The debate has seemed to boil down to whether to take a little more from the rich … or whether we take from the poor or the sick or the hungry or the unemployed or the elderly or the children.

Some Christians whom I’ve spoken with say that because the Democrats support abortion, we cannot take their side in this debate.  I disagree wholeheartedly with this approach.

As a Catholic Christian, I believe we are under obligation to protect and defend life … from the moment of conception, until its natural end.  In other words, all life – both born and unborn.  Understanding that obligation, I side with neither political party completely … because (and I continually re-evaluate when and where I lend my support in light of this) while the Republican Party does some things to defend the unborn (and sometimes it’s just lip-service based on the delegation they are speaking to at the moment), in recent years it has abandoned nearly all the other most vulnerable segments of our society.

Specifically, recent debates have focuses on whether to make cuts to programs that are a lifeline to the poor, sick, unemployed, elderly, hungry and children, or to keep these programs in place by eliminating tax advantages on those who have enough to buy jets and boats, or own multiple houses.

At a time like this perhaps it is prudent to fall back to a familiar question: WWJD? Maybe the part where He calls on compassion and caring for the rich was missing from the version of the Bible I read. (But then, according to some, the version I read is the ICV – Inferior Catholic Version!)

“He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich–both come to poverty.” — Proverbs 22:16

Who are we to show compassion toward?  The rich or the poor?  Are we to neglect the poor, etc because the unborn are more in need of our defense? That seems illogical to me. I would rather have a consistent set of morals, ethics, principles and beliefs … that believes that it is absolutely horrendous to take the life of a child in the womb, and that once outside the womb we must seek to care for those who are as vulnerable as the poor, sick, hungry, elderly and children!

In reality, it occurs to me that lack of respect for the unborn is rooted in lack of respect for the born. And until we face that, and begin to show more respect for the most vulnerable of the born, we are not going to turn the tide against the unborn.

Therefore, I believe the true Christian position in this debate is to support programs that will protect and defend the poor, sick, hungry, unemployed, elderly and children — even if that requires asking for a little more from the rich.

Before ending this post, I just want to give a few thoughts on a few miscellaneous things that people might be thinking:

“Jesus also condemned the tax collectors.” I would answer that by saying that those taxes did not come back to the people in the form of programs for the poor, etc that they do today.  We do need a way take care of people apart from the government … but the reason the government stepped in in the first place was because that was not happening.  For instance, food banks/pantries supported by the generosity of people are only able to cover about 6%(!) of the needs of those who are hungry.  The reality is the private sector alone isn’t (and wasn’t) coming close to getting that job done.

Others might point to those who are gaming the system and taking money that they shouldn’t. Yes, this is a problem in and of itself, but should it be an excuse to take away from the majority of those who are truly in need?

During the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Catholic Church was rejected. The only entity that the Reformers left with binding authority was the Scriptures.  The Reformers, such as Martin Luther, saw the necessity to establish the canon apart from the authority of the Catholic Church, and in doing so removed 7 Old Testament books, and even wanted to remove other books, such as James, from the New Testament.

But, the question that wasn’t really answered, it seems, was “by what authority?” What authority was there to (re-)determine the canon of Scripture? What authority was there to (re-)determine that the canon was authoritative and binding on Christians?

Later, in the mid-1600′s, the Westminster Confession of Faith, made the claim that the Scriptures and only the Scriptures were to be authoritative. Again, no definition or establishment of the Scriptures. In fact, the WCF said that they accepted the Scriptures as received. But from where were these received?

In the past I have put forth the following challenge. I repost it now for any who wish to take up the various questions it asks. Read carefully as some conditions may be more or less binding than they first appear.

Your challenge is three-fold. First, to establish the canon of the Bible. Second, to establish those contents as authoritative. And, third, to establish that the the canon you have established as authoritative is complete in it’s contents (no more and no fewer writings); that it addresses completely each and every doctrine that is to be held by those who accept the canon and authority of the Bible as the sole authority in establishing doctrines and pious devotions (such as meditations on the life, death and resurrection of Christ).

The following are the terms of the challenge:

1) In establishing the canon of the Bible, no appeal can be made to the writings you are proposing for a canon. No weight whatsoever will be given to those writings, above that of historical writings among other historical writings, unless this accuracy of such history is established in order to give it significant credence over other documents. They cannot be assumed to be inspired or the “word of God” as that is what you must prove.

– The basis for this condition is because the Bible is not given into the world as a single text, but as a group of texts that were written over time, and then gathered together into a single volume. Any requirement to show where a specific action, event, teaching, etc is found in the Bible must demonstrate that the writings given from which to show such are clearly established and sufficient for doing so.

For instance, I could ask you to show me your complete teaching on the Trinity in the letter to Philemon alone. The burden would be upon me to first show that the letter to Philemon is the sole writing we are to accept as authoritative, and that it is intended to be sufficient to completely teach the doctrine of the Trinity. If I cannot do that, and you hold that there are other writings and things that are also authoritative — even if not as authoritative as the letter to Philemon — then I cannot bind you only to the letter of Philemon.

2) In establishing the authority of the canon you have established, no appeal can be made to the writings in that canon as a proof of authority, as authority cannot be established by that which is seeking authority. For instance, I cannot rightly gain authority simply by saying that I am authoritative.

3) In establishing the authority of the canon, the entire canon should be established as authoritative; not just one, a few or a majority of writings.

4) In establishing the authority of the canon, it should further be established that the established canon is the only valid authority for the establishment of doctrines.

5) In the end, there should be no question of the establishment of these things under logical scrutiny; points should be logically established in unambiguous terms and statements.

While I no longer have the original letter, the points addressed in this response should be clear enough to show the Biblical basis for Baptism – and that it is neither a “work” nor a “commandment of men”.

Is Baptism a “work”?

The author states, in reference to Baptism and salvation: “The Bible teaches that salvation is a free gift that works can never buy.”   Indeed, the author is correct in stating that salvation is not by works.  The idea that salvation is by works has been refuted by Catholicism for century upon century.  However, the idea that Baptism is a “work” is absolutely absent from the texts of Scripture and the historical teachings on Christianity.  The author seems to have put his own (or others’) bias’ and prejudices on the Scriptures, so as to refer to Baptism as something the Scriptures do not consider it to be.  (We will address what Baptism is and does later in this response.)

One would have to wonder why it is that there are many baptisms performed in the New Testament if Baptism is a “work”, from which the Gospel tells us to turn.  It would seem particularly interesting that Paul, who taught clearly that we are not to consider ourselves saved by works, would have himself baptized (cf. Acts 9:18), and would have baptized others (cf. 1 Cor 1:14), and would have preached about the many aspects of Baptism ( cf. Rom 6:3-12, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27, Col 2:12, Eph 4:5, Rom 8:13-17).  And, we have not even mentioned the other writers who taught of Baptism.  The main point to get from this, though, is that Baptism is not now, nor has it ever been considered “a work.”   In fact, one should find such an idea almost blasphemous, considered what Jesus had to say on the topic.

Is Baptism a “commandment of men”?

Having shown that Baptism as a “work” is absent from the Scriptures, we now turn our attention to another statement contained within the letter, which is a quote from the Holy Scriptures. This passage seems quite inappropriately used merely to convey an idea the author would like us to believe, rather than the true meaning it is intended to convey.  By using this passage in such a way, the author seems to put him/herself at risk of “twisting the Scriptures to his/her own destruction.”  The passage is as follows: Christ warns us in Mark 7:6-9….”This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

From this, it would seem that we are to consider Baptism a “commandment of men” rather than a commandment of God.  But, such an idea is also foreign to the Holy Scriptures; and, as such, to the teaching of Christ Jesus Himself.

Jesus’ command to the Apostles:

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of  the Holy Spirit...” [Mt 28:19]‘He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. [Mk 16:16]

Jesus has commanded the Apostles to baptize; and notice, too, that Jesus says….”Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved….”  Thus, we find importance placed on belief and on baptism; though it does not say that belief alone is sufficient for salvation; but, of course, Catholic teaching has never maintained that one is saved forever merely by being baptized.

Jn 4:1 “The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John…”  Jesus (or his disciples, rather [cf Jn 4:2]; but we find in Jn 3:22 that Jesus was baptizing as well.) was baptizing people.

In fact, Jesus Himself was baptized (cf. Mt 3:16, Mk 1:9, Lk 3:21).

So, it would seem that Baptism is not a commandment of men, because Christ Jesus commanded it, did it, and received it Himself.  Thus, we can conclude that Baptism is necessary, as Christ Jesus would not have commanded or engaged in any frivilous acts.  But, now, let us turn our attention to the effects of Baptism.

Baptism: What it does

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
[Rom 6:3-4]

So here, I believe, it is important to stop and see what we are being told.  Baptism is not some ordinance that is devoid of meaning an substance.  Nor is it merely a witness before men of our confession of Christ as Savior. On the contrary, Paul tells us that our baptism joined us to Christ’s death, so that we may “count [ourselves] dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” [Rom 6:11]  Paul’s teaching in Romans 6:3-12 really tells us that we who have been baptized in Christ’s name have died to sin and are reborn into a new life, having now clothed ourself with Christ as Paul puts it in Galatians: “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” [Gal 3:26-27]

This idea fits in perfectly with the words of Christ Jesus which tell us that we must be “born anew of water and the Spirit.” [Jn 3:3, 5].  If we have died with Christ, and we “live a new life”,  is this not the same as being “born anew”??  By being “baptized into Christ’s death”, we have been joined to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, therefore having the merits won by Christ Jesus applied to us.  In such a way have we “clothed ourself with Christ”.  That is the importance of baptism, and that is why the Church teaches that she “does not know of any other means other  than Baptism that assures entry into eternal  beatitude”.  For, how could one receive salvation if their sins have not been nailed to the cross and they have not been joined to Christ Jesus??

In Acts 2:38, we find Peter telling the multitudes of people who have gathered:

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.“

From this verse we can clearly see two aspects of baptism; the first being “forgiveness of sins” and “the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 22:16 “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.“

The message of “baptism for the forgiveness of sins” was echoed by the Council of Nicea (A.D. 381.)
Hermas, in “The Shepherd” (A.D. 80), writes:

“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’”.

Justin Martyr writing “First Apology” in A.D. 151:

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven‘ [John 3:5]“

Tertullian writes:

“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic]  Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism–which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes–by taking them away from the water!” (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

and

“Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none“.

(For more on the thoughts of the Early Church Fathers with regard to this, see the tract “Necessity of Baptism” at http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/_necesst.htm)

What these quotes aim to show is the early teaching of the Church with respect to Baptism are consistent with the interpretation I have offered (and has been put forth consistently by the Church).

I believe these things shown are sufficient to blast large holes in the interpretation of the author of the previous letter.  I could write much more about Baptism (and many, many things have been written in the past, regarding it and the whole subject of salvation/justification/sanctification), but, I will stop here.  The point that should be taken away is that  the Catholic position is the Biblical and True position, no matter how other’s choose to “wrest” the Scriptures, the Catholic position will always be shown True.

The author also provided numerous quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).  For the sake of time and space, I invite any and all to look at more closely and fully; including the paragraphs surrounding those quoted, which will give the reader a fuller explanation from both a Scriptural and historical perspective on the teaching of the Church (citations of both Scripture verses and Church documents are made right in the text itself as an aide to the reader).  If the reader would like a better or fuller explanation of any part of the statements of the CCC on this issue, feel free to contact me.

Is there anything missing? Have you forgotten anything?

“Of course not!”

Are you sure …?

I will leave it to others to comment on the case itself, or on the film. But, I just wanted to say something about this film in relation to the pro-life movement. The murder of Dr. Tiller is significantly damaging to the pro-life movement — antithetical to it. Some may believe that it saved more lives than it took — namely that of thousands of innocent children in the womb — but the reality could prove to be the opposite.

Scott Roeder, now serving 50 years with no parole for the murder of Tiller, has made this film possible; and has given the abortion movement the material necessary to ensure that abortion will always be a lawfully available choice. It will do this by expanding the prevalence of those who subscribe to “I’m pro-life, but…”

And for that, because fewer and fewer will want to be potentially associated with the extremists who would ironically advocate violence and murder in the name of “life”, millions of more lives in the womb will be prevented from ever taking a first breath of air.

For those of you who have been voting Republican because of “social values” and a commitment to pro-life concerns … if you vote for them this year, you will be voting for the wrong party.

At today’s “Value Voters Summit” presented by the Family Research Council, candidates at various levels of government told “values voters” that issues such as “gay marriage” and “abortion” are not “going to change anybody’s vote this year because people are concerned about job, the economy, growth and taxes.”

“Party leaders like potential presidential candidates Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana have warned that an overt focus on wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion would be unhelpful for the party’s cause going into November.”

What an affront to “Values Voters” … to admit — even to them — that things like “gay marriage” and “abortion” are “wedge issues” that are “unhelpful for the party”!!! Its a base admission that these issues matter to them only if it will help them win.

On Friday, Rep. Mike Pence addressed the fissure directly, noting that GOP leaders have advised social conservatives that “the American people are focused on jobs and spending and our movement would do well to stand aside.”

Pence said that it is essential that Republicans multi-task and retain their focus on social as well as fiscal issues. “We must focus on our fiscal crisis and support our troops. We must work to create jobs and protect innocent human life,” he said.

Note how the mention to “protect innocent human life” is secondary to the economy and war issues …

The reality is, as I have said in the past, in this climate — where there is no commitment by politicians to “the five non-negotiables” (and in fact they have admitted abandonment of these issues) — we must look at who is supporting the greater good of the pro-life movement.

In this case, it is the Democratic Party (generally speaking) that meets such a criteria … with programs to help the sick, poor, and elderly; as well as addressing concerns for fair business practices and unemployment. All of which fall squarely in the realm of Catholic teaching on social justice.

In times past, “values voters” were more supportive of Democratic candidates because the issues they fought for were aligned with the beliefs, faith and morals of such voters. In more recent decades, the Republican Party used the issues of abortion, etc to gain these votes. Yet, history shows that there is scarcely little that they have ever done on this front.

Perhaps now, with the clear admission that economic and war issues matter more than abortion and gay marriage, “values voters” will reexamine their support of the Republican Party, and vote to help the sick, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the unemployed that is being addressed by the programs promoted by Democrats at the federal, state and local levels.

It’s time to take back the pro-life movement from politicians and politico-religious organizations whose statements are more reflective of a political party line, than of a genuine pro-life position.

Decades have passed since Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton that made abortion on demand a protected right. But, despite the election of politicians who claim to be pro-life, and the insistence of religious organizations that we must vote for these politicians, “abortion rights” are as firm today as ever.

Politicians that pro-lifers are voting into office lack any real commitment to the cause for life.  And yet we continue to send them back there again and again.  So called “pro-life organization”, and groups like the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, unfortunately are not calling this out.

The ideals of the pro-life movement are not synonymous with a Political Party — and, in fact, votes for self-proclaimed “Pro-life politicians” has thus far been detrimental to the values of the pro-life agenda, and the people of this nation. (Diminished education, sky rocketing costs of health care,  more uninsured, and growing poverty — highest numbers in 50 years! )

The reality is that, because most every politician has no real commitment to pro-life issues, such planks of that politician’s platform should be mostly dismissed.  In most cases, the economic platforms of most politicians are the most important to them — and it is those positions that should be closely scrutinized by pro-lifers.

Does that mean that poverty and health care and education are more important issues than, say, abortion and same-sex marriage?  Not at all!  But, when you examine the record of most “pro-life politicians”, money and power are of greater concern than protection of, and concern for, life.  Thus, at the end of the day, most “pro-life politicians” have simply betrayed those of us with a genuine concern for pro-life issues.

As such, it’s time to change the way we vote as People for a Culture of Life.  Stop voting for the guy who merely claims to be pro-life.  The chance that he/she is saying that simply to get your vote is in the high 90′s!  Stop being a “one issue voter.”

Instead, listen and look at the entire platform of the candidate, and ask of each position:  Does this position show concern for all life?  Does it care for the unborn, the elderly, the sick, the disabled, and the poor?

Only when we start to do this, will be be able to get back the pro-life movement from politicians, political parties, and organizations that have more commitment to politics than values.

Check it out!

This is a great series by Columnist Doug Giles:

Raising Girls That Pimps and Thugs Will Hate, Part 1
Raising Girls That Pimps and Thugs Will Hate, Part 2
Raising Girls That Pimps and Thugs Will Hate, Part 3

Some of my favorite excerpts:

Hey sperm donor: if you bring a little girl into this world, then it is your job to make certain she’s grounded. That’s right, Pappy . . . you are the principal player in keeping your young woman from being the next Anna Nicole Smith.

1. Teach Them How to Fight.
2. Teach Them How to Shoot Guns.
3. Teach Them How Sense BS.
4. Teach Them How to Rebel.
5. Teach Them How to Be Classy (That’s mostly my wife’s job.)
6. Teach Them to Despise Anti-Intellectualism.
7. Teach Them to Be Visionaries.
8. Teach Them How to Party.
9. Teach Them the Value of Hard Work.
10. Teach Them the Importance of Traditional Convictions.

Raising girls that rock isn’t rocket science. So relax, Dad. You don’t have to start watching Oprah, Rachel Ray or the Bravo Channel in order to assist your girl. Simply let loose your natural, masculine instincts in their provisional and protective qualities on your little lady.

Nice dad, if you’re going to send your daughter to a state run university, then you’ve got to teach your lass to not just sit there in class being a good girl and taking whatever the secular “progressives” shove down her throat. You must teach to her to deftly defy defunct dogmas and not turn a blonde eye to bad ideas.

And dad, don’t pass spiritual training off to your wife. She’s only part of your girl’s spiritual picture.

One other part that I like is:

Dad, provide your girl with a killer library covering a variety of topics. Start with the easy to read version of the Bible. Then get her everything R.C. Sproul’s written on Theology. After that, line the shelves with biographies of productive world shakers. Then get a good tome that overviews the major philosophers/philosophies. In addition, stack her shelves with world history books and the history of the West. Last but not least, stock the Classics.

—–
I think Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and perhaps Frank Sheed might be a stronger replacement for Sproul, although I don’t take great exception to Sproul. For Catholics, certainly those other writers would provide a more sound theological base.