eChurch Blog

Previous related post:-

A Christian on the run in Egypt – Maher El Gohary is something his Muslim compatriots can’t fathom: a convert to Christianity. He and his daughter live like fugitives, moving frequently to avoid those who’d like to see him dead

From Jihad Watch

Previous recent related posts:-

DPP could cause ‘constitutional crisis’ on assisted suicide

Assisted suicide (Euthanasia) guidelines laid out by Keir Starmer Director of Public Prosecutions

Assisted suicide: The worm has turned – The response to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ “guidelines” for when assisted suicides in England and Wales won’t be prosecuted has been almost universally hostile.

New legal guidance on assisted suicide has succeeded only in taking our country down a literal dead-end of ever-increasing darkness, though obviously the idea was to make things clearer for those contemplating this awful step.

Dial 911 for suicide assistance?

The Christian Institute

Previous recent related post

Large increase in couples signing prenuptial agreements – Lawyers are reporting a tenfold increase in couples signing prenuptial agreements before they tie the knot.

From the excellent Cranmer Blog

The BBC reports that it is emerging Conservative Party policy to make pre-nuptial agreements binding, as they are in many EU countries. Henry Bellingham, the shadow justice minister, said: “We want to bring in a fairly wide-ranging divorce law reform bill and I’m very keen that part of it will include pre-nups and make them enforceable in law, subject to very strict safeguards.”

Some ‘family’ (divorce) lawyers disagree: Marilyn Stowe said: “The whole emphasis is on divorce reform – and I actually think we should be looking much more at marriage. I have to say if I was asked to enter into a ‘pre-nup’ I wouldn’t.”

Marilyn Stowe argues: “I am married and I advocate marriage for those who wish to commit in that way. But I am also prepared to recognise that everyone has the right not to do so. I believe that the law should be available to all families, not just the select few – and certainly not the innocents who currently ‘make do’ with the odd CSA cheque and a hotch-potch of inadequate legislation.”

Cranmer is grateful to his faithful communicant Mr Nick Gulliford for bringing this to His Grace’s attention and for pointing out the manifest deficiencies of this argument:

1. Virtually all the parties to this ‘debate’ seem to be making a fundamental mistake of treating marriage as a ‘contract’ rather than a ‘covenant’. Because it is a covenant it does not lend itself to the kind of legal impositions that politicians and lawyers are seeking to place upon it.

2. One consequence of this is that a divorce should only be granted when there is mutual consent by the parties which is the same as that with which they entered the marriage. Only if the marriage was forced should the courts should have unilateral power to negate it.

3. If the ‘hotch-potch of inadequate legislation’ that covers cases involving children of parents who are not married is not working, then politicians must devise better legislation. But if couples are determined not to marry, to try to impose upon them the marital commitments they have sought to avoid is silly. At present the tax and benefit systems impose penalties on poor married couples, which is equally silly. Poor people are unlikely to marry if it attracts penalties. The arguments for not making pre-nuptial agreements binding in law are even stronger than Marilyn Stowe imagines.

4. Making a pre-nuptial agreement (preparation for divorce) legally enforceable would strike a serious blow at current public policy which is to support marriage as a lifelong commitment. Anything that undermines that would alter a fundamental aspect of public policy which has been part of our tradition for centuries. Indeed, the covenant relationship between God and his people and Christ and His Church have been likened to that of the commitments of spouses, so there is a long history behind it.

5. Even the people supporting enforceable pre-nuptial agreements, like Henry Bellingham, the shadow justice minister, always add the caveat ‘subject to very strict safeguards’, which means the courts would always have the ultimate power to set aside any agreement they did not like, which is really the same as saying these agreements cannot be made enforceable anyway. If couples choose to enter into pre-nuptial agreements and they can only divorce by mutual consent, there is no need for them to be enforceable.

It seems to Cranmer that by entering the covenant of marriage and swearing before God “til death us do part” is utterly negated if a pre-nuptial divorce agreement has preceded the swearing of the sacred vow. Indeed, it is difficult to see how anyone in conscience could take the vow if there has been legally-binding preparation for “til I think it’s no longer working”.

One wonders how long it will be before the Lord’s covenant with His people will be undermined by Parliament and the courts – subject, of course, to very strict safeguards.

Hat-Tip Anglican Mainstream

By James Gibson, Sanctus

The Church of England doesn’t get much right these days. From approving female bishops to a comical policy on same sex clergy couples, the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion has lately been providing more laughs at the expense of English Protestantism than a Monty Python skit. But when it comes to the sanctity of human life, she has remained resolute in insisting that a responsible, biblical ethic be upheld. On the issue of assisted suicide, a topic as hotly debated across the pond as it is in the United States, the Church of England has come out with an unequivocal statement in opposition to the legalization of the practice.

Ok maybe they can all sit around and enjoy Waybuloo together?

CBeebies Waybuloo Christian Response

By Catrin Nye – BBC Asian Network

Bought by two of his devotees from Glasgow for £2m, the tiny North Ayrshire island of Little Cumbrae is being converted into an international yoga camp after a blessing from India’s most popular lifestyle guru Baba Ramdev, also known as Swami Ji.

After comparing the west coast island to the Himalayas and the banks of the Ganges, Baba Ramdev led a procession accompanied by bagpipes across the island, trying not to trip over the fans who jostled to touch his feet.

In a traditional Hindu Hawan blessing the swami, surrounded by bright petals and grains, chanted and poured ghee onto an indoor fire watched on by his followers from around the world.

With that Baba Ramdev officially started the transformation of the previously uninhabited 700 acres of rocky land into Peace Island.

‘Cancer treating’

It will now be an international pranayama yoga base and teaching centre and “a centre of great pilgrimage”.

Baba Ramdev’s special brand of yoga has attracted a following of 80 million worldwide.

He is praised for his charisma, his straight talking and the health benefits of the strict vegetarian diet, stretching routines and the circular breathing techniques that he promotes.

At the sell-out camps he holds around the world, crowds arrive hoping for cures to diseases like multiple sclerosis and many will stand up to declare how he has changed their lives.

Indeed on Little Cumbrae the stories poured in from those who say their life has been changed by Swami Ji.

Sunita Podder, 49, the island’s new owner, says before pranayama she was overweight and taking 12 tablets a day.

Dhruv, who came from Mauritius for the occasion, says he was stressed on his diet of alcohol and meat and says now nothing can trouble him

Eric Ross, from Bolton, is among a new breed of non-Asian British followers. Eric has been doing the yoga for three months and says it is already helping his diabetes.

Eric believes in the cancer-treating claims made for pranayama.

“I believe it 110%. It’s been going on for thousands of years but it’s new to westernised people. I’m going to India so I can learn how to do it myself and teach it. We can cure ourselves from within.”

Sam and Sunita Poddar have lived in Glasgow for 32 years after moving from India, and made their fortune in care homes.

‘Straight talker’

Mrs Poddar is dedicated to pranayama and says it changed her life.

Baba Ramdev faced plenty of questions about the claims his breathing exercises can help sufferers of cancer and leukaemia.

In front of the flashing bulbs of a massive press pack and in a combination of broken English and Hindi he answered them with the help of Mrs Poddar.

“We have cured hypertension, thyroid problems, asthma, arthritis, [and on cancer] the cancer cells cannot survive in an oxygenated environment – this is a scientific truth,” said Baba Ramdev.

“With Swami Ji’s pranayama your actual intake of oxygen increases to 10 times. So when you have more oxygen in your blood cells the cancer cell does not thrive,” added Mrs Poddar.

“I was a bit sceptical before. But now because I have experienced the benefit, I know. I had several ailments, I was overweight and on 12 tablets a day and (after practising pranayama) they were all taken away.”

The swami wouldn’t be drawn though on comments in the Indian press that he is anti-homosexual.

Mrs Poddar translated his Hindi response to a question on whether they “needed treatment”, saying it is not something Baba Ramdev would comment on outside India.

The Hindu lifestyle guru is a straight talker – in his TV shows he has called people who sell things like alcohol, tobacco and meat criminals and berates indulgent parents for damaging their children.

The rest of the Poddar family told the BBC they want to share what they have learned from the swami with the rest of Scotland.

Mrs Poddar, in fact, says she is on a mission to use Swami Ji’s yoga as part of a 10-year campaign to clean up the poor health of the nation.

And of course, the kids, and the grandkids have a new island to play on.

“My daughter is turning around and saying to everyone, ‘my grandfather’s bought me Cinderella’s castle and I’m the Cinderella who’s going to live in it’,” says Deepak Poddar, 28.

“I think that sums it up. It’s a dream that’s come true and every time we come here we fall more in love with the place.”

“Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me
more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I
love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again
the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith
unto him, Yea, Lord thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto
him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son
of Jonas, Lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto
him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord,
thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith
unto him, Feed my sheep.” John 21:15-17

How very much like to Christ before his crucifixion was Christ after his
resurrection! Although he had lain in the grave, and descended into the
regions of the dead, and had retraced his steps to the land of the living, yet
how marvellously similar he was in his manners and how unchanged in his
disposition. His passion his death, and his resurrection, could not alter his
character as a man any more than they could affect his attributes as God.
He is Jesus for ever the same. And when he appeared again to his disciples,
he had cast aside none of his kind manners, he had not lost a particle of
interest in their welfare; he addressed them just as tenderly as before, and
called them his children and his friends. Concerning their temporal
condition he was mindful, for he said, “Children, have ye any meat?” And
he was certainly quite as watchful over their spiritual state for after he had
supplied their bodies by a rich draught from the sea, with fish (which
possibly he had created for the occasion), he enquires after their souls’
health and prosperity, beginning with the one who might be supposed to
have been in the most sickly condition, the one who had denied his Master
thrice, and wept bitterly — even Simon Peter. “Simon, son of Jonas,” said
Jesus, “lovest thou me?”

Without preface, for we shall have but little time this morning — may God
help us to make good use of it! — we shall mention three things: first a
solemn question — “Lovest thou me?” secondly, a discreet answer, “Yes,
Lord, thou knowest that I love thee,” and thirdly, a required
demonstration of the fact, “He saith unto him, Feed my lambs;” or, again,
“Feed my sheep.”

I. First, then, here was a SOLEMN QUESTION, which our Savior put to
Peter, not for his own information, for, as Peter said, “Thou knowest that I
love thee,” but for Peter’s examination. It is well, especially after a foul sin,
that the Christian should well probe the wound. It is right that he should
examine himself; for sin gives grave cause for suspicion, and it would be
wrong for a Christian to live an hour with a suspicion concerning his
spiritual estate, unless he occupy that hour in examination of himself. Self examination
should more especially follow sin, though it ought to be the
daily habit of every Christian, and should be practiced by him perpetually.
Our Savior, I say, asked this question of Peter, that he might ask it of
himself; so we may suppose it asked of us this morning that we may put It
to our own hearts. Let each one ask himself then in his Saviour’s name, for
his own profit, “Lovest thou the Lord? Lovest thou the Savior? Lovest
thou the ever-blessed Redeemer?”

Note what this question was. It was a question concerning Peter’s love.
He did not say, “Simon, son of Jonas, fearest thou me.” He did not say,
“Dost thou admire me? Dost thou adore me?” Nor was it even a question
concerning his faith. He did not say, “Simon, son of Jonas, believest thou in
me?” but he asked him another question, “Lovest thou me?” I take it, that
is because love is the very best evidence of piety. Love is the brightest of
all the graces; and hence it becomes the best evidence. I do not believe love
to be superior to faith, I believe faith to be the groundwork of our
salvation. I think faith to be the mother grace, and love springs from it,
faith I believe to be the root grace, and love grows from it. But then, faith
is not an evidence for brightness equal to love. Faith, if we have it, is a sure
and certain sign that we are God’s children, and so is every other grace a
sure and certain one, but many of them cannot be seen by others. Love is a
more sparkling one than any other. If I have a true fear of God in my heart,
then am I God’s child; but since fear is a grace that is more dim and hath
not that halo of glory over it that love has, love becomes one of the very
best evidences and one of the easiest signs of discerning whether we are
alive to the Savior. He that lacketh love, must lack also every other grace
in the proportion in which he lacketh love. If love be little, I believe it is a
sign that faith is little, for he that believeth much loveth much. If love be
little, fear will be little, and courage for God will be little, and whatsoever
graces there be, though faith lieth at the root of them all, yet do they so
sweetly hang on love, that if love be weak, all the rest of the graces most
assuredly will be so. Our Lord asked Peter, then, that question, Lovest
thou me?”

And note, again, that he did not ask Peter anything about his doings. He
did not say, “Simon Peter, how much hast thou wept? How often hast thou
done penance on account of thy great sin? How often hast thou on thy
knees sought mercy at my hand for the slight thou hast done to me and for
that terrible cursing and swearing wherewith thou didst disown thy Lord,
whom thou hadst declared thou wouldst follow even to prison and to
death?” No. it was not in reference to his works, but in reference to the
state of his heart that Jesus said, “Lovest thou me?” To teach us this; that
though works do follow after a sincere love, yet love excellent the works,
and works without love are not evidences worth having. We may have
some tears; but they are not the tears that God shall accept, if there be no
love to him. We may have some works; but they are not acceptable works,
if they are not done out of love to his person. We may perform very many
of the outward, ritual observances of religion; but unless love lieth at the
bottom, all these things are vein and useless. The question, then, “Lovest
thou me?” is a very vital question; far more so than one that merely
concerns the outward conduct. It is a question that goes into the very
heart, and in such a way that it brings the whole heart to one question; for
if love be wrong, everything else is wrong. “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
thou me?”

Ah! dear beloved, we have very much cause for asking ourselves this
question. If our Savior were no more than a man like ourselves, he might
often doubt whether we love him at all. Let me just remind you of sundry
things which give us very great cause to ask this question: “Lovest thou
me?” I will deal only with the last week. Come, my Christian brother, look
at thine own conduct. Do not thy sins make thee doubt whether thou dost
love thy Master? Come, look over the sins of this week: when thou west
speaking with an angry word and with a sullen look, might not thy Lord
have touched thee, and said, “Lovest thou me?”, When thou west doing
such-and-such a thing, which thou right well knowest in thy conscience
was not according to his precept, might he not have said, “Lovest thou
me?” Canst thou not remember the murmuring word because something
had gone wrong with thee in business this week, and thou west speaking ill
of the God of providence for it? Oh, might not the loving Savior, with pity
in his languid eye, have said to thee, “What, speak thus? Lovest thou me”,
I need not stop to mention the various sins of which ye have been guilty.
Ye have sinned, I am sure, enough to give good ground for self-suspicion,
if ye did not still hang on this: that his love to you, not your love to him, is
the seal of your discipleship Oh, do you not think within yourselves, “If I
had loved him more, should I have sinned so much? And oh, can I love him
when I have broken so many of his commandments Have I reflected his
glorious image to the world as I should have done? Have I not wasted
many hours within this week that I might have spent in winning souls to
him? Have I not thrown away many precious moments in light and
frivolous conversation which I might have spent in earnest prayer? Oh!
how many words have I uttered, which if they have not been filthy, (as I
trust they have not) yet have not been such as have ministered grace to the
hearers? Oh, how many follies have I indulged in? How many sins have I
winked at? How many crimes have I covered over? How have I made my
Saviour’s heart to bleed? How have I done dishonor to his cause? How
have I in some degree disgraced my heart’s profession of love to him?” Oh,
ask these questions of thyself, beloved, and say, “Is this thy kindness to thy
Friend?”

But I hope this week has been one wherein thou hast sinned little openly as
to the world, or even in thine own estimation, as to open acts of crime. But
now let me put another question to thee, Does not thy worldliness make
thee doubt? How hast thou been occupied with the world, from Monday
morning to the last hour of Saturday night? Thou hast scarce had time to
think of him. What corners hast thou pushed thy Jesus into, to make room
for thy bales of goods? How hast thou stowed him away into one short five
minutes, to make room for thy ledger or thy day-book? How little time
hast thou given to him! Thou hast been occupied with the shop, with the
exchange, and the farmyard; and thou hast had little time to commune with
him! Come, just think! remember any one day this week; canst thou say
that thy soul always flew upward with passionate desires to him? Didst
thou pant like a hart for thy Savior during the week. Nay, perhaps there
was a whole day went by, and thou scarcely though test of him till the
winding up of it; and then thou couldst only upbraid thyself, “How have I
forgotten Christ to-day? I have not beheld his person, I have not walked
with him, I have not done as Enoch did! I knew he would come into the
shop with me; I knew he is such a blessed Christ that he would stand
behind the counter with me; I knew he was such a joyous Lord Jesus that
he would walk through the market with me! but I left him at home, and
forgot him all the day long.” Surely, surely, beloved, when thou
rememberest thy worldliness, thou must say of thyself; “O Lord, thou
mightest well ask, “Lovest thou me?’”

Consider again, I beseech thee, how cold thou hast been this week at the
mercy-seat. Thou hast been there, for thou canst not live without it; thou
hast lifted up thy heart in prayer, for thou art a Christian, and prayer is as
necessary to thee as thy breath. But oh! with what a poor asthmatic breath
hast thou lived this week! How little hast thou breathed? Dost not
remember how hurried was thy prayer on Monday morning, how driven
thou wast on Tuesday night? Canst thou not recollect how languid was thy
heart, when on another occasion thou west on thy knees? Thou hast had
little wrestling, mayhap, this week; little agonising; them hast had little of
the prayer which prevaileth; thou hast scarcely laid hold of the horns of the
altar; thou hast stood in the distance, and seen the smoke at the altar, but
thou hast not laid hold of the horns of it. Come, ask thyself, do not thy
prayers make thee doubt? I say, honestly before you all, my own prayers
often make me doubt, and I know nothing that gives me more grave cause
of disquietude. When I labor to pray — oh! that rascally devil! — fifty
thousand thoughts he tries to inject, to take me off from prayer; and when I
will and must pray, oh, what an absence there is of that burning fervent
desire; and when I would come right close to God, when I would weep my
very eyes out in penitence, and would believe and take the blessing, oh,
what little faith and what little penitence there is! Verily, I have thought
that prayer has made me more unbelieving than anything else. I could
believe over the tops of my sins, but sometimes I can scarcely believe over
the tops of my prayers — for oh! how cold is prayer when it is cold! Of all
things that are bad when cold, I think prayer is the worst, for it becomes
like a very mockery, and instead of warming the heart, it makes it colder
than it was before, and seems even to damp its life and spirit- and fills it full
of doubts whether it is really a heir of heaven and accepted of Christ. Oh!
look at thy cold prayers, christian, and say is not thy Savior right to ask
this question very solemnly, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?”
But stop, again; just one more word for thee to reflect upon. Perhaps thou
hast had much prayer, and this has been a time of refreshing from the
presence of the Lord. But yet, mayhap, thou knowest, thou hast not gone
so far this week as thou mightest have done, in another exercise of
godliness that is even better than prayer, — I mean communion and
fellowship. Oh I beloved, thou hast this week had but little sitting under the
apple tree, and finding its shadow great delight to thee. Thou hast not gone
much this week to the banqueting house, and had its banner of love over
thee. Come, bethink thyself, how little hast thou seen thy Lord this week!
Perhaps he has been absent the greater part of the time; and hast thou not
groaned? hast thou not wept? hast thou not sighed after him? Sure, then,
thou canst not have loved him as thou shouldst, else thou couldst not have
borne his absence, thou couldst not have endured it calmly, if thou hadst
the affection for him a sanctified spirit has for its Lord. Thou didst hare one
sweet visit from him in the week, and why didst thou let him go? Why didst
thou not constrain him to abide with thee? Why didst thou not lay hold of
the skirts of his garment, and say, “Why shouldst thou be like a wayfaring
man, and as one that turneth aside, and tarrieth for a night? Oh I my lord,
thou shalt dwell with me. I will keep thee. I will detain thee in my
company. I cannot let thee go. I love thee, and I will constrain thee to
dwell with me this night and the next day. Iong as I can keep thee, will I
keep thee.” But no; thou west foolish; thou didst let him go. Oh! soul, why
didst thou not lay hold of his arm, and say, “I will not let thee go.” But
thou didst lay hold on him so feebly, thou didst suffer him to depart so
quickly, he might have turned round, and said to thee, as he said to Slmon,
“Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?”

Now, I have asked you all these questions, because I have been asking
them of myself. I feel that I must answer to nearly every one of them,
“Lord, there is great cause for me to ask myself that question,” and I think
that most of you, if you are honest to yourselves, will say the same. I do
not approve of the man that says, “I know I love Christ, and I never have a
doubt about it;” because we often have reason to doubt ourselves, a
believer’s strong faith is not a strong faith in his own love to Christ — it is
a strong faith in Christ’s love to him. There is no faith which always
believes that it loves Christ. Strong faith has its conflicts, and a true
believer will often wrestle in the very teeth of his own feelings. Lord, if I
never did love thee, nevertheless, if I am not a saint, I am a sinner Lord, I
still believe; help thou mine unbelief. The disciple can believe, when he
feels no love; for he can believe that Christ loveth the soul; and when he
hath no evidence he can come to Christ without evidence, and lay hold of
him, just as he is, with naked faith, and still hold fast by him. Though he
see not his signs, though he walk in darkness and there be no light, still
may he trust in the Lord, and stay upon his God; — but to be certain at all
times that we love the Lord is quite another matter; about this we have
need continually to question ourselves, and most scrupulously to examine
both the nature and the extent of our evidences.

II. And now I come to the second thing, which is A DISCREET ANSWER.

“Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me?” Simon gave a very good answer.
Jesus asked him, in the first place, whether he loved him better than others.
Simon would not say that: he had once been a little proud — more than a
little — and thought he was better than the other disciples. But this time he
evaded that question, he would not say that he loved better than others.
And I am sure there is no loving heart that will think it loves even better
than the least of God’s children. I believe the higher a man is in grace, the
lower he will be in his own esteem, and he will be the last person to claim
any supremacy over others in the divine grace of love to Jesus. But mark
how Simon Peter did answer: he did not answer as to the quantity but as to
the quality of his love. He would aver that he loved Christ, but not that he
loved Christ better than others. “Lord, I cannot say how much I love thee;
but thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I do love thee. So far I can
aver: as to the quantity of my love, I cannot say much about it.”

But just notice, again, the discreet manner in which Peter answered. Some
of us, if we had been asked that question, would have answered foolishly.
We should have said, “Lord, I have preached for thee so many times this
week; Lord, I have distributed of my substance to the poor this week.
Blessed be thy name, thou last given me grace to walk humbly, faithfully,
and honestly, and therefore, Lord, I think I can say, ‘I love thee.’” We
should have brought forward our good works before our Master, as being
the evidences of our love; we should have said, “Lord, thou hast seen me
during this week, as Nehemiah did of old, “Forget not my good works. O
Lord, I thank thee. I know they are thy gifts, but I think they are proofs of
my love.” That would have been a very good answer if we had been
questioned by our fellow man, and he had said, “You do not always love
your Savior;” but it would be foolish for us to tell the Master that. Peter’s
answer was wise; “Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.” You know the
Master might have said to Peter, had he appealed to his works, “Yes thou
mayest preach, and yet not love me; thou mayest pray, after a fashion, and
jet not love me; thou mayest do all these works and yet have no love to
me. I did not ask thee what are the evidences of thy love I asked thee the
feet of it.” Very likely all my dear friends here would not have answered in
the fashion I have supposed; but they would have said, “Love thee Lord?
Why, my heart is all on fire towards thee; I feel as if I could go to prison
end to death for thee! Sometimes, when I think of thee, my heart is
ravished with bliss; and when thou art absent, O Lord, I moan and cry like
a dove that has lost its mate. Yes, I feel I love thee, O my Christ.” But that
would have been very foolish, because although we may often rejoice in
our own feelings — they are joyful things — it would not do to plead them
with our Lord, for he might answer, “Ah! thou feelest joyful at the mention
of my name. So. no doubt, has many a deluded one, because he had a
fictitious faith, and a fancied hope in Christ; therefore the name of Christ
seemed to gladden him. Thou sayst, ‘I have felt dull when thou hast been
absent.’ That might have been accounted for from natural circumstances;
you had a headache, perhaps, or some other ailment. ‘But,’ sayest thou, ‘I
felt so happy when he was present that I thought I could die.’ Ah! in such
manner Peter had spoken many a time before; but a sorry mess he made of
it when he trusted his feelings, for he would have sunk into the sea but for
Christ; and eternally damned his soul, if it had not been for his grace, when,
with cursing and swearing he thrice denied his Lord. But no, Peter was
wise; he did not bring forward his frames and feelings, nor did he bring his
evidences: though they are good in themselves, he did not bring them
before Christ. But, as though he shall say, “Lord, I appeal to thine
omnipotence. I am not going to tell thee that the volume of my heart must
contain such-and-such matter, because there is such-and-such a mark on its
cover; for, Lord, thou canst read inside of it; and, therefore I need not tell
thee what the title is, nor read over to thee the index of the content; Lord,
thou knowest that I love thee.”

Now, could we, this morning, dear friends, give such an answer as that to
the question? If Christ should come here, if he were now to walk down
these aisles, and along the pews, could we appeal to his own divine
Omniscience, his infallible knowledge of our hearts, that we all love him?
There is a test-point between a hypocrite and a real Christian. If thou art a
hypocrite, thou mightest say, “Lord, my minister knows that I love thee.
Lord, the deacons know that I love thee; they think I do, for they have
given me a ticket, the members think I love thee; for they see me sitting at
thy table; my friends think I love thee, for they often hear me talk about
thee.” But thou couldst not say, “Lord, thou knowest that I love thee;”
thine own heart is witness that thy secret works belie thy confession, for
thou art without prayer in secret, and thou canst preach a twenty minutes’
prayer in public. Thou art niggardly and parsimonious in giving to the
cause of Christ; but thou canst sport thy name to be seen. Thou art an
angry, petulant creature; but when thou comest to the house of God, thou
hast a pious whine, and talkest like a canting hypocrite, as if thou were a
very gentlemanly man, and never seemed angry. Thou canst take thy
Maker’s name in vain, but if thou hear another do it thou wouldst be
mighty severe upon him. Thou affectest to be very pious, and yet if men
knew of that widow’s house that is sticking in thy throat, and of that
orphan’s patrimony which thou hast taken from him, thou wouldst leave
off trumpeting thy good deeds. Thine own heart tells thee thou art a liar
before God. But thou, O sincere Christian, thou canst welcome thy Lord’s
question, and answer it with holy fear and gracious confidence. Yes, thou
mayest welcome the question. Such a question was never put to Judas. The
Lord loved Peter so much that he was jealous over him, or he never would
have thus challenged his attachment. And in this kind cloth he often appeal
to the affections of those whom he dearly loves. The response likewise is
recorded for thee, “Lord, thou knowest all things.” Canst thou not look up,
though scorned by men, though even rejected by thy minister, though kept
back by the deacons, and looked upon with disesteem by some — canst
thou not look up, and say, “Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest
that I love thee?” Do it not in brag and bravado; but if you can do it
sincerely, be happy, bless God that he has given you a sincere love to the
Savior, and ask him to increase it from a spark to a flame, and from a grain
to a mountain. “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Yea, Lord, thou
knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. “

III. And now here is a DEMONSTRATION REQUIRED — “Feed my lambs:

feed my sheep.” That was Peter’s demonstration. It is not necessary that it
should be our way of showing our love. There are different ways for
different disciples. There are some who are not qualified to feed lambs, for
they are only little lambs themselves. There are some that could not feed
sheep, for they cannot at present see afar off; they are weak in the faith,
and not qualified to teach at all. They have other means, however, of
showing their love to the Savior. Let us offer a few words upon this
matter.

“Lovest thou me?” Then one of the best evidences thou canst give is to
feed my lambs. Have I two or three little children that love and fear my
name? If thou wantest to do a deed, which shall show that thou art a true
lover, and not a proud pretender; go and feed them. Are there a few little
ones whom I have purchased with my blood in an infant class? Dost thou
went to do something which shall evidence that thou art indeed mine? Then
sit not down with the elders, dispute not in the temple; I did that myself;
but go thou, and sit down with the young orphans, and teach them the way
to the kingdom. “Feed my lambs.” Dearly beloved, I have been of late
perplexing myself with one thought: that our church-government is not
scriptural. It is scriptural as far as it goes; but it is not according to the
whole of Scripture; neither do we practice many excellent things that ought
to be practiced in our churches. We have received into our midst a large
number of young persons; in the ancient churches there was what was
called the catechism class — I believe there ought to be such a class now.
The Sabbath-school, I believe, is in the Scripture; and I think there ought
to be on the Sabbath afternoon, a class of the young people of this church,
who are members already, to be taught by some of the elder members.
Now-a-days, when we get the lambs, we just turn them adrift in the
meadow, and there we leave them. There are more than a hundred young
people in this church who positively, though they are members, ought not
to be left alone; but some of our elders, if we have elders, and some who
ought to be ordained elders, should make it their business to teach them
further, to instruct them in the faith, and so keep them hard and fast by the
truth of Jesus Christ. If we had elders, as they had in all the apostolic
churches, this might in some degree be attended to. But now the hands of
our deacons are full, they do much of the work of the eldership, but they
cannot do any more than they are doing, for they are toiling hard already. I
would that some here whom God has gifted, and who have time, would
spend their afternoons in taking a class of those who live around them, of
their younger brethren, asking them to their houses for prayer and pious
instruction, that so the lambs of the flock may be fed. By God’s help I will
take care of the sheep; I will endeavor under God to feed them, as well as I
can, and preach the gospel to them. Yon that are older in the faith and
stronger in it, need not that careful cautious feeding which is required by
the lambs. But there are many in our midst, good pious souls who love the
Savior as much as the sheep do; but one of their complaints which I have
often heard is, “Oh! sir, I joined your church, I thought they would be all
brothers and sisters to me, and that I could speak to them, and they would
teach me and be kind to me. Oh I sir, I came, and nobody spoke to me.” I
say, “Why did not you speak to them first?” “Oh!” they reply, “I did not
like.” Well, they should have liked, I am well aware; but if we had some
means of feeding the lambs, it would be a good way of proving to our
Savior and to the world, that we really do endeavor to follow him. I hope
some of my friends will take that hint; and if, in concert with me, my
brethren in office will endeavor to do something in that way, I think it will
be no mean proof of their love to Christ. “Feed my lambs,” is a great duty;
let us try to practice it as we are able.

But, beloved, we cannot all do that; the lambs cannot feed the lambs; the
sheep cannot feed the sheep exactly. There must be some appointed to
these offices. And therefore, in the Saviour’s name, allow me to say to
some of you, that there are different kinds of proof you must give. “Simon
son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest
that I love thee.” Then preserve that prayer-meeting; attend to it; see that it
is kept going on, and that it does not fall to the ground. “Simon son of
Jonas lovest thou me?” See to thy servants; see that they go to the house
of God, and instruct them in the faith. There is a sister: Lovest thou Christ?
“Yea, Lord.” Perhaps it is as much as you can do — perhaps it is as much
as you ought to do — to train up your children in the fear of the Lord. It is
of no use to trouble yourselves about duties that God never meant you to
do, and leave your own vineyard at home to itself. Just take care of your
own children; perhaps that is as good a proof as Christ wants of you that
you are feeding his lambs. You have your own office, to which Christ has
appointed you: seek not to run away from it, but endeavor to do what you
can to serve your Master therein. But, I beseech you, do something to
prove your love; do not be sitting down doing nothing. Do not be folding
your hands and arms, for such people perplex a minister most, and bring
the most ruin on a church — such as do nothing. You are always the
readiest to find fault. I have marked it here, that the very people who are
quarrelling with everything are the people that are doing nothing, or are
good for nothing. They are sure to quarrel with everything else, because
they are doing nothing themselves; and therefore they have time to find
fault with other people. Do not O Christian, say that thou lovest Christ,
and yet do nothing for him. Doing is a good sign of living; and he can
scarce be alive unto God that does nothing for God. We must let our
works evidence the sincerity of our love to our Master. “Oh!” say you,
“but we are doing a little.” Can you do any more? If you can, then do it. If
you cannot do more, then God requires no more of you; doing to the
utmost of your ability is your best proof; but if you can do more, inasmuch
as ye keep back any part of what ye can do, in that degree ye give cause to
yourselves to distrust your love to Christ. Do all you canto your very
utmost; serve him abundantly; ay, and superabundantly: seek to magnify his
name; and if ever you do too much for Christ, come and tell me of it; if you
ever do too much for Christ, tell the angels of it — but you will never do
that. He gave himself for you; give yourselves to him.

You see, my friends, how I have been directing you to search your own
hearts, and I am almost afraid that some of you will mistake my intention.
Have I a poor soul here who really deplores the langour of her affections?
Perhaps you have determined to ask yourself as many questions as you can
with a view of reviving the languid sparks of love. Let me tell you then that
the pure flame of love must be always nourished where it was first kindled.
When I admonished you to look to yourself it was only to detect the evil;
would you find the remedy, you must direct your eyes, not to your own
heart, but to the blessed heart of Jesus — to the Beloved one — to my
gracious Lord and Master. And wouldst thou be ever conscious of the
sweet swellings up of thy heart towards him; thou canst only prove this by
a constant sense of his tender love to thee. I rejoice to know that the Holy
Ghost is the Spirit of love, and the ministry of the Spirit is endeared to me
in nothing so much as this, that he takes of the things of Jesus, and shows
them to me, spreading abroad the Saviour’s love in my heart, until it
constrains all my passions, awakens the tenderest of all tender emotions,
reveals my union to him, and occasions my strong desire to serve him. Let
not love appear to thee as a stern duty, or an arduous effort; rather look to
Jesus, yield thyself up to his gracious charms till thou art ravished with his
beauty and preciousness. But ah! if thou art slack in the proofs thou givest,
I shall know thou art not walking with him in holy communion.

And allow me to suggest one profitable way of improving the ordinance of
the Lord’s Supper. That is: while you are partaking of it, my friends, renew
your dedication to Christ. Seek this morning to give yourselves over afresh
to your Master. Say with your hearts, what I shall now say with my lips:
“Oh! my precious Lord Jesus, I do love thee; thou knowest I have in some
degree given myself to thee up to this time, thanks to thy grace! Blessed be
thy name, that thou hast accepted the deeds of so unworthy a servant. O
Lord, I am conscious that I have not devoted myself to thee as I ought; I
know that in many things I have come short. I will make no resolution to
live better to thine honor, but I will offer the prayer that thou wouldst help
me so to do. Oh! Lord, I give to thee my health, my life, my talents, my
power, and all I have! Thou hast bought me, and bought me wholly: then,
Lord, take me this morning, baptize me in the Spirit, let me now feel an
entire affection to thy blessed person. May I have that love which conquers
sin and purifies the soul — that love which can dare danger and encounter
difficulties for thy sake. May I henceforth and for ever be a cons crated
vessel of mercy, having been chosen of thee from before the foundation of
the world! Help me to hold fast that solemn choice of thy service which I
desire this morning, by thy grace to renew.” And when you drink the blood
of Christ, and eat his flesh spiritually — in the type and in the emblem, then
I beseech you, let the solemn recollection of his agony and suffering for
you inspire you with a greater love, that you may be more devoted to his
service than ever. If that be done, I shall have the best of churches; if that
be done by us, the Holy Spirit helping us to carry it out, we shall all be
good men and true, holding fast by him, and we shall not need to be
ashamed in the awful day.

As for you that have never given yourselves to Christ, I dare not tell you to
renew a you which you have never made; nor dare I ask you to make a
vow, which you would never keep. I can only pray for you, that God the
Savior would be pleased to reveal himself unto your heart, that “a sense of
blood-bought pardon” may “dissolve your hearts of stone ;” that you may
be brought to give yourselves to him, knowing that if you have done that,
you have the best proof that he has given himself for you. May God
Almighty bless you: those of you who depart, may he dismiss with his
blessing: and those who remain, may you receive his favor, for Christ’s
sake. Amen.

From – chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it

Q: Your Holiness, as you said at the Angelus last Sunday, the Czech Republic is located not only geographically, but also historically in the heart of Europe. Could you explain better what you mean by “historically,” and tell us how and why you think that this visit can be significant for the continent as a whole, in its cultural, spiritual, and eventually also its political journey, in constructing the European Union?

A: Down through the centuries, the Czech Republic, the territory of the Czech Republic has been a place of cultural exchange. Let’s begin in the ninth century: on the one hand, in Moravia, we have the great mission of the brothers Cyril and Methodius, who brought Byzantine culture from Byzantium, but created a Slavic culture, with Cyrillic characters and a liturgy in the Slavic language; on the other hand, in Bohemia, there were the dioceses bordering on Regensburg and Passau, which brought the Gospel in the Latin language, and this connection with Roman-Latin culture led to an encounter of the two cultures. Every encounter is difficult, but also fruitful. This could easily be demonstrated with this example.

I will make a big leap: in the thirteenth century, it was Charles IV who created here, in Prague, the first university in Central Europe. The university in itself is a place of cultural encounter; in this case, it also became a place of encounter between Slavic and German-speaking culture. Just as in the century and at the time of the Reformation, it was precisely in this territory that the encounters and confrontations became decisive and powerful, as we all know.

I will now make a leap into the present: in the last century, the Czech Republic suffered under a particularly rigorous communist dictatorship, but it also had a very sophisticated resistance movement, both Catholic and secular. I am thinking about the writings of Václav Havel, of Cardinal Vlk, about personalities like Cardinal Tomášek, who truly sent Europe a message about what freedom is, and how we must live and work in freedom. And I think that from this encounter of cultures over the centuries, and precisely from this last phase of reflection, and not only that, but of suffering for a new concept of freedom and of a free society, there emerged many important messages for us, which can and should be fruitful for the construction of Europe. We must be very attentive to the message of this country.

Q: Twenty years have passed since the fall of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe; John Paul II, visiting the various countries that had emerged from communism, encouraged them to use their regained freedom with responsibility. What is your message today for the peoples of Eastern Europe, in this new historical phase?

A: As I have said, these countries suffered in a particular way under dictatorship, but in suffering they also developed concepts of freedom that are relevant, and that now must be further elaborated and realized. I am thinking, for example, about something that Václav Havel wrote: “Dictatorship is based on lying, and if lying could be overcome, if no one would lie anymore and if the truth would come to light, there would also be freedom.” And in this way he elaborated this nexus between truth and freedom, where freedom is not libertinism, arbitrariness, but is connected to and influenced by the great values of truth, love, solidarity, and of the good in general.

So I think that these concepts, these ideas developed during the dictatorship, should not be lost: now is exactly when we must return to them! And in a freedom that is often a bit empty and lacking in values, again recognize that freedom and values, freedom and goodness, freedom and truth go together: otherwise freedom is destroyed as well. This seems to me to be the message that comes from these countries, and must be actualized at this time.

Q: Your Holiness, the Czech Republic is a very secularized country in which the Catholic Church is a minority. In this situation, how can the Church effectively contribute to the common good of the country?

A: I would say that normally it is the creative minorities that determine the future, and in this sense the Catholic Church must understand itself as a creative minority that has a heritage of values that are not things of the past, but a very living and relevant reality. The Church must actualize, be present in the public debate, in our struggle for a true concept of liberty and peace.

So it can contribute in various areas. I would say that the first is precisely the intellectual dialogue between agnostics and believers. Each needs the other: the agnostic cannot be content with not knowing whether God exists or not, but must be searching and sense the great heritage of the faith; the Catholic cannot be content with having the faith, but must be searching for God even more, and in dialogue with others relearn God in a more profound way. This is the first level: the great intellectual, ethical, and human dialogue.

Then, in the area of education, the Church has a great deal to do and to give, concerning formation. In Italy, we talk about the problem of the educational emergency. It is a problem common to all of the West: here the Church must again actualize, make concrete, open to the future its great heritage.

A third area is “Caritas.” This has always been one of the marks of the Church’s identity: that of coming to the aid of the poor, of being an instrument of charity. Caritas does a great deal in the Czech Republic, in the different communities, in situations of necessity, and it also offers much to suffering humanity on the different continents, thus giving an example of responsibility for others, of international solidarity, which is one of the conditions for peace.

Q: Your Holiness, your most recent encyclical, “Caritas in Veritate,” has received attention in much of the world. How do you assess this attention? Are you satisfied with it? Do you think that the recent global crisis is essentially an occasion on which humanity has become more willing to reflect on the importance of moral and spiritual values, in order to face the great problems of its future? And the Church, will it continue to offer guidelines in this direction?

A: I am very content that this serious discussion is taking place. This was the aim: to provide incentives and reasons for a discussion on these problems, not to leave things be as they are, but to find new models for a responsible economy, both in individual countries and for the totality of humanity as a whole. It seems to me that it has really become clear today that ethics is not something outside of the economy, which could work mechanically on its own, but is an inner principle of the economy, which does not work if it does not take into account the human values of solidarity, of reciprocal responsibilities, if it does not integrate ethics into the construction of the economy itself: this is the great challenge of this moment.

I hope, with the encyclical, to have contributed to this challenge. The debate underway seems encouraging to me. Of course, we want to continue to respond to the challenges of the moment, and to help make the sense of responsibility stronger than the desire for profit, responsibility toward others stronger than egoism; in this sense, we want to contribute to a humane economy in the future as well.

Q: And to conclude, a somewhat personal question: over the summer, you suffered a slight injury to your wrist. Do you think it has recovered completely? Have you been able to resume all of your activities, and have you also been able to work on the second part of your book on Jesus, as you wanted to?

A: I have not yet recovered completely, but you can see that the right hand works, and I can do the essential things: I can eat, and above all, I can write. My thought is developed mainly through writing; so for me it was really a burden, a school of patience, not to be able to write for six weeks. Nonetheless I was able to work, to read, to do other things, and I also made a little bit of progress with the book. But I still have much to do. I think that, with the bibliography and everything that is still to be done, “Deo adiuvante,” it could be finished next spring. But this is a hope!

I tell you what, I’m not a Catholic myself, but I will give kudos where it is due, the more I watch this church, the more impressed I become, as these guys really do make a stand against the diminishing moral values of our societies.

I respect the fact that they are unchanging in an ever more morally relativistic society and they really do seem to offer an alternative and don’t get stuck into the rut of trying to impress society by becoming more like the world in which they find themselves. I never thought I’d hear myself say these words, but the more I read of the Pope’s words, the more impressed I become with the man!

GLADE PARK, Colorado (Catholic Online) – John L. Allen Jr., the Vatican analyst for CNN and National Public Radio, wrote: “Forget about theology for a moment. In purely empirical, sociological terms, the Catholic Church is to religion what the United States is to geopolitics: the lone superpower, or at least the lone ‘indispensable nation,’ without whose involvement resolution of virtually any global crisis is difficult to imagine” (praguepost.com).

That gets the nod. The Catholic Church is indeed the lone religious superpower. Further, the Catholic Church is a supernatural superpower, rising as high as the heavens above strictly earthly institutions by virtue of the fact that she is not merely earthly. The Church has as her divine founder Jesus Christ (cf. Mt 16:17-18), the Son of the living God, whose promise to be with his Church all days is sealed in eternal, omnipotent power (Mt 28:20). By God’s decree, the Church is raised on high.

That the Catholic Church has been the greatest influence for good in the world for two-thousand years is no surprise. For what other effect should result from a divinely guided institution whose head is the King of all that exists, both seen and unseen.

When we look at the history of the Church, how she began as a flicker of dim light in a pagan world of darkness, struggling forward by the efforts of uneducated fishermen, vehemently attacked in every way possible yet surviving, growing, spreading to all nations, there is nothing but the Finger of God which can be attributed to her success. Can enough praise be given the Church?

Let us address that with this: “Could adequate praise ever pass from the lips of man to give God, the giver of life and immortality, the due he so deserves in working among us through his Bride?”

That Christ founded his Catholic Church as our spiritual mother is certainly an immense gift to mankind. And, as an attribute of that gift, as a reflection of what Christ is, we find in the Church her greatest gift: Truth.

As the earthly head of the Catholic Church who feeds her faithful the words of truth sits the roman pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, upon the Chair of Peter. The most influential man of present; and, too, the most respected, whether that respect is sincere or whether it is tainted by distrust or corrupted by hate. The pope is indeed powerful. And, as with the Church herself, it is no surprise: it is quite logical: the pope is the earthly representative of Christ.

Think on that a moment: in our midst we have a man whose purpose is to represent the Son of God on earth. The influence, wonder and power of such an office, one instituted by God himself, is given to one position alone: the Bishop of Rome, sovereign leader of the earthly body of the Church.

There was a day some twenty-centuries ago when Pilate asked Christ:”Then you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” (Jn 18:37-38).

It is precisely in the element of truth itself that we find both the catalyst for the pope’s influence as well as the urgent need of his office. Truth is to the world what medicine is to illness. Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6). As the pope represents Christ on earth there can be no effect but a constant focus of attention, an influential and magnetic pull, which sends ripples of truth’s beauty across the land and sea, drawing man toward he whom the Vicar of Christ represents, in a movement into life itself.

Our society is in desperate need of this truth which flows from Christ through his Vicar. And, whether understanding the reality of his position in clarity or lacking vision of that reality due to muddiness, the vast majority of men on earth, to some degree, realize the roman pontiff represents truth. When he speaks, the world turns toward his voice, sparks fly, the internet goes abuzz, leaders take note, nations take action. Such action can take the form of dissent or backlash or spiteful words, but it is there; people are moved by the pope.

Yet apart from those who reject our Holy Father, who work away at deeds of controversy, constantly refusing to submit in obedience, there are vast numbers of others who listen to his words with love. They ponder what they find in encyclicals as if wrought from the hand of Christ; they cherish wise words of admonishment; they savor due chastisement, not ignoring or forgetting, but amending; they embrace encouragement and consolation with vigorous hope. It is as if they have found, in the Vicar of Christ, a connection to heaven itself which is immediately accessible and relevant to the world in which they live. And so it is, the appointed representative of Christ operating in his earthly, living office, speaking to the world that concept so dear to Pilate’s heart, even though, perhaps, it may have passed by unnoticed.

“I am the truth,” said Christ. “Listen to the Truth,” says the Bishop of Rome. This truth is precisely what our ailing society needs. For, while 78 percent of Americans say they are Christian (Pew Forum), there is stupendous confusion, disagreement, dilution of doctrine, and flat out strangeness running rampant.

Further, studies show the fastest growing group of believers are those who are unaffiliated with any religion; that is, the believers of “whatever”. The primary tenet of the Whatevers, religious indifferentism, has reached an all time high: it is now considered not only normal to relegate doctrine to the realm of subjectivity, but a worthy product of a wise eye turned critically upon the “old-fashioned bigotry of rigid religion”.

A recent survey found that the current level of Whatevers stands at about 15 % of the total adult U.S. population. Further, 22 % of Americans aged between 18-29 years identify with this group of unaffiliated Whatevers (americanreligionsurvey-aris.org). Note, too, that if we pay close attention to the actions of our neighbors, if we listen carefully to what they say and hold dear to their hearts, we will find that this group of non-religion advocates is far larger than the above mentioned percentages.

The cure for all this unfortunate, disastrous strangeness is the fullness of truth found in the Catholic Church, represented by her leader, our Holy Father. Since to hear the truth is to listen to Christ’s voice, it follows, then, that we indeed hear the truth by listening to the voice of Christ’s earthly representative. One hears authority by listening to the authorized representative of that authority.

There are some, obviously, who disagree, citing claims of corruption, sin, unfortunate events in history, and a whole host of other issues. Fine, but such postulations won’t get the nod. The infallible nature of the office of the papacy is distinct from a purely human office. No Catholic is naive enough to think any mere man, pope or not, is sinless. The fact that the pope is imperfect has no bearing on the authority given him by Christ to act in his official capacity, just as a police officer may act in his official capacity even though he be a sinner.

Those who view the Chair of Peter in purely human terms often make this capital error: they overlook the fact that the papacy derives its power and authority from God himself, and is guided by the Holy Spirit. What God wills is, and cannot be undone. Strictly earthly authority is to the papacy what the Supreme Court’s authority is to Divine Authority.

We ought to listen to the Pope. A great deal of individual problems, some with eternal consequences, could be solved by seeing the papacy in its true light. How so?

The true purpose of our life is not arrived at by drifting along each day thinking our choices are insignificant, with little effect, except perhaps some temporary consequence of either a pleasant or unpleasant nature; we do not exist in a meaningless, insignificant position, where actions of free will are small, little things, neither here nor there. What we believe matters; for what we believe we live. Believe incorrectly and, thus, live incorrectly.

Religion is man’s relation to God, the most important aspect of our lives, for the seriousness with which we seek truth will effect us for all of eternity. To take a lackadaisical approach to religion is to dismiss God; it is to ignore all that he has revealed; it is to relegate the most sublime and loving gift ever possible, the Father’s gift of his only Son, into the category of the unimportant.

“I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live” (Deut 30: 19).

Lewis Carroll once said, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” Indeed, if one knows not where they go, ambling off taking for their course any direction which presents itself, they will end up in an unsuspected place. Who would take such an insane principle as their mode of life? Who would set out to cross the sea by wading blindly into the surf?

That is precisely what a vast number are doing in adhering to religious indifferentism. Like Pilate, they may ask, “What is truth?”, but the journey will not be set upon in order to hear it, listen to it, and obey it. Rather, the thirst for truth, which is hard-wired into the human intellect by the Giver of Life, is buried deep within the recesses of a soul whose lost her focus on the guiding light from on high, ever-present, ever-calling. In such a state, all the wrong, glittery objects of disordered passions get the attention, and the soul goes off seeking darkness on darkness.

Religion matters. The choice of one’s religion is immensely important. The choice to become a member of the Whatevers is a grave mistake. Yet what has led so many Americans to enroll in the Whatevers’ camp? One explanation is an abuse of religious freedom; for religious freedom is not the freedom to choose whatever you wish, it is the freedom which provides one the opportunity to choose wisely.

“Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal” – Pope Benedict XVI, encyclical on Caritas In Veritate

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger gave a homily prior to the convening of the conclave in which he would be chosen to fill the Chair of Peter. With prophetic insight into the errors of a tidal wave of self-seeking individualists, soon to be pope Benedict XVI had this to say:

“How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. . . The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14).’

“Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching,” looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”

“What is truth?” The world may not recognize it; however, when it is spoken, those who love it notice.

Author Bio: F. K. Bartels is a Catholic freelance writer who operates www.catholicpathways.com, and may be reached via email at bartels@catholicpathways.com. He is a new contributing writer for Catholic Online.

Population Research Institute (www.pop.org)

FRONT ROYAL, Va. (Population Research Institute) – The opening sentence of a recent Lancet article paints a grim picture. (Anthony Costello et al, “Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change,” The Lancet 373: 1693–733. May 16, 2009)

The normally staid British medical journal reports on a new health threat that “will affect most populations in the next decades and put the lives and wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk.”

Billions, no less! If “billions of lives” are at risk–given that there are less than 7 billion of us on the planet–that must mean that half of us are in danger of dying.

But from what? An airborne version of HIV/AIDS? A new, more virulent strain of Avian Flu? A deadly biological weapon that has somehow escaped from the lab?

If you guessed any of the above, you would be wrong. The authors, as it turns out, are not talking about some new pandemic at all. Rather the risk to our very lives comes from … a possible rise in the earth’s average surface temperature of 2 degrees centigrade by the year 2100.

Don’t you dare laugh.

The authors of “Managing the health effects of climate change,” take themselves very, very seriously.

In fact, they go on to solemnly inform us that the health dangers of climate change will be even more severe at high latitudes, with the potential for 4-5 degrees centigrade rises in northern Canada, Greenland, and Siberia.

I, for one, am not alarmed by the thought that a little warmth might come to these frozen northlands. Neither, I am fairly certain, will their scattered residents object to a break from the bone-chilling cold–if such a rise in temperatures should truly come to pass.

I have my doubts on this score, however, and not just because of the crazed behavior of so many global warming fanatics. There are so many variables involved, and our evidence is so sketchy, that any conclusion about the effect of human activities upon the earth’s climate is not only premature, it is also likely to be wrong.

I mean, we can’t even predict, with any accuracy, what the weather will be like two weeks out. Now we are supposed to be able to calculate what the climate will be like a century from now? Are you kidding me?

The authors actually admit they are essentially clueless. Read the following passage carefully: The “policy response to the public health implications of climate change will have to be formulated in conditions of uncertainty, which will exist about the scale and timing of the effects, as well as their nature, location, and intensity.” (p. 1694)

This ignorance doesn’t stop them from proposing vast increases in government expenditures and powerful new international institutions to “mitigate” and “adapt to” global climate change, however. Nor does it stop them from arguing for a vast expansion of population control schemes to “combat climate change.”

Indeed, this new consortium of climate change theorists and population controllers sees itself as the pioneering vanguard of a “new advocacy and public health movement” which is “needed urgently” to help humanity “adapt to the effects of climate change on health.”

But even if we do see a slight rise in global temperatures over the next century—and I believe that on this question the jury is still out–diverting vast resources to address the potential health problems that this might cause is a misuse of resources.

The article’s subtitle claims “climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.” But this is simply not true.

Everyone reading the Lancet article will be dead in a hundred years, and I guarantee that they will not die from “climate change.” Rather, they will die from infectious diseases, from cancers, from heart attacks, from strokes, and so on.

These are the real health threats of our age. These are the threats to our lives and wellbeing that should command our attention and our resources, not some vague, unpredictable and indirect health consequences of supposed “global warming.”

By distracting us from more immediate threats to our health, by delaying the discovery of cures for illnesses that cost tens of millions of lives each year, these people are killing us.

But that is, after all, what they want.

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Population Control: Real Costs and Illusory Benefits.

Article from Global Politician

Everybody just relax. Islam is badly misunderstood. The negative stereotype of Islam is the usual evil-doings of Zionists in America and their foolish fellow travelers, fundamentalist Christians. Please don’t listen to what these hatemongers say about Islam and hear us out. So implies the nationally-launched campaign of Muslim organizations in the United States.

Ads are popping up in newspapers and magazines proclaiming the magnificence of Islam and aiming to refute the “false allegations” of Islam’s ill-wishers.

Huge billboards are festooning major highways, such as the one along Highway 101 and Tully Road in San Jose, California, with crafty messages. Bold letters on the billboard proclaim: Islam You Deserve to Know. A toll-free number, 1-877-WhyIslam and website, WhyIslam.org beckon the public to get the real scoop about the religion of peace.

The billboard sneakily reminds the viewers about their kinship with Muslims. “Islam: The message of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad.”

Well folks—Christians and Jews—the overwhelming majority of the people in the United States, you need to relax about Islam. Muslims are family. They are your kindred through your shared progenitor, Abraham.

Having Abraham as an ancestor would demand that the “children” be loving siblings. That’s the message the American Muslims try to convey. And that’s the way they aim to keep us in the deadly slumber of complacency and the delusion of multiculturalism.

For one, multiculturalism and multi-religionism are not interchangeable and are not one and the same. Muslims and their frequently well-paid apologists use the multiculturalism umbrella only in non-Islamic lands to shield themselves from the torrent of legitimate criticisms that those who know Islam better shower on this cult of violence peddled as the religion of peace.

Don’t listen to me and don’t listen to these conniving dissimulators. Find out for yourself. See if the euphemism of multiculturalism is ever even mentioned by any Islamic leader, ever printed in the Islamic press, or ever appears in any form anywhere in Muslim countries. This multiculturalism gambit is Islam manufactured wool to pull over the eyes of the non-Muslims while the Muslims carry on with their unrelenting campaign of eradicating anything or anyone non-Islamic anywhere in the world.

Those of us, through reason and tremendous act of will, who have freed ourselves from the enslaving yoke of Islam placed around our necks from birth, know about all the heinous inside dirt of this plague of humanity. We hardly need to call a toll-free number to hear a phony canned message of deceptions and lies.

We have experienced Islam first-hand and up close from the inside. We have studied the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunna. We have seen Islam in action where it wields sway. Some of us even tried desperately to cling to this security blanket that was wrapped around us from birth. Yet, the more we studied and the more we experienced Islam, the more our effort to remain in the fold became untenable.

We broke away from Islamic slavery and found it to be our solemn duty to expose this fraud of a religion, help other Muslims to free themselves from it, and warn the good-hearted and gullible non-Muslims against falling prey to it.

The Muslim organizations in America, generously financed by the oil-rich Muslim government and sheikhs, are directed to sell Islam Lite for long enough until the cult runs deep roots and the Real Islam is introduced. One can see how the scheme played out in Europe. Much of Europe is already past the stage of Islam Lite and knee deep into the quagmire of Real Islam. And that’s exactly where things are headed in America.

For a starter, remember the Somali Muslim cabbies of the Minneapolis airport and their refusal of blind fares with seeing-eye dogs, because dogs are unclean according to their belief? The same cabbies that had a virtual monopoly at the airport also rejected passengers who had alcoholic beverages in their possession. And the recent campaign of Muslims in New York to force the city to officially recognize Islamic holidays. These chosen people of Allah have more holidays than working days. No wonder they are among the most backward and unproductive in the world.

These “annoyances” aside, one has to be more than daft not to see for himself and not be sickened by the horrors Muslims in power and Muslim governments commit, wherever they reign in the world. Their barbaric acts are not isolated behaviors of some deranged individuals that one can find within any group. They are, in fact, mandated by the authoritative teachings of Islam and those who practice them proudly proclaim their actions as an implementation of Islamic teachings.

And they are correct in this claim. Let’s just see a sampling of the Islamic teachings that mandate the beastly treatment of women, human slaves, and all non-Muslims, including those that the Islamic Softsell in the West aims to bunch itself with as kin—Jews and Christians.

[Quran 4.34] Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme.

[Q uran16.75] Allah sets forth a parable: (consider) a slave, the property of another, (who) has no power over anything, and one whom We have granted from ourselves a goodly sustenance so he spends from it secretly and openly; are the two alike? (All) praise is due to Allah!

[Quran 5:51] O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.

You may say that you know Muslims and you find them to be decent people, family people, hard-working people who are no different than any other group of people. However, these people are the Bad Muslims. Why so? Because they do not live the life the Quran commands them to lead. It is the Good Muslims that you don’t ever want to meet. These are the diehard jihadists, the terrible killers who spare no torture on infidels before decapitating them or hanging them while intoning Allah’s praise. These are the ones that don’t show the slightest mercy to their very own people who fail to toe the line.

These Real Muslims viciously and repeatedly rape women, and even men, arrested without even arrest warrants. One “lucky” victim who managed to escape the claws of these evils is Maryam Sabri arrested on phony charges and repeatedly raped in Iran’s Evin prison.

Acts of horrors committed in Islamic lands aside, it is disturbing to see Muslims dissimulate, sweet-talk and use any and all means in free non-Islamic societies to convert people to their cult. Yet, if a Muslim, on his own free will decides to leave Islam he is condemned as apostate and automatically sentenced to death. And right here in America the suffocating tentacles of Islamic bigotry are beginning to reach out to people. Just the other day, for instance, a teen-age girl had to run away from her Muslim family fearing being killed by her own father for having become Christian.

This Islamic Softsell is a replay of Muhammad’s own life example. He was peaceful and humble in Mecca among his powerful detractors. Once in Medina and with power, Muhammad slaughtered the Jews of Medina as easily as if they were sheep, plundered their belongings, and took the “sellable” women and children as slaves.

It is said that truthfulness is the foundation of all virtues. Islam not only condones, it encourages, lying and dissimulation—Taqqyeh—in dealing with non-Muslims. Hence the ads, the billboards and the claims of these liars are little more than packs of crafty propaganda.

No, there is no misunderstanding. No, it is not the Zionists and fundamentalist Christians who are misrepresenting Islam. It is Muslims and Muslim organizations who are guilty of dissimulation and fraud. Muslims act meekly when they lack sufficient power. Once in power, the Real Islam emerges from its shell of dissimulation and puts free people and their way of life to the sword.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at http://amilimani.com and also writes for Islam-Watch.org