HT to Jimmy Akin for this one. Complete story here. In Ohio, the only way you can claim a moral objection to paying your union dues based on religion is if you are SDA or Mennonite.
Told by a union official to pay forced dues or “change religions,” a teacher in southern Ohio is challenging a state law that allows only those public employees who belong to certain denominations the right to claim religious objection to paying union dues.
Carol Katter, a mathematics and language arts instructor in the St. Marys district, filed a federal complaint in the U.S. District Court in Columbus this week over an Ohio law that prevents the lifelong Catholic from diverting her dues from a union she refuses to fund because it supports abortion on demand.
Clearly, it’s a case of injustice, and I will be really surprised if it stands. This is the type of thing that the Catholic League exists for, and I am sure they’ll have a good time with it.
In case you were under a rock, there was a small anti-war protest in DC. The types of people who do this type of protesting were referred to by Karl Marx as useful idiots…people who are easily persuaded to participate in such a protest, not realizing who was sponsoring it. Well, it was accidentally made a little obvious this time around:
According to the sources, police officers were livid when they were told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Phillip Morse andDeputy Chief Daniel Nichols. “They were the commanders on the scene,” one source said, who requested anonymity. “It was disgusting.”
Approximately 300 protesters were allowed to take the steps and began to spray paint “anarchist symbols” and phrase such as “Our capitol building” and “you can’t stop us” around the area, the source said.
Apparently, last Sunday (Respect Life Sunday,) a deacon noted the presence of a congressman with a 100% positive rating from NARAL, and he suggested to the community present that they might like to discuss with the congressman his positions on ESCR and abortion, and suggest that his votes should more closely match his Catholic upbringing. Congressman and his family got up and left. Priest and Bishop have been stabbing the deacon in the back, even though we have now found out that the deacon delivered the same homily on Saturday evening (even with a reference to hishonor) and the community applauded, and the priest vocalized his support for the message as well.
That’s the summary. Gerald over at the Closed Cafeteria has been covering this very well, and I will defer to him…
I have seen liturgical dances at one time, and it was during the rite of election for my RCIA class…not in an actual mass. I don’t feel terribly qualified to talk about it, except that it clearly appears to be an exception the is made in the order of mass and is probably more distracting that helpful to the community. Well, as I was looking at a Mystery Science Theater 3000 clip and noticed that in episode 519 they referenced liturgical dance…here it is:
Today is the day we remember the evil decision by the US Surpreme Court that opened the door to abortion on demand. Pope Paul VI predicted that acceptance of contraception as the norm would lead to acceptance of abortion as the norm. Either one separates sex from its natural consequence. I’d say he got it right in a big way. May God somehow bring an end to the killing.
Occasionally I am able to post something out of my own personal life, and today is such a day. First let me say that Father Jim did an outstanding homily. I have rarely seen him so intense, so focused, and so strong in his statements in a homily…of course it’s sanctity of life Sunday, so the topic was abortion. Father Jim essentially set up every argument that the pro-abortion crowd rolls out and knocked each one down. I may touch this more in a future post.
Then came the prayer of the faithful. Not too often do I think much about those prayers (which is an indictment of myself, by the way) but my wife and I both perked up when one of them was read. I didn’t know exactly what I had heard, so after Mass I stepped up to the lectern to look at what was printed out on the paper. It said
For civil authorities, that they will work for a just distribution of Christ’s bounty, we pray to the Lord.
Whoa! Does that say what I think it says? Am I reading too much into it? Or did we just pray to the Lord that He might compel civil authorities to distribute wealth? This seems really ironic, seeing as the Church has historically been the entity that distributes things to the needy. The whole problem with the government distributing Christ’s bounty is that the government sees it as the government’s bounty, collected up from those who earned it and redistributing it to those who need it. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Where have I heard that before? This prayer smacks of an opinion that all wealth belongs to the government, and is portioned out to everyone (hopefully in a just way.) Rather sick to hear it coming as an “official” prayer from the entity that ought to be distributing the wealth that Her members are willingly entrusting to Her for distribution.
I’m all for helping the needy, I just don’t think the government’s the best way to do it. And confiscating wealth from some so it may be redistributed to others is certainly not the way to encourage the giver to give from the heart. I sure hope I am just reading too much into this.
I’ve just recently received word from Lee Anderson here at StBlogs.com that diocesan and topical blogs are coming soon.
I’ve volunteered to admin the diocesan blog for the Archdiocese of Atlanta. Now, I’m not in Atlanta proper, but I am in the diocese. What this means is that the majority of my blogging on the diocesan blog will be drawn from news reports and especially our diocesan weekly, the Georgia Bulletin. Geography means that I can’t fully participate in a lot of the activities in the diocese. That’s where you readers come in. This is a group blog concept, so I will need contributors. If you are in the Atlanta Archdiocese and are able to be a contributor, meaning that you are ready to blog about what’s going on in our diocese, let me know via the combox and I’ll be glad to take a look at your work so far, and get you on as a contributor.
I’ve also volunteered to take on the Society and Politics topical blog. Not sure if this one will be mine or not. Society and Politics is no major stretch for me if you’ve read any of my posts. Of course Roman Catholic by Choice will continue…but I’ll be eager to have contributors of all stripes adding content to the Society and Politics blog (provided that I am the admin.)
Remember - to be a contributor you have to have a StBlogs.com account, and start your own personal blog. Doesn’t have to be anything fancy, you don’t have to post 6 times a day or anything. But I can’t make you a contributor to the community blogs unless you’re already registered here. So go ahead and register. Lee’s great at helping to migrate your existing blog over to StBlogs…and you’ll be well set with a Catholic Home for your Catholic Blog!
From Catholic Exchange comes an editorial by one Father Gerald Zandstra, entitled Minimum Wage and Common Sense. And that’s exactly what you’ll find in the article. Common Sense. While so many lay and clergy have trumpeted the need for an increase in the minimum wage because the “working poor” need more money, the good Father first of all dismantles the term “working poor” and then broaches the subject so few are willing to, the concept of “elastic effect.”
…when the government puts in place a certain public policy, there is always some response that comes from the marketplace. In public policy circles, this is called the elastic effect. For instance, increasing the entrance fee to a public park by 5 percent would lead us to conclude, on the basis of logic, that the park would take in 5 percent more income than it did last year. But, in fact, this is not necessarily the case because increasing the cost may cause 10 percent fewer people to visit the park, resulting instead in a net reduction in revenue.
Those of you who’ve been around a while must think John Martignoni and I are best buds or something. I post about his apologetics work a good bit. Well, I can’t help myself. In his e-newsletter each week, he posts real-life email conversation he has with people who disagree with the Catholic Church…and by way of his conversation he does a great deal of teaching to those of us reading, about how to give an answer to our faith. In today’s newsletter, he’s conversing with a Canadian minister, and touches on the subject of essential vs. non-essential doctrines. The minister appears to agree with John that the concept shouldn’t exist because in general, it’s not okay to be wrong and know we’re wrong, because it’s rather self-serving to say, “well, I have the essentials right but I disagree on the nonessentials.” The minister then goes on to explain what he perceives to be the existence of essential vs. nonessential doctrines within the Catholic Church. John clears up the confusion very cleanly. The minister’s side is in italic, John’s response in in boldface.
It seems to me that the Roman Catholic church has drawn some lines. The RC church does not seem to have doctrinal conformity from every country, parish, and Christian. All I have to do is call a RC friend and have a conversation about to birth control to verify this fact. But the RC church still accepts that “believer in error” as “one of theirs.” So, in a way, the RC church practices the concept I am talking about. It is not ok (according to the RC church) for these people to disagree about birth control. But it does not seem to be essential for fellowship and they are not excommunicated. I do not feel that the same understanding is extended to other sincere followers of Christ.
Here you seem to not fully understand Catholic teaching and practice. You are correct – the Roman Catholic Church does not have doctrinal conformity from every country, parish, or Christian – which is to the possible spiritual demise of those who are not in conformity with the teachings of the Church. However, the Church does have doctrinal conformity in its teachings. This cannot be said for the Christian faith traditions that teach essentials vs. non-essentials (by the way, who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential?). And, for those who are not in conformity with Church teachings…those who believe and practice, for example, contraception…this is a very grave matter, and fellowship indeed has been broken. The Church does not need to break fellowship with them, because they have broken fellowship with the Church.
Whether it be contraception or some other area of non-conformity to Church teaching, these folks have broken fellowship with the Church, with the Body of Christ. Again, this is a very serious and grave matter. They should not receive Communion (the Lord’s Supper) if such is the case. They should not receive Communion, because they are not in communion with the Church. They are, in essence, out of fellowship with the Church until they repent and confess their sins and receive absolution. They may be “sincere followers of Christ,” but they are sincerely wrong in what they are doing. And, the Church extends the exact same understanding to non-Catholics who err in their beliefs…it tells them they are wrong and asks them to come to the knowledge of the truth…the truth that will set them free.
No Comments »