Today, March 15th, is the feast day of St. Clement Mary (Maria) Hofbauer, who is the Patron Saint of Vienna, Austria. This date marks the date of his death at the age of 68. He was born in the Czech Republic, in what was Moravia, and is considered the second founder of the Redemptorists, after Alphonsus Liguori.
Hofbauer has special significance for me for 2 reasons.
First of all, my usual parish is St. Teresa's, which is a Redemptorist community. Secondly, my first car, which I still drive has the license plate HOF188. This is amazing because HOF = Hofbauer, and amazingly, he was beatified in 1888. So, my license plate is saying something about Clement's beatification. HOF 188. I am reminded of Hofbauer when I think of my license plate.
As I was searching for a prayer to St. Clement Hofbauer, I found another connection to him. Sometimes I troubled by irrational fears about faith, even though I love it so much, and realize Christ and his Church is the only true path to salvation. This prayer that I found, which is attributed to St. Clement is the following:
A Prayer for the Preservation of Faith - St. Clement Hofbauer
O my Redeemer,
will that dreadful time ever come,
when but few Christians shall be left
who are inspired by the spirit of faith,
that time when Thine anger shall be provoked
and Thy protection shall be take away from us?
Have our vices and our evil lives
irrevocably moved Thy justice to take vengeance,
perhaps this very day,
upon Thy children?
O Thou, the beginning and end of our faith,
we conjure Thee,
in the bitterness of our contrite and humbled hearts,
not to suffer the fair light of faith
to be extinguished in us.
Remember Thy mercies of old,
turn Thine eyes in mercy upon the vineyard
planted by Thine own right hand,
and watered by the sweat of the Apostles,
by the precious blood of countless Martyrs
and by the tears of so many sincere penitents,
and made fruitful by the prayers
of so many Confessors and innocent Virgins.
O divine Mediator,
look upon those zealous souls
who raise their hearts to Thee
and pray ceaselessly
for the maintenance of that most precious gift of Thine,
the true faith.
We beseech Thee,
O God of justice,
to hold back the decree of our rejection,
and to turn away Thine eyes from our vices
and regard instead the adorable Blood
shed upon the Cross,
which purchased our salvation
and daily intercedes for us upon our altars.
Ah, keep us safe in the true Catholic and Roman faith.
Let sickness afflict us,
vexations waste us,
misfortunes overwhelm us!
But preserve in us Thy holy faith;
for if we are rich with this precious gift,
we shall gladly endure every sorrow,
and nothing shall ever be able to change our happiness.
On the other hand,
without this great treasure of faith,
our unhappiness would be unspeakable and without limit!
O good Jesus, author of our faith,
preserve it untainted within us;
keep us safe in the bark of Peter,
faithful and obedient to his successor
and Thy Vicar here on earth,
that so the unity of Holy Church may be maintained,
holiness fostered,
the Holy See protected in freedom,
and the Church universal extended
to the benefit of souls.
O Jesus, author of our faith,
humble and convert the enemies of Thy Church;
grant true peace
and concord to all Christian kings and princes
and to all believers;
strengthen and preserve us in Thy holy service,
so that we may live in Thee and die in Thee.
O Jesus, author of our faith,
let me live for Thee and die for Thee.
Amen.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Embryonic Stem Cell destruction and Euthanasia: Evil Sisters
A few days ago, United States President Barrack Hussein Obama announced that he would allow public funding to destroy embryos for research. This fruitless research, which has yielded no results, is the last frontier (or perhaps the beginning of the last frontier) for mad scientists bent on breaking all boundaries.
Human life is sacred. This is a truth that has been affirmed by almost all religions, especially those which are more than 100 years old. There are many instances of medical codes which forbid the destruction of human life, including embryos through abortion. Not surprisingly, none of these codes indicate abortion is alright.
An embryo has all the DNA it ever will. To put it crudely, just add water. In other words, with basic nutrition and water, a tiny embryo will grow to be an adult person. All the DNA is present at the moment of conception. We do not say that a small child is not human because it has not fully developed yet. Therefore, there is a beginning, and that beginning is fertilization.
For the sake of convenience, people started having abortions. The convenience came first, the explanations later. Now they have moved into a new frontier. The frontier of harvesting people in order to find cures. During the holocaust, people were used in experiments for the benefit of others. They were put through many tortures in order to ascertain scientific information. But this was morally reprehensible. The same arguments for this could be used to justify embryonic stem cell research. Many say the embryos will be destroyed anyway, so why not use them for something beneficial? Well, these people in the Nazi holocaust were going to be slaughtered anyway, so why not use them to advance scientific knowledge.
Well, that's what Josef Mengele did, who was known as the Angel of Death. He killed many innocent people to conduct his experiments.
Many will not worry that embryos are being sacrificed. They cannot be seen and they dont "look" human. But even if someone is cruel enough to say this, there is another evil sister to this whole mess. When human life is devalued at any stage, it is devalued in all stages. People are now trying to legalize euthanasia, and this is absolutely terrible.
Ask 1000 people this question: There is a man, 32 years old. He says he is in a lot of suffering. He lost his job, his wife left him, his children hate him. He is now homeless and addicted to alcohol. He says he wants to end his life. Would you give him a loaded gun if it was legal? How many would say yes? I would estimate 5 to 10 percent, and that would be a lot.
Now let's say this: A person is terminally ill. Their life is very sad. They can't see an end to their suffering. Their family does not want to take care of them because they are too much of a burden, and they do not feel loved. They would rather not live. They say you have no right to tell them they cannot die as they please. They ask for help in ending their own life. Would you help them or deny them their request? In a recent poll, 80% of Canadians said they would help in a situation similar to this one. That's shocking! These are the same situations. They just have slightly different circumstances.
Nobody is born with a desire to kill themselves. This develops because of things that happen to them throughout their lives. But when we stop valuing life, we start looking at life in a utilitarian way. We start to ask about people's utility, and not their worth as human beings. We start to ask what they can do for us. We become like animals or robots.
We must all try to elevate our being upward, not toward animal behavior. We must truly become more human. Jesus Christ is the only way to get there.
Human life is sacred. This is a truth that has been affirmed by almost all religions, especially those which are more than 100 years old. There are many instances of medical codes which forbid the destruction of human life, including embryos through abortion. Not surprisingly, none of these codes indicate abortion is alright.
An embryo has all the DNA it ever will. To put it crudely, just add water. In other words, with basic nutrition and water, a tiny embryo will grow to be an adult person. All the DNA is present at the moment of conception. We do not say that a small child is not human because it has not fully developed yet. Therefore, there is a beginning, and that beginning is fertilization.
For the sake of convenience, people started having abortions. The convenience came first, the explanations later. Now they have moved into a new frontier. The frontier of harvesting people in order to find cures. During the holocaust, people were used in experiments for the benefit of others. They were put through many tortures in order to ascertain scientific information. But this was morally reprehensible. The same arguments for this could be used to justify embryonic stem cell research. Many say the embryos will be destroyed anyway, so why not use them for something beneficial? Well, these people in the Nazi holocaust were going to be slaughtered anyway, so why not use them to advance scientific knowledge.
Well, that's what Josef Mengele did, who was known as the Angel of Death. He killed many innocent people to conduct his experiments.
Many will not worry that embryos are being sacrificed. They cannot be seen and they dont "look" human. But even if someone is cruel enough to say this, there is another evil sister to this whole mess. When human life is devalued at any stage, it is devalued in all stages. People are now trying to legalize euthanasia, and this is absolutely terrible.
Ask 1000 people this question: There is a man, 32 years old. He says he is in a lot of suffering. He lost his job, his wife left him, his children hate him. He is now homeless and addicted to alcohol. He says he wants to end his life. Would you give him a loaded gun if it was legal? How many would say yes? I would estimate 5 to 10 percent, and that would be a lot.
Now let's say this: A person is terminally ill. Their life is very sad. They can't see an end to their suffering. Their family does not want to take care of them because they are too much of a burden, and they do not feel loved. They would rather not live. They say you have no right to tell them they cannot die as they please. They ask for help in ending their own life. Would you help them or deny them their request? In a recent poll, 80% of Canadians said they would help in a situation similar to this one. That's shocking! These are the same situations. They just have slightly different circumstances.
Nobody is born with a desire to kill themselves. This develops because of things that happen to them throughout their lives. But when we stop valuing life, we start looking at life in a utilitarian way. We start to ask about people's utility, and not their worth as human beings. We start to ask what they can do for us. We become like animals or robots.
We must all try to elevate our being upward, not toward animal behavior. We must truly become more human. Jesus Christ is the only way to get there.
XP: Not a version of Windows, but a Catholic symbol: ☧
Today I was at Mass at St. Pius X in St. John's, Newfoundland, and noticed a very common symbol, XP. Usually it's stylized as:
☧
XP are the first 2 letters of Christ's name in Greek - chi rho. The full name is ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ. Also, it can be written as: Χριστός.
Notice, this has nothing to do with Windows. In fact, when you think about it, Windows seems like it uses a lot of Catholic words. For example:
Images and Icons: Nowadays these terms refer to large pictures or smaller representations of larger pictures. Prior to their use in computer language, "images" and "icons" were representations of God, Mary, and the saints. Catholics do not worship images or icons, but they use them to remind themselves of a saint or God.
Path: Catholics see this as the path to Heaven, by following Christ. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. However, in computer language this means where a file is located.
If you can think of any more, please let me know!
Thanks.
XP are the first 2 letters of Christ's name in Greek - chi rho. The full name is ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ. Also, it can be written as: Χριστός.
Notice, this has nothing to do with Windows. In fact, when you think about it, Windows seems like it uses a lot of Catholic words. For example:
Images and Icons: Nowadays these terms refer to large pictures or smaller representations of larger pictures. Prior to their use in computer language, "images" and "icons" were representations of God, Mary, and the saints. Catholics do not worship images or icons, but they use them to remind themselves of a saint or God.
Path: Catholics see this as the path to Heaven, by following Christ. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. However, in computer language this means where a file is located.
If you can think of any more, please let me know!
Thanks.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Nancy Pelosi misrepresenting Catholic teaching on abortion
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house in the United States, 3rd in line for the presidency, if the president and vice-president died, misrepresented the Catholic Church a few days ago on the news. She claimed she is an ardent Catholic and that the Catholic Church has debated when life began over the centuries and haven't made a decision. She said only in the past 50 years or so has there been any real decision on these issues. However, this statement is completely wrong. The Church has never, in its 2000 year history been pro-choice. It has always been pro-life, and has defended the right to life to all persons from the moment of conception.
Even St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, who believed life began several weeks after conception, still believed that abortion at any time, even right after conception was totally wrong and immoral. Now that we know more about science and when life began, we are even more emphatic. No Church Father has ever held a pro-choice stance, and no official document has ever supported it.
To back up my claim, I will quote several Church Fathers on the subject:
The Didache
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
The Apocalypse of Peter
"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).
Athenagoras
"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).
Tertullian
"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).
"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.
"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .
"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).
"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).
"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).
Minucius Felix
"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).
Hippolytus
"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).
Council of Ancyra
"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).
Basil the Great
"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).
"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).
John Chrysostom
"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).
Jerome
"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).
Even St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, who believed life began several weeks after conception, still believed that abortion at any time, even right after conception was totally wrong and immoral. Now that we know more about science and when life began, we are even more emphatic. No Church Father has ever held a pro-choice stance, and no official document has ever supported it.
To back up my claim, I will quote several Church Fathers on the subject:
The Didache
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
The Apocalypse of Peter
"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).
Athenagoras
"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).
Tertullian
"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).
"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.
"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .
"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).
"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).
"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).
Minucius Felix
"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).
Hippolytus
"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).
Council of Ancyra
"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).
Basil the Great
"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).
"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).
John Chrysostom
"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).
Jerome
"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
July 23, 2008: The slaughter of children made easier in Canada
Another defeat was made today for the lives of countless thousands. Canada, a bastion of pre-born murder, has made access to the early-stages abortion pill even easier. The pill I am referring to is Levonorgestrel, marketed as Plan B, and colloquially known as the "morning-after pill". This pill causes the woman's body to produce a high level of hormones which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.
It is important to remember that the egg is already fertilized, a person has been conceived. A living person will be murdered with this pill, yet people call it the morning-after pill. First of all, what does this mean, the morning after what exactly? Obviously, this refers to the morning after "unprotected" sex. Perhaps it refers to a morning after a one-night stand, or a fling, or possibly a "committed" relationship. But the only thing this relationship is committed to is the image of the two partners, and nothing, not even the life of another human being, trumps that commitment.
The decision by Canadian "courts" is devastating. The holocaust of innocent children will continue to expand. Thousands will die. One of the sadest things is that this "product" is being marketed as a form of birth control. It should be considered abortion at least. People who are not aware of what they are doing could be unknowingly killing their very own child, and for what? Convenience?
People may not care about unborn children, but how we treat them indicates how we feel about everyone else. We should care for them the most because they are innocent. If we do not care for the most vulnerable in our society, who will we care for? Every day, that question is being asked, because every day, our culture of death finds new victims. First it is the unborn, then it is the unable, then it is the undesired. We are living in a society where your value as a human person is determined by how everyone else feels about you. This is truly a sad situation.
Let us pray for Canada that it may protect its most vulnerable, that it stands on guard for its citizens. Young and old, weak and strong, rich or poor.
It is important to remember that the egg is already fertilized, a person has been conceived. A living person will be murdered with this pill, yet people call it the morning-after pill. First of all, what does this mean, the morning after what exactly? Obviously, this refers to the morning after "unprotected" sex. Perhaps it refers to a morning after a one-night stand, or a fling, or possibly a "committed" relationship. But the only thing this relationship is committed to is the image of the two partners, and nothing, not even the life of another human being, trumps that commitment.
The decision by Canadian "courts" is devastating. The holocaust of innocent children will continue to expand. Thousands will die. One of the sadest things is that this "product" is being marketed as a form of birth control. It should be considered abortion at least. People who are not aware of what they are doing could be unknowingly killing their very own child, and for what? Convenience?
People may not care about unborn children, but how we treat them indicates how we feel about everyone else. We should care for them the most because they are innocent. If we do not care for the most vulnerable in our society, who will we care for? Every day, that question is being asked, because every day, our culture of death finds new victims. First it is the unborn, then it is the unable, then it is the undesired. We are living in a society where your value as a human person is determined by how everyone else feels about you. This is truly a sad situation.
Let us pray for Canada that it may protect its most vulnerable, that it stands on guard for its citizens. Young and old, weak and strong, rich or poor.
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.
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.
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.
"I'm personally against abortion, but I wouldn't enforce my beliefs on anyone else."
Have you ever heard this sentence? It is all too common. But its commonality does not give it veracity. If you ever hear someone say this, be thankful, because as a person of God, you can easily convert this person to the pro-life side. Here's why.
People who make this statement have often not considered its logical impossibility. Abortion is the only case where someone would make such a statement. For example, people do not say, I am against rape, but I would not enforce my belief on others. This is illogical.
The reason the assertion that someone is against abortion but will not tell others what to do is impossible is because there is a reason why someone is against abortion, namely because it is murder, and if you are against murder, you oppose it as a concept, the application of which you believe is universal.
People are not personally opposed to murder. Rather, they are opposed to anybody murdering anyone else. No one says, I wouldn't kill my grandmother, but if a thief broke into my home and murdered her, I would be ok with that. No one would even say they support a stranger's right to kill another stranger. When someone opposes murder, they oppose it in absolute and objective terms, not just for themselves personally.
If someone does not consider abortion murder, the question arises - why do they oppose it then? The only possibility is that they personally do not enjoy partaking in abortions themselves, in the same way as certain people dislike sushi. They do not like sushi, but they do not make a universal declaration that everyone must dislike it as well.
The question remains as to why they do not like partaking in abortions. Maybe they feel it's messy or they are afraid of blood. Perhaps they disagree with surgery in general. But if these were the case, these people would be against all surgery or operations. Rest assured, you could speak to a million people and not one person would be opposed to abortion for this reason.
The best way to get someone with this point of view to convert to a pro-life person is to ask them questions. Ask them what they specifically oppose. If they say they believe it's murder, tell them they must oppose it in general if they believe that. If they disagree, ask if it would be ok for someone to kill their neighbor without consequence. If they are being honest they would say no and they will realize their error.
Finally, they may say that abortionists do not consider abortion murder, even though they themselves do, and therefore, it is a matter of opinion. At this point suggest to them that Hitler did not consider the Jews to be human, therefore he was not committing murder in his opinion, therefore you would not consider what Hitler did to be wrong. In the same sense, if a psychopath considered all humans to be inferior to him and killing them to not be murder, then he should have the right to do this unabated.
No honest person would agree to this logic. Suggest they are using the same fallacy to justify their position, which hopefully they will see is completely untenable.
People who make this statement have often not considered its logical impossibility. Abortion is the only case where someone would make such a statement. For example, people do not say, I am against rape, but I would not enforce my belief on others. This is illogical.
The reason the assertion that someone is against abortion but will not tell others what to do is impossible is because there is a reason why someone is against abortion, namely because it is murder, and if you are against murder, you oppose it as a concept, the application of which you believe is universal.
People are not personally opposed to murder. Rather, they are opposed to anybody murdering anyone else. No one says, I wouldn't kill my grandmother, but if a thief broke into my home and murdered her, I would be ok with that. No one would even say they support a stranger's right to kill another stranger. When someone opposes murder, they oppose it in absolute and objective terms, not just for themselves personally.
If someone does not consider abortion murder, the question arises - why do they oppose it then? The only possibility is that they personally do not enjoy partaking in abortions themselves, in the same way as certain people dislike sushi. They do not like sushi, but they do not make a universal declaration that everyone must dislike it as well.
The question remains as to why they do not like partaking in abortions. Maybe they feel it's messy or they are afraid of blood. Perhaps they disagree with surgery in general. But if these were the case, these people would be against all surgery or operations. Rest assured, you could speak to a million people and not one person would be opposed to abortion for this reason.
The best way to get someone with this point of view to convert to a pro-life person is to ask them questions. Ask them what they specifically oppose. If they say they believe it's murder, tell them they must oppose it in general if they believe that. If they disagree, ask if it would be ok for someone to kill their neighbor without consequence. If they are being honest they would say no and they will realize their error.
Finally, they may say that abortionists do not consider abortion murder, even though they themselves do, and therefore, it is a matter of opinion. At this point suggest to them that Hitler did not consider the Jews to be human, therefore he was not committing murder in his opinion, therefore you would not consider what Hitler did to be wrong. In the same sense, if a psychopath considered all humans to be inferior to him and killing them to not be murder, then he should have the right to do this unabated.
No honest person would agree to this logic. Suggest they are using the same fallacy to justify their position, which hopefully they will see is completely untenable.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
One of Canada's worst days
Today is probably one of the worst days in Canadian history. For me, it will go down in infamy. Morgentaler, Canada's premier abortionist was given the Order of Canada. This was a unilateral decision by the Governor of Canada, and went against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians. It is a truly sad day.
Today Canada is honoring a man whose hands are drenched in the blood of innocent children. He wasn't satisfied to perform abortions on his own, he recruiter others and started "clinics" to do his grim deed.
I will go to Mass today to grieve this event and ask God to forgive Canada. I will pray for this Nazi victim turned Nazi war criminal. This will truly be a sad day for the whole world.
Today Canada is honoring a man whose hands are drenched in the blood of innocent children. He wasn't satisfied to perform abortions on his own, he recruiter others and started "clinics" to do his grim deed.
I will go to Mass today to grieve this event and ask God to forgive Canada. I will pray for this Nazi victim turned Nazi war criminal. This will truly be a sad day for the whole world.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Eucharistic Congress 2008 in Quebec
I had an awesome time at the Eucharistic Congress. In attendance were over 1,000 priests, hundreds of bishops, and over 20 cardinals. This was truly an event of huge proportions.
During the congress, we attended the largest mass in the world every day. These were beautiful ceremonies. The procession itself took over 10 minutes, by the time all the bishops had been seated.
The event was attended by over 20,000 people. This was truly awe-inspiring. No extraordinary ministers were needed for Eucharist. There were plenty of priests on hand. I've been to mass when there's less than 50 people there, and extraordinary ministers will be employed. This is simply unnecessary and possibly wrong.
I met my cousin Fr. Roy Farrell. I actually ran into him several times during the Congress. That was a good surprise.
I met a lot of great people as well. Many people my age who have devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, to Christ, and to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
One of the emphases of the congress was Eucharistic Adoration. Spending an hour with our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This can be a very powerful devotion.
All in all, this was a very powerful experience. We will look forward to the next event in 2012 in Dublin, Ireland!
During the congress, we attended the largest mass in the world every day. These were beautiful ceremonies. The procession itself took over 10 minutes, by the time all the bishops had been seated.
The event was attended by over 20,000 people. This was truly awe-inspiring. No extraordinary ministers were needed for Eucharist. There were plenty of priests on hand. I've been to mass when there's less than 50 people there, and extraordinary ministers will be employed. This is simply unnecessary and possibly wrong.
I met my cousin Fr. Roy Farrell. I actually ran into him several times during the Congress. That was a good surprise.
I met a lot of great people as well. Many people my age who have devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, to Christ, and to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
One of the emphases of the congress was Eucharistic Adoration. Spending an hour with our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This can be a very powerful devotion.
All in all, this was a very powerful experience. We will look forward to the next event in 2012 in Dublin, Ireland!
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!
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!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Army of Mary excommunicated - Catholic Church reiterates that Mary is not divine.
The members of the Army of Mary have been excommunicated by the Pope because of their heretical beliefs. The following is a brief overview of what happened:
Calling it a "very grave situation," the Vatican has excommunicated members of a controversial Quebec Catholic movement, the Army of Mary, for their heretical beliefs that derive from the writings of Marie-Paule Giguère, an 86-year-old mystic who claims to be a reincarnation of the Virgin Mary.
That information came from the National Post in Canada.
The group should not be confused with the Army of the Immaculate founded by Maximilian Kolbe, who died in a concentration camp, which has a legitimate following of the Virgin Mary.
The teachings of the Quebec-based group went too far by proclaiming that Mary is divine, and that the foundress of the group is the reincarnation of Mary. This would be impossible according to Catholic theology, because Mary was assumed bodily into heaven where she continues to live. In order for Mary to appear, she would not come in the form of another person, because she is still alive.
Another obvious issue with this is to claim that Mary is divine. Neither Catholics or any other Christian group claims that Mary is divine. Although the greatest of creatures, she is still a creature, who owes all of her existence to God Almighty.
My suspicious is that they also have a misunderstanding of Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix. This theology which is not officially sanctioned by the Church does not mean that Christ and Mary work together for salvation, we believe that only Christ is responsible for salvation. Co-redemptrix is understood as Mary's obedience to God which allowed our Savior to come into the world. Her "yes" allowed Christ to come into the world so that we may attain salvation.
This story is sad in many ways because many of the ladies involved are quite aged, and reconciliation is something which must be sought for them. On the other hand, this story is good to show that the Church continues to exercise her authority over her people and to guide them into all truth, as is her mission with the help of God.
This group is also accused of ordaining priests, but these ordinations were done by other priests which is against Church, or Canon, Law. Therefore these ordinations are deemed invalid as are marriages which were attended by these priests, in other words they are null.
We must all pray for these people that they will rejoin Christ's True Church, Holy Mother Church, the Catholic Church.
Calling it a "very grave situation," the Vatican has excommunicated members of a controversial Quebec Catholic movement, the Army of Mary, for their heretical beliefs that derive from the writings of Marie-Paule Giguère, an 86-year-old mystic who claims to be a reincarnation of the Virgin Mary.
That information came from the National Post in Canada.
The group should not be confused with the Army of the Immaculate founded by Maximilian Kolbe, who died in a concentration camp, which has a legitimate following of the Virgin Mary.
The teachings of the Quebec-based group went too far by proclaiming that Mary is divine, and that the foundress of the group is the reincarnation of Mary. This would be impossible according to Catholic theology, because Mary was assumed bodily into heaven where she continues to live. In order for Mary to appear, she would not come in the form of another person, because she is still alive.
Another obvious issue with this is to claim that Mary is divine. Neither Catholics or any other Christian group claims that Mary is divine. Although the greatest of creatures, she is still a creature, who owes all of her existence to God Almighty.
My suspicious is that they also have a misunderstanding of Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix. This theology which is not officially sanctioned by the Church does not mean that Christ and Mary work together for salvation, we believe that only Christ is responsible for salvation. Co-redemptrix is understood as Mary's obedience to God which allowed our Savior to come into the world. Her "yes" allowed Christ to come into the world so that we may attain salvation.
This story is sad in many ways because many of the ladies involved are quite aged, and reconciliation is something which must be sought for them. On the other hand, this story is good to show that the Church continues to exercise her authority over her people and to guide them into all truth, as is her mission with the help of God.
This group is also accused of ordaining priests, but these ordinations were done by other priests which is against Church, or Canon, Law. Therefore these ordinations are deemed invalid as are marriages which were attended by these priests, in other words they are null.
We must all pray for these people that they will rejoin Christ's True Church, Holy Mother Church, the Catholic Church.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Waiting for a new Archbishop
A couple of months ago in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, Archbishop Brendan O'Brien was sent to Kingston Ontario to be their new Archbishop. So, St. John's is waiting patiently for the arrival of a new Archbishop.
The following is information from the official archdiocesan website concerning this situation:
Father Francis Puddister Elected Archdiocesan Administrator (St. John's) The priests of the Archdiocese of St. John's of the Presbyteral Council which is also the Archdiocesan College of Consultors have elected Father Francis Puddister, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of St.John's and Parish Priest of Mary Queen of Peace Parish, Torbay Road, St.John's as the Archdiocesan Administrator for the Archdiocese of St.John's.
After Archbishop Brendan O'Brien took possession of the Archdiocese of Kingston on July 25, 2007 the College of Consultors was required by Canon Law to assume the administration of the Archdiocese and to elect a priest as Archdiocesan Administrator. Following a secret ballot, Father Francis Puddister was elected according to Canons 419 and 421.
Father Frank Puddister is originally from Bay Bulls. He received his elementary education at Sts. Peter and Paul Parish School, Bay Bulls. He later moved to St.John's where he attended St. Patrick's and later St. Bonaventure's College. He completed his high school studies at Brother Rice High School, St.John's.
He holds academic degrees from Memorial University of Newfoundland (B.A.,1971) and St. Paul's University of Ottawa (Bachelor of Theology, 1976; Licence and Master's in Canon Law, 1986).
He was ordained to the priesthood in 1977 by Archbishop Patrick James Skinner.
Since ordination he has served in a number of parishes throughout the Archdiocese of St.John's. In addition to being responsible for the pastoral administration of a number of parishes he has also been responsible for the Archdiocesan Marriage Tribunal (1982-1994, 2007 to the present) and has served as the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of St.John's since 2001.
Upon his election, as the Archdiocesan Administrator, Father Puddister assumes the administration of the diocese until a new archbishop is installed or takes possession of the diocese (Canon 430).
Until his installation in the Archdiocese of Kingston, Archbsihop O'Brien was mentioned in the usual way during the Eucharistic Prayer of the Mass. The name of the archbishop is now omitted until a new one is named by the Holy See. The Archdiocesan Liturgy Office suggests that prayers be offered from time to time for the Archdiocesan Administrator (Father Francis Puddister), and for all who work with him in Archdiocesan offices, in the Prayers of the Faithful of the Mass, of the Liturgy of the Hours and of the Liturgy of the Word.
May the Holy Spirit be active in the process of selecting our new archbishop. May he be a man of deep faith, integrity, fidelity and compassion. Let's pray daily!
Prayer for the election of our new bishop
Almighty God, giver of every good gift: Look graciously on your Church, and so guide the minds of those who shall choose the new Archbishop for the Archdiocese of St. John's, that we may receive a faithful pastor, who will care for your people and equip us for our ministries. We ask this through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen.
The following is information from the official archdiocesan website concerning this situation:
Father Francis Puddister Elected Archdiocesan Administrator (St. John's) The priests of the Archdiocese of St. John's of the Presbyteral Council which is also the Archdiocesan College of Consultors have elected Father Francis Puddister, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of St.John's and Parish Priest of Mary Queen of Peace Parish, Torbay Road, St.John's as the Archdiocesan Administrator for the Archdiocese of St.John's.
After Archbishop Brendan O'Brien took possession of the Archdiocese of Kingston on July 25, 2007 the College of Consultors was required by Canon Law to assume the administration of the Archdiocese and to elect a priest as Archdiocesan Administrator. Following a secret ballot, Father Francis Puddister was elected according to Canons 419 and 421.
Father Frank Puddister is originally from Bay Bulls. He received his elementary education at Sts. Peter and Paul Parish School, Bay Bulls. He later moved to St.John's where he attended St. Patrick's and later St. Bonaventure's College. He completed his high school studies at Brother Rice High School, St.John's.
He holds academic degrees from Memorial University of Newfoundland (B.A.,1971) and St. Paul's University of Ottawa (Bachelor of Theology, 1976; Licence and Master's in Canon Law, 1986).
He was ordained to the priesthood in 1977 by Archbishop Patrick James Skinner.
Since ordination he has served in a number of parishes throughout the Archdiocese of St.John's. In addition to being responsible for the pastoral administration of a number of parishes he has also been responsible for the Archdiocesan Marriage Tribunal (1982-1994, 2007 to the present) and has served as the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of St.John's since 2001.
Upon his election, as the Archdiocesan Administrator, Father Puddister assumes the administration of the diocese until a new archbishop is installed or takes possession of the diocese (Canon 430).
Until his installation in the Archdiocese of Kingston, Archbsihop O'Brien was mentioned in the usual way during the Eucharistic Prayer of the Mass. The name of the archbishop is now omitted until a new one is named by the Holy See. The Archdiocesan Liturgy Office suggests that prayers be offered from time to time for the Archdiocesan Administrator (Father Francis Puddister), and for all who work with him in Archdiocesan offices, in the Prayers of the Faithful of the Mass, of the Liturgy of the Hours and of the Liturgy of the Word.
May the Holy Spirit be active in the process of selecting our new archbishop. May he be a man of deep faith, integrity, fidelity and compassion. Let's pray daily!
Prayer for the election of our new bishop
Almighty God, giver of every good gift: Look graciously on your Church, and so guide the minds of those who shall choose the new Archbishop for the Archdiocese of St. John's, that we may receive a faithful pastor, who will care for your people and equip us for our ministries. We ask this through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Kathy Griffin and George Carlin
Kathy Griffin has joined the likes of George Carlin in her renunciation of religion, specifically her renunciation of Catholicism, the religion into which she was born. Her comments, which I will not post here, were revoked from the Emmy's because they were considered offensive.
We must pray for these two actors and all those who were born to Catholic families, that instead of blaspheming against their religion and God, they will praise and worship God in everything they do.
We, of course, must also pray for all actors and all people.
Maybe one day they will all be very proud of their Catholic heritage, just as Martin Sheen is. He actually took the name Sheen after Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, a great event in our history, and Martin Sheen continues to be very involved with his faith and represents it well in Hollywood, he being one of the most respected actors of all time.
We must pray for these two actors and all those who were born to Catholic families, that instead of blaspheming against their religion and God, they will praise and worship God in everything they do.
We, of course, must also pray for all actors and all people.
Maybe one day they will all be very proud of their Catholic heritage, just as Martin Sheen is. He actually took the name Sheen after Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, a great event in our history, and Martin Sheen continues to be very involved with his faith and represents it well in Hollywood, he being one of the most respected actors of all time.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
360 Vision on Vision TV in Canada
This is an appeal to all Catholics out there to boycott Vision TV, which has, over the years become more and more anti-Catholic. I obviously find this trend very disturbing. I was watching a review show they had for their 100th episode which shows some of the programs they had on there. One was on a gay priest, another was on 2 women who were sexually assaulted by a priest like 30 years ago, another was on evangelicals going to the Dominican Republic or something spreading the Gospel even though most of them are Catholic already. Another show was about Islamic terrorism and a threat issued by the Canadian government warning of this threat. Basically, the show was about how this was false or something or not totally true, and that it was very negative towards Muslims. Oh no, you wouldn't want to offend anyone now would you.
It seems like Vision television supports every religion except Catholicism, while at the same time making the Catholic Church look as bad as it possibly can. Any issue, be it gay "marriage", or priestly sexual abuse, that makes the Church look bad to some people is shown all the time.
Customarily Vision runs shows which condemn the Church from every angle. Care is taken to avoid offending any group, but when it comes to Catholics, they take information from the seediest sources, just to make their contrarian viewpoints. I would suggest that any Catholic does not watch Vision Television. The Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and it IS THE TRUTH, that's why it's so viciously attacked by the likes of Vision.
It seems like Vision television supports every religion except Catholicism, while at the same time making the Catholic Church look as bad as it possibly can. Any issue, be it gay "marriage", or priestly sexual abuse, that makes the Church look bad to some people is shown all the time.
Customarily Vision runs shows which condemn the Church from every angle. Care is taken to avoid offending any group, but when it comes to Catholics, they take information from the seediest sources, just to make their contrarian viewpoints. I would suggest that any Catholic does not watch Vision Television. The Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and it IS THE TRUTH, that's why it's so viciously attacked by the likes of Vision.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Open Letter to the fifth estate
I am writing a letter to the fifth estate, a Canadian investigative journalism program. Here it is:
Philip Lynch
Tuesday, May 1st, 2007
Hana Gartner
Dear Ms. Gartner,
Please let me congratulate the Fifth Estate on producing some fine documentaries in the legacy of investigative journalism. Over the years, journalists of the Fifth Estate have taken it upon themselves to expose some of the most unpalatable behavior occurring in Canada and elsewhere. Many of your programs are head and shoulders above anything else I have seen from other networks, including from American and British television. Shows like the Fifth Estate are valuable for keeping the public informed and public figures in check.
Having said this, however, I am very disappointed at your recent report on the Catholic Church and sexual abuse. Although you are a dedicated and tireless journalist, it seems on this one you were lazy, and instead of uncovering something truly worthwhile, you decided to beat a dead horse. The story of Roman Catholic clergy sexual abuse is so overdone on Canadian and American television, you would think it is the only thing happening in the world. Instead of being a real trailblazer and reporting that not all priests are pedophiles, you took the low road, perhaps a road with more ratings, but certainly not more honorable.
To go the road of television sensationalism is something one might expect from American tabloid-style news broadcasts, but not from the CBC. The fact is your story portrayed a few individual priests. If you did a story on 5 rabbis who were murderers, some people could become very suspicious of the Jewish people. Instead of emphasizing that only a tiny percentage of priests ever committed such crimes, you tried to implicate the whole church. You profiled people leaving the church and never returning. Why, all of a sudden, does the minority represent the whole? The vast majority of priests would never hurt a fly, but no one would have that impression after watching your show.
As an investigative journalist, you have an obligation to remain unbiased, and to present all the evidence. You chose not to do this however. Take for example, the following information. Christianity Today noted that there were "70 child abuse allegations reported against American Protestant churches each week during the last ten years," a quarter of which were against pastors ("Go Figure," May 21, 2002).
When the American federal government shut down the "Candyman" pedophile web site last March, it was reported that the site’s more than 7,000 visitors included members of the military, police and fire departments, teachers, Little League coaches, and eight members of the clergy, including two Catholic priests—two out of 7,000.
Another statistic I read said teachers were charged with sexual abuse at a rate 4 times higher than Catholic clergy. I do not know the source, but it is the job of a journalist to find out.
The Fifth Estate is ultimately paid for by Canadian citizens in the form of taxes, as well as advertising from sponsors. Forty three percent of these Canadians are Roman Catholic, and I think it would be high time for your program to earn its reputation again by doing a real investigative report that shows the hypocrisy of singling out the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to sexual abuse.
Sincerely,
Philip Lynch
Philip Lynch
Tuesday, May 1st, 2007
Hana Gartner
Dear Ms. Gartner,
Please let me congratulate the Fifth Estate on producing some fine documentaries in the legacy of investigative journalism. Over the years, journalists of the Fifth Estate have taken it upon themselves to expose some of the most unpalatable behavior occurring in Canada and elsewhere. Many of your programs are head and shoulders above anything else I have seen from other networks, including from American and British television. Shows like the Fifth Estate are valuable for keeping the public informed and public figures in check.
Having said this, however, I am very disappointed at your recent report on the Catholic Church and sexual abuse. Although you are a dedicated and tireless journalist, it seems on this one you were lazy, and instead of uncovering something truly worthwhile, you decided to beat a dead horse. The story of Roman Catholic clergy sexual abuse is so overdone on Canadian and American television, you would think it is the only thing happening in the world. Instead of being a real trailblazer and reporting that not all priests are pedophiles, you took the low road, perhaps a road with more ratings, but certainly not more honorable.
To go the road of television sensationalism is something one might expect from American tabloid-style news broadcasts, but not from the CBC. The fact is your story portrayed a few individual priests. If you did a story on 5 rabbis who were murderers, some people could become very suspicious of the Jewish people. Instead of emphasizing that only a tiny percentage of priests ever committed such crimes, you tried to implicate the whole church. You profiled people leaving the church and never returning. Why, all of a sudden, does the minority represent the whole? The vast majority of priests would never hurt a fly, but no one would have that impression after watching your show.
As an investigative journalist, you have an obligation to remain unbiased, and to present all the evidence. You chose not to do this however. Take for example, the following information. Christianity Today noted that there were "70 child abuse allegations reported against American Protestant churches each week during the last ten years," a quarter of which were against pastors ("Go Figure," May 21, 2002).
When the American federal government shut down the "Candyman" pedophile web site last March, it was reported that the site’s more than 7,000 visitors included members of the military, police and fire departments, teachers, Little League coaches, and eight members of the clergy, including two Catholic priests—two out of 7,000.
Another statistic I read said teachers were charged with sexual abuse at a rate 4 times higher than Catholic clergy. I do not know the source, but it is the job of a journalist to find out.
The Fifth Estate is ultimately paid for by Canadian citizens in the form of taxes, as well as advertising from sponsors. Forty three percent of these Canadians are Roman Catholic, and I think it would be high time for your program to earn its reputation again by doing a real investigative report that shows the hypocrisy of singling out the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to sexual abuse.
Sincerely,
Philip Lynch
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Papal Pallium
The following article had a great beginning, but some parts throughout may be offensive to devout Catholics. The first part is quite nice, however, please read. This is an article I found at the following address:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/06/03/reviews/010603.03warnert.html
Some Roman Catholic liturgical customs aestheticize human relations to the divine with exquisite sensibility: the pope's slippers, for example, were made in a shell-like shade of pink, and his pallium, a long white band worn over the pope's shoulders, is woven from the first shearings of lambs that have been blessed on Jan. 21, the feast day of St. Agnes, in Rome's Sant'Agnese Fuori le Mura (St. Agnes Outside the Walls), where the saint is buried; the lambs are then raised in the papal summer palace of Castel Gandolfo until their wool is ready, at which point Benedictine nuns in a convent in Trastevere work it into the papal vestment. I chanced upon the ceremony several years ago, and saw two of the new year's lambs, garlanded with white and red roses, trot up a scarlet carpet (symbolizing martyrdom) to the altar where the priest, in full fig, awaited them. I almost expected the little creatures to kneel down.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/06/03/reviews/010603.03warnert.html
Some Roman Catholic liturgical customs aestheticize human relations to the divine with exquisite sensibility: the pope's slippers, for example, were made in a shell-like shade of pink, and his pallium, a long white band worn over the pope's shoulders, is woven from the first shearings of lambs that have been blessed on Jan. 21, the feast day of St. Agnes, in Rome's Sant'Agnese Fuori le Mura (St. Agnes Outside the Walls), where the saint is buried; the lambs are then raised in the papal summer palace of Castel Gandolfo until their wool is ready, at which point Benedictine nuns in a convent in Trastevere work it into the papal vestment. I chanced upon the ceremony several years ago, and saw two of the new year's lambs, garlanded with white and red roses, trot up a scarlet carpet (symbolizing martyrdom) to the altar where the priest, in full fig, awaited them. I almost expected the little creatures to kneel down.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Priest is attacked verbally on the air by so-called "Catholic"
Recently the president of Human Life International, Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, appeared on Fox television on the Colmes-Hannity show to speak with Hannity who openly expressed his beliefs about contraception which are contrary to Catholic belief. Fr. Euteneur was invited onto the show to speak with Hannity. Hannity showed absolutely no respect to this priest, and went on a tirade against him. Euteneur, however, remained calm. This article, taken from the Human Life International (the largest pro-life organization in the world), explains the situation, in the words of Fr. Euteneur himself:
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth.” (2 Tim 4:3-4)
Many Spirit and Life readers may know that after last Friday’s column (“Sean Hannity’s Gospel”) I was invited to defend my position on the Hannity and Colmes show that very night. It’s nice to know that my emails are being read in the hallowed halls of Fox News! I suspected, however, that Hannity wanted to defend his “devout Catholic” credentials, and I was not disabused of this notion when I went on the show. What the show did, above all, was to show not that the Church was wrong or incoherent, but that Hannity, like so many other cultural Catholics, is really a liberal when it comes to certain aspects of sexual morality.
The first point I have to straighten out is for those who were concerned that this was not handled first in private. Well, in fact, I did attempt to handle this matter in private with Mr. Hannity in 2004, but I never received a response to my letter asking him for a meeting. [See side bar item, “Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control.”] As far as I am concerned, I did my due diligence before I went public with my complaint about his hypocrisy; but even if I had not, it was Mr. Hannity’s schedulers who called me to make an issue of it, not I who demanded to appear on his show! In this age of culpable clerical silence on many serious issues affecting people’s souls, do we now want a priest to keep silent about something so important? We can’t have it both ways.
Second, concerning the actual debate, what some are calling Sean’s “disrespect” for me as a member of the clergy was not of concern to me. In that sense, Sean is typical of his generation that has been taught that nobody has any special consecration (even if they technically do) and that everyone has to prove his mettle in the realm of public debate. No problem. I am a holder of this office, and I did not feel that his callous disregard for the priesthood did anything to diminish the sanctity of it, but I can see how it was an extra element of scandal for those who value the priestly office highly. Nor did I really care that he cut me off time and time again in the debate; he’s a known quantity—did you expect anything else from Hannity?
Just for the record, Sean Hannity really is a dissenting Catholic and a public scandal to the Faith. He should be rebuked by his pastor or bishop, not by me, but since that has not been forthcoming in his decade or so of public dissent on radio and TV, somebody in authority had to say something. Hannity, as we know, is shameless on birth control, and judging from the interview, he hasn’t even the vocabulary to rationally defend his position in the face of his Church’s clear teaching. Hannity is also clearly pro-choice on abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, and he is really cozy with the likes of Rudy Giuliani whose love for abortion and everything gay is hardly a secret. It has even been revealed that Hannity’s website, Hannity.com has a gay dating service that Sean knows about and apparently “has no problem with;” no different from his attitude in regard to birth control. So much for the “devout Catholic” Hannity. If that is devout, then Hugh Heffner is reverent.
The interview on Friday night was enlightening in many senses but mostly because it showed Hannity’s true liberal side. The “Judge not lest ye be judged” comment I have heard only and exclusively in debates with liberals and others with guilty consciences. It is the whine of the person who is doing something that he knows in his heart is wrong but can’t stand anyone pointing out. Hannity’s “judge not” rant can be summarized in one phrase which, if it were put this way, would have been much more identifiable as liberal claptrap: “How dare you question my choice!” Face it: Hannity is a liberal when it comes to sex. In his position next to Colmes, Hannity wears the conservative mantle, but when he comes face to face with the truth of his Church, which I as a priest am obliged to uphold faithfully, he is no more than a liberal relativist.
And in that matter, how different is his position on birth control from that of Planned Parenthood? They have “no problem” with birth control either. In fact it’s much more than a personal matter for them. It fuels their business. Yes, about 60% of women going into abortion clinics are doing it because of failed birth control and no amount of feigned pragmatism about stopping abortions with birth control is going to change the fact that birth control teaches people to be selfish and leads them down the garden path to the killing centers of this nation—or any nation for that matter. And by the way, for those who wanted me to object to both abortion and birth control as a solution to any problem, please go back and listen carefully to the clip—I did object to both! The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality is the only coherent dissenting viewpoint from PP’s gospel of free sex and baby killing, and sadly, Hannity, the “devout Catholic,” just aids and abets those criminals.
Most surprising of all, however, was Hannity’s use of what I call the “argument from pedophilia;” namely, the tendency to fall back on the Church sex abuse scandal when you’re losing an argument with a priest and have to grab for something. I have had people do this to me in front of abortion clinics, at Da Vinci Code protests and in private conversations about Catholicism for the past several years. Let’s just say I didn’t expect it from Hannity! Was it me or did Sean just disconnect from reality at that moment? Where in the world did that come from? Well, it’s because Hannity’s really a closet liberal when pushed to the wall. True colors come out in the wash, and the birth control issue just has a greater tendency to touch the sensitive areas of people’s philosophies of life.
Hannity’s worldview is full of holes. He may have gone to seminary but, if that is the case, his seminary background and knowledge of Latin (!) gives him a greater responsibility to get it right when he wants to spout off about Church teaching in the public forum.
For your reading interest you can click on the side bar items to see some of the incredible feedback that we got on both sides of the debate. Of particular interest is the recent statement of Cardinal Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, who has said that “dissident Catholics are more worrying than atheists.” Whew—words of warning for Hannity and O’Reilly and company. In the end, we all have to undergo our own “Judgment Day,” and it is the Church’s job to let people know ahead of time that God is not a moral relativist on the issue of birth control.
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth.” (2 Tim 4:3-4)
Many Spirit and Life readers may know that after last Friday’s column (“Sean Hannity’s Gospel”) I was invited to defend my position on the Hannity and Colmes show that very night. It’s nice to know that my emails are being read in the hallowed halls of Fox News! I suspected, however, that Hannity wanted to defend his “devout Catholic” credentials, and I was not disabused of this notion when I went on the show. What the show did, above all, was to show not that the Church was wrong or incoherent, but that Hannity, like so many other cultural Catholics, is really a liberal when it comes to certain aspects of sexual morality.
The first point I have to straighten out is for those who were concerned that this was not handled first in private. Well, in fact, I did attempt to handle this matter in private with Mr. Hannity in 2004, but I never received a response to my letter asking him for a meeting. [See side bar item, “Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control.”] As far as I am concerned, I did my due diligence before I went public with my complaint about his hypocrisy; but even if I had not, it was Mr. Hannity’s schedulers who called me to make an issue of it, not I who demanded to appear on his show! In this age of culpable clerical silence on many serious issues affecting people’s souls, do we now want a priest to keep silent about something so important? We can’t have it both ways.
Second, concerning the actual debate, what some are calling Sean’s “disrespect” for me as a member of the clergy was not of concern to me. In that sense, Sean is typical of his generation that has been taught that nobody has any special consecration (even if they technically do) and that everyone has to prove his mettle in the realm of public debate. No problem. I am a holder of this office, and I did not feel that his callous disregard for the priesthood did anything to diminish the sanctity of it, but I can see how it was an extra element of scandal for those who value the priestly office highly. Nor did I really care that he cut me off time and time again in the debate; he’s a known quantity—did you expect anything else from Hannity?
Just for the record, Sean Hannity really is a dissenting Catholic and a public scandal to the Faith. He should be rebuked by his pastor or bishop, not by me, but since that has not been forthcoming in his decade or so of public dissent on radio and TV, somebody in authority had to say something. Hannity, as we know, is shameless on birth control, and judging from the interview, he hasn’t even the vocabulary to rationally defend his position in the face of his Church’s clear teaching. Hannity is also clearly pro-choice on abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, and he is really cozy with the likes of Rudy Giuliani whose love for abortion and everything gay is hardly a secret. It has even been revealed that Hannity’s website, Hannity.com has a gay dating service that Sean knows about and apparently “has no problem with;” no different from his attitude in regard to birth control. So much for the “devout Catholic” Hannity. If that is devout, then Hugh Heffner is reverent.
The interview on Friday night was enlightening in many senses but mostly because it showed Hannity’s true liberal side. The “Judge not lest ye be judged” comment I have heard only and exclusively in debates with liberals and others with guilty consciences. It is the whine of the person who is doing something that he knows in his heart is wrong but can’t stand anyone pointing out. Hannity’s “judge not” rant can be summarized in one phrase which, if it were put this way, would have been much more identifiable as liberal claptrap: “How dare you question my choice!” Face it: Hannity is a liberal when it comes to sex. In his position next to Colmes, Hannity wears the conservative mantle, but when he comes face to face with the truth of his Church, which I as a priest am obliged to uphold faithfully, he is no more than a liberal relativist.
And in that matter, how different is his position on birth control from that of Planned Parenthood? They have “no problem” with birth control either. In fact it’s much more than a personal matter for them. It fuels their business. Yes, about 60% of women going into abortion clinics are doing it because of failed birth control and no amount of feigned pragmatism about stopping abortions with birth control is going to change the fact that birth control teaches people to be selfish and leads them down the garden path to the killing centers of this nation—or any nation for that matter. And by the way, for those who wanted me to object to both abortion and birth control as a solution to any problem, please go back and listen carefully to the clip—I did object to both! The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality is the only coherent dissenting viewpoint from PP’s gospel of free sex and baby killing, and sadly, Hannity, the “devout Catholic,” just aids and abets those criminals.
Most surprising of all, however, was Hannity’s use of what I call the “argument from pedophilia;” namely, the tendency to fall back on the Church sex abuse scandal when you’re losing an argument with a priest and have to grab for something. I have had people do this to me in front of abortion clinics, at Da Vinci Code protests and in private conversations about Catholicism for the past several years. Let’s just say I didn’t expect it from Hannity! Was it me or did Sean just disconnect from reality at that moment? Where in the world did that come from? Well, it’s because Hannity’s really a closet liberal when pushed to the wall. True colors come out in the wash, and the birth control issue just has a greater tendency to touch the sensitive areas of people’s philosophies of life.
Hannity’s worldview is full of holes. He may have gone to seminary but, if that is the case, his seminary background and knowledge of Latin (!) gives him a greater responsibility to get it right when he wants to spout off about Church teaching in the public forum.
For your reading interest you can click on the side bar items to see some of the incredible feedback that we got on both sides of the debate. Of particular interest is the recent statement of Cardinal Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, who has said that “dissident Catholics are more worrying than atheists.” Whew—words of warning for Hannity and O’Reilly and company. In the end, we all have to undergo our own “Judgment Day,” and it is the Church’s job to let people know ahead of time that God is not a moral relativist on the issue of birth control.
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)