Should we emphasize Christ's suffering or his resurrection?

A friend of mine a few days ago asked if I believe it's accurate to say that Catholics focus on Christ's suffering and death while Protestants focus on the Resurrection. At first I somewhat agreed with him, but I later had more time to think about it and put it into perspective and I developed a few thoughts on the issue.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Catholics do focus on the suffering and death of Christ, whereas this element of Christ's life is overshadowed in Protestant thinking by his resurrection, which they focus on almost exclusively. Of course this will vary from group to group within Protestantism.

Catholic spirituality places a lot of emphasis on Christ's suffering. This can be seen by our devotions. The Stations of the Cross give a 14-step analysis of Christ's trial, suffering, and death of the cross. This was introduced by St. Francis of Assisi. Around this time, around 800 years ago, more graphic representations of Christ's crucifixion became common. Francis of Assisi was the first person to receive the stigmata, which are the wounds of Christ. The Mass, the main worship of Catholics, is called a sacrifice. We present Christ's body and blood to be eaten by the Christian community, just as Christ did at the Last Supper. We pray the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, which recount five major events of Christ's suffering, and are: 1) His agony in the garden of Gethsemene, 2) Scourging at the pillar, 3) Crowning with Thorns, 4) Carrying the Cross, 5) Crucifixion and death on the cross. We devote an entire season called Lent to align ourselves to the suffering of Christ and be freed from our material desires. Fridays of the year are designated as sacrificial days. In the past, this meant not eating meat on Fridays, but now this can be substituted by another act of penance. There are many more examples of the centrality of Christ's suffering in our theology.

But this emphasis on Christ's Passion is not unnatural, and no devotion will ever go further in the portrayal of Christ's suffering than the amount he actually suffered. Christ suffered more than any person in history, not merely because of the brutal scourging and crucifixion, but because he bore our sins and became the paschal sacrifice of humanity. We should be on our knees praising God for this each and every day.

We believe in Christ ON the cross. The cross without Christ is empty, barren, it does not accomplish our salvation. But our salvation was accomplished by Christ ON the cross. This is where Earth was united with Heaven. Many people say they have an empty cross because Christ conquered death and that he rose from the dead and that he is not on the cross anymore. But if you are showing an empty cross to indicate that Jesus is not on the cross, it would be more accurate to show an empty tomb because that's where Jesus rose from the dead. The point of the crucifix and cross as a symbol of our faith has always been that Christ died for our sins and the cross is where this was accomplished.

It is also important to remember how lovingly and fully we celebrate the Resurrection of Christ. Lent is 40 days (46 if you count Sundays), but the Easter Season is 50 days until Pentecost. We celebrate Advent, the preparation of Christmas, but of course, we also celebrate Christmas itself with much joy. We have the Sorrowful Mysteries as I mentioned above, but we also have the Joyful and Glorious mysteries. We call the Mass a sacrifice, but we also call it a celebration.

The reason for this is we believe suffering and joy are two sides of the same coin. When we suffer, we do not just do it to hurt ourselves, we do it to unite ourselves more fully with Christ. By doing so, we give up our attachments to worldly possessions and material satisfaction and become more aware of our relationship with God.

This reminds me of one of my favorite parts of the Passion of the Christ movie. Jesus has been scourged almost to death, his body is wounded beyond recognition from the sadistic treatment he has received, he is bloody, and now he is made to carry his cross. His can barely stand up and falls several times. His mother sees him and is overwhelmed with grief. She rushes to his side where is face down, on his knees, with his cross above him. He is coughing up blood. He says to his mother, "See, I make all things new". This was very powerful for me. Christ did not say "I am suffering a lot" or "I am defeated", but rather he is making all things new. We are washed with the blood of Christ. He is renewing the world. What we see as weakness, Christ sees as strength. What we see as suffering, Christ sees as redemption. Saints have often spoke of the paradox of the cross. As we often say at Mass, "In dying you destroyed our death, in rising you restored our life."

I could go on for many more pages, because this is the essence of our spirituality. But to summarize, I would say this: We cannot separate Christ's resurrection from his suffering and death on the cross, no more than we can separate his human and divine natures. Therefore to ask which we emphasis more is a false dicotomy. Celebrating one or the other exclusively would contradict the message of Christ. As Fr. John Corapi says, we cannot have the crown without the cross.

Proper response to improper comments about the Catholic Church and Christianity

As I've listened to more and more Catholic Answers Live and learn more about my faith, I also learn more about interacting with others. As Christians, we must always give an account for our beliefs and to defend them, but must do it with love and kindness, as Peter tells us in his epistle, in the Bible.

How do we react to slander and blasphemy? I may not be an expert in this subject, but I have learned some things throughout my life. Let me know if you have learned anything by posting a comment on my blog.

1) Do not encourage uncharitable or unkind words. This is very important. Sometimes we see a false dicotomy between speaking out very boldly and noticeably to defend our beliefs and not defending them at all. There is a middle ground however. You must not formally cooperate in evil or encourage it. A good idea I think is if someone says something that's anti-Christian, you don't need to stand out and chastise them, but just do not respond. If it was a joke, do not laugh, if it misinformation, just leave. Make it noticeable that you are not entertained by their comments, but you don't need to give them a public scolding.

2) Whenever possible, tell people something positive about your faith. You can do this subtlely, without starting off with "Christianity is the way to God because...". For example, if someone asks you what you did on the weekend, you can mention that you went to Mass, and list other things as well if you want. Or if someone is sick, mention that you will pray for them.

The point I am trying to make is that in order to evangelize, you do not have to wear an enormous crucifix around your next and only talk about God and your faith. You can evangelize subtlely. Never sacrifice what you hold most dear, and never participate in unkind words toward your beliefs. Always bear witness to the hope that is in you. Having said this, if you feel you are called or feel brave, you can always go out of your way to talk about the love of Christ. If you want to tell people about your faith and to defend it clearly and loudly, by all means, go ahead. Remember, many Christians were killed for their beliefs, so being mocked is not so bad.

Do not take an all or nothing approach. Do whatever you can to spread the good news.

Easter Vigil with Pope Benedict

This is a great little video about Pope Benedict at the Vigil Mass in St. Peter's Basilica on Saturday. Five catecumens were baptized. Praise the Lord for all those who receive the waters of new life from Christ our Lord!

Happy Easter - Christ is Risen

Hi everyone,

Happy Easter to you and your family! Christ is Risen today, Alleluia! Enjoy this day and say a prayer to thank Jesus for his sacrifice on the cross.

Ask and it is Given

Please allow me to apologize for not posting here in a couple of days. Here is my next post. Please tell someone about me! :)

There is so much truth to everything spoken by Christ in the Gospels. Sometimes we do not even realize how true it is, and like an onion, what appears on one level can be looked at more deeply to reveal even deeper truths. One of these is being revealed to me over the past several weeks and months. The lesson is "ask and it is given". This is truer than you may first believe.

I have some friends, and a few are very close to me. My girlfriend is my best friend. The other day for the Chrism Mass on Tuesday, I invited my friend to come with me. He is not Catholic and had never been to a Catholic Mass. He didn't attend church services with his family either. But I decided to invite him anyway. To my surprise, he came! Also, I invited my Muslim friend, and again to my surprise, she came as well. They both came along with my girlfriend. This was truly a great blessing. I asked, and they came. It was given.

Many times we do not realize the power of this. We shy away from asking people questions for fear of the answer, but if you never ask, you will not be able to get a positive answer either. I decided to try this again with another friend. He recently went through a rough time and broke his marriage engagement because of something his fiancee had done. He was hurting and wanted to meet some friends. So last night I met with him, along with some other friends. Today, I called him and asked if he'd like to go to Good Friday service. He said he would not be ready in time, so I asked about the Stations of the Cross tonight at 7. He said if he did not have a meeting he would go.

In none of these cases was it obvious that they would go with me. I, in fact, would have assumed each time that they would reject the idea. I would have placed my money on that bet, but I would have lost every time.

Get out there and as John Paul II said, "Be not afraid"!

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.