Population decline is a major problem facing many Western countries. Without enough children being born, the economy slows down, quality of life declines, and there are not enough workers to support the older populations. What is to blame for this situation? Largely, secularization is to blame. People are also becoming more self-centered and do not want to spend any time or effort raising a family. They would rather just have fun without responsibility.
One type of people that is having a large number of children are religious people. And the more religious they are, the more children they have. God said "Go forth and be fruitful." The most religious people are adhering to this. According to a German publication from 2008, those who never attend a church service have an average of 1.67 children. However, those who attend more than once per week have an average of 2.5 children.*
Many countries are panicked that their populations are not growing fast enough. A population decline has many negative effects. In fact, many countries offer incentives to people to have children. No country that I am aware of has officially stated that overpopulation is a major problem.
One of the reasons why the populations are becoming dangerously low is that people are using a lot of contraception. Contraception is the only medical device that prevents the normal function of the body. In other words, it twarts the natural design of the human person. It's astonishing that it's the only thing that does this. It takes something that is completely healthy and renders it nonfunctional.
Many people talk about all the sacrifices they must make for children. What people often don't hear is the joy children bring to a family. Many childless families are rather sad. I'm sure there are many exceptions, but it is often the case.
* Michael Blume (2008) "Homo religiosus", Gehirn und Geist 04/2009. pp. 32 - 41.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Is faithfulness harder for celebrities and politicians?
Nowadays, it seems we cannot turn the TV on without hearing about an affair involving a celebrity or politician. Conservative (and liberal) politicians cheating on their wives, movie stars doing the same thing. But is being faithful harder for these individuals than those not in the spotlight?
I believe the answer is yes. I'm not giving a pass to anyone who cheats, including famous people, but I do think there are many more occassions of sin for these individuals than the average joe. We've all heard countless stories of rock stars going to their hotel room and waiting for them is a naked call girl. Famous people are often accosted by good-looking individuals who are more than willing to perform sexual favours. In this onslaught of temptation, many give in.
I believe the more we expose ourselves to the perils of sin, the more we will fall. That's why Catholic teaching warns against exposing ourselves to the "near occassion of sin". This would include entering a strip club, entering an adult video store, etc. It also depends on the individual. If someone has tried unsuccessfully to kick his porn habit, the only solution may be to remove the internet from his home. However, if a man has no temptation to watch internet smut, such a drastic step may not be necessary.
As I've mentioned before, it is easier to avoid sin at the very earliest stages. Approaching sin as a hero is normally a bad idea. Most of us are not exposed on a daily basis to occassions of sin, unless we choose to be. Many celebrities, however, are.
But being exposed to more sinful scenarios does not remove the guilt of committing a sin. Those in these situations must be ever more vigilant. I remember a story about Billy Graham, the famous pastor. He would clear the entire floor of women in his hotel to avoid temptation. Some people thought this was extreme, but Billy knew how valuable his reputation is. Our society always seeks out lurid details of misbehavior, and Billy Graham knew about this.
Let's pray for our politicians and celebrities that they may set a good example for everyone.
I believe the answer is yes. I'm not giving a pass to anyone who cheats, including famous people, but I do think there are many more occassions of sin for these individuals than the average joe. We've all heard countless stories of rock stars going to their hotel room and waiting for them is a naked call girl. Famous people are often accosted by good-looking individuals who are more than willing to perform sexual favours. In this onslaught of temptation, many give in.
I believe the more we expose ourselves to the perils of sin, the more we will fall. That's why Catholic teaching warns against exposing ourselves to the "near occassion of sin". This would include entering a strip club, entering an adult video store, etc. It also depends on the individual. If someone has tried unsuccessfully to kick his porn habit, the only solution may be to remove the internet from his home. However, if a man has no temptation to watch internet smut, such a drastic step may not be necessary.
As I've mentioned before, it is easier to avoid sin at the very earliest stages. Approaching sin as a hero is normally a bad idea. Most of us are not exposed on a daily basis to occassions of sin, unless we choose to be. Many celebrities, however, are.
But being exposed to more sinful scenarios does not remove the guilt of committing a sin. Those in these situations must be ever more vigilant. I remember a story about Billy Graham, the famous pastor. He would clear the entire floor of women in his hotel to avoid temptation. Some people thought this was extreme, but Billy knew how valuable his reputation is. Our society always seeks out lurid details of misbehavior, and Billy Graham knew about this.
Let's pray for our politicians and celebrities that they may set a good example for everyone.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Top 9 Atheist Sayings that Suck
There are many tried and true sayings out there, but for atheists, they turn into terrible expressions. Here are the worst ones:
9. When shocked by something:
Oh my Science!
8. When determined to do something:
Come imaginary territory of suffering or high water!
7. When feeling patriotic:
Nothing bless America!
6. When in a very unpleasant area:
Get me out of this Evolution-forsaken place!
5. When exasperated:
For outer-space beyond our atmosphere's sake!
4. When enjoying chocolate cake:
This cake is simply "imaginary place where an imaginary being lives"-ly
3. At a wedding:
What an imaginary being has joined, let no man put asunder!
2. In court:
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you Science?
1. When you sneeze:
Evolution bless you!
9. When shocked by something:
Oh my Science!
8. When determined to do something:
Come imaginary territory of suffering or high water!
7. When feeling patriotic:
Nothing bless America!
6. When in a very unpleasant area:
Get me out of this Evolution-forsaken place!
5. When exasperated:
For outer-space beyond our atmosphere's sake!
4. When enjoying chocolate cake:
This cake is simply "imaginary place where an imaginary being lives"-ly
3. At a wedding:
What an imaginary being has joined, let no man put asunder!
2. In court:
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you Science?
1. When you sneeze:
Evolution bless you!
Hilarious new blog about BAD vestments
I found a really funny blog about bad vestments. It's worth checking out for a good laugh.
http://badvestments.blogspot.com
I noticed that most of the bad vestments come from the Episcopal Church. Did they abandon all rules concerning appropriate vestments? Perhaps it is the fact that the Episcopal Church does not have a strong hierarchial structure, and therefore these vestments come around.
http://badvestments.blogspot.com
I noticed that most of the bad vestments come from the Episcopal Church. Did they abandon all rules concerning appropriate vestments? Perhaps it is the fact that the Episcopal Church does not have a strong hierarchial structure, and therefore these vestments come around.
Death from unsafe abortions. Solution: Don't have one.
Many people are critical of the Canadian government because it has pledged billions of dollars in funding for maternal care, along with other G8 nations, but it has not included funding for abortion in third world countries. Many are outraged that the government has not done this. But I would like to present another possible point of view.
There are many scientific reasons to believe an embryo is a real live human being. Science is constantly showing more reasons that this preborn child is indeed a child. Therefore, abortion is killing a child. Once we realize what is actually happening, we can intelligently discuss the issue.
One good way to discuss this issue is to substitute any theoretical scenario involving an embryo with one involving a 3 year old child. For example, in Africa, a woman may have two children and one on the way, and wants to have an abortion because she is concerned she cannot afford an education for this third child. Well, if this child was a three-year-old, would it be alright for her to kill that child because he may not have access to a good education? No.
Let's take an even more extreme situation. A mother has 2 children and is afraid she does not have enough to feed a third child. This is a very tragic situation. Imagine that third child is 3 years old. Would it be alright for her to kill that third child so that the others may have enough food? No.
Of course, these are the most extreme circumstances. Most abortions do not occur for this reason. Abortion is always optional, in that it is the direct killing of an unborn child. If people realize that the unborn child is indeed a child, then funding the killing of these children does not seem like such a great idea, much less something that's a human right.
Some may ask about a situation where the life of a mother is at risk. Even if abortion is legal, the mother in this situation would not have to die. For example, if the mother developed a cancer on her fallopian tube, which necessitated its removal. This would cause the death of the child, however it would be permissible even in countries where abortion is illegal because the death of the child is an unintended consequence of the treatment of the mother. In most cases, if a continued pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk, the unborn baby would end up dying before birth anyway. I remember hearing an experienced doctor say that in all his decades of medical practice in obstetrics, he has never come across a real case of choosing between the life of the mother or the life of the baby. It simply doesn't happen that way in real life.
Many of the situations that poor women face can be truly heartbreaking, and we ought to support them as much as possible. It is a very difficult situation, and even for women who choose abortion, they must be loved because they are children of God. But I do not believe that killing children is the solution. It is only a terrible tragedy.
There are many scientific reasons to believe an embryo is a real live human being. Science is constantly showing more reasons that this preborn child is indeed a child. Therefore, abortion is killing a child. Once we realize what is actually happening, we can intelligently discuss the issue.
One good way to discuss this issue is to substitute any theoretical scenario involving an embryo with one involving a 3 year old child. For example, in Africa, a woman may have two children and one on the way, and wants to have an abortion because she is concerned she cannot afford an education for this third child. Well, if this child was a three-year-old, would it be alright for her to kill that child because he may not have access to a good education? No.
Let's take an even more extreme situation. A mother has 2 children and is afraid she does not have enough to feed a third child. This is a very tragic situation. Imagine that third child is 3 years old. Would it be alright for her to kill that third child so that the others may have enough food? No.
Of course, these are the most extreme circumstances. Most abortions do not occur for this reason. Abortion is always optional, in that it is the direct killing of an unborn child. If people realize that the unborn child is indeed a child, then funding the killing of these children does not seem like such a great idea, much less something that's a human right.
Some may ask about a situation where the life of a mother is at risk. Even if abortion is legal, the mother in this situation would not have to die. For example, if the mother developed a cancer on her fallopian tube, which necessitated its removal. This would cause the death of the child, however it would be permissible even in countries where abortion is illegal because the death of the child is an unintended consequence of the treatment of the mother. In most cases, if a continued pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk, the unborn baby would end up dying before birth anyway. I remember hearing an experienced doctor say that in all his decades of medical practice in obstetrics, he has never come across a real case of choosing between the life of the mother or the life of the baby. It simply doesn't happen that way in real life.
Many of the situations that poor women face can be truly heartbreaking, and we ought to support them as much as possible. It is a very difficult situation, and even for women who choose abortion, they must be loved because they are children of God. But I do not believe that killing children is the solution. It is only a terrible tragedy.
Can Catholics support a Monarchy?
The Queen of England, Elizabeth II, is in Canada, specifically Halifax for a little while. Many people do not support the monarchy because they say it is outdated and they have no power because we now have a democracy. Also, some object because commonwealth countries pay to maintain a monarchy. The estimate for Canada is about $1 per person, so around $30 million per year.
But beside these legitimate complaints, should Catholics be morally opposed to monarchies? According to the Church, not necessarily. In fact, according to Thomas Aquinas, since unity in rule is preferable to disunity, monarchy is preferable to oligarchy or democracy. He believes that unity creates strength and better decision making. This concept is easy to understand especially if we look at our own society. Government often takes weeks, months, or years to reach a decision. Sometimes elections are called which requires endless campaigning and money. Democracy can slow things down and create less efficiency.
But of course monarchy has its issues too. The type of monarchy invisioned by Aquinas is a moral one. If a monarch made laws which were morally good, then it would create a good society. This is the view of the Catholic Church as well. The Church does not summarily dismiss monarchy as a viable type of government. It would, however, reject tyrrany or any type of government which had immoral laws. Indeed, the government of the Vatican is a monarchy, albeit an elected one. The Pope is the sovereign of the Vatican. Cardinals do not vote on issues, although they can be used as consultants. Therefore, the Vatican would not condemn its own type of government.
Also, the Catholic Church is not opposed to democracy either, however the Church can be critical of a democracy which violates human rights, even if supported by the majority.
In conclusion, the Catholic Church is theoretically not opposed to any particular type of government as long as it adheres to good moral principles.
But beside these legitimate complaints, should Catholics be morally opposed to monarchies? According to the Church, not necessarily. In fact, according to Thomas Aquinas, since unity in rule is preferable to disunity, monarchy is preferable to oligarchy or democracy. He believes that unity creates strength and better decision making. This concept is easy to understand especially if we look at our own society. Government often takes weeks, months, or years to reach a decision. Sometimes elections are called which requires endless campaigning and money. Democracy can slow things down and create less efficiency.
But of course monarchy has its issues too. The type of monarchy invisioned by Aquinas is a moral one. If a monarch made laws which were morally good, then it would create a good society. This is the view of the Catholic Church as well. The Church does not summarily dismiss monarchy as a viable type of government. It would, however, reject tyrrany or any type of government which had immoral laws. Indeed, the government of the Vatican is a monarchy, albeit an elected one. The Pope is the sovereign of the Vatican. Cardinals do not vote on issues, although they can be used as consultants. Therefore, the Vatican would not condemn its own type of government.
Also, the Catholic Church is not opposed to democracy either, however the Church can be critical of a democracy which violates human rights, even if supported by the majority.
In conclusion, the Catholic Church is theoretically not opposed to any particular type of government as long as it adheres to good moral principles.
Fireproof movie has good message, but poor delivery
Fireproof is a movie starring Kirk Cameron (who plays Caleb) and Erin Bathea (who plays his wife Catherine) about a couple who encounter discord in their marriage relatively early on and are headed for divorce. Caleb visits his dad to tell him the situation. The father then gives Kirk a book with 40 days worth of activities in it which will save his marriage.Although this is a Christian film, religious overtones do not come into play until well past the first half of the film. Caleb starts out as a non-religious person who is sceptical about religion. His father though has become quite devout.
The movie offers a great message and practical advice to improve any marriage, even those which seem destined to end. I believe if these techniques were employed, marriages would be saved. This movie is somewhat more realistic than a lot of what Hollywood has to offer. It showcases real people with real problems and good advice.
My main issue with the movie is how deliberate it seems. There is no guesswork or subtlety. If the producer wants you to know something, the character will come out and explicitly say it. Therefore, it's a little too straightforward. Also, some of the scenes could be much tighter. For example, Caleb might receive some bad news, and we will watch him react for several minutes. This could have been cut and his state of mind could be implied.
On top of that, many of the characters seem a little too perfect. Caleb's dad, for example, always knows exactly the right words to say. It's as though he has had time to prepare an answer. When Caleb calls him, his dad always seems to be waiting right next to the phone with no distractions, as if psychic. These "perfect" characters take away some of the realism.
This movie was a runaway success at the box office. Produced with only $500,000, the movie made over $33 million in theatres. This is quite a return on investment.
If you're looking for a movie that has a good message but is not infiltrated by Hollywood cynicism, this is a great one. Some of the themes would probably seem foreign to younger children, but by late teens, this movie would be valuable to watch.
I give this movie 3.9 stars out of 5.
Happy Birthday to Me!
Hey everyone,
Today is my 28th birthday. And today my first niece was born, and I will be her Godfather. I will be a first time uncle and Godfather. How did I do it? I made her an offer she couldn't refuse!
Phil
Today is my 28th birthday. And today my first niece was born, and I will be her Godfather. I will be a first time uncle and Godfather. How did I do it? I made her an offer she couldn't refuse!
Phil
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Top 8 Reasons Atheists are No Fun
1. They are very demeaning to Christians
One thing you'll quickly notice about adament atheists is how demeaning they are to Christians. They will call them idiots, morons, and mock their beliefs with vitriol. You simply don't see this type of thing from the other way around though. Christians feel compelled to offer reasons for their beliefs and defend against atheism. They may say atheism is misguided, or even wrong, but they will not stoop to the level of calling them morons, dults, idiots, etc. for no reason. You may disagree, but I suggest you do a search. I'm sure in the whole world, there are Christians who are belittling and demeaning to atheists, but it's not the norm. Go to Youtube. Check out how many videos basically say that Christians are idiots. Then compare that to the rational response videos made by Christians. Even Richard Dawkins, sort of the global figurehead for atheism, calls his group the "brights", a clear antithesis to the "dulls" which he is implying Christians are.
2. They always seem angry
Atheists always seem kind of pissed off. They have loads of hatred and scorn. Check out for example Penn Jillette. He is part of the comedy routine Penn and Teller. He spews hatred, completely unbridled. Atheists always seem to have a chip on their shoulder.
3. Their "raison d'etre" seems to be to prove they are just as good as Christians morally
I've seen some pretty weak attempts by atheists to show they are just as morally good as Christians. They constantly have a need to prove themselves. But this attempt at overcompensation derives from their feelings of inferiority. Any atheist can stroll through any major city and notice that the vast majority of hospitals, schools, and other institutions of societal good come from people who believe in God. Faced with this stark realization, atheists go out of their way to prove they are "just as good".
4. They seem selfish
Because atheists see themselves as the greatest thing in the universe, they become rather selfish. Morals are self-derived. If something feels good to them or benefits them, then it's good, otherwise it's bad. If there is no God, humans are the highest form of existence, and atheists would place their own personal existence above others. Atheists do not want to sacrifice for the greater good, but rather want to revel in sensual pleasures.
5. They try to remove faith but it seems like a pointless activity
Why would atheists spend so much time and energy trying to eradicate faith. Mao, Stalin, and others did the same when they suppressed religion in the name of atheism, and we can see the terrible results there. If they believe people are following a "fairy tale" like the toothfairy or Santa Claus, then what harm is that? If these fairy tales makes the person more generous, kind, loving, and selfless, why bother removing this faith? Why don't atheists spend as much time promoting lack of belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to children as they do to eradicating faith?
6. Atheism makes the world a cold, heartless place
Atheism presents a very darwinian view of the world. Survival of the fittest. Atheists tend to attribute all their good fortunes to their own effort and see those they deem inferior to them as not as valuable. It becomes everyone for himself, and all this makes the world a cold and heartless place.
7. When everything is about science, people are reduced in value
Without our belief in a creator, atheists tend to view everything from the point of view of chemistry, biology, evolution, etc. People are no more special than a trout. They are just two different species. God didn't create us in a special way. We are all just accidents in a cold universe. Therefore those who are deemed "unsuitable" are no longer owed any special treat. The elderly, handicapped, and otherwise challenged individuals are easily seen as cosmic mistakes. This reduces the value of all humanity.
8. They lack in charity and use profanity
Atheists have no aversion to using profanity and vulgarity to make their point. Holding nothing sacred, they see blasphemy as a joke. Lacking charity, they feel they can express their opinion in any way they see fit, no matter how offensive. They see their behavior as "tough love" and denounce those who raise issues with their behavior as "softies".
Those are just some of the reasons atheists are no fun.
One thing you'll quickly notice about adament atheists is how demeaning they are to Christians. They will call them idiots, morons, and mock their beliefs with vitriol. You simply don't see this type of thing from the other way around though. Christians feel compelled to offer reasons for their beliefs and defend against atheism. They may say atheism is misguided, or even wrong, but they will not stoop to the level of calling them morons, dults, idiots, etc. for no reason. You may disagree, but I suggest you do a search. I'm sure in the whole world, there are Christians who are belittling and demeaning to atheists, but it's not the norm. Go to Youtube. Check out how many videos basically say that Christians are idiots. Then compare that to the rational response videos made by Christians. Even Richard Dawkins, sort of the global figurehead for atheism, calls his group the "brights", a clear antithesis to the "dulls" which he is implying Christians are.
2. They always seem angry
Atheists always seem kind of pissed off. They have loads of hatred and scorn. Check out for example Penn Jillette. He is part of the comedy routine Penn and Teller. He spews hatred, completely unbridled. Atheists always seem to have a chip on their shoulder.
3. Their "raison d'etre" seems to be to prove they are just as good as Christians morally
I've seen some pretty weak attempts by atheists to show they are just as morally good as Christians. They constantly have a need to prove themselves. But this attempt at overcompensation derives from their feelings of inferiority. Any atheist can stroll through any major city and notice that the vast majority of hospitals, schools, and other institutions of societal good come from people who believe in God. Faced with this stark realization, atheists go out of their way to prove they are "just as good".
4. They seem selfish
Because atheists see themselves as the greatest thing in the universe, they become rather selfish. Morals are self-derived. If something feels good to them or benefits them, then it's good, otherwise it's bad. If there is no God, humans are the highest form of existence, and atheists would place their own personal existence above others. Atheists do not want to sacrifice for the greater good, but rather want to revel in sensual pleasures.
5. They try to remove faith but it seems like a pointless activity
Why would atheists spend so much time and energy trying to eradicate faith. Mao, Stalin, and others did the same when they suppressed religion in the name of atheism, and we can see the terrible results there. If they believe people are following a "fairy tale" like the toothfairy or Santa Claus, then what harm is that? If these fairy tales makes the person more generous, kind, loving, and selfless, why bother removing this faith? Why don't atheists spend as much time promoting lack of belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to children as they do to eradicating faith?
6. Atheism makes the world a cold, heartless place
Atheism presents a very darwinian view of the world. Survival of the fittest. Atheists tend to attribute all their good fortunes to their own effort and see those they deem inferior to them as not as valuable. It becomes everyone for himself, and all this makes the world a cold and heartless place.
7. When everything is about science, people are reduced in value
Without our belief in a creator, atheists tend to view everything from the point of view of chemistry, biology, evolution, etc. People are no more special than a trout. They are just two different species. God didn't create us in a special way. We are all just accidents in a cold universe. Therefore those who are deemed "unsuitable" are no longer owed any special treat. The elderly, handicapped, and otherwise challenged individuals are easily seen as cosmic mistakes. This reduces the value of all humanity.
8. They lack in charity and use profanity
Atheists have no aversion to using profanity and vulgarity to make their point. Holding nothing sacred, they see blasphemy as a joke. Lacking charity, they feel they can express their opinion in any way they see fit, no matter how offensive. They see their behavior as "tough love" and denounce those who raise issues with their behavior as "softies".
Those are just some of the reasons atheists are no fun.
Why am I getting news from Kenya?
I went to Google News today and typed in "catholic". In the top 10 results was an article about a Catholic priest who raped a girl. I'm in Canada, but this article is from Kenya! What's shocking about this is that there are thousands of rapes all over the world, but you don't hear about them. In fact, unless you live in a very tiny community, you probably wouldn't even hear about a rape in your own city. How often do you think the Toronto Star would publish an article that says "16 year old girl raped."? Not very likely. But if a priest is the perpetrator, geography doesn't seem to matter. It could be in Timbuktu, and newspapers all over the world would publish it. How did this article appear in the top 10 results for Catholic on Google News? We're usually lucky if we hear about a murder, since news has become so sensationalized, yet they publish a story from Africa about one rape case.
Of course, this cannot be a case of media bias, right?
Of course, this cannot be a case of media bias, right?
Mother of Perpetual Help, pray for us
Today is the feast day of the Mother of Perpetual, which is a title for Mary. She is always helping us with her intercession to Jesus, her son. In the painting, you can see Jesus ran so fast to be in the arms of his mother, that his sandal fell off. The angels Gabriel and Michael are on each side of Mary. It's a very beautiful painting.
Belgian police getting rather desperate
In a desperate attempt by Belgian police to destroy the reputation of the Catholic Church even further, they have performed unbelievable raids of Catholic property. Police raided a commission set up by the Church to investigate abuse allegations and seized 500 files. But even more shocking, the police drilled holes in 2 TOMBS of former archbishops. Some priests were held for 9 hours without food or drink on mere suspicion or hunches. I guess come hell or high water, Europe will take a good bite out of the Church, especially in their reputation, or so they hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)