Finally, a news story about a fetus in Canada who is NOT aborted!

Doctors in Toronto have successfully performed heart surgery on a baby still in the womb. The baby, named Oceane, is doing very well. This is a really great thing for medicine and humanity. A couple of interesting questions arise. First, if an unborn baby is not a person, what was being operated on, a "lump of tissues", and if the mother had decided that instead of operating on the baby, she would rather kill him, how can both decisions be seen as equal? If she could have killed this child and that would be "acceptable", then how could saving her life be a good thing? In other words, if something is good, then the opposite cannot also be good. Or, if one thing is acceptable, then the opposite cannot be good, or very good.

Obviously, the whole point is that abortion is never good. If abortion was good, then saving a child in the womb's life would be bad. I hope stories like this continue. They are edifying for two reasons. First of all, people who read this story are touched by the tiny life. Secondly, this confirms that even unborn children are full human beings in need of our care.

For the full article, please go here:

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n073695925

Things that sound LEGAL for Catholics but ARE NOT

This is a short list of things many Catholic believe are permitted by the Church, but in fact are not. The following list is by no means exhaustive, and really only scratches the surface. Later, I will post an opposite article which lists things which sound illegal but in fact are legal.

Homily by a nun or layperson
Canon law permits only a priest to say the homily at Mass. Even during a funeral, laypeople cannot speaking after the Gospel reading. Priests are required to have a homily on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, but not on other days, although it is recommended.

Extraordinary ministers of Communion at any Mass
Extraordinary minsters are meant to be just that - extraordinary. Communion should usually only be given out by priests. If a situation arrises where others MUST help, then this is allowed, but extraordinary ministers of communion should not be a regular part of every Mass. Even if there is a chronic situation of too many communicants, this does not allow for the use of extraordinary ministers. Their use is reserved for unforeseen circumstances. Also, they are to be called "extraordinary ministers of communion", not Eucharistic ministers. The only real Eucharistic Ministers are priests and bishops.

Participating in non-Catholic worship
Catholics are obliged to participate in Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation unless there is a serious reason why they cannot. Catholics are not permitted to attend a non-Catholic worship service in place of their Sunday obligation. Normally Catholics should not attend non-Catholic worship, unless for an extraordinary reason such as a wedding or funeral. In a marriage with a non-Christian or non-Catholic, participation is allowed, but it cannot involve consent, such as receiving non-Catholic communion. The best way to explain it is to say the Catholic can "observe". Also, this does not remove the necessity to attend Catholic Mass on the required days.

Having ashes of the dead scattered
Cremation is only legal as long as it is not done to deny the resurrection of the body. If cremation is performed, the cremains must be buried or placed in a mausoleum. The cremains cannot be kept in a home or scattered over a area, they must be kept together.

Non-Catholic receiving communion
Non-Catholic and non-Christian people cannot receive communion at a Catholic Mass. Many are uncomfortable with this teaching, but it makes sense. Communion, as the name implies, means a community of believers. We are united with Christ. We believe the Church is the Bride of Christ and fully united with him. We also believe the Church is a visible organization, namely the Catholic Church. Therefore in order to receive communion, we must be in full communion with the Church, which is Christ's Bride and our Mother. If someone refuses to be a member of the Church through whom Christ's grace is communicated, they are refusing to be in communion, and therefore cannot partake in this sign of union, communion and thanksgiving. Of course, we believe the Eucharist is the real body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Worshiping Mary or the Saints
Catholics are interdicted from worshiping Mary or the saints. Adoration and worship are reserved to God alone. We can venerate or praise saints. In Latin terms, latria is the adoration or worship owed to God alone, whereas dulia is given to saints, and hyperdulia, a greater form of dulia, is given to the greatest of God's creatures, Mary.

Using Contraception in Marriage
Contraception is always gravely wrong in Catholic teaching. This is because it violates the natural law and makes an act unnatural. Many object by saying natural family planning is the same thing, but it's not. In the case of contraception, the means is intrinsically wrong, but with natural family planning it is not, because with NFP, we are cooperating with God's plan for creation, whereas with contraception, we are contriving against it. A good example if eating ice cream with its end of gaining weight. It would be licit or ok for someone to understand their physiology and metabolism and discover that they can eat ice cream in the morning and burn the calories throughout the day so as to avoid weight gain, as opposed to eating at night and gain weight. But it would be morally wrong for someone to eat ice cream at night then just before going to bed cause themselves to throw up so they wouldn't gain weight. They both achieve the same end, but the means are different. One cooperates with God's plan, the other contrives against it.

Fr. Mitch Pacwa on CNN

Apparently Fr. Mitch Pacwa, the famous priest who makes regular appearances on EWTN and Catholic Answers Live was on CNN tonight with Roland Martin. I can't wait to get the video of this. I think Fr. Pacwa is one of the most awesome priests out there. He is an awesome apologist, scripture scholar, and expert in the occult, new age, and Islam. He is even fluent in Arabic. He is also able to celebrate Mass in both the Latin and Maronite Rites.

If anyone out there has a video of this, please let me know. I was not able to watch it when it came on tonight.

Could Maria Goretti have done more good?

St. Maria Goretti was canonized on June 24, 1950 by Pope Piux XII. She was one of the youngest people ever canonized, especially after the reforms which put the pope in charge of the process starting just after the year 1000 AD. This brave 11 year old girl fought off her attacker who was trying to rape her. She did not want him to commit a mortal sin by raping her, and she always wanted to maintain her virginity. Her motives could not be more pure and she is an example of chastity that is worth emulating. But recently many critics have spoken out against her actions. They claim it would have been better for her to be raped and then live a life doing good for others. Some say her actions tell rape victims that they must die before they would ever be raped and if they don't, well they just didn't try hard enough and are, in fact, somewhat to blame. Still others say someone's choice to die rather than be raped could be bad since perhaps she was integral to many people's lives, so for her to die could put them in a very bad spot. These opinions come from our modern day society and have several errors.

The first issues is whether she could have done more good by living, rather than dying. This question could be asked of many martyrs. There is an expression that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. It is from Tertullian's Apologeticus. Tertullian is famous for having coined the term "trinity". He unfortunately fell from orthodoxy later in life, but many of his teachings remain valid. What does Tertullian mean by this? In the beginning of Christianity, the most famous Christians were the martyrs, those who gave their lives for the faith. Their example would be far reaching. Many Christians were killed in the Colosseum and other places in Rome and elsewhere. Their example led many to embrace the faith. Their martyrdom was an expression of their great hope in Jesus Christ. We cannot underestimate the power of the martyrdom of most of the Apostles, as well as Paul, Stephen, and more. I believe their willingness to give everything for the faith is a far greater example than to simply live as a "good" person.

Jesus is of course the ultimate example. Though sinless, he endured the greatest death, with more suffering than we can ever experience in this world, because he bore the sins of all. Jesus could have chosen to live a long life instead and do good works for lepers and so on, but Jesus had a much greater plan. He wanted everyone to know his great love for them. This would never have happened had he just lived a simple of life of charity.

St. Maria Goretti is revered throughout the world now. Schools, churches and other important places are named for her. She gives us a great example. But it is more than what she did specifically. Another aspect of her martyrdom was her incredible faith. She realized that we are here only for a moment on this Earth, but that our true home is in Heaven with God. She did not worry about the insignificant temporal things of this world, but rather, she concerned herself with the everlasting glory of the world to come. Those who say people should save their lives instead of becoming martyrs do not realize the glory of God and Heaven and how much more significant they are than this flash in time we know as our Earthly lives.

Maria's decision to maintain her chastity at any cost does not in any way make light or blame those who are victims of rape. What Maria Goretti did was heroic, not usual or normal. The Catholic Church makes a distinction between morally good or neutral acts and heroic acts. We are required to choose actions which are neutral or good, but there is no "requirement" to do heroic acts. This is similar to the fact that we are required to attend Mass once a week on Sunday, but going to Mass daily is meritorious. For a girl to save her life by being raped, she is doing something which is good. But what Maria Goretti did was heroic. If we truly love God, we do not ask what we MUST do, the bare minimum, we ask what is the BEST thing to do.

By proclaiming a great act which someone has done, we are not comparing them to others or saying they are better than other people. Rather, we hold them up as a great example of our values. Mother Teresa could have lived a great life in Albania, giving part of her salary to the poor, but instead she chose to live in the slums of Calcutta with the poorest people and do many great works. We do not diminish the greatness of others by speaking of her, rather we give example as to what humanity is capable of when we trust in God.

Real marriage is not the Maine thing anymore

I'm sad to find out that today Maine has allowed gay "marriage". Of course, this is not true marriage, but rather a legal term with no backing from natural law. It's an unfortunate situation. And what makes it worse is that people didn't vote for it, it was mandated on them. Let's hope that Maine will reverse this situation soon.

Followup to question about intinction

My friend asked if intinction is legitimate in the Latin Rite Catholic Church. I knew that it was, but I have found official documentation to support this. In the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, it states the following (in Chapter IV):

245. The Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon.

249. If the concelebrants' Communion is by intinction, the principal celebrant receives the Body and Blood of the Lord in the usual way, but making sure that enough of the precious Blood remains in the chalice for the Communion of the concelebrants. Then the deacon, or one of the concelebrants, arranges the chalice as appropriate in the center of the altar or at the side on another corporal together with the paten containing particles of the host.

285. For Communion under both kinds the following should be prepared:

1. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by communicants' drinking directly from the chalice, a chalice of a sufficiently large size or several chalices are prepared. Care should, however, be taken in planning lest beyond what is needed of the Blood of Christ remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration.
   
2. If Communion is carried out by intinction, the hosts should be neither too thin nor too small, but rather a little thicker than usual, so that after being dipped partly into the Blood of Christ they can still easily be distributed to each communicant.

287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.

Thanks for the great question.

A species is facing intinction? And my Dutch experience

You may be shocked to learn a species is facing intinction. Wait. Do I mean extinction? No, I am referring to the practice of dipping the Eucharistic host into the Most Precious Blood, known as intinction. The species I am referring to is the Eucharist, under the species of bread, being dipped in the Eucharist under the species of wine and then given to the communicant. Is this valid and licit?

It is legitimate to receive the Eucharist via intinction, however there are some guidelines. One cannot dip the Host into the Precious Blood on their own and communicate themselves. This is forbidden. However, the Eucharistic Minister may dip the Eucharistic Host into the Precious Blood and give this to the communicant. I would advise this be done directly into the mouth, rather than passing the Body of Christ back and forth often.

When I was in the Netherlands several years ago, during our small youth Mass, many would intinct themselves and receive. This is a violation. I received many false teachings from the priest there. He allowed people to self-intinct. Every second week, a Catholic priest would not be available to perform Mass. I asked him if the bread prayer over by a non-Catholic and sometimes female minister could be received by Catholics. He basically said well, they say the same words of consecration. He did not indicate that Catholics are not to receive bread prayed over by non-Catholic ministers. Another point is that he argued for gay marriage, rather than against it in a private meeting with several students. He was a good man, but I think much of his philosophy was quite heterodox. Let us pray for this priest that he shares the true faith that comes to us from Christ.

Europe cares more about sea creatures than children

The European Union has once again shown how contrary to good morality it truly is. The ban is likely to start before the 2010 hunting season. This decision is very misguided and contrary to a proper understanding of our place in the world, but I am not surprised the European Union would enact such a law. In the entire world, there are few organizations which are such a major threat to good morals as the European Union.

Although it tried to ban foreign aid to Nigeria because it would not support gay "marriage", and is a vehement supporter of abortion on demand, the European Union feels it is unjust and immoral to hunt seals. That's right, seals. It's totally ok to violently rip an unborn baby from its mothers womb limb by limb in a gruesome procedure, but it's an affront to morals and decency to hunt prey animals for food and clothing. The culture of death is like a king who has dominance over the EU, and the EU is doing everything in its power to make him happy. There is no issue too immoral for the EU to promote, whether it be destroying embryos, killing babies and elderly people, forcing abortions and sterilizations, demanding that all countries support homosexual marriage, shunning the Christian faith on which it was founded, and the list goes on.

If there was a group that said it hated humanity and wanted to destroy it, people would be shocked. But ask yourself: what policies would this group support to further its cause? It would kill children and the elderly, "the ones people don't want", it would promote contraception vigorously, it would support countries that performed forced abortions and sterilizations, it would diminish or destroy the definition of marriage so that fewer children would be born, it would promote divorce to destroy already existing marriages, it would encourage people to wait until an old age to have children so that fewer would be born, it would continuously tell people that the world is over populated and that it is irresponsible to have more kids, it would reject good morals and Christianity, it would portray those who support life as terrorists (pro-life groups are their competition), etc. Come to think of it, I've just described the European Union.

Eline - a mockery of the military chaplaincy

Netherlands has unfortunately been the hub of a lot of moral ills. They legalized gay "marriage", legalized drugs, prostitution, etc. Without recognizing problems as such, you lead to their increase. The Netherlands has taken a very immoral route, and it's unfortunate. But do not despair. God is there, like he is everywhere. I lived there for 4 months and met a great group of energetic young people with a passion for Christ. We participated in Mass every week.

However, news has emerged of a seeming contradiction of terms - a military chaplain who does not believe in God. This makes no sense. Chaplains by definition are religious people who give moral support to people, in this case, to military personnel. Now from the Netherlands come a woman who claims to be a chaplain who does not believe in God. How terrible.

Her name is Eline but her last name is not revealed for security reasons. The only thing is related to security is the false sense of security she will give to people seeking to know the One True God. As a philosopher once put it, if God does not exist, nothing matters. What's even more disturbing is that she is called Padre, which actually means "father", and has always implied a priest. She is not a man, and therefore cannot be a priest.

In the Catholic faith, the only person who can legitimately be called a chaplain is a priest, not a lay person, and certainly not a woman.

This whole incident is a total travesty. A priest should be available to Catholics, and fortunately they usually are, and there are priests specifically chosen to serve in the military. But this should be available to everyone. In a time of war and battle, one needs true peace and love, not a false love which denies God and Christ's priests. What will she tell men and women who are on the frontlines starring death in the face? She cannot tell them to repent and believe in the Good News, or to seek forgiveness for their sins before the end. She can only tell them they had a good run at life but now it's over. There is absolutely no hope. I pray that she revokes her position and does something else, but if she persists, I pray specifically for those unfortunate men and women, who in their most desperate times will not hear the loving words of Christ spoken by a man who is in the person of Christ (persona Christi), but rather that of one who can only add more fear, desperate and sadness to an already terrible situation. May God touch their souls.

Feast Day of Philip yesterday

I didn't mention this yesterday, but yesterday was the feast day of the apostle of my namesake, Philip. Philip means lover of horses. How? It originated from the longer Phil Hippo. Phil means love, hippo means horse. Hippopotamus means water horse. Phil hippo became Philhippe, and eventually Philip. Other languages spell it differently. I have a mug from Germany that says Philipp. French spell it Philippe, etc. The spelling Phillip with 2 Ls is a relatively novel spelling. There is no mention that I am aware of that Philip the Apostle had any special inclination toward horses, though.

Comparing swine flu with AIDS

Recently the world has been panicked by the swine flu. It is starting to appear in more countries from its origin in Mexico. People get flu-like symptoms but most of the time it's not that serious. Around the world less than a couple of dozen people have died. Let us pray for the repose of their souls. But there is almost hysteria about the disease, even though thousands of people die every year from the usual influenza. But let's compare this situation with the AIDS crisis and Pope Benedict's recent comments about condoms.

Pope Benedict said condoms are not the answer to the AIDS problem. People reacted furiously, basically between the lines saying they would never sacrifice any of their sexual behaviours in order to reduce a disease. I guess Pope Benedict just cares too much and would rather people live than be promiscuous. But how does this compare to the swine flu? Well, just say the swine flu is extremely contagious and somebody is a known carrier of it. Imagine you wanted to see this person daily, but then the doctor told you that being in direct contact with this person and touching them and sharing drinks could give you a deadly disease. He says you can be near that person, you can talk to that person, but you cannot touch that person or share drinks, etc. You would obviously agree. Do you think it would be responsible for the doctor to say, "This person is extremely ill and his disease very contagious. I do not suggest you touch or share drinks with this person, EXCEPT once every 2 weeks. Every second Friday, you can touch that person, feel them, share drinks with them, or anything else you want. There is a good chance you'll get the disease after this, but in case you don't, you can always do that again two weeks later.

This would be extremely misguided and dangerous. You would be shocked that he would suggest putting yourself at risk. Then first doctor said, I do not htink you should ever touch this person or share drinks until their disease is gone and you are in a committed relationship and you are certain he has not contracted it from elsewhere. This would of course sound more reasonable. Now imagine if your family found out about both doctors and they were infuriated by the doctor who siad you should avoid all contact. They say, that is not possible! Every now and then you MUST put yourself at risk!! Then they go so far as to say the doctor who advised 100% protection was irresponsible and that lives would be lost because of his policies.

This is exactly what happened with Pope Benedict. He is the doctor who said to avoid all contact until there is commitment and no risk of contamination from other sources. Condoms have an effectiveness rating. Some say it is between 90 and 98% effective. No one claims it is 100% effective, under any circumstances. If it is 90% effective, then the example above would be saying you can touch the person once every 10 days, etc.

As you can see from this example, only the Pope's advice is worth following.

Keys to Upper Room May Be Given to Pope

According to historian Steve Ray, who has produced many great Catholic movies and books, including In the Footsteps of God, the Pope may be given the keys to the upper room, where Jesus celebrated the Last Supper and the first Eucharist.

Pope Benedict XVI will be visiting the Holy Land from May 8 to 15, 2009 (this year). As Catholics, and especially for priests, the site of the Last Supper has ultimate significance. The sacrifice of the Mass, which is celebrated every day around the world had its start in this location. It is where for the first time, we received the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ in the form of bread and wine.

However, sadly, Christians did not have access to this most holy of places for many centuries. At first, the location was a synagogue. Three of its walls still exist from that time. Roman Emperor Theodosius built a basilica next to the synagogue. Several years later in 415, the church that was built there was expanded by John II, Bishop of Jerusalem. This was destroyed by Persian invaders in year 614, but was soon rebuilt. In 1004, Muslim marauders destroyed the basilica that was there. Soon it was rebuilt by Crusaders. In 1219, the Muslims came back and destroyed the basilica once again! But the history is not yet complete. From 1333 to 1552, the basilica was rebuilt with large naves and was cared for by Franciscan monks, but of course, in 1552, Muslims once again took over. At least this time they didn't destroy the basilica that was there. But they didn't allow any Christians to worship at this most holy place. It was only in 1948, with the advent of the state of Israel, that Christians were permitted to return to this holy site.

As we know, good always triumphs over evil, sooner or later, and that's what would make it such a spectacular event for Israel to give Pope Benedict the keys to the Upper Room. Of course, this remains speculative, but we'll find out when he visits this area later this month.

Do Catholics have to give 10% to charity?

Right now in Canada, we are at the deadline for submitting our income tax forms, which is April 30th. In the US it is April 15th. You mostly need to worry about that if you owe money to the government. But the question often arises about how much Catholics should give to charity. A person close to me said we needn't give much because we pay so much taxes, which in turn pays for social services, such as hospitals, schools, welfare and other services. I understand this point. But I think we still ought to give money to charity. The question remains, how much?

In the Bible, we remember when someone asked Jesus if they should pay taxes. He said give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's. I think this is the philosophy we need to take in our modern day. Taxes do pay for many services, but we as a community take advantage of these. I do not necessarily pay for things directly related to myself. I might pay for my children, spouse, parents, friends, etc. I would not say, well I buy food for my children, so I shouldn't give to charity. Taxes pay for the common good. But we must remember that we are commanded to help build the Church.

Giving taxes is the right thing to do, but that does not support the mission of the Church, which is of vital importance, perhaps now more than ever. And we can be sure that money we give to the Catholic Church will go to a good cause, whereas money given to the government could easily go to sinister activities which contravene our faith. For example, taxes go to support abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, sex-change operations, adoption of children to gay couples, contraception, Planned Parenthood, etc. We cannot control this, and we are not morally culpable for supporting these activities by paying taxes. However, if all we give is taxes, how do we expect the Church to combat these evils?

The primary role of the Church is a spiritual one. It is there for the salvation of souls. By its very nature, it is intrinsically involved with the day-to-day affairs of the world. The Catholic Churches is a strong voice for good in the world, and our charitable contributions to the Church help it in this. By giving money to the Church, we support its mission which is to evangelize people and bring them into union with Christ. When this happens, the ills of the world decrease, because light overcomes darkness. By giving money, you support mission work, crisis pregnancy centers, church building funds, pilgrimages, Catholic education and health care, Catholic literature, books, pamphlets, and tracts, etc. You also support the Church's mission throughout the world, in poor countries. The Catholic Church, believe it or not, is the largest charitable organization in the world.

Many say giving 10% is impossible because they do not earn enough money. You are not obliged to give 10%. There is no absolute rule that you must give that much. You cannot neglect your most important duties to your vocation, such as caring for your family. But let's look at a hypothetical situation. Just say a man is making $50,000 per year. He says he can only give about $1000 per year, or 2% of his income. He says $5,000 per year would be simply impossible. But it is quite conceivable that he could receive a raise and start earning $55,000 per year. If he continued his previous lifestyle, he would be able to give the surplus $5,000 to the Church no problem. However, this seldom happens. It is more likely that when people start earning more, they start spending more. This really contradicts the whole idea of charity. Charity is not giving so little that we hardly notice it. Charity is about giving as much as we possibly can. We must realize how fortunate we are, and try to support others.

Many people receive many spiritual benefits from giving money, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it lessens their dependence and desire for material wealth and brings them to a closer union with God. They realize only he can fulfill their lives and that money never will. Also, helping others is part of being the hands and feet of Christ on Earth. Jesus commands us to pray, fast, and give alms. As we continue in the Easter Season, let us be as generous as we can.

The "law of attraction" is incompatible with Catholic thinking

The law of attraction has become pretty famous these past several years and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. In fact, it seems to be picking up strength. But be warned: the "law" of attraction is completely incompatible with Christian belief.

When you think about it, it's nothing new. People taking ideas from Christianity, twisting them around and then promoting their heterodox belief. It's called a heresy. If you want to know just how bad the problem is, walk into a bookstore and go to the spirituality or self-help sections. People know Christianity is the truth, and that's why they try to twist it around. They think people already know and love Christianity, so why not take advantage of this popularity to promote their views. Often these views are completely incompatible with Christian or Catholic belief, and sometimes they are the opposite and are actually satanic.

One author who has tried to piggyback on the legitimate success of the Christian faith is Deepak Chopra. He's an Indian author whose philosophy is very eastern and close to Hinduism. But his book is named the Third Christ. Obviously there is only one Christ, but Deepak wants you to believe otherwise. Did he write a book called The Third Mohammed or the Third Gandhi or the Third Buddha? Of course not. These books would be flops. Instead, he takes the good name of Christ and tries to use it for his own end. People recognize the power of Christ's name. Satan and demons tremble at the name of Christ, our salvation comes from Christ, and we partake in his body and blood in the Eucharist. So Chopra's appeal is tantamount to that of Satan in the Garden of Eden. Satan did not tempt Eve by saying, eat this fruit and you will do something opposed to God, and you will be disobeying him. No, he said eat this fruit and you will become LIKE God. That's exactly what Deepak is promoting. The whole idea behind his book is that we can take advantage of this "Christ energy". Deepak's first order of business is to make people believe Christ doesn't really exist as a person (which of course is historically false). The reason for this is that Deepak is actually just using the name of Christ as a mask for his new age ideas. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, as Jesus warned us about. Chopra does not want us to believe in Christ's sacrifice on the cross, he wants us to believe in a universal "force". He wants us to believe we can become gods. It's amazing how blatant and obvious these authors are. They are almost using Satan as their role model. Our proper disposition toward Christ is to worship him, and recognize that we are sinners in need of his sacrifice. No great saint who has ever lived believed he was God. He recognized his limited abilities and his total dependence on Christ for life.

The "law of attraction" spreads the same lie. It says we are in control of the universe. It subtly tries to remove God from the picture. It does this one step at a time. First, they tell you believing in God is a good thing. Then they say God is the name we give to the Universe of the essential life force or something else like that, then they say we can control this life force or universe or energy, and eventually they are telling us that we are just like god, and in fact they say we are just as powerful. Do not be deceived by these lies. They are satanic. The Devil himself says the same things, as he did with Adam and Eve. It is the height of pride. Jesus said repent and believe in the good news. He asked his followers to drink from the cup from which he drank, meaning his crucifixion. God in Genesis says you will have no strange gods before him, and that includes making yourself a god. Pride is the biggest of the seven deadly sins. It makes us feel so important, and that we are above everyone else. Make no mistake, the "law of attraction" is pure poison and comes from the Evil One.

A lady I was listening to the other day was saying how evil the "law of attraction" is. She used to be a practitioner of it, and was finally saved from it, thanks to God. She found she was becoming very callous and shallow. Everything revolved around accumulating wealth and other material possessions. Followers of this become less and less concerned about their fellow man. They become emotionless. People who subscribe to the "law of attraction" believe that murder victims caused their slaying, that people get diseases because they "attracted" them, that even children who are raped somehow "attracted" it. They believe that since these people somehow desired these things, they do not need to have any concern or compassion for them.

If you are involved with these things, you must get out now. Seek the True God, and reconcile yourself with Christ. You must fall to your knees and beg forgiveness from your Saviour, then go to confession, followed by Mass. Give yourself to Christ and renew your love for God. He will be waiting for you.

Catholic thoughts on Nadya Suleman (aka Octomom)

Nadya Suleman is the lady who received fertility treatment and gave birth to 8 children. She was not married at the time, didn't have much money and already had 6 children. She now has 14 children. She has been called Octomom (perhaps it is sometimes spelled Octamom). This name makes her sound like some alien species, mutant, or X-Men character. She has become the object of ridicule of many people who say she did the wrong thing. But how would her actions square with Catholic teaching? We know that the world and especially the media are rarely aligned with the Church in their thinking. So what would the church say concerning the Nadya Suleman case? I believe her story has good and bad elements.

First of all the bad. The Catholic Church is firmly against in vitro fertilization, or the creation of embryos outside the womb of the mother. That's because it contradicts the natural design established by God for how babies ought to be conceived and born. Babies are designed by God to come into existence within the marital embrace in the marital act. He did not design babies to be products of a science laboratory with a scientist fusing together sperm and egg. Therefore the use of embryos in this fashion is gravely wrong. Also, this procedure often destroys embryos. More are created than are needed and because of this, the embryos are often left frozen indefinitely or they are disposed of (usually without a funeral or without the destroyer being charged with murder). So we know that Nadya used fertility treatment that may have destroyed embryos. Society at large has no problem using in vitro fertilization. They view it as a means to an end and in a Machiavelian world like our own, any means is acceptable as long as the end seems desirable. Now, what about the rest of her situation?

Once the embryos were implanted in her uterine, eight clung to the uterine lining and survived. Nadya decided to keep them all. In other words, she did not selectively reduce or murder any of the eight. Strangely, this is where a lot of the world seemed upset. They called Nadya irresponsible, not for having fertility treatment or even for having eight or more embryos conceived, but rather they were upset that she wanted to keep them all. Society said it was irresponsible not to murder some of her children. The Church would disagree strongly, of course. She, the Church, would urge Nadya to keep caring and loving the eight babies in her womb, regardless of how they were conceived. The Church views every child equally and as a gift from God, even those born by in vitro fertilization.

Therefore, the Church and society have disagreed on two points. One point the Church may agree with society is whether she should have had more children in the first place. Since she already had 6 children, it was probably not a great idea for a jobless, husbandless woman of little means to seek out more children than the 6 she already had to support. The Church first of all says people ought to be married before they involve themselves in the act of procreation. But even when they're married, they should practice planning when it comes to children. People should not have more children than they can properly afford. This does not mean every child must have a car when they're 16, and go to the top university and have the best life imaginable. It just means that every child must receive basic care and attention. If someone is unable to supply this, they should probably wait a little while to attempt having another child.
It's a really great thing that Nadya decided to keep all eight of her children. Imagine having to tell, for example, the 6 she decided to keep that they were the lucky ones to have survived and that two of their brothers and sisters didn't make it because they were selectively reduced. That would be very sad and would leave the others asking where their other siblings are and why they themselves are alive but their brothers or sisters are not.

Let us pray that the world heads the words of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, "Of Human Life", where he says in the opening statement:

"The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships."

Can you name an environmental group? How about the Vatican?

When you think environmental activism, the first group you think of is probably not the Vatican and the Catholic Church. However, the Pope and tbhe Vatican have been promoting environmental causes for quite some time. Most recently, the Vatican announced plans to build the world's largest solar plant. A solar plant is a large collection of solar panels to capture energy. This plant will produce enough energy for 40,000 homes. This is simply incredible. For years, the Vatican has been promoting our proper response to the environment. Our Catholic faith teaches us that we are stewards of the environment and that we must protect it.

Some people believe the Vatican is behind the times, but this once again proves the opposite. In promoting renewable energy, the Vatican is sending a message to the world. But why do so many people insist that the Vatican and the Catholic Church are outdated? The reason does not come from the evidence, but rather from peoples' desires to be free from any moral code. But this is shortsighted, because ultimately the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ almost 2,000 years ago, is looking out for people's best interest.

Right from the start, the Church has told people to be good stewards of the Earth and to protect it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Respect for the integrity of creation 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.

The Pope has spoken out against pollution, destruction of the environment, and more. Catholic groups such as Development and Peace have been at the forefront of ensuring that water companies do not exploit everyone's God-given rights to clean water.

As you see, protecting the environment is what we are called to do as Catholics.

Why legalizing gay marriage hurts gay people

Gay marriage is a big topic nowadays and many people are confused. The debate has entered nearly every Western country. Some have embraced gay marriage with open arms, while others at first did not allow it but reluctantly made steps towards its full legalization. Then there are others which have not legalized homosexual marriage, and the question is still open for debate. One such country is the United States. Right now, homosexual marriage is legal in various states, but not the majority. People are confused as to how they should vote in the case of gay marriage. The prevailing thought is that since gay marriage does not affect them personally, why would they oppose it. This is promoted by its defenders who make anyone who opposes gay marriage look like a bigot and intolerant person who only wants to prevent people from having freedom. Unfortunately this tactic has worked.

But there is an angle which you are very unlikely to hear anytime soon from the mainstream media. That is that homosexual marriage in fact hurts people with same-sex attraction (SSA). I use the term SSA because I see it as a disorder. There is a false dichotomy being presented that says a person is either heterosexual or homosexual. To me, this is like saying society is divided into people who eat healthy and people who do not eat healthy. While this may be true, we would not have terms which present both as viable possibilities. We would not say this person is a "healthy-eater", while this other person is an "unhealthy-eater" and present it as though that's an ingrained part of the person. When I say I believe homosexuality is disordered, I am not saying the people who have it are disordered. Just like the rest of the population, many are decent citizens.

In order to explain why I believe legalizing gay marriage will only hurt people with SSA, I must first take it back a few steps. As I mentioned in the last paragraph, there is a false dichotomy, which we only find in this particular area. If someone is anorexic, we see it as a disorder. Many girls are affected by eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia. Fortunately, we see this as problematic because it has a negative impact on their lives. We do not have protests demanding equal rights for people to have an eating disorder and that we should not interfere in their lifestyle choices. Another example is suicide. Someone may be suicidal. We would not say we should leave this person alone and not interfere with their life and if they want to commit suicide, we should let them. We recognize a disorder that must be addressed. We do not believe the suicidal person is disordered, but we believe the suicidal tendency is.

By allowing gay marriage, it will hurt homosexual people, because instead of getting help they need, society will tell them they have to accept this burden and live their lives the way they are. How could anyone ever get help in dealing with homosexual issues if all of society views it as normal. What about people who really do struggle with this? They will be left to live a life of hopelessness. Homosexuality is not a good thing and I feel sad for people who must carry that burden. We know from research that people who are identified as gay often enter into a very large number of shallow relationships. They are searching for something they will not find. It has been shown that many homosexual people were abused sexually as children. I also see this as a form of escape. Many boys may not be able to cope with being a man and all the things that it brings with it. Perhaps society presents all men as being beer-drinking, football-watching ogres, and certain sensitive men cannot identify with this. Then, the media presents homosexuality as a perfectly viable option and these boys and men may identify with this and can sink further into this deceit.

The same is true for other things as well which affect heterosexual men. I am not gay-bashing or anything or that sort. I am coming from an angle of compassion. There are sexually disordered things which affect heterosexual men, which the media, society in general, and various other sources not only accept, but encourage. For example, masturbation. Society, schools, and the media all portray this as completely normal, in fact, usually as necessary. By accepting it, you may think you are being more compassionate, but in fact it's the opposite. You are preventing people who want help from ever getting it. Often, an evil sister of masturbation is pornography. But again, society is telling people that pornography is perfectly acceptable and can't hurt anyone. So once again, these people cannot find help from mainstream organizations. But let's look at an example of what happens when these two things become legal and accepted.

Just say there's a man, 30 years old, married just recently. At first, he and his wife were quite intimate, but recently he has become more heavily involved with his old habit of pornography. His wife will wait for him in their marital bed for many hours and finally fall asleep. They are not intimate much anymore. He will spend much of the night downstairs looking at pornography. He has to get up in the morning for work, but he is very tired. He goes to work and does not do a good job. One day, his wife looks on the computer and sees all the pornography there. She is very saddened and confronts him about it. He says he will stop. While he's at work, she goes online to find information about stopping pornography. She can't find anything. It's not only legal, but encouraged. All these psychologists online are saying it's a fun pastime and maybe they should try it together. She is at first shocked that no one understands her, and eventually gives up. She starts to believe she is the strange one for not accepting it. The husband's addiction continues in secret. The wife, out of desperation, suggests they watch some porn together like all the websites say. They try it, but she realizes that he does not become more attached to her, but less so. Eventually she has had enough and decides that even if she is perceived as weird, she will demand that he not watch that filth. He complies. But eventually without proper help, he starts looking at porn at the office. He knows he risks a lot, but he does not know how to deal with his problem because no one will tell him. He eventually gets caught, and is promptly fired. He tells his wife the news. She is very upset, but now he becomes very angry with her saying he would not have gotten into this mess if she had let him continue using pornography. The arguments get worse and they become more distant. She is totally heartbroken, and they are as good as separated. Soon enough, they are forced to leave their home because he cannot support her. She finally has had enough and decides to leave. A short while later, she asks for a divorce.

This is a very sad scenario, but it is not impossible. Not identifying a problem as a problem leads to many further problems, and that is what I am saying will happen to homosexual people if gay marriage is legalized. They will not be helped, they will in fact, find no help. They will not be happy. Before 1981 in Canada, homosexuality was considered a disorder. There was hope for people with the affliction. Many realized it was not an inborn thing, but rather the result of decisions and choices in life. It may sound absurd, given the current prevailing thought, but people who have had SSA have been successful in rediscovering their true sexual identity, and finding complementarity in a person of the opposite sex. The media would never report such a thing, unless they were somehow trying to bash Christians or show mental abuse of homosexual people or something.

Remember, Jesus died for all of us, including people with struggles. Let's truly help people who are afflicted with various issues, who carry heaven burdens. As the hands and feet of Christ, let us remember his words when he said his yoke is easy, his burden light. Let's help those who struggle, with compassion and love.

Stupid movies that attack Christianity and specifically Catholicism

Recently there have been movies like Religulous by Bill Maher, and another one I think called the God who wasn't there. Plus there's all kinds of books put out by atheists and stuff. But there are a lot of things they do which are rather stupid. First of all, they pick on people who have no business defending certain beliefs in the first place. People with no qualifications for example, and no experience in defending the truth. In Religulous, he interviewed one priest, who was the astronomer at the Vatican. The priest gave him a really good explanation. Not surprisingly, that's the last you heard from the priest on that movie.

Bill Maher should interview Jimmy Akin or Tim Staples or Mitch Pacwa, not Billy Bob down by the corner store. Give me a break. That's like making a movie about why bodybuilding is stupid, then interviewing a 7 year old boy and asking him to lift a 50 pound weight and when he can't say, "Well, I guess eating healthy and exercising does nothing!" Then the interviewer proceeding to lift the weight himself with some struggle and as they capture this for some time, a voiceover of the narrator comes on and says, "Hmm, that's odd, people have claimed for centuries that working out helps build muscle..." To someone not educated in apologetics (the defense of the truth), they may not see the absurdity of this claim.

I've never seen these atheists ever interviewing someone their own size, as the priest from wordonfire.org says. They always pick on the wrong people. Another example of the stupidity of this approach is to ask a random person on the street to calculate the gravitational pull of a planet given its size and composition, and any other necessary information. Then when he is unable to calculate this to declare "Well, I guess gravity doesn't really exist!" By the way, the victim of his silly scheme would not have access to any reference material and would have no time to prepare.

One movie where I did see someone picking on others his own size was "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein. He didn't go to random people at the corner store or primary school teachers and ask them about the origins of the universe and stuff like that, he went to Richard Dawkins, who wrote some of the most read books among atheists. Richard Dawkins ended up looking pretty dumb. He couldn't answer anything he was asked. This was a fair battle, and it was won decisively by Ben Stein.

Truth always wins. Lies must slither around and use cunning tactics. It's like these videos I've seen on youtube with someone defending the Catholic position and someone else attacking it. Usually the Catholic position is heavily edited. For example, Mitch Pacwa was having a debate with an anti-Catholic man. First, the anti-Catholic would say something, and Fr. Pacwa would have a chance to respond. But on the third time the anti-Catholic spoke, Fr. Pacwa's response was not even shown and the credits came up.

My question is this: why use deceptive tactics to promote lies? Why not learn and teach the truth?