Next post soon...

Dear Blog Readers:

I apologize for the delay in posting a new blog entry. I usually try to have a new one daily before noon, usually in the morning. Today, however, has been rather busy. I will try to have one here by tonight. Thanks for your patience.

Phil

Obama's Ironic Words

I've been writing a lot about Obama recently, even though I'm Canadian. There are two reasons. First of all, our most important influence comes from the United States. Secondly, life issues affect the human race, not just Canadians or Americans. Over the coming weeks, I will hopefully analyze some of the policies of other countries, many of which are even more extreme and dangerous than America's with Obama in the White House.

The irony that I am speaking about is something Obama said. While at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama said:

"There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being".

This, I think, is an example of Obama's doublespeak. Who is more innocent than the unborn? Remember, these are not blobs of cells, these are full human beings, whose eye colour, height, complexion, hair colour, etc. is already determined. By the time nearly all abortions occur, the baby's organs are already developing and he has a heart beat and brain activity.

So when Obama says no God would condone the killing of innocent people, who exactly is he talking about? Perhaps he refers to the innocent handicapped people? Well, that can't be true either because Obama said his worst political decision was to allow Terry Shaivo to continue to receive food and water.

Part of what makes Obama famous is that he tries to say what he thinks people want to hear. You may say all politicians do this, but I have never met a politician who alters his message so dramatically from one place to another. For example, there are pro-life politicians. If you ask them if they support the right to life for everyone, they will of course agree. Now, if a pro-abortion person asks what they think should happen if a rape victim gets pregnant, they will not suddenly abandon their pro-life stance and say "I'm pro-choice now." They would perhaps talk around the issue and say they believe that is a very tough situation and we must do everything we can to help them out, etc. but they wouldn't just change what they said in the past to suit the situation, which as you can see Obama does frequently.

There are a couple of equally horrendous ways which we could take what Obama said that would not make him duplicitous. First, perhaps he does not believe that a baby 5 minutes before birth is human, or even that a baby who is partially out of the womb is human. Only when the smallest pinky toe escapes the birth canal is the person in question a member of humanity. Prior to this, according to Obama, this entity must be a non-human. That defies natural logic.

The other possible way of reconciling what Obama said with him being consistent is to consider that perhaps he believes God would never condone the killing of an innocent person, but that Obama really doesn't care what God thinks. This would probably be worse than the first possibility. If this is true, then this is pride. To know and understand what God wants and to purposely contrive against it is a serious crime. It is the definition of sin. And to be that clear about it makes it all the more scandalous.

I do not think it is possible that he does not believe in God. The reason is that if he didn't, why would he even bother mentioning God in the first place? It's not like Obama has a lack of vocabulary. He could have said "no civilization" would condone the taking of innocent human life, or "no society" or "no moral people", but he didn't. He specifically said God. Of course, with his record of doublespeak, perhaps Obama doesn't really believe in God, but says he does because he doesn't think Americans are ready for an atheist president. On a side note, I do not think anyone truly does not believe in God. They may refuse to acknowledge God, or ignore God, but I think deep down everyone knows God.

At least one priest has spoken up against these words of Obama. American priest, Father Hugh W. Cleary, Holy Cross superior general in Rome, has issued a letter to Obama urging him to reconsider his stance on life issues. Holy Cross is the order under which Notre Dame was founded in Indiana in 1842. Let us pray and work together with Fr. Cleary to bring Obama to an understanding of the sanctity of life.

Here is an article about the letter written by Fr. Cleary: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901461.htm

Obama's Accidental Good Effects

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

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

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

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

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

You have to see this video, it is truly breathtaking

Please view this video produced by Catholics Come Home called "Epic":

http://www.catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.phtml

Patron saint of the Internet? Feast Day is April 4th

The internet was founded a few decades ago in efforts which began in the 50s and culminated in the creation of the world wide web. But did you know there is a Catholic saint who is the patron of the Internet.

He is Isidore of Seville. Although you may never have heard of him, he has actually been very important in the Catholic Church. Isidore died in the 7th century and was the bishop of Seville, in Spain. He was canonized in 1598, and was the twelfth person raised to status of Doctor of the Church, which for him was in 1722. He is not the official patron saint of the Internet, but many consider him as such, and perhaps in the future, he will receive this title officially. He is also the patron of computers.

Isidore is famous for writing Etymologiae. In this encyclopedia, he touches on dozens of topics. There are 21 books which range from law, war, agriculture, grammar, animals, and of course, religion. It was compiled near the end of Isidore's life (he died in 636). In his treatise, Isidore takes information from Christian and pagan writers. One interesting note is that in Etymologiae, Isidore asserts that the Earth is in fact round. Apparently it isn't true that people always thought the Earth was flat.

I know this article is a bit late because Isidore's feast is April 4th, and today is April 5th. Today, say a prayer for this saint and Doctor of the Church.

St. Benedict of Nursia: patron saint of kidney diseases

Several months ago, my grandmother was diagnosed with kidney disease. Ultimately she had one of her kidneys removed. She is now recovering in hospital and doing better every day. While praying for her I decided to find out who the patron saint of kidney problems was. It is no other than St. Benedict of Nursia. He is the founder of Western monastacism, and thousands of monks today use his Rule of St. Benedict, a guide for every aspect of a monk's day. It was written in the 6th century. It is even good to read through if you are not a monk for it offer timeless wisdom.

There is an interesting story as to why St. Benedict is the patron saint of kidney problems. It is said that Benedict went to implement his rule at a monastery, but some of the monks there thought it was too hard to follow. They sought to poison his kidneys in order to make him ill. However, he blessed the drink and the poison did not affect him.

Monks have had such an important role in Western society. Let us always remember their contribution to the betterment of humanity.

Added October 5, 2015:

Please Help Support my blog by purchasing this great book from Amazon.com: The Rule of St. Benedict. It costs just $6.77 US. It will help immensely, but it will also help your spiritual life!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planet Un-Parenthood

The Myths of Overpopulation

By Fr. Frank Pavone

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

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

Apparently, we’re doing better than that.

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

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

"Having Babies Is Selfish"

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

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

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

The Hype

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

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

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

The Reality

The reality, however, is different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Mis)anthropology

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

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

Abortionist Warren Hern expresses this view in the following way:

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

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

The Moral and Spiritual Myth

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

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

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

The Freedom to Reproduce

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

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

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

Can We Recover?

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

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

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

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

Toward an Ethic of Hope

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

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

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

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

Vatican Wealth: The myth that's contrasted with voluntary poverty

Many people accuse the Vatican and the Catholic Church in general of hording up money and retaining vast wealth. In fact, many say the reason priests are celibate is so that they do not have a family to pass down their possessions to. Many look at the large basilicas and cathedrals and wonder why they aren't being sold off to help the poor. I will analyze these questions and show how they are based on falsehoods.

One of the main proofs that the Catholic Church and specifically priests and bishops are not members of the clergy to gain wealth is the way the wealth they have is used and to contrast that with how others use wealth. When you look at the lifestyles of the rich and famous, whether it's the show or just the activity, what do you notice? They have huge houses, several expensive cars, a swimming pool, huge tvs, etc. And a major thing you will notice is that they are usually not celibate! Contrast this now with clergy. They usually live in a small place, have a utilitarian car, are voluntarily celibate, etc. They have forgone the trappings of this world in order to come closer to the spiritual life.

When Pope John Paul II, the head of the Catholic Church, died in 2005, he had very few possessions of personal property. Just a few little things. It is said he did not remember the meals he ate but could remember almost all the conversations he had with people. He was most interested in being a shepherd to the people of God. There are countless examples of saints living in voluntary povery in the Catholic Church, from St. Francis of Assisi who could have taken over his father's textiles business, or Alphonsus Liguori, founder of the Redemptorists and Doctor of the Church, who could have had a lucrative career as a lawyer in Italy but renouced that to follow a spiritual path. Mother Teresa gave up her life to be a nun in the poorest part of India. Ten thousand books could be written about saints who renounced a life of luxury to live a Catholic spiritual life and you would still not have scratched the surface.

As for basilicas and cathedrals, these were works of love. They were built by donations given by people. The people wanted places of worship where they could celebrate the Mass. Many times, people of the community actually helped in building these monuments. Brother André Bessette, who founded St. Joseph's Oratory, one of the largest churches in Canada and the world, was known for his harsh austerities. He had a tiny room and did many forms of penance. His aunt was worried that he would die because he was already frail. He in fact lived into his nineties.

As far as hording up wealth goes, the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization on the planet. Bigger than the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or any other institution or organization in the world.

If you are seeking personal material wealth, you better look elsewhere than the clergy of the Catholic Church.

Unusual Baptism Involving Lemon Cola (this is not an April Fool's Joke!)

In Norway, interesting news has emerged that a baby was baptized with lemon cola, instead of the obviously usual water. Apparently this was done because the water pipes had frozen and they could not get any water for the sacrament. I do not know what denomination this was, as the story does not indicate this. They only mention that there was a priest, named Paal Dale, who did the baptism.

It seems statistically probable that the priest is of the national Church of Norway, in which case he would not be Catholic. 83% of the population belong to the national church.

How does this action square with Catholic teaching on baptism? Well, surprisingly it could be valid given certain circumstances. First of all, no water could be available with which to perform the baptism. Secondly, the baby would have to be in some kind of proximate danger of death. A substance other than water in baptism should not be used if there is not a serious reason. Since I do not know the circumstances of this baptism, I cannot say if it followed to rules or not.

Another interesting piece of information is that although this was not done in a Catholic Church, if it was validly done and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then it would be considered valid, and if the child was to later become Catholic, he would not have to be baptized again. If, however lemon cola was used and it was not necessary, they may opt to do a conditional baptism, which basically says we are not 100% certain that the baby was baptized, but if not, we will now. If he was baptized already, this "new" baptism will not have an additional effect, but if he was not correctly baptized the first time, this will bring him into the Body of Christ. If a priest is not available, anyone can validly baptize a baby and, in fact, should.

To get more detail on the use of liquids other than water for baptism, I went to Catholic.com, and found a Question and Answer which referenced the Code of Canon Law. It states the following:

The code of canon law explains that "true, clean, and natural water" is necessary for baptism (canon 849). Liquids can be assessed in three categories: Those that are certainly valid, those that are doubtfully valid, and those that are certainly invalid.

Certainly valid liquids include water as found in rivers, oceans, lakes, hot springs, melted ice or snow, mineral water, dew, slightly muddy water (as long as the water predominates), and slightly brackish water.

Doubtfully valid liquids are those that are a mixture of water and some other substance, such as beer, soda, light tea, thin soup or broth, and artificially scented water such as rose water.The last category is of liquids which are certainly invalid. It includes oil, urine, grease, phlegm, shoe polish, and milk.

The rule of thumb is that, in emergency situations, you should always try to baptize with certainly valid liquids, beginning with plain, clean water. If plain water isn't available, baptize with a doubtfully valid liquid using the formula, "If this water is valid, I baptize you in the name of the Father. . ." If the danger of death passes, the person should later be conditionally baptized with certainly valid water. Never attempt to baptize anyone with a certainly invalid liquid.

The link to this Catholic Answers Q&A can be found here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9211qq.asp

Here is the full Lemon Cola Baptism story from Reuters (on Yahoo):

Tue Mar 31, 2:22 PM

OSLO (Reuters) - A Norwegian church used lemon-flavored cola instead of water in a baptism ceremony after its taps were temporarily turned off because of freezing temperatures, daily Vaart Land said Tuesday.

Priest Paal Dale from the town of Stord, about 150 miles west of the capital Oslo, improvised during a recent cold-spell by dabbing the lemon fizzy water on a baby during a baptism ceremony, it said.

"It had gone flat," Dale was quoted as saying by the newspaper. "Only the lemon smell made this unusual."

Dale said the child's family were informed about the switch only after the ceremony because the priest "had a need to inform" them about the lingering lemon scent.

"They didn't say much, but I assumed they smelled the aroma as well," Dale told Vaart Land.
(Reporting by Wojciech Moskwa)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090331/odds/odd_us_baptism

Science reveals one mother of humanity, calls her Eve

As often happens, science is now coming to understand a truth which has been proclaimed by people of God for centuries. In this case, I refer to new evidence which shows that all humanity came from a single mother. Sound familiar? Of course this single mother is Eve, and even in the scientific community, this discovery is termed "Mitochondrial Eve". After analysing human mitochondria, which is a small part of the cell, scientists found that we all descended from a single female.

There are some misconceptions about Adam and Eve. We have to sift through the myths to find the truth. We do not assert, as Catholics, that the two first humans were actually named Adam and Eve. Adam means earth or ground because we believe God formed Adam from the Earth. Eve means life of living one. Much of the accounts of Adam and Eve use metaphorical language to explain situations. For example, the fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not necessarily literal fruit, but rather some form of disobedience.

There are many things though that we are obliged to believe. We must believe that there were two first parents. At first, this might seem hard to accept, but if we think about it a bit, we will find it isn't. First of all, we have certain characteristics that animals do not have, not even a little. We have a rational soul. No animal has a partially rational soul. Therefore, this is infused in our soul and makes us unique. Even if you believe in evolution, it is still possible that there were humanoids but that they did not possess a rational soul, and that God infused a rational soul into the first true man and the first true woman. Now, as this article states, we have evidence that there indeed was, according to science, a single first mother.

Another fact we must accept is that the first couple disobeyed God and were expelled from the Garden of Eden, and through this we inherited original sin. This necessitated Christ's coming and dying for us to bridge the gap between us and Heaven because we cannot get to Heaven alone.

For a much more detailed treatment of the topic of Adam, Eve and Evolution, please see the Catholic Answers Tract here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Final Push during Lent: Do something big

I hope your Lent has been going well. Mine has had its ups and downs, but I would say this is one my best so far. I am going to try to do something a little extra for the lsat week of the Lenten Season before the great Feast of Easter, the most important day of the Christian calendar. Easter should truly be a celebratory time. Like the end of a race. You will feel much better if you put your all into the race and did well at the end, than if you did not put any effort throughout. Therefore, let us do something for Christ near the end of Lent. Something that may seem hard. Whatever you are doing now, do a little more.

For example:

If you gave up meat on Fridays, give it up for Monday as well.
If you go to Mass daily, pray the rosary also.
If you donate $20 to church each week, donate $40.

That's one example from each of the 3 Eminent Good Works: Prayer, Fasting, and Almsgiving. Of course the first is technically abstinence from meat, but you can also try eating less as well to fulfill fasting. Perhaps this year you can also consider eating little or nothing for Good Friday. Of course the Church has prescribed minimum requirements, but rather than simply fulfilling those, why not try going above and beyond and doing something difficult.

It would be very hard to beat the Black Fast. This was practiced by Catholics many centuries ago, and sounds very very difficult, almost impossible. It is as follows (source: Catholic Encyclopedia):

In the first place more than one meal was strictly prohibited. At this meal flesh meat, eggs, butter, cheese, and milk were interdicted (Gregory I, Decretals IV, cap. vi; Trullan Synod, Canon 56). Besides these restrictions abstinence from wine, specially during Lent, was enjoined (Thomassin, Traité des jeûnes de l'Eglise, II, vii). Furthermore, during Holy Week the fare consisted of bread, salt, herbs, and water (Laymann, Theologia Moralis, Tr. VIII; De observatione jejuniorum, i). Finally, this meal was not allowed until sunset.

This is a very ancient form of fasting. The sheer difficulty of this fast make is nearly prohibitive for most. I think once you get to this level, you are sacrificing a lot for Christ. Remember though, it is not our suffering, fasting, prayers, or almsgiving that get us to Heaven or make us holy. Only Christ can do this. We must enjoy ourselves to his Passion - why not this Lent?

Earth Hour: a good idea for Catholics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Nation? More like Abomination!

Every day we hear more news from the US concerning Obama's decisions. It seems like he sits down and asks how he can violate Catholic doctrine every move he makes. It almost seems too coincidental to be true. Here is a quick list of some of the stuff Obama has done:

1. Vowed to sign the Freedom Of Choice Act (or FOCA), which would make abortion a constitutional right which would be codified at the federal level. It would erase any good laws concerning abortion and any progress made by the pro-life movement in the past 35 years or so since Roe vs. Wade in the United States.

2. Obama will eliminate funding for sexual-abstinence-only programs. Instead he will promote sex before marriage, the use of contraception and abortafacients, abortion, etc. This programming of course will only lead to more STDs, infidelity, and abortion.

3. Obama has allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Now babies will be brought into existence to be used as medical research tools. Using human persons as medical research tools is very contrary to divine law. It makes a person a mere object to be used by those who are physically stronger.

4. Obama has said that his worst decision as a politician was to support Terri Schiavo in her struggle for life. Terri was mentally hanicapped. She only required food and water to survive. She was not brain dead, she was fully alive with disabilities. Her husband wanted to her to be left to die. Her family said they would take care of her and pay all her expenses, but the judge decided to side with Terri's husband and let her die. Terri died of starvation after all food was refused her. No, she did not die because a machine stopped pumping her heart or because her lungs were not being artifically inflated. She died of dehydration, just like anyone would if denied food and water for an extended period of time. The Rule of Threes states that people cannot generally survive more than 3 days without water. Most the time it can be a week or 11 days. Terri lived for 12 or 13 days after being denied all food and water. She was left to thirst to death.

The list goes on. Obama has heralded the culture of death like no President before him. He has taken a somewhat cowardly path. He chooses to destroy the lives of the defendless. Instead of slaughtering people who can fight for themselves, he goes after the weakest and most vulnerable.

Let us pray that like Bernard Nathanson, who started NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, Obama will see the errors of his ways and plot a new course for life. Although Nathanson performed thousands of abortions, he is now one of the top spokespeople against that industry and he promotes the cause of the Pro-life movement. Let us hope that Obama will see the light and work toward a society that cares about its most vulnerable.

The Seal Hunt and Catholic Thinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's look at Catholic teaching on animals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feast of the Annunciation (Christ's Incarnation)

Today, March 25th, is the Feast of the Annunication, or the Incarnation. It is when God tells Mary that she is with child through the workings of the Holy Spirit and will bear a son, and his name will be Jesus the Christ. This is a very important feast which takes on more significance during our day and age. The Church recognizes that Christ came into this world in human flesh 9 months before his birth, which we celebrate on December 25th. We recognize this same fact for all people. Although we have a date of birth, we actually come into existence around 9 months prior to this at conception.

Christ's conception is not celebrated as the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception is actually a feast for Mary, the Mother of God (the Theotokos). It is called Immaculate because she was preserved from the stain of original and actual sin throughout her life from the moment of conception. Of course, we believe she was able to be saved from sin by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Christ is everyone's Savior, including Mary's. Christ's conception, of course, is immaculate by its very nature, but it is not refered to that way. We usually speak of the Virgin Birth in the case of Christ.

This is a day for Pro-life thoughts and action. Mary treasured Jesus from the moment of his conception and protected him, with the help of St. Joseph. We must protect all human life from the first second of existence as a small person, otherwise known as an embryo. The fact that the universal church honors Christ's conception shows her respect for life at all stages.

Today is not a Holy Day of Obligation, but that does not lessen its signifcance. Let us pray today for an end to abortion. In your prayers, remember Jesus as a small embryo waiting to come into the world. Even then he is God. And remember that all human life whether they are 30, 100, or not even born are equally valuable. Also remember those who suffer from physical and mental handicaps. They too are children of God and must be given full respect and dignity.

Constantine invented Catholicism in 325, right?

Constantine invented the Catholic religion in 325 and decided to make it the official religion of Rome, which allowed it to grow from a tiny religion consisting of a few hundred people to the enormous religion that it is today, with the Pope at the head. Constantine's decision was a very good one for the Pope and his successors who have enjoyed unparalleled wealth throughout the centuries.

Sounds about right, doesn't it? Well, it does for a lot of people, unfortunately. This myth has been circulating for a relatively recent period of time and has been perpetuated by mostly anti-Christians and a few anti-Catholics. The problem is that it is based not on fact, but on lies. Let's analyze the truth of what happened.

The Catholic faith is the original Christianity and continues today as the authentic and true church established by Jesus Christ at Pentecost some 2,000 years ago. The term "catholic" means universal. Part of the Church's character is that it is for all peoples of all times, and is therefore universal. Catholic describes the Church. Using this terminology to describe the church goes back very very far. Our first existing written record goes back to no later than 107 AD and possible before the year 100 and was written by Ignatius of Antioch. He said:

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
- from The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Therefore, Catholic was described by an ancient Christian theologian probably in the first century.

Concerning Constantine, he did become Christian, but there were millions of Christians in Rome and around the world. Constantine signed the Edict of Milan which legalized Christianity, but he did not sign anything to make Christianity the official religion of the state. This was done by an emperor after Constantine.

The major doctrines of the Church concerning Christ's divinity and the sacraments were firmly established long before Constantine was born. There is much proof of this. You just need to look!

Finally, as for the Popes enjoying enormous wealth, we need look no further than our latest examples. Nearly all popes have lived celibate lives, have not accumulated wealth and spent most of their time writing, teaching and leading. Take John Paul II, for example. He lived a very simple life. He had few possessions when he died. Probably no more than a shoe-box full. He spent many hours each day in pray, went to confession daily, spent time writing and teaching, and going from country to country proclaiming the good news. It is said that the pope remembered the people he spoke to, but rarely recalled his previous meal. This is not the description of a man seeking great wealth and material possession.

As you can see, many myths and lies have been spread about the Catholic Church, but light always prevails over darkness. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, so we have nothing to fear. Be thankful to God for the most perfect gift.

Ecumenical Prayer Service for victims of Helicopter Crash

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

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

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

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

You want the truth? The WORLD cannot handle the TRUTH!

Pope Benedict XVI made his first pontifical visit to Africa this week. During his visit, he made the comment that condoms are not the solution to Africa's AIDS problem. Of course he is right, and that is rather obvious. The Pope did many other things, of a spiritual nature, but of course the media only picked up on his comments about condoms. I believe people are bent on maintaining their sexual promiscuity and anyone who challenges their ability to do anything they want sexually will provoke their unbridled anger. Christ's message said a lot about sexual purity, and while many would like to be considered Christian, they refuse to accept the Church's teachings on sexuality.

The Pope is right about condom use not being the solution, but rather contributing to the problem. In Uganda, they did an experiment where they placed Abstinence as a top priority, followed by "Being faithful" and third if necessary use Condoms. It was called the ABC program. People soon stopped using condoms and focused on abstinence. The AIDS rate decreased dramatically. The Catholic Magazine "This Rock" did a great article on this. Instead of paraphrasing it, I will post it in its entirety here. Enjoy:

Uganda: The Real ABC’s of an Epidemic
The first documented case of HIV/AIDS in Uganda occurred in 1982. From that small but ominous beginning, the curse of AIDS soon engulfed the country of Uganda, much as it swept across the African continent through the 1980s and into the 1990s. For Uganda, the epidemic was especially tragic given the nation’s desperate efforts to recover from the dark years of the dictator Idi Amin from 1971 to 1979 and subsequent years of political instability. By the early 1990s, the infection rate in Uganda of HIV reached 30 percent, and there was widespread agreement that if action were not taken quickly, the very survival of the country would be jeopardized.

President Yoweri Museveni, who came to power in 1986, settled on an aggressive government-sponsored plan that involved posters, radio messages, training, education, and public rallies and that called on the support of community leaders, local churches, and general public. The message was said to be as simple as the "ABCs": "Abstinence, Be Faithful, and if necessary, use Condoms."

Character over Condoms
A funny thing happened in Uganda, however. While condoms were suggested for those who refused to abstain, the greater focus of the campaign was not on the "C" but on the "A" and the "B": abstinence and faithfulness. Ugandans, especially young Ugandans, were urged to wait until marriage before having sex, or to return to abstinence if they were not virgins. Wives and especially husbands were asked to remain faithful to their spouses. And when the "C" was stressed, it did not mean condoms but the embrace of the Catholic Church in Uganda and the suggestion that the proper meaning of "C" should be "character formation."

The mantra of changing behavior rather than perpetuating a condom culture resulted in startling developments. In the late 1980s, 50 percent of females 15 to 17 years old had engaged in sex; this was down to 34 percent by 2000. Uganda’s Demographic and Health Survey of 2000-2004 indicated that 93 percent of Ugandans had altered their sexual behavior to avoid HIV/AIDS.
The results were immediately apparent when Uganda’s infection rate began declining. Adult HIV rates dropped from about 30 percent in the early 1990s to 8 percent in 2002. Today, the infection rate hovers at 4.1 percent. President Museveni spoke at a World AIDS Conference in Bangkok in 2004 and declared forcefully that condoms should not be the definitive public health intervention against HIV/AIDS. He was joined in this call to reality by the Kenyan first lady Lucy Kibaki, who regularly teaches school girls that they should delay sex until after marriage and forget about condoms. (See "Why the ABC Message Worked," page 22.) Uganda’s success made it a model for other African countries and also played a major influence in the current AIDS relief program undertaken by the Bush administration.

Uganda’s progress against AIDS is a story of promoting the culture of life. Everywhere in Africa the Church’s stand on the real ABCs—abstinence, be faithful, and character formation rather than condoms—has been adopted, the HIV/AIDS rates are substantially lower. The 2003 World Factbook of the Central Intelligence Agency reported, for example, Burundi had a 62% Catholic population and a 6% AIDS infection rate; Angola had a 38% Roman Catholic population and a 3.9% AIDS rate; Ghana was 63% Christian with a Catholic population of 12% (in some regions it is as high as 33%) and a 3.1% AIDS rate. In stark contrast, those countries that have steadfastly clung to the myth of condom use as the primary means of preventing the epidemic also have the highest rates of HIV/AIDS. In Botswana, where only 5% of the population is Catholic, 37% of the overall population is infected with HIV/AIDS. In South Africa, with a 7% Catholic population, 22% of the total population is infected.

The UN’s Failure
Undeterred by the success of the Ugandan methods and enraged by an approach that challenges the assumptions of the Western sexual revolution, the UN and other nongovernmental organizations (including UNICEF, the UNFPA, the World Health Organization, and Centers for Disease Control) are placing pressure on Uganda and other countries to offer only condoms as a solution to their problem. In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan AIDS activist, denounced the obdurate position of the United Nations and its UNAIDS program, noting, "UNAIDS has no success story. UNAIDS cannot point at any country where they have given advice and that country has brought HIV down" (LifeSiteNews, October 25, 2007). The situation is an ironic one. The Martyrs of Uganda gave their lives by refusing to engage in lurid sexual activities and to surrender their faith. Uganda today is being offered a similar choice by the Western culture of death. Only this time, by adhering to the faith and doing what is right, the Ugandans, along with the rest of Africa, will actually be saving their lives. In both cases, moral courage remains the key to a future of hope.

Matthew E. Bunson is a contributing editor to This Rock and the author of We Have a Pope: Benedict XVI (Our Sunday Visitor, 2005) and more than 30 other books. He was a consultant for USA Today during the funeral of John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict. He is the general editor of Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Almanac, a senior fellow of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, and a moderator of EWTN’s online Church history forum.