Things are getting crazy in Canada: We must defend the Catholic Church

Where is it all going for the Church in Canada? The Catholic Church is under attack like never before in our country, and I really don't know what to make of it. It's on all fronts - there is a full on offensive against our Church and our values. We cannot sit by idly and let this happen. Either you are fighting for the Church or you are opposed.

Our society has many institutions that have developed over the centuries. There are civil, judicial, and religious institutions. There are also core beliefs that make us who we are. Over the past several years, and especially recently, those institutions have come under attack by various groups.

If you are a faithful Catholic, now is not the time to sit idly by. It's really the time to fight for our Church which was given to us by Jesus Christ. If our enemies are plotting all days on ways of destroying the Church, we must at least not just sit on the sidelines and do nothing.

So, what am I talking about? There are so many lines of attack, it's hard to pick just one. I will try to explain some of them. You can see examples everywhere you look.

Free speech is being stripped away day by day. Social media, the modern-day public square, is openly hostile to Christian beliefs. People are being banned left, right and center on these platforms for expressing Christian beliefs that have been around for centuries. Some may respond to this by saying these are private companies. This is a dubious claim but even if we are to grant this, it goes further. Bill C10 which was recently passed, gives the Federal Government of Canada unprecedented power to regulate the content of social media website. The argument that private companies can allow or disallow anything they want on social media no longer holds any water. Our free speech is also being attacked by the government itself.

More and more opinions and beliefs are being deemed "hate speech" and considered a form of violence. Again, we are not allowed to express our viewpoints. As Christians, this ought to be shocking.

Another recent issue which has gained a lot of traction is residential schools in the country. They are condemned as completely evil institutions with no redeeming qualities. I have not yet researched this topic thoroughly, but from my understanding, claims of genocide are stemming from the discovery of unmarked graves. However, this claim is based on little evidence. There may be children buried there but so many questions have yet to be answered. Were these children murdered, as is implied, or did they simply die of widespread diseases such as TB? Were their graves actually unmarked or were they marked with wooden crosses which have since disintegrated? How did the children in residential schools fare compared to children who did not attend residential schools? Were any children better off for attending?

These questions are not allowed to be asked apparently. No "journalist" in Canada would ever dare even bring them up. I will be looking more into this and telling you what I find out. But even if there was murder or abuse, does that mean we can go so far as to condemn each and every person involved? What institution exists in our country or any other that has a perfect record? Do all public schools have a flawless record devoid of any abuse?

People are reacting violently against all Catholics. Churches are being burned to the ground - even churches used by aboriginals to worship which is rather ironic. Beloved Catholic statues are being desecrated. All for unproven crimes. All believers of our religion are being condemned for the actions of a few. It reminds me of a book published by a non-Catholic titled "Anticatholicism: The last acceptable prejudice". It really is true. All institutions, to varying degrees, have bad people in them. To me it doesn't make any sense to condemn the entire organization wholesale based on that.

We cannot shy away. So many Catholics I know just want to fit in with the rest of society. The rest of society wants to destroy our Church, so why are you trying so hard to fit in with them? Do you think any secular person hesitates for one nanosecond to bash the Church? Of course not. So why aren't we defending the Church all the more?

Maybe people think if they defend the Church, they are somehow defending people who have done wrong. This is absolute nonsense. If there were doctors or nurses who did things which were immoral, would it make sense to bash all healthcare workers and healthcare in general? Would it be sensible to say all people who care for the sick are evil? Anyone would recognize this as absolute absurdity.

I think we have an obligation to defend the Church at all turns. We don't need to help others in finding fault. When the entire world is out there bashing and attempting to destroy the Church in our country, we need faithful believers to act as defense attorneys. It's already one-sided, we don't need to help the prosecution!

I will attempt to publish more articles with information that can be valuable to debunk the evil myths that are being spread. Catholics must stick together because we have so many enemies. Even our own Prime Minister is throwing the Church under the bus, even though his government is just as much or more responsible for residential schools, especially his father Pierre Trudeau.

Stay tuned to this blog for updates.

NBC's Superstore Sitcom Review: Where anti-Christian attacks are "comedy".

I started watching the NBC sitcom "Superstore" with my wife a couple of weeks ago. It's about employees who work in a supermarket called Cloud 9. There isn't any major plot, it's your standard sitcom format. There is obviously plenty of good potential in a show based in a store similar to Walmart. Unfortunately instead of taking advantage of hundreds of possible comedic situations which could arise, the show has become more and more anti-Christian, devolving into unfunny but vicious attacks on Christians. Of course, there is absolutely no balance whatsoever. Christians and Christianity in the show are always made to look bad. I guess this is why it was picked up by Netflix. I will stop watching the show. It has no value to me anymore. Let me get into some detail.

[Warning: contains spoilers up to Season 2: Episode 2. I haven't watched beyond that.]

So I was watching the show and from the start I noticed that the overtly Christian store manager Glenn Phillip Sturgis (played by Mark McKinney) comes across as very stupid. He has a high-pitched ridiculous voice and he just seems extremely naïve about the world. I wasn't surprised to see this though. Many sitcoms now feature an extremely naïve Christian character such as Shirley Bennett in Community (played by Yvette Nicole Brown) or the assistant on 30 Rock Kenneth Ellen Parcell played by Jack McBrayer.

It has become a tired and pathetic trope. "Haha, look at the stupid, naïve Christian. No need to take that person seriously." These characters seem to know nothing of the "real world". They have been sheltered their entire lives from the reality and grittiness of the world. They are essentially portrayed as adult children with no street knowledge. Yet, the other "woke" characters have such a nuanced and compassionate, non-judgmental view of people. That's because they've seen things and know the world is a complicated place, unlike Christians who think it's just all black and white.

So enough talking in general. How exactly does the show Superstore push its left-wing secular agenda while vilifying people of faith?

First of all, in general, there is really only one overt Christian. Not a single other person on the show ever mentions their faith or that they are Christian. Plus from their opinions and words it would certainly seem they are not Christian.

The show seems to take issues one and a time and show why the conservative opinion on that topic is outdated, immoral, and offensive. It's no longer subtly worked into the plot, it's shoved in your face and rammed down your throat. They have completely sacrificed all comedic value in order to simply bash Christians. It's like shock humor. The audience laughs simply because of sheer surprise.

In one episode, Glenn, the Christian manager, finds out that they sell the morning-after pill in the pharmacy. To be clear, the morning-after pill is an abortifacient - it causes an abortion. Of course, as a Christian, he opposes these pills. Is his view that abortion is wrong because you are killing an innocent human being ever shown? Nope! He's just this outdated dinosaur who believes things for no particular reason but because that's just what his religion told him. Of course, the others are so much more relatable and down-to-earth. They get that life is messy and that they don't let arbitrary morals get in their way of helping people.

I'm actually not doing a good job of describing it, because they make him look even worse. In fact, the show was not satisfied to show Glenn as being opposed to these pills, they went further and portrayed him as a hypocrite. After he attempts to stop others from buying the pills by buying them all himself, he realizes how much it costs. He tries to immediately return them but the pharmacist stubbornly refuses to let him (they never leave the sight of the pharmacist who actually brags about getting women pregnant then giving them these pills). When Glenn is not allowed to return the pills, he goes from person to person trying to sell them. When a couple tries to tell him why they want them (they had "unprotected" sex), he stops them from speaking and makes up the dumbest other "reasons" why they might want these pills (plates for a dollhouse, etc.).

In another straight-from-the-headlines "joke", there is a woman campaigning against allowing men into women's bathrooms. What opinion should we have about this NBC? Well, apparently people who think this are backward bigots, irredeemably evil people, so much so, that the character who is interested in her in a sexual way, can hardly bring himself to pursue her, even though he has absolutely no qualms about doing so in any other situation. No, her evil thought that men should stick to men's washrooms is beyond the pale, it makes her irredeemable.

Other non-specifically moral issues arise as well such as gun control. One of the workers is assigned to work at the firearms counter against his will. He continually indicates why he thinks selling firearms is evil and wrong. The people buying the firearms are portrayed as unreasonable crazy people. Because one of them could not buy a gun on the spot despite implying he would do something violent, the store is besieged by dozens of rifle-totting men and women fighting for their rights. They are portrayed as over-the-top and completely unreasonable, while the voice of reason emanates from the anti-gunners.

Glenn, the manager, will often bring up Bible verses or sing hymns. He tries to read the Bible in a break room one day. But he's always mocked, derided or otherwise portrayed in a negative light for doing so or attempting to do so.

Other issues also arise in the show which highlight various left-wing causes and points of view: white people are racist, free universal healthcare is a human right, capitalism is bad, etc, etc.

It's just become pathetic and boring at this point. There is no more subtlety left at all. So I will be not watching any more. Unfortunately this isn't just something that's happening in this show. Pushing a left-wing agenda has become a mainstay of shows on Netflix. They have a clear agenda. I may cancel the service but my wife still watches it so I have to consult with her on it.

To any Christian who has considered watching Superstore. My advice quite simply is to not bother.

Malaysian Christians being oppressed by Muslim terrorists

In Malaysia, Muslim terrorists are attacking Christian (mostly Catholic) churches. Is it because Christians committed violence against Muslims? No, it's because Christians were using the word Allah to refer to God. You would think these groups would be happy. I've spoken to many Muslims and they insist God's name is Allah. So why are they so angry if Christians are using Allah as well?

In any event, 6 churches have so far been attacked. Many were fired bombed, others had paint thrown on them, etc. Although the constitution of Malaysia guarantees religious freedom, the minority Christians are being heavily persecuted.

Do these groups, who seem so offended by what they perceive as a faux-pas toward their religion, feel their religion also considers the use of violence, including fire-bombing churches, a proper response? Where are the protests by Muslim leaders in the country denouncing these acts?

Let's pray for the safety and religious freedom of Christians in Malaysia. Let's also pray for the terrorists that they will see the light and end their violent ways.

Pat Condell - entertainment for those unconcerned with truth

Pat Condell produces video condemning religion. They are so full of inaccuracies, even if he purposely sat there trying to lie, he couldn't do a better job. I will analyze one of his videos and set him right on many of his errors. The video is located at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LStcajxvb_E

He starts the video by asserting the Pope was "forcing Christianity" into the constitution. The Pope did not force anything, but rightly pointing out that since Europe was built on Christianity, the European constitution should mention its foundation. That's no different than mentioning Walt Disney when discussing Disneyland.

The second thing he mentions is that some bishops in England want to prevent politicians who help pass laws which will increase aboriton from receiving communion. This is obvious. If you commit a sin by violating the morals of your religion, then you must first go to confession before receiving communion. Communion means everyone is together in their beliefs. Obviously someone who condones the killing of innocent children are not in union with Catholics.

Pat Condell then dispecable expresses his view that the Virgin Mary should have killed Jesus while he was in her womb. To wish anyone had been slaughtered is an inhumane comment. To wish this on Jesus Christ is truly outrageous.

Pat then says the Catholic Church's "preferred" method of abortion is in a back alley with a knitting needle. I don't suspect this comment even deserves a response, but just in case, the Catholic Church is against all killing of innocent human beings. Why is this so hard for Pat to understand? That is regardless of whether it's in a back alley with a knitting needle or in a doctor's office. They are both equally morally wrong.

Pat Condell, of course an expert in the AIDS epidemic in Africa, asserts that the Church "wants" people in Africa to die because she does not allow condoms. It's too bad his less educated peer, the head of Harvard AIDS prevention program didn't get the memo and the poor unknowledgable dummy sided with the Pope, and agreed that condoms are not the solution. Pat, quick, please resend that message to this uneducated twit!

Pat the proceeds to blurt out 3 falsehoods. First, as explained in a previous post of mine, Vatican officials do not "live" in the basilicas and cathedrals. These are there for everyone. They receive millions of visitors each year. The pope in fact lives in an apartment probably smaller than Pat's.

Pat further embarasses himself by proclaiming that he "discovered" the Pope was a "nazi"! Wow Pat, you found out so fast! Just 2 years after everyone else. The truth is the Pope was forcefully conscripted into the Nazi Youth, as were all children under a certain age at the time. However, not surprisingly, Pat fails to mention that young Ratzinger risked his life to abandon his post at the time.

Continuing his fairy tale, Pat says the Vatican funded the Nazis. This is pure fiction. I wrote another post on the Nazi situation and the Church. Pope Pius XII personally saved hundreds of thousands of Jews. Many people praised him, including the first prime minister of Israel and Albert Einstein. The pope even had an assassination plan drafted up in case the pope stood as too much of an obstacle to the Nazi regime.

He says the church exudes an aura of evil. Maybe to him, being an atheist who hates God, but to almost everyone else, the Church represents truth and purity. Pat continues by attacking celibacy. Obviously he cannot see the spiritual good of celibacy, by following Jesus and St. Paul, and devoting one's life entirely to Christ. He instead can only see his base animal desires going unfulfilled. Aww, poor Pat.

Pat Condell goes on to, in a very vulgar way, say priests like to perform pedophilia. He needs to get the facts straight. Pedophilia is NOT caused by celibacy, and of course, the church would see this as evil, which he seems to imply is the opposite case. He brings up the African and AIDS situation, but I have already addressed that.

He then asks any cardinals or bishops who may be watching if it's more evil for a priest who rapes a boy to wear a condom or not. This is an absurd question. Sort of like asking "When stabbing someone to death with a knife, is it better to wear gloves or not." It's sheer nonsense.

Pat also asks if it would be all ok if the priests went to confession afterwards? The current guidelines would take that priest out of ministry permanently and cooperate with the authorities.

Finally, Pat Condell goes completely overboard and suggests the pope, instead of paying out money for sex abuse scandals, instead find out how much it would cost to get "professional" sex workers to do these evil acts. A better solution is to do whatever necessary to remove pedophilia from the priesthood completely. Why would you substitute one evil for another? Perhaps for Pat, where evil does not exist (since God does not exist), it makes no difference. He even calls the work of sex workers "legitimate".

He ends by saying the Catholic Church should clean its own stained glass windows before telling others what to do. Well the Church is a beacon of hope and guidance for all of humanity. And it is doing everything it can to ensure the holiness of its leaders at the same time.

Pat, whatever you do, don't become a historian.

The Invention of Lying - a movie for angry atheists

Last night, my girlfriend and I went to see The Invention of Lying, starring Ricky Gervais of the sitcom The Office in Britain, and Jennifer Garner, among others with smaller roles, such as Philip Seymour Hoffman. The movie started off with promise, looking like it would be a fun and entertaining. However, it wasn't long before an atheistic theme became obvious.

I will not give any major spoilers, but I will give you my thoughts on this movie. Very quickly into the movie, we realize the premise: people are in a world where they are unable to lie. In fact, people are brutally honest about everything and do not keep secrets. When Ricky Gervais goes to see Jennifer Garner for a date, she clearly tells him he is fat, not very attractive, and because of these things combined with his financial situation, she will probably not date him again. She also mentions certain vulgar things she will be doing.

Ricky's life seems rather dull and uninspiring. He is doing poorly at his job, and of course, everyone lets him know. He ends up getting fired and doesn't have enough money to pay for rent. He goes to the bank to get everything he can. The teller says the system is down, and asks how much he has in his account. Since lying doesn't exist, everyone believes everyone else no matter what. Ricky makes history when he asks for $800 instead of the $300 he actually has. When the system comes back up, it shows he only has $300, but since lying is not possible and the concept doesn't even exist, the teller apologizes and gives him the $800 he asked for, attributing the discrepancy to a computer glitch. This is the beginning of his lying.

Now that Ricky's character has discovered this ability, he abuses it. He lies about many things to get what he wants, such an enormous mansion, which probably took no more than telling the vendor that he already paid for the house. The movie was going along fine, until Ricky's mother is dying in hospital. This is where the atheistic themes come in. His mother is terrified with death. Ricky, out of desperation and to put her mind at ease, tells her that when she dies, she will not just go into nothingness, but will instead be sent to a place where she is reunited with dead family members, where everyone is happy and gets a mansion, where all our desires are fulfilled. His mother dies in peace.

News spreads about this place that Ricky spoke about with his mother and soon hundreds of people had gathered around his house to find out more. Out of desperation, seeing the crowd would not leave, Ricky took a couple of pizza boxes and wrote out 10 things about God. He brought out the boxes like Moses with the tablets containing the 10 commandments. This was an obvious poke at monotheism and religion in general. He then proceeded to talk about God and Heaven. They did not say God though, instead they mockingly said "the invisible man in the sky". Someone asked if the "invisible man" lived in the clouds, and Ricky said no, he's above the clouds, then someone asked if he's in space, and Ricky said, no not that high. Then he said the place you go when you die is the best place imaginable and you get the best mansion.

Then Ricky went on to answer questions. The questions were very childish and the answers were all made up. There was the obvious implication that someone just invented heaven and God and everyone just wanted to believe him. Then atheistic arguments against the existence of God came out. Some people asked if the invisible man in the sky caused their relative to get sick, or if he made a natural disaster happen. Ricky responded in the affirmative. Then everyone got really angry at this invisible man in the sky. But Ricky calmed them down by saying this invisible man also does all the good stuff too, and like dumb animals, the crowd was appeased.

The implication of the movie was that everyone there was super gullible and didn't ask any real questions and just believed whatever they heard. It was implied that Christians are like that as well. Only Ricky seemed to have any ability to think on his own and not appear to have an IQ below 50, and he was the only one who didn't believe in the invisible man in the sky.

There were other elements of mockery. For example, the church had a sign saying something like it was a quiet place to go to imagine the invisible man in the sky. The "pastor" wore what looked like a cross, but was actually a silouette of Ricky holding his arms out with the tablets in them. The pastor started the marriage ceremony and gave a very naturalistic view of marriage saying things like do you want to be with this person for as long as you feel like it, do you think your genetics match, etc.

If this movie wasn't atheistic enough, near the end, Ricky goes to visit the grave of his mother. He laments the fact that he created this big lie and that all these gullible people believed him. He then says she's not in heaven, she's in the ground. Later, he tells his friend that he made up all this stuff about the invisible man in the sky and that in fact there is no man in the sky.

The basic premise of this whole movie is that those who believe in God are doing so for irrational and emotional reasons, based around their fear of death and the afterlife. They are presented as stupid, unintelligent, and extremely gullible. Atheists are presented as being intelligent and not bound to a false hope that's based on nothing but desire. Ricky is seen as a man whose eyes were opened, who was freed from the oppression of a lie, who "knows the truth". He's not a sheep who is ready to follow anywhere he's told to go. He uses his own brain, makes his own decisions.

Of course, the truth is much different. The fact is atheists are afraid of judgment, or Hell, and they do not want there to be an afterlife because that would mean they must adhere to a moral code. Without judgment, we can live any way we choose, treat others in any fashion, and feel no regret for anything. There are no schools or hospitals or any great monument erected to an atheist. Without true believers, the world would be a much more desolate place. It is kind of ironic that atheists are so vitriolic against theists, even though without theists, the world would be much more bleak.

I give this movie 1 out of 5 stars. I would have given it 0, but there was a funny scene where the main character said that in heaven, you could have any flavour of ice cream that you could imagine. A man in the crowd became very upset, because he said he imagined a flavour of vanilla and skunk! Now that I said the only funny part, there's no reason for you to see this movie.

Putting the sex abuse scandal into perspective

Over the decades there have been many sexual abuse cases brought against priests. Some priests grossly violated their role and their duty to be Christ-like when they abused children. These are crimes against children, and Christ preached against these in the strongest terms. He told the disciples to let the children come to him because unless they were like these little ones, they could not enter heaven. Jesus also said that it would be better to tie a millstone around your neck and drown yourself in the ocean than to lead a child astray. We must pray for the victims of this abuse. But we must pray for all victims of abuse. Some priests have committed great crimes, but do all priests deserve to be punished for the sins of others? Is it right to unfairly discriminate against all priests because of the actions of a few? Is it just to ignore all other sexual abuse cases and only point out sexual abuse by priests? I do not think so.

The idea of a pedophile priest is a common one in today's society. Anyone, including famous comedians, talk show hosts, television personalities, and politicians, can use the term pedophile priest with impunity. There is no immediate follow-up to this statement saying that only a tiny percentage of priests ever abused children, or that this is an unfair stereotype and that most priests are very loving and caring toward children. There is no public outcry at these statements, and no one slaps the people who make them with hate speech charges.

I do not think people are really aware of the magnitude of sexual abuse in the United States. Some people seem to think only priests abuse children, because that's the only thing the media reports. Let's look at the truth.

The official report from the sex abuse scandal in the United States indicates that between 1950 and 2002, there were around 6800 substantiated cases of sexual abuse from Catholic priests. That's approximately 131 cases per year for the entire country. This represents a tiny percentage of priests, and in fact, most cases did not involve actual pedophilia. Most cases involved a priest and a post-pubescent male, not a child in the physical sense. It has been said that this is more a crisis of homosexuality in the priesthood than of pedophilia. In any event, the numbers are exceedingly low. Compare this to the general population. In the United States, for the year 2005, it was reported there were 83,600 substantiated cases of child sexual assault. That's in one year. And this doesn't count cases that were not reported. It is estimated that around 7.2% of males and 14.5% of females are sexually abused during their childhood. In the United States there are currently around 31 million males between the ages of 0 and 14, so that means about 2.2 million of them will be sexually abused. There are around 30 million females in the US, so statistics show about 4.35 million of them will be sexually assualted. Studies show that sexual abuse from teachers is much more prevalent than from priests, by a factor of at least 4.

Even though there are millions of sexual abuse cases in the US and other countries every year, Catholic priests are stigmatized with a reputation of being child molestors, but this is clearly societal and media bias. Why have teachers, who commit these crimes at a rate of at least 4 times more than priests, not received a similar or much worse reputation? When was the last law suit you've heard brought against a school board for the sexual abuse of a child? It hasn't happened. Yet, the Catholic Church in the United States alone has paid out over $1 billion in settlements. If you divide this evenly among all claimants to abuse, each would receive almost $150,000. If all sexual assault victims received a similar pay-out, approximately $982 billion, nearly $1 trillion, would be paid out every year. Sexual abuse cases would probably account for a third of GDP for the country.

So if sexual abuse is committed by people from all professions and walks of life, some at a rate much higher than priests, why do priests get all the bad press? If you have any ideas, please let me know. But I will give you my idea, and let me know what you think. Since the 60s, society at large has tried to push many immoral behaviors, including contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, greed, excessive wealth, divorce, fornication, adultery, and other ills. The one consistent voice of opposition to these things, and the voice in favour of following Christ's commandments is the Catholic Church. Others speak for Christ's laws, but none with the force of the Universal Church. When Pastor Bob down the road speaks, some people listen, but when the Pope speaks the world listens. But what the Church teaches does not conform to the ideas and messages that the media are interested in promoting (if you doubt this, take a look in your local paper). It's a little like politics. When a party has no good arguments against its opponent, it tries to undermine the opponent's image. The media could not argue against the Truth, so they had to find another tactic. When news of sexual abuse by some priests broke, a smear campaign was hatched. It didn't matter how representative the news was, it was sensationalistic. Even if there were over 100,000 priests in the US since 1950, the actual number of abusers would not matter. Even if 20 priests were convicted, it would seem horrendous, if presented the right way.

You may say this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I would invite you to look at the consequences. If you ever have a debate with someone on a moral issue, and you indicate it is against the Catholic faith or that you're Catholic or that the Pope has spoken out against something, often the other person will automatically bring up the sex abuse scandal, even though it's irrelevant. In an article I read not long ago, a lady was speaking about an issue which I do not recall but I believe it was about same-sex marriage or abortion, and how the Catholic Church opposes it. Instead of offering any reason as to why the Church should not oppose it, she simply spoke about the sex abuse scandal involving Catholic priests. She felt this was all that was necessary to justify her opposition to the Church's teaching. But this is a logical fallacy. You'll notice the same thing with people you speak with. You may say you are opposed to abortion and that the Catholic Church teaches it is murder. Their response may well be "Well, what about pedophile priests, isn't that immoral??" The fact is, the Church is against pedophile activities, as well as abortion.

Why does Ramadan get so much publicity?

Ramadan is a time of year when Muslims fast during daylight hours. It happens once a year and lasts around 28 days. Because the Islamic calendar is lunar, each year it is 10 or 11 days earlier than the year before. After Ramadan, the next day is Eid, where there are great feasts in the Muslim world. I remember 7 or 8 years ago when Eid was around the same time as Christmas, but this year it will be in September. But something has struck me as funny, and a little bit disconcerting. People seem more aware of Ramadan than Lent. Lent, of course, is the Christian time of penance, fasting and almsgiving. But I find people are more familiar with Ramadan than they are with Lent.

A couple of examples will illustrate this point. I was speaking to a friend of mine at a party one time. I told him that at the time it was Lent. He seemed a little confused as if he wasn't really familiar with Lent. This person was born in Quebec, the most Catholic province in Canada, and is a completely bilingual white man. I indicated that Lent is a time of fasting and so on for Christians, and as though a light went off inside his head, he exclaimed, "Oh, like Ramadan!" It seems to me, it should have been the opposite. He is not Muslim, and although he himself would probably not consider himself Christian, his heritage surely is.

A second example is of another friend, who is also a white Canadian. Although he himself cannot speak French, he has French ancestors (from France), but mostly of Canadian origin. He dated a Muslim girl for several years. They broke up. Later he started dating a Christian girl. One night the topic of Ramadan came up because it had recently started. He perked up. He became interested becuase he said he normally participates in the fasting, not for religious purposes he says, but for the beneficial effects fasting can have on a person, such as self control. He was concerned however, because his new girlfriend was quite Christian and he felt that participating in Ramadan might give her a bad impression. Interestingly, he failed to consider Lent, which would be wholly acceptable to her, regardless of her particular denomination since he would be imitating Christ. My hunch is that he had never even heard of Lent.

But how do these examples exist? In Canada, about 77% of the population considers themselves Christian, and around 44% call themselves Catholic. Compare this to the less than 2% who are Muslim. I think there may be several reasons for this occurrance. One of the main reasons is something I wrote about in a previous post and it has to do with self-hatred. We as a society seem to hate ourselves. The closer we approach our own culture, religion, way of life, historical values, and even skin colour, the more we want to lash out in angry vitriol. Yet, at the same time, we feel compelled to be overly consiliatory when it comes to other cultures and religions. Statement: Christianity is against abortion. Response: "Well, don't tell me what to do about my body! And how dare the Church try to tell me anything! What about when *insert random, unrelated, exaggerated incident(s) from the Church's past*?" But then tell someone about cannibals in a foreign country and say that's morally wrong and people will once again lash out, but this time in defense of that culture. Response: "How dare you try to push your imperialistic ambitions on these poor innocent cultures that are living how they have lived for centuries! Don't push your morals on them! You're worse than they are for judging them!"

What makes this situation even more surprising is that there is good reason to believe that Ramadan is just a Muslim version of Lent. Mohammed came into contact with Christians, albeit nonorthodox ones, and from them took many Christian ideas and changed them in certain ways. He also took pagan beliefs and incorporated them into Islam. The idea of Ramadan came directly from Lent. In the time when Mohammed got his idea, Christians had a very strict regiment during this penitential season, even stricter than Muslims now. There was little or no eating during the day, eating meat was prohibited, including derivatives such as butter, cream, etc. Also, there was much prayer. Mohammed didn't just take the idea of Lent and turn it into Ramadan, he also took many other ideas from Christianity and modified them. He took the idea of monks praying 7 times a day and changed it to Muslims praying 5 times a day. He took everything he wrote about Jesus, the New Testament, and the Old Testament from the Christians he met, including the idea that only Christ and Mary were sinfree their entire lives. He took the ideas to a certain extent. He did not accept that Christ died on the cross for our sins, and fulfilled all of scripture and thus removed the necessity for another prophet (since Christ fulfilled all prophesy). He could not accept this, because this would mean he was no longer a prophet and that he would simply be a follower. So, Mohammed changed things as he saw necessary to give himself his own self-title of prophet. As a warlord, Mohammed spread his message by the sword. Having said this, I believe Muslims worship the same God (although they have an incomplete concept of him), and I believe many Muslims are good people. But we must also not be afraid of the truth.

Somehow, out of a sense of political correctness, we feel compelled to act as a defense lawyer for all "others", while feeling a similar obligation to denigrate our own culture. I'm not saying we should be disrespectful or encourage racism or prejudice. I'm just saying we need to stand up for ourselves, love ourselves, love our culture, our religion, our way of life. We must respect others as well, but not at the expense of our own self-respect.

It is just so very ironic. If someone speaks about 9/11, it is considered terrible to mention anything about Islam, and if someone does mention that the hijackers were Muslim, it is quickly and emphatically followed up with statements about the peaceful nature of "most" Muslims. However, it is considered completely alright to bring up anything about the Church's history when opposing her in some way. I've read articles written for top newspapers in the United States that have been along the lines of the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, but how dare they speak out against abortion when there was a sex abuse scandal! Or The Catholic Church does not allow women to be priests. How dare they do this, considering all the stuff that happened during the sex abuse scandal! Or The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. But why not use that money to pay off sex abuse victims instead! Imagine using the same logic when it comes to Muslims. As in "Muslim countries are against same-sex marriage. How dare they! Remember 9/11!" It would seem completely illogical, and it would be! It seems logic is not necessary when bashing the Catholic Church.

I believe it is high time that we put away our self-loathing and rediscover a love for our culture and heritage. There are innumerable things to be proud of when it comes to being Christian, and specifically Catholic. The Catholic Church furthered the idea that scientific laws were rational and that science is possible because everything is not as it is right this moment because God is specifically willing it to be that way (i.e. everything is a miracle). The Catholic Church founded the university system we have today. The Western study of astronomy started with the Church. International Law came from the Church. We built innumerable schools, hospitals, and other places which provide social services. We've campaigned for the poor and abandonned. Monks gathered and transmitted knowledge from the ancient world to our own. You may say others have done this also to some extend, but none come anywhere near the Catholic Church. It is the largest chartible organization on the planet. 22% of hospitals in India are Catholic, even though only 2% of the population is. 50% of AIDS victims in Africa are cared for by Catholic organizations. There are many more statistics like these.

Let us spread the Good News of Jesus Christ and his Church!

Anniversary of Galileo's telescope and the old canards are back

The Galileo case is a favorite among anti-Catholics and anti-Christians. They believe it shows the Church's record of anti-science and her hatred for rationality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Galileo was a strong Catholic who happened to be an astronomer. He was very popular in his day. He made friends with many top Vatican officials, even the future pope. He was well respected. His theory of heliocentrism was nothing new. Copernicus, a loyal Catholic cleric, had pioneered the theory several decades prior. Galileo attempted to further his research in this field.

At the time when Galileo was proposing his theory, another theory, proposed by Ptolemy many centuries prior, was very widely accept by scientists. The theory was that of geocentrism (the Sun revolving around the Earth). This was the dominant view in the scientific community, not just the religious community.

Galileo made several wrong moves when it came to his presentation of his theory. He demanded that church officials accept it as true, even though it was far from proven. Galileo even wrote a book in which he put the popes words and theories into the mouth of a character named Simplicio (similar to Simpleton). Obviously this was very insulting.

The Church said that until a theory can be proven, it should not be presented as fact. This was very wise, especially considering that several aspects of Galileo's theory proved wrong. For example, he believed the Sun was the centre of the universe, whereas we now know that the Sun also moves around an orbit at an even faster rate than the Earth.

The Church was not against, and certainly not against astronomy. In fact, many churches used their tall towers as planetary observatories. Many of the first astronomers were Catholic and even religious. The first person to propose the big bang theory was Fr. Lemaitre, a Catholic monseigneur (high ranking priest).

Many want to say the Church has always been against science, but this is simply untrue. Monks were responsible for transmitting practically everything we know of ancient Greek and Roman science and culture. Gregor Mendel, a priest, discovered the field of genetics. The first European universities were founded by popes.

The Galileo Case is a favorite among anti-Christians because the lies surrounding it have become so well-accepted. I would suggest you do your own research and find the truth.

Does our society hate itself?

Something rather amazing has occurred. Recently I have been pondering whether we as a society have started to hate ourselves, and the closer we come to "us", the more we despise it. I wondered that question even today. Then I happened to come across, by chance, and without searching, an article written by Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI on Europe's self-hatred. Part of what he says is the following:

My last point is the religious question. I do not want to enter into the complex discussions of recent years, but to focus on only one aspect that is fundamental for all cultures: respect for what the other holds sacred, and in particular respect for the sacred in the highest sense, for God, something that we can legitimately suppose to find even in one who is not disposed to believe in God. Wherever this respect is denied, something essential in a society is lost. In our present-day society, thank God, whoever dishonours the faith of Israel, its image of God or its great personalities, is fined. Whoever scorns the Koran and the basic convictions of Islam is fined, too. Instead, with regard to Christ and to what is sacred for Christians, freedom of opinion seems to be the supreme good, and to limit this would seem to threaten or even destroy tolerance and freedom in general. Freedom of opinion, though, finds its limit in this, that it cannot destroy the honour and the dignity of the other; it is not freedom to lie or to destroy human rights.

The West reveals here a hatred of itself, which is strange and can be only considered pathological; the West is laudably trying to open itself, full of understanding, to external values, but it no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure.

It seems Cardinal Ratzinger was thinking the same thing I am now. Is this idea of self-hatred plausible? I think we just need to look at the evidence around us to find the answer.

As Ratzinger points out, there is this overwhelming need to be politically correct when it comes to other faiths. We must say all the right words, even use the right pronunciation. Nothing negative can be said of another religion, even if it's true. But when it comes to Christianity, and specifically the Catholic faith, anything goes.

A good illustration of this is an incident which happened to me several years ago. A lady at work very much lost her cool in an email to me after I had sent her an innocent message say I am Christian. Her response said vile and angry things about priests and the church, she even blasted the Bible and Mary. Her anger knew no bounds but were not spurred by anything I said. However, sometime close this to incident, this same lady corrected me hastily and with bitterness when I called what Jewish men wear on their heads a skull cap. She snapped at me and said "It's not a skull cap, it's a yamulke!" Her reaction was visceral. I felt as if I must have said something extremely offensive. It's important to note that this lady is a Christian (or former Christian) and indicated that she wanted to marry in a church.

It's rare to find someone who identifies as Christian and will stand up for Christian beliefs. You are much more likely to find people who identify as Christian or Catholic, but nonetheless feel it appropriate to bash their religion. It's common to hear people say things like "I'm Catholic, but I believe women should be allowed to have abortions if they want, and they should be allowed to be priests." People will say they are Catholic but believe gay people should have the right to marry or that they think contraception is fine.

If you have watched any television lately, you will notice something. The media will gleefully bash the Catholic Church on her stance on abortion, female ordination, contraception, married clergy, and any other issues. Comedians will constantly make crude jokes about pedophile priests, or to mock the Holy Father. If you are offended by this or object to this, you are condemned as a tight wad who doesn't know how to have fun. But if you even stated something that was factual about another religion you would be in the hot seat. Whenever there's a terrorist attack, media reporters and politians will bend over backwards to emphasize that Islam is in fact peaceful. Do we see these same reporters making sure to indicate that the vast (98% or more) or priests are faithfully celibate and wouldn't hurt a fly? Of course not!

How often do you turn on the TV and hear that HALF of all AIDS patients in Africa are receiving direct care from Catholic Aid organizations? I didn't even know abou this until I did some research. Of course you will hear about the pope being opposed to condoms in Africa.

You may hear the fictitious story about how the Catholic Church bullies its way into India to forcefully converts people against their wills. But do you hear the actual information that although only 2% of the population of India is Christian, a whopping 22% of hospitals are run by the Catholic Church? I doubt it.

The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization on the planet, but you are far more likely to hear about the inappropriate behavior of one of her 500,000 priests before you ever hear that important stat. As professor Philip Jenkins says, Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

The bottom line is the Catholic Church has done far more for the benefit of humanity than all other organizations combined. We ought to be very proud of our Christian heritage and understand that sharing it with others is helping them. We need to stop being ashamed of ourselves and start to realize the real contribution our faith has made to the world. But at the same time, we needn't be surprised by the persecution. Jesus promised we would be persecuted because of our belief in him. Any time we are persecuted, let us think of that as Christ's promises being fulfilled.

Stephen Harper's actions were not a faux-pas, they were SACRILEGE

A report has emerged that while Stephen Harper was at a funeral service for Romeo LeBlanc, former governor general of Canada, in Memramcook, N.B., he was given the consecrated Eucharist at a Catholic Mass, but that he did not eat it! The video is somewhat ambiguous in that it is not completely clear what happens to the Host.

The mainstream media is reporting the incident with its usual Catholic ignorance. Somehow, even though 43% of Canadians are Catholic, by far the largest religion in the Country, the media acts like it's this rare religion that no one has any information about! They have no respect for the severity of this matter. They continually refer to the consecrated Eucharist, which is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, as a wafer! If all Stephen Harper had done was put a "wafer" in his pocket, no one would care. But it's much MUCH more than that. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life!

What's worse is that the media seems to be focusing more on another incident that happened with Stephen Harper. Apparently he was 1 minute and 40 seconds late for a photo op with the G8 leaders in Italy. This too was called a "faux pas". Apparently, committing blasphemy against Jesus Christ is the equivalent of being less than 2 minutes late for a photo.

Just how bad is blasphemy against the Eucharist? According to St. Thomas Aquinas:

In like manner the third species of sacrilege, which is committed against other sacred things, has various degrees, according to the differences of sacred things. Among these the highest place belongs to the sacraments whereby man is sanctified: chief of which is the sacrament of the Eucharist, for it contains Christ Himself. Wherefore the sacrilege that is committed against this sacrament is the gravest of all.

Therefore, sacrilege committed against the Eucharist is the gravest of all sacrilege. If Stephen Harper truly did put the host in his pocket, that would have been a worse sacrilege than spitting on a sacred statue or icon, or hitting the priest, or any other form of sacrilege. Of course, his personal culpability might be low or non-existant if he was unaware of his offense, assuming he committed one.

Another big problem with this whole scenario is that he should not have received the Eucharist in the first place, since he is not Catholic. Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada and as such has people around him constantly advising him on issues. They advise him on protocol, ways to behave, etiquette, rules of engagement. You would think that someone in his department would be Catholic, or that at least they would have researched Catholic beliefs about something so central. I remember a couple of years back, Stephen Harper was at the opening ceremony of a Sikh place of worship. He did everything "right", from wearing a temporary turban, to removing his shoes. Sikhs account for just 0.5% of the Canadian population. Compare this to Stephen Harper doing something that is not just an etiquette issue, but a violation of Catholic belief (i.e. receiving the Eucharist while not Catholic). It violates a Catholic belief at the center of our worship. According to Aquinas, this is the greatest sacrilege. And Catholics constitute 43% of the population! What Harper did would be the worse than going to a synagogue and feeding the guests pork!

The Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella didn't help matters with her comments which go against Catholic teaching. According to TheStar.com, Kinsella said the following:

"I would like to state that I personally witnessed Prime Minister Harper consume the host that was given to him by Archbishop André Richard," Kinsella said in a statement. "Sitting only a few seats behind him, I had a full view of the proceedings and clearly saw the Prime Minister accept the host after Archbishop Richard offered it. The Prime Minister consumed it.

"As a Catholic, I was therefore pleased to see the Prime Minister of Canada express his solidarity and communion with all those present in the sanctuary as we celebrated the life of the former governor general."

Stephen Harper would have shown more solidarity with Catholics by following the rules of the Catholic Church. How does violating the rules of the place you are visiting constitute "solidarity"? Secondly, Ms. Kinsella made an error in stating that they were celebrating the life of the former governor general in the sanctuary. Only the priest and altar servers are allowed in the sanctuary during the Mass. The congregation sits outside the sanctuary.

We are not 100% certain of what happened in this incident, and I think it's best to give Harper the benefit of the doubt and assume he consumed the Body and Blood of Christ. Obviously this is preferrable to desecrating the Eucharist. In any event, however, something wrong happened. That is disturbing enough, but what's also disturbing is how the media is reporting the incident. They are treating it very lightly, and sometimes even with comedy, as if it's funny. No one is treating it very seriously, perhaps except a few Catholic publications.

This just reconfirms the statement that anti-catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice. People feel free to lash out at the Catholic Church anytime they feel like it. People are extra careful not to offend Jews or Muslims, but when it comes to Catholics, you can say pretty well anything and no one will so much as cough. There is something very wrong with this. How is that when it comes to groups that constitute less than 5% of our population, people are very concerned not to offend them, but when it comes to Catholics, who make up 43% of the populace, people don't care at all.

Imagine if someone had done something to desecrate or injure the sensibilities of another religion. Would there be newspaper articles making light of it? Even if it was done inadvertantly, you would never seem a comedic treatment? Try to invision an article which says the following: "Prime Minister Harper did faux pas today when he accidentally wore a swatstika shirt into a Jewish Synagogue." or "Prime Minister Harper made a funny gaffe when he stepped on a Koran today in a Mosque", or how about "The Prime Minister made a couple of misteps today. The biggest one was missing a meeting by almost 2 minutes, the other, less important incident, was that he accidentally spit right on a Sikh holy place." The Prime Minister in these cases would probably be charged with a hate crime, or at least people would be very angry. Yet, when he does something against the Catholic population, it goes in the humour section of the newspaper.

At least one good thing might come out of this. Many people, including many Catholics, are unaware that only Catholics should receive Catholic communion. As people read about this incident, they may learn about this rule, and we may take a general step closer to living by the rules.

Hitler's Pope: The Media gets it wrong again and again

I just read an article by the BBC. As a mainstream media outlet, they are not concerned about the facts or presenting something as it really is, but rather to cause controversy where none exists. This happened in their latest article concerning Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Israel, which began today. There is a major bias in the media that says Pope Pius XII did nothing to save the Jews during the Holocaust and that he actually helped Hitler in what he was doing. I think people really need to sit down and weigh the evidence. I'm not telling you you have to believe what I say. I'm saying, look at the evidence for yourself. Do research. And see what conclusion you come to.

A Rabbi named David G. Dalin published a book in 2005 called "The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis". In it, he notes that the Pope saved more Jews than Schindler, of movie fame. He points out that many famous Jews attested to Pius's help during WWII. These include Israeli Prime Ministers Golda Meir and Moshe Sharett, and Israel's first president Chaim Weizmann.

Why would the Pope like Hitler anyway? Thousands of priests and nuns were executed in the gas chambers of the Holocaust. Hitler hated the Catholic Church and a plot has been revealed that Hitler planned on killing the Pope himself if he became too much of a trouble-maker for
Hitler's regime.

The chief Rabbi of Rome actually converted to Catholicism after what Pius XII did, and he took as his new name Eugene, after Pope Pius XII's pre-pontifical name of Eugenio Pacelli.

Sources now believe the Pope saved anywhere from 500,000 to 860,000 Jews during the Holocaust by his actions, which included issuing fake baptismal certificates, and housing Jews in churches and monasteries.

Probably the most well-known Jewish figure of this century, Albert Einstein, said: "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."

The myth of Hitler's Pope has been thoroughly debunked, but some want to keep rehashing this old canard. Why? Perhaps the author of the Myth of Hitler's Pope says it best:

"anti-papal polemics of ex-seminarians like Garry Wills and John Cornwell (author of Hitler's Pope), of ex-priests like James Carroll, and or other lapsed or angry liberal Catholics exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today."

Let us pray for the Pope's visit to the Holy Land, and that people's hearts will be opened up to the light of Christ.

The "law of attraction" is incompatible with Catholic thinking

The law of attraction has become pretty famous these past several years and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. In fact, it seems to be picking up strength. But be warned: the "law" of attraction is completely incompatible with Christian belief.

When you think about it, it's nothing new. People taking ideas from Christianity, twisting them around and then promoting their heterodox belief. It's called a heresy. If you want to know just how bad the problem is, walk into a bookstore and go to the spirituality or self-help sections. People know Christianity is the truth, and that's why they try to twist it around. They think people already know and love Christianity, so why not take advantage of this popularity to promote their views. Often these views are completely incompatible with Christian or Catholic belief, and sometimes they are the opposite and are actually satanic.

One author who has tried to piggyback on the legitimate success of the Christian faith is Deepak Chopra. He's an Indian author whose philosophy is very eastern and close to Hinduism. But his book is named the Third Christ. Obviously there is only one Christ, but Deepak wants you to believe otherwise. Did he write a book called The Third Mohammed or the Third Gandhi or the Third Buddha? Of course not. These books would be flops. Instead, he takes the good name of Christ and tries to use it for his own end. People recognize the power of Christ's name. Satan and demons tremble at the name of Christ, our salvation comes from Christ, and we partake in his body and blood in the Eucharist. So Chopra's appeal is tantamount to that of Satan in the Garden of Eden. Satan did not tempt Eve by saying, eat this fruit and you will do something opposed to God, and you will be disobeying him. No, he said eat this fruit and you will become LIKE God. That's exactly what Deepak is promoting. The whole idea behind his book is that we can take advantage of this "Christ energy". Deepak's first order of business is to make people believe Christ doesn't really exist as a person (which of course is historically false). The reason for this is that Deepak is actually just using the name of Christ as a mask for his new age ideas. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, as Jesus warned us about. Chopra does not want us to believe in Christ's sacrifice on the cross, he wants us to believe in a universal "force". He wants us to believe we can become gods. It's amazing how blatant and obvious these authors are. They are almost using Satan as their role model. Our proper disposition toward Christ is to worship him, and recognize that we are sinners in need of his sacrifice. No great saint who has ever lived believed he was God. He recognized his limited abilities and his total dependence on Christ for life.

The "law of attraction" spreads the same lie. It says we are in control of the universe. It subtly tries to remove God from the picture. It does this one step at a time. First, they tell you believing in God is a good thing. Then they say God is the name we give to the Universe of the essential life force or something else like that, then they say we can control this life force or universe or energy, and eventually they are telling us that we are just like god, and in fact they say we are just as powerful. Do not be deceived by these lies. They are satanic. The Devil himself says the same things, as he did with Adam and Eve. It is the height of pride. Jesus said repent and believe in the good news. He asked his followers to drink from the cup from which he drank, meaning his crucifixion. God in Genesis says you will have no strange gods before him, and that includes making yourself a god. Pride is the biggest of the seven deadly sins. It makes us feel so important, and that we are above everyone else. Make no mistake, the "law of attraction" is pure poison and comes from the Evil One.

A lady I was listening to the other day was saying how evil the "law of attraction" is. She used to be a practitioner of it, and was finally saved from it, thanks to God. She found she was becoming very callous and shallow. Everything revolved around accumulating wealth and other material possessions. Followers of this become less and less concerned about their fellow man. They become emotionless. People who subscribe to the "law of attraction" believe that murder victims caused their slaying, that people get diseases because they "attracted" them, that even children who are raped somehow "attracted" it. They believe that since these people somehow desired these things, they do not need to have any concern or compassion for them.

If you are involved with these things, you must get out now. Seek the True God, and reconcile yourself with Christ. You must fall to your knees and beg forgiveness from your Saviour, then go to confession, followed by Mass. Give yourself to Christ and renew your love for God. He will be waiting for you.

Why legalizing gay marriage hurts gay people

Gay marriage is a big topic nowadays and many people are confused. The debate has entered nearly every Western country. Some have embraced gay marriage with open arms, while others at first did not allow it but reluctantly made steps towards its full legalization. Then there are others which have not legalized homosexual marriage, and the question is still open for debate. One such country is the United States. Right now, homosexual marriage is legal in various states, but not the majority. People are confused as to how they should vote in the case of gay marriage. The prevailing thought is that since gay marriage does not affect them personally, why would they oppose it. This is promoted by its defenders who make anyone who opposes gay marriage look like a bigot and intolerant person who only wants to prevent people from having freedom. Unfortunately this tactic has worked.

But there is an angle which you are very unlikely to hear anytime soon from the mainstream media. That is that homosexual marriage in fact hurts people with same-sex attraction (SSA). I use the term SSA because I see it as a disorder. There is a false dichotomy being presented that says a person is either heterosexual or homosexual. To me, this is like saying society is divided into people who eat healthy and people who do not eat healthy. While this may be true, we would not have terms which present both as viable possibilities. We would not say this person is a "healthy-eater", while this other person is an "unhealthy-eater" and present it as though that's an ingrained part of the person. When I say I believe homosexuality is disordered, I am not saying the people who have it are disordered. Just like the rest of the population, many are decent citizens.

In order to explain why I believe legalizing gay marriage will only hurt people with SSA, I must first take it back a few steps. As I mentioned in the last paragraph, there is a false dichotomy, which we only find in this particular area. If someone is anorexic, we see it as a disorder. Many girls are affected by eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia. Fortunately, we see this as problematic because it has a negative impact on their lives. We do not have protests demanding equal rights for people to have an eating disorder and that we should not interfere in their lifestyle choices. Another example is suicide. Someone may be suicidal. We would not say we should leave this person alone and not interfere with their life and if they want to commit suicide, we should let them. We recognize a disorder that must be addressed. We do not believe the suicidal person is disordered, but we believe the suicidal tendency is.

By allowing gay marriage, it will hurt homosexual people, because instead of getting help they need, society will tell them they have to accept this burden and live their lives the way they are. How could anyone ever get help in dealing with homosexual issues if all of society views it as normal. What about people who really do struggle with this? They will be left to live a life of hopelessness. Homosexuality is not a good thing and I feel sad for people who must carry that burden. We know from research that people who are identified as gay often enter into a very large number of shallow relationships. They are searching for something they will not find. It has been shown that many homosexual people were abused sexually as children. I also see this as a form of escape. Many boys may not be able to cope with being a man and all the things that it brings with it. Perhaps society presents all men as being beer-drinking, football-watching ogres, and certain sensitive men cannot identify with this. Then, the media presents homosexuality as a perfectly viable option and these boys and men may identify with this and can sink further into this deceit.

The same is true for other things as well which affect heterosexual men. I am not gay-bashing or anything or that sort. I am coming from an angle of compassion. There are sexually disordered things which affect heterosexual men, which the media, society in general, and various other sources not only accept, but encourage. For example, masturbation. Society, schools, and the media all portray this as completely normal, in fact, usually as necessary. By accepting it, you may think you are being more compassionate, but in fact it's the opposite. You are preventing people who want help from ever getting it. Often, an evil sister of masturbation is pornography. But again, society is telling people that pornography is perfectly acceptable and can't hurt anyone. So once again, these people cannot find help from mainstream organizations. But let's look at an example of what happens when these two things become legal and accepted.

Just say there's a man, 30 years old, married just recently. At first, he and his wife were quite intimate, but recently he has become more heavily involved with his old habit of pornography. His wife will wait for him in their marital bed for many hours and finally fall asleep. They are not intimate much anymore. He will spend much of the night downstairs looking at pornography. He has to get up in the morning for work, but he is very tired. He goes to work and does not do a good job. One day, his wife looks on the computer and sees all the pornography there. She is very saddened and confronts him about it. He says he will stop. While he's at work, she goes online to find information about stopping pornography. She can't find anything. It's not only legal, but encouraged. All these psychologists online are saying it's a fun pastime and maybe they should try it together. She is at first shocked that no one understands her, and eventually gives up. She starts to believe she is the strange one for not accepting it. The husband's addiction continues in secret. The wife, out of desperation, suggests they watch some porn together like all the websites say. They try it, but she realizes that he does not become more attached to her, but less so. Eventually she has had enough and decides that even if she is perceived as weird, she will demand that he not watch that filth. He complies. But eventually without proper help, he starts looking at porn at the office. He knows he risks a lot, but he does not know how to deal with his problem because no one will tell him. He eventually gets caught, and is promptly fired. He tells his wife the news. She is very upset, but now he becomes very angry with her saying he would not have gotten into this mess if she had let him continue using pornography. The arguments get worse and they become more distant. She is totally heartbroken, and they are as good as separated. Soon enough, they are forced to leave their home because he cannot support her. She finally has had enough and decides to leave. A short while later, she asks for a divorce.

This is a very sad scenario, but it is not impossible. Not identifying a problem as a problem leads to many further problems, and that is what I am saying will happen to homosexual people if gay marriage is legalized. They will not be helped, they will in fact, find no help. They will not be happy. Before 1981 in Canada, homosexuality was considered a disorder. There was hope for people with the affliction. Many realized it was not an inborn thing, but rather the result of decisions and choices in life. It may sound absurd, given the current prevailing thought, but people who have had SSA have been successful in rediscovering their true sexual identity, and finding complementarity in a person of the opposite sex. The media would never report such a thing, unless they were somehow trying to bash Christians or show mental abuse of homosexual people or something.

Remember, Jesus died for all of us, including people with struggles. Let's truly help people who are afflicted with various issues, who carry heaven burdens. As the hands and feet of Christ, let us remember his words when he said his yoke is easy, his burden light. Let's help those who struggle, with compassion and love.

Stupid movies that attack Christianity and specifically Catholicism

Recently there have been movies like Religulous by Bill Maher, and another one I think called the God who wasn't there. Plus there's all kinds of books put out by atheists and stuff. But there are a lot of things they do which are rather stupid. First of all, they pick on people who have no business defending certain beliefs in the first place. People with no qualifications for example, and no experience in defending the truth. In Religulous, he interviewed one priest, who was the astronomer at the Vatican. The priest gave him a really good explanation. Not surprisingly, that's the last you heard from the priest on that movie.

Bill Maher should interview Jimmy Akin or Tim Staples or Mitch Pacwa, not Billy Bob down by the corner store. Give me a break. That's like making a movie about why bodybuilding is stupid, then interviewing a 7 year old boy and asking him to lift a 50 pound weight and when he can't say, "Well, I guess eating healthy and exercising does nothing!" Then the interviewer proceeding to lift the weight himself with some struggle and as they capture this for some time, a voiceover of the narrator comes on and says, "Hmm, that's odd, people have claimed for centuries that working out helps build muscle..." To someone not educated in apologetics (the defense of the truth), they may not see the absurdity of this claim.

I've never seen these atheists ever interviewing someone their own size, as the priest from wordonfire.org says. They always pick on the wrong people. Another example of the stupidity of this approach is to ask a random person on the street to calculate the gravitational pull of a planet given its size and composition, and any other necessary information. Then when he is unable to calculate this to declare "Well, I guess gravity doesn't really exist!" By the way, the victim of his silly scheme would not have access to any reference material and would have no time to prepare.

One movie where I did see someone picking on others his own size was "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein. He didn't go to random people at the corner store or primary school teachers and ask them about the origins of the universe and stuff like that, he went to Richard Dawkins, who wrote some of the most read books among atheists. Richard Dawkins ended up looking pretty dumb. He couldn't answer anything he was asked. This was a fair battle, and it was won decisively by Ben Stein.

Truth always wins. Lies must slither around and use cunning tactics. It's like these videos I've seen on youtube with someone defending the Catholic position and someone else attacking it. Usually the Catholic position is heavily edited. For example, Mitch Pacwa was having a debate with an anti-Catholic man. First, the anti-Catholic would say something, and Fr. Pacwa would have a chance to respond. But on the third time the anti-Catholic spoke, Fr. Pacwa's response was not even shown and the credits came up.

My question is this: why use deceptive tactics to promote lies? Why not learn and teach the truth?

The signs are clear: Obama is attacking Christianity

While Obama continues to try to deceive us, his intentions could not be more clear. If you take a step back, you will be terrified to know that Obama has started a major attack on the religion which founded his nation. At first, it seemed Obama had some differences of opinion, but now it is obvious that Obama will stop at nothing promote his anti-Christian views. It`s very sad to see this, but worse than seeing this is pretending it does not exist. We cannot stand by and assume that our politicians have our best interests in mind. Obama is not less revolutionary than Mussolini or Stalin when they first started off. At first, they were men with ideas, radical ideas. Soon these ideas became action, but before anyone really realized, these actions lead to disaster. I believe unless we wake up now, Obama will lead us to a similar disaster. If he does not curtail his activities and find another path, the least we can do is make sure after this initial 4 years that he will be ousted.

The United States was founded 232 years ago on Christian principles. Soon after churches sprung up all over the landscape. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were the major tenets of this young country. Soon, it flourished because it regarded all people as equal in a way only a Christian nation can. I believe the Christianity of the United States is what allowed it to be so successful. Much of what fueled the American economy were Catholic immigrants, who came mostly from Ireland and Italy. Great cathedrals were built and dioceses were set up all over the country. The 10 commandments were displayed prominently near courthouses, laws were based on the principles found in the Bible. But this is not something new. This is ongoing. Almost 80% (78.4%) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is not a title someone else gave them, but rather one they gave themselves, showing their conviction. It is one of the most Christian countries in the world. 23.9% percent are Catholic.

Many of the greatest educational institutions were founded by Catholic orders, such as Notre Dame in Indiana which was founded by the Order of the Holy Cross, and Georgetown University which was founded by Jesuits. There are thousands more.

This is the setting of Obama's attacks, which makes it all the more shocking. Obama speaks from both sides of his mouth and this is one of the reasons he was elected. When you put the pieces together, you realize that Obama was elected based on deception, and this is following a disturbing plan which will ultimately be a battle waged between Christianity, represented by 80% of the population and secularism and anti-religion which will be represented by Barack Hussein Obama.

Many will say that Obama has said many good things about Christianity and that he himself is a Christian. However, when you think about it, you realize this is the only way he could have ever gotten in. Imagine if he said he didn't like Christianity. He would lose 80% of his audience and the election along with them. He wouldn't be more than a blip on the radar - if that. No one would even know he exists, besides perhaps Michele, his wife. Obama, who was a law professor, knows better than this. Obama has a plan up his sleeve. But that plan is starting to unravel.

Obama's election meant much of his plan was already accomplished. The rest was the easy part. Obama got elected on a false premise - that of being a good Christian who wants to help the country. However, every policy that he has promoted to date has shown his disdain for Christian teaching. I've elaborated on this in previous posts. Click on the Obama tag after this post for more information. From his comments on Terry Shiavo, saying his worst decision was to let her live, to his funding of pro-abortion groups and groups that force abortions and sterilizations on people, his planned reversal on all laws protecting the unborn, his legalization of embryonic destruction, his planned removal of conscience objections for doctors who do not want to perform immoral acts, and the list goes on and on. But he is becoming even bolder.

As all the power rushes to his head, Obama sees more opportunities daily to attack Christianity. While in Turkey, Obama said the United States of America is not a Christian country. That's news to me. 80% of the country is Christian, the country was founed on Christian principles, God is proclaimed in official athems, songs, poems, etc. The US is one of the most Christian countries on the planet, and its president claims it is not. That is an insult to say the least. Imagine the president of Israel saying "Israel is not a Jewish country". What is the point of such a statement? What benefit will derive from it? Is it something bad to be considered a Christian country in Obama's eyes? If not, why mention it at all? If he thinks it's a good thing, why would he deny it? Would you say, "Contrary to popular belief, the United States is a very dirty country, our water is polluted and our forests are filthy." Of course not! So why would Obama go out of his way to say the US is not a Christian nation? The reason is obvious if you are open to the ideas. The reason is that Obama wants to move the US away from its best feature. He wants the country to accept the filth and immorality he is ushering in. He's like a drunkard who's only happy if he sees someone else who's worse off than he is.

But you might say, wait a second, I don't think Obama was trying to hide his Christianity, I don't think he would cover it up. Well, think again, because that's precisely what he did! In a story so shocking, I had to double check to make sure it was even real, it is reported that when Obama went to do a speech at Georgetown University, one of the premier Catholic universities in the United States and probably the world, Obama literally covered up Christ. Perhaps I am speaking symbolically, perhaps Obama said a few words that could be interpreted in an anti-Christian way? I wish. The truth is over the main podium where many famous people have spoken, there are several pillars, holding a triangular roof. In the middle is the inscription IHS, a Christogram for the first 3 letters of Christ's name in Greek. Obama literally COVERED OVER this inscription. I couldn't believe it. I saw pictures and assumed they were doctored, but they weren't. I read it from several top news sources. It was not only unbelievable, but truly saddening. This event indicated to me that the things Obama said and did were not random acts that were misinterpreted. These were deliberate attacks on the Christian community.

If you are not convinced, I suggest you look at all the evidence. The things Obama are doing go far above and beyond what is necessary to remain neutral. He is not longer attempting neutrality and has decided to shed all veneers of being Christian. His full-on attacks must stir in us our passion to defend our beliefs. The forces of evil can never triumph over good. Remember the blood of the martyrs is the life of the Church. You do not need to be killed in order to defend your beliefs, to defend the One who is Truth, Jesus Christ. But you must go to whatever lengths necessary to evangelize people, to tell them the good news. Christianity has fought many spiritual battles, and has always won. Please respond to this call and tell everyone you meet that Jesus Christ and His Church are the way, the truth, and the life.

Proper response to improper comments about the Catholic Church and Christianity

As I've listened to more and more Catholic Answers Live and learn more about my faith, I also learn more about interacting with others. As Christians, we must always give an account for our beliefs and to defend them, but must do it with love and kindness, as Peter tells us in his epistle, in the Bible.

How do we react to slander and blasphemy? I may not be an expert in this subject, but I have learned some things throughout my life. Let me know if you have learned anything by posting a comment on my blog.

1) Do not encourage uncharitable or unkind words. This is very important. Sometimes we see a false dicotomy between speaking out very boldly and noticeably to defend our beliefs and not defending them at all. There is a middle ground however. You must not formally cooperate in evil or encourage it. A good idea I think is if someone says something that's anti-Christian, you don't need to stand out and chastise them, but just do not respond. If it was a joke, do not laugh, if it misinformation, just leave. Make it noticeable that you are not entertained by their comments, but you don't need to give them a public scolding.

2) Whenever possible, tell people something positive about your faith. You can do this subtlely, without starting off with "Christianity is the way to God because...". For example, if someone asks you what you did on the weekend, you can mention that you went to Mass, and list other things as well if you want. Or if someone is sick, mention that you will pray for them.

The point I am trying to make is that in order to evangelize, you do not have to wear an enormous crucifix around your next and only talk about God and your faith. You can evangelize subtlely. Never sacrifice what you hold most dear, and never participate in unkind words toward your beliefs. Always bear witness to the hope that is in you. Having said this, if you feel you are called or feel brave, you can always go out of your way to talk about the love of Christ. If you want to tell people about your faith and to defend it clearly and loudly, by all means, go ahead. Remember, many Christians were killed for their beliefs, so being mocked is not so bad.

Do not take an all or nothing approach. Do whatever you can to spread the good news.

Constantine invented Catholicism in 325, right?

Constantine invented the Catholic religion in 325 and decided to make it the official religion of Rome, which allowed it to grow from a tiny religion consisting of a few hundred people to the enormous religion that it is today, with the Pope at the head. Constantine's decision was a very good one for the Pope and his successors who have enjoyed unparalleled wealth throughout the centuries.

Sounds about right, doesn't it? Well, it does for a lot of people, unfortunately. This myth has been circulating for a relatively recent period of time and has been perpetuated by mostly anti-Christians and a few anti-Catholics. The problem is that it is based not on fact, but on lies. Let's analyze the truth of what happened.

The Catholic faith is the original Christianity and continues today as the authentic and true church established by Jesus Christ at Pentecost some 2,000 years ago. The term "catholic" means universal. Part of the Church's character is that it is for all peoples of all times, and is therefore universal. Catholic describes the Church. Using this terminology to describe the church goes back very very far. Our first existing written record goes back to no later than 107 AD and possible before the year 100 and was written by Ignatius of Antioch. He said:

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
- from The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Therefore, Catholic was described by an ancient Christian theologian probably in the first century.

Concerning Constantine, he did become Christian, but there were millions of Christians in Rome and around the world. Constantine signed the Edict of Milan which legalized Christianity, but he did not sign anything to make Christianity the official religion of the state. This was done by an emperor after Constantine.

The major doctrines of the Church concerning Christ's divinity and the sacraments were firmly established long before Constantine was born. There is much proof of this. You just need to look!

Finally, as for the Popes enjoying enormous wealth, we need look no further than our latest examples. Nearly all popes have lived celibate lives, have not accumulated wealth and spent most of their time writing, teaching and leading. Take John Paul II, for example. He lived a very simple life. He had few possessions when he died. Probably no more than a shoe-box full. He spent many hours each day in pray, went to confession daily, spent time writing and teaching, and going from country to country proclaiming the good news. It is said that the pope remembered the people he spoke to, but rarely recalled his previous meal. This is not the description of a man seeking great wealth and material possession.

As you can see, many myths and lies have been spread about the Catholic Church, but light always prevails over darkness. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, so we have nothing to fear. Be thankful to God for the most perfect gift.

Why are Christians (specifically Catholics) the only ones held responsible?

Last night I flicked on The Hour with George Stromboulopoulos. He had Sue Johanson as one of his guests last night and of course they were talking about sex. Sue's show runs in the United States now, where people call in for all their questions about sex, contraception, and everything along those lines. She doesn't care if they're gay, straight, bisexual; married, not married, extra-marital, etc. To her, sex is sex, and nothing else matters.

At one point, George asked how it's different in the U.S. compared to here, and Sue mentioned that she quivers at the thought. She derided the sex education system of the United States saying they only teach abstinence-only programming and that that's the fault of George W. Bush. They seem to easily be able to laugh about these "conservatives" who are afraid of sex and ask themselves rhetorically why they don't just accept it.

Sue at one point posited that "well, it's going to happen anyway, you might as well teach them about it", and that she's helping people to avoid pregnancy, which according to her is such a terrible thing. But let's look at what's really going on.

In 1968, when Humanae Vitae was published by Pope Paul VI, he said that the widespread use of contraception would cheapen sex, turn people into sex objects, increase promiscuity and infidelity, break up marriages and relationships, and have major negative impacts on the world in general. He was completely correct in these things. He didn't even mention however the increased incidents of STIs. The dire consequences of the increased use of contraception has been felt.

It also paved the way to abortion. Pregnancies were now something people had control over. We stopped asking God his plan, and started asking ourselves. We were in control. So when people became pregnant, dispite the availability of contraception, it didn't fit into their view of how things should go. They demanded FULL control, not partial control. Women, and their male partners, demanded the ability to end whatever was happening inside her womb. Since contraception, people tried to separate sex from childbirth, intimacy from procreation. Contraception doesn't decrease unwanted pregnancies, it increases them. It increases abortion also. In fact, it legitimized it. Once people demanded full and utter control over anything happening in their bodies, they realized there was an unintended side-effect of guilt, and horror at the realization of what they've done. No one ever questioned if what was in their womb was a child, but that denial was necessary to perform this act. Just as the Nazis declared Jews to be nonhuman, so too did the abortionists declare the unborn.

This brings my point full circle. As a Catholic, I am forced to offer an explanation for how I could kill so many innocent people during the Crusades, yet proponents of contraception and abortion would not even be asked to justify their own act. The Crusades ended over 500 years ago, was a defensive war to protect innocent civilians, was far less brutal than most people imagine. As well, the cowardly acts perpetrated by a few for their own bloodlust and greed were not authorized by the Catholic Church, and in fact were condemned by it. Yet, somehow I have to justify these people. I even have to justify outlaws, people who broke the commands of my religion, to whom I have no relation, no shared heritage.

Does Sue Johanson get blamed for reducing sex to an action between any two people with no consequences no different than a pat on the back. Do we blame her for the increase in infidelity, sexual addiction, lust, marriage breakups, infidelity, and abortion? No. If everyone practiced abstinence before marriage, which Sue and George laugh at, there would not be many of the things I mentioned above. Although people like Sue have a direct impact on the degredation of society and values, we do not blame her or anyone like her.

Why the double standard? In fact, it is not even a double standard, for this implies equality. I would argue that the Crusades were mostly a positive thing, which have little impact on our current lives, besides allowing us to be as free as we are today, especially to be Christians. However, the sexual "revolution", or sexual degredation as I call it, is having a devastating and unquestionably negative impact on our society.

Kathy Griffin and George Carlin

Kathy Griffin has joined the likes of George Carlin in her renunciation of religion, specifically her renunciation of Catholicism, the religion into which she was born. Her comments, which I will not post here, were revoked from the Emmy's because they were considered offensive.

We must pray for these two actors and all those who were born to Catholic families, that instead of blaspheming against their religion and God, they will praise and worship God in everything they do.

We, of course, must also pray for all actors and all people.

Maybe one day they will all be very proud of their Catholic heritage, just as Martin Sheen is. He actually took the name Sheen after Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, a great event in our history, and Martin Sheen continues to be very involved with his faith and represents it well in Hollywood, he being one of the most respected actors of all time.

360 Vision on Vision TV in Canada

This is an appeal to all Catholics out there to boycott Vision TV, which has, over the years become more and more anti-Catholic. I obviously find this trend very disturbing. I was watching a review show they had for their 100th episode which shows some of the programs they had on there. One was on a gay priest, another was on 2 women who were sexually assaulted by a priest like 30 years ago, another was on evangelicals going to the Dominican Republic or something spreading the Gospel even though most of them are Catholic already. Another show was about Islamic terrorism and a threat issued by the Canadian government warning of this threat. Basically, the show was about how this was false or something or not totally true, and that it was very negative towards Muslims. Oh no, you wouldn't want to offend anyone now would you.

It seems like Vision television supports every religion except Catholicism, while at the same time making the Catholic Church look as bad as it possibly can. Any issue, be it gay "marriage", or priestly sexual abuse, that makes the Church look bad to some people is shown all the time.

Customarily Vision runs shows which condemn the Church from every angle. Care is taken to avoid offending any group, but when it comes to Catholics, they take information from the seediest sources, just to make their contrarian viewpoints. I would suggest that any Catholic does not watch Vision Television. The Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and it IS THE TRUTH, that's why it's so viciously attacked by the likes of Vision.