Recently I started a facebook page for this blog! Lots of really awesome content there. PLEASE go there and like the page. THANKS!!
Monday, October 31, 2016
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Friday, October 28, 2016
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Monday, October 24, 2016
Alberta is jumping completely on the transgender bandwagon. They announced completely over-the-top legislation in relation to schools. Here are some of them:
1) Children pick their own pronoun.
A child determines if they want to be referred to as he, she, ze, it, they or use no pronoun whatsoever. On report cards, when being spoken to by teachers or parents, or in any other way, the school must under all circumstances abide by whatever the child decides. Even if the child is 4 or 5 years old, this still applies and can be changed at any time on the whim of the child.
2) Boys or Girls can play for any team
Boys and Girls will no longer be divided in Alberta based on gender. Rather, each child can pick whatever team they would rather play on. So a boy can decide to play on the girl's team or vice verse. Again, because gender is fluid and can change, a boy can switch to the girl's team and then back again at will.
3) Kids can choose whichever bathroom or locker room they go into
Again, with no other requirement than verbal request, a child can choose whether to go into a girls' bathroom or locker room or a boys'. There are no rules or conditions. They can just do whatever they want in this regard. Also, schools are mandated to have a third, gender-less bathroom for any student who hasn't decided to or doesn't want to disclose their gender.
4) Schools are mandated to have Gay-Straight Alliances.
These are clubs where gay and non-gay students can meet to talk about sexuality and to find ways of ending homophobia and transphobia. In reality, they tell every person to question their sexuality and encourage perversion.
Obviously there are some schools which oppose these measures for religious reasons, and Canada, being a country that recognizes religious diversity and various approaches to raising children, allows exemptions for such groups. LOL, just kidding. There are absolutely no such exemptions. Religious schools will absolutely be forced to participate in all of this.
If a religious school or school board refuses to call a 5 year old boy a girl upon request, they will lose all of their funding from the province. Of course, this is one more reason why public funding of schools needs to end immediately. As the advocates of this system long ago declared, public education doesn't exist because poor people couldn't get an education. It exists so that bureaucrats can more easily force people to act a certain way and for this to apply across the board.
All schools are doing is creating vast confusion for students as they struggle through school. Even though transgenderism only appeared extremely recently and it extraordinarily uncommon, everybody must be subject to its dictates. There is no place for good-willed Christian parents to send their children for school. The measures will only continue to get worse and worse as even private schools are forbidden from teaching real sexuality. Unless you are teaching perversion, you will be forcibly banned from education.
More on this perversion: CBC
Posted by Phil Lynch at 5:08 pm
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Question #9: Do we have to take a Catholic baptism seriously or is it mostly just a fun little ritual?
This is Question and Answer #9 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.
Question #9: Do we have to take a Catholic baptism seriously or is it mostly just a fun little ritual?One of my pet peeves is people who attend a baptism and snicker and joke throughout the whole thing. Some parents will purposely goad their kids into “performing” and everyone just pays attention to these kids instead of to the sacred event that is taking place. They take the whole thing as a joke. If it's such a joke, maybe you have to reconsider whether you should even be doing this.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:31 am
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Question #8 My buddy is cohabiting or living together with his girlfriend and isn’t married. Can he be a Catholic godfather?
This is Question and Answer #8 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.
Question #8 My buddy is cohabiting or living together with his girlfriend and isn’t married. Can he be a Catholic godfather?Again, as mentioned yesterday, if he is living in defiance of Church teaching then he’s not a good candidate. If him and his partner are living as brother and sister for the time being, then he would be allowed.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:29 am
Friday, October 21, 2016
This is Question and Answer #7 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.
Question #7: Can my gay friend be a godparent at a Catholic baptism?If your friend is living in defiance of Church teaching on sexuality, then he is not permitted to be a godparent. Simply being attracted to people of the same sex would NOT disqualify the person however. It’s only if they are openly opposing the Church.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:27 am
Christmas Day 2016 is on SUNDAY, December 25, 2016
Because Christmas Day is on a Sunday, Advent is the earliest it can possibly be this year. In Canada, Christmas Day is a holy day of obligation, one of only two. Also, Catholics are required to attend Mass every Sunday. That means this season, there are no "additional" Masses that must be attended since they fall on Sunday. Same goes for New Years Day which is the Solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God. That's the other holy day of obligation and it falls on a Sunday, so no additional Mass day is required.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 8:45 am
The first Sunday of Advent 2016 prior to Christmas will be on November 27, 2016.
The latest day possible for the first Sunday of Advent is December 3rd. Incidentally that's when it is next year! So this year it is the earliest possible Advent and next year it's the latest possible advent.
The rest of the Sundays of Advent are as follows:
1st Sunday of Advent 2016: November 27, 2016
2nd Sunday of Advent 2016: December 4, 2016
3rd Sunday of Advent 2016: December 11, 2016
4th Sunday of Advent 2016: December 18, 2016
Christmas Day: December 25, 2016
Posted by Phil Lynch at 8:07 am
Donald Trump blasted Hillary Clinton last night at the Al Smith Memorial Dinner. The last time the two candidates meet on the campaign trail before the election in November.
At one point in his speech, Trump said the following:
We’ve learned so much from WikiLeaks. For example, Hillary believes that it’s vital to deceive the people by having one public policy and a totally different policy in private. That’s okay. I don’t know who they’re angry at Hillary, you or I. For example, here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics.
What is Trump referring to?
Wikileaks revealed a string of emails from the chairman of Hillary Clinton's Chairman John Podesta to John Halpin, former Democratic Strategist and Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton's Director of Communications. In them, they bash Catholics.
Here are some transcripts:
From: Halpin, To: Jennifer Palmieri and John Podesta:Excellent point. They can throw around "Thomistic" thought and "subsidiarity" and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they're talking about.
Jennifer Palmieri wrote:I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn't understand if they became evangelicals.
John Halpin:Ken Auletta's latest piece on Murdoch in the New Yorker starts off with the aside that both Murdoch and Robert Thompson, managing editor of the WSJ, are raising their kids Catholic. Friggin' Murdoch baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus.
Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the SC and think tanks to the media and social groups.
It's an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.
You can just see the vitriol being spewed by these people, the highest officials in the Clinton presidential campaign.
Pretty much any Democrat, especially party officials who claims to be Catholic is so in name only. They are ardent defenders of abortion right up to moments before birth. Plus, it seems fine at Democratic gatherings to openly mock Catholics.
Later, one of the emailers stood by his comments and refused to apologize. Somehow his explanation is that he was just reacting to news that Rupert Murdoch had baptized his children in the Jordan river. Yes, I can see why he was so triggered by this! Makes perfect sense! He wants people to believe that the Clinton staffers involved in the email chain really respect Catholics. Give me a break!
Posted by Phil Lynch at 7:51 am
Thursday, October 20, 2016
This is Question and Answer #6 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.
Question #6: But I want to pick my best friend as godparent in Catholic ceremony!Baptism is not some kind of personal statement to showcase your friends. It’s a solemn occasion where a person is being spiritually cleansed of original sin. You are choosing a godparent or sponsor to keep your child on the right spiritual path. If the whole thing is just a naming ceremony and you don’t really believe in a spiritual reality or in this sacrament, then you should consider whether or not to even baptize your child, as Canon Law states baptism should only be given to children who have a reasonable hope of being raised in a Christian fashion.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:26 am
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
This is Question and Answer #5 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.
Question #5: When did godparenthood begin in the history of Catholicism?Most believe it started in the 4th century, once Christianity became legal to prevent pagan infiltration of the sacrament and to bolster it.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:24 am
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
This is Question and Answer #4 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.
Question 4: Can you forgo the requirement of having a godparent in Catholicism?No. At least one godparent is required. You can have up to 2. The only case where no godparent is required is if the child or adult being baptized is in danger of death. Baptism is so important that this requirement will be waived in these cases.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:22 am
Monday, October 17, 2016
This is Question and Answer #3 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.
Question 3: What are the restrictions on WHO can be a Godparent in Catholicism?Well, as mentioned, at least one of the two people must be a Catholic, and should be one in good standing. That person can be either male or female and must be at least 16 years old. The other has to be a Christian at least with same restriction about age.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:22 am
Sunday, October 16, 2016
This is Question and Answer #2 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.
Question 2: What is the role of Godparents in CatholicismContrary to popular opinion, the main role of a godparent isn’t just to take over for the care of the child in case the parents die. They could fulfill this role, but that’s not the point. Godparents are meant to be witnesses to the faith, to show good example and instruct the baptized in the faith. That’s why it’s good to select a practicing Catholic who believes in the faith. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:20 am
Saturday, October 15, 2016
This is Question and Answer #1 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.
Question 1: How many Godparents can someone have at a Catholic Baptism?The person being baptized can have up to 2 sponsors. At least one of the two has to be a Catholic in good standing, meaning they strive to attend Mass at least once a week and are living according to the Church’s teachings. The other can also be a Catholic, but it is permitted to have a non-Catholic Christian “witness”. Technically this person is not a godparent or sponsor, but is rather a Christian witness.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:19 am
Friday, October 14, 2016
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
In the first of a multi-part series, I will discuss whether we place the wrong emphasis on moral issues and whether our Catholic leadership may be somewhat to blame.
I think a lot of Catholics are confused by rhetoric we hear from our leaders recently. There is a key element to the confusion and that is order of importance. As you know, our current pope has made many comments regarding climate change, food shortages, capitalism, being more inclusive, etc. But what he usually fails to emphasize is context. Take food for instance. He says we shouldn’t waste food. I don’t think this is a forgone conclusion by any means. Obviously people shouldn’t purposely try to waste food but no one does that on purpose anyway. People at least intend to eat whatever they buy. So is it a sin to throw out rotten or expired food? In my opinion it’s not.
For whatever reason, people seem obsessed about food more so than other goods. This makes sense since food directly feeds us, so it seems bad when someone else is starving but we throw out food, in some cases things starving people would be willing to eat. Yet we have no problem with people throwing out clothing, furniture, electronics, or any other goods for the most part. No one says “Hey! Someone in Africa doesn’t have furniture, how can you just throw it out!” We can see this is not even logical. Whether or not you keep a couch will not determine whether the person in Africa will get one. Likewise with food. Whether or not I consume a rotten banana will not feed an African or Indian or anyone else. But the visceral reaction to food waste remains.
In reality, we can only help people eat by increasing economic prosperity for those people. The reason people cannot eat is because they have no money. Obviously the first thing you’ll spend money on is food. Our consumption or non-consumption is irrelevant. The Earth can easily produce more than enough food for everyone. So it’s not as if us wasting food leaves less for everyone else. In fact, according to basic supply and demand theory in economics, if we buy MORE food, the price will go down. Ironically, wasting food is therefore probably beneficial to people who don’t have enough.
Another option we have for providing food to the needy is simply giving them food or money to pay for food. I feel this is a short term solution, because ultimately we all know the saying about teaching a man to fish versus just giving him a fish.
My main point is I have never heard of anyone who purposely throws out good food for no reason except to destroy the planet or for lack of concern for the poor. It’s usually done because the food is gone bad. I do not see any moral issues here with this situation. Plus, if you make the argument that throwing out food means you could have given it to the poor, you could equally make the argument that spending money on too much house or too much clothing or too many movies could have instead been spent on buying food for the poor. I don’t see throwing out food as an important moral issue of our time. Maybe once we are morally perfect, this issue could be addressed. I don’t think the pope should be spending valuable time discussing this topic. There are far more important and immediate sins that must be addressed. Another reason to not discuss this so much is the ongoing confusion people have with real spirituality and a sort of pagan worship of mother earth. If you pay attention, you’ll notice that often people openly involved in manifest sin will emphasize saving the planet or saving animals and will pay little attention to moral sins such as lust, anger, pride, etc. They say as long as you are saving mother earth, all is good, because the “higher power” doesn’t really care about your personal life. With the pope talking about saving the planet all the time, this only lends credence to this pagan view.
I can’t blame the pope entirely for this state of affairs. He has spoken definitively on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. but the media doesn’t like reporting this. They have branded him this new avant-garde hip pope who is “with it” and therefore doesn’t talk about those things as much. He’s the cool green pope. Or so they want to believe. Look, I, like a lot of devout Catholics, have an issue with how Pope Francis gives off-the-cuff remarks on a variety of topics, usually in an airplane which leaves the faithful confused. So I think he has to be extremely careful about the messages he purveys. People will always take the path of least resistance. If they believe they can be good people by recycling and posting pro-environmental messages on Facebook rather than actually being a morally good people, they will, and they will use any excuse they can to avoid the actually challenging stuff. That’s why I think it’s so important to have moral clarity in a time of confusion.
Tune in soon for the next installment of this series.
Posted by Philip Lynch at 10:02 am
Monday, October 10, 2016
Progressives are out in force bashing Trump's latest audio tape where he makes lewd remarks about women. The level of moralizing coming from these leftist is astounding. It's just sheer moral outrage, as if an unspeakable crime has transpired.
In the meantime, this group of shocked progressives is the same group that actively promotes every and all forms of sexual expression, perversion and depravity. Nothing is off limits for these people adn their ilk, yet they feign disgust when Trump makes some locker room banter.
On the one hand, they promote every form of sexual depravity, telling us it's totally fine to have sex with as many people as you want, whenever you want, however you want. Republicans and conservatives are routinely bashed as being prudish and moralistic because they want to place restrictions on sexuality.
These progressives say there should be no youngest age to be sexual, nothing wrong with any number of partners, they condone all forms of sexuality including violent and degrading ones as long as there is "consent". Then of course when something inevitably goes wrong (or right because sex is actually designed for reproduction), they are the first group to advocate abortion.
So this group condones and encourages every form of sexual perversion and when this leads to pregnancy, they just as strongly encourage the killing of a small child.
If anyone complains that certain pornographic material is offensive or that sexual education in schools shouldn't include all kinds of weird and perverse things, the progressives are always the first to jump down their throats demanding they accept it all and teach it to their kids.
But then when Trump, the epitome of what they want for society in terms of sexual views, actually expresses his views from ten years ago, these fraudsters pretend they are all shocked and we've insulted and harassed their innocent ears.
It's all hypocrisy!
Posted by Phil Lynch at 12:17 am
Sunday, October 09, 2016
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? During the debate tonight, moderator Martha Raddatz literally treid to debate Donald Trump. He was asked about what he woudl do in Aleppo, a city in Syria. While answering, he said it was a bad idea to tell the enemy the plans before they take place. He was INTERRUPTED by the moderator who insisted multiple tiems in a row that sometimes the military has good reasons for doing this including psychological warfare etc.
It was one of the most blatant examples of the moderators trying to help Hillary Clinton. Under absolutely no circumstances is it the responsibility of the media or moderators to debate Trump when he is supposed to be debating his opponent. I don't recall them helping Trump against Hillary. This reminds me of when Candy Crowley was trying to help Obama when he was debating Mitt Romney by taking it upon herself to debate Romney.
I can't find the exact clip, but here's a small sample of this moderator interrupting and trying to debate Trump:
Posted by Phil Lynch at 11:54 pm
After watching the entire debate and reading some of the comments online, it seems very clear, Trump won the second debate.
Right from the get-go Anderson Cooper, one of the moderators, attacked Trump on the new audio tape released where he makes lewd comments about a woman and women in general. It wasn't enough that Cooper brought this up, the other moderator, Martha Raddatz had her turn with virtually the same question.
The moderators of this debate were clearly in favour of Clinton. If Trump went a second or two over his time, they would pounce on him. Very often, while he was answering a question, the moderators would cut him off to say he wasn't answering correctly or challenge him on his answer. This rarely if ever happened to Hillary. Hillary was only interrupted a couple of times, while it was a constant occurrence for Trump.
But Trump wouldn't let all that happen that easily. He called out the biased questioners and said he was not being treated fairly which was 100% true. They never brought up the 33,000 deleted emails, even though at least twice they brought up his recent tape where he made lewd comments over 10 years ago. Last, I checked though, lewd comments didn't threaten national security.
Trump had a number of good zingers. When Clinton blasted him or not paying more in taxes, Trump responded by saying it's the government and specifically her that is responsible for the laws, he just follows them. It's a pretty stupid argument anyway that someone is not paying more than they are required to.
So despite the moderators actively debating Trump and him having to take on 3 to 1, Trump clearly came out the winner, and this isn't just form my perspective. I think overall most commentators will believe the same thing.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 11:41 pm
They keep interrupting Trump
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:50 pm
Trump isn't taking this lying down. Goes after Bill Clinton's horrendous record with rape and sexual assault and Hillary laughing about getting a rapist of a 12 year girl of without conviction.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:27 pm
Anderson Cooper goes for jugular right away bashing Trump about the tapes.
Trump says we need to focus on ISIS.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:16 pm
Saturday, October 08, 2016
So by now you've all heard about Trump's derogatory, base, sexual comments about women. This happened about 10 years ago when he was with Billy Bush from one of those celebrity shows kind of like Entertainment Tonight. It's not clear to me if he knew the mic was on. But anyway, let's just say Trump made some very vulgar comments about women. That footage was released in the past 24 hours.
They say the comments were made in 2005, not sure the exact day. But that means Trump was probably just married to his new wife Melania, whom he married in January 22, 2005. So he just got married and he was making some very explicit and lewd comments about other women. So let's analyze this from a Catholic perspective.
Guys and LustSo clearly Donald Trump's comments showed a level of lust towards women. But the comments were also degrading and vulgar. In any event, many men have lustful or lewd thoughts when seeing or interacting with women. This is not uncommon. Now, in Catholicism we are called to be chaste and pure. Sexuality is reserved for the marriage bed and we must try, to the best of our ability, to be respectful and not lust after women.
But I don't think this was just about lust. It was also a show of dominance on his part. He wanted to show the other guy his sexual prowess. Keep in mind also during this interaction, Trump is in his late 50s. He just married a woman (third marriage). You'd think he would have learned by now.
So the point of this section is simply to say a lot of guys have lustful thoughts, but really it's up to us to try to contain them and to look upon women with respect and love, not as objects of our base desires.
It Was Done PubliclyOne of the problems with these comments by Trump is the public nature of them. Again, I don't know if he was aware he was being recorded. But he spoke them out loud. They weren't private thoughts. He was announcing them for other people to hear. I think this adds to the severity of it.
Asked ForgivenessIn the end, once this footage was released, Trump immediately apologized. He didn't make excuses, he just apologized and said he is sorry for saying those lewd comments. I, for one, accept his apology. For one thing, many many guys unfortunately engage in this type of banter. That doesn't make it good, but it does happen. Secondly, we as Christians are obliged to accept someone when they apologize for their actions. He said it was wrong and he's sorry, we should leave it at that.
Plus, let's not act like we've never looked upon a woman with lust or done something immoral or talked a certain way. Why are we holding everyone else up to a higher standard than ourselves? This happens a lot. And if the person apologized, then leave it at that. Trust me, Jesus has forgiven you for a LOT more than this. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
Who is Overall Better PresidentWhen you look at it overall, Trump is still obviously much better than Hillary. Hillary doesn't apologize for promoting and encouraging abortion. No number of comments, no matter how lewd, can ever equal the killing of an innocent person. Yet Hillary never apologizes. She is unapologetic of her promotion of abortions all throughout pregnancy. The Democratic party thinks it's a wonderful thing! I don't think there's any comparison.
Then you look at her running mate's comments which basically amount to saying "I know it's immoral and wrong to promote abortion, but I don't care what my church (read: conscience and morality) think about this, I will promote it and fund it ANYWAY.
You tell me who is acting more in line with moral law.
My Own LifeSadly, this kind of talk toward women is all too common. Most workplaces, especially ones with predominantly men or blue collar workplaces, this type of talk is ubiquitous. If you refrain from engaging in it, you soon become the butt of jokes yourself. A true moral superhero could withstand this, but to many guys the pressure is too much. Obviously there are some who want to talk like this, but many others are pressured into it. That's a sad part of culture. The point is, it exists. Trump does it here. But he's not the first and will not be the last. We must use our good Christian witness to show people how to talk about others respectfully.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:48 am
Friday, October 07, 2016
Thursday, October 06, 2016
Wednesday, October 05, 2016
Tuesday, October 04, 2016
Kaine absolutely LIES throughout this entire question!
Moderator asks Kaine how faith has influenced his politics.
First of all, Kaine makes a HUGE mistake saying Catholicism is opposed to the death penalty, so he was as well as governor. First of all, the Church isn't opposed to the death penalty. That's a prudential judgment people must come to, including politicians.
But why doesn't Kaine use this same philosophy when answering about other things. He says he cannot impose his beliefs on others, because of the first amendment of something.
Mike Pence pushes back hard and really holds Kaine's lying feet to the fire and saying basically listen, I'm opposed to killing nearly-born babies, but you're not for some reason. Aren't you a complete hypocrite??
Response by Kaine:
Kaine comes back and ONCE AGAIN contradicts himself by saying he can't push his beliefs on others. Um, what are you even doing as a public service? You didn't mind imposing your beliefs about the death penalty. What a philosophical lightweight. He just does and says whatever it takes to get ahead. I'm actually a little surprised by what Pence said when he said he appreciates Kaine's faith. What faith?
Like I said, Kaine looks out for himself only. If he needs to accept abortion and legalize it to succeed, you can rest assured he will. Kaine, don't give me this stuff about living out your faith every day.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 10:33 pm
Tim Kaine who is currently debating Mike Pence is supposedly Catholic, but in reality he stands in public opposition to it. He is hugely in favor of gay marriage, equating it with real marriage between a man and a woman. He openly admits this puts him at odds with Catholic teaching, but he doesn't even care. He even says this is his personal belief.
Furthermore, he is a big time proponent of abortion. He believes it should be not only legal, but paid for by taxpayers, many of whom oppose it. He thinks it should be available in every community, at any time, for free.
Obviously he's thrown out his allegiance to his faith in favour of political positions. Now he's the potential vice president. Does he think his sacrifice of his very own faith was a good calculation? I mean really this is just a job, and he is sacrificing his faith for it.
On the other hand, the Trump Pence ticket believe abortion is wrong and are seeking ways to reduce it - the opposite of this so-called Catholic. Kaine is so concerned about nuclear proliferation, but is apparently unconcerned about abortion proliferation.
Well, basic bottom line is Kaine has openly rejected his faith.
P.S. While writing this, Fr. Zuhlsdorf from the famous blog just made a great point. From his Catholic formation which he seems to have forgotten, Tim Kaine shoudl realize for something to be good overall, it must have good means and ends. If Clinton got donations from evil empires, it doesn't matter if she does good with it.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 10:24 pm
Happy Feast Day of St. Francis of Assisi which we celebrate today. St. Francis loved God's creation just like every Christian ought to. It is, after all, God's Creation. But some people push this too far. Animals are not sacred, they're not holy. They're animals. Some churches have turned today into a travesty by bringing in every dog, cat, bird, and horse into churches all over the world to be "blessed" by a priest.
This is not okay and does not make sense. I know a lot of people will be indignant. "My animal is so amazing, he is so loving! and St. Francis loved animals! Who are you to tell me not to get a blessing for my beloved pet!"
Well, first of all, pets are animals. They do not have a conscience and cannot choose between good or evil, therefore none are morally praiseworthy. They might be companions and helpful and so on, but they are not rational actors. They are animals, and therefore do not have a rational soul. Blessing an animal is no different than blessing any other random thing in your house.
People like to think animals are human and in many cases they believe animals are better than humans, but animals act upon instinct. They do not make moral choices, only our personification of animals tells us they do.
So stop walking in these dirty animals, traipsing in mud and dirt and everything else into a sacred and holy place such as a church. Here, the Eucharist is consecrated, it's not a barn. Animals cannot pray, they cannot worship. And people who attend these blessing of animal events aren't there to pray either. They're there to make their animals more than they really are.
Fortunately at my church, even though they do this, it's done outside the church. So at least these animals aren't allowed into the actual church.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 7:15 pm
Monday, October 03, 2016
I came to a profound realization the other day as I was watching a movie about Jesus. It was just a clip where Jesus is summoned because Lazarus has died. Lazarus's two sisters - Mary and Martha - are there along with a huge crowd. Then the following dialogue takes place:
Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. [But] even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give you.”
Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise.” Martha said to him, “I know he will rise, in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life”He does not say he shows us the resurrection or teaches how to attain it. No, he IS the resurrection. He continues by saying "Whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” She affirms that she does.
Jesus is the only person to ever claim to BE and not just SHOW the path or the way. There are many more examples throughout the scriptures:
2) I am the Bread of Life
3) I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life
4) I am the vine, you are the branches
5) I am
6) I am the Light of the World
7) I am the Gate
8) I am the Good Shepherd
The point is Jesus isn't saying "I will bring you to the way, the truth, and the life" or "I am your guide" or "follow me". Although he does say to follow him, the ultimate destination is him. Jesus is God and it is through him, through the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood that we rise to new life like Lazarus did. Jesus lived a perfect and holy life and he tells us he is the way. We have no choice but to follow him.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 8:00 am
Sunday, October 02, 2016
Saturday, October 01, 2016
I was just reading about the parents of St. Terese of Lisieux, since today October 1, is her feast day. They were extraordinary people. First her father, Louis Martin, wanted to become a priest, but was refused since he didn't know Latin. Her future mother wanted to join a convent but was likewise rejected. This was back in a time when people could be rejected because there were tons of vocations to the religious life.
So her mother, Marie-Azélie Guérin, known as Zélie, became a lace-maker, something she excelled at and opened her own business at the age of 22.
Louis and Zélie met in 1858 and married in July of that same year. At this is the amazing thing. At first, they decided to live celibately in order to devote themselves to God. However, after speaking with a priest, he discouraged them from doing this. Did they at this point end up having one or two children. Nope! They had 8. Unfortunately 3 of the children died early, but 5 daughters survived.
Here's the next amazing part: All 5 daughters became nuns! You can just imagine the level of piety and holiness in that family.
Sadly, Terese, the youngest, died at the age of just 24 years old of tuberculosis on September 30, 1897. She was canonized just 27 years later on May 17, 1925 by Pope Pius XI. Her parents were canonized as well, an extremely rare occurrence, some 90 years later, on October 18, 2015.
Clearly this family wanted to do everything possible to glorify God. What an amazing story.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:36 am
Posted by Phil Lynch at 9:20 am