Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 29, 2021

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.

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Second Oldest Person in the World is a Catholic Nun

Amazing fact of the day.

There were articles about this recently, but the second oldest person in the world (verified) right now is a French nun named Lucile Randon (aka Soeur André). She is currently 117 years old and was born on February 11, 1904. She has seen a lot in her life!

She became a religious sister at age 41. I wonder if at the time she thought maybe she was a little on the older side to be become a nun. But now she has been one for over 75 years! 

Another amazing fact: She is a convert! Although her father was a Protestant minister, she converted to Catholicism in 1930 at the age of around 26 or 27 and became a nun 15 years later.

Yet another surprising fact: Sister André contracted Covid-19 but survived without any symptoms.

Sister André is the oldest European and oldest "Ecclesiastical Person" to have lived according to records. This category includes priests and nuns, etc.

According to reports, Sister André is ready to "go home" to the Lord. She has said she's been here "long enough". It sounds like she is very close to God.

God Bless Sr. André!

Monday, March 22, 2021

Will Social Media Giants Shut Down Catholic Content?

I have written in this blog for many years, in fact starting over 15 years ago. There have been periods where I have written very little, but over the past several months, I have re-committed myself to adding content and updates to this website. A recent project of mine has been posting the daily Mass readings. I have missed a few days, but I will try to be fully consistent.

Over the last little while I have started to worry how far cancel culture will go. My blog is about Catholicism and my personal experience of being a Catholic. I don't just write things that are inflammatory on purpose. I seek to clarify and elaborate on Catholic teaching as it applies to many things. It could apply the teachings of the Church to society, media, technology, etc. and also provide my own opinion informed by my faith.

I am becoming rather concerned that this information will become more and more difficult to publish as more things which were once considered the norm are being considered attacks and hate messaging. Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and dozens of other media outlets are cracking down big time on people espousing traditional morality which happens to differ from "new moralities" that developed in the last 5 years. It's becoming a very crazy world.

As of right now, simply indicating that your content provides a Catholic point of view does not mean an automatic shut down of your content. However, if you overstep the ever-changing boundaries, it's very likely that your website or content will be shut down. However, I feel that will change very soon. The Catholic Church differs with the world on dozens of issues, and it's only a matter of time before social media giants decide that essentially anything related to Catholicism must be banned, especially if it touches on morality.

One of the main areas of disagreement between the Church and the world is on the topic of sexuality. The Church is very clear: sexuality is exclusively between a married man and woman. It's as simple as that. Anything outside of this is illicit. Well, this flies in the face of secular teaching on this subject. Previously, this would be treated as a difference of opinion which was allowable. No longer. Now, believing what the Church believes on these issues is to the world a hate crime. You are attacking other people simply by believing in a more restricted definition of marriage and sexuality. The allegation now is that words are violence. It's not a matter of differences of opinion anymore. Anyone not towing the party line are seen as violent word attackers who must be squelched. 

I think part of the problem is that the leftist secular world doesn't really have any good arguments, so instead of fighting words with words, they try to ban certain opinions and words.

I don't think anything should be taken for granted. You can't assume that just because you are part of the largest group of the largest religion in the world that your opinions will e allowed or even legal.

The main thing is we need courage. Christians have faced much worse than we currently face. But things could continue to get worse and worse. Already we are seeing in some places like Scotland it is becoming illegal to express certain viewpoints, to have certain opinions, even in your own home. A Canadian man was recently put in prison for calling his daughter his daughter. Things seem to be escalating each and every day.

My advice is to have a plan. Do you make a living online through a blog or through content of some sort? Do you write for a newspaper? Whatever the case may be, how will you survive if the mainstream is completely opposed to what you do? Think about these things now. Things might possibly get better, but you have to prepare for the worst.

I don't write this to be negative, I write it as a warning so people can prepare. God bless all the readers of this blog. For my part, I will perhaps be soon moving to my own domain name. I will keep you posted. Thank you for your continued support.

Monday, March 15, 2021

This Just In 2000 Years Ago: Catholic Church cannot bless gay unions

In a stunning move unforeseen by everyone, the Vatican just issued a decree 2000 years ago stating that the Church cannot bless gay unions.

In the shocking move, Pope Francis reiterated what has been a constant teaching since the founding of the Catholic Church at Pentecost around 33AD.

Labeled as "Breaking News" by many outlets such as Associated Press and others, the Catholic Church will surprisingly not start doing something it has never done since its founding.

Many progressives were left wondering: what next? Will the Church declare there are only 7 sacraments or that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity?

What prompted this to become "breaking" "headline news" now? Has anyone doubted this to be the case? It seems a little absurd to say the least, but apparently this question of blessing gay unions had to be addressed since there were apparently even churches doing such a thing. Despite being churches and/or priests, they were unaware of a point of doctrine that has always been the case and has never changed.

Some may draw a distinction between blessing a union and declaring it the equivalent of marriage, or something like that. However, nothing evil can be blessed. To the shock and dismay of many, the Church also cannot bless polygamous unions! Will this be the newest headline in the near future?

The Church makes clear that people with homosexual attraction are not in themselves evil, however homosexual activities are immoral and contrary to natural law, therefore the Church declares they are sinful, and always have been.


Friday, January 22, 2021

Should we be Advertising Evil?


A thought that I've had over the past while is whether or not we should advertise evil things on purpose or inadvertently. It's a question without an easy answer.

At first, it seems obvious that we shouldn't advertise evil. Open and shut case. It becomes complicated in my opinion as we should condemn evil in our world and maybe alert people to evil, but how do we do so without making things worse?

I think there is definitely a balance, but how does one achieve this balance? Often I see Catholic news agencies or commentators bringing up evils that are happening in the world. These can include a general direction in which the country is headed or it could be a particular news story which features evil themes. Even this blog has delved into many of these topics. Is this wrong?

Another issue is giving voice to heretical and blasphemous religious figures including priests, and bishops. What should be done here. Again it's about balance.

I think all too often we err on the side of providing too much information as opposed to too little. I think when it comes to discussing issues of morality that are presented in the news, we should strive to the greatest degree we can to minimize the unnecessary specifics of what is occurring. Often things may not even really need to be reported at all. The question needs to be asked: who is this information helping?

Will the information being presented increase or decrease evil? It's a legitimate question. As Catholics, we should not spend a great deal of time thinking about and understanding evil. There is in fact a sin associated with this desire to know things which we ought not pursue. Thomas Aquinas simply calls it curiosity. It's the idea of delving too deeply into topics of evil.

I am speaking about this because it is such a prevalent issue. Evil is continually reported on many Catholic media outfits. I get it. Evil things and events get headlines. I'm not saying they shouldn't be reported. If the government is doing something evil, we should know about it. But often, the information isn't of value to the public and will help almost no one who finds out about it.

A similar idea is promoting heretical, blasphemous or otherwise dangerous clergy. Why give them a platform at all? That's what they crave. They don't care about the bad publicity, they just want publicity. Anything a conservative Catholic may say against them just gets chalked up to "hate" and they dismiss it. You aren't changing their minds. I think in these cases it's best to just ignore them. If no one knows about them, they cannot do damage.

Conservative media are often complicit, in my opinion, in promoting evil in the guise of exposing it. Someone does something immoral or blasphemous which probably would have never been known, but the conservative media uses it to condemn the way things are or are going. The intention is probably good, but I think overall it has a bad impact. Most of the "shocking" things reported by conservative media would probably be ignored by the rest of the media. I mean they don't themselves to look bad either. So if the conservative media doesn't report it, no one will, which will be much better.

The same goes for public figures who do and say evil things. Instead of promoting them by writing articles and publishing news stories, we should just ignore them. If they are ignored by faithful Catholics, probably no one will pay attention to them. They get pumped up because we spend so much time reporting on them.

Again, it's about balance. If we are reporting that Joe Biden has increased access to abortion, that isn't exactly a secret. That should be reported. The same goes for many things. I guess overall I would just ask people to consider the impact what they are writing has - is it good or bad?


Thursday, January 07, 2021

4 People Died in United States Capitol Protests + Catholic Perspective on Armed Resistance

I am keeping track of this story as it is still developing. 4 people have died in the 2021 United States Capitol Protests. Reports of this can be seen here.

As of right now, details are rather unclear. One of the deaths which was known yesterday was that of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt. She was shot by law enforcement, although the exact details are not yet publicized. There was some question as to exactly where she was shot.

Ashli Babbitt, a California resident, served 4 tours of duty over a 14 year period and was born in 1985 making her around 35 years of age. It seems she was active on Twitter under the username CommonAshSense. She made some tweets concerning the protest.

Three other people associated with the protest have passed away, yet the cause of their deaths are unclear. All I could find were references to them dying following "medical emergencies". This is very broad, and wouldn't any death be the result of a medical emergency?

So what are the relevant points in the Catholic Faith we must consider when looking at this situation? Is an armed insurrection ever justifiable? I'm not saying that is what is happening in this case. But are there ever cases where large groups of people can forcibly take control of a government? In fact, this is addressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the topic of armed resistance.

Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met:

  1. there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights;
  2. all other means of redress have been exhausted;
  3. such resistance will not provoke worse disorders;
  4. there is well-founded hope of success; and
  5. it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.
Does the current situation meet the criteria above? I would say, at the very least, it would be an untenable position to say that the current American situation would meet the criteria allowing for armed resistance to a government.

Is there certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights? I would say probably not. Yes, there are many grave injustices, such as abortion, occurring in the country. The problem is I cannot see that changing, especially by violent actions such as the ones being witnessed.

Therefore, criterion 4 is not met either of a well-founded hope of success. Criterion 3 is that such resistance will not provoke worse disorders. I cannot say that criterion would be met either as violent protests will certainly not improve the current situation and will probably make it worse.

Have all other means of redress been exhausted? I believe at this point, since the other criteria are not met, this is a moot point. But there are probably better, more effective means, that have not yet been exhausted.

Finally, #5, is it impossible to reasonably foresee any better solution? Since violent protests will probably achieve little if anything, obviously there are better solutions.

Therefore, I do not think violence is legitimate in this case. Having said that, I have not seen significant evidence of widespread violence from Trump supporters at this point. You could say that the act of breaking into the US Capitol building is itself an act of violence, but breaking into a building isn't the same as harming someone bodily. It's much less significant.

A young woman has been killed, but we do not know the circumstances in detail. We know she was probably shot by some law enforcement agency. Why was she shot? Was she threatening, assaulting, or committing battery against people? I am not sure. Perhaps her death was a tragic mistake.

As for the other three deaths, we do not have sufficient information to categorize what happened.

My point is, we cannot tell at this point how violent or non-violent the group of protesters is overall. Yes, they broke in, but are they, on a significant scale, using violence against innocent people? Are they shooting firearms at law enforcement officers? I do not see evidence of these things.

First and foremost we must pray for everyone involved in this situation. We must pray that people remain calm and things do not escalate further. We must pray that injustices are resolved in civilized ways. Let's try to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. I think we are living in a time where people are more polarized than ever. Many people are under lockdown and on social media things can often appear far more extreme which leads to further polarization.

I will keep you posted on any new developments and how they may apply to Catholic teaching.

Wednesday, January 06, 2021

Woman shot at Capitol has died, according to several sources

I'm very sad to report that a woman shot in the Capitol in Washington DC, the site of protests, has died as reported by several news agencies. According to MSNBC, the shot was from a law-enforcement officer. I do not know the circumstances under which this poor woman was shot.

I am saddened to see this happening in the United States. Despite what anyone feels about the election results, violence is not the answer. Anyone doing acts of violence will not receive any sympathy. The president has told protestors to be peaceful and to return home, and I think they should take his advice.

Let's all pray for this woman's soul. She probably did not expect to die today. I'm assuming she did in fact pass away as I think it's not 100% certain. Also, pray for her family. Plus, pray for the alleged shooter who is a law-enforcement officer. LEOs never want to take a person's life.

Very sad situation which I hope is soon resolved.

Friday, April 03, 2009

The culture of death becomes obvious when you put the pieces together

In a previous article, I spoke of all the things Obama was doing or planned on doing which would go against life, including eradicating all abortion laws in the United States with the passing of the "Freedom of Choice Act", allowing federal funds for a dead-end (pun intended) pseudo-science which has yielded exactly zero cures called embryonic stem-cell research, saying that his worst decision was supporting Terry Schaivo's right to life, and the list goes on. But you don't need to stop looking once you reach Obama. Just look at his cabinet ministers. They too are promoting the culture of death like never in our history. When you start to put them all together, you start to see the deceit and lies these people are perpetuating, and you start to realize the true goal - the destruction of humanity.

A few days ago, a member of Obama's administration, "Dr." Nina Vsevolod Fedoroff said there are too many people on Earth. At first she said we need to keep reducing the population growth, etc. When a reporter asked if she thought there were too many people on Earth, she responded in the affirmative. I wish I was there. I would have asked her, "Nina, you say there are too many people on Earth. Would you like to eliminate yourself?" See, it's easy to say "there are too many people on Earth", but people are real flesh and blood, they are not numbers, they are not statistics. This whole mentality is fooled up. She believes there are not enough resources to sustain the population. Well, then we need to increase resources. If there is too much pollution, we need to cut back. If there is unclean water, we need treatment plants. It is a fallacy to say that because there are bad things happening in the world, and they happen to involve people, automatically there are too many people. That's like saying 20 million people in Europe died because of the bubonic plague, out of a population of 100 million. Now, how could we have reduced the death toll? Well, if there were only 50 million people, only 10 million would have died! So our solution is to reduce the population. Or you could say in a town of 100,000 people, there are 100 murders per year. How do you reduce the number of murders? Reduce the population to 50,000, then there should only be around 50 murders per year. This logic is fallacious.

As for not enough resources, that is another scare tactic. Thomas Malthus, in the 1800s predicted a global catastrophe, where there would be widespread famine and people would be dying all over the place because there would surely not be enough food. He felt he was on the brink of this. In his day, the population was just over 1 billion. Now it is over 6 times that much, and yet the United States alone has enough food to feed the entire planet.

We know that the earth is not overpopulated. Are there issues on the Earth? Absolutely! Too much pollution, too much starvation, too much suffering, perhaps, but reducing our numbers is not a solution! Some people think that only when there are no more people on Earth will things be how they should. Well, God has a different opinion. He created us unique out of all the animals. Some may say we are like chimpanzees, but chimpanzees will customarily go to a rival group, take a young one, and rip it to pieces and eat it. This is common. We are not monkey or apes or animals. We are human beings, created uniquely by God. Animals and plants are here for our well-being and to serve us. We of course must love the planet, but not hate ourselves.

Fr. Frank Pavone wrote a wonderful article on this subject for "This Rock" Magazine. I will post it here in its entirety, including a link to it:

Planet Un-Parenthood

The Myths of Overpopulation

By Fr. Frank Pavone

Well, it didn’t quite happen as they feared.

In 1798, Rev. Thomas Malthus, one theoretician of overpopulation, predicted that by 1890 the world would have standing room only. Nearly two centuries later, in the 1970s, media reports cautioned that by 1990 we would need to build huge artificial islands in the middle of the ocean to handle the earth’s population.

Apparently, we’re doing better than that.

Yet some don’t seem to learn from the facts, and we still hear today about the "problem" of "overpopulation." This supposed problem, which as we will see below is contrary to fact, is used as a justification for killing people by abortion and for state interference with the authentic, God-given reproductive freedom that belongs to families and couples.

The ongoing myth of overpopulation is actually a cluster of myths, some statistical, some philosophical, and some spiritual.

"Having Babies Is Selfish"

Toni Vernelli of Somerset, England, aborted her child and eventually had herself sterilized at age 27. Why? She wanted to reduce her "carbon footprint" and help save the planet.
Her boyfriend, to whom she is now married, saw things the same way, and presented her with a "Congratulations" card.

"Having children is selfish," Toni said. "It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet . . . Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of overpopulation."

Sarah Irving feels the same way: "I realized that a baby would pollute the planet—and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."
Not everyone has drunk so deeply of the overpopulation myth as these two enthusiasts, but they remind us that the myth does have an impact on our culture and needs to be counteracted.

The Hype

There has been a war of ideas regarding overpopulation for centuries. But around 1970, a publication by Rev. Malthus was met with renewed interest. Malthus, a British economist, wrote Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. Essentially, he became alarmed at the difference between arithmetic growth (2 – 4 – 6 – 8) and geometric growth (2 – 4 – 8 – 16). Here is his central thesis:

The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometric ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetic ratio. By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence.

Other population alarmists jumped on the bandwagon at various times. In 1972, Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb, warned that 65 million Americans would die of starvation by 1985. That same year, Planned Parenthood World Population circulated an article titled "The Human Race Has 35 Years Left: After that, People will Start Eating Plankton. Or People."
The prize for hysterical projections, however, goes to Princeton demographer Ansley Coale, who said we are experiencing ". . . a growth process which, within 65 centuries and in the absence of environmental limits, could generate a solid sphere of live bodies expanding with a radial velocity that, neglecting relativity, would equal the velocity of light" ("Increases in Expectation of Life and Population Growth," Proceedings of the International Population Conference, 36).

The Reality

The reality, however, is different.

The population of the world doubled from 3 billion in 1960 to 6 billion in 2000. However, this growth was not because we were reproducing so fast, but because we weren’t dying so fast. Thanks to advances in modern medicine, the death rate dramatically slowed during this time.

As for the worldwide fertility rate, it was actually falling throughout the period. In 1960 it was an average of 6 children per woman; by 2002 it was just 2.6. Around 2.1 is the replacement level, that is, the number of children that each couple needs to have to maintain the population. (The extra one-tenth accounts for those who do not have children).
Another way of describing this change in the fertility rate during the time that the world’s population doubled is that we were adding 2.1 percent to the world’s population each year, but by 2002, it dropped to increments of only 1.2 percent.

The United Nations publishes population analyses. When projecting what population growth is likely to be in the future, the United Nations illustrates different versions of what may happen, known as "variants."

According to its "medium variant," the UN projects that the world population grow to 8.9 billion by 2050, and will then level out at 10 billion.

However, the "low variant"—which is usually the correct one—shows a leveling out at 7.3 billion in 2040.

Once the population levels out in this way, it will begin to decline. It will never double again.

As population expert Steven Mosher points out, the United Nations’ low variant is not highlighted in the UN reports; rather, it is buried in the details. Moreover, the medium variant, which projects a higher population, is based on a totally unexplained (and unrealistic) assumption, namely, that all countries, over the next half-century, will reach a "fertility floor" of 1.85 children per woman. The assumption, in other words, is that fertility rates won’t fall lower than that. In reality, however, fertility rates in many countries have already fallen lower than this imaginary fertility floor. Since modern societies are typically between 1.1 and 1.6 in fertility rates, a floor of 1.35 seems more likely.

The world population growth rate, therefore, has slowed steadily since 1960. Medical technology, reducing infant mortality, has led to agrarian families no longer feeling that they needed numerous children. Increased wealth has caused the birth rate to decline and the marriage age to increase. The global trend toward longer life spans seems to be slowing.
Life expectancy has increased, and when that happens, the population swells. But eventually everyone dies. Population in a nation whose birthrate is below the replacement level may also swell because of immigration, and this has been the case with the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Where starvation in the world is present, it isn’t caused by a lack of food. Studies consistently show the world has and can produce enough food for the present and future population. As Randy Alcorn observes, starvation occurs due to a combination of many factors, including natural disasters, wars, a lack of technology, the misuse of resources, waste, greed, government inefficiency, and failure to distribute food properly. Indeed, the problem we find in many places is not overpopulation as such, but overconcentration.

Never before have fertility rates all over the world been in such widespread free-fall for such a long period of time. Most Western European countries are now experiencing economic problems that their governments attribute to population reduction.

UN population experts have declared that the very existence of some nations has now been endangered by a decline in the numbers of children that families are having.
According to Dr. Joseph Chamie, former Director of the Population Division of the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs,

Very low fertility levels lead not only to population decline, but also to rapid population ageing. These changes in size and structure have significant social, economic, and political consequences for these countries and regions. And these consequences need to be addressed today, not tomorrow. (Statement to the Commission on Population and Development, 32nd session, March 1999)

(Mis)anthropology

Brian Clowes, director of research for Human Life International, points out that population controllers don’t want world population to just level off at zero population growth. They want it to continue to go down until it reaches one or two billion, and then have a global one-child policy.

At the heart of their thinking is not only mathematics, but an erroneous anthropology, a distorted view of the human species. According to this view, there is nothing special about the human species, nothing distinctive that sets us apart from animals. Therefore, decisions about our own welfare must involve considering the welfare of all the "other" animals. Some see us as even inferior to those animals and, in fact, as a cancer on the world. "We must cut out the cancer of population growth," said Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb.

Abortionist Warren Hern expresses this view in the following way:

The human species is a rapacious, predatory organism displaying all the characteristics of a malignant tumor . . . One of the main characteristics of a cancerous growth is that it resists regulation. Growth is not controlled . . . The ideas that provide the philosophical underpinnings of human destructiveness are found most vividly in the Judeo-Christian ethic, which purports to sanctify man’s mastery over nature. This tradition has suppressed and scorned the significant biological fact that man is an animal like many of his other fellow creatures, holding instead that he is God’s gift to creation—the flower of the universe. (February 1990, address to the University of Colorado at Boulder)

Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, had a similar problem with the Christian ethic of charity and therefore opposed helping the poor.
At times, I have received pro-abortion correspondence that expresses a relief and even a joy in the staggering numbers of surgical and chemical abortions that occur around the world, because they reduce the population. One wonders whether such people dare to express the same relief and joy when they hear of tsunamis and earthquakes. After all, those too reduce population.
Indeed, population alarmists will rarely if ever be heard expressing a readiness to put their own lives aside for the good of the planet. Rather, it’s always someone else who has to go. G.K. Chesterton put it well when he wrote, "The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him, whether he is part of the surplus population; or if not, how he knows he is not" (Introduction to A Christmas Carol).

The Moral and Spiritual Myth

As we have seen, the population problem in our day is not overpopulation, but rather declining population, as well as unequal distribution of resources. But even if there were an alarming overpopulation problem, the population controllers put forth a key moral error, which is that we could kill people to solve the problem. Because the end never justifies the means, and because killing the innocent is an intrinsic evil, no circumstances could ever justify killing people—born or unborn—to obtain relief from overpopulation, even if that scenario were as bad as some of the outlandish quotes we have seen would have us believe.


Moreover, the mentality of the population controllers reflects a spiritual myth: that human happiness and fulfillment can be found by pushing the "other" out of the way. This, indeed, is the mentality that fuels abortion and euthanasia, as well as population control. The "other" is seen as a threat that must be eliminated, rather than as an opportunity to give oneself away in love, that the other may grow. Precisely in that self-giving ("This is my body, given for you…") does the Christian see fulfillment, rather than in the myth that I am liberated only when the other is killed ("This is my body; I can do what I want").


Ironically, often the very people whom elite population controllers despise or, alternatively, profess that they want to help, show us the way to fulfillment. In her speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., on February 3, 1994, Bl. Teresa of Calcutta shared the following story containing a key lesson from the poor and the hungry:
I had the most extraordinary experience of love of neighbor with a Hindu family. A gentleman came to our house and said: "Mother Teresa, there is a family who have not eaten for so long. Do something." So I took some rice and went there immediately. And I saw the children—their eyes shining with hunger. . . . And the mother of the family took the rice I gave her and went out. When she came back, I asked her: "Where did you go? What did you do?" And she gave me a very simple answer: "They are hungry also." What struck me was that she knew—and who are they? A Muslim family—and she knew. I didn’t bring any more rice that evening because I wanted them, Hindus and Muslims, to enjoy the joy of sharing.

The Freedom to Reproduce

Has the reduction of population through abortion, contraception, and sterilization made the world better? No, we’ve ended up, as Steven Mosher points out, materially poorer, less advanced economically, less diverse culturally, and plagued with incurable diseases and many that are curable but ignored. Security isn’t better, nor is the environment better protected.
Indeed, the abortion industry is the only sector of the economy that doesn’t create wealth but destroys it, leaving us all poorer. Abortion destroys human capital, the ultimate resource.
Yet population controllers push forward with an agenda that seeks to reduce the world’s population to dramatically low levels. The effort to do this leads to government policies like the "one-child policy" in China, which punishes couples who conceive a second child.

Parents have a fundamental right to control their reproductive system and determine the number and spacing of children. Pro-abortion groups would be surprised to know what the Church really teaches in this regard. They have hijacked the term "reproductive rights," but the Church really believes in such rights, which, of course, need to be exercised in such a way that couples never distort the meaning of human sexuality by impairing their fertility, nor ever kill their offspring, born or unborn.

Therefore the Church opposes any government plan to try to control fertility by placing limits on parents’ God-given right to procreate and educate their children. Population control policies exhibit, in Mosher’s words, a "technocratic paternalism," which subjugates family and individual fertility to the wishes of the state.

Can We Recover?

Many European countries have had policies in place for a long time that seek to raise the birth rate. When I worked at the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family in the late 1990s, documents often came across my desk from the United Nations regarding the crisis of under-population and the various proposals to reverse the falling fertility rates in so many nations. Such proposals include, for instance, monthly financial payments from the government to families with more than a certain number of children.

But Mosher points out that many of these policies ignore the dynamics of the natural family and instead favor gender and marriage-neutral policies (for instance, policies that would give fathers incentive to leave the work force by allowing lengthy time away from their job). Instead, he says, the state should empower couples to reach their desired level of children, and reforming taxes is a key part of the solution. High taxes stress the family, diverting resources away from where they are needed to encourage family growth.

Pope John Paul II summarized in The Gospel of Life both the problems with population programs and some of the more reasonable solutions.

Today an important part of policies which favor life is the issue of population growth. Certainly public authorities have a responsibility to intervene to orient the demography of the population. But such interventions must always take into account and respect the primary and inalienable responsibility of married couples and families, and cannot employ methods which fail to respect the person and fundamental human rights, beginning with the right to life of every innocent human being. It is therefore morally unacceptable to encourage, let alone impose, the use of methods such as contraception, sterilization, and abortion in order to regulate births. The ways of solving the population problem are quite different. Governments and the various international agencies must above all strive to create economic, social, public health, and cultural conditions which will enable married couples to make their choices about procreation in full freedom and with genuine responsibility. They must then make efforts to ensure greater opportunities and a fairer distribution of wealth so that everyone can share equitably in the goods of creation. Solutions must be sought on the global level by establishing a true economy of communion and sharing of goods, in both the national and international order. This is the only way to respect the dignity of persons and families, as well as the authentic cultural patrimony of peoples. (Evangelium Vitae, 91)

Toward an Ethic of Hope

I mentioned the reports about de-population that came across my desk when I worked at the Vatican. They often described proposals by nations to increase their fertility rates. One of those proposals stood out above all the others: Instill hope in the people.

That is at the core of the Culture of Life, because it is at the core of the gospel. And it is the key to undoing all the myths about "overpopulation." Hope is what gives us the strength to say "Yes" to life. Hope looks at the world and looks at the future and says, "Yes, we can welcome more children here," because, as Pope John Paul II wrote, "Life . . . is always a good" (EV 31).

At the turn of the millennium, the world’s population hit 6 billion. Population alarmists lamented that fact. But an international group of leaders issued a statement that reflected instead the joyful hope that should be shared by us all: "We are grateful that Baby Six Billion has come into the world. Baby Six Billion, boy or girl, red or yellow, black or white, is not a liability, but an asset. Not a curse, but a blessing. For all of us" (Population Research Institute statement, October 11, 1999).

Here is a link to the article: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0812fea2.asp

Friday, March 20, 2009

Ecumenical Prayer Service for victims of Helicopter Crash

On Wednesday night, people gathered at the Basilica of St. John the Baptist, the Catholic Cathedral of St. John's, Newfoundland for an ecumenical prayer service for the victims of Cougar Flight 491, a helicopter which crashed into the North Atlantic Ocean off Newfoundland, Canada as it was making its way to the SeaRose FPSO on March 12, 2009. All on board, save one man, were killed. All bodies have been recovered and most of the helicopter has been recovered as well. In total, 17 people were killed. This is very tragic for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the world over.

At the ecumenical prayer service, there were thousands of people, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Premier Danny Williams, Peter McKay, Justin Trudeau, John Crosby, and many more.

Archbishop Martin Curry was the main presider over the event. He said to make one thing clear and that is that God did not want this to happen. This is a Catholic understanding of the world. God wills that we know him and love him. Evil and bad things that happen to us are not things that God makes happen or wants to happen, but he permits them to happen. Obviously, God being omnipotent could make anything happen or prevent anything from happening, but much of the time, he allows us to make our decisions and allows natural consequences. For example, if I had a young son and I brought him to the bookstore and told him he could pick any book. He might pick Green Eggs and Ham. I would then allow him to purchase it, etc. I did not choose it for him or prevent him from having it. God allowing things to happen without preventing them is called his permissive will, as opposed to his ordained will. God willed the universe into existence, for example. This is the point the Most Reverend Archbishop Martin Currie was making. God didn't desire that those men and women perish, but at the same time, God did not interfere to change the laws of nature so that it would not happen.

During this tragedy, we must pray for the victims of the crash and their families and loved ones. Remember them in your prayers.