You say it's bad, I want it to be worse

With so much news about college sports going around, it is hard not to write about it, so ultimately I will. But, it is going to be really hard after just finding this really nifty article about bizarre state laws that are still on the books. So much more interesting that college sports, but I have to write college sports for an important reason that I will get back to shortly. Right now, I just want to touch on this article about outdated laws. They have picked some interesting ones from all fifty states, but because I don’t care about any other state than Texas (except maybe South Dakota because the bulk of my extended family lives there) I focused on the one they had put in the article from here. Apparently, at one point in Texas history there was an issue with shooting buffalo from the second story of hotels, because there is a law that specifically prohibits that. Funny that the bizarre law from our state has to do with firing weapons indoors, but if you’re going to have an edge on the buffalo, it better not be elevation (like rifles and telescopic scopes don’t give you an edge already). It is nice that law makers decided that the recklessness of excessive buffalo hunting needed to be impeded somehow, but this was the best that they could do? Regardless of the fact that there is an overwhelming absence of significant amounts of buffalo in this state currently, why has this law not been removed/retired. Not that I’m calling for it to be done, because we need to keep protecting the buffalo at all costs (even the cost of convenience from shooting them out of a second story window). Alright, on to what I really was going to write about, the serious lack of balls the NCAA has when dealing with pay-for-play scenarios (and you thought I wanted to write about conference realignment).

Background of the situation is as follows…the NCAA has ruled that the University of Southern California athletic department exhibited a lack of institutional control from 2004 to 2009 for a wide array of rules violations committed in its football, men’s basketball and women’s tennis programs. USC officials said in a statement they planned to appeal the decision. As a result of the violations, which mainly centered on Heisman Trophy-winning running back Reggie Bush (noted NFL bust, in my opinion) and basketball star O.J. Mayo (who?), the NCAA’s probe resulted in USC being hit with multiple penalties. Among them: A postseason ban in football following the 2010 and 2011 seasons; A loss of 30 total football scholarships over the 2011, 2012 and 2013 seasons; A vacation of all football victories starting in December 2004 and running through the 2005 season. This includes the national championship win over Oklahoma on Jan. 4, 2005; All statistics vacated for Bush, Mayo and an unnamed women’s tennis athlete in the games which the NCAA deemed them ineligible due to rules violations; Bush and Mayo must be disassociated from USC athletics; An acceptance of USC’s self-imposed penalties on its basketball program, which included a forfeiture of all wins in 2007-2008 and a one-year postseason ban; All titles won during ineligible games must be vacated and trophies and banners must be removed; A vacation of wins in the women’s tennis program from May 2006 to May 2009, for long distance telephone violations committed by a student-athlete; A reduction of recruiting days for the men’s basketball program in 2010-2011; Four years of probation.

The investigation was split into four primary parts: Bush and the football program, Mayo and the basketball program, an unnamed tennis player and the women’s tennis program, and finally, the failure of the athletic department’s infrastructure when it came to overseeing and policing its programs and athletes. Absorbed in its entirety, the report called the USC investigation “a window onto a landscape of elite college athletes and certain individuals close to them who, in the course of their relationships, disregard NCAA rules and regulations.” The NCAA’s findings were largely built around Bush, Mayo, and USC’s oversight of the pair, with investigators determining the athletes disregarded NCAA rules with a full awareness of their indiscretions. The report indicates the Bush and Mayo were able to engage in rule-breaking at least in part because of USC’s negligence, which included lack of staffing in the area of compliance, lax regulation on the sidelines and in the locker room, and, in at least one instance, a rebuke of running backs coach Todd McNair, who the NCAA cited for lying during the investigation.

After reading about all this (most of which I already expected, because hey, doesn’t every major college program do this?) I found the NCAA’s punishment just a tad limp-wristed. Sure, it will put a hitch in the getty-up of a program that has been literally on a roll for almost a decade, it won’t completely crush them for doing something that is clearly wrong, they knew was wrong, and tried to cover up. After all, this is the worst punishment a major university has been handed since another major program was given the “death penalty” (that’s right, here’s where my passion for this issue comes in, that school was my alma mater, SMU). It’s taken SMU twenty-five years to show significant signs of recovery from that ruling by the NCAA so many years ago, which completely shut down the football program at SMU and made them an example to other schools about the dangers of doing this kind of thing. No one will argue that the “death penalty” was the right way to go with SMU because they were pretty much the first nationally recognized football powerhouse to be accused of such dealings. But, after the lessons learned by that whole debacle, why would any school consider doing anything like that again?

That’s why I have a beef with the NCAA’s decision not to shut down this school’s programs for a year so the full brunt of justice for their indiscretions can be had. Everyone familiar with college football and the NCAA as a governing body knows the story of the SMU scandal. So, the gaul that it took for USC to do these things knowing full well what the punishment could be is appalling. With that being said, they should be punished to the full extent of the NCAA’s power. I am not belittling the punishment that the NCAA came up with, which like I said, will have a lasting impact on USC’s athletic programs for years to come (a potential conference powerhouse that was being formed with schools from the Big 12 and the Pac 10 has seemingly come to a halt after this announcement) as well as on the athletes themselves that were investigated (there is talk that Bush will lose his Heisman Trophy). I am saying that why was an example made of SMU (that many NCAA officials agree was too rough) that is not being used with the next major college program found guilty of pay-to-play. No one has an answer, except to say that the hatred for SMU back then was much greater than any ill will toward USC now. Does my position on this issue have something to do with my dislike of USC…yes, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that USC came off lighter than I would have expected. So everyone in the USC administrative and athletic departments should be thanking their lucky stars they are not where SMU was twenty-five years ago.

Goooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllll!

Call me crazy…but, I am really excited about the World Cup. If you’ve read my blogs before than you know how much I cherish soccer/futbol (seriously, I can’t stand it). But, really, I love the World Cup. It has everything you need in a sporting event, except a really good sport. Honestly, I am a huge Olympics fan (I don’t know how much curling I watched this winter, but it was a lot) and the World Cup brings you all the pomp and circumstance of the Olympics, except with seriously angry inter-country rivalries. It is so awesome, that it completely overshadows the terribleness of soccer. That is basically it. No, I will go into this a little further, but you have to be able to grasp the magnificence of it all.

Let me elaborate the global competition aspect of it all. Sure, I love sports in America. Baseball, football, basketball, and hockey give me all the aggressive competition I need. Plus, think of all the rivalries between cities and states based on these sports teams. I hate Boston with a passion due to the sports teams that call that retched city home. The Red Sox can suck it for all I care. And let’s not forget Los Angeles, which is a pretty crappy town to begin with from what I hear, but it is much worse due to the darn Lakers (there aren’t even any lakes in that city!). And don’t get me started about Philidelphia…the Eagles, gross. People who live in other cities in Pennsylvania don’t even like Philly. Well, take those feelings and apply them on a global scale. Realize how much fun it is to have a deep seated hatred of Brazil. Strap on your stars and stripes then run hooligan-type raids on the “English” pub in your town and learn the joy of throwing pint glasses at people’s heads. And let us not forget Serbia…I don’t know how to creatively insult Serbians, but you get the idea. It is country pride at its finest…fueled with the rage that can only come from drinking continuously while watching a sport that bores the hell out of you. U-S-A! U-S-A!

This is going to seem like a contradiction to what was written above, but the World Cup is the only sporting event where you can let your loyalties be divided (in my opinion). Now, of course we are all Americans (at least I assume so if you are reading this), so our cheers will rise and fall with the success of the US National Team. But, because it’s soccer and who really cares, if you have another favorite team/country, you can cheer for them. I can tell you are going to need an example. Ok, I’m an American, so if I’m going to cheer for someone it will be the US team, but we all know that our chances are kind of slim barring some crazy luck. So, being that I can trace my heritage back to Germany, I cheer for the German team, who would/will have a better chance than the US (seriously, we are not necessarily the team everyone is shaking in their boots about). And this isn’t some passing fancy either, I know more about the German team than I do the US team. For instance, I know that Germany is in Group D, their first game is against Australia (6/13), and my boys Miroslav Klose and Bastian Schweinsteiger (I love that name) are back on the squad this year. But seriously, I am a team USA fan and will be behind them all the way (no, more seriously, go Germany!).

I’m going to be honest with you, in the middle of writing this blog I left and went fishing with a friend, so I am not on my original train of thought, so I am going to go. I hope you enjoyed what I got out so far and if you feel like I need to be more verbose about what I’m saying with this World Cup thing, just leave a comment.

Are Catholics actually Christians? Um...yes!

As is often the case when I look into questions or situations pertaining to writing about something religious, I am a little disturbed. Let me get the back story out first. While enjoying the Rangers game Friday night at the ballpark with a guest, we got into a religious discussion which involved mostly their asking questions and me answering (or trying to answer) them. I will not go through everything nor divulge exactly who my guest was or their background, but as with many discussions involving Catholicism that one annoying question came up. It doesn’t matter how you word it, but it calls into doubt whether Catholics are Christians. To me, that doesn’t really seem like a legitimate question…seriously, the history of the Catholic Church starts with Christ appointing (St.) Peter the head of His church. Enough said, right? Not for everyone. Before I get into that, I must say that you should not misinterpret this blog as a fire-back or rebuttal to that person’s question. They were being sincere, honest, and agreeable with asking me questions and trying to learn more about what I believe. I’m often flattered when people come to me for their questions about Catholicism because that means they assume I know a great deal about my faith and can answer said questions (sometimes their assumptions are wrong). So in writing this blog I am just informing everyone out there of what is being said about Catholic’s position in Christianity. Some of this is kind of disturbing, some of it is funny, and some of it is just downright rude, but being a Catholic often means that you have to deal with the “rude” because of what you believe.

There was a time when I thought addressing this question as the topic for a blog was unnecessary. Of course, Catholics are Christians. Why would anyone ever question this? But, with all the misinformation and falsities that abound about Catholicism, I feel it is time to address this very question. You might have heard that Catholicism is a cult or that because of one reason or another Catholics are not Christians. This is simply not true! In fact the Catholic Church is Jesus’ pilgrim church on earth (I mentioned Peter earlier, yeah, that). All Christian denominations broke away from the Catholic Church, or from a denomination that did. This is historical fact. Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P., from the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN, Catholic TV, basically) puts it pretty simply, “For Catholics "Christian" has come to include all those who have been baptized, including many who do not accept all of the deposit of the faith. For us, to be a Catholic is to accept all of the teachings of the early Church.” Now, that is a wholly simplified answer to what becomes a more and more complex question over the years. So, let’s get down to it.

But let’s go step-by-step. First, let’s look at some definitions. What does catholic mean? What does Catholic mean? How is Catholicism defined? And how is Christianity defined? My trusty Webster dictionary tells me the following:
catholic – 1: comprehensive, universal 2: of, relating to, or forming the church universal
Catholic – 1: a person who belongs to the universal Christian church
Catholicism – 1: the faith, practice or system of Catholic Christianity
Christianity – 1: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic and Protestant bodies 2: conformity to the Christian religion
Wikipedia.com states the Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church with its members numbering over half of all Christians and one sixth of the world’s total population.
Christianity is defined on Wikipedia.com as “a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recounted in the New Testament.” Present day Christianity is comprised of four main groups (due to theological reasons some reject being classified as Christian denominations): Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants and other Catholics (those not in communion with the Pope), and Restorationists (those who believe they are restoring the original version of Christianity).

Now we’ll get to some of the arguments that non-Catholics have for why Catholics are not Christians and the answers/rebuttals to those assertions:

Why call yourselves Catholic, and not simply Christian?
If I’ve seen/heard this once, I’ve seen/heard it a thousand times: "If you are truly Christian then why do you call yourselves Catholic? Believers were called Christian in Acts 11 and no other denomination or religion.”
I could ask the same question, "Why do Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, or even nondenominational communities use those words and not simply say Christian?" The word Catholic was used by the year 110 A.D. to distinguish the Church of the Apostles from heretical teachings. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St. John, along with St. Polycarp. The Church historian Theodoret says Ignatius was consecrated bishop by St. Peter, the apostle, who was the first bishop of Antioch before returning to Rome. Ignatius was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan's rule. It was during the journey to Rome that he wrote his famous letters that contain invaluable information about the early Church. He was the first to document the term "Catholic" in its current form to describe the Church. It means universal. Ignatius' use of the word shows it was in common use. His is the earliest extant writing which has "ekklesia katholicos" where Catholic is an adjective modifying "Church" in the nominative. In Acts 5:11 and 15:22 we find "holen ten ekklesian." It is derivative of the same root as “katholicos” and is in the nominative and is translated as "The Whole Church" and then in Acts 9:21 we find “ekklesia kathholes” and here Catholic is also an adjective, but it does not modify "Church" because it is in the wrong case but rather modifies the words following. Best translated as "the Church throughout the whole of..." These terms where all in common usage during the time of the Apostles ministry.

In the early Church, in the Bible, wasn't it was called "the way?"
Mark Bonocore answers: The early Church was called BOTH "Orthodox" and "Catholic." St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostles (mentioned above), calls the Church by both these names as early as A.D. 107. The term "the Way" was used by Jewish Christians to describe the Christian Faith of the New Covenant to non-Christian Jews. From the Jewish Christian point of view (and indeed from the point of view of both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church today) the Church of Jesus Christ is not something separate from Israel, but is the true Israel …the true manifestation of the Chosen People (see Gal 6:16, 1 Peter 2:9-10, etc.). This is why the Eastern Church is correct to refer to the saints of the Old Testament as "St. Abraham" and "St. Moses," etc. For, we are not a replacement for Israel of old, but an unbroken continuation of Israel under the promised King and Messiah of Israel, and His Church is His Kingdom of Israel, expanded to include all the Gentile peoples of the earth. And so, in Acts of the Apostles, when you have Jewish Christians addressing their fellow Jews who are not yet full Christians, you will see them refer to it as "the Way"…that is, the true manifestation of Israel…the "sect" that truly represents Israel, as opposed to the other Jewish sects (the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, etc.) who did not recognize the true King of Israel, Who is the only "Way"…the "Way, the Truth, and the Life." But, when Gentile Christians spoke of the Church, they stressed its truth and its universality; and this is why and how the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" were applied to the Church. And those two terms exist today.

We Christians are the only ones who follow the true faith of Jesus Christ.
The modern Evangelical movement is a result of numerous splits that occurred after the Reformation, in the 1500's. The only other Church not to be in union with Rome before that was the Orthodox Church which split off in 1054 A.D. There were also various heresies that came and went, such as Arianism that said Jesus was not fully human AND fully God.
Some Evangelicals claim they have a direct connection to the early Church of the first centuries that bypasses Catholicism. If that is so, I would think the beliefs of modern Evangelicals would reflect the beliefs of the early Church. However, any time spent studying the Church Fathers will make it abundantly clear that early Christian beliefs were Catholic. The Church Fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honored Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, prayed for the dead, respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies, appointed bishops, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days, and is the Catholic Church of today. Beginning with the apostles, century after century, Catholics died so that Christ's message would reach the nations. Yes, we are Christians, the originals if you were. Whether or not someone agrees with Catholic doctrine is their prerogative. But all who look at history will admit that Catholics are clearly Christian. "No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3). Jesus has called Christians to unity "that they may all be one, as you Father, are in me and I am in you" (John 17:21). I hope we can love one another as He has loved us (John 13:34). Jesus Christ is Lord of all. If you have never made a personal decision for Christ, I beg you to do so now. It was the best thing I ever did and continue to do.

If Catholics are Christian, then why isn’t their faith rooted in the Bible?
Really? Where do you think the Bible came from in its present form? The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. It would take each monk ten years to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed.
Did I mention the Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible? In the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 A.D.). The non-Catholic Bible scholar Peter Flint, who won "best popular book" from the Biblical Archeology Society for his translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, tells us that there was no Bible until 397 A.D. when the Catholic Church decided on what books belong there. Before that there were hundreds of letters and the Septuagint. He said: "Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible!" Even the word Bible is not in the Bible. It was coined by Catholics. It means books from the Greek word “byblos” meaning "papyrus", from the ancient Phoenician city of Byblos which exported papyrus, the "paper" of the day. We Catholics love the Bible. Honest! I personally love the Bible so much that I have six copies in three different translations.

Catholicism teaches that salvation is found through faith and works, but the Bible states that salvation is only found through faith.
This was brought up in our discussion on Friday night. My answer was that I believe that my salvation is through Jesus Christ. Having read several discussions of this argument today, there seems to be a misunderstanding between the people making this argument as to what “works” means. Some say that “works” refers to the Sacraments, to which I say that the Sacraments help us attain grace which aids us in becoming closer to God in our lives. By no means does it imply that they are needed for salvation. Others say that “works” refers to The Precepts of the Church (attend Mass on Sunday, confess your sins once a year, receive Communion at least during the Easter season, observe days of fasting, and tithe), to which I say that these are guidelines to the practice of Catholicism (rooted in early Church tradition) but nowhere is it said that they are needed for salvation.
I profess what I believe every Sunday in Mass through reciting the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is an ecumenical statement of Christian faith and beliefs. A central doctrine of the creed is the Trinity. This creed, opposed by some groups, is accepted by many Christian churches. The Nicene Creed states:
"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come."
Nowhere in there do I say/see that my salvation is dependent upon “works”. I do see where it states “for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven”. “He” is referring to Jesus Christ, part of the Trinity (an original Catholic belief), and Son of God in human form. That’s where my salvation lies, with Christ.

So, why then would anyone dispute the fact that Catholics are Christians? My first answer would be, honestly I don’t know. But in seeing all the misinformation (like one site I found where they were using the Catechism of the Catholic Church to reinforce their arguments but taking passages clearly out of context and interpreting them without understanding of what the Church was saying) about Catholicism on the internet, I believe that is the root of it. The misinformation (perpetuated through generations of anti-Catholic sentiment rooted in the bitterness of the Protestant Reformation) is the problem…not the internet. If someone is searching for information about Catholicism and happens upon an anti-Catholic site, or speaks to a misinformed individual, he or she could very well come away with a false understanding of Catholicism. This false understanding then might lead to someone believing that Catholics are not Christians.

Let me just startle you with something I found. When you read this ask yourself who are really the Christians here, Catholics who practice centuries old faith based on scripture and tradition passed down by the first followers of Christ, the Apostles, or the people with websites that belittle their fellow followers of Christ by writing this:
“The Roman Catholic Church teaches another gospel (faith plus works) and worships a different 'Jesus' (the dead, joyless one on their cross). Therefore, those who believe in the Roman Catholic 'gospel' cannot be saved. If you can't discern a false gospel and a false church, then you can't discern the true gospel and the true church. If you cannot discern a false gospel and a false church, then you are in very serious spiritual trouble...”

Yeah, a Christian actually wrote that.