Christianity is a moving target. What were serious sins at one time are now simply lifestyle choices. Every Christian community in 1930 strongly opposed contraception. Today it is no more sinful than taking a vitamin. Divorce, homosexual acts, killing your children in the womb – no problem for many. The bottom line is that you only need to be a “good person.” Well, not really even that as God will surely show you mercy. You were created after all for this party we call life. Anything goes and you can settle the score with the man upstairs later.

At least this seems to be the view of many (not all) in various Protestant communities. NONE OF THIS is true for the Catholic Church and its faithful. Truth is not relative to the individual nor does it change over time. What is true is true for everyone and what was true 2,000 years ago remains true. We take a lot of grief for our inflexible doctrine.

A good Protestant case-in-point is the Episcopal community. Where they were once more traditional Christians in teaching and practice, today they are quite “modern.” For the most part they look the same, but under that veneer a lot has been gutted.

Ross Douthat wrote an excellent op-ed for (of all places, “hell’s bible”) the New York Times. In it, he looks at the march of liberalism and its effects on their community. It is not a pretty picture.

IN 1998, John Shelby Spong, then the reliably controversial Episcopal bishop of Newark, published a book entitled “Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” Spong was a uniquely radical figure – during his career, he dismissed almost every element of traditional Christian faith as so much superstition – but most recent leaders of the Episcopal Church have shared his premise. Thus their church has spent the last several decades changing and then changing some more, from a sedate pillar of the WASP establishment into one of the most self-consciously progressive Christian bodies in the United States.

As a result, today the Episcopal Church looks roughly how Roman Catholicism would look if Pope Benedict XVI suddenly adopted every reform ever urged on the Vatican by liberal pundits and theologians. It still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.

Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church’s dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase.

This decline is the latest chapter in a story dating to the 1960s. The trends unleashed in that era – not only the sexual revolution, but also consumerism and materialism, multiculturalism and relativism – threw all of American Christianity into crisis, and ushered in decades of debate over how to keep the nation’s churches relevant and vital.

Traditional believers, both Protestant and Catholic, have not necessarily thrived in this environment. The most successful Christian bodies have often been politically conservative but theologically shallow, preaching a gospel of health and wealth rather than the full New Testament message.

But if conservative Christianity has often been compromised, liberal Christianity has simply collapsed. Practically every denomination – Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian – that has tried to adapt itself to contemporary liberal values has seen an Episcopal-style plunge in church attendance. Within the Catholic Church, too, the most progressive-minded religious orders have often failed to generate the vocations necessary to sustain themselves.

Both religious and secular liberals have been loath to recognize this crisis. Leaders of liberal churches have alternated between a Monty Python-esque “it’s just a flesh wound!” bravado and a weird self-righteousness about their looming extinction. (In a 2006 interview, the Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop explained that her communion’s members valued “the stewardship of the earth” too highly to reproduce themselves.)

Liberal commentators, meanwhile, consistently hail these forms of Christianity as a model for the future without reckoning with their decline. Few of the outraged critiques of the Vatican’s investigation of progressive nuns mentioned the fact that Rome had intervened because otherwise the orders in question were likely to disappear in a generation. Fewer still noted the consequences of this eclipse: Because progressive Catholicism has failed to inspire a new generation of sisters, Catholic hospitals across the country are passing into the hands of more bottom-line-focused administrators, with inevitable consequences for how they serve the poor.

As the article mentions, we Catholics have our liberals too (a better word is probably “progressives”). To be clear, I am referring to those Catholics who do not accept the infallible teaching of the Church and long for a day that it will be more “open-minded” like the Episcopalians. Fortunately, that day will never come. Unlike Protestant communities, the true Church founded by our Lord:

3. …is not a democracy; there is no voting on matters of faith and morals.
2. …is guided by the Magisterium – our pope (His Vicar, the successor to Peter) and bishops (successors to the Apostles) in communion with him – who preserve the Christian faith as revealed by God. Very rarely, they (infallibly) clarify the faith if necessary.
1. …is protected against the gates of hell until the end of time.

My own mainline Protestant denomination evolved over time, much as the Episcopalians have. I woke-up one day to find myself in a Christian community that was increasingly separating itself from the faith. By God’s grace I was led by the Holy Spirit to His true Holy Church. I often thank God for that, as do many of us converts generally.

Read Ross’ whole article at the NYT: Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

Woe to the shepherds who mislead and scatter the flock of my pasture, says the LORD.

Therefore, thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, against the shepherds who shepherd my people: You have scattered my sheep and driven them away. You have not cared for them, but I will take care to punish your evil deeds.

I myself will gather the remnant of my flock from all the lands to which I have driven them and bring them back to their meadow; there they shall increase and multiply.

I will appoint shepherds for them who will shepherd them so that they need no longer fear and tremble; and none shall be missing, says the LORD.

Jeremiah 23:1-4

Leah Libresco is a popular atheist blogger at Unequally Yoked. When she began blogging, her tagline was “a geeky atheist picks fights with her Catholic boyfriend.” Unfortunately with their opposite religious views, they did not see their relationship going anywhere and eventually split-up. Leah is no amateur debater, she is a 2011 Yale graduate, smart, modern woman. She is in many ways, a prototypical spokesperson for classic atheism (not the dumb, combative “new atheism“).

Or at least, she was. Last week Leah announced her decision to begin RCIA to enter the Catholic Church! This is just the start of her journey and only time will tell the ultimate result. She is ready and excited.

This turn of events is confusing to atheists and to the secular anti-Catholic media (which I suppose is redundant). Consequently, Leah’s announcement was noticed not only by Catholic bloggers but also by the likes of CNN and MSNBC (the prime examples of the aforementioned secular media).

Elizabeth Scalia has the best coverage of this story on her blog:

Why so much coverage on Leah? Perhaps the answer is this: Leah’s conversion goes against all of the prevailing narratives that dominate secularist thinking. Religion – or at least religion that goes beyond affirming oneself and actually costs something of one – is the “opiate of the masses” suited only to “bitter clingers” and intellectually-dim peasants (except it isn’t and never was); Leah is a brainy, sophisticated Yalie who is neither bitter, clingy nor dim. Catholicism “hates women” (except it doesn’t and never did) and Leah is a strongly self-possessed, forward-thinking woman. Catholicism “hates homosexual persons” (except it doesn’t and never has although a new apostolic letter might help make that clear) and Leah identifies as bi-sexual.

Wait a second…   hold on, I think I’ve got it! Really smart…female…bi-sexual-identifying. Holy smokes! Leah Libresco has pulled off a narrative-busting Trifecta! She’s a secularist thoroughbred who has nevertheless won the Triple Crown of Cultural Incongruity!

No wonder the press is so interested in Leah Libresco. What a thoroughly odd puzzle she must be, to them. And if she had to become a Christian, why not at least an Episcopalian, which is and always has been, the acceptable church of the elite? Why must she mess with narratives and perceptions like some kind of Plato-mystic canoodler?

On a serious note, though: Someone asked me a few days ago whether it bothered me that Leah is determined to ask questions of the church and its teachings, and I said, “no; she’s not the first to ask, and she won’t be the last.” We have a long history of brilliant people – atheists and non – who have trained their big brains on Catholicism, intending to either disprove it or simply to splash about in its currents, only to find themselves drawn further in. Catholic teaching has been thoroughly reasoned and laboriously fleshed-out; there is actual thinking, full of nuance and complexity, at its core – where Faith and Reason share a kinship, within which the natural and supernatural wave back and forth, like wind-stirred wheat in a field; it’s a dance of organic wholeness.

There is that famous, and lately perhaps overused, quote by Fulton Sheen: “There are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church; But there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to be.” There is a great deal of truth in that, which is perhaps why the quote is overused. I’ve never known anyone to pursue an exploration of the church with an open mind, and continue to hate her, and Leah’s mind appears to be wide-open and hate-free, to begin with.

I’m not bothered that she may bring questions with her, because I take my cue from the Holy Father, who has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to entertain any-and-all topics. Benedict believes – and I have discovered it in my own faith journey – that submitting any question to reason, and tackling it with patient but rigorous intellectual honesty leads one (sometimes with great reluctance and gritted teeth) to the side of Catholic orthodoxy.

That “bi-sexual identifying” part will need some work, which Leah acknowledges.

Read the whole piece at The Anchoress: Leah Libresco, Media’s Favorite Puzzle.

Jennifer Fulwiler, another smart atheist-to-Catholic convert, gives her take for the National Catholic Register: Conversion: The Scariest Happy Ending in the World.

In answer to the question: “What message do you have for other atheists who may be struggling and questioning their nonbelief?” Leah says that she would refer them to the Litany of Gendlin:

What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn’t make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn’t make it go away.
And because it’s true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn’t there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it.

While not exactly a joy-filled expression of Christian truth, it is good advice for atheists where they are at.

Last December I referenced the story of Steve Gershom, a gay and faithful Catholic. Steve (a pseudonym) chose the celibate life as his path and is “doing fine!”

Recently another compelling story was published by a gay, Mormon man. Joshua Weed’s path is different from Steve’s – he is happily married to a woman. Marriage (true marriage, to a person of the opposite sex) may not be the calling for most people burdened by same sex attraction, but it may be for some.

While there are serious theological differences between Catholicism and Mormonism, many of our moral values are very close. In Joshua’s story, I can see that he and his wife Lolly truly understand marriage and are very happy in theirs.

4. If you’re married to a woman, how can you really be gay?

This is a really good question and I can see how people can be confused about it. Some might assume that because I’m married to a woman, I must be bisexual. This would be true if sexual orientation was defined by sexual experience. Heck, if sexual orientation were defined by sexual experience, I would be as straight as the day is long even though I’ve never been turned on by a Victoria’s Secret commercial in my entire life. Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, not by experience. In my case, I am attracted sexually to men. Period. Yet my marriage is wonderful, and Lolly and I have an extremely healthy and robust sex life. How can this be?

The truth is, what people are really asking with the above question is “how can you be gay if your primary sex partner is a girl?” I didn’t fully understand the answer to this question until I was doing research on sexuality in grad school even though I had been happily married for almost five years at that point. I knew that I was gay, and I also knew that sex with my wife was enjoyable. But I didn’t understand how that was happening. Here is the basic reality that I actually think many people could use a lesson in: sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together (which dwindle dramatically after the first few years of marriage anyway). So, in a weird way, the circumstances of our marriage allowed us to build a sexual relationship that is based on everything partners should want in their sex-life: intimacy, communication, genuine love and affection. This has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know. Most of whom are straight. Go fig.

[…]

6. Why would your wife choose to marry someone who is gay?

[this part written by Joshua’s wife Lolly]

[…]

In a moment of honest reflection, I realized that Josh was everything that I wanted in a husband. (All except for the huge fact that he was gay.) He was dedicated to God above all else and he loved his Savior deeply. He was kind, funny, sincere, honest and so much fun. I connected with him in ways that I did not connect with anyone else. But he was gay. And I did not know if I could handle that in a marriage.

I ended up confessing my feelings to him on a random day on a whim. He admitted that he felt the same feelings for me. That I was everything he wanted in a wife. I had never been more excited or confused. We decided to try it out and to start dating. It was truly an amazing experience for both of us, falling in love with our best friend.

Before he left on his mission, I was still not sure if I could actually marry him. The intimacy factor was so important to me. During the course of dating, we held hands and kissed. It was promising, but I didn’t know if our chemistry would be enough.

One day, we were having a conversation about our relationship. He simply said, “Am I worth it to you?” I wasn’t quite sure what he meant by that question. We then talked about how no one is perfect and how everyone deals with his or her own set of imperfections. When you get married, you are accepting a person as a package deal – the good, the bad, the hard, the amazing and the imperfect. He wanted to know if I loved the rest of him enough that I could deal with the realities that his homosexuality would bring to our marriage. I honestly could not answer him then.

Months passed and I was having a conversation with a good friend of mine. I said to her, “I can find someone else like Josh, right? Someone else to love like I love him?” She said, “You could find someone else to love, sure. But you will never have what you and Josh have with someone else. Because no one else is Josh.” When she said that, and I thought of loving someone else, I knew the answer to his question “Am I worth it?”

I knew that I loved Josh. I loved All of him. I wanted to marry him. I wanted to marry Josh Weed because I loved the man that he was. I loved everything that made him him. I didn’t want anyone else. I knew that we had the kind of relationship that could work through hard trials and circumstances. I had faith in him and I had faith in our love. I did not choose to marry someone who is gay. I chose to marry Josh Weed, the man that I love, and to accept all of him. I have never regretted it.

The full story is very good, except perhaps for Joshua’s recommendations on how to relate to friends and family suffering with same sex attraction (his point #8, item 1). Whereas Joshua basically recommends unilateral acceptance, a more charitable approach would be to love fully but offer solid faith based guidance.

The story is fairly long. It was originally published on his humor blog for reasons that he explains in the piece. Read it there or at LifeSiteNews: I am a gay, devout Mormon, happily married to a woman, with three children.

Christianity 101: God above all else. Yet, many people place God lower on their list — if He makes the list at all. Priorities are often given to money, drugs (including alcohol), spectator sports, participant sports, crafts, unions, jobs, sex and many other areas of interest. When God goes head-to-head with political convictions, many people will sadly choose their politics. I wrote about this in 2010: Idolatry (hint: it’s not just golden calfs).

As Catholics, our number one social issue is life itself and therefore faithful Catholics do not support abortion in any way whatsoever. This is non-negotiable. It is a grave sin to have an abortion or to facilitate them. That includes not only abortion clinic staff, but politicians who pass laws to fund or increase access to such clinics. Voters for those politicians are sinful through their complicity.

Catholics belong to both major parties. Neither is perfect, but the Democratic party has moved to positions which are inflexibly contrary to the Church. The Church is not wrong. We reject their support for abortion, support for “gay marriage,” centralized decision making in opposition to subsidiarity and their serious attack upon our religious liberty.

Contrary to common wisdom, not all Catholic Democratic politicians have completely discarded their faith in favor of politics. A few have tried to restore the party to its moral roots by working within it. Jo Ann Nardelli is one such person. She is a Democratic committeewoman, the president and founder of the Blair County Federation of Democratic Women, Vice President of the PA State Women’s Caucus and 1st Vice President of the PA State Federation of Democratic Women (in line for their presidency in 2014).

Matthew Archbold picks-up the story for the National Catholic Register:

Nardelli has always been a pro-life Democrat and felt that there was always room for that position in the party. But she said that for the past few years she’s felt that the party was drifting further and further away from her. She said she never shied away from speaking about her Catholic faith or her pro-life views as a Democrat.

She said that for years she hoped that she could change the party from within, make it more in line with traditional values. “I thought I could make a difference to change our party. It didn’t work,” she said. “I noticed it that it’s been going more and more to the left. This is not my father’s party. I did not leave the party, the party left me.”

In a letter of resignation to the Democratic party, Nardelli cited her Catholic faith.

“I respect all of you and all that I have achieved in the past. Due to personal matters and faith beliefs at this time, it is only fair to resign,” she wrote. “I will miss you all very much as you are all a part of my family; however, it is time to move forward with my life in a direction that is more in line with my faith.”

She announced her decision at a press conference at the courthouse in Hollidaysburg and standing next to her was Monsignor Anthony Little of the local parish of Saint Patrick’s in Newry.

She said it started a few weeks ago, ironically as she and her husband were getting ready for Mass and watching Meet the Press when Joe Biden, a Catholic, cited his support for gay marriage.

This shocked her. She said she’d always related to Biden. She said he reminded her of her father. But this announcement shocked her. And then, shortly after, President Obama announced that he’d “evolved” into supporting gay “marriage.”

And then as a Democratic committeewoman she received her agenda from the party espousing the same position. “To stand up and agree and sign off on this I couldn’t do it,” she said. “So I talked to our priest.”

I am conflicted by this. On the one hand, bravo for Jo Ann Nardelli! NOT because this is a political action against one party or in favor of another. Bravo because she is placing her faith, her Church – God – first. The downside is there will now be one less voice of truth and reason that could save the Democratic party from itself.

Read the entire piece: Democrat Committeewoman Resigns from Party, Cites Her Catholic Faith.

Some of the many news reports are here, here, here, here and here.

“I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Exodus 20:2-6

Just this morning I was lamenting with friends the complete loss of truthful, unbiased news reporting. In place of practicing journalism, mainstream media unabashedly seeks to leverage their power position to gain political and social goals.

A frequent thorn in their side is the Catholic Church. Sometimes I feel like we have absolutely no voice in society, but when I consider the unceasing, slanderous statements made against us – maybe truth does threaten the media. People of good will should look critically at media bias. They make little effort to hide it any longer.

The Catholic League regularly reports on the duplicity of the media. Yesterday was typical…   they reported on two very frequent offenders — The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on editorials that appear today in the New York Times and Washington Post:

Both of these newspapers misstate the facts, fail to mention relevant data, and then make unfair accusations against the Catholic Church on the issue of sexual abuse.

Both newspapers today editorialize on the subject of “pedophile priests.” It is one of the biggest myths of our time that the Catholic Church has had a problem with pedophile priests: as the John Jay College for Criminal Justice showed in its 2011 report on this subject, less than 5 percent of the abusers were pedophiles. In almost all cases, the victims were adolescent males who were inappropriately touched by homosexual priests. Both newspapers cover this up, thus perpetuating a lie.

Today’s New York Times criticizes Timothy Cardinal Dolan for opposing legislation by Assemblywoman Margaret Markey which would lift the statute of limitations for one year on civil lawsuits involving the sexual abuse of a minor. Once again, we have a cover-up: what the editorial does not say is that this bill does not apply to the public schools.

Today’s Washington Post adds to the cover-up by pretending that the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) is a legitimate organization that is being harassed by the Church. But anyone who has read the report we issued last year on inside information that was obtained from a SNAP conference knows that it is driven by raw hatred of Catholicism and intentionally manipulates the media. Also, the deposition from earlier this year of SNAP’s leader shows beyond a doubt that he lies to the media, and that he counsels alleged victims without a license in a coffee house.

Moreover, 85 Orthodox Jews from Brooklyn have recently been arrested for the sexual abuse of minors and yet neither newspaper reports on this.

Nothing unusual. The same stuff every day. If you keep repeating lies again and again, do people eventually believe you?

Another good example is media sensitivity to outrageous statements. Remember the Georgetown University student who could not afford contraception? Her apparent sexual activity level is so high (based upon her staggering contraceptive bill) that Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut.” I don’t like Rush Limbaugh and it was offensive for him to call her that. However, it was her choice to publicly testify to her high level of sexual “protection” needs. His comment did not seem like a big deal to me. The liberal media went wild.

OK. Clearly the media is sensitive to name calling. You would think then that they would report on and vigorously condemn another (liberal in this case) radio talk show host who referred to Christ’s Church and his Vicar as “you child-raping sons of bitches in the Catholic Church, I am so sick of all of you – especially your priests and your bishops and your scum, the Nazi Pope.” Absolute silence. No outrage. No condemnations.

NewsBusters (tagline: exposing & combating liberal media bias) did cover it:

Liberal radio hosts were furious with the Catholic League for mocking Hillary Rosen after she attacked Ann Romney for not working. Their tweet said “Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.” This was seen by liberals as signaling Rosen’s children adopted with former partner Elizabeth Birch were “less valid, less worthy of respect” and homophobic.

On Friday, Bill Press confused the Catholic League with the nation’s bishops (they are not connected), but on Thursday, rabid atheist Mike Malloy was nudged into erupting about “child-raping” Catholics and their scummy “Nazi pope”:

MALLOY: And the Catholic League – that piece of human waste Bill Donohue – then twitted or tweeted or tweaked – ‘glad to know Hilary’s fans are in a state of apoplexy – you’d think she was outed by their hysterical reaction. Get over it and grow up! You child-raping sons of bitches in the Catholic Church, I am so sick of all of you – especially your priests and your bishops and your scum, the Nazi Pope, I am so sick of all of you. And this Donohue freak — wow.

He then circled around to attacking Mrs. Romney:

MALLOY: She has never worked a damn day in her life. She has not a clue. When’s the last time Ann Romney cleaned a toilet? When’s the last time Ann Romney had to catch a bus at four o’clock in the morning and make uh two or three transfers so she could go clean somebody else’s goddamn house? When’s the last time Ann Romney went to work as, uh, some chump bastard’s secretary taking all – excuse me – administrative assistant – taking all the flak, knowing that the job was only as secure as the creep she worked for”

Ann Romney, you’re a multi-millionaire you’re net worth is almost a half a billion dollars! Don’t try to compare or find equivalence between you and working mothers! There is none and you know it! And so does your funky husband! And so does every single disgusting right-wing cockroach in this country who just couldn’t wait to come screwing up over the slime and jump on this one! And isn’t it nice that the first thing that the fascist Bill Donohue Catholic Nazi goes for is Hilary Rosen’s sexual orientation ya filthy pig! Have I mentioned yet tonight how MUCH I hate these right-wingers”

Tim Graham’s entire piece is: Liberal Radio Hosts Rant at Catholic League, Scummy ‘Nazi Pope’.

Again, nothing unusual. This blatant bias is now an every day thing. Expect things to actually worsen in this election year. For example, see this simple example from Elizabeth Scalia.