Candy's back!

It has been quite a while since our last blog post, but I thought I should at least mention that Candy is back.  Hopefully she will be sticking with homemaking and uplifting Christian content and not dipping back into "enlightening" Catholics, but we've already got responses to her articles written, so we're set either way.

I find it kind of ironic that Elena and I have tried to make a real effort to keep this blog focused only on the theological content of Candy's blog and not make personal comments, but that other blog is the one which gets the written apology from Candy.  I'm sure Elena appreciates the apology, even if it was left on the wrong blog.

The Resurrection of the Body

Today's reading touched on a topic that I have been thinking more about lately.  Have you noticed that the Christian idea that there will be a bodily resurrection is dying out among mainstream Christians?  It is more popular now to think that we will be leaving our inferior bodies behind, to become be joined with God in spirit or as "pure energy."


The resurrection of the dead was a hot topic in the time of Jesus.  It has become an accepted tradition that we don't really think about much today, but at the time your view of the resurrection depending on what you accepted as Scripture and your view of tradition versus a literal interpretation of that Scripture.



Luke 20:27-38
Some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, came forward and put this question to Jesus, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us, If someone's brother dies leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.  Now there were seven brothers; the first married a woman but died childless. Then the second and the third married her, and likewise all the seven died childless.  Finally the woman also died.  Now at the resurrection whose wife will that woman be? For all seven had been married to her."

Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry; but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise.  That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush,
when he called out 'Lord, ' the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."



The Sadducees were trying to ask Jesus a trick question here. Who were the Sadducees?  They were the Jewish group whose worship centered around the Temple, rather than the synagogues.  Like the fundamentalists of today, they rejected oral tradition and insisted on a literal interpretation of Scripture.  This is why they did not believe in a bodily resurrection, because it did not appear in the Torah.  Yes, you read that correctly, the idea of a bodily resurrection does not appear in the Torah.  Because Jesus is replying to the Sadducees, who do not accept anything but the Torah, his restrains his answer to the Torah in reply.

Not to criticize Jesus or anything, but I always found his reply a little lacking in proof for the resurrection of the dead.  I always thought God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because he was the God that they worshiped.  Still, this verse is one that we Catholics reach to as proof that the dead are not unaware of us.  If "his is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive" then we can pray for the dead, and they can pray for us, because they are alive with God.

The Jewish belief in a bodily resurrection was only gradually developed.  Scholar N.T. Wright writes, "When we turn to ancient Judaism the picture is both very similar and very different.  The Hebrew Sheol, the place of the dead, is not very different from Homer’s Hades.  People are asleep there; they can sometimes be woken up, as with Saul and Samuel, but to do so is dangerous, and forbidden. That is the picture we get from most of the Old Testament. . . The Sadducees deny the world to come altogether, reminding us that resurrection was and remained an explicitly political doctrine, about God turning the present world and its power structures upside down.  Thus the Pharisees’ belief in the resurrection was part of their generally revolutionary ideology: as in Daniel and Maccabees, resurrection was an incentive to martyrdom."

N.T. Wright references the books of Maccabees, which is one of the books which was removed from the protestant canon because it contained references to praying for the dead.  Yet removing Maccabees also removes some of the most explicit references to a coming bodily resurrection.

2 Maccabees 7:1-2, 9-14

It happened that seven brothers with their mother were arrested and tortured with whips and scourges by the king, to force them to eat pork in violation of God's law. One of the brothers, speaking for the others, said: "What do you expect to achieve by questioning us?  We are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our ancestors."

At the point of death he said: "You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the world will raise us up to live again forever. It is for his laws that we are dying." After him the third suffered their cruel sport. He put out his tongue at once when told to do so, and bravely held out his hands, as he spoke these noble words: "It was from Heaven that I received these; for the sake of his laws I disdain them; from him I hope to receive them again."

Even the king and his attendants marveled at the young man's courage, because he regarded his sufferings as nothing.  After he had died, they tortured and maltreated the fourth brother in the same way.  When he was near death, he said, "It is my choice to die at the hands of men with the hope God gives of being raised up by him; but for you, there will be no resurrection to life."




Clearly, Christians today believe in a bodily resurrection because it is explicit in the New Testament scriptures.  But the belief in a bodily resurrection by Jesus and the Pharisees was based on their acceptance of oral tradition, and of the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books such as the books of Maccabees. 

Hell As Motivation

Katie Allison Granju posts on her blog today how some Baptist missionaries tried to "save" her by exploiting her son's death:

They shook their heads sadly and explained in so many words that given where I go to church, it’s possible that Henry is actually burning in hell right now. They then went on to suggest that “now would be a good time” to ensure that my remaining children do not meet a similar, fiery fate by bringing the kids to THEIR church, which God and Jesus apparently favor over my own.

Then they handed me some church-produced literature about the dangers of gay marriage and abortion and whatnot, and went on to the next house on our street.

I stood there, watching them walk away, bemused by the unmitigated gall of these women.
Did two Baptist missionaries just come into my yard and tell me that my recently deceased child is likely FRYING IN HELL? Why yes, yes they did.

 Compare this to some of what Candy has written:

This means being willing to talk about God outside of church, and not
wimping out by saying that you will witness simply by being an
example. What kind of Christian stands by and says nothing as their
family and friends head towards hell? If they reject the Gospel that
is one thing, but did you give them the chance to reject it? Every
Christian is commanded to spread the gospel.

Those who are headed for hell won't like you anyway, but being a
strong witness to the truth, you can help save those who recognize
Christ's call.

I'm sure these Baptists did not intend to offend Katie, and Katie seems good-natured about it.   But I have to wonder what this method of conversion says about their view of God. 

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.


Is accepting Jesus as your Savior out of fear of punishment what God wants?  We should desire to follow God out of love, not out of fear.  We should respect God, yes.  Fear of the Lord is a virtue.  But just as God gave his only begotten Son out of love for us, so he wants our love in the same way.

If you are going to suggest exploiting the death of a loved one to try and convert someone, I would suggest trying this dialog instead.  "Do you know how much you love Henry?  Well, that's how much God loves you.  And do you know how you would have given anything to have been able to save his life, even give up your own?  God loves you so much, that he became human and gave up his own life to save yours."  Maybe you could then read the parable of the lost sheep.

How do you guys feel about this?  What do you suggest would be the best thing to say?  

Haircovering versus Headcovering

It has been a while since I've written a post, and I found Candy's latest post on the topic of "haircovering" to be interesting.  Candy writes:

It is said that a woman should cover her glory, and that it should be for her husband to see only. Some even say that if a woman shows her hair, she is being immodest.

I disagree with this. If a woman wants to cover all of her hair, then that is her prerogative, and I really don't care. I may, perhaps, think she looks like a gypsy, or chemo patient, but that is of no importance.

However, I do have a problem when a woman who covers all of her hair tells me I'm "doing it wrong," by letting my hair show. While haircoverers like to state that a woman should cover her hair, I use the same Scripture to state otherwise. 

Of course, there is the irony of Candy writing a post about how haircoverers are wrong because she doesn't like it when they tell her that she is wrong.  It is also typically Candy to so cluelessly use "chemo patient" as an insult. 

Candy goes on to discuss 1 Corinthians 11, which she has dissected time and time again, first to prove that a headcovering was not required, and now to prove that it IS required. 

3) Verse 15 says a woman's hair is her glory - should we cover it? This is where there is a disconnect. It says that a woman's hair is given her for A covering. The woman has two coverings - her hair, in which verse 15's word for "covering" is a different word from all other occurrences of "covering" in the chapter. In verse 15, covering comes from a Greek word, which means 'veil, to wrap around.'

If we are to cover our hair, then what happened to our first covering, which is supposed be like a veil, and wrap around? Hair that is pinned up is not a veiling - it neither hangs as a veil, nor wraps around - it is simply up. A woman can have a covering ON her hair - covering her glory, and covering her husband's glory, but still have hair showing. Remember, the context of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is the HEAD covering, never the HAIR covering.

So then, is Candy saying that it would be wrong to ever wear your hair pinned up because it would then not be a veiling?

Again, if women are not allowed to show any hair, and are to cover it all, then why does 1 Corinthians 11 always talk of covering the HEAD, and not of the hair?




Are we restricted to 1 Corinthians 11 for this topic?  Orthodox Jewish women who are married always cover their hair, either with a wig, scarf or hat.  How did this practice come about?  From Numbers 5:18 ^"And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse."

As the priest is commanded to uncover the woman's head as a part of this judgement ritual, it is assumed that her head is normally covered.  Now how this has become the requirement of married Jewish women to cover all of their hair is a study of Judaism leans on tradition for the interpretation of Scripture.  There is a good article with quotes from the relevant Halakha here.

I especially liked this story.  "The Talmud tells of a woman named Kimhit who had seven sons, all of whom eventually served as High Priests. The sages asked her: "What have you done to merit thus?" She replied: "Throughout the days of my life the beams of my house have not seen the plaits of my hair." They responded to her in a somewhat unexpected and ambiguous way: "There were many who did likewise and did not succeed" (BT Yoma 47a)."

Candy often seems to feel that she is additionally blessed because of her actions.   She does not identify herself as merely a Christian, but a dresses-only headcovering KJV Christian. 

In Greek-speak, the woman has her veil covering - which is her long hair, and her head covering, which is a covering on top of the head.

Where do we find the definition that a head covering only covers the top of the woman's head?  I appreciate that for many headcovering women, the covering is merely symbolic.  But when I see someone with a small doily or headband type covering, then I would really never think that it is supposed to actually cover their head.  It would need to much larger than that to literally cover their head.

Going back to the article, Candy makes another point:

Another point to consider - If Christian women are to cover ALL of their hair, then why does the Bible speak on wearing modest hair styles? . . . Why even mention woman's hairstyles, if no one can see it, because it's all under a covering?

I can think of several options for this.  Many Christians interpret the 1 Corinthians verses to imply an obligation to cover during corporate worship.  That is why Catholic women used to cover their hair during Mass, but not at other time. 

Also, Muslim women cover their hair outside of the home or when they are around men, but if women are gathering without men present, then they usually remove their hair covering.  The verses could apply to that sort of situation. 

One point which Candy does not discuss is the sort of witness which having a head or hair covering gives.  This is usually a strong reason for her.  In her dresses only article she writes:

First off, Jesus tells us that Christians are not supposed to blend in with the world. Some people would say that that's just in the heart, but that can't be completely correct.

If I walked around dressed as everyone else is, then how would people know I'm different, unless they spoke to me? Why would they want to speak with me, if I look just like them? What would be different or interesting, to peak their curiosity?

In her headcovering article, she writes:

I lean toward the side that the women can choose which covering she wants, just as long as it's on top of the head, and it can be seen as a headcover, and not just as some cute hair accessory.

I think one could make the argument that completely covering the hair would make you a better witness, because there is no way it could be mistaken for a cute hair accessory.  Candy's bandana style coverings do not look like a distinctive covering to me.  Paired with the dress, yes, I would assume that she is a covering Christian, but I've seen many women wearing pants who wear bandanas on their head as well. 

I think that contrary to what she says, the real reason for Candy to "head" cover as opposed to "hair" cover is found at the beginning of the article.  She just doesn't want to look silly, or like a chemo patient.

Setting Aside Misrepresentations

On today's Daily Register, there is an interview with Paul McCusker, who is a recent Catholic convert.  McCusker has worked for Focus on the Family for 25 years, most notably on their Adventures in Odyssey series.  The interview focuses on his religious background and conversion.  This section caught my eye.

I attended a C.S. Lewis conference in Austin, Texas. There, I met Peter Kreeft, who was speaking about 10 things to learn about evil from The Lord of the Rings. I spoke to him during a break. There, all of my bigotry about Catholicism came to play. My thought was: Here is an incredibly articulate and intelligent man who became a Catholic while he was attending Calvin College. Why would he do that?

That conversation triggered the question, and I realized at that moment that I needed to put aside all of the cultural Catholics whom I had met, who were misrepresenting Catholicism to me. I also had to put aside all of the misinterpretations of Catholicism that I had learned from Protestants — people who thought they knew what Catholicism was, but didn’t. I had to put both groups aside and simply study what the ancient Church believed and what it didn’t, and let the Church speak for itself. That put me on a five-year gentle journey of study and prayer and talking to priests and others who could articulate the essence of what the Church is.

I thought that really summed up what Candy and so many others believe.  Erik has made a lot of his background as a Catholic, but really, he was a "cultural Catholic."  Candy and the Jack Chick contingent think they know what Catholicism is, but they are wrong, and worse, they are misrepresenting.

Welcome home to Mr. McCusker. 

Called To Share the Good News

A snippet of Erik's testimoney, which he shared on Candy's blog in July of 2008:

When I was growing up, going to church was something that you did for an hour on Sunday and then you got back to your 'Real Life'. Better yet, get church 'out of the way' on Saturday afternoon just before dinner so you can enjoy Sunday without interruption. I got the impression from my upbringing that it was impolite to talk about God outside of church. So much for spreading the gospel as Christ called every Christian to do.

Of course, Erik and Candy drew the conclusion that this reflected on the Catholic Church rather than Erik's family.  Certainly, there are mediocre Christians in every church.

You can read the importance of evangelization in this recent address which the Pope gave in Portugal.

From its origins, the Christian people has clearly recognized the importance of communicating the Good News of Jesus to those who did not yet know him. In recent years the anthropological, cultural, social and religious framework of humanity has changed; today the Church is called to face new challenges and is ready to dialogue with different cultures and religions, in the search for ways of building, along with all people of good will, the peaceful coexistence of peoples. The field of the mission ad gentes appears much broader today, and no longer to be defined on the basis of geographic considerations alone; in effect, not only non-Christian peoples and those who are far distant await us, but so do social and cultural milieux, and above all human hearts, which are the real goal of the missionary activity of the People of God.

 This is the mandate whose faithful fulfillment “must follow the road Christ himself walked, a way of poverty and obedience, of service and of self-sacrifice even unto death, a death from which he emerged victorious by his resurrection” (Ad Gentes, 5). Yes! We are called to serve the humanity of our own time, trusting in Jesus alone, letting ourselves be enlightened by his word: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide” (Jn 15:16). How much time we have lost, how must work has been set back, on account of our lack of attention to this point! Everything is to be defined starting with Christ, as far as the origins and effectiveness of mission is concerned: we receive mission always from Christ, who has made known to us what he has heard from his Father, and we are appointed to mission through the Spirit, in the Church. Like the Church herself, which is the work of Christ and his Spirit, it is a question of renewing the face of the earth starting from God, God always and alone.

 Look, he even said "trusting in Jesus alone," not "trusting in Jesus and Mary."  Sounds downright Christian of him.

How To Study the Bible

 Candy has a post today on how to study the Bible.   Previously, she has recommended some study Bibles, but at this moment, she seems to be taking a break from them.

When I come across something I don't understand, or wish to study further, then I refer to the center column references in my Bible. I'm not currently using a study Bible - just a simple reference Bible. Often I understand the Scripture in question just by looking at its references. If not, then I may look up some of the key words from that Scripture in the concordance at the back of my Bible, and see if I can find related verses that way.

At other times she has recommended the Dake, despite his views on the Trinity, and the Scofield.  Of course, we know that she ONLY uses the King James Version.

But here is the passage which really caught my eye:


Before I look up references and other related Scriptures, I first read further. There have been so many times when I had a question while I was reading, but reading further cleared it up for me. I had one of those moments just a few days ago. Right now, I'm studying in Genesis and Matthew. I was in Genesis chapter 19, where the angels were visiting Lot, to warn him of the coming judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. Before they could get down to business, a group of perverted sodomites were banging at Lot's door, wanting to sodomize the two angels that were Lot's guests.

Here's what used to boggle me... Lot offers his two daughters instead, and tells the sodomites that they can do what they want with his two daughters. Well, the Sodomites refused, and the angels came over and blinded the perverts.

I kept on reading, and then I saw it - Lot said that his two daughters were virgins, and that the Sodomites could do with them as they pleased. Lot was lying. In fact, it was not likely that his daughters were even in the house with him. Later in the same chapter, we read that his daughters are married. We read of this when we see that the daughters' husbands refused to leave Sodom, so only Lot, his wife, and his two daughters escaped before the town was destroyed.

However, the family was not left untouched from being in such a perverted, sinful environment. The wife disobeyed the angels, and turned to look at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, so she was turned to a pillar of salt. Meanwhile, the two daughters got their father drunk, and committed incest with him, so that they could have children to carry on the family name - NOT a good thing.

All of this study occurred in about 2 minutes or less, as I read the chapter and "saw" it, LOL.

 Candy says that Lot was lying about his daughters being virgins.  She says that they are, in fact, married, and probably not even in the house.

Genesis 19:14And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
 ¹⁵And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

We can see that the daughters were at home, because of verse 15.  Verse 14 speaks of his daughters being married, but since they were not living with their husbands and Lot referred to them as virgins, then it is likely that they were betrothed.  Betrothal was as serious as marriage.

You can see this illustrated with Mary and Joseph, who were betrothed but not married:

Matthew 1:19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Betrothal was so serious, that it needed a divorce to be broken.

It seems to me that Candy is trying to find a way to say that Lot wasn't REALLY going to let his daughters be raped by a mob.  But I find that surprising, since Candy prides herself on her knowledge of the Bible.  As she wrong in October of 2008:

I would like to let you know a little about me. I learned about proper doctrine from none other but the Bible. I've read through the Bible over 18 times (KJV). 

If Candy is so familiar with the Bible, then it seems to me that she would remember a similar instance from the book of Judges where the Father certainly was not lying.  From Judges, chapter 19:

²⁰And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
 ²¹So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
 ²²Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
 ²³And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
 ²⁴Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
 ²⁵But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
 ²⁶Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.
 ²⁷And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
 ²⁸And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered.

In the end, it was the concubine and not the virgin daughter who was gang-raped to death.  But there was no indication that the master would not have turned over his daughter.

The codes of hospitality in the Middle East were so important, that a man would turn over his daughters, or pay anything from his household, rather than have any harm come to come to someone who had sought shelter under his roof.

They are both sad stories.  But I do not think Lot was lying.

Whoa, Candy posted my comment.  I wish I knew in advance if she was going to do that so I would spend a little more time composing them.  Anyway, here is the conversation so far:

I wrote: There is a similar story in Judges 19. In the Middle East, a man would certainly offer his daughters rather than have harm befall someone who was taking shelter under his roof.

You know that the daughters were there, because of verse 14. I believe they were "betrothed" rather than married. Notice that Joseph was going to seek a divorce from Mary, although they were not married. Lot's daughters would have still been virgins living under his roof if they were betrothed.

She replied:  Where does it say that Lot's daughters were there with him? Also, the chapter is clear that they were married.

I also don't buy into that "middle east custom."

When referring to the daughters being there, the context was in the city, not in that very house. The angels told Lot that if he had anyone else in Sodom, besides his wife, daughters, and sons in law, that he should warn them as well.

There is nothing in that chapter that tells us that his daughters were with him, from what I can find, and there is nothing in this chapter that tells me they weren't married - on the contrary, it literally says there were married.

Kelly, I understand that that is what you believe, but that's not what the Scriptures say. They say "marriED." :-)

I wrote: Oops, I meant verse 15:
And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

Yes, I know it clearly says that they were married. 

But again, what about Judges 19?  No one was lying in that case.



She doesn't buy into that middle eastern custom, huh?  Well, I think it's pretty horrific, too, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

EDIT- Since Candy deleted the comments on her post, here are some of the others:

Debio-Candy,
Upon first examination I am thinking Lot's daughters may have not been married but promised or enguaged because it says they were with him. He went to his sons in law and they wouldnt listen but he took his daughters who were with him out of the city. I will have to study it further.

Debio- Gen19:15 thy two daughters, which are here ( this verse implies that he only had two daughters and they were both still at home)

The angels told Lot to Arise, take thy wife and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.
vs 14 Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get ye out of this place; for the Lord will destry this city. Be he seemed as one that was mocked to his son in law.( this verse implies that they were not actually married yet.

There are many instances in the bible where an enguaged couple is called married. For instance, Joseph was going to divorce Mary and everyone knows they werent married yet. The angel told him not to get a divorced.

It could be that Lot had daughters who were actually married and other daughters who were virgins who were still at home.
vs 30 sounds like there were just two daughters, the elder and the younger.

They didnt think they would have anyone to mate with so they got Lot drunk and laid with him each one. So they each got pregnant.

Candy replied- "which are here" calls us back to an earlier verse in the chapter:


"And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place"


"Here" clearly refers to in the city, not specifically in the house only.


Also, verse 15 "are here" also refers to in the city. In fact, the KJV translators were divided over how to best convey this in English, so they put the alternate Hebrew translation on the side, which says:


"And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are found; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city."


Even if "are here" did refer to in the house at that time, it doesn't mean that the daughters lived in that very house.


When Joseph and Mary were espoused, it said "espoused:"


"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." -Matthew 1:18

Catholic Sex Scandals, Part III

In part three of "Catholic Sex Scandals" I am addressing the "talk is cheap, when are they going to DO something about it" criticism.

Efforts To Combat Clergy Sexual Abuse Against Minors: A Chronology [USA]
U. S. Bishops Approve Charter to Protect Children and Young People
Restructured Committee on Sexual Abuse Announced
Sex Abuse Committee Releases Preliminary Survey Results
Mixed Commission Ends Work In Rome on Sexual Abuse Charter
Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons
Guidelines for Implementation of Safe Environment Programs
Training Held on 'Essential Norms'; Vatican Official Took Part
The John Jay Study results [comprehensive study commissioned by the USCCB]
Vatican Report on U.S. Seminaries
Pope blasts Irish bishops, orders Vatican probe
Vatican urges psychological tests on future priests
Guidelines for the use of psychology in the admission and formation of candidates for the priesthood
After an Accusation, Here is What Happens at the Vatican
A Papal Conversion [Article on changing procedures under Cardinal Benedict]
Vatican Publishes Procedures for Sex Abuse Cases
Vatican shows new transparency with online guide

Catholic Sex Scandals, Part II

My first entry on this topic concerned the common idea that the root cause of the Catholic sexual abuse problem is celibacy. This entry is to focus on "Why is it so hard for the church and church members to acknowledge the guilt of the priests and repudiate them?"

Pope apologizes to Irish abuse victims, orders Vatican investigation
Irish bishops apologize for 'depravity of abuse' described in Dublin
Catholic Order Apologizes to Abuse Victims
Catholic Bishops Apologize for Sex Abuse
German Bishops Apologize to Child Sex Abuse Victims
Chile's Catholic Church Apologizes for Child Abuse
Swiss bishops apologize, saying they underestimated abuse problem
Catholic bishops deliver full apology for child sex abuse [England and Wales]
U.S. Bishops Apologize for Scandal
Pope Meets Maltese Abuse Victims
Pope Meets With Victims of Sex Abuse By Clergy, Apologizes [USA]
Australia: Pope apologizes for church's sex crimes [bishops]
Pope says sorry to Australian victims of clerical sex abuse
Pope's brother apologizes to abuse victims at his former school
Paedophile priests must own up to their sins, says Vatican [Cardinal Bertone]
Papal preacher apologizes for anti-Semitic remarks

So, how much apologizing is enough? I know, the next remark is "Well, they aren't sincere. They're just apologizing because they got caught." Unfortunately, there is no way to prove sincerity. But to anyone asking the Catholic Church to acknowledge that there is a problem, you got it.

Catholic Sex Scandals

With the new deluge of news articles about the sex scandals in the Catholic Church, I thought it would be important for me to put forth some resources for putting this in perspective.

First, there are not new cases being reported every day. The news articles which are being written are about cases which happened several decades previously.

Second, it is easy to point the finger at the Catholic rule of celibacy for clergy. If this were the case, then there wouldn't be any cases in other churches. However, this is not true at all. Abusers often take positions of authority, and a clergy member has a lot of respect and trust.
You can find cases of abuse in almost all denominations.

Lutheran
Presbyterian
Baptist
Methodist
Pentecostal
Episcopalian

Some question when other churches are going to institute similar policies as the Catholic Church for handling abuse. How soon policies have been adopted vary by denomination.

Most of the abuse in the Catholic cases tended to be of teenage males, which is not actually pedophilia, although most people think of the abuse as being of small children. Most pedophiles are married, not single.

In fact, Catholic priests are no more likely to be abusers than those of other denominations. What about other professions? Several studies have found the rate of abuse by teachers are much higher than that of clergy.

This article from Psychology Today reaffirms the same points that I wanted to make.

Candy and "lint"

Clearly, I still haven't gotten around to addressing Candy's hilarious "lint" comment. Maybe tomorrow. In the mean time, while preparing my Confirmation class lesson, I ran across this very relevant blog post. Alive and Young is a new favorite blog!

Confused Teen Interviews Local Bishop on the Season of Lint

Teen: Bishop, As Catholics we are about to enter the Season of Lint. Would you mind telling us something about the Linten Season?

Bishop: Well, I don't know much about the season of Lint. If I remember correctly, Lint is the stuff you find in your pockets after drying your clothes. Personally, I don't see a theological reasoning to have an entire season devoted to Lint. But as Christians and Catholics we have an entire season devoted to Lent. In as few words as possible, Lent is a season of preparation for Easter Sunday, the resurrection of our Lord. Lent is a time of penance, prayer, fasting, and alms giving. It is considered one of the most holiest times of the year, and because of that we too should engage in deepening our relationship with Christ. As Christ went to the desert for 40 days so we too enter into a period of 40 days of spiritual exercise.

Jack is back!

A priest in Tennessee has discovered Jack Chick tracts:

Father Jay Flaherty, of Holy Cross Catholic Church, said he first learned about the pamphlets when one of his youth brought one to him.

"There's two of them that really upset me because I knew it would upset the children," Father Flaherty said. "One's called the 'Death Cookie,' which claims that our communion is from the devil."

The other pamphlet, titled "Last Rites," shows cartoon drawings of a Roman Catholic man who isn't saved because he didn't accept Christ.

I think Fr. Flaherty goes just a wee bit overboard later in the article in suggesting that distributing Chick tracts might lead to another Columbine. His bishop makes a much better statement:

In a statement release Friday by the Diocese of Knoxville, Bishop Richard F. Stika called the pamphlets "reprehensible acts of prejudice and hatred of a few souls."

"The rationale one Baptist pastor gave in support of distributing these reprehensible, discriminatory, and bigoted tracts was that he was trying to point out the primary difference his church has with Catholics: the belief that a person does not and cannot work his or her way to salvation," Bishop Stika said in the statement. "Unfortunately, this pastor does not have a correct understanding of what the Catholic faith teaches in this regard."

New info--

I found another news article which gives more information about the situation. I hadn't realized these pamphlets had been passed out at a local public high school. I think the article indicates that it was students from this Baptist church passing them out. Some choice quotes from the article.

Despite admitting he knew little about the Catholic Faith, Conner Heighs Baptist Pastor Jonathan Hatcher felt confident that publisher Chick Publications was spreading the gospel . . .

Pastor Hatcher says he's not trying to target Catholics specifically, just the belief that the eucharist will save one's soul.

In fact, he says he doesn't even really know much about the Catholic faith.

"I'm obviously not schooled in the Catholic religion, I've not read the Catholic canons. I study the King James Bible and that's what I preach from, what I study from," Pastor Hatcher said.

When asked if he's concerned about passing out literature targetting a religion about which he admits he doesn't know much, Pastor Hatcher says he trusts the publishers of the material.

"The people who distribute these tracts, or put them on the market, say they are schooled in it," Pastor Hatcher said. "Our goal is not to spread not to start violence, not to spread hatred, but to share the Gospel."

Yes, let us trust Jack Chick on the subject of Catholicism.

Purgatory Primer

No new material here, but this is my handout for my class tonight.

Before Christ’s death and resurrection, souls waited redemption in Sheol: Zech 9:11, Eph 4:8-10, 1 Pet 3:19-20

References to those “under the Earth” who are neither in Heaven nor Hell, after Christ’s death and resurrection: Phil 2:10-11, Rev 5:3, 13.

Catholic Catechism #1031 “The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire.”

This punishment isn't in Hell because you can't be saved through hellfire. Also, there's no punishment in Heaven: 1 Corinthians 3:10-16, 2 Corinthians 5:9-11, Hebrews 12:6, 11

#1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin.

#1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains.

Temporal punishment is that which is due to sin, even after the sin has been pardoned by God.
CCC #1741 “By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage.”

Christ promised there was punishment that exacted what was due but wasn't endless. (And Paul supported this teaching.)
Matt 5: 20-26, Matt 12:32, Matt 18:21-35, Matt 25:31-46, Luke 12:58-59, Heb 9:27, Psalm 99:8

We must be spotless and pure in God's presence: Rev 21:27, Matt 5:8, 2 Cor 7:1

Those who are alive can pray for those who are dead (and vice versa): 1 John 5:16-17, Luke 16:19-31, 2 Maccabees 12:38-46, Sirach 7:33

Books, books, and more books

I promise this isn't going to turn into a homemaking blog, but I couldn't resist posting in response to Candy's "How I organize books" post. No offense intended toward Candy, but if you happen to have a large amount of books, then you need to organize a little more than wherever they happen to land on the shelf.

I've already shown you our main bookcase:



To the left is non-fiction. Over the window seat are triple stacked science fiction paperbacks. The set of shelves on the left have classics and antique books on the higher shelves, and picture books on the lower shelves.

Now, I just love children's literature. I also happen to have four children, so have more books for children than you see on those shelves. Bookshelves can get expensive quickly, so whenever I see a small bookshelf at a yard sale, I buy it.

This is the bookshelf in my daughter's room:



She has more advanced chapter books on the top shelf, and mostly fairy tale books on the other two. My children listen to audiobooks while they're falling asleep, so that is why she has speakers on top of the bookshelf. The photo is of the child she helps to sponsor through the Christian Foundation for Children and Aging. The books sitting out on the right are waiting a trip to the used book store.

The two middle boys also have a bookshelf in their room:



They have smaller beginner chapter books such as The Magic Treehouse series, and boy books such as Henry Huggins, Peter Pan, etc.

We keep children's non-fiction and reference books in the homeschooling area:



I always have a messy pile of books next to where I sit on the couch. If I'm writing an intensive blog entry, this stack is usually over on the computer desk:



We've lived in this house for 3 years, and while I'm unpacked most of the books, there are still a few boxes in the basement. Notice that I labeled the boxes with a black marker, as Candy recommends:



Now, I skipped pictures of small stacks of books. We keep all of the children's magazines in one bin, have a basket of good bedtime stories, a big container of Christmas books in the basement, etc. But I think that gives you the general idea.

Works aren't evil

In Candy's last post in her series on the Law, she writes that Born Again Christians are not under the Law.

Candy writes: Remember what we saw in the above Scripture - "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." When we walk in the spirit, we produce good FRUITS. Meanwhile, walking in the flesh produces WORKS. Notice in the above Scripture, I bolded fruits and works so that you could more clearly see the distinction. When we walk in the spirit we keep and fulfill the law, but not of ourselves. It is a fruit - it happens automatically. An apple tree does not need to work to produce apples - it happens naturally.

For Candy a work=works of the flesh, which is always bad.
A fruit=fruit of the Holy Spirit, which is always good.

However, not all works are works of the flesh.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 4:11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: ill we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ

James 2:14-26 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith. Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?

Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.

Molly left a comment which I think gets right to the point. She wrote: Works are things that do
not involve staying at homne to KEEP the home as you teach, and I'm sorry too but the word 'works' always reminds me of catholicism too.

I think Candy's main concern in stressing fruits over works, is that works are what Catholics do.

I have asked Candy very politely on more than one occasion how she sees producing good fruits automatically as fitting in with free will. She has not yet posted my question (I guess she feels it is a "foolish and unlearned question" per her comment policy), much less answered it.

I'm not sure Paul found it so easy, as he wrote in Romans 7:15 "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."

Related posts:
Fruits of the Spirit
The Famous Fruit Test

Mini Home Tour

Over the weekend, I decided to clean out my pantry. It was a huge mess. You know, buy baking soda because you're out and then find three boxes of it behind some expired marshmallows kind of mess. Anyway, while I was organizing my pantry, I was thinking of how much Candy loves organizing her pantry, and how much fun she's having in her lovely new home. She is always asking readers of her blog to share home tours, but neither Elena nor I ever have.

So, while I'm not going to post a whole home tour, I thought I'd post pictures of the areas that Candy and I have in common. First, the newly cleaned pantry. You can see aprons hanging on the back of the door.



In the kitchen, laundry room, or other areas, I have little bits of religious artwork here and there. The idea is that it reminds me to pray and offer my work to God, but it doesn't always work out that way. I got this tile of Our Lady of Guadalupe when I traveled out West to visit my Aunt.



I haven't noticed that Candy likes to dry her clothing outside, but maybe she will start at this new house. I love hanging the clothing outside to dry because I get a few minutes of quiet outside by myself. I often forget to go outdoors and enjoy the beautiful day otherwise. I miss that during the winter.



Candy hopes to homestead, and while we don't dream of animals, we are doing some suburban gardening. I will have three teenage boys someday, so the first thing we did when we moved in was plant several apple trees and some kiwi vines.



Even when you aren't homesteading, you have to watch out or the animals will take over.



Here is our little homeschooling corner. My oldest child uses the larger desk, and the two middle children use the smaller table.



Candy loves her library, and so do I!



I also have a large bathtub, but I can't say that I'm the sort to go soak in the tub.




Hope you enjoyed the mini-tour!

The Noble Bereans

We're getting a bit long in the comments on the prior post, so I thought I would post a new one up for continuing discussion.

Jennie wrote: The Lord didn't GIVE us the church, we ARE the church. He gave us the Holy Spirit and His word and the Spirit gifts each of us in different ways, including men who can teach and lead others. We all have the Holy Spirit to teach and guide us, however, and have the responsibility to compare teachings to scripture, as those often cited Bereans did.

Barbara replied: Never mind that in the context of Acts 17 the Bereans were obviously comparing Paul's teachings to the Hebrew Scriptures (not the NT). Secondly the Bereans are being held up as nice guys because they are willing to listen to give Paul's story a fair chance instead of rising up against him like those in Thessalonica. Third, no where does it say that to be a like a Berean one must compare teachings to scripture on a regular basis to make sure they are true or that everyone should be like the Bereans to be a Christian.

If anything, the Berean story reflects fair-minded tolerance for listening to another's viewpoint and giving it fair consideration instead of just striking out at those who say things you don't want to hear.

I understand that "being a Berean" has become some sort of rallying cry for some sola scriptura Christians, but I think it has been blown way out of Biblical context.


Barbara reminded me privately of an article written by Steve Ray for Catholic apologetics magazine This Rock, back in 1997. It is available online here.

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the "dogs," not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

Sanctified for the Lord

Candy wishes to assure us that she is not preoccupied with outward appearances because she feels they are important, but because she wishes to be sanctified for the Lord.

As for me, I am going to continue to sanctify myself for the Lord, in
whatever manner He sees fit. It's all written in His precious Word.
All Glory goes to God.

Is this a slip, or does she really believe this? Sounds like works salvation to me. I did submit a comment asking her about this, but she neither printed the comment, nor changed the wording so I will assume it is what she meant to say.

While Jesus did sanctify himself (John 17:19) I was under the impression that it is God who sanctifies us, through the Holy Spirit.

Romans 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Hebrews 10:29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Candy also writes: Such Scriptures are to be followed as well, such as
Ephesians 5, where it tells wives to submit to their husbands, and 1
Timothy 2, where it discusses how women should dress and wear their
hair, in addition to their heart and behavior, and then there's 1 Cor.
11, where the head covering is discussed.

1 Tim 2:9-10 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

1 Timothy says that we should be dressed modestly, and not be so concerned with our outward appearances, such as spending a lot of time doing our hair, wearing expensive jewelry, or designer clothing. Instead, we should be dressed with good deeds. Our actions speak of our faith more than our clothing.

Which is what I said in the post below where I was concerned that breaking with family would send a loud negative message about Christianity.

Candy's week in family, temperment, and appearances

Candy has written some interesting blog posts this week. None directly about Catholicism, but several which are ripe for discussion on how Christians should live their life. I am in the middle of several big projects right now, but I'd like to toss up a post so that you guys can discuss if you are interested.

She started off by discussing what to do when your family can't stand your Christianity. Well, I think she said Erik wrote this.

For instance; if some of the lost members of a saved person's family could not accept the saved person's rejection of the Pagan Roman Catholic Religion, non-messianic Judaism, New Age, or Human secularism etc., the lost family members might make themselves into the saved person's enemy. They might blame the spouse and persecute them both, it might be time to part ways. If so, the saved Christian would be honoring their father and mother by standing tall for God's truth and by defending their spouse.


I understand that it is sometimes necessary to separate oneself from one's family. There are some toxic relationships out there, and especially if you have children, you should not let yourselves be subject to verbal abuse. But as Candy posted comment after comment from women who said that after becoming born again, they no longer had any contact with their families, I was so sad at this worldview. I thought of it again this morning, as I listened to this reading from 1 Corinthians at Mass:

¹If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ²If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. ³If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

⁴Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

⁸Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. ¹¹When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. ¹²Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

¹³And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

If you have become a Christian, then you should be patient with your family, even if they do not understand. If they seem to attack your beliefs, you should remember that longsuffering, gentleness, and meekness are fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Erik says that Christians will be persecuted by their families, and for this reason they should walk away.

Paul writes in 2 Cor 12:10 that "That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." He didn't say he left, he said he delighted in it.

Similarly, going back to the Beatitudes, Matthew 5 tells us that

¹⁰Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

¹¹"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. ¹²Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Erik actually quotes from Matthew 5:

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." -Matthew 5:14-16

This means being willing to talk about God outside of church, and not wimping out by saying that you will witness simply by being an example. What kind of Christian stands by and says nothing as their family and friends head towards hell? If they reject the Gospel that is one thing, but did you give them the chance to reject it? Every Christian is commanded to spread the gospel.

How is it "wimping out" by setting an example? How can you let your light shine to your unsaved family if they never see you?

I truly do not understand the belief that he and Candy have, that they should run down the list of Bible verses they usually give, "Dad, did you know that Christ died for your sins? All you have to do is believe and have eternal life, etc." Do that once, then leave, knocking the dust from your sandals, and saying "Well, we told them the gospel, and it isn't our fault that they are staying on their path to hell."

How is that going to attract anyone to Christianity? It is when your family sees that you are loving and happy, becoming a better person through striving to live a virtuous life, and most of all, but having opportunities to have low-key conversations about what Christianity means, that their heart will be softened. Giving them a lecture, demanding they make a decision, and then leaving is only going to leave them with a bad taste in their mouth.

Again, I realize that many of these situations are more complex than what I am writing. I am just giving my reaction to what Erik wrote, which seems oversimplified in itself. I am afraid that by he and Candy will give more women the excuse they are looking for by jumping right to separation from their family, rather than seeking the council of their pastor, sitting down and having a heart to heart with their family, or trying to set reasonable boundaries.


Towards the end of the week, Candy took a look at Asperger's Syndrome. She wrote:

1) I'm BLUNT

2) I've hurt people's feelings probably more times than I can count, and most of the time I have no idea what I did or said

She characterized these traits as positives, saying, "Here's more bluntness - I think Aspergers have more of a chance of being saved than non-Aspergers."

Is bluntness really such a positive, especially if it is to the point where she hurts people's feelings, and has lost "countless" friendships?

From the Beatitudes in Matt 5, we find:
⁵Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
⁹Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.

From 1 Cor 13, we learn that Love is patient and kind. It is not rude.

In Galatians 5:22-23, we see that bluntness is not a gift of the Holy Spirit. Gentleness and meekness are, however.

We all have good and bad aspects to our personalities. I have no doubt that Candy is blunt, and does not intent to offend by what she says. I disagree that this should be considered a positive thing. I think that we should be prepared to work to improve our characters, and this is probably something which she should strive to improve through prayer.


Finally, today Candy wrote: The Lord called me to be dresses only in January of 2005, and He has recently called me to cover my head as of December 2009. I have found multitudes of other ladies walking the same path as I.

Wearing dresses only seems to be a big point of pride to Candy. It is something that she writes about frequently, and, as in the case of her most recent e-book, she seems to judge the Christianity of women by whether or not they are dresses only, cooking from scratch, stay-at-home moms. I think that God might call some to dress in this manner, and it is certainly good that Candy is obedient if this is the case with her.

However, I think that focuses too much on the outward appearance to judge the interior.

1 Sam 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

In John 7:24, Jesus warns us to "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."

Finally, consider 2 Cor 10:7: "Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's."

Do not define yourself as "A dresses only, head covering Christian." Just be Christ's alone.

Luke 18:9-14
9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that


Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments. I'll stop in as I have time.

The Crucified Rabbi

Musings From A Catholic Bookstore has an interview with Taylor Marshall, author of The Crucified Rabbi. Sounds as if it will be a very interesting book.

In 2007, I delivered twelve lectures at the Catholic Information Center in Washington, DC on Judaism from a Catholic perspective. The themes examined how Jesus fulfills the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, how the Messianic kingdom relates to the Church, the papacy, the Blessed Virgin, the priesthood, sacraments, liturgy, vestments, architecture…you name it . . .


When I was an Episcopalian priest doing a hospital visit, I met a Jewish rabbi who informed me that when a fellow Jew is suffering, they often invoke the name of that person’s mother in prayer with the belief that it provokes God’s mercy. This intrigued me, especially as to how it might relate to the Catholic practice of invoking the name of Mary—since she is the mother of the suffering servant Jesus Christ. This breakthrough led to many others. Eventually I was convinced that only Catholicism could truly account for the Jewish heritage of Christ and the Apostles. I renounced my Episcopalian ministry and became Catholic.