Very bad guy.
Author: Jim Bowman
Cardinal Cupich all in for relaxed communion rules
This is not news, actually, Cardinal C. being prominent in the church’s social-action wing, which goes light on eternal anything, including what we might call settled doctrine.
Story is from LifeSite News, which is of the spiritual wing and goes heavy on eternal things.
Battle lines have long been drawn. Benedict XVI got out of the kitchen, where things got very hot. Now we have two popes, which is unusual but not unprecedented, since once we had three, but that time it was called a schism.
IS SHARIA ISLAMIC LAW COMPATIBLE WITH THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION? – Islam Review
IS SHARIA ISLAMIC LAW COMPATIBLE WITH THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION? – Islam ReviewBy Abdullah Al Araby Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson courageously stated that he could not support the election of a practicing Muslim to the presidency of the United States. The reason was that he doesn’t think Islam is consistent with the American Constitution. Is Mr. Carson justified in his statement? Let’s examine the facts. Islam is more than a religion; it is an all-encompassing way of life with regulations for every facet of life. The life governing rules are embodied in what is known as Sharia Law. These laws are based upon the Quran, the Hadith (Mohammed’s sayings,) and the Sira (Mohammed’s biography). How does Sharia Law compare to the American Constitution that outlines the values and institutions that we hold dear? First: Liberty The United States was built on the Bill of Rights, established by the founding fathers that came here to escape religious oppression. The Constitution gives citizens the right to express themselves as they please. We are free to criticize any governing elected official or policy; and are free to worship any way that we choose and to speak our minds about our own religion or that of others. Americans can act anyway that they deem appropriate as long as we don’t violate the rights of others. What would happen to this freedom in an Islamic state? Would the citizens be granted the right to choose the religion they want, or would they be forced to accept Islam according to the Quranic verse: “If any one desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.” (Qur’an 3:85). How about the right of a Muslim to change to another religion? Is that a non-controversial matter as it is in our Bill of Rights? Or, would it mean that whoever changed from Islam would be charged with apostasy which is punishable by death? Mohammad said “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” Hadith Al Bukhari Vol. 9:57. Second: Democracy The USA’s system of government gives citizens the right of self-rule through duly elected officials of their choice. These representatives write the laws that best concur with the wishes of the people to maintain their way of life. We are to even have a say in what amount of taxes we are to pay and how the funds are to be spent. One important principle in this great system is the separation of church and state. Islam, however, is actually a political-religious system. It’s built on an opposing concept, for “Islam is a religion and a state.” According to Islam, Sharia law is the principal sources of legislation: “We have sent down to thee the book in truth, that you might judge men as guided by God.” (Qur’an 4:105). If Sharia is the basis for law, what are some of the rules and regulations that might be eventually imposed under a Muslim president? Here are just a few examples:
Third: Equality Under our system in the United States, there is not to be any discrimination among citizens based on gender, race, color, or religion. Would Islam treat men and women equally?
Would Islam treat non-Muslims fairly?
My fellow Americans The threat of Islam is real. Muslims are taught from youth to give first allegiance to the religion of Islam above any non-Muslim nation. In essence, for most any fundamentalist Muslim, citizenship in the USA is apt to be merely a stepping stone to see Sharia Law established as the law of the land. To elect a Muslim President of the USA, carries great risks. Get this message around. Keep America free, for all to enjoy. |
Sharia law vs. U.S. constitution
Comey’s ‘Hill Worth Dying On’
The man who went along to get along. Until it backfired.
As is standard practice for most of us. And he’s still thrashing about to save himself. Again, as many would.
But wouldn’t he be embarrassed to broadcast it?
It’s not nice to watch, I’ll tell you that.
Chicago leads the nation in underwater homes
The kind of news that makes many — an electoral majority last time around — run with a stubborn Republican governor, because Democrats have no new ideas about how to reverse such bad situations.
It’s the economy, stupid, as a smart Democrat said decades ago.
Even moderate drinking could harm the brain, new research suggest
Gitmo Prisoner Released By Obama Arrested In France Recruiting For ISIS
Special counsel Robert Mueller was born and bred to torment Donald Trump.
If you hope (and think) Trump will get a fair shake from special prosecutor Robert Mueller, you might hope harder and think again when you read a leftist writer making this claim:
[T]here’s one more thing about Mueller that’s going to make it impossible for Trump to show him any respect: The former FBI director is practically blood brothers with James Comey.
Great.
Laer: Same article, writer adds:
Odds are good, in fact, that Trump will use Mueller’s closeness with Comey to accuse him of bias and question the legitimacy of his inquiry.
Really. Now why would anyone do that?
As I say, it’s fun to eavesdrop on someone’s echo chamber.
Today’s Catholic liturgy “is sick,” said cardinal in charge in 2017 — a look at the Mass and related matters that remains current . . .
He is Robert Sarah, onetime prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, appointed in 2014 by Pope Francis. His book is
From which I quote:
[C]elebrations [of the mass] become tiring because they unfold in noisy chattering. The liturgy is sick. The most striking symptom . . . is perhaps the omnipresence of the microphone. It has become so indispensable that one wonders how priests were able to celebrate before it was invented. . . . I sometimes have the impression that celebrants fear the free, personal interior prayer of the faithful so much that they talk from one end of the ceremony to the other so as not to lose control of them.
They certainly are loathe to let the air go dead. It’s as if they were on radio, rather than TV, though for that matter, TV announcers do jabber away. But you don’t need the sound while watching he World Series in a bar.
Do not presume that the cardinal is breaking new ground for himself (or others, such as James Hitchcock in his Recovery of the Sacred). He has set liberal hearts pulsing with alarm in numerous public statements to this effect. But this new book of his has some choice descriptions, as in this about participating in the liturgy as urged by Vatican II:
Truly, it is about becoming participants in a sacred mystery that infinitely surpasses us: the mystery of the death of Jesus out of love for the Father and for us. Christians have the . . . obligation to be open to an act that is so mysterious that they will never be able to perform it by themselves: the sacrifice of Christ. In the thought of the [Vatican II] Council Fathers, the liturgy is a divine action, an actio Christi. In the presence of it, we are overcome with a silence of admiration and reverence. [Struck dumb, as it were.] The quality of our silence is the measure of the quality of our . . . participation. [Huge departure here from current practice]
All in all, in this passage as throughout the book, he strikes a spiritual note. He is, I have concluded, of the spiritual wing of the church, as opposed to the social action wing led by (whom else?) Pope Francis, with whom he is on a collision course, to judge by several well publicized incidents and several major controverted issues.
He quotes then-Cardinal Ratzinger in a 1985 book, “[Some have lost] sight of what is distinctive to the liturgy, which does not come from what we do but from the fact that something is taking place here that all of us together cannot ‘make’.”
Idea is, we go to church (mass) not to do something but to witness it. It’s a happening, and a quite mysterious one at that.
The late Robert McClory, in his Radical Disciple: Father Pfleger, St. Sabina Church, and the Fight for Social Justice, cites a St. Sabina parishioner on Chicago’s South Side who supported what its famous activist pastor, Fr. Michael Pfleger, does but stopped attending mass there, going to another parish. McClory couldn’t get much more out of the man, who apparently wanted something more rewarding in a personal-spiritual sense.
So I concluded, anyhow, having participated in one of Fr. Pfleger’s three-hour liturgies and found it fascinating but hardly something that would keep me going on an apostolic venture — or on the humdrum daily fulfilling of the duties of my state of life.
More later from the book on silence by the cardinal who speaks up when he thinks it’s important.