What bothers me is that pro-abortionists have hardly lifted a single finger to prove otherwise. They put all of the pressure and all of the burden upon pro-lifers to prove their case, and all they’ve done is scream slogans. Why? For a very good reason. All of their arguments are bad ones. Their slogans don’t wash because they don’t deal with the real issue. The real issue is worth committing to memory. If the unborn child is not a human person, no defense for abortion is necessary. You can have an abortion for any reason. You can slice it, dice it, roast it on a spit, as far as I’m concerned, if it’s not a human person. Who cares? Eat your own appendices if you want to do that. It doesn’t matter. But if the unborn child is a human person, then no justification for abortion is adequate. And all of these other ridiculous slogans simply fall away.
Greg Koukl (via gwyon) #prolife
Father and child, Detroit, Michigan, February 1942
Arthur S. Siegel, photographer
Library of Congress
If you see that you have not yet suffered tribulations, consider it certain that you have not begun to be a true servant of God; for St. Paul says plainly that all who chose to live piously in Christ, shall suffer persecutions.
Lots of people are criticizing Pope Francis’ teaching earlier this week, as if he’s deviating from the Church’s teaching on the need to proclaim the good news… Contrary to what you may read in the media, please notice, nowhere does he even suggest - much less teach - that avowed atheists are saved. Instead, what he actually says is so obviously true and open to a perfectly fair and benign reading:
1. We shouldn’t be so critical of outsiders that we don’t allow ourselves to see or acknowledge whatever good they do, or truth they affirm (even atheists).
2. Christ didn’t die to save only catholics/christians, but everybody (even atheists).
3. Since all are redeemed by Christ - at least potentially - we should be looking for ways to build bridges with them in order to actualize that redemptive potential, by showing them that whatever truth and goodness they embrace comes from - and leads to - Christ.
Scott Hahn (x) #Catholic
The major cause of the unattractiveness of Christian theology in the twentieth century is not an intellectual or moral failure but an aesthetic one: Its images of God are theologically and morally correct but aesthetically dull and powerless. ‘Man would seem to have no clear picture of the God he longs to worship.’ It is because a joyless person can only picture a joyless God.
Perhaps one reason excitements like gambling, violence, alcohol, and promiscuity are often temptations to the ethical and conventionally religious person is that his or her life is full of peace but not joy. It lacks the ingredient that is in joy but not peace or happiness: passion.
— A paraphrase of Peter Kreeft, Alan Watts, and Teilhard de Chardin. (via cecilia37)
Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.
I kinda thought this was funny.
The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.
While we are on the subject of dress and its relevance to the problem of modesty and immodesty it is worth drawing attention to the functional significance of differences in attire. There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest, since the proper function of nakedness in this context is not to provoke a reaction to the person as an object for enjoyment, and in just the same way the functions of particular forms of attire may vary. Thus, the body may be partially bared for physical labour, for bathing, or for a medical examination. If then we wish to pass a moral judgement on particular forms of dress we have to start from the particular functions which they serve. When a person uses such a form of dress in accordance with its objective function we cannot claim to see anything immodest in it, even if it involves partial nudity. Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest, and is inevitably felt to be so. For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.
Karol Wojtyla (later Pope John Paul II), Love and Responsibility (via modestcosplay) #Catholic #pope
Pope Benedict XVI, now Pope Emeritus
I miss him, even if I love Pope Francis. #Catholic