completely ludicrous question, unless you think about it first. But with liberals fairness is everything. It is unfair in these modern times not to allow homosexuals to wed within the church.

That is only a reasonable assumption if you are an à la carte Catholic, or just a liberal who happen to be brought up Catholic. For those who don’t know, an à la carte Catholic is one who feels he or she may pick and choose the rules they wish to adhere to and let the rest go. Some call them cafeteria Catholics.

Now many think liberalism is a political ideology. It is, in a way. But it is also a religion, albeit a warp one. Think about it. Religion is faith; some would say blind faith. Leftists contend that a belief in a higher power, God, defies logic yet their blind faith in the myth of man-made global warming is incontrovertible. They have their own set of unwavering rules. You must be pro-abortion, you must believe in Global Warming, homosexual marriage and wealth distribution.pro-life

So with all their rigid ideology, why do liberals assume the Catholic Church can and will reverse its core principles? Well, that’s easy. Because they want it to and it is unfair not to. It’s all about the fairness.

For more than a century, liberals, progressives, or however you care to classify them, have been changing and usurping the rule of law; the Constitution.

They claim it to be a living document and should now more reflect the modern era. Its rules applied and made sense a few centuries ago but those quaint ideals have hardly kept up with the “progress” and enlightenment of modern man.

So with a belief that the basic tenets that govern our country should and can be changed on a whim, so to it is easy to superimpose that same want to change the church, for it also does not reflect the enlightenment of the modern liberal.

And that is why many today can surmise that a new Pope can and should  alter the Catholic Church tenets.

Catholics Deal With the Devil

Excerpts from Paul A. Rahe’s article titled: American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil

One might say that the Catholic Church itself laid the groundwork for the recent firestorm they find themselves embroiled in. I speak, of course, of the battle royal between the Church and the Obama administration over what they claimed to be “Women’s Healthcare”.

Now, just as the whites of today cannot be held to account for slavery, Catholics leaders of today cannot be accountable for their past leaders. Or can they?

It might be instructive to add some historical perspective to this dilemma.

In the burgeoning American republic, the principle of limited government was codified in its purest form in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But it had additional ramifications as well – for the government’s scope was limited also in other ways.

 There were other amendments that made up what we call the Bill of Rights, and many of the states prefaced their constitutions with bills of rights or added them as appendices. These were all intended to limit the scope of the government. They were all designed to protect the right of individuals to life, liberty, the acquisition and possession of property, and the pursuit of happiness as these individuals understood happiness. Put simply, liberty of conscience was part of a larger package.

This is what the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church forgot.

In the 1930s, the majority of the bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so, as is usual, with the best of intentions.

Due to their concern during the Depression, for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal. They gloried in the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made Frances Perkins, a devout Anglo-Catholic laywoman who belonged to the Episcopalian Church but retreated on occasion to a Catholic convent, Secretary of Labor and the first member of her sex to be awarded a cabinet post.

They welcomed Social Security, which was her handiwork. They did not stop to ponder whether public provision in this regard would subvert the moral principle that children are responsible for the well being of their parents. They did not stop to consider whether this measure would reduce the incentives for procreation and nourish the temptation to think of sexual intercourse as an indoor sport. They just did not stop to think of any potential consequences.

In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to that which had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States. That of the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor.

In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism, the belief that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.

At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the Catholic hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlement state. It did not cross the minds of the hierarchy, that the paternalistic state they had embraced, would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate how it would conduct its affairs.

The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it.

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority.

In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernadin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many.

Here is what Cardinal Bernadin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:

“Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.

Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.” 

The truth is that the priests in the United States are far more likely to push the “social justice” agenda of the Church from the pulpit than to instruct the faithful in the evils of abortion.

And there is more. Paul has not once, in the thirteen years of attending mass, heard the argument against contraception articulated from the pulpit, nor has he once heard the argument for chastity articulated. In the face of the sexual revolution, the bishops, priests, and nuns of the American Church have by and large fallen silent. In effect, they have abandoned the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in order to articulate a defense of the administrative entitlements state and its progressive expansion.

Those who seek to create heaven on earth and who, to this end, subvert the liberty of others and embrace the administrative entitlement state will sooner or later become its victims.

Sieg Barry!

Is the Obama Administration Using Gestapo Tactics?

By: Gary DeMar at Godfather Politics:

Here’s the way politics works: Liberals overreach and conservatives compromise. In the end Liberals win. Liberals will propose a ten percent tax increase, and Republicans will settle for five, the very number Democrats hoped to get. It might take Liberals longer to get to their goal, but they know that eventually they’ll reach it. They can always count on Republicans to compromise.

What’s true on taxes is also applies to religion. There’s a provision in the health care law which requires religious employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives. John Boehner called the rule “an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country. If the president does not reverse the department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must,” Boehner said.

Then there’s the accusation that military chaplains were forbidden to read a letter to military personnel about the mandate. Now we’re hearing that the controversy may have been “overblown.”

Did the Obama Administration purposely overreach figuring that the Republicans will broker a compromise? The Administration will get some of what it wants, set a precedent, and the Republicans will leave the negotiating table declaring victory that they were able to get some concessions. In the end, new regulations will force the church to comply with some of the regulations or face sanctions. Republicans will say that the church needs to compromise. Liberals will come back for more at a later time. They won’t stop until they silence the church. We’ve seen this before.

When German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) used his pulpit to expose Adolf Hitler’s radical politics, “He knew every word spoken was reported by Nazi spies and secret agents.”[1] Leo Stein describes in his book I Was in Hell with Niemoeller how the Gestapo gathered evidence against Niemoeller:

Now, the charge against Niemoeller was based entirely on his sermons, which the Gestapo agents had taken down stenographically. But in none of his sermons did Pastor Niemoeller exhort his congregation to overthrow the Nazi regime. He merely raised his voice against some of the Nazi policies, particularly the policy directed against the Church. He had even refrained from criticizing the Nazi government itself or any of its personnel. Under the former government his sermons would have been construed only as an exercise of the right of free speech. Now, however, written laws, no matter how explicitly they were worded, were subjected to the interpretation of the judges.[2]

In a June 27, 1937 sermon, Niemoeller made it clear to those in attendance had a sacred duty to speak out on the evils of the Nazi regime no matter what the consequences: “We have no more thought of using our own powers to escape the arm of the authorities than had the Apostles of old. No more are we ready to keep silent at man’s behest when God commands us to speak. For it is, and must remain, the case that we must obey God rather than man.”[3] A few days later, he was arrested. His crime? “Abuse of the pulpit.”

The “Special Courts” set up by the Nazis made claims against pastors who spoke out against Hitler’s policies. Niemoeller was not the only one singled out by the Gestapo. “Some 807 other pastors and leading laymen of the ‘Confessional Church’ were arrested in 1937, and hundreds more in the next couple of years.”[4]

A group of Confessional Churches in Germany, founded by Pastor Niemoeller and other Protestant ministers, drew up a proclamation to confront the political changes taking place in Germany that threatened the people “with a deadly danger. The danger lies in a new religion,” the proclamation declared. “The church has by order of its Master to see to it that in our people Christ is given the honor that is proper to the Judge of the world . . . The First Commandment says ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ The new religion is a rejection of the First Commandment.”[5] Five hundred pastors who read the proclamation from their pulpits were arrested.

Notes:
1.Basil Miller, Martin Niemoeller: Hero of the Concentration Camp, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1942), 112. [↩]

2.Leo Stein, I Was in Hell with Niemoeller (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1942), 175. [↩]

3.Quoted in William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 239. [↩]

4.Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 239. [↩]

5.Quoted in Eugene Davidson, The Trials of the Germans: An Account of the Twenty-Two Defendants before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, [1966] 1997), 275.