Safe Haven

Everybody has mountains to climb. Nobody's Golgotha is the same. And what would be a trivial test for one person is a crucifixion for the one who receives it. Here's the bottom line: passing the tests isn't a matter of grand, dramatic acts; it's the little things. If we are persevering, it's in the little things; if we fail, we fail in little things. Our trials are huge to us, but they don't test God or surprise Him. If all we can do is cry out like Peter, "Lord, save me!" it's better than forgetting he's there, and taking the wide, easy road that leads to destruction. Perhaps we have, and many times. Yet Jesus himself said, "He who comes to me, I will never drive away." Our prayer of repentance, which we must pray to hear ever new and more deeply, is, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!"

5. Bryan Price has done an amazing job managing the Cincinnati Reds. Yes, they are 70-78, but the NL Central is murderous. Milwaukee sits in third place, after having led for 150 days. 4. Even the Cubs have been much better than experts expected. Look out for them in the next 2 years. 3. You can be 18-9, 2.56 ERA and not win the NL Cy Young Award as the league's best pitcher. Greg Maddux understands; he should have won at least 2 more. 2. Is there any doubt that Clint Hurdle of the Pittsburgh Pirates is one of the game's elite managers? 1. Maybe there is something to the Cardinal Way.

Protestant objectors like to implicitly or explicitly make this argument that the two ideas are interchangeable. The next claim is that the Catholic apologist believes the Bible cannot be understood or read with profit in any sense. They say the Catholic sows doubt at the same time he promises dogmatic certainty in his own paradigm. This is of course nonsense, but it's not immediately obvious why this is so. The very reason for asserting the perspicuity (full clarity) of Scripture had been the occasion of asserting that the Magisterium (teaching office; pope and bishops in communion with him) of the Church was incorrect in many of its dogmatic pronouncements. If you dispute the very organ at the heart of the Christian's method of knowing divine truth, it stands to reason you'd leave something in its place. The protestors were not atheists, after all. So, if you said the Scriptures were sufficiently clear to establish what the Christian is to believe de fide, you are by ne...

There was this post , which was in response to this one,  and if you don't mind me saying, I found the latter infuriating. Pro Tip: If we are in the realm of the prudential application of general principles, try to disagree with the Pope and other authorities without undermining the Church.  Thanks a bunch. I get it, man. I'm a card-carrying Republican. Every time I hear someone mention a "just wage," I picture Castro and the corpse of Stalin smiling. But the Church condemns all forms of collectivism in the strongest terms. If you even sample the social doctrine, you realize that our shepherds over the centuries haven't been just shooting from the hip. What is the social doctrine? It is the application of central truths of the gospel--the destiny of man and his need for redemption in and by Jesus Christ--in the concrete situations of human living. Precisely because Jesus Christ became man, it leads to the first and most important principle: Human beings posses...

Thirteen years ago today, some bad people attacked the United States. I want to say it like that, so it makes the most important point: The people who died that day didn't wake up to go into battle; they were not soldiers; they were just people. Whatever else we say--and I may well say things people won't like--this cannot be evaded. A just war not only has a just cause; it's conducted with just means, against warriors; that is, people who know they are in a war. Our friends, family, and fellow citizens were taken from us most unjustly, and though we may cry out in pain to Almighty God asking, "Why?" we also know that people chose to do it, and they had no right. I don't want to read the stories anymore; there is too much emotion even for me, and I didn't lose anyone close. It was 10:30 AM when I found out. I was brushing my teeth. A guy ran in to say that some terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, and that possibly 50,000 people had been killed. T...

I wanted to do this here, so I could be vomit-inducing earnest if I wanted to. I'm like that. Anyway, I'm going to do an odd thing: I'm excluding the Sacred Scriptures, and even spiritual books for the most part; we all know the great saints and Doctors will help us grow in God, if we are Christians. It doesn't tell you anything that I liked the Summa Theologicae, does it? And you wouldn't pick up a book like that without a reason, if you were not Christian or seeking. So, let's not waste time with things we know we should read, or that we know we wouldn't. Congress: The Electoral Connection, David R. Mayhew. This book will transform you from a chronic complainer about the US political system, to a person with solutions. It will actually make you realistic and optimistic at the same time. The data is old, but it's shocking in its relevance. Shoeless Joe, by W.P. Kinsella. I did expect to like this book; it was adapted into the film, "Field Of Dr...

5. I laughed at one of those allegedly offensive Mark Driscoll internet comments from 2001. I could be persuaded to be sorry about it, if you think it's truly hurtful, and you don't write for Salon. 4. "Homophobic" is not a real thing; it's a fake word, created to shame those who question the gay activist project of "homo-normativity." Seriously, have you ever heard this word used to denote anything other than this? 3. If Driscoll wasn't putatively a pastor, I doubt he'd be so shocking. It may cause us to evaluate how many pot-stirring, edgy, conservative radio hosts we have, but that's a different discussion. 2. Just to be clear, I think he's an immature adolescent, who's ironically made millions telling other people to "man up." 1. I also think the conversation about a truly Christian view of sexuality had better have more in it than, "Don't watch porn, and don't fornicate." A spokesman is only as...

I would not say that I know anything about the matter under discussion, primarily because I am not a woman. At this point, for legions of people, that's the end of the discussion. We should call out that intellectual laziness whenever it appears. Nobody gets a pass on considering the moral question, regardless of their sex. Side note: I said "sex" because "gender" is a fabricated word, created to confuse people. I wouldn't say I know for sure that every politician who says crazy things while advocating for abortion is seared in their conscience, and possibly suffering post-abortive emotional wounds. That's true in many cases, but surely not in all. I think it's more about belonging. There are now several generations of people who will not, and cannot, re-consider the morality of abortion because a "woman's right to choose" means, "The right to not be told what to do." It means feminism; it means freedom. We might say tha...

5. There are 2 songs that AUTOMATICALLY make me happier: "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go," by Wham!, and "I Love Your Smile," by Shanice. I'm sorry. But not. 4. It's hard to think of a modern dance song that isn't obscene. Good luck. 3. Even the ones I named are mildly suggestive, and pretty old. 2. I love the romantic ballad, "For You," by Kenny Lattimore, but it's certainly an example of the Great Song Divorce Coefficient, which is more than slightly depressing. 1. The same band that gave us "Always," Atlantic Starr, also gave us the disturbingly popular ode to adultery, "Secret Lovers." That's messed up.

I don't say, "Hurry up and become an atheist" as a real suggestion, or as an accusation that someone actually is one. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I know that most of the people reading this are Christians, or at least thinking about it. I'm counting on that. I'm counting on the fact that you'll be repulsed by the knowledge that a principle applied consistently will lead in the opposite direction of where you intend. The same thing happened to me. It's not meant as an offense, especially with those who wrestle to be consistent with good principles, and to reject bad ones. Most of the wrestling in fact comes from the effort of knowing the difference. I'm direct because it was direct in my heart and mind. The whisper of conscience and the Holy Spirit is pretty insistent. It's Him I'm attempting to echo. If I do it imperfectly because I'm a jerk, (very likely) then that's fine. Don't listen to me. I still know that God is ...

Let us leave aside what has been already said, and zoom in for a moment on supernatural revelation and communication. It is no trouble to grant that man would not be able to receive revealed truth from God unless he were assisted. In fact, he has been assisted. But if we are to say that salvation rests in the assent and application of divinely revealed truths, then man's deficiency must be overcome. It would seem that this has not been difficult, for the prophets have spoken infallibly even under the first covenant. One obvious reason why God would cause this to occur is that he wishes to be known, and in that knowledge, humanity may obtain salvation. Even granting that salvation does not consist solely in knowledge, but in love, we call to mind the axiom that one cannot love what one does not know. God wishes to be known, and man has the capacity to know. The question is therefore, "To whom has God made Himself known?" In the first place, the patriarchs, Moses, and tho...

From a Facebook comment: Jamie Stober  "It doesn't bother my Lutheran mind that the Councils have the possibility of erring. God does not fail. We do not get to order his words or works of providence. The Father provided the Son in flesh for us because he loved us and we needed saving, not because we decided on Christ's atonement and commanded it from below to God on high. Historically, we can trust the Christological Councils as faithful witnesses to the Holy Scriptures' witness about the Incarnate Word and Holy Trinity because of the miraculous consensus among Christians that has surrounded them. . Explain to me how 99% of Christendom throughout history has accepted the substance of the Christological Councils' teachings about Jesus in light of the confusion about who He was that existed among many in the early Church on into the tumultuous times of the later Christological Councils and the confusion of a few a heretical Christians that has continued today. Th...

This particular contention goes right to the heart of the difference between Catholics and Protestants. This is why Luther was pressed on this very point. An erring Council means an erring Church, and an erring Church in matters of dogma flat-out falsifies what Christ himself promised. Is the Church full of sinners? Yes. Does the Church sin? No. When people sin gravely, they cut themselves off from the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church, and most importantly, guides the Church into a deeper understanding of the deposit of faith she guards. I hope you realize that if this principle that (ecumenical) Councils may err were applied consistently, there is no reason to suppose that Nicea or Chalcedon is correct. That you do suppose them correct is an ad hoc appeal to Sacred Tradition. I hate it when that happens.

"Luther was moved to imputed righteousness by his reading (and teaching) of Romans, not an attempt to prove the church wrong. The church then declared him a heretic for it. At first, it appears, Luther expected the church to agree with him." It is not reasonable to assume the Church would agree with imputed righteousness, because it cannot. A view of soteriological participation had always been taught. The reading and teaching of the Sacred Scriptures always takes place fruitfully within Sacred Tradition, and thus, all interpretations are subject to revision and correction by it. To prefer one's own interpretation, especially when it obviously conflicts with the deposit of faith, is heretical, and is justly judged so.

5. Replace a grandiose plan with an "Our Father" once in a while. 4. And a "Hail, Mary!" 3. And not the football kind. 2. I like football well enough, but it doesn't matter like baseball does. 1. Done with Newman's essay on development. Now where do I want my (meta) essay to go?

5. It seemed like a great idea at the time, actually. 4. Hmmm... 3. Um, yeah... 2. As smooth as a plane ride through a typhoon. 1. Oh, look, a squirrel!

It's not difficult to understand.  It's a little harder to live out, but we all have our things. If we didn't, there'd be no merit, no courage, and no overcoming. You don't think I never want to throw up my hands and say, "Boys will be boys"? Don't kid yourself. The only difference between you and me is that my predilections are more socially acceptable. This is where we have a chance to be true "allies" instead of enablers. We say, "Look, the world, the flesh, and the devil are real, and we can fight them together." People aren't lepers; most of the time, people just need to know that they are human, and that because of this, there's a better way. It's all about one question: "What is my true happiness?" Would you walk through fire to get it? Would you take an easier way? How's that working out? Sts. Felicity and Perpetua, pray for us!

We agree that man is not able to save himself. Were he not affected by the Fall, he'd still need grace to attain communion with God. Don't miss that part. But it's not some fantastic insight that God must move, or no one would be saved. Sorry. It's just not. It's a big jump from this to "God does everything" and "God only saves some people". What's the point of the gospel, then? No, seriously. Why are you a minister in the first place? You could just sit back and watch it happen. That's what "monergism" is, you know. Only one working. If you have the guts to bite the bullet, then bite it. But I don't blame anyone for not buying what you're selling. This emotional blackmail of, "Oh, that's just your pride talking" is precisely what it is. If God alone works in salvation, then God alone is morally responsible for the bad outcome. No, he doesn't owe salvation to any man, but Christ has come as Savior. ...

There are times when you don't feel much like a worshiper, because some want or desire wells up and overwhelms your thoughts. Yet a loving Lord will not spurn His own. As it is written, "Cast all your cares on Him, for he cares for you." It is a great thing to yearn, but feel no disquiet. It is a happy thing to know joy, though trouble swirls about. I am doing as well as I could hope, because I stand in the grace of God. Who will bring a charge against God's elect? Who is greater than His mercy? He said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you." I try to remember this. I also sense a desire to remain with Him, or that he would remain with us. I don't even want to hold back this desire. Good Friday is the day He died for us, but it's also the day when he goes away, commemorating his time in the abode of the dead, when he preached to the just of Israel who had fallen asleep. Friday and Saturday of Holy Week...

When things go poorly, it reveals who we are, at bottom. In Genesis 22:1, the Scripture says, "And God tested Abraham." Some test! But the beauty is, by the time the children of Israel heard it, they knew he'd passed the test, because they were the product. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Lt. Saavik objects to the no-win scenario of the Kobayashi Maru test as an unfair test of her command abilities. Admiral Kirk replies, "There's no correct resolution; it's a test of character." Perhaps all of the life of faith is a series of Kobayashi Maru tests, where God brings us well past the limits of our "command abilities" in order to know the genuineness of our love. This is where you find out whether the faith you profess is worth anything. Christ has already shown us in the shape of His cross that in the Kingdom, you win by losing. He said, "Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Today is as good a day as any to practice ...