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.
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Monday, April 06, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, February 19, 2007
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition
I found the following article very interesting. It was taken from www.catholic.net.
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition
by Ellen Rice
"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, will re-air on the History Channel this December 3 at 10 p.m. It is a definite must-see for anyone who wishes to know how historians now evaluate the Spanish Inquisition since the opening of an investigation into the Inquisition's archives. The special includes commentary from historians whose studies verify that the tale of the darkest hour of the Church was greatly fabricated.
In its brief sixty-minute presentation, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" provides only an overview of the origins and debunking of the myths of torture and genocide. The documentary definitely succeeds in leaving the viewer hungry to know more. The long-held beliefs of the audience are sufficiently weakened by the testimony of experts and the expose of the making of the myth.
The Inquisition began in 1480. Spain was beginning a historic reunification of Aragon and Castile. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile created a unified Hispania not seen since Roman times. Afraid that laws commanding the exile or conversion of Jews were thwarted by conversos, i.e. synagogue-going "Catholics," Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned an investigation or Inquisition. They began the Inquisition hoping that religious unity would foster political unity, and other heads of state heralded Spain's labors for the advent of a unified Christendom. The documentary clearly and boldly narrates the historical context, which intimates that the Spanish were not acting odd by their contemporary standards.
The Inquisition Myth, which Spaniards call "The Black Legend," did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later, and exactly one year after the Protestant defeat at the Battle of Mühlberg at the hands of Ferdinand's grandson, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1567 a fierce propaganda campaign began with the publication of a Protestant leaflet penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. This character (Protestant of course) painted Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden (which never was used in Spain). The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield.
The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.
What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed - in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.
The approach is purely historical, and therefore does not delve into ecclesial issues surrounding religious freedom. But perhaps this is proper. Because the crime was heresy, the Church is implicated, but the facts show it was a secular event.
One facet of the Black Legend that evaporates under scrutiny in this film is the rumor that Philip II, son of Charles V, killed his son Don Carlos on the advisement of the aging blind Grand Inquisitor. But without a shred of evidence, the legend of Don Carlos has been enshrined in a glorious opera by Verdi.
The special may be disturbing to young children. There are scenes of poor souls burning at the stake, and close-ups of the alleged torture devices. Scenes depicting witches consorting with pot-bellied devils are especially grotesque. For kids, this is the stuff of nightmares.
Discrediting the Black Legend brings up the sticky subject of revisionism. Re-investigating history is only invalid if it puts an agenda ahead of reality. The experts - once true believers in the Inquisition myth - were not out to do a feminist canonization of Isabella or claim that Tomas de Torquemada was a Marxist. Henry Kamen of the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Barcelona said on camera that researching the Inquisition's archives "demolished the previous image all of us (historians) had."
And the future of the Black Legend? For many it may continue to hold more weight than reality. There is the emotional appeal against the Church. The dissenters of today may easily imagine Torquemada's beady eyes as a metaphor of the Church's "dictatorial, controlling, damning" pronouncements. The myth is also the easiest endorsement of the secular state: "de-faith" the state and de-criminalize heresy. Who will be the revisionists in this case? Will the many follow Montanas' lead in rewriting history?
Our 20th century crisis of man playing God - usurping power over conception, life, and death - leaves us with no alternative but to qualify our demythologization of the Inquisition with a reminder: 3,000 to 5,000 victims are 3,000 to 5,000 too many.
Ellen Rice is assistant to the editor of Catholic Dossier.
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition
by Ellen Rice
"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, will re-air on the History Channel this December 3 at 10 p.m. It is a definite must-see for anyone who wishes to know how historians now evaluate the Spanish Inquisition since the opening of an investigation into the Inquisition's archives. The special includes commentary from historians whose studies verify that the tale of the darkest hour of the Church was greatly fabricated.
In its brief sixty-minute presentation, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" provides only an overview of the origins and debunking of the myths of torture and genocide. The documentary definitely succeeds in leaving the viewer hungry to know more. The long-held beliefs of the audience are sufficiently weakened by the testimony of experts and the expose of the making of the myth.
The Inquisition began in 1480. Spain was beginning a historic reunification of Aragon and Castile. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile created a unified Hispania not seen since Roman times. Afraid that laws commanding the exile or conversion of Jews were thwarted by conversos, i.e. synagogue-going "Catholics," Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned an investigation or Inquisition. They began the Inquisition hoping that religious unity would foster political unity, and other heads of state heralded Spain's labors for the advent of a unified Christendom. The documentary clearly and boldly narrates the historical context, which intimates that the Spanish were not acting odd by their contemporary standards.
The Inquisition Myth, which Spaniards call "The Black Legend," did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later, and exactly one year after the Protestant defeat at the Battle of Mühlberg at the hands of Ferdinand's grandson, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1567 a fierce propaganda campaign began with the publication of a Protestant leaflet penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. This character (Protestant of course) painted Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden (which never was used in Spain). The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield.
The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.
What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed - in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.
The approach is purely historical, and therefore does not delve into ecclesial issues surrounding religious freedom. But perhaps this is proper. Because the crime was heresy, the Church is implicated, but the facts show it was a secular event.
One facet of the Black Legend that evaporates under scrutiny in this film is the rumor that Philip II, son of Charles V, killed his son Don Carlos on the advisement of the aging blind Grand Inquisitor. But without a shred of evidence, the legend of Don Carlos has been enshrined in a glorious opera by Verdi.
The special may be disturbing to young children. There are scenes of poor souls burning at the stake, and close-ups of the alleged torture devices. Scenes depicting witches consorting with pot-bellied devils are especially grotesque. For kids, this is the stuff of nightmares.
Discrediting the Black Legend brings up the sticky subject of revisionism. Re-investigating history is only invalid if it puts an agenda ahead of reality. The experts - once true believers in the Inquisition myth - were not out to do a feminist canonization of Isabella or claim that Tomas de Torquemada was a Marxist. Henry Kamen of the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Barcelona said on camera that researching the Inquisition's archives "demolished the previous image all of us (historians) had."
And the future of the Black Legend? For many it may continue to hold more weight than reality. There is the emotional appeal against the Church. The dissenters of today may easily imagine Torquemada's beady eyes as a metaphor of the Church's "dictatorial, controlling, damning" pronouncements. The myth is also the easiest endorsement of the secular state: "de-faith" the state and de-criminalize heresy. Who will be the revisionists in this case? Will the many follow Montanas' lead in rewriting history?
Our 20th century crisis of man playing God - usurping power over conception, life, and death - leaves us with no alternative but to qualify our demythologization of the Inquisition with a reminder: 3,000 to 5,000 victims are 3,000 to 5,000 too many.
Ellen Rice is assistant to the editor of Catholic Dossier.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Anti-religion Lenin's last words
Vladimir Lenin, a political leader who taught a form of communism and was the first head of the Soviet Union, came to power in an effort to force everyone into the same social class. Many believe communism can be beneficial to society, but in practice it never works, and there are many reasons why it cannot work. In fact, the Catholic Church is officially against communism. One of Lenin's goals was to eliminate religion from his country. This destroys the concept of freedom and goes against principles of humanity. Ultimately, Leninism failed, and millions of people lost their lives fighting wars to implement it. Lenin was very sad on his deathbed because of all the suffering and loss he brought to his country. He said he felt as though he was lying in a giant pool of blood, the blood of his fellow countrymen.
In his last words, Lenin, who was against religion in general, set his sights to one of Christianity's greatest heroes - St. Francis of Assisi. Lenin knew that his ideology had lost, and that Russia had lost, and contemplated what would be required to restore Russia, when he said these words:
"I have deluded myself. Without doubt, it was necessary to free the oppressed masses. However, our methods resulted in other oppressions and gruesome massacres. You know I am deathly ill; I feel lost in an ocean of blood formed by countless victims. This was necessary to save our Russia, but it is too late to turn back. We would need ten Francis of Assisi."
This shows the amazing character of St. Francis, which is attested to by Lenin.
In his last words, Lenin, who was against religion in general, set his sights to one of Christianity's greatest heroes - St. Francis of Assisi. Lenin knew that his ideology had lost, and that Russia had lost, and contemplated what would be required to restore Russia, when he said these words:
"I have deluded myself. Without doubt, it was necessary to free the oppressed masses. However, our methods resulted in other oppressions and gruesome massacres. You know I am deathly ill; I feel lost in an ocean of blood formed by countless victims. This was necessary to save our Russia, but it is too late to turn back. We would need ten Francis of Assisi."
This shows the amazing character of St. Francis, which is attested to by Lenin.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Hitler and Stalin were possessed by the Devil, says Vatican exorcist
In a fascinating article by the British Daily Mail, the top Vatican Exorcist Gabriele Amorth, who wrote the book titled "An Exorcist Tells his Story", which I profiled in another blog posting and which I am currently in the process of reading. The following is from the Daily Mail website:
Adolf Hitler and Russian leader Stalin were possessed by the Devil, the Vatican's chief exorcist has claimed.
Father Gabriele Amorth who is Pope Benedict XVI's 'caster out of demons' made his comments during an interview with Vatican Radio.
Father Amorth said: "Of course the Devil exists and he can not only possess a single person but also groups and entire populations.
"I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed. All you have to do is think about what Hitler - and Stalin did. Almost certainly they were possessed by the Devil.
"You can tell by their behaviour and their actions, from the horrors they committed and the atrocities that were committed on their orders. That's why we need to defend society from demons."
According to secret Vatican documents recently released wartime pontiff Pope Pius XII attempted a "long distance" exorcism of Hitler which failed to have any effect.
Father Amorth said: "It's very rare that praying and attempting to carry out an exorcism from distance works.
"Of course you can pray for someone from a distance but in this case it would not have any effect.
"One of the key requirements for an exorcism is to be present in front of the possessed person and that person also has to be consenting and willing.
"Therefore trying to carry out an exorcism on someone who is not present, or consenting and willing would prove very difficult.
"However I have no doubt that Hitler was possessed and so it does not surprise me that Pope Pius XII tried a long distance exorcism."
In the past Father Amorth has also spoken out against the Harry Potter books, claiming that reading the novels of the teen wizard open children's minds to dabbling with the occult and black magic.
Father Amorth, who is president of the International Association of Exorcists, said of the JK Rowling books:"Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of the darkness, the devil."
He said that Rowling's books contain innumerable positive references to magic, "the satanic art" and added the books attempt to make a false distinction between black and white magic, when in fact, the distinction "does not exist, because magic is always a turn to the devil."
Father Amorth is said to have carried out more than 30,000 exorcisms in his career and his favourite film is, according to Italian newspapers The Exorcist.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Maximilian Kolbe's Ultimate Sacrafice in a Nazi Death Camp
Maximilian Kolbe was a Roman Catholic priest who was an active voice against the violence perpetrated by the Nazis in Germany during the Second World War. He operated a ham radio, in which he condemned the Nazis. He also provided shelter for 200 Jews during the Holocaust, in order that they may live.
Eventually, Kolbe was arrested by the German Gestapo and put into the notorious Auschwitz Concentration Camp in John Paul II's homeland, Poland. In July 1941, a man escaped the camp. In order to discourage further escape attempts, a Nazi official sent 10 men from the block where the man escaped to be executed. One man, Franciszek Gajowniczek, cried out in horror and pleaded not to be killed. He begged because he had a family.
With great compassion and no fear of death, Maximilian Kolbe volunteered himself to be killed instead. This was a completely selfless act. After two weeks of being starved, only 4 of the original 10 men survived, including Kolbe. The Nazis took the remaining 4 and killed them with a lethal injection, saying they needed the room they were occupying. Kolbe was martyred.
On October 10, 1982, in front of a crowd of thousands, John Paul II canonized Maximilian Kolbe a saint. Among the crowd, over 40 years later, was the man who was saved by Kolbe's act of charity - Franciszek Gajowniczek.
Eventually, Kolbe was arrested by the German Gestapo and put into the notorious Auschwitz Concentration Camp in John Paul II's homeland, Poland. In July 1941, a man escaped the camp. In order to discourage further escape attempts, a Nazi official sent 10 men from the block where the man escaped to be executed. One man, Franciszek Gajowniczek, cried out in horror and pleaded not to be killed. He begged because he had a family.
With great compassion and no fear of death, Maximilian Kolbe volunteered himself to be killed instead. This was a completely selfless act. After two weeks of being starved, only 4 of the original 10 men survived, including Kolbe. The Nazis took the remaining 4 and killed them with a lethal injection, saying they needed the room they were occupying. Kolbe was martyred.
On October 10, 1982, in front of a crowd of thousands, John Paul II canonized Maximilian Kolbe a saint. Among the crowd, over 40 years later, was the man who was saved by Kolbe's act of charity - Franciszek Gajowniczek.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Warlord Attila the Hun's meeting with Pope Leo the Great
Pope Leo I (b. 430) lived from the years 440 to 461. An unrelenting foe to heresies, he was the first pope to have "the Great" attached to his name, and only the second of all time (the other is Pope Gregory I). Leo, whose name means Lion in Latin, did much for the Universal Church, and as such is considered one of 33 Doctors of the Church. This is a title which started in 1298, and Leo was promoted to this title in 1754.
Pope Leo, who was 30 years old when St. Augustine died in 430, did much for the Catholic Church. In fact, Pope Leo met Augustine while Leo was an acolyte, or someone training to be a priest. Pope Leo confronted and destroyed many heresies at the time, many of which were related to Christ's human and divine nature. At a council, he proclaimed his view that Christ was both man and God, and all those attending gave their accordance, saying that Leo was following Peter, the first Pope.
One of the most spectacular events to happen during Leo's papacy was his encounter with the ruthless Attila the Hun, known as the Scourge of God, whose goal was world domination. He warred against many nations around the world and conquered them wherever he went. His armies killed men, women, and children. In fact, Attila was famous for literally ripping apart his opponents.
Then he arrived in Italy. Italy was a very important country, because it was the seat of the Roman Empire. In fact, the Huns were the only real threat facing the Roman Empire, and was a gateway to the entire European continent. Taking Italy would be a disaster for the entire Western World. An interesting fact is that the history of Venice is intertwined with that of Attila the Hun. To escape the brutality of Attila, many Italians fled to the islands of Venice for protection. Eventually they built a great city there. Attila planned to destroy Italy, and conquered it, as he had done with many other places.
When he arrived in Rome, he met with the Pope. While there, Attila saw Sts. Peter and Paul appearing with swords standing near the Pope. Those around Attila were surprised that he decided not to attack Rome, so he explained to them what he had witnessed. Because of the Pope's eloquence in fending off Attila, he is known as the Shield of God.
Pope Leo I deserved his prototypical title of Great, as well as his namesake of Lion, for he defended the doctrines of the Church against heresy and attack, like a lion protects its young. With the help of God, Pope Leo the Great is known as one of the most faithful servants of Christ.
Friday, January 12, 2007
The God of Reason
Christians, and particularly Catholics, believe in a God of reason, as opposed to a God of pure will without reason. We are to submit ourselves to God's will, but his will and reason are perfectly aligned. This doctrine is very beneficial to our religion as a whole, because it allows for thing such as justice and peace on Earth. In this short essay, I will briefly describe why this is the case.
As Catholics, we believe there are two sources of information from which a person can live his life. The first is natural law, or reason, which is within all people. The other is revealed truth, which is truth given to us by God, in various forms, including the Bible, the Church, the teachers of the church or Magisterium, which includes the Pope, Bishops, etc., as well as information obtained from ecumenical councils, and similar meetings.
Revealed truths cannot necessarily be ascertained through reason alone. It is important to understand also that revealed truth does not contradict reason, for they both contain truth.
Believing God to be the God of reason is important in how we live our lives. Believing that we can know things through our own minds is very important. This allows us to explore nature and discover scientific information and come to conclusions about nature. It allows us to know whether something is just or unjust, as well as how to treat one another. Many horrible things have been done in the name of religion, and sometimes these things have been done by people who have rejected reason. They do things in the "name of religion", as if religion was commanding them to behave in a certain way, despite how they personally felt about it. They may say they were opposed to it personally, but had to become somehow God had commanded them to do this. This is sort of like suicide bombers. Obviously, it goes against reason to be a suicide bomber for two reasons. First of all, we should not desire to kill ourselves, and secondly because we should not desire to kill others, especially innocent people. Reason would caution us against doing such a thing, whereas someone might look in the Bible or other holy book and based on their own personal interpretation think that God requires this action from us, even though it makes no moral sense. God is ultimately just, and would not want us to commit an unjust and immoral act, such as killing innocent people.
As an example of the negative impact of denying reason, we can look to Muslim Extremists, who promote such things as suicide bombings, etc. They reject reason, saying the only thing they can really know is God's pure will, which they say is impossible to understand, therefore should not be questioned at all or even understood. This position can lead to some very dangerous acts. People stop questioning whether something is right or wrong and instead rely on others to tell them what to do. They blindly commit crimes against humanity, without listening to their own reason. This point of view has lead to many problems, especially in the Muslim world. Around a thousand years ago, the Muslim world was flourishing with many discovers in science, the arts, mathematics, and other areas. This was possible because God was viewed as the essence of reason, and it was believed that humanity could possess reason as well. This knew that humans could know things such as science, math, arts, etc. In fact, Muslims, in many ways, especially the sciences were more advanced than Christianity. St. Mark's Cathedral was constructed mostly by Muslims nearly 1,000 years ago in Venice. I will discuss this in another blog posting.
This opinion and way of life however was conquered by Muslims who felt that we as humans could know nothing except the will of God, which might seem pleasant or scary for humans, but which only made sense to God. By abandoning reason, they essentially abandoned God's gift of understanding and violence took over.
Many evils in the world could be prevented if people used the reason God gave them. Deep down, I believe everyone knows that killing unborn children is wrong, for example. I will discuss this topic further in another blog, but I think people have abandoned their reason on this topic, and their own human ability to understand good from evil. We must all be careful to use reason when making decisions. Pray that God may impart true reason and love into our minds and hearts so that we may always do what the God of Reason and Loves wants of us.
As Catholics, we believe there are two sources of information from which a person can live his life. The first is natural law, or reason, which is within all people. The other is revealed truth, which is truth given to us by God, in various forms, including the Bible, the Church, the teachers of the church or Magisterium, which includes the Pope, Bishops, etc., as well as information obtained from ecumenical councils, and similar meetings.
Revealed truths cannot necessarily be ascertained through reason alone. It is important to understand also that revealed truth does not contradict reason, for they both contain truth.
Believing God to be the God of reason is important in how we live our lives. Believing that we can know things through our own minds is very important. This allows us to explore nature and discover scientific information and come to conclusions about nature. It allows us to know whether something is just or unjust, as well as how to treat one another. Many horrible things have been done in the name of religion, and sometimes these things have been done by people who have rejected reason. They do things in the "name of religion", as if religion was commanding them to behave in a certain way, despite how they personally felt about it. They may say they were opposed to it personally, but had to become somehow God had commanded them to do this. This is sort of like suicide bombers. Obviously, it goes against reason to be a suicide bomber for two reasons. First of all, we should not desire to kill ourselves, and secondly because we should not desire to kill others, especially innocent people. Reason would caution us against doing such a thing, whereas someone might look in the Bible or other holy book and based on their own personal interpretation think that God requires this action from us, even though it makes no moral sense. God is ultimately just, and would not want us to commit an unjust and immoral act, such as killing innocent people.
As an example of the negative impact of denying reason, we can look to Muslim Extremists, who promote such things as suicide bombings, etc. They reject reason, saying the only thing they can really know is God's pure will, which they say is impossible to understand, therefore should not be questioned at all or even understood. This position can lead to some very dangerous acts. People stop questioning whether something is right or wrong and instead rely on others to tell them what to do. They blindly commit crimes against humanity, without listening to their own reason. This point of view has lead to many problems, especially in the Muslim world. Around a thousand years ago, the Muslim world was flourishing with many discovers in science, the arts, mathematics, and other areas. This was possible because God was viewed as the essence of reason, and it was believed that humanity could possess reason as well. This knew that humans could know things such as science, math, arts, etc. In fact, Muslims, in many ways, especially the sciences were more advanced than Christianity. St. Mark's Cathedral was constructed mostly by Muslims nearly 1,000 years ago in Venice. I will discuss this in another blog posting.
This opinion and way of life however was conquered by Muslims who felt that we as humans could know nothing except the will of God, which might seem pleasant or scary for humans, but which only made sense to God. By abandoning reason, they essentially abandoned God's gift of understanding and violence took over.
Many evils in the world could be prevented if people used the reason God gave them. Deep down, I believe everyone knows that killing unborn children is wrong, for example. I will discuss this topic further in another blog, but I think people have abandoned their reason on this topic, and their own human ability to understand good from evil. We must all be careful to use reason when making decisions. Pray that God may impart true reason and love into our minds and hearts so that we may always do what the God of Reason and Loves wants of us.
Monday, January 08, 2007
War in Iraq in light of Catholic Teaching
There is a concept in Catholic theology, developed by Saint Thomas Aquinas among others, called Just War Theory, stating that there are certain circumstances in which a country can justifiably take part in a war. Throughout the centuries, the Church has refined its definition of what constitutes a just war. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that there are criteria for the use of military action:
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
There are many reasons for which this definition will preclude going to war. These reasons include going to war to build up wealth, to simply conquer a nation, or anything like this. Also, the threat must be real and serious. Therefore, there must be a real threat. If a nation says it will fire canons that may do limited damage to a building, this would probably not justify going to war.
Another very important aspect which the Catechism addresses is that all other means must be exhausted. This means using peaceful means such as the UN, or other international bodies, sanctions, and various other techniques. Until all of these peaceful techniques are used, war can never be justified.
A third condition is that the war cannot cause even greater destruction than if there had been no response to aggresive action. As a quick example, if a group took up torches and formed a riot, involving dozens of people, it would not be justified to send in tanks and destroy buildings, and kill hundreds of people.
The Catechism also states that those in the correct position, ie in the government, must make these decisions. This would normally preclude vigilante justice.
Finally, wars must conform to certain standards, even if it is found to be justifiable to go to war. War is always regrettable, but this should be minimized.
In light of this information, we must ask ourselves if the war in Iraq is justifiable. To many, including the former Pope, it is not. There is, however, no doctrine or official pronouncement made on this particular war. Therefore, Catholics are free to make their own decision regarding the legitimacy of this war.
There is however, overwhelming support for not being at war with Iraq from Catholic leaders in Rome, and all over the world. The Pope, who was Cardinal Ratzinger at the time, said the following, as reported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Asked by reporters if U.S. military action against Iraq could be justified morally, he answered, "Certainly not in this situation."
"The United Nations exists. It must make the decisive choice," he said. "It is necessary that the community of peoples and not an individual power make the decision.
"And the fact that the United Nations is trying to avoid war seems to me to demonstrate with sufficient evidence that the damage which would result would be greater than the values trying to be saved," Avvenire reported the cardinal said.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops prayed for Peace, in their speech issued in 2002. (The following is from their website):
We pray for President Bush and other world leaders that they will find the will and the ways to step back from the brink of war with Iraq and work for a peace that is just and enduring. We urge them to work with others to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats that recognizes legitimate self defense and conforms to traditional moral limits on the use of military force.
The war in Iraq does not seem, for many, to be justifiable given the conditions outlined above. In situations where war is a possibility, all efforts must be made in order to prevent it, and to bring peace instead.
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
There are many reasons for which this definition will preclude going to war. These reasons include going to war to build up wealth, to simply conquer a nation, or anything like this. Also, the threat must be real and serious. Therefore, there must be a real threat. If a nation says it will fire canons that may do limited damage to a building, this would probably not justify going to war.
Another very important aspect which the Catechism addresses is that all other means must be exhausted. This means using peaceful means such as the UN, or other international bodies, sanctions, and various other techniques. Until all of these peaceful techniques are used, war can never be justified.
A third condition is that the war cannot cause even greater destruction than if there had been no response to aggresive action. As a quick example, if a group took up torches and formed a riot, involving dozens of people, it would not be justified to send in tanks and destroy buildings, and kill hundreds of people.
The Catechism also states that those in the correct position, ie in the government, must make these decisions. This would normally preclude vigilante justice.
Finally, wars must conform to certain standards, even if it is found to be justifiable to go to war. War is always regrettable, but this should be minimized.
In light of this information, we must ask ourselves if the war in Iraq is justifiable. To many, including the former Pope, it is not. There is, however, no doctrine or official pronouncement made on this particular war. Therefore, Catholics are free to make their own decision regarding the legitimacy of this war.
There is however, overwhelming support for not being at war with Iraq from Catholic leaders in Rome, and all over the world. The Pope, who was Cardinal Ratzinger at the time, said the following, as reported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Asked by reporters if U.S. military action against Iraq could be justified morally, he answered, "Certainly not in this situation."
"The United Nations exists. It must make the decisive choice," he said. "It is necessary that the community of peoples and not an individual power make the decision.
"And the fact that the United Nations is trying to avoid war seems to me to demonstrate with sufficient evidence that the damage which would result would be greater than the values trying to be saved," Avvenire reported the cardinal said.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops prayed for Peace, in their speech issued in 2002. (The following is from their website):
We pray for President Bush and other world leaders that they will find the will and the ways to step back from the brink of war with Iraq and work for a peace that is just and enduring. We urge them to work with others to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats that recognizes legitimate self defense and conforms to traditional moral limits on the use of military force.
The war in Iraq does not seem, for many, to be justifiable given the conditions outlined above. In situations where war is a possibility, all efforts must be made in order to prevent it, and to bring peace instead.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Effects of Nazism on our Current and Previous Popes
Both Karol Józef Wojtyła and Joseph Alois Ratzinger (who became Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, respectively) have both been intimately affected by Nazism throughout their lives. In this short essay, I will explore the direct effect Nazi philosophy and politics had on our latest two Popes.
Pope John Paul II, the first non-Italian Pope for over 400 years, was born and raised in Krakow, Poland. His home country was occupied by the Nazis in the Second World War, while Karol was in his late teens and early twenties. In Poland, the Germans established the most infamous concentration camp of all time, Auschwitz. Karol, who would become a young seminarian training for priesthood, was very saddened by the destruction caused by Nazism. Many of John Paul's friend's during childhood were Jewish. He saw many of his friends suffer at the hands of Nazis. This had a great impact on John Paul and in his years as a priest, bishop, cardinal, and of course, Pope, John Paul developed a theology of great love towards the Jewish people in the world.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish Organization, "Throughout his lifetime, the Pontiff has defended the Jewish people, both as a priest in his native Poland and for all the years of his Pontificate. John Paul has denounced anti-Semitism as a "sin against God and humanity,” has normalized relations with the Jewish people and the Jewish State of Israel, and has paid homage to the victims of the Holocaust in the Vatican and at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Israel."
The experience of Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, with the Nazis has also been poignant. As a young person, living during the time of World War II, Ratzinger was forced to join the Nazis in their organization for younger soldiers. Ratzinger and his family very much dispised the Nazis, and they wanted nothing to do with them. However, at the threat of losing his life, Ratzinger had to join. He did not see military conflict first-hand. In a daring and life-risking move, Ratzinger abandonned his post in the military and fled for home. The punishment for such a crime was punishable by death, but Ratzinger risked his life anyway. At one point of his journey, he was apprehended by a couple of guards. By the grace of God, Ratzinger's life was spared because these soldiers were becoming tired of the war. In fact, the war was only days or weeks until its conclusion. Ratzinger said later he felt quite scared when he was stopped by these men.
We can see by the example of Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, that he stood for truth and love toward all people. He risked his own life because of his beliefs. Pope John Paul II also stood firmly against oppression and hatred, which is evident from all his writings. These two great men provide spiritual guidance in their role as Pope, as well as from their personal example.
Pope John Paul II, the first non-Italian Pope for over 400 years, was born and raised in Krakow, Poland. His home country was occupied by the Nazis in the Second World War, while Karol was in his late teens and early twenties. In Poland, the Germans established the most infamous concentration camp of all time, Auschwitz. Karol, who would become a young seminarian training for priesthood, was very saddened by the destruction caused by Nazism. Many of John Paul's friend's during childhood were Jewish. He saw many of his friends suffer at the hands of Nazis. This had a great impact on John Paul and in his years as a priest, bishop, cardinal, and of course, Pope, John Paul developed a theology of great love towards the Jewish people in the world.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish Organization, "Throughout his lifetime, the Pontiff has defended the Jewish people, both as a priest in his native Poland and for all the years of his Pontificate. John Paul has denounced anti-Semitism as a "sin against God and humanity,” has normalized relations with the Jewish people and the Jewish State of Israel, and has paid homage to the victims of the Holocaust in the Vatican and at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Israel."
The experience of Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, with the Nazis has also been poignant. As a young person, living during the time of World War II, Ratzinger was forced to join the Nazis in their organization for younger soldiers. Ratzinger and his family very much dispised the Nazis, and they wanted nothing to do with them. However, at the threat of losing his life, Ratzinger had to join. He did not see military conflict first-hand. In a daring and life-risking move, Ratzinger abandonned his post in the military and fled for home. The punishment for such a crime was punishable by death, but Ratzinger risked his life anyway. At one point of his journey, he was apprehended by a couple of guards. By the grace of God, Ratzinger's life was spared because these soldiers were becoming tired of the war. In fact, the war was only days or weeks until its conclusion. Ratzinger said later he felt quite scared when he was stopped by these men.
We can see by the example of Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, that he stood for truth and love toward all people. He risked his own life because of his beliefs. Pope John Paul II also stood firmly against oppression and hatred, which is evident from all his writings. These two great men provide spiritual guidance in their role as Pope, as well as from their personal example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)