What Happens When A Christian Country Turns its Back on its Past

                                                            +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

After reading this, is there any doubt in your mind atheists are idiots?

Family loses appeal for reunion

NAUSTDAL, Norway (ChurchMilitant.com) - A Christian family in Norway has lost its appeal to have its children returned, after the government forcibly removed five children from their home. The public is reacting with outrage.

Marius Bodnariu, a Romanian, and his Norwegian wife Ruth, former members of the Pentecostal Church in Bucharest, moved to Naustdal, Norway 10 years ago, where they raised five children. As reported by Marius' brother Daniel, on November 16, Norway's child welfare services took away the Bodnarius' two oldest children, showing up at their school and removing them from class without their parents' knowledge. Police later that day arrived at the Bodnarius' home and also forcibly removed the two older boys, leaving Ruth with her three-month-old baby, who was taken away the following day by police as well. 

Two days later, child welfare services notified the parents that their children were in the care of two separate foster families and were "integrating" well. One of the officials reportedy said to Ruth, "The kids don't even miss you. What kind of parents are you?" Marius and Ruth were later informed by the government that they were guilty of "Christian radicalism and indoctrination."

Apparently, the children's removal was instigated by the school principal, who complained to child welfare services that the Bodnarius were "very Christian" and their belief that God punishes sin "creates a disability in the children." Accordingly, the principal believed the parents needed "guidance" from the government in raising their family. The principal also cited concerns over discipline in the family home, as occasional corporal punishment is used. But after physical examination of the children (the three-month-old was subjected to x-rays and a CT scan), no physical abuse was discovered. Child welfare services is claiming, however, that Marius is physically abusive, while he and Ruth are vehemently denying the claims.

A hearing held November 27 dismissed the Bodnarius' appeal to be reunited with their children. The court ruled instead that they were to remain in the care of their foster parents, while Marius and Ruth could visit their three-month-old son twice a week for two hours. They could see their two older sons as well, but the court refused to grant them visitation rights for their daughters. The parents are considering further legal action. 

Meanwhile, a petition begun in support of the family has collected nearly 30,000 signatures, and a Facebook page has been set up documenting the family's ordeal.

On December 2, Romanian senator Titus Corlatean spoke on the Bodnarius' behalfto the Commission for equality and nondiscrimination of the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council (PAEC) in Paris. Corlatean condemned what he deemed abusive conduct on the part of the Norwegian government, and asked that the Assembly investigate. He also noted prior actions on the part of Norway's child welfare services that involved splitting children from their parents based on groundless accusations.

Marius' brother writes: 

I testify, and vehemently vouch, for Marius and Ruth having given birth to and raised a 'normal' family with Christian values. These parents love their children and have taken every imaginable step in raising their children with loving caring in all aspects of their well-being. The tearing apart of their family by the Barnevernet [child welfare services] is a living nightmare for Marius and Ruth. Their hope is founded, and rests, in God; He can change any situation and He is always in control!

A mass protest is being urged this weekend on their behalf. Instructions for sending emails are available on the relevant Facebook page, and request as many emails as possible be sent to Norwegian officials by Monday, December 7.

What You Never Knew about: St Nicholas

                                                              +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

 I figured I'd do another list of things people don't know about  a particular figure, with this one being the subject of today's feast day: St Nicholas.

1. He's actually Greek.
That's right: his parents were both Greek and he was raised in Greece. Some may think he was Turkish but that's only because he was a bishop of a Turkish area. This also explains why St Nicholas is the patron saint of sailors.

So come Christmas Eve, you might want to leave ouzo more than cookies.

2. He got the name Santa Claus because the English misheard a version of his name.

It may shock some people today, but when America was being colonized, the English settlers didn't celebrate Christmas.
Why? Because they were mostly Puritans who viewed Christmas as too Catholic or too "popish." As more people started settling in the area, more traditions and customs came over as well. One such group were the Dutch who brought their tradition of a gift giver. The English children were intrigued by this but neither they nor their parents were used to hearing Dutch words, so when they heard the name Sinterklaas, they thought the name was Santa Claus.

3. He once saved three young women from prostitution.

In life, Nicholas knew a man with three daughters. At one point, he wanted to marry them off but had no money to do so. Desperate because of his situation, he was getting ready to sell his daughters into prostitution.
Nicholas, not wanting to have the young women go into a life of sin but knowing full well the man was too proud to ask for help, came by his house late in the night and put three bags of gold coins down the man's chimney.
This is why some depictions of Nicholas has him holding three coin bags (sometimes three gold balls; they stand for the same thing).

4. He signed off on one of the key creeds of Christianity.

That creed is called the Nicene Creed, one of the oldest and most widely used creeds in Christianity. I'll get to the need for writing it in a moment, but for now, I'll say the creed is used to clarify the relationship between Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Unlike the Apostle's Creed, it does address Jesus' divinity but it does not say one needs the Catholic faith to be saved. This is why some Protestants use the creed, like Lutherans and Baptists but not used by Mormons or Jehovah's Witness (then again those last two aren't real Christians anyway so what difference does it make?)


5. He is a Catholic bishop.

This is the reason why he is portrayed with red robes, as that's the garment of the bishop office---unless someone is from an area with a more Eastern Rite or Eastern Orthodox influence. In that case, he wears purple robes.


7. One of the key parts of his life has long been misunderstood.

This is going back to the Nicene Creed mentioned earlier. What I did not bring up was why the creed was written in the first place.
At the time, a bishop named Arius was promoting the idea that Jesus was less than the Father, even going so far as to extend the teaching to saying Jesus is a created being. This became so rampant in the Church a special meeting of bishops was called by none other than Constantine. Nicholas, being a bishop himself, went to the meeting to settle the issue. He with the other bishops sat back while Arius presented his case for this stand.

Now pretty much everyone gets that part right; this is the part people get wrong.

According to the ignorant, Nicholas got up, punched Arius right in the face, sat back down and suffered no consequences for his actions and since Nicholas is a saint, this supposedly shows hypocrisy in Christianity.

This is of course NOT what actually happened.

Here's what it did happen: Nicholas did go up and strike Arius but it was a slap, not a punch.
Second of all, while a bishop arguing with another bishop wasn't frowned upon (as long as it was in the spirit of fraternal correction), a bishop striking another bishop was looked down on…especially considering he did it right in front of the emperor.
Third, he in fact did not get away with it. The other bishops were so shocked and horrified, they banned him from the remainder of the council, stripped him of his bishop authority and vestments, and confined him to a make-shift quarters wrapped in chains.
When the jailer checked on him the next mourning, he found the chains unwrapped and Nicholas back in his vestments.
This was taken as a sign to give Nicholas his office back..which they did and ruled against Arius.

My Stand on Mass Shootings

                                                                    +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

Before I begin, I would like to first address my prayers are with those killed in San Bernidino. It's sad we have to go through this tragedy again.
And I know we shouldn't go into this before all the facts are known, but I've put together something that will be applicable to this and (I fear) any other mass shootings in the future.

Many have asked quite rightly when these tragedies will stop. That is a fair question, and I do have the three point solution:

1. We need to admit gun free zones don't work and neither does any gun control law.
Even the CDC couldn't find any gun control law that actually worked at reducing gun crime.

2. We need to admit we as a nation are wrong and God does exist.

3. Once we admit #2, we must also admit every life has inherent value and life is worth living.

I'm afraid unless all three of these events happen….these shootings will never, ever stop.

Fun with Christmas Political Correctness

                                                        +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

It's that time of year where the vast--and I mean the VAST--majority of Americans celebrate Christmas (yeah, I said it). Despite the fact the odds are good any given person you come across also celebrates Christmas, good luck trying to find any major company or shop that will wish you a happy or merry Christmas. It's almost always "happy holidays" or worse still people say nothing for fear of "offending somebody."

Yet people don't have any problems with saying other holiday names; it's like they're saying "we're willing to defend every culture in the world except our own."

So since they can't be trusted to see the folly of their own stupidity, I say have fun at their expense. I guarantee you the exchange with them will go something like this; for argument's sake, we'll call the common sense person Faith and the PC person Clueless Kate.

Clueless Kate: "Faith, here's your invitation for the company holiday party."
Faith: "Great. What holiday are we celebrating besides Christmas?"
Clueless Kate: "oh..Hanukkah."
Faith: "Hanukkah doesn't happen until long after this party."
Clueless Kate: "oh…then Kwannza."
Faith: "None of the colors we have match that. Try again."
Clueless Kate: "Ramadan."
Faith: "That was earlier this year. Try again."
Clueless Kate: "Festivus."
Faith: "This isn't Seinfeld. Try again."

Clueless Kate, rather than admit her own mistake, will either retreat or call you a bigot.


If you think I'm lying or exaggerating, consider this actual email I received from a friend when he asked his workplace this exact same question; the company's actual name has been changed to protect their sorry hides:

In an inclusive office environment such as Smith Inc, we recognize that our employees celebrate the holiday season according to their personal beliefs, and therefore we do not identify a specific holiday to represent Smith Inc as a company.

Our employees, however, are welcome to express their goodwill toward each other during this season as they see fit.

Thank you for your interest, and please let us or your agency/employer know if you have any other questions.

What makes this especially hilarious is the company in question included in the email a gift package picture that was colored red and green (colors ONLY associated with Christmas) and had a Christmas tree in their main entrance.

This is as stupid as letting two known atheists be grand marshals of a city Christmas parade.

But this is the state of affairs now. What are you going to do to stop it? Are you going to let atheists get their way?

Why would you ever do that? Atheists are idiots.

A Catholic Thanksgiving

Turkey Day Quickies

                                                                        +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

I'm not going to lie: plenty of major events as well as some personal news have happened in the past few days…so many in fact if I were to give them each their own post, I'd be stuck writing all day.

So with that said, here are a few insights, news and little tidbits I've come across. I should also note these are in no particular order of importance except this first one:

                                                                           --------
                                                        Concerning the Paris attacks:

I do mourn for those lost in the attacks…unlike others who use the "you're in my thoughts" cop-out. And I do applaud any and all efforts to limit or flat out block Syrian refugees from coming to America.
For anyone who thinks that sounds racist or unwelcoming or if you're going to give me some lame interpretation of the Good Samaritan, consider this:

We have confirmed cases of ISIS fighters masquerading as refugees. In addition, one recent study showed a significant number fleeing ISIS who actually either agree with ISIS or at least think ISIS has the right idea.

Strange: when Jews fled the Nazis, I don't recall any of them agreeing with their oppressors.

                                                                           --------
                               Concerning whether this means war against Islam:

I do wish we actually could have an honest look at what Islam teaches or where ISIS got the idea their actions are justified but I'm afraid with how hypersensitive everyone is, that might not be possible. We're at the point that even suggesting this idea is considered offensive.
But let me make one thing clear: I don't think every single Muslim is a terrorist. I do think (and can show) of those who have committed terrorist acts, they are almost all Muslims.

And for those who say we are at war with Islam….you're right but not for the reasons you think.

I'm not talking about a war in the sense of guns blazing, armies going in and fighting. I don't have the authority to declare that and frankly, neither does anyone calling for war against Muslims.

What I am talking about is a war against all enemies of Christ's Kingdom and I'm not alone in that. Every Church Father, Doctor of the Church and even the Bible itself calls Islam at best heretical and at worst antichrist.

If that last one sounds harsh, consider this: The Bible sets three criteria on what is antichrist:
-Saying Christ is not the Messiah
-Saying Christ is not of God
- Saying Christ did not come in the flesh

Granted, you only need to meet one of these criteria, but based on what I know about Islam, it touts two of these.

So yes…I applaud any and all efforts to make sure Sharia Law is NEVER the rule of law in America.

                                                                    ---------------

                            Concerning the Stephen Colbert interview with Bill Mahar:

Normally, I would applaud any and all attempts to invite people back into the Catholic Church…as long as the person extending the invitation is not Stephen Colbert.

I have never been a fan of his work ever since he was on Jon Stewart and I don't really care for him now.
And if he was the official poster child for American Catholicism…The Church in America would be in more dire straights.
Proof positive of this: Colbert is a minister in the Universal Life "Church", that sorry excuse for a church where one can just print something and you have authority to marry people.
Legality of that aside, one of the most basic teachings of the Church---only validly ordained priests have the authority to marry people--and he doesn't follow it.


Even though Mahar is a complete prick and his film is a complete joke, if I were him, I would have turned down Colbert's invite too.

                                                                      ------------

Right after the Supreme Court ruling, there were talks concerning whether to let gay family members and their "spouse" over for either Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner.

I say they should be denied an invitation. After all, their "marriages" are abominations anyway and one opposed to it should not even appear to approve of it in any way.

                                                                      ------------

And finally, my rant against that imbecile the "amazing" atheist remains my most viewed post. So far, I predicted what his reactions would be to the UCC shooting (he tried but failed to cover up the fact the shooter was an avowed atheist who killed Christians just because they were Christians), how he would react to the claim atheism is a religion ( it really is a religion, but that's another post for another day), and what his reaction would be to the Paris attack (predictability blaming all religion for it like an idiot).

No surprise he also supports Bernie Sanders.

So why bring him up now? It turns out I'm not the only one who thinks he's a lying, thieving, misogynistic sack of dog droppings. One particular pro-secular website lists him as a detriment to the atheist cause, going so far to say one of the three groups he appeals to is 13 year old boys.

Everyone reading this can mark my words: if I ever encounter him in person, I will tell him right to his face he's full of it and he's a babbling moron.

His parents must have messed up bad to produce someone like him.

And those are my mini-points. I do pray you all have a happy Thanksgiving.

The Truth of the HERO Ordinance….OR The Chick Fil A Incident All Over Again

                                                                 +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

With Election Day passing and all the votes counted, it shouldn't surprise us that not everyone wound up happy at the final results. What strikes me as odd is the level of whining from the losing side, which was overwhelmingly the political left.

One case getting national attention was a ballot ordinance in Houston, TX called the HERO ordinance, also known as the "bathroom ordinance" (I'll explain why it's called that in a moment.) If passed, it would have prevented business and other organizations from discriminating against 15 classes of people, including age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity. By a two-to-one margin, Houston voters said no, and thus opened the floodgates to charges of hate, ignorance and being behind the times.

In typical secular/atheist/"this life is all that matters" form, the critics have once again missed the point because once again it never dawned on them why people voted no.

First of all, the ordinance just wasn't needed.
That's right: out of all the protected classes listed in the ordinance, it was either already illegal to discriminate against those groups at the federal level (mostly by the Civil Rights Act) or it would give protection to groups that aren't discriminated against in the first place.

Second of all, some have nick-named it the "bathroom ordinance" because the language leaves the door open  for (at least according to some of the political ads) a grown man claiming he's a woman and using the ladies room, thereby leaving the door open for him to sexually assault women or little girls.

If that one sounds far-fetched, consider this: in every city that has a similar ordinance in place, that has happened at least one time. And in every case, people get mad at the people complaining about it, accusing them of bigotry.


Having looked into the ordinance myself, I applaud Houston for saying no to this nonsense. For those who disagree, consider the timeline of events:

Sometime in mid 2014- openly gay Houston mayor Annise Parker proposed a city ordinance that would allow people to use restrooms and locker rooms they felt better represented their gender identity.
This part was later removed explicitly but was still there based on wording.
The city council passed the ordinance.

Sometime later- Houston-area pastors organized a petition in protest to the ordinance. At first, the petition passed all legal requirements but then the city attorney at the time claimed it was several signatures short and was not properly notarized. Four plaintiffs filed a suit saying the original ruling on the petition was valid…and the courts agreed with them.

September 2014- Houston city attorneys under Mayor Parker's orders issued subpoenas against several petition-signing pastors, claiming their maneuver violated federal tax codes against tax-exempt groups electioneering from the pulpit.

October 2014- It didn't take long for people as well as national news outlets to figure out the subpoenas were nothing more than an attempt from the mayor (a Democrat, no surprise there) to silence anyone critical of either her or the gay agenda.
The subpoenas were dropped and the petition went to trial.

January 2015- The judge in the subsequent trial ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, meaning the measure had to be put on the ballot and have the people decide.

November 2015- Houston voters strike down the measure.


Now, after the vote, look how quickly the HERO supporters change their tune: before the vote, they said it was about equal rights for all; after the vote, they make it sound like it was only about rights for gays and trans-genders.

Now, they're calling for boycotts against Houston, including calling on the NFL to move the 2017 Super Bowl to another city.

Let's ignore for a moment that these types of people don't strike me as frequent pro-football watchers and let's instead focus on why I bring Chick Fil A into this.

When that company struck back against the gay agenda, people called for boycotts but then realized how good their waffle-fries are.
The boycott didn't work.

I predict that same thing will happen with all the calls to boycott Houston: sure there may be sore losers but the boycott won't work because a) Houston is more ethnically diverse than even New York City (that's a fact; look it up) so the charge of intolerance won't stick and b) Houston is much more financially prosperous than most of America.

Not thinking threats all the way through…atheists are such idiots.