We all knew that it would come sooner or later. We were encouraged by the news that Wal-Mart employees are being allowed to utter the “C” word this year. But it was too good to last. Officials of the Windy City have decided that in their annual Christmas festival (called Christkindlmarket) is not the place for New Line Cinema to set up a booth and have trailers for The Nativity Story running.

“Our guidance was that this very prominently placed advertisement would not only be insensitive to the many people of different faiths who come to enjoy the market for its food and unique gifts” said Jim Law, a special events coordinator for the city.

By the way, take a look at the name of the festival. Christkindlmarket. Wonder if those first 6 letters should be done away with as well?

Remember, 85% of us celebrate Christmas as the birth of Christ. 97% of us say that we are not offended by mentions of Christmas in the public square. In this case, you can turn your head to avoid being offended by the trailer of The Nativity Story being shown at the New Line Cinema booth.

The combox on an earlier post revealed what I initially thought was an anonymous commenter’s belief that the Church was essentially required to abandon her teaching on contraception because such teaching “causes abortions” (never mind that the pill causes abortions.) Thanks to keeping the conversation going, our anonymous commenter explained that s/he knows several Catholic couples, and only one of them uses Natural Family Planning – so our commenter assumed that the Church must have approved some form of contraception down through the years.

Thankfully, our bishops have recently released several documents, including one called “Married Love and the Gift of Life,” which reiterates the Church’s consistent teaching on contraception. I have linked to an article all about it here; the headline is a bit of an editorial, but the article itself really sums things up well, both the positive and the negative, with statements to the effect that the Church’s teaching has been consistent since the 2nd century, as well as statements like, “for most Catholics, this document won’t change anything.”

I posit that there are 2 reasons why the latter quote is true: 1)ignorance – far too many priests have told their pre-marital counselee’s that either this teaching is not important OR it’s just about to be officially changed; and 2)rejection of Church teaching – which makes one a cafeteria Catholic (and endangers one’s communion with the Church.)

We have media sources that blow the trumpet of Catholicism out there contributing to both of these problems, as evidenced by the National “Catholic” Reporter’s current lead editorial. This whole thing leads me to believe that the way to solve this problem is to continue to speak the truth in love to current adults, but also to teach our children what’s right from the beginning.

This should wrap up the John Martignoni (Bible Christian Society) vs. Joe Mizzi (justforcatholics.com) debate.

To clarify, here’s how the debate is structured; it could be a little better organized. It has 2 parts:

1. John states that Joe misrepresents Catholic teaching on salvation; John substantiates his claim in his round 1; Joe responds in his round 2; John concludes in his round 3.

2. Joe answers John’s question, “Is whether or not we have faith, God’s sole criteria for judging us worthy of salvation?” with a remarkably Catholic-sounding answer in his round 1; John responds in his round 2; Joe concludes in his round 3.

As of this publishing, Joe’s round 3 is not yet available, but I expect to see it any day now. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. So far, we have learned that Joe and John aren’t all that different, but Joe’s sold on the wrongness of Catholicism.

Here are a couple of interesting stories. From CNS, we have concern that the upcoming meeting between the Archbishop of Canterbury and B16 may highlight the rifts within the Anglican church:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606567.htm

At the same time, Jeff Miller talks about an article saying that B16 is working on documents regarding bringing disaffected Anglicans into the Catholic Church…and hey, that makes sense. It looks like the Anglican officials aren’t making any real efforts to keep traditional Anglicans (or perhaps even Anglicans with any sense of morals or conscience) in the church. This is one of those situations where Rome is saying, “Hey – look – you’re more Catholic than you are Anglican – join us!”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606567.htm

It’s round two of the Maritgnoni/Mizzi debate. Martignoni suggests that Mizzi’s position on justification is darn close to the Catholic position (I agree.) Mizzi counters with a rebuttal that I am still trying to understand. Your thoughts would be helpful.

Much hay has been made lately about the Marine Corps Toys for Tots refusing a shipment of talking Jesus dolls, because they represent a specific religion.

Courtesy of the Marine Corps Toys for Tots foundation website:

MISSION: The mission of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Toys for Tots Program is to collect new, unwrapped toys during October, November and December each year, and distribute those toys as Christmas gifts to needy children in the community in which the campaign is conducted.
[snip]
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of Toys for Tots are to help needy children throughout the United States experience the joy of Christmas; to play an active role in the development of one of our nation’s most valuable natural resources – our children; to unite all members of local communities in a common cause for three months each year during the annual toy collection and distribution campaign; and to contribute to better communities in the future.

Sounds to me like Toys for Tots touts a specific religion too. I sense some irony…perhaps even hypocrisy. Seriously…the holiday is Christmas, and the fact that the foundation refers to Christmas here makes you think maybe that they’re supposed to be Christmas gifts, which would be gifts given to commemorate the joy surrounding the incarnation of God on earth in human form. Otherwise, they should call them “winter gifts,” “holiday gifts,” “solstice gifts,” or “season’s gifts” (as in season’s greetings.)

On the other hand, I did hear a person on the radio today questioning, regardless of the occasion, is a talking Jesus doll really the kind of toy you’d like to receive? Or that you’d play with all that much? Imagine talking Jesus among the GI Joes…or the Ponies…I could go on and on.

Footnote: To their credit, the following statement is on the Toys For Tots homepage right now: The Talking Jesus doll issue has been resolved. Toys for Tots has found appropriate places for these items. We have notified the donor of our willingness to handle this transaction.

Recalling what GK Chesterton said in What’s Wrong with the World, “birth control seems to have little to do with birth and less to do with control. (paraphrased)” Of course GK was referring to self control there. Birth control as we define it has to do with total control over one’s reproductive system, to the point of preventing it from functioning as God intended.

Well, the friendly contract murders over at Planned Parenthood in Tulsa have started putting up billboards that say “Birth control is easy.” Just take that phrase and run with it. If birth control is easy – as easy as popping a pill, as easy as whatever decorum prevents me from describing here in detail – the implication is that it’s easier than NOT HAVING SEX! Birth control’s easy, so use it and live it up!

Fortunately, the Diocese of Tulsa is one of the few left in the country with the cajones to take this kind of propaganda on…and they’ve started putting up billboards that say, “Birth control is harmful.” Wow. It’s easy, but it’s harmful. For the person who is unaware of the facts, this could get them thinking. Maybe it would be good to find out about the potential for harm before I start popping those pills (”A woman is at increased risk of breast cancer and cervical cancer, an increased risk of heart attack and high blood pressure,” Bell said. “All of these are well documented side effects of birth control pills.”). Maybe before I have indiscriminate relations using a condom, I should be aware of the emotional side effects of indiscriminate sex. If I’m married, maybe I should think about the long term effects of divorcing the marital embrace from its natural outcomes, and what that could do to my relationship with my spouse and my God, not to mention the fact that I could very well be aborting babies who don’t even get the chance to implant. If I’m Catholic, maybe I should become aware of the fact that I am removing myself from Communion with the Church by using artificial contraception.

Yeah, it’s easy, but does that make it right?

Footnote: before you say, “you aren’t qualified to speak on this subject because you’re Catholic” let me point out that I’m a Catholic convert and that before I began digging into Catholic teaching I did actively contracept, as did my cradle Catholic wife because we didn’t understand the teachings or the reasons behind them. 4 years later, we can attest to what it’s added to our marriage and to my wife’s health.

ABCNews’s Good Morning America website asks, Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry?

A response from the Catholic League:

“On the ABC website for ‘Good Morning America,’ a poll is being taken that asks, ‘Should Catholic Priests Be Allowed to Marry?’ This is a great idea—Catholics very much want to hear from non-Catholics what they think about the Catholic Church’s internal strictures. In fact, the idea is so good that it ought to be extended to Jews and Muslims. So in the spirit of inclusion, the Catholic League is asking two questions: a) Should Orthodox Jews Be Allowed to Eat Ham Sandwiches? and b) Should Muslim Women Be Allowed to Wear Mini Skirts?

“The ABC poll on Catholics offers three possible responses:

Yes. It is unfair to prevent them from experiencing one of life’s joys: companionship.

No. The vows are founded in religious doctrine and tradition and should not be changed.

I’m not sure.

“Accordingly, I would like to amend the affirmative option regarding Orthodox Jews to read:

Yes. It is unfair to prevent them from experiencing one of life’s joys: pork.

“Regarding Muslim women, the affirmative response is:

Yes. It is unfair to prevent them from experiencing one of life’s joys: being a sex tease.

Thanks to Jeff Miller over at The Curt Jester for bringing this one to our attention.

So after yesterday’s blog on the Church of England’s statement that we should go ahead and get rid of babies that aren’t perfect, Rush Limbaugh today was talking about the very same article and another one on “designer babies” that didn’t talk about the church at all. Linked here is a transcript of what he said on the subject. I think he makes excellent points – his and my opinions on the matter are quite similar.

Rush brings up an angle I haven’t considered much before, but it goes right along with the “victimhood” arguments – don’t talk about the war unless you’re a veteran, don’t talk about ESCR unless you have parkinson’s, and so on:

Here’s the money quote, by the way. I want to go back to this baby story, because this says it all, and it makes my point from a couple or three weeks before the election all over again. This is a quote from a parent who’s going through this screening to determine whether or not her embryos contain “flaws,” if you will. “Unless you have lived with a child that has a terrible disability or disease then you can’t speak about it.” So once again we have the introduction of the innocent suffering victim, in this case the parent of a child who suffers from something, and we are supposed to identify with the child suffering, we are supposed to identify with the suffering of the living who are made inconvenient by this — and you can’t comment, folks.

At 3:02 this afternoon I heard the 20-second version of this story on ABC radio news. This statement simply repeats the teaching that homosexual activity is inherently disordered because it is contraceptive in nature, and therefore against natural law. It goes on to say that the Church has a special responsibility to those with homosexual inclination, to reach out to them and help them live in chastity.

What did ABC say? “The Church says it accepts homosexual members but they must not receive Communion if they are actively involved in homosexual relations. A leading Catholic homosexuals group says this will only drive people away from the Church.”

There’s a point at which you aren’t surprised anymore…