Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts

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.

Saturday, March 20, 2021

Christian Holidays: How the Secular World Misses the Point

A few days ago, we celebrated St. Patrick's Day. St. Patrick was sold into slavery in Ireland, and later returned to spread the Gospel. It sounds like he had a pretty tough life! Since then, the Irish have celebrated the date of his death March 17, 461 as St. Patrick's Day. In fact, it has become a feast day all over the world with the spread of the Irish Diaspora.

On St. Patrick's Day, people's main concern is drinking beer and other drinks. Along with their drunkenness, people engage in all kinds of other questionable behavior such as sexual promiscuity, violence, and gluttony. Doesn't sound a lot like the life of St. Patrick. How many people are going to Mass to celebrate this feast day? Probably very few.

This isn't unique to St. Patrick's Day. In secular society, people have come along and taken the parts they like and find pleasurable and have ignored the rest. What's even the point of calling it what it really is if what you are doing doesn't even resemble it?

The list is almost endless as to how people have distorted holidays.

Christmas
True Meaning: God sent his only begotten Son to us to save us from eternal damnation. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, came to bring us the grace of salvation.

Advent: Advent is meant to be a time of spiritual preparation for the celebration of Christmas, yet few if anyone in the secular world even recognize it or know what it is beyond the chocolate-filled calendar incorrectly called an Advent Calendar (it usually goes from December 1 to December 24 every year, regardless of when Advent actually is).

Secular Celebration: Overindulging in food and desserts, drinking excessively. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with eating food and desserts and having a drink and enjoying oneself during Christmas. In fact, we should do this. But it makes no sense to celebrate "Christmas" if it has nothing about "Christ's Mass" whatsoever. Also, much of the celebration centers around Santa Claus. Although sometimes referred to as St. Nicholas, little if any recognition if given to the actual saint who was a real person.

Easter
True Meaning: Christ gave himself to be sacrificed on the cross for our salvation. From his death and resurrection come all graces to the Church.

Lent: A time of penance and self-denial in which Catholics prepare themselves spiritually with prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.

Secular Celebration: Completely ignore Lent. Some ask "What is Lent?" Others give up random and very insignificant things: "I won't eat special edition mint KitKats on Thursdays between 4:30pm and 5:00pm"

For Easter, secular people ignore Christ rising from the dead on the third day after being crucified and dying. Instead they give chocolates and candies and have the Easter bunny all over the place.

Valentine's Day
True Meaning:
Catholic saint and martyr who ministered to Christians being persecuted and killed by the government.

Secular World: The secular world celebrates with wining and dining and romance in general. Nothing wrong with this in principle, but often it's done with unmarried people and/or people just hooking up for a day or two. Does not contribute to society overall. No recognition of St. Valentine whatsoever.

New Years
True Meaning: Many people do not know this but January 1 is the Solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God. In fact, January 1 was seen as the beginning of the year for several centuries from just before the 1st millennium until the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century. After this, Christian countries celebrated New Years Day on March 25. That is until the Gregorian calendar of Pope Gregory XIII came into effect in 1582. That's when he decided to change the day to January 1. January 1st is a holy day of obligation for Catholics, even in Canada where there are only two such days - the other being Christmas Day.

Secular World: Drunkenness (I'm sensing a theme) and partying. No recognition whatsoever of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.

Halloween
True Meaning: All Hallows Eve. The day before the celebration of All Saints Day. This is a day dedicated to all those in heaven. It is a day of prayer and reflection and asking for intercession for those who have gone on before us.

Secular Meaning: Nothing to do with contemplating death and our eternal salvation or asking for intercession. No, just another excuse for adults to party. In recent years, this event went from being for children to being mainly for adults. As usual, it involves copious drinking and partying. Oh, and of course neither All Saints Day nor All Souls Day is in any way recognized by the secular world.

Conclusion
The list could go on and on. The secular world is desperate to strip away and distort the pleasure from these legitimate Christian celebrations for their own personal satisfaction. I think they should just use their own terms when describing these events and let Christians use the true names. Their versions have essentially lost all meaning anyway, so why continue calling it by the authentic name?

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 21, 2021

Blessed are the Poor, but who are they?

I'm definitely no expert in this area, but we often hear about the poor and how we ought to help them. I just wanted to offer a few thoughts on this.

First I want to say I don't think people should be classified as a category. It seems very permanent. Sometimes we lump poor people into a group and thinking of them as a collective. Or we see an individual as a poor person. I don't usually agree with political correctness as I think it has gone much too far, but a good point is not to categorize people in a one-dimensional way. Instead of saying "he's a poor person", it's better to say he is someone who is poor. Why do I say that? Because he could be poor at the moment, maybe he's hard on his luck, maybe he lost his job or has a substance abuse problem, who knows? But his poverty should not define who he is as a person. Beyond the financial poverty, he is a human being with an intellect, emotions, and aspirations, etc.

Also, just calling someone a poor person can tend to categorize them along with all the other poor people in the world. Rather than a specific circumstance this person finds himself, it becomes his collective identity and we start to think everyone who is poor is identical in almost every way.

Another trend I have noticed in the church is to refer to places like the Global South as being poor. This is a terrible way of thinking as it implies that everyone in the south of the globe has no choice but to be poor, and thus we must be their guardians and financial supporters or else there is nothing they can do.

I tend to take the approach that we all came here after thousands of generations. To get here, our ancestors had to carve out an existence. Often this happened in extremely difficult and grueling circumstances. We have endured famines, disasters, disease outbreaks, etc. and yet here we are to tell our story. Everyone has come from such a lineage. Therefore, we cannot think of entire groups of people as being completely incompetent and unable to make their own life. I think almost anyone can make something of themselves with the right kind of help, love, and support.

But an even bigger question is "who is poor?" It might seem easy to classify anyone with little money as being poor. But one thing I have come across many times in spiritual writings is the pre-eminence of spiritual matters over temporal ones. As people living in a secular world, we tend to focus on the material, the immediate, the visible, and less on the immaterial and invisible.

The poorest person is the one who has the least connection with God, ultimately. Our goal as human beings is to enter into communion with God. Many saints had no money at all, many had little food and would fast for extended periods of time, yet because of their closeness and love of God, they were the richest people on Earth. If we think primarily in terms of spiritual matters, then things become a lot more clear.

So I think we need to change our attitude about poverty, in my opinion. Spiritual poverty is the greatest kind. When it comes to financial poverty, we cannot save the world on our own. I don't think God has designed us that way. Instead, he asks us to care for those around us and to do what we can to bring about the Kingdom of God. I think all too often people get caught up in the concept of saving the world and they start to believe they can actually do so. People donate money to distant charities while neglecting those around them. But this isn't how we are built.

I'm not saying we shouldn't donate to far off causes, but I think we need to humanize people and focus on those around us. Plus, we must realize that spiritual poverty is much worse than material poverty. With that point of view, we help the "poor" a lot more by growing in our relationship with God through Jesus Christ and spreading the joy that comes with it, than by only throwing money at things.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Do Catholics have to give 10% to charity?

Right now in Canada, we are at the deadline for submitting our income tax forms, which is April 30th. In the US it is April 15th. You mostly need to worry about that if you owe money to the government. But the question often arises about how much Catholics should give to charity. A person close to me said we needn't give much because we pay so much taxes, which in turn pays for social services, such as hospitals, schools, welfare and other services. I understand this point. But I think we still ought to give money to charity. The question remains, how much?

In the Bible, we remember when someone asked Jesus if they should pay taxes. He said give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's. I think this is the philosophy we need to take in our modern day. Taxes do pay for many services, but we as a community take advantage of these. I do not necessarily pay for things directly related to myself. I might pay for my children, spouse, parents, friends, etc. I would not say, well I buy food for my children, so I shouldn't give to charity. Taxes pay for the common good. But we must remember that we are commanded to help build the Church.

Giving taxes is the right thing to do, but that does not support the mission of the Church, which is of vital importance, perhaps now more than ever. And we can be sure that money we give to the Catholic Church will go to a good cause, whereas money given to the government could easily go to sinister activities which contravene our faith. For example, taxes go to support abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, sex-change operations, adoption of children to gay couples, contraception, Planned Parenthood, etc. We cannot control this, and we are not morally culpable for supporting these activities by paying taxes. However, if all we give is taxes, how do we expect the Church to combat these evils?

The primary role of the Church is a spiritual one. It is there for the salvation of souls. By its very nature, it is intrinsically involved with the day-to-day affairs of the world. The Catholic Churches is a strong voice for good in the world, and our charitable contributions to the Church help it in this. By giving money to the Church, we support its mission which is to evangelize people and bring them into union with Christ. When this happens, the ills of the world decrease, because light overcomes darkness. By giving money, you support mission work, crisis pregnancy centers, church building funds, pilgrimages, Catholic education and health care, Catholic literature, books, pamphlets, and tracts, etc. You also support the Church's mission throughout the world, in poor countries. The Catholic Church, believe it or not, is the largest charitable organization in the world.

Many say giving 10% is impossible because they do not earn enough money. You are not obliged to give 10%. There is no absolute rule that you must give that much. You cannot neglect your most important duties to your vocation, such as caring for your family. But let's look at a hypothetical situation. Just say a man is making $50,000 per year. He says he can only give about $1000 per year, or 2% of his income. He says $5,000 per year would be simply impossible. But it is quite conceivable that he could receive a raise and start earning $55,000 per year. If he continued his previous lifestyle, he would be able to give the surplus $5,000 to the Church no problem. However, this seldom happens. It is more likely that when people start earning more, they start spending more. This really contradicts the whole idea of charity. Charity is not giving so little that we hardly notice it. Charity is about giving as much as we possibly can. We must realize how fortunate we are, and try to support others.

Many people receive many spiritual benefits from giving money, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it lessens their dependence and desire for material wealth and brings them to a closer union with God. They realize only he can fulfill their lives and that money never will. Also, helping others is part of being the hands and feet of Christ on Earth. Jesus commands us to pray, fast, and give alms. As we continue in the Easter Season, let us be as generous as we can.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Catholic thoughts on Nadya Suleman (aka Octomom)

Nadya Suleman is the lady who received fertility treatment and gave birth to 8 children. She was not married at the time, didn't have much money and already had 6 children. She now has 14 children. She has been called Octomom (perhaps it is sometimes spelled Octamom). This name makes her sound like some alien species, mutant, or X-Men character. She has become the object of ridicule of many people who say she did the wrong thing. But how would her actions square with Catholic teaching? We know that the world and especially the media are rarely aligned with the Church in their thinking. So what would the church say concerning the Nadya Suleman case? I believe her story has good and bad elements.

First of all the bad. The Catholic Church is firmly against in vitro fertilization, or the creation of embryos outside the womb of the mother. That's because it contradicts the natural design established by God for how babies ought to be conceived and born. Babies are designed by God to come into existence within the marital embrace in the marital act. He did not design babies to be products of a science laboratory with a scientist fusing together sperm and egg. Therefore the use of embryos in this fashion is gravely wrong. Also, this procedure often destroys embryos. More are created than are needed and because of this, the embryos are often left frozen indefinitely or they are disposed of (usually without a funeral or without the destroyer being charged with murder). So we know that Nadya used fertility treatment that may have destroyed embryos. Society at large has no problem using in vitro fertilization. They view it as a means to an end and in a Machiavelian world like our own, any means is acceptable as long as the end seems desirable. Now, what about the rest of her situation?

Once the embryos were implanted in her uterine, eight clung to the uterine lining and survived. Nadya decided to keep them all. In other words, she did not selectively reduce or murder any of the eight. Strangely, this is where a lot of the world seemed upset. They called Nadya irresponsible, not for having fertility treatment or even for having eight or more embryos conceived, but rather they were upset that she wanted to keep them all. Society said it was irresponsible not to murder some of her children. The Church would disagree strongly, of course. She, the Church, would urge Nadya to keep caring and loving the eight babies in her womb, regardless of how they were conceived. The Church views every child equally and as a gift from God, even those born by in vitro fertilization.

Therefore, the Church and society have disagreed on two points. One point the Church may agree with society is whether she should have had more children in the first place. Since she already had 6 children, it was probably not a great idea for a jobless, husbandless woman of little means to seek out more children than the 6 she already had to support. The Church first of all says people ought to be married before they involve themselves in the act of procreation. But even when they're married, they should practice planning when it comes to children. People should not have more children than they can properly afford. This does not mean every child must have a car when they're 16, and go to the top university and have the best life imaginable. It just means that every child must receive basic care and attention. If someone is unable to supply this, they should probably wait a little while to attempt having another child.
It's a really great thing that Nadya decided to keep all eight of her children. Imagine having to tell, for example, the 6 she decided to keep that they were the lucky ones to have survived and that two of their brothers and sisters didn't make it because they were selectively reduced. That would be very sad and would leave the others asking where their other siblings are and why they themselves are alive but their brothers or sisters are not.

Let us pray that the world heads the words of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, "Of Human Life", where he says in the opening statement:

"The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships."

Saturday, April 25, 2009

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.

Monday, April 13, 2009

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.

Monday, April 06, 2009

Obama's Accidental Good Effects

I've spoken several times on this blog about Obama's strong propensity toward the culture of death and how he and his administration have been implementing laws which attack the sanctity of life more and more each day. But, there are possibly some good things which may come out of this, none of which are specifically intended by Obama or his administration.

Recently Obama was invited to speak at Notre Dame University, one of the most prestigious universities in the United States, which also is Catholic. Many were outraged by this decision to allow such a proponent of the culture of death to speak there. People say the invitation should be revoked. However, let's look at the good it is causing. First of all, many Catholics are having their voices heard. So often, Obama is portrayed as being this "new vision" and hope for the country. He is cast in a certain media glow which aims to show him as someone who came to selflessly save the country. His speaking at Notre Dame and the ensuing backlash, though, cannot be ignored. People will see why many do not like the policies he has been espousing. They hear from the other side. This is a great chance for the voices of the pro-life side to be heard.

Many bishops and prominent people are protesting Obama's speaking at the university named after Our Lady. Any time Obama's speech is talked about in the media, they are required to talk also about the protests. This will at least make people pause for a few seconds and wonder if Obama is doing as much good as the media would lead us to believe.

Obama may also be contributing to the sense of worth of black people and other minorities. As we know, the black community is often afflicted very seriously by the scourge of abortion. Unfortunately that was the goal of many of the original birth control advocates, like Margaret Sanger. She wanted to reduce the number of black people in the country and she felt birth control and sterilization were good methods for that. Many black people feel they are put down and oppressed by others. They feel they cannot do well in their lives. Many live in despair and often get involved in risky relationships and become pregnant out of wedlock. They feel they have no choice but to have an abortion. There is a prevailing racism which is contributed to by all people in the country, including all races. With Obama's win, he shows people of his ethnicity that anyone can make it and be very successful. People often say "you can be President someday" as the highest of goals. Now that people know this is open to everyone, they will feel less oppressed. With less oppression they feel more responsible and would be less likely to have an abortion, which is often done because of a hopeless feeling.

Obama is doing other good things as well, including trying to help the environment, attempted to reduce war and conflict, etc. This article is meant to show that God allows things to happen, and that in the darkest times, the light shines all the brighter. God sometimes allows evil to happen so that even more good can come from it. We can never overlook the mass genocide of abortion, nor can we ignore euthanasia, suicide, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual "marriage" and other parts of the culture of death, but it is important to sometimes be thankful for good things in society and our lives.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Earth Hour: a good idea for Catholics?

Earth Hour is designated by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), formerly World Wildlife Fund to reduce consumption of energy. It lets us experience what it is like to reduce our use of energy and see how it affects our lives. It makes us more thankful for the energy we have and the ability to use it. But how does it square with Catholic thinking?

Looking at all the evidence points to the fact that Earth Hour is something Catholics can be proud to participate in, as long as they keep certain things in mind. The Vatican has been at the forefront of promoting conservation and policies which are beneficial to the Earth. It even sponsored an international conference on climate change to address the issues. Pope Benedict XVI has been very active in promoting proper stewardship of the Earth in a way that is sustainable to future generations.

Pope Benedict is especially concerned with how the environment has a major impact on poor countries and people and says that we share in our solidarity with others by helping the environment. The Pontiff said "In dialogue with Christians of various churches, we need to commit ourselves to caring for the created world, without squandering its resources, and sharing them in a cooperative way."

Many monasteries and churches were built on beautiful grounds with lots of nature around. There is a sense of peace that comes from nature. I remember hearing about a monastery that was built on a desolate swamp. Nobody would dare live there because it was so inhospitable. But this did not deter the monks who went there. They spent years working the land and promoting healthy and environmental ways to improve the situation. They were very successful and soon every type of wildlife and plant life was growing and it became a beautiful paradise on Earth.

We should have the same mentality when we approach the environment. We should appreciate God's work in nature and spend time there to be with God. But we should not go too far.We as Catholics understand that the Earth is here for us and that we are the pinnacle of God's creation.

We ought to enjoy and share the nature that God has provided us. We should not feel unworthy to be on this Earth or feel as though we are simply a nuissance or a pest on the Earth. While we treasure the planet, we must remember to keep things in perspective. Every child is a gift, therefore the Earth can never be overpopulated. We thank God for all his gifts, but especially our own lives and the lives of those around us. In the light of this most recent Earth Day, let us thank God for all the gifts he gives us.

Friday, March 27, 2009

The Seal Hunt and Catholic Thinking


Protests over animal rights have grown louder and louder in recent years. Many believe killing animals for any reason is immoral. Others believe using animals for fur goes too far. Some seem to be against only killing certain types of animals. Do any of these positions make sense, and should Catholics have any concern for animals, and to what degree?

Recently one of the main protests for animals has been over the seal hunt. The seal hunt takes place annually in Newfoundland and other parts of Canada. In Newfoundland there are around 500,000 people, but there are approximately 5.5 million seals. That means there are about 11 seals for every man, woman, and child in the province. Trying to imagine a herd of 5.5 million animals is very difficult. These seals are slaughtered, sometimes with gaffs, long sticks with a hook on them. According to DFO, this method kills the animals quickly and efficiently.

Why do people protest the seal hunt more than other animal killings? I believe there are several key reasons.

1) 99% of the world have nothing to do with seals. They are a foreign animal that have little relevance to people. Therefore, seeking to end the seal hunt will have no effect on most peoples' lives. Compare this to protests against eating chicken. Most people eat chicken, so people would then be forced to weigh their animal rights activism with their desired diet.

2) Seals can look very cute. "Baby" seals, who are basically balls of fluff which float around joyfully in the ocean create a very cute image. People personify these little pups and almost make them out to be human. People do not protest snakes being killed or manatees, but people find an affinity with seal pups. They are cute little muppet-like creatures. This of course is illogical. A seal is no more human than a rat, so to judge whether something ought to be killed or be protected based on looks is poor judgment.

3) The terms used evoke emotion. People have been saying "baby" seals so long, it has become common parlance. But think about it. How can we call any animal a "baby". A baby by definition is a human child. I believe it is wrong to call any animal a baby. This has been an effective way for animals rights activists to gain support for their cause. By personifying animals, they evoke clear emotions. You might not mind people culling sea-mammals, but you might well have a big problem with vicious blood-thirsty sealers "murdering defenseless baby seals".

We of course have a responsibility toward animals. God put us on this Earth to be guardians of it and its inhabitants. But we are also in charge of nature and it is here for our benefit. This is hard for many people to hear. I saw an episode of Kill of the Hill, and there was an environmentalist lady there who was praising environmental efforts, and she said it's almost as good as if humans had never existed. Although many people will not say this out loud, behind the scenes, this is what they are thinking. We cannot confuse our human love and compassion with the respect owed to animals. If we do, we do not value animals more, but rather we value humans less. From my own experience, some of the strongest animals rights activists are also very much for abortion. Ironic, isn't it.

Let's look at Catholic teaching on animals:

The Seventh Commandment, according to Catholic Tradition, is "Thou shall not steal". The Catechism puts our obligations towards animals in this category. It states the following:

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Therefore, we ought to respect animals, but we should never value them more than humanity.

St. Thomas Aquinas felt the main problem with abusing animals was that it could carry over to our interactions with other people. Here he is rightly ordering our concerns for our fellow man vs. that of animals.

As long as the seal hunt is done in a way that minimizes animal suffering within reason, and is done sustainably, it should be continued for it provides clothing, food, and medicine to humanity.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

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.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Hippocratic Oath Not Alone in Condeming Abortion

The Hippocratic Oath, written in the 4th century BC by the Father of Medicine Hippocrates, is an oath that all Western doctors took until very recently. It tells how doctors should care for their patients. It says a physician should not abuse his patient, physically or sexually, he should not take too much money, he should keep his patients' information private, etc. For years this was practiced by doctors. One of the imperatives of the Oath was to not commit abortion.

But the Hippocratic Oath is one of several world-wide medical oaths taken by doctors and physicians. What was their stance on abortion?

The Seventeen Rules of Enjuin, a Japanese Oath from the 16th century states: "you should not give abortives to the people."

The Oath of Asaph, the oldest known Hebrew medical oath, dating to the 6th century, states: "Do not make a woman [who is] pregnant [as a result of] of whoring take a drink with a view to causing abortion"

After the world realized the atrocities of Nazism, the Declaration of Geneva was drafted in 1948. Part of this document stated: "I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

The International Code of Medical Ethics was put together the following year in 1949, and read: "A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception."

As you can see, Hippocrates was not unique in his statements against abortion.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Don't get your religion from scientists

Some letters from Einstein were sold recently at an auction. In these letters, Einstein criticizes Jewish and Christian religion, peppering his letter with comments about superstition, etc. This was publicized in the news.

We shouldn't listen to scientists when it comes to religion. It doesn't make sense. Scientists think in terms of science. They use physical evidence to prove something. Each scientist has a particular field, some are chemists, some are biologists, some computer scientists. They have a particular area in which they feel comfortable.

A computer scientist could not be a biologist because their way of thinking is too different. A computer scientist thinks in terms of wires and electrons and commands, whereas a biologist thinks about animals, cells, organs, behavior, and things of that sort. A biologist might be able to understand medicine better than electricity.

In the same way, scientists in general behave a certain way and shouldn't be trusted to understand religion or theology or God very deeply. It is simply a different skill set. You can't pull out your calculator and calculate how large God is. But for certain scientists, especially ones like Albert Einstein, who really excelled in certain areas, they are good at certain things and not as good at others.

Einstein was good with a calculator, but he may not have been too good at sports. Therefore, he would end up on the basketball court trying to calculate trajectory, while the other players were scoring baskets. The same goes for religion. Einstein was not predisposed to understand religion and God. However, it is important to note that Einstein was certainly a theist, which is important to remember.

I think the confusion of this comes from the fact that some people think that religion is something anyone is entitled to just invent as they see fit. This is simply not true. Originally theology was considered the highest form of education, and things like literature, science, and law were considered inferior. The most advanced degrees, which took the longest to acquire, were religious ones. Philosophers of a bygone era were much more revered than any other field. That's because there is a right and there is a wrong. The job of theologians is to find out the truth, and there's nothing more important!

Monday, March 12, 2007

Pope opposed Bob Dylan singing to John Paul in 1997

This article is from Reuters

By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict was opposed to Bob Dylan appearing at a youth event with the late Pope John Paul in 1997 because he considered the pop star the wrong kind of "prophet," Benedict writes in a new book issued on Thursday.

Benedict, who was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the time of the concert in Bologna, Italy, makes the disclosure in a new book of memoirs about his predecessor, who died in 2005.

"There was reason to be skeptical, -- I was, and in a certain sense I still am, -- to doubt if it was really right to let these types of prophets intervene," Benedict writes, only mentioning Dylan among the stars who appeared.

At the 1997 concert, Dylan, the anti-conformist troubadour of the 1960s and one of the 20th century's greatest influences on popular music, sang three songs before the Pope as part of a concert that included a number of other, mostly Italian artists.

Dylan sang "Knockin' on Heaven's Door," his 1960s anti-war classic "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall," and "Forever Young," a song of hope and courage.

In his new book, Pope Benedict does not explain why he does not like Bob Dylan or why he considers him a false "prophet."

Benedict is a lover of classical and sacred music, and an accomplished classical pianist. Last year, he canceled the Vatican's traditional fund-raising Christmas concert, which was a magnet for pop stars.

Dylan, born Robert Zimmerman into a middle-class Jewish family in Minnesota, has been at times agnostic, Jewish and a born-again Christian during his musical career.

At the 1997 concert, John Paul referred to what is perhaps Dylan's most famous song, "Blowing in the Wind," which became an anthem for young people seeking meaning in life in the 1960s.

John Paul told the crowd of some 300,000 young Italian Catholics that the answer was indeed "in the wind" -- but not in the wind that blew things away, rather "in the wind of the spirit" that would lead them to Christ.

After Dylan sang, he took off his beige cowboy hat and went up to a podium to greet John Paul.

Benedict's new book, called "John Paul II, My Beloved Predecessor," is mostly a reflection on John Paul's personality and his religious writings.