The American Spectator : Cafeteria Constitutionalists

Text Size

Cafeteria Constitutionalists

By Lisa Fabrizio on 10.13.10 @ 6:06AM

Liberal Catholics and liberal liberals have a lot in common.

Those of us who are faithful Catholics have the misfortune of coexisting with those of our brethren who are not in communion with all the teachings of the Church. Some of these folks attend Mass each week, while most haven't seen the inside of a church in years, yet feel compelled to identify themselves as Catholics; one would suppose, for the sole purpose of being interviewed by the New York Times.

I will not rehash the grievances of these Catholics-In-Name-Only, but suffice to say that they involve the Church's failure to have evolved sufficiently enough to approve of the current proclivities toward the sins they wish to commit. They would seek to contravene the immutable truths of our Founder who said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." They favor modern mores over timeless truths.

In much the same way, America is now experiencing this inclination of a large number of citizens to disregard the founding principles that underpin our nation in favor of their own ideas of what our government is and should do; all the while insisting that they support and defend our Constitution. It is at times like these that non-Catholics share with us our frustration when reading the opinions of our brethren who pick and choose which, if any, precepts of the Faith they might respect.

And the most perplexing aspect of all this is that these liberals who constantly trumpet diversity have a chilling disdain for the fact that both the Church and the U.S. are truly melting pots open to all men and women on Earth -- who are willing to obey the rules.

And so must we deal with those who lay claim to an America that in many ways would be unrecognizable to those who crafted the greatest founding document in the history of world governance. The scandal of their perversion of that document is surpassed only by their phony allegiance to it when convenient.

They love to extol the separation of powers when Republicans are in office, yet deem recess appointments as entirely necessary when one of their own in the Oval Office must combat the party of "no." They execute tortuous twistings of phrases like "high crimes and misdemeanors" while ignoring the simple, straightforward words of the Second Amendment. They use the commerce clause to circumvent the will of the people for any and all abominations -- including the murder of unborn children -- they cannot achieve at the ballot box or via their fellow travelers in the federal court system.

But perhaps there is no abuse of the Constitution more galling than when liberals of all stripes trumpet the virtues of the First Amendment to defend the rights of atheists to prohibit the free exercise of religious liberty for Christians, but as a virtual get-out-of-jail card for Muslims. When oh when will liberals get it? The real religion of peace is that which bears the name of the One who counseled against violence and revenge; the One who advised his followers to render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar; that is, to be obedient to the laws of the state if they are not in opposition to the laws of God.

And when we speak of America as founded in the Judeo-Christian tradition, this is precisely what is meant; our founders dreamed of a nation established in obedience to the laws of nature and of nature's God.

Those who do not understand how liberals can claim to love America while disdaining the simple and direct strictures of the Constitution need only look to so-called Christian sects that support and even employ as preachers, practicing homosexuals and others living in direct contravention of specific biblical admonitions against same. In the case of the Anglican Church, this fact alone is driving many true believers into the arms of Rome; in much the same way as the deliberate flaunting of our Constitution by the Obama Administration is fattening the membership of the Tea Parties with otherwise non-political Americans.

The reason is the same: there remain in this world people who cling to eternal principles as rock-solid and worthy of adherence, while there are others who proceed from the nauseating viewpoint that all progress is good and we must therefore change with the times. Contrary to the views expressed in the 1960s, this way of life is not liberating, but is every bit as stifling as the chains of any tyrant. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned shortly before his election as Vicar of Rome, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."

Almost immediately after he assumed the Chair of St. Peter, faithful Catholics printed bumper stickers with an image of Pope Benedict XVI with the caption, "The cafeteria is closed." Let's pray that the same message will be delivered to our liberal brethren come November: Love our Constitution or leave it alone.

About the Author

Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut (mailbox@lisafab.com).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (95) | Leave a comment

JOTHEPRO| 10.13.10 @ 6:30AM

Imagine no liberals.

G.H.| 10.13.10 @ 3:01PM

It's easy if you try.

Appleby| 10.13.10 @ 7:09AM

ITS FLOUTING! NOT FLAUNTING!

FLAUNTING is what the Anglicans are doing when every third homily is about homosexuality or socialism: they are FLAUNTING their FLOUTING of the principles of the Church.

Ahem.

The warnings in the Gospel about the wheat and the tares growing together until the time of the harvest comes bear reading again and again. The tares believe they are getting away with something because they have not been struck down yet.

Their time is near.

P.S. If you are a Helicopter Parent who teaches your child that s/he need not obey any rules, much less laws, because Mommy and Daddy will always get them out of it, what will you say when your child is at the Heavenly Judgement and his sins are your teaching? Jonathan Edwards was a crazy man in some ways, but he was correct about that.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.13.10 @ 9:03AM

Appleby,
First I want to thank you again. I always enjoy your thoughtful comments here. You may have noted I have begun engaging more here the last week. Heh, I was writing my novel and finally got it finished and published last Friday.

Lisa,
Thank you for the article. You get it! Our constitution and Declaration are the only things holding back a Civil War in this country, as slim a reed as that might be.
Just as the Grace of God is our only hope and touchstone in the spiritual realm, our founding documents are our only touchstone... "in Ceasar's world".

Petronius| 10.13.10 @ 9:21AM

The church fathers along with their allies who control our legal establishment, government, schools, and media have changed the menu.
And I refuse to eat their excrement!

Jemmy Madison| 10.13.10 @ 9:30AM

Don't you just hate phony constitutionalists?

Oh, and:

The Congress shall have Power To... Declare War (see: conquest of Iraq, conquest of Afghanistan)

This Constitution... and all Treaties made... shall be the supreme Law of the Land (SEE: Convention Against Torture treaty and its violation during Bush admin)

No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (see: Obama's Presidential assassination program, due-process-free detention et al)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated (SEE: warrantless wiretapping)

JohnQ| 10.13.10 @ 9:51AM

Really...that is the best you got...a rehash of the evil Bush...when are you liberals going to grow up already...take the blinders off and see what the mutt(his own words) in the White House is doing right now...We are going to be paying for what Obama has done to this country, in re spending, for the next 20 years...the same we we paid for what Carter did to this country, in re jihadists, on 9-11.

Jemmy Madison| 10.13.10 @ 10:03AM

I agree - we will be paying for what Obama/Bush have done for a long time (perhaps you failed to notice that I included Obama in the indictment). Probably right up until the moment when our country finally collapses beneath the weight of the debt that the Republicans and Democrats have - and will continue to, regardless of which party is in power - run up.

Tyler| 10.13.10 @ 10:21AM

To be fair, one of his points was aimed at Obama. We should not make the mistake of only holding one side accountable for Constitutional indiscretions. Doing so only undermines our ability to speak with credibility. Mindless liberals will only repeat the leftist media talking points which are critical of the right, but we should be willing to take aim at both sides when it is warranted.

RWinks| 10.13.10 @ 10:24AM

Lord, you people are dense. Jemmy, Congress did declare war. (See War Resolution "authorizing any and all measures necessary to"...) Nothing says The words "declare war" must be in the legislation.

Try reading the Convention Against Torture treaty as signed by the USA and then read the policy on Enhanced Interrogation. You will see we have not violated the treaty.

Virtually every Federal agency created over the last century violates the due process clause daily but you only want to invoke it under the novel idea it applies to prisoners captured in wartime.

The guarantee is against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Nothing is said about a warrant. The idea that any search without a warrant is "unreasonable" and magically becomes "reasonable" with a warrant is a modern invention. Police made searches without warrants that were considered reasonable for most of our history.

You appear to be a perfect example of a "cafeteria constitutionalist".

DRed| 10.13.10 @ 11:06AM

Nothing is said about a warrant?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

buddha8| 10.13.10 @ 1:19PM

You miss R Winks point(1):how does a warrant(which is in the 4th amendment) automatically make a search
"reasonable"--keep in mind the mentally retarded
judiciary that issues warrants.
Jemmy: you are so selective in your quotes from
the Constitution. Article VI says the Constitution
is the supreme Law--and all laws or treaties made
in pursuance of(ie concordant with) the Constitution.

The Constitution itself has a Foundation(1):a philosophy of "social contract"between the people, their states with the national govt (2), a belief in a universal natural/innate religion which pre-exists and undergirds all organized religions
(ie humans are naturally religious). and (3) that
the individual 's special dignity & rights&talents;
are the Norm for all state or federal govt rules--
the govt serves the individual, not groups, nor the
govt itself. This is what Lord Obama resents:
the individual's supremacy over the govt and all
social groups(by birth,sex orientation,economic
status etc).

It is blatantly Pharisaic to discuss the Constitution
without the Foundations that led to these Structures(Articles I-VI) and the 10 Amendments
which sought to Restrain the govt in favor of the
individual. And the Constitution also presupposes
the Declaration--including the Right of Revolution
vs an oppressive or intrusive govt!!

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.13.10 @ 10:58AM

Jemmy,

Thank you for demonstrating yet again that we just cain't fix stupid!

We also can't fix liars like you dropping in and dropping a mis-direction turd in the punchbowl.

OK, folks, now back to adult conversation...

Don L| 10.13.10 @ 11:08AM

"...the nauseating viewpoint that all progress is good..."
As I remind the simpl minded souls that believe this -cancer progresses.

God, I love this Lady and can she write/think . Her equating cafeteria Catholics with selective constitutionalist leftists is a gem of an observation. "Pic n choose truth" is their moral and mental code.... such lousy citizens of the world.

gearjammer| 10.13.10 @ 11:26AM

The Catholic Church is a commie organization. They want to destroy America and open borders are their weapon of choice. I suppose Fabrizio being an fully obedient follower is also for open borders. To all those who wish to save America completely divorce religion from policy. It will always end up biting you in the ass. This is not to say religion can't be part of your political philosophy but in the end results oriented pragmatism is the best plan for these times.

Tim*| 10.13.10 @ 7:10PM

Do Your Homework Anti-Catholic Asshole .

CHARLES CHAPUT, Archbishop of Denver " "And we also believe that each country has a right to secure borders and to orderly immigration principles and policies, but making all that fit together is a difficult task that requires reflection. And we think a comprehensive approach to this is what's really important."

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 11:50AM

An apropros commentary from Chuck Colson today:
It's a cool 2 minute video:

http://www.colsoncenter.org/th.....uck-colson

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 12:09PM

Except that the newest Pope, which is not a Biblical authority, believes in Secessionism. This is a Neo-Nazi philosophy in which states that the state of Israel is null & void! Also known as Replacement theology it is yet just another along with the demonic teachings of the "church."

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 1:09PM

Correction, meant to say Supersessionism:

It denies pre-Christian history (thus the Old Testament and thus allowing for anti-semitism) and it sees the Resurrection as fully superseding all that went before, and thereby discarding the Old Testament!
The supersessionist position that von Balthasaar (the Pope's fave theologian), and Ratzinger take - that the Catholic church has definitively replaced Israel as the 'new people of God' - has been the dominant one for centuries. The false and demonic supersessionist view has contributed to the anti-Semitism that culminated in the Holocaust. And it also explains the rabid hatred of those anti-semites at AmSpec who call themselves Catholic and hold to this same view.

Now being justified by their equally demonic Pope, they feel they have free reign to attack Bible believing Christians, in much the same way they did centuries ago and thereby put thousands upon thousands to death.

It is also a shame that most so called Christians in this forum allow this to go virtually unchallenged.

"Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as Heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities." Rev. 18:4 & 5.

CHRIS| 10.13.10 @ 1:15PM

f a lefty democrat wanted to create a caricature of a crazy, anti-catholic, bigoted person who quotes the Bible to justify any absurd position, he would be "Margie." This would be done to embarass true Christians and paint them as stupid, ignorant,bigoted, and foolish because if "Margie" is representative of these "Christians," then the lefty-liberals have achieved their purpose. And when "Margie" endorses Palin, O'Donnell, and others they are tartnished because it appears a nut like "Margie" endorses them.
I do not believe "Margie" is a conservative or a Christian. She/he/they are professional bloggers out to discredit true conservatives and true Christians.
Best advice: ignore her. Maybe they will go back to the daily kos, or similar blogs. Do not reply to them. They are here only to disturb and disrupt

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 1:31PM

Hey it's you again! You cut & pasted this same stuff yesterday. Thing is, everyone has a mind and a brain. If anything I've said is untrue, they can find out for themselves. Trying to slander someone and falsely accuse is against God,

Do you believe in Him? If so, take heed.

Tim*| 10.13.10 @ 7:14PM

The Anti-Catholic Apocalyptic Crank Lady never knows when to shut her Big mouth .

buddha8| 10.13.10 @ 1:30PM

Oh Maggie:

Supersessionism is not the issue here.

Jesus Himself explicitly not only superceded &
eclipsed the Judaism of the Torah and the rabbis/priests traditions, but explicitly rejected most of its core elements(truths,hope,way of life)

He Demanded an either/or choice:My new religion or the Old religion and/or a hybrid of
these two competing religions("wines"). He also explicitly rejected any unique People of God
defined by birth or socio-religious affiliation.

However, I must agree:Ratzinger is a C- Catholic
theologian. Ask any scholarly Catholic theologian,and they will concur. Ratzinger
is so anachronistic and simplistic/pious in his theology, he is an embarrassment to scholarly
Catholic theologians, and theologians immersed
in the comparative study & mutual enrichment of
Christianity with the great religions of Asia--so it
can dis-entangle Christianity from its Semitic old
religion contexts(Jewish ,Islamic).

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 1:36PM

Actually buhha8,

Be very careful with what you are saying.

Jesus Himself says that He did NOT come to ABOLISH the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them.

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.:

"For truly, I say to you, till Heaven and Earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these Commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." Mt. 5:17-19.

The Pope is "teaching men so." Would YOU want to be found opposing God?

RCV| 10.13.10 @ 4:40PM

Margie: I have a sincere question for you. Since you (unlike me) believe the epistles of St. Paul to be divine scripture, what do you make of his statement in Galatians that, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13)?

RCV | 10.14.10 @ 12:31AM

That's what I thought - no answer. The fact is, Paul's whole point in Galatians is that Christ's sacrifice redeemed Mankind from the stricture of the Law. You can't believe Paul's teachings to be scripture and not accept the doctrine you criticize the Catholic church for.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 12:47AM

Jesus says this~ "Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. "For truly, I say to you, till Heaven and Earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these Commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." Mt. 5:17-19.

Ryan| 10.14.10 @ 8:31AM

It's almost two sides to the same coin - remember, murder, stealing, and adultery (and all the derivatives thereof) are STILL sins. That never changed.
Christ kept and fulfilled the law - but that doesn't mean we still aren't held to its standards.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 11:24AM

Agreed, Ryan. And to add to this conversation:

That Jesus became the Sacrificial Lamb (Praise His Holy Name!) and died in our place for our sins~the sins of the whole world and as the Scripture says, and Scripture cannot be broken (Jn. 10:35), does NOT cancel out the Law and the Prophets. As He says above in Mt. 5:17-19.

What Paul said and what Jesus says are both true and worthy of full acceptance. (Hbr. 13:8~Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever!)

For the Pope, or anyone to claim that the Old Testament no longer applies is false and it is false because Jesus Himself says it is false. And anyone in their right mind and who cares one iota for the Truth would follow Jesus' own words and not another man's.

"He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." Jn. 8:47.

Otherwise this:

"Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess. 2:11 & 12.

We either believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, or a false one.

RCV| 10.14.10 @ 12:11PM

Margie, you still haven't answered the question of what St Paul means in Galatians. The explicit point of his sermon in Galatians is that Christ's sacrifice freed men from The Law. I know what Matthew says Jesus said, although we know that Jesus himself was rebuked several times by the Jewish authorities for not adhering to the Law.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 6:47PM

Yes it frees Christians from the bondage of having to pay the ultimate price of this: Sin=Death, which the Law required, before Christ. In speaking of the Law it means the Law of Sin and Death, not only the 10 Commandments:
Rom. 6:22 & 23 "But now having been set free from Sin, and having become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification, and its end, eternal Life. For the wages of Sin is Death, but the gift of God is eternal Life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

So you see that the Bible says that we are not free to Sin then, but we become slaves of God. ("You were bought with a price, so glorify God in your bodies." 2 Cor. 6:20)

Because Jesus became the sacrificial Lamb He paid that price. Otherwise we would all have to go to Hell.

That's why there is a New Covenant which is based on faith and justification by faith. We're saved by Grace, through faith. According to the gospel of John in chapter 3 it's based on believing and receiving Jesus. How do you receive Him? Let me know if you want to know that.

So RCV the lawyer :^) that still does not do away with the Law. It doesn't make it null & void but Jesus Himself became the fulfillment of it. By His Spirit we get to have the power to actually be able to keep the Law, because Jesus, breaking the Law of Sin and Death, overcame Sin and Death in His body, on the cross and those who come to Him get to receive that same power. (Jn. 1:12).

I do hope you are sincerely wanting to know God's Truth and not just looking to find fault.
God bless.

RCV| 10.15.10 @ 12:41AM

I'm entirely sincere, Margie, and have no interest whatsoever in scoring points or finding fault. But you explanation doesn't make sense to me. "The Law" Paul speaks of is NOT the Ten Commandments or God's proscription against sin, which of course survive our Lord's sacrifice, but the whole of Judaic Law - the rules and proscriptions in Levitticus. The specific topic he begins addressing in Galatians was circumcision, an issue that vexed the early Church. Did gentile converts have to undergo circumcision, did the have to keep Kosher, did the have to follow all the OT rules and proscriptions? THAT is what Paul means by The Law, not the Ten Commandments! Of course we must, even after Jesus's sacrifice, not murder or steal or lie or commit adultery, or place other false gods before God, or not honor our parents. But we are no longer bound by the burdens of the myriad of rules and regulations and animal sacrifice formerly required by The Law, which observant Jews kept to, which Christ was often dismissive of as ritualistic. That is what Paul refers to as Christ having supplanted by his sacrifice, and that is why new converts were not required to do so, over the initial objections of James and others, who continued ritualistic Jewish worship after Christ's death. The debate had nothing to do with the Ten Commandments or Sin, as such.

This, I believe, is what Paul's teaching in Galatians is about. God bless.

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 1:13PM

RCV,

You crack me up. Sorta. It's like you just got done agreeing with me, but disagreeing. Or something... you want to say that the Law doesn't include the ten Commandments but how on earth could you possibly do so? My goodness. But then~ this is what Replacement theology, and supersessionism tries to do, so you're in agreement with certain rabid anti-semites around here whether you like it or not.

"For the Law was given through Moses; Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ." Jn. 1:17.

Either you are going to throw the Law out or you are going to agree with God when He says He did not come to abolish it but to fulfill it.

It's spiritual and amazing that through Jesus when we are "regenerated from above" as in Jn. 3:3 we are given the power Jn. 1:12 to actually keep His Law.. meaning He gives us the power over Sin.

No longer are the sacrifices in the Old Testament necessary by us because Christ became the Sacrificial Lamb once for all. Christians who believe in Jesus and His words and who receive His Holy Spirit have the same power over Sin that Jesus died to overcome.

Fully explained in John chapter 3.
Praise God for Jesus!

Tim*| 10.13.10 @ 7:25PM

Joseph Ratzinger had a distinguished career as a university theologian before being appointed Archbishop of Munich and Freising by Pope Paul VI (1963–78). Shortly afterwards, he was made a cardinal in the consistory of 27 June 1977. He was appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope John Paul II in 1981 and was also assigned the honorific title of the cardinal bishop of Velletri-Segni on 5 April 1993. In 1998, he was elected sub-dean of the College of Cardinals. And on 30 November 2002, he was elected dean, taking, as is customary, the title of Cardinal bishop of the suburbicarian diocese of Ostia. He was the first Dean of the College elected Pope since Paul IV .
In addition to his native German, Benedict XVI fluently speaks French and Italian. He also has a very good command of Latin and speaks English and Spanish adequately, although less perfect than the first three languages mentioned. Furthermore, he has some knowledge of Portuguese. He can read Ancient Greek and biblical Hebrew.[6] He has stated that his first foreign language is French. He is a member of several scientific academies, such as the French Académie des sciences morales et politiques. He plays the piano and has a preference for Mozart and Bach.

Tony in Central PA| 10.13.10 @ 8:45PM

Margie, I think if you try to be a bit more angry and insulting you'll reach more people.

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 10:09PM

Not angry at all, just stating facts there, Tony. As for anger~ God hates liars,

But feel free to continue the swipes at me if it works for you.

Red Lady| 10.15.10 @ 2:15AM

The Babylon mentioned in the Book of Revelations that Margie quotes represents ROME! Nice attempt, Maggie, to misguide readers with your distortions. I think if there's one religion that should be familiar with the Bible, it would be the Catholic Church that created the Bible (yes, it compiled the books inspired by God) and its members who kept it alive throughout the history of Western Civilization. Thus, your notion that the Catholic Church would include a portion of the Bible that demonizes the Church established by Jesus Christ himself is proposterous.

Revelation to John| 10.15.10 @ 3:40AM

The Catholic church created the Pentateuch?
Really?
Just like the Mooslims that claim they built the Temple in Jerusalem?
Is that why the catholic church persecuted and burned people at the stake for trying to translate the Bible into English?
That Catholic church?

BTW it is the Book of Revelation! No plural!

Seek| 10.13.10 @ 12:14PM

I know of no atheists (or agnostics) who demand leniency for Muslim fanatics any more than for Christian or Jewish fanatics. They are opposed, on principle, to fanaticism. There are good (i.e., "cafeteria") religionists who feel likewise. Doubt is the basis for a decent and rational faith.

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 12:36PM

King David stated that "Zeal for thy House consumes me." Ps. 69:9.

When in John ch. 2 Jesus made a whip of cords and drove out the money changers from the temple the Bible says, "His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for thy house will consume me." Jn. 2:17.

If one is opposed "on principle" to fanaticism, then one is dead spiritually.

fwb| 10.13.10 @ 12:21PM

God what ignorance.

The 4th amendment says searches must be accompanied by a warrant to be reasonable so saith the Framers and ALL the 19th century writers. It is a modern invention that a reasonable search can be conducted with probable cause and without a warrant. It was warrantless searches against which the Framers were protecting the people.

Congress can declare war BUT COngress can only spend for the defence (sic) of the United States so a war in Iraq or Afganistan is outside that expenditure limitation because THEY DIDN"T ATTACK US!!!!

WHen you read the Constitution you must compare and contrast EVERY clause against EVERY OTHER clause in the entire document, including the amendments. No single clause or phrase stands alone. Typical of the vast majority of humans, folks take phrases and clauses out of context.

Hell the power to declare war doesn't go beyond simply declaring war - see Article I Section 8. Congress can't raise an army through a declaration of war. The power to raise and support armies had to be given separately as was the power to have a Navy and the power to call up the Militia and the power to make ALL the rules and regulations for governing the land and naval forces.

Every power in the Constitution is stripped of every incidental power. The Framers allowed NO IMPLIED powers and NO INHERENT powers to the federal government.

The Treaty power must function "under the authority of the United States" . That is within the Constitution. If the authority is not in the Constitution, the US cannot constitutionally sign a treaty. The US cannot agree to protect other countries because the Constitution allows expenditures of taxes ONLY for the "common Defence" (sic) of the United States. The federal government cannot spend money to defend any political body that is not part of the United States.

How brainwashed are you? Do you recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Do you know that everything in it is a lie written by a socialist and that the core reason it was taught was to destroy individual state sovereignty/states' rights? It was used to make YOU think the US is a single nation, but that is not what the Constitution forms.

Ignorance is rampant. Try not to catch it.

Boston12GS| 10.13.10 @ 1:57PM

What a rube.

"fwb" writes: "The 4th amendment says searches must be accompanied by a warrant to be reasonable so saith the Framers and ALL the 19th century writers."

What utter nonsense. There are all kinds of searches that don't require a warrant of any kind, and never have. Get pulled over in your car, and the cops are free to search any areas of your car to which you have immediate access (for purposes of ensuring you don't have a weapon stored there). Same with personal stops for cause. No warrant to frisk you and "search" for a possible weapon.

Get ye back to SpongeBob.

Francis W. Porretto| 10.14.10 @ 2:26PM

Your tone is unfortunate, and I have some reservations about some of your statements, but I find that you’ve hit the bull’s-eye with this:

When you read the Constitution you must compare and contrast EVERY clause against EVERY OTHER clause in the entire document, including the amendments. No single clause or phrase stands alone.

...and with this:

Every power in the Constitution is stripped of every incidental power. The Framers allowed NO IMPLIED powers and NO INHERENT powers to the federal government.

Conservatives’ main problem is that we have too much affection for some of the extra-Constitutional powers and anti-Constitutional actions of the federal government. For example, take the space program. Or the Air Force, which was a branch of the Army until 1947. Or the War on Drugs, which surely required a Constitutional Amendment if the War on Alcohol required one. So we tend to excuse those violations of the Supreme Law of the Land.

But Constitutional consistency requires...well...consistency. Either the document means what exactly it says, according to the public meanings of the words, and is absolutely binding absent further amendment...or it’s just a warm fuzzy feeling that contemporary politicians and jurists can twist and deform at whim.

Conservatives who want to pose as defenders of the Constitution should give that quite a lot more thought than they usually do.

jasperbob| 10.13.10 @ 12:44PM

Touting the Bible as some kind of rule book for how contemporary society can meet its basic needs is dubious. The Bible reflects a time and place and historical conditions necessary for survival then but does not do the same now. Just look at groups and whole social orders that try to base their social or political ideals on the Bible---or even the Koran. Do you really want to live under such regimes? I know I don't. Must we reject 500 years of science and rational thought to return to persecuting homosexuals and atheists because they challenge a social order based on the Bible/Koran? Any attempt to set down rules for a society need to reflect a blend of reason and the realities of human history and the findings of science.

Joe D.| 10.13.10 @ 12:45PM

I loved your article. And it was all great and correct except, see below:

Lisa Fabrizio is this like the pot calling the kettle black. The Catholic Church employs many practising Homosexuals, including priests and bishops with get out of jail cards, for abusing children. Of the priest that have come forward or caught 95% were man on boys. Don't you think they should say that Homosexuals need help and not the priesthood.

So get the log out of the Catholics eye before you clean the spect out of the Christians eyes.

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 1:12PM

They not only don't say "they need help", but they harbor them. And for decades if perhaps not centuries. Demonic.

Tim*| 10.13.10 @ 7:37PM

Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report, said the number of abuse cases ( in American Public Schools )—which range from unwanted sexual comments to rape—could be much higher.

"So we think the Catholic Church has a problem?" she told industry newspaper Education Week in a March 10 interview.

To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000. That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.

Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

Tim*| 10.13.10 @ 7:55PM

Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.

These are findings from national surveys by Christian Ministry Resources (CMR), a tax and legal-advice publisher serving more than 75,000 congregations and 1,000 denominational agencies nationwide.
"The Catholics have gotten all the attention from the media, but this problem is even greater with the Protestant churches simply because of their far larger numbers," he says.
Dr. Shupe suggests the 70 allegations-per-week figure actually could be higher, because underreporting is common.

Tim*| 10.13.10 @ 8:03PM

Of some 700 child sexual abuse cases brought in an average year, few involved members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community — about 180,000 followers of Hasidic and other sects who make up the largest such cluster outside Israel. Some years, there were one or two arrests, or none.

But in the past year, there have been 26. District Attorney Charles J. Hynes has brought charges against a variety of men — yeshiva teachers, rabbis, camp counselors, merchants and relatives of children. Eight have been convicted; 18 await trial.

If the sudden spike in prosecutions is startling, even more surprising is the apparent reason: ultra-Orthodox Jews, long forbidden to inform on one another without permission from the rabbis who lead them, are going to the police and prosecutors on their own.

PJ| 10.13.10 @ 10:19PM

Thank you for your information. I knew it was pretty bad in the education world!

Even so, the Catholic Church needs to clean up its act quickly. Whether some people like it or not, the world looks to the Catholic Church for moral clarity and guidance.

Recently read from an article from an English newspaper stating the Church of England is seeking advice from Rome for its pedophile problems.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.13.10 @ 1:44PM

Margie,

I'm going to ask you a personal favor.

Please do not confuse honest Christians sitting in Roman Church pews... with their hierarchy 'in the cloth'.
In addition, there are thousands of loving, caring, honorable Roman parish priests all over the world preaching the Gospel...and living the Gospel.

...Nuns too....just living for Christ the best they can understand Him.

Please...forgive them any trespasses...and hoprefully they can forgive we Bible/Christ centered Christians for our so-called ignorance.

We don't need to call catholics demons. They are not. They simply short-cut things by having a clergyman..."explain"... everything to them.

I grew up "Southern Baptist". I finally had to send my "paperwork" back to them. (Ordination paperwork).
They too demanded I ignore the Bible...and the New Testament.
I have finally chosen to speak of the Holy Spirit, who has never led me astray...even a wretch like me.

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 2:18PM

Ken,

I didn't call Catholics Demons. I call those who BEHAVE in like manner with Tim* Demonic. And he is. And the doctrines of Catholicism are Demonic. Never have I, or will I call individual Catholics OR those of any other false Religion "Demons."

Those who spew vile hatred toward those of us who profess Christ are indeed Demonic, and to them I say as Paul said, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" Heh.

I have been a witnessing Christian for over 30 years and have NEVER hated a single person. What I hate is the false doctrine that they believe in. It needs to be exposed.
And I am not called upon to "forgive" anyone but a brother in Christ who is repentant. Read Matthew 18. The vile hatred and lies that Tim* spews is not a man who is filled with God's Spirit and he is not a Christian, nor is he repentant.

So, as to your "favor" I am already doing it. Always have been. I do not confuse anything of the sort.

And the gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT the "gospel" preached by the Roman Catholic church. All Bible believing Christians know this AND proclaim it. They may be sincere, but they are sincerely wrong. At every opportunity, out of love, they need to be told this and shown the true gospel which is in the New Testament, as you said.

God bless.

Ryan| 10.13.10 @ 3:55PM

What right do you have to not forgive?

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 4:12PM

Mt. 18:21~ "Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?"

Key word: brother.

Jesus was talking to brethren, not the unsaved. You ought to know there is a different standard.

LarryD| 10.14.10 @ 1:26PM

So when Christ said, while on the cross, "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do", He must have only been referring to the other 11 apostles who weren't standing on Calvary, because those were His brethren. He couldn't have meant the Roman soldiers, the Jewish leaders, the people jeering at Him.

The answer is, of course not - yet by your definition, those would not be his "brothers". Nice to know that not even Christ meets your standards.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 6:28PM

Nope. You're twisting what I said. I said that Jesus forgives the unsaved soul. Their Sin is between them and their Maker.

And Jesus forgave them, yes. You got that part right at least.

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 4:44PM

To clarify~ How can I forgive a soul that needs forgiveness from God first? It isn't a matter of me forgiving an unenlightened person. They need to do a Romans 10:9 and a John 3:3 first as their Sin issue is between them & God.

Then and only then do they come into Christian fellowship with their brothers and sisters in Christ. So, I have nothing to forgive, and they're Sin issue is not with me, but rests in God's Hands.

Ryan| 10.14.10 @ 8:27AM

Then what's the point of "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors?"

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 11:28AM

There are debts, trespasses and sins. There is also Sin and sin. Do a word search if you want to know the difference between them all. Each Christian ought to study the Bible and learn from it themselves.

How can you ask, "what's the point?"

John2| 10.14.10 @ 2:58PM

"And the doctrines of Catholicism are Demonic."
is one of the finest self-parodies I have ever seen. Good job of getting right in your own face.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 6:25PM

Just one example of the Catholic doctrine of demons, the forbidding of Marriage:

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim. 4:1-5.

Now what was that you were saying?

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 3:07PM

P.S. Thanks for words of good intent. You are a good an honest Christian man. And I am not able to say that to many a man.

Yours in Christ,
Margie

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.13.10 @ 3:25PM

Ah , Margie....we even have to forgive the tresspasses of the Tim* s of the world.

They are led astray by Satan himself. They will pay in eternity...and every day henceforth ...here.

They will never KNOW the Peace that "passeth all understanding".
Thank you for putting up the words of Christ here, Margie...and say hello to your loving husband for me.
Ken

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 3:47PM

You encourage my heart!
What you said about forgiveness reminded me of something another godly Christian woman says to the Christians that call in to get counciling on her radio program.

She said that forgiveness means that you take that person from off of your "hook" and place them on God's "hook." In other words, you are giving them over to God, thus releasing the burden and letting God have it.

It's 3:46 p.m. and I release Tim* to God's hook, by the Grace of God.

Spyder308| 10.13.10 @ 9:06PM

Well put.

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 10:12PM

Thank you, Spyder308.

Tim*| 10.13.10 @ 7:47PM

I don't need either one of you two Apocalyptic Crackpots' forgiveness.
You people never know when to shut your WackAss Mouths .
Aaaand , You seem hellbent on a fight with Catholics .

Ryan| 10.14.10 @ 8:27AM

Through your language and demeanor, how do you expect me to accept Catholicism?

Oldefarte| 10.13.10 @ 1:51PM

My definition of liberalism is HYPOCRITICAL BULLEXCREMENT AND DOMESTIC TERRORISM DISGUISED AS PROGRESSIVISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ann| 10.13.10 @ 2:24PM

56% of catholics voted for obama. He is the most progressive, pro-choice this country has ever had. Considering the respect for all life is the foundation of the catholic faith, to say that catholics have some serious soul-searching to do is a gross understatement.

PJ| 10.13.10 @ 3:03PM

It's not so much soul-searching but re-catechizing in their religion and re-educating them in good basic science. For example, you have no idea how many "faithful" Catholics there are who do not know the 2 types of human stem cells: 1 derived from an aborted baby and the other from a living adult. All the stem cell cures have been coming from the adult's yet they still cling onto the belief that embryonic stem cells will also produce cures someday.

The Catholic Church's consistent pro-life beliefs are always backed up by good science (& the bible). It's a shame that many Catholics are close-minded to the possibility that their church is correct in these matters.

Tim*| 10.13.10 @ 6:28PM

The Protestant Vote was 54 % for McCain and 47 % for Obama .
The White Catholic Vote was 52% for McCain and 47% for Obama .
The Total Catholic Vote was 54 %For Obama and 45 % for McCain.
The Jewish Vote was 78 % for Obama and 21 % for McCain.

Darragh| 10.13.10 @ 7:23PM

Ms. Fabrizio,

Thank you. It is Christ and His teachings which are ignored and are changeless, impervious to the rants of the temporal world.

Troll Hunter| 10.13.10 @ 7:51PM

TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THIS SITE:

Please removeMargie's comments whenever they appear.

The discussions here are mostly interesting. But it's getting old to have to "fast-forward" through the really really long threads of Margie's rants spouting the Bible to condemn anyone who disagrees with her.

Margie| 10.13.10 @ 8:28PM

Get your own blog, dude. I notice you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

Freedom of speech rules, eh?

Spyder308| 10.13.10 @ 9:04PM

Being liberal and being Catholic at the same time makes about as much sense as the situation of the Log Cabin republicans. Your church or your party are against you.

Sean| 10.13.10 @ 10:54PM

The anti-Catholic Margie is here again. As for Catholics being liberal. I think liberalism is a lot worse among Jews and Northeast Protestants.

victor| 10.14.10 @ 11:38AM

Is anti-Catholicism a cardinal or a venal sin (both of those terms are unbiblical, by the way)~ and why is anti-Catholicism more grievous than ant-semitism, which seems to be practiced more and accepted more by some people here? Which is worse according to God? Hating a Religion that is false, or hating His people?

p.s. You can start with the book of Isaiah for one. He tells us what He think about "Religions". And read the Prophets to read what He says about the Jews and how much He loves them.

Of course if you want to lie, and say God's own words "no longer apply" you won't be interested, will you?

"Replacement Theology" is so awful convenient for the anti-semites among us!

Tim*| 10.14.10 @ 6:28PM

Get Bent Anti-Catholic Crank Bitch Margie-Victor .

JimmyT| 10.14.10 @ 2:18AM

Some very spirited conversation on this site. I guess I'm going to have to read the comment section more often. BTW--Margie--It's nice to see there are Christians speaking out who truly understand Christ teachings. God Bless

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 11:31AM

Thank you, JimmyT. Your words are greatly appreciated. I knew there were a few Bible believing Christians out there!

Martin Treptow| 10.14.10 @ 6:50PM

Okay, so let me get this straight: Jesus (remember Him?) said to Simon Peter, "for you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it".

But what He really meant was, "for you are Peter, and I'm gonna let you start a Church, and there will be many travails along the way, and the Sins of Men will cause this Church to lose its' way now and again, but in about eighteen or nineteen hundred years from now, in a part of the world that you, Peter, don't even know exists, some Man will come along and re-read everything I've said to you and the others, and he and his followers, THEY will get it right. Meanwhile, this Rock that I found my Church on will turn 'demonic'"

Does that sound about right?

C'mon y'all, quit hating on The Church of Rome.

Cheers!

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 6:55PM

Now what was that you were saying?

victor| 10.15.10 @ 3:19AM

Matt 16:18:
"And I say also unto thee That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

This is the problem with not reading the Bible in the original Hebrew for the Old Testament or Greek for the New Testament.
Peter and rock are not the same words in the Greek.
From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
#4074 Petros "a stone" or "a boulder," Peter, one of the twelve apostles
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than lithos); as a name, Petrus, an apostle -- Peter, rock.

#4073 Petra a (large mass of) rock++
Feminine of the same as Petros; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively) -- rock.

Based on these two words that were written by Matthew, two things are possible:
One that Peter was being addressed and Jesus indicates that He himself will be the Petra upon which the church shall be built based on 1Cor 3:11:
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ"
Second is that Peter is being addressed and told that his confession from Matt 16:16:
"And Simon Peter answered and said Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God" is the Petra upon which Jesus will build His church.

"Meanwhile, this Rock that I found my Church on will turn 'demonic'"

Yes, let's look at that, shall we?
Paul wrote the Epistles to the faithful or wayward churches of his day.
He warned the of false prophets, false teachings errors of doctrine, false practices as well as reaffirming Christ's salvation in the last days and giving thanks for generosity.

Seven churches were the recipients of an apocalyptic letter from Christ delivered through John.
Only two were found to be found faithful to Christ.

Sounds like today with most churches teaching false doctrines, worshipping false prophets and engaging in questionable practices and condoning and promoting sin.
Homosexual "marriage", Pro-Choice denominations, aiding and abetting illegal aliens and protecting pedophile priests.
All Mainline churches appear to do all of the above.
Very few are free from sin and deviation.

Does that sound about right?

Not by God it doesn't.

LauraLee| 10.14.10 @ 8:06PM

You shouldn't rail against "cafeteria Catholics" when you yourself are one.
You refer to abortion as " the murder of unborn children". If that's true, shouldn't we be imprisoning the women who murder their unborn children. If a child was a month old and someone hired a person to kill him or her, shouldn't we punish both parties to the crime?
So what kind of punishment would Lisa propose?
Or is a fetus less than human?

francis| 10.14.10 @ 8:48PM

“Love Not The World”

”For the WHOLE world(not just a portion) is under the control of the evil one”.......(I John 5:19)

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world will pass away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of The Only True GOD will abide for ever.”(IJohn2:15-17)

“If you were of the world, the world would love it’s own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said unto you, the servant is not greater than his Master. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept My saying, they will keep yours also.” (John15:19-20)

“Where do wars and fighting among you come from? Do they not come of your lusts that war in your members? You lust, and have not: you kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: you fight and war yet you have not, because you ask not. You ask, and receive not, because you ask amiss, that you may consume it upon your lusts. You adulterers and adulteresses, don’t you know that friendship with the world is to be at enmity with The Only True GOD? Therefore whoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of The Only True GOD.” (James 4:1-4)

“The world cannot hate you; but the world hates Me, because I testify that the works of this world are evil.” (John 7:7)” and “The Messiah gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of The Only True God, Our Father.”(Gal 1:4)

The Messiah testified: “If the world hates you know that it hated Me before it hated you.”(John 5:18) Truly, Truly, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone: but if it die it brings forth much fruit. He that loves his life in this world shall lose it; and he that hates his life in this world shall have it unto life eternal.” (John 12:24-25)

John testified: “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hates you.” (I John 3:13) “ James testified, “Whoever would be a friend of this world is the enemy of GOD”(James4:4)

"Come Out of her, MY people"!

Global warming, polluted air, land and waters, toxic wastes, sexual perversion, evil inventions of destruction, greed, hate, carnal warfare, dis-ease(no-peace),,etc,, are all destructive processes that have their root in “the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life” all of which fuel the fires of mankind’s “imag”ination ;-(

"Come out from among them and be separate"!

Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this world and it's systems of religion, for "the WHOLE world(not just a portion) is under the control of the evil one" indeed and Truth......

Truth IS, a lie never was and is not.......

Abide in Truth....... francis

Tony in Central PA| 10.14.10 @ 9:23PM

This thread reminds me of a conversation I recently had with my 15 year old niece. My niece is taking an Advanced Placement course in European history. My niece knows I'm Catholic and she asks questions sometimes. She's nice about it, though, and unlike many of the people on this thread, she's actually interested in discovering the truth.
My niece asked me about the practice of " selling indulgences " in the " early Catholic Church ". Before I answer, I ask what does her teacher define as the " early Catholic Church " ? " Oh, around the year 1500 or so ", she says. " What about the first 1500 years ? " I ask. " We had to read two chapters about that over the summer " she tells me. " " Did your teacher cover any of it in class ? " I ask. " No, we only started with the Reformation. She doesn't like Catholics ".
Great. My tax dollars are going to an indoctrination course at a public school. I hope I have a chance to meet this teacher someday. I'd like to ask her a few questions.

larrym| 10.15.10 @ 1:09AM

The church stopped selling indulgences when they found that selling masses was more sustainable.

Red Lady| 10.15.10 @ 2:47AM

It always surprises me how Protestants who ONLY cite the Bible cannot answer the question: what did the early Christians do before the Bible was created (by Catholics, mind you)? Of course, the Bible did not always exist for Christian communities. You know that, right? So what did early Christians do? Followed oral tradition handed down to them which was a mixture of Judaism and the Good News of Jesus Christ. Paul's writings clarified those teachings in his letters to early Christian communities.

Thus, this Catholic-bashing is ridiculous and stretches my patience with people who are so entrenched in their limited understanding of the "written Word of God". The problem with Protestants and those who only turn to the Bible for inspiration is that there's no authority to keep them from making ridiculous assumptions. For that, the Catholic Church has Popes, through Apostolic succession, who lead Christ's flock toward the Truth.

So, enough high-fiving each other, on your Biblical interpretations. That behavior elevates your arrogance which Christ frowns upon. Humility is a virtue extolled by St. Francis of Assisi, and I imagine you'd have a problem with that saint, as well, since he's Catholic.

Revelation to John| 10.15.10 @ 3:42AM

Is that why the Catholic Church considers itself to be the final Authority in all things of faith and morals for ALL Christians?

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 12:55PM

Uh, Red Lady~

Before the Bible was written they had the letters that the Apostles wrote to each other and they ended up in the Bible, according to God's will.

The whole entire point is that false doctrine does not match up with what is written. God arranged a Bible. We now have that. Anything that is not in accordance with it is to be thrown out. The Apostles weren't "Catholic" nor does the Bible even contain the word. They were Christians, the very first ones after Christ, and those of us who have also been "regenerated from above" Jn. 3:3 are likewise their brothers and sisters in Christ.

"He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

larrym| 10.15.10 @ 3:24AM

And speaking of arrogance, isn't it the Catholic church who teaches that "There is no salvation outside the Catholic church"?
Paul's writings and teachings are radically different from the original teachings of Jesus . Read the bible and you will see that for yourself .

As for the popes of Rome, read about them and you will see that there is no biblical basis for their office, nor is there a clean Apostolic succession.
And the early Christians did have only oral tradition and the "Good News" (gospel) to follow.
There were probably hundreds of different sects of Christians and many books of teachings to follow. The Catholic church chose a few of these to include in what we now call the bible. And those choices were dictated by political choices as much as theological. Hence the blatant contradictions in the bible.
I personally believe that you would be better off living your life by what Jesus actually taught, rather than relying on any mortal to guide you.
The teachings of Christ are extraordinarily simple and do not need anyone's interpretation.
Whenever they strayed from the simple teachings of Christ, the Catholic church became riddled with corruption and long periods of moral lapses.
The bible was merely a tool to teach Christ's word. It is presented as a story, a tale, a work of folklore that spoke to its audience.
The stories were never intended to be taken literally. There were no printing presses or newspapers so these stories were all the people had to teach them. The stories were read by a few, but retold by many.
The early church recognized this and saw no problem presenting conflicting stories in what became the bible.
Too many people talk about the bible and too few actually read the book.

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 12:47PM

You are so filled with contradictions it's mind boggling!

Either you believe God's words or you don't If you don't consider the Bible as containing His words and that it is His will that they are contained there for all of us then you'll be open to every kind of wrong teaching in this world.

Seems there's a huge "acceptable" cult out there these days of "Paul is to be gotten rid of." Wow. I must say that's pretty astounding.

Don't you think that God is in control of the universe? Don't you believe that He is in control of arranging the Bible exactly as He wanted it to be? If you have His Holy Spirit living inside of you you'd know that the words written in the Bible are ALL of God.
God bless.

larrym| 10.16.10 @ 3:00AM

The Catholic church does not teach that everything in the bible is literally true. The church has not taught that or believed that for hundreds of years. I am sorry to burst your bubble.
When they did tech that everything in the bible was to be taken literally, they caused a lot of headaches in the scientific community (Copernicus et al).
As I mentioned, there are too many factual contradictions in the bible, starting with Genesis, to have been written by an infallible God. He does not contradict himself.
The Catholic church does not believe that the world was created in seven days or that the flood destroyed all mankind except Noah, or the Eve was created from Adam's rib etc.
Don't take my word for it, ask your priest. You will never understand God unless you learn more about the bible.

Adult toys| 7.4.11 @ 3:41AM

three drunk friends made a bet whoever can make their wives scream the longest during sex win 1000.next day when they met.
　　first guy:I made love to my wife 2.5hours and she screaming for 1.5hours;
　　second guy:I licked my wife for 2hours and she was screaming whole time and even 1/2hour after I was done;
　　third guy:that’s nothing,I made love to my wife 10mins and I came twice,wipe my dick on the curtain and my wife still screming at me up to now!