If you are used to listening to the mainstream media to get all your news, you may be quite familiar with the term anti-abortion. In Christian circles, the term pro-life is preferred. What’s the difference, and why is one preferable?
I believe pro-life is the only accurate word to describe those who, in part, denounce abortion, and there are several reasons. First of all, someone could be at the same time anti-abortion, but nonetheless still not pro-life. For example, they could be against abortion, but for euthanasia. In that case, they would be anti-abortion but not pro-life.
Anti-abortion is a stupid term because pro-lifers are not against abortion just because it is abortion. They are against abortion because it kills an innocent person. If landmines were set up in schools and children walked on them and were being killed, pro-lifers would protest this as well. Would they then be called anti-land-miners? Of course not. If knives were being used to murder young people, would those who protest this occurrence be called “anti-knifers”? No, they would not. In fact, they may actually be all for knives and even be a professional chef who uses them all the time. Therefore, we are not against the “procedure” of abortion, rather we are against what the abortion does. We are opposed to anything which causes the death of innocents.
Of course, there is a lot more to calling pro-lifers “anti-abortion” than simply a mistake in semantics. Calling someone anti-abortion first of all makes him or her against something rather than for something. All of a sudden, you have pro-choice and anti-abortion forces. No one is against choice, are they? Choice is always a good thing, right? But look at those other people, they are against something. Who are they to tell me I’m not allowed to do something? How dare they! But if we change the terms around, our side sounds a lot nicer. Let’s call them pro-life and anti-life. If you hear these names, you think, oh pro-life, that’s good, they are FOR life, from conception to natural death. They want to promote human dignity. That’s a good thing. But this other group is called anti-life. Obviously they do not like life, at least not lives which they deem to be less valuable. Hmm, I wonder if I will be a target for their anti-life campaign? I think this group should be stopped.
After “Dr.” Tiller was killed, there were many articles that came out about his murder. Of course, he killed thousands of children from his abortion mill. Why not check out several articles from the main stream media and see how many call pro-lifers “anti-abortion”, then divide this by the number of times they call pro-choice groups “anti-life”. Oh wait, you can’t divide by zero.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Friday, June 05, 2009
Berlusconi and Clinton and Catholic Teaching
Many people have heard about Berlusconi lately. He's the Prime Minister of Italy, and he's accused of being caught with a naked 18-year-old girl at his mansion. He's being accused of doing
inappropriate things, but he says that is not true and that he'll quit if they are found to be true. Many years ago, President Bill Clinton was accused of having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. It was a huge deal and still precedes Clinton in his reputation. But how do these two events square with Catholic thinking? My answer may surprise you.
inappropriate things, but he says that is not true and that he'll quit if they are found to be true. Many years ago, President Bill Clinton was accused of having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. It was a huge deal and still precedes Clinton in his reputation. But how do these two events square with Catholic thinking? My answer may surprise you.
Obviously, in Catholic moral theology, committing adultery is a serious offense. It violates the 6th commandment against adultery, as well as the 9th commandment against coveting your neighbor's wife. I am not writing this article, however, to discuss the morality of adultery, which everyone knows is wrong (it is one of the few things people agree on morally these days). What I am going to discuss is my personal opinion on the matter and relating to a well-known Catholic doctrine.
I believe that although these actions by leaders are immoral, they do not automatically disqualify a leader from remaining in his post. I believe there is a separate of public office and personal affairs. A leader should not be elected because he is a nice person, looks attractive, or is good at juggling. He should be elected because he will lead the country in the best way possible, and lead it with morality. We cannot say that because a man commits a personal crime, he cannot act as an officer of the state. A very similar concept to this is found in the Catholic Church with the priesthood. Priests are called to be holy men, as indeed all people are. But if a priest commits a sin, even a mortal one, the sacraments he performs are not invalidated. In other words, his private actions do not invalidate his public actions.
I believe a similar concept should be used for politicians. If a politician promotes good values and is beneficial to a country, we should not attempt to oust him simply because he cheated on his wife. I say simply not to imply that adultery is a minor issue, but rather I say simply in the sense of only, as in he did nothing contrary to the public office.
Many will argue that a person's private behavior can be an indicator for his public behavior, and to some extent I agree. However, a personal mistake will not automatically render a person incapable of looking out for the public interest.
I am open to disagreement on this point. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Who is the REAL Pentecostal Church?
Who is the real Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Anglican, Episcopalian, Baptist, Church of God?
I believe the answer to this qusetion is the Catholic Church. Let me explain. I believe all of the names above take a part of the Christian faith and call themselves by it, but truly there is only one church. When Christ created the Church, he did not envision 30,000 denominations, all teaching slightly or extremely different theology and philosophy. He envisioned one church, and the only one he established is the Catholic Church. Let me explain how Holy Mother Church fits all the names above.
Pentecostal – 50 Days after Christ's Resurrection, the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and gave them authority over Christians. They received the power to forgive or retain sins, and they went forth in the name of Christ. That's why we call Pentecost the birthday of the Church. Pentecost refers to 50 days, and is a reference to the 50 days after Christ's Resurrection in which the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles in the form of tongues of fire. The church that was born on Pentecost is the Catholic Church, therefore we are the Pentecostal Church.
Prebyterian – The Greek name for priest comes from presbyteros meaning elder. Our church receives the sacraments through the priest, and thus they offer us a share in Christ's life. Therefore our church is founded upon priests, or presbyters, therefore the Catholic Church is the only true Presbyterian Church.
Church of Christ – As I mentioned previously, Christ only established one church and he prayed that it would be united like he and the Father are united. Since Christ founded but one Church and that is the Catholic Church, we are rightfully called the Church of Christ.
Anglican – Anglican simply means originating from England. Anglican means the English Church. Since only one Church, the Catholic Church is truly universal, it is the true church of all countries. No country can claim a completely unique church apart fom all the others. Therefore, the only true Anglican Church is the Catholic Church, just as the only Irish Church is the Catholic Church or the only Scottish Church is the Catholic Church.
Episcopalian – Of course, this is a term often used by a certain variety of Anglicans, but it is not legitimate for their use. Episcopalian refers to the episcopacy. This terms means over seer. Epi means over and scope means to view. This is the name given to bishops. The term bishop is derived from episcopal. Episcopal refers to the fact that our church has a lineage of bishops all the way back to the apostles. Especially important is the Pope who carries the lineage of Peter, the pre-eminent apostle. Because only the Catholic Church maintains a valid and licit apostolic succession, only we can be referred to as Episcopal or Episcopalian.
What makes one a member of Christ's Church? Baptism. When babies are baptized, they become members of Christ's true church, the Catholic Church. This is also true for adults who are baptized after going through an RCIA program. Therefore, we are the only true baptist church. Other baptisms are licit, but they are not valid. There is only one baptism - however, one must become a full member of the Catholic Church in order to be a member of Christ's true church.
Finally, since Christ IS God, the Catholic Church is God's church, therefore the Catholic Church is the Church of God.
As you can see, groups try to gain legitimacy by adopting names which would falsely lead one to believe they may be a true church. Make no mistake. Their roots are short, the Catholic roots are deep and span the centuries. Be safe on the bark of the boat of Peter!
I believe the answer to this qusetion is the Catholic Church. Let me explain. I believe all of the names above take a part of the Christian faith and call themselves by it, but truly there is only one church. When Christ created the Church, he did not envision 30,000 denominations, all teaching slightly or extremely different theology and philosophy. He envisioned one church, and the only one he established is the Catholic Church. Let me explain how Holy Mother Church fits all the names above.
Pentecostal – 50 Days after Christ's Resurrection, the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and gave them authority over Christians. They received the power to forgive or retain sins, and they went forth in the name of Christ. That's why we call Pentecost the birthday of the Church. Pentecost refers to 50 days, and is a reference to the 50 days after Christ's Resurrection in which the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles in the form of tongues of fire. The church that was born on Pentecost is the Catholic Church, therefore we are the Pentecostal Church.
Prebyterian – The Greek name for priest comes from presbyteros meaning elder. Our church receives the sacraments through the priest, and thus they offer us a share in Christ's life. Therefore our church is founded upon priests, or presbyters, therefore the Catholic Church is the only true Presbyterian Church.
Church of Christ – As I mentioned previously, Christ only established one church and he prayed that it would be united like he and the Father are united. Since Christ founded but one Church and that is the Catholic Church, we are rightfully called the Church of Christ.
Anglican – Anglican simply means originating from England. Anglican means the English Church. Since only one Church, the Catholic Church is truly universal, it is the true church of all countries. No country can claim a completely unique church apart fom all the others. Therefore, the only true Anglican Church is the Catholic Church, just as the only Irish Church is the Catholic Church or the only Scottish Church is the Catholic Church.
Episcopalian – Of course, this is a term often used by a certain variety of Anglicans, but it is not legitimate for their use. Episcopalian refers to the episcopacy. This terms means over seer. Epi means over and scope means to view. This is the name given to bishops. The term bishop is derived from episcopal. Episcopal refers to the fact that our church has a lineage of bishops all the way back to the apostles. Especially important is the Pope who carries the lineage of Peter, the pre-eminent apostle. Because only the Catholic Church maintains a valid and licit apostolic succession, only we can be referred to as Episcopal or Episcopalian.
What makes one a member of Christ's Church? Baptism. When babies are baptized, they become members of Christ's true church, the Catholic Church. This is also true for adults who are baptized after going through an RCIA program. Therefore, we are the only true baptist church. Other baptisms are licit, but they are not valid. There is only one baptism - however, one must become a full member of the Catholic Church in order to be a member of Christ's true church.
Finally, since Christ IS God, the Catholic Church is God's church, therefore the Catholic Church is the Church of God.
As you can see, groups try to gain legitimacy by adopting names which would falsely lead one to believe they may be a true church. Make no mistake. Their roots are short, the Catholic roots are deep and span the centuries. Be safe on the bark of the boat of Peter!
Monday, June 01, 2009
All's well that ends well?
As I've been learning more about Catholic philosophy, I've learned it is often at odds with the philosophy of ordinary citizens. One area of difference is the distinction between means and end. In Catholic moral philosophy, I find the means is often the most important consideration in a moral dilemma. This will determine if an act is right or wrong. However, many ordinary people believe the end is what determines the morality of an act. This causes much conflict when discussing moral issues.
The number of areas to which this can apply are vast, so I will have to limit my examples to a few.
Test tube babies are a good example of this. In Catholic moral thinking, it is immoral to purposely and radically alter God's plan for sexuality. We believe God created sex and did so in a certain way. Sex is reserved for marriage and has as its primary purpose procreation. But this primary purpose cannot be disassociated from its secondary purpose of union between spouses. If either of these elements is missing, the act of sex is immoral. This type of union is only appropriate in the context of marriage, as of course procreation is. Catholics believe children have the right to be born in the loving embrace of their parents in the marital act. This is how God created conception. A purposeful rejection of this plan would be to take sperm and egg through an artificial manner and fuse the two together in a test tube. This violates God's plan for unity between the spouses and also takes away a child's right to be born in the loving embrace of his or her parents. On top of all this, in vitro fertilization methods are notorious for the destruction of embryos, many of them. Even on a scientific level, I have issues with this. Think about it. We've all read in science books or seen science videos showing the act of procreation between a couple. In it we see hundreds of millions of sperm vying for a chance to fertilize the egg. I do not believe this is a coincidence. Rather, I believe God has created it this way so that the strongest, healthy sperm will give its DNA to the egg. It's a natural way to ensure the healthiest baby.
Because of the reasons listed above, the Catholic Church teaches that in-vitro fertilization is immoral. Now, just say a couple ignores the Catholic Church on this issue either out of ignorance or they do not assent to the teaching, and they go to receive in vitro fertilization from a facility. A baby is conceived and 9 months later, born. Is this child illegitimate or evil or immoral? No. The baby is as innocent as any other baby born in any other way. The baby is a child of God with a rational soul. The baby is the end.
An act is immoral regardless of whether or not the end is good or bad. Many people cannot understand this from the example above. I heard Catholic Answers Live one day and Karl Keating, the president, was on a program speaking about this. He said a good way to look at this situation is to ask, if the husband raped a woman and she got pregnant and eventually bore a child, and the husband and wife reconciled and decided to raise that child, would the child be immoral, bad, or evil? Of course the child would not be any of those. But that would not make the act of raping someone, especially someone you are not married to, a good action. In other words, the end would not justify the means. But the end itself would not be wrong.
Another example of the opposite would be someone gives a poor family a loaf of bread to eat. The family eats the bread but they all become gravely ill because there was a bacteria in the bread, unbeknowst to the giver. This actions would still be morally good on the part of giver, even though the end was that the family became ill. The means justified the end. The end of course is not good, and in an objective sense it is evil, but the giver is free from any sin whatsoever, so subjectively it is not sinful.
Most people nowadays seem to have to equation mixed up. They believe if something good comes out of something, then it is morally good, regardless of what went into it. For example, they may say it would be ok to kill 1,000 people if that meant you could save the lives of 12,000 people. Or they might say any act which brings about the birth of a child is acceptable because of the result of the action. Once on the news, I saw a story about a strip club that was going to donate part of its “revenue” to charity. This would contravene Catholic moral thinking. They are performing an evil act (stripping) in order to bring about a good outcome (giving money to the poor). This is never allowed because you are still doing evil.
Unfortunately, the mentality that the end justifies the means has become very commonplace. If you look at many of the moral ills in our day, they are the result of this way of thinking. Think about it.
Abortion advocates say an evil act (abortion) will bring about good results (a mother who is not financially burdened, a child who is not “wanted” is not born, a mother saves herself from embarrasment, etc.)
Those who advocate embryonic stem cell research say, we can kill one young human with the result that others will be saved (which they haven't been so far).
Those who say contraception is alright because even though it's evil, it allows something which is good, i.e. That only parents who are “ready” will have children.
In all of these examples, an evil is permitted so that good may come of it. But think about it, what's the point of good coming from something if evil is automatically a part of the whole process. For example, cloning will ALWAYS involve evil, no matter how much good comes of it. Shouldn't we strive for win-win situations, rather than inherently lose-win situations?
I believe it's like Pope John Paul II once said, “When asked to choose between two evils, choose neither.” People sometimes say this is impossible, but many times, people have simply not even attempted this situation. They embrace an evil act in order to produce “good” so often, they start developing a whole thought-process which justifies the evil act so that eventually people start to believe an evil act is actually good. This is the case with contraception for example. No Christian Church had ever accepted contraception because it is morally wrong. Then in 1930, the Anglican Lambert Conference said couples could use contraception in grave situations. It wasn't long before couples started using contraception for any reason whatsoever. Now, among Protestant groups and almost all other people, contraception is not seen as an evil at all, but as an amazing good. Unfortunately the evidence has not shown this. Pope Paul VI encyclical Humanae Vitae made many predictions about what would happen if contraception became widespread, include objectification of women, infidelity, and other lessenings of morality. Could he be more right?
Stand on firm moral ground and realize that the end doesn't justify the means. The means itself must be morally sound or else the entire action is immoral.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Jon and Kate from a Catholic perspective
News has been going around, perhaps unworthily, that Jon and Kate who star in their own reality show called Jon and Kate Plus Eight are going through some marital turmoil because Jon allegedly "tried" to cheat on Kate. We're not even sure if anything happened.
In the few times that I've watched this show, I've noticed that Kate treats Jon very poorly. She treats him like a child who is not allowed to have any of his own opinions. He is like her servant. In one episode, they were in the store with their kids, and Kate like yelled at Jon in front of everyone and said something like GET OVER HERE NOW JON! She completely treated him like a baby. Also, when they're being interviewed on the show, Kate completely dominates. She answers every question. When Jon tries to answer a question, she usually looks at him with a blank stare and is like, what are you talking about? you're completely wrong. I really don't think she acts very nice to him.
Does this qualify him to cheat on her with another woman? Absolutely not. He made a marriage vow with her and he has an obligation to carry it out in good times and in bad, from whatever perspective, be it the relationship as a whole or his own personal situation. Adultery goes against one of the ten commandments, it violates the virtue of chastity and damages the good of marriage.
But what if Jon did cheat on Kate? Is adultery grounds for divorce or annulment? The short answer is no. Something that happens AFTER a marriage is contracted is never grounds for a divorce. Only a pre-existing condition which makes the marriage invalid would be grounds for annulment. If, for example, Jon had never really intended to remain in this marriage till death did them part, or he planned on committing adultery with his wife after they were married. These could possibly constitute grounds for annulment.
Jesus himself specifically mentions that adultery is not grounds for divorce and that people were only accepting it because of their hard hearts.
Another issue I feel needs to be addressed is society's perception of adultery. It seems to be the only thing that is immoral in today's society. Sure, go ahead and have one girlfriend after another, perhaps 3 or 4 per month and have sex with all of them, that's ok. Or go and get pregnant and then have an abortion, that's fine as well. Or perhaps you'd like to enter into a gay relationship, that's totally acceptable. But if a man ALMOST sort of thinks about cheating on his wife then he is lower than the lowest scum on the face of the planet. The woman should just divorce him immediately and save herself from this pig who is only ruining her life. He is not worth any effort to save the marriage. If this is the world's new morality, I don't want it!
In the few times that I've watched this show, I've noticed that Kate treats Jon very poorly. She treats him like a child who is not allowed to have any of his own opinions. He is like her servant. In one episode, they were in the store with their kids, and Kate like yelled at Jon in front of everyone and said something like GET OVER HERE NOW JON! She completely treated him like a baby. Also, when they're being interviewed on the show, Kate completely dominates. She answers every question. When Jon tries to answer a question, she usually looks at him with a blank stare and is like, what are you talking about? you're completely wrong. I really don't think she acts very nice to him.
Does this qualify him to cheat on her with another woman? Absolutely not. He made a marriage vow with her and he has an obligation to carry it out in good times and in bad, from whatever perspective, be it the relationship as a whole or his own personal situation. Adultery goes against one of the ten commandments, it violates the virtue of chastity and damages the good of marriage.
But what if Jon did cheat on Kate? Is adultery grounds for divorce or annulment? The short answer is no. Something that happens AFTER a marriage is contracted is never grounds for a divorce. Only a pre-existing condition which makes the marriage invalid would be grounds for annulment. If, for example, Jon had never really intended to remain in this marriage till death did them part, or he planned on committing adultery with his wife after they were married. These could possibly constitute grounds for annulment.
Jesus himself specifically mentions that adultery is not grounds for divorce and that people were only accepting it because of their hard hearts.
Another issue I feel needs to be addressed is society's perception of adultery. It seems to be the only thing that is immoral in today's society. Sure, go ahead and have one girlfriend after another, perhaps 3 or 4 per month and have sex with all of them, that's ok. Or go and get pregnant and then have an abortion, that's fine as well. Or perhaps you'd like to enter into a gay relationship, that's totally acceptable. But if a man ALMOST sort of thinks about cheating on his wife then he is lower than the lowest scum on the face of the planet. The woman should just divorce him immediately and save herself from this pig who is only ruining her life. He is not worth any effort to save the marriage. If this is the world's new morality, I don't want it!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Michaelle Jean eats raw seal heart
News today has emerged that Michaelle Jean, the Governor General of Canada, has eaten raw seal heart in a show of solidarity with Seal Hunters in Canada. She does not believe the seal hunt is immoral and certainly not "inherently inhumane" as the EU puts it. Eating raw seal heart is a traditional food for Inuit, aka Eskimos, from Canada.
Calling the seal hunt "inherently inhumane" means it is always immoral, no matter how it is done. This would either mean eating meat is always wrong or eating seals is always wrong, or hunting seals is always wrong. I cannot see anyone making the case that is only immoral to hunt seals, but not to hunt other mammals, such as caribou or moose. So, the EU calling the seal hunt inherently inhumane does not make sense, unless they are advocating a ban on all hunting. Is this possible?
Perhaps. It seems to me, with the decrease of traditional morals in terms of relationships, drugs, sex, the sanctity of human life, and care toward the disadvantaged of society, people have struggled to find a moral cause. The cause of choice for many people is animal rights, and this makes sense to me, but in a twisted kind of way.
I believe people who have forsaken standard morals for animal-focused morals have a specific reason, whether or not they are doing it consciously. They are making the statement that they are so compassionate, they care not only for people, but also for animals. They care for the weakest members of our society. How can we criticize their stance on sexual morals if OBVIOUSLY they care so much about all of God's creation. Another side effect of this ethic is a form of oneupsmanship. These vegetarians do not simply say, "As moral relativists, although we believe eating only non-animal food is preferable, we do not condemn those who choose to eat the flesh of other species." Rather, they say "Meat is murder!" Ahh, the tables have turned, so they think. Now they can be on the offensive rather than being on the defensive for their lifestyle choices, "different" morals, and other issues.
It's rather convenient too. What percentage of strong Christians eat meat in the Western world? I don't know, maybe 98%? How many atheists eat meat? Again, I do not know, but I would assume perhaps only 40-50%. I know from personal experience that some of the most ardent vegetarians (usually vegans), who consider the eating of meat to be murder and eating eggs or cheese immoral, are also vehement pro-abortionists. Again, they have "freed" themselves from all vestiges of traditional morality, but as a certain "shield" have taken up a new cause.
It seems the EU is going down this same path. The EU is struggling to shed all traces of its Christian heritage in favour of a "new ethic", one where homosexuals are free to marry, sex is cheap, easy, and "safe", where the lives of the unwanted such as the elderly and unborn are for us to decide, etc. Ordinarily, the changes being implemented by the EU would seem contrary to everything we as a society see as good, but they are keen. They have donned a thin veneer of humanity by taking on "alternative" causes such as animal rights and protection of nature. As we know though, Satan does not tempt us with things which appear horrific and ugly. He presents to us a gift, covered with a beautiful wrapping, with a beautiful bow on top. This wrapping is the causes which the EU has adopted. But when we open this "gift", we will be shocked to find out that it contains nothing beautiful, but rather it is full of pride, anger, gluttony, laziness, jealousy, envy, and lust.
Calling the seal hunt "inherently inhumane" means it is always immoral, no matter how it is done. This would either mean eating meat is always wrong or eating seals is always wrong, or hunting seals is always wrong. I cannot see anyone making the case that is only immoral to hunt seals, but not to hunt other mammals, such as caribou or moose. So, the EU calling the seal hunt inherently inhumane does not make sense, unless they are advocating a ban on all hunting. Is this possible?
Perhaps. It seems to me, with the decrease of traditional morals in terms of relationships, drugs, sex, the sanctity of human life, and care toward the disadvantaged of society, people have struggled to find a moral cause. The cause of choice for many people is animal rights, and this makes sense to me, but in a twisted kind of way.
I believe people who have forsaken standard morals for animal-focused morals have a specific reason, whether or not they are doing it consciously. They are making the statement that they are so compassionate, they care not only for people, but also for animals. They care for the weakest members of our society. How can we criticize their stance on sexual morals if OBVIOUSLY they care so much about all of God's creation. Another side effect of this ethic is a form of oneupsmanship. These vegetarians do not simply say, "As moral relativists, although we believe eating only non-animal food is preferable, we do not condemn those who choose to eat the flesh of other species." Rather, they say "Meat is murder!" Ahh, the tables have turned, so they think. Now they can be on the offensive rather than being on the defensive for their lifestyle choices, "different" morals, and other issues.
It's rather convenient too. What percentage of strong Christians eat meat in the Western world? I don't know, maybe 98%? How many atheists eat meat? Again, I do not know, but I would assume perhaps only 40-50%. I know from personal experience that some of the most ardent vegetarians (usually vegans), who consider the eating of meat to be murder and eating eggs or cheese immoral, are also vehement pro-abortionists. Again, they have "freed" themselves from all vestiges of traditional morality, but as a certain "shield" have taken up a new cause.
It seems the EU is going down this same path. The EU is struggling to shed all traces of its Christian heritage in favour of a "new ethic", one where homosexuals are free to marry, sex is cheap, easy, and "safe", where the lives of the unwanted such as the elderly and unborn are for us to decide, etc. Ordinarily, the changes being implemented by the EU would seem contrary to everything we as a society see as good, but they are keen. They have donned a thin veneer of humanity by taking on "alternative" causes such as animal rights and protection of nature. As we know though, Satan does not tempt us with things which appear horrific and ugly. He presents to us a gift, covered with a beautiful wrapping, with a beautiful bow on top. This wrapping is the causes which the EU has adopted. But when we open this "gift", we will be shocked to find out that it contains nothing beautiful, but rather it is full of pride, anger, gluttony, laziness, jealousy, envy, and lust.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Encouraging news on abortion
It's been said that while Obama is President, and surely in Canada while we do not have a real pro-life party, the main thing we can do is pray for the change of heart of the people. This is ultimately what the Pro-Life movement wants. Not only does it want to eliminate abortion, it wants to change people's hearts and minds. Great news toward this goal was released by Gallop. It says that there are now more pro-life people than pro-abortion. For more news on this, please go to:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051503.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051503.html
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Who is the real deviant?
The Culture of Death is insidious
It's hard to believe the kind of attack we are under by the world and the devil, especially when it comse to the Culture of Death. John Paul II warned us about the culture of death, but are we really aware of how much damage is it capable of doing in our world?
Few pepopel realize just how bombarded we are by messages of death. Just today I flicked on National Geographic on Demand, which is a feature of Rogers Cable. They have on demand programming and one of the films they had was about sexual deviancy in the animal world. This documentary could have easily been called Sexual Ethics as presented by the Culture of Death.
The documentary showed example after example of what people would consider sexual deviancy in the human population, such as homosexual behavior, polygamy, pedofilia, transgenderism, masturbation, orgies, etc. Then they tried to pretend these were completely normal and legitimate. Near the end, they mentioned monogamy, and said in the animal world, monogamy is downright deviant, and that it is exceedingly rare, unlike everything else they had talked about. Throughout the documentary, the narrator kept saying things to the effect that in the animal world, those who practice these "so-called" deviant behaviors are not shunned, or looked down on or criticized, but they are active members of their groups. Also, he kept saying things about how they are not bound by strict morals when it comes to these behaviors, etc. Clearly, the implication is that sexual deviancies are actually not deviant at all, and that we only think they are bad because religious people try to impose their morals on the rest of society.
It's very sad that an esteemed organization such as National Geographic would produce a documentary like this one. This film is contrasted by another I saw a couple of days about population issues. In this other documentary, they were talking about how the birth rate of Western nations is dropping dramatically and that we must immediately reverse this trend or the whole economy might collapse. The conclusion of the film was that we must live Christian lives and be fruitful and multiply.
Don't listen to the lies spouted by the main stream media. Listen to the words of the Eternal Lord.
It's been a while
Hi everyone,
It's been a while since I've posted. There's a couple of reasons why. First of all, I do not have internet access at home now, and we just had a long weekend, so I could not post anything for Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. Then yesterday, I visited my grandmother who is in an old age home, and I was there from after work until after 10, so I did not have time to prepare a posting. I will hopefully have another post up today.
Thanks for your patience,
Philip Lynch
It's been a while since I've posted. There's a couple of reasons why. First of all, I do not have internet access at home now, and we just had a long weekend, so I could not post anything for Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. Then yesterday, I visited my grandmother who is in an old age home, and I was there from after work until after 10, so I did not have time to prepare a posting. I will hopefully have another post up today.
Thanks for your patience,
Philip Lynch
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wikipedia: good and bad
I love Wikipedia. You can find anything you want to know about popes, church councils, saints, sacraments, church history and more. It is a great resource. But be warned, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and often times Catholic articles are infiltrated by anti-Catholics and atheists. I find this practice not only annoying, but academically dishonest.
Atheists are usually most obvious when reading about saints and miracles. For example, an article might state that a saint performed a particular miracle. Evidence exists for the miracle, it is well documented and no counter evidence is presented in history. However, anti-Catholics will add words which are meant to show doubt or disbelief. The article might say a saint walked over hot coals but was saved from being burned. Anti-Catholics will edit this article and make it say "if you are to believe church historians, ........" This is an actual example. Why would you sew doubt concerning the author of the information. I don't see this happening in any other articles. It would never say, if you believe nutritionists, apples are full of vitamins. Another practice is to use the word "allegedly". They will say Padre Pio "allegedly" bore the wounds of Christ. Even though we have scientific proof that Padre Pio was a stigmatic, and this is documented by doctors, these anti-Catholics still add the word "allegedly". This is academically dishonest. You do not add words to express your own point of view. I do not say "the weather in Florida is ALLEGEDLY 30 degree Celsius". I just state it as a fact.
Do not be disturbed. Atheists are wrong about God, and therefore their philosophy and logic will be self-contradictory. They will refuse to believe something, even if it fits their model for evidence, so long as it does not conform to what they WANT to see. For example, they may say they will only believe in things which are scientifically verified. Well, if you show them a miracle which is scientifically verified, and which shows that God exists and that there really are saints, they will refuse to believe it. Why? Not because it didn't fit their criteria, but rather because it did not fit their DESIRES. This is thoroughly unscientific. It seem the atheists are really guilty of the charges they make against believers.
Let us say a special prayer as we do during the Easter Vigil for the conversion of non-believers, so that they may find the truth and beauty of Christ's Church.
Atheists are usually most obvious when reading about saints and miracles. For example, an article might state that a saint performed a particular miracle. Evidence exists for the miracle, it is well documented and no counter evidence is presented in history. However, anti-Catholics will add words which are meant to show doubt or disbelief. The article might say a saint walked over hot coals but was saved from being burned. Anti-Catholics will edit this article and make it say "if you are to believe church historians, ........" This is an actual example. Why would you sew doubt concerning the author of the information. I don't see this happening in any other articles. It would never say, if you believe nutritionists, apples are full of vitamins. Another practice is to use the word "allegedly". They will say Padre Pio "allegedly" bore the wounds of Christ. Even though we have scientific proof that Padre Pio was a stigmatic, and this is documented by doctors, these anti-Catholics still add the word "allegedly". This is academically dishonest. You do not add words to express your own point of view. I do not say "the weather in Florida is ALLEGEDLY 30 degree Celsius". I just state it as a fact.
Do not be disturbed. Atheists are wrong about God, and therefore their philosophy and logic will be self-contradictory. They will refuse to believe something, even if it fits their model for evidence, so long as it does not conform to what they WANT to see. For example, they may say they will only believe in things which are scientifically verified. Well, if you show them a miracle which is scientifically verified, and which shows that God exists and that there really are saints, they will refuse to believe it. Why? Not because it didn't fit their criteria, but rather because it did not fit their DESIRES. This is thoroughly unscientific. It seem the atheists are really guilty of the charges they make against believers.
Let us say a special prayer as we do during the Easter Vigil for the conversion of non-believers, so that they may find the truth and beauty of Christ's Church.
Apologies for yesterday
Hi everyone,
I was at a conference all day yesterday, so I was unable to post a new blog entry. I will post one shortly, however.
Phil
I was at a conference all day yesterday, so I was unable to post a new blog entry. I will post one shortly, however.
Phil
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
It's easy being green, when you follow Pope John Paul II
As readers of my blog have discovered, sometimes I like to post titles which contain puns or statements whose meanings are not overt. This title will have to be broken down a little. In the Catholic Church, various liturgical seasons and holy days are celebrated. Each one has a particular color and the priest at mass will wear vestments to reflect this. For example, Pentecost is red, Lent is violet, and Easter is white. The liturgical colour for ordinary time is green. Ordinary time is as the name implies, a time where we worship Christ and his sacrifice but where there is not a particular feast. My title is reflective of this.
Pope Benedict XVI came after a very great pope. John Paul II did things that no other pope had ever done, such as being born in Poland. John Paul's nationality was to foreshadow his trailblazing papacy. He is known for his firsts. He dialogued with non-Christians more than any other pope. He visited synagogues and mosques. He became a truly universal pontiff. He traveled more than any other pope, canonized probably more saints than any pope before him, and got young people involved more than ever. He wrote on the Theology of the Body, he was the pope of the new media age, etc. Pope John Paul II will truly go down in history as a trailblazing pope, during his 26 years in the seat of Peter. Oh, and did I mention that he helped bring down Communism in Europe?
Following this, Pope Benedict's actions may not stand out as much as they should. It is not hard for Benedict's actions as pope to appear "ordinary" in the shadow of John Paul the Great. Benedict, or as some like to call him B16, has done many trailblazing things himself, even in his short 4 years as pontiff. Benedict has traveled extensively, he has visited Muslim and Jewish leaders, he has taken on world issues, and has embraced the media age. Pope Benedict even has his own youtube page.
Perhaps if Benedict had been elected after the death of Pope John Paul I, instead of Karol Wojtyla, he would now be regarded as just as much of a trailblazer. This would have been possible, although perhaps unlikely. Benedict was at the conclave of JPII, one the few who was still alive after John Paul's record setting pontificate which lasted over 26 years. John Paul II actually selected nearly all the cardinals who were present at the time of his death, except a couple, one of which was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now B16.
As the world continues to love Pope Benedict more and more each day, let us say a prayer for the intentions of the Holy Father.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Charity, an oft-forgotten virtue
Ever hear the song Signs, by Five Man Electric Band? Part of the song says "Signs signs, everywhere there's signs. Do this, don't do that, can't you read the signs". I think an attitude a lot of Christians have taken is to let everyone know about the signs, but fewer have taken the role to explain them and allow people to love the signs and not just obey them. I am talking about a lack fo charity. Charity is love. We must love one another. But we must also admonish the sinner, as it is one fo the spiritual works of mercy. How can we reconcile the two?
It is very easy to find a group of people condemning the actions of another, but let's look at Christ's example. When he met the woman at the well who was cheating on her husband and involved in adulterous relationships, he didn't say, you are a terrible person and proceed to call her names, and then leave. He first loved her. A true, genuine love. He cared for her well being and wanted the best for her. He wanted her to know God, to understand his love for her and for her to be close to her Creator. This is so important. Often in our society, it is easy to be condemned. I've had religious people tell me I'm doingo something wrong or bad, without ever trying to understand where I'm coming from or even reassuring me that I am a good person or anything, just pure condemnation.
Do we feel that we are superior to others? Do we condemn the actions of the others so we can feel liek we're doing the right thing, but they are failing thus making ourselves feel better? If so, we are completley missing the point. We are not on a high horse, helping out a poor, worthless person by pointing out their faults. We should rather visualize our situation as helping each other to mount the horse and riding away together. Mother Teresa didn't drive by in her fancy car and throw money out the window. She lived with the poorest of the poor and helped them by first understanding them. She is an example to all of us.
Remember, we must love the sinner, but hate the sin. It also reminds me of Simeon Stylites. He is known as a pillar saint. He built a huge pillar, dozens of feet in the air. He stayed there day and night praying and worshipping God. His austerities were exceedingly harsh. However, when people went to him for advice, he didn't tell them how bad they were and that they'd have to do what he is doing or more to ever be worthy. No, instead he was very lenient on them and loved them deeply first.
Let's admonish the sinner, but first, let's remember the words of Christ - Love God with everything you have, and then love your neighbor as yourself. Once we do this, then we can admonish the sinner. Done in this order, you can be sure they will thank you.
It is very easy to find a group of people condemning the actions of another, but let's look at Christ's example. When he met the woman at the well who was cheating on her husband and involved in adulterous relationships, he didn't say, you are a terrible person and proceed to call her names, and then leave. He first loved her. A true, genuine love. He cared for her well being and wanted the best for her. He wanted her to know God, to understand his love for her and for her to be close to her Creator. This is so important. Often in our society, it is easy to be condemned. I've had religious people tell me I'm doingo something wrong or bad, without ever trying to understand where I'm coming from or even reassuring me that I am a good person or anything, just pure condemnation.
Do we feel that we are superior to others? Do we condemn the actions of the others so we can feel liek we're doing the right thing, but they are failing thus making ourselves feel better? If so, we are completley missing the point. We are not on a high horse, helping out a poor, worthless person by pointing out their faults. We should rather visualize our situation as helping each other to mount the horse and riding away together. Mother Teresa didn't drive by in her fancy car and throw money out the window. She lived with the poorest of the poor and helped them by first understanding them. She is an example to all of us.
Remember, we must love the sinner, but hate the sin. It also reminds me of Simeon Stylites. He is known as a pillar saint. He built a huge pillar, dozens of feet in the air. He stayed there day and night praying and worshipping God. His austerities were exceedingly harsh. However, when people went to him for advice, he didn't tell them how bad they were and that they'd have to do what he is doing or more to ever be worthy. No, instead he was very lenient on them and loved them deeply first.
Let's admonish the sinner, but first, let's remember the words of Christ - Love God with everything you have, and then love your neighbor as yourself. Once we do this, then we can admonish the sinner. Done in this order, you can be sure they will thank you.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
If only St. Thomas Aquinas had lived a little longer
Thomas Aquinas is one of my favorite saints. I believe he should be the patron saint of apologists. He gave rational reasons for the faith, in great detail, and his most complete work was the Summa Theologica. Aquinas understood that good philosophy can come from various sources and he was able to use many ideas from Greek and Roman philosophers. The Catholic Church recognizes that religions can be praised for what is true in their faiths, and Aquinas understood this as well. Of course, to fully understand God, we must look to the Catholic Church. The question I am asking is, what if St. Thomas lived a little longer?
The reason I ask is because he died on his way to the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons, on March 7, 1274. He was summoned there by Pope Gregory X himself. This was a very important council (as they all are indeed) as it was to attempt a reconciliation between the Eastern and Western churches, which were split during the Great Schism, a very sad time for Christendom. St. Thomas was revered from all the Christian world for his grasp of theology and philosophy. He was eminently brilliant and much of our current beliefs are best expressed through his words. Just take a look at the Catechism and you will know his great impact.
Because of his understanding, Aquinas was to be a very important member of this church council. Perhaps his words could have brought the Eastern Churches back into the fold. St. Thomas was able to expound on any topic and create an air-tight argument in favour of the Catholic Church. If St. Thomas had not been hit on the head a couple of times on his way to the council, he could very well have survived to brilliantly bring together these separated brothers. Of course, St. Thomas would acknowledge his debt to the Holy Spirit for giving him such great wisdom and knowledge. Another great saint and doctor of the church, St. Bonaventure, was able to make it to much of the proceedings, but he too died before the council was over. St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas have much in common. Let us say a special prayer tonight for the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, that he may intercede to God on our behalf to make our minds clear and bring us to a better understanding of God, through the workings of the Holy Spirit.
The reason I ask is because he died on his way to the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons, on March 7, 1274. He was summoned there by Pope Gregory X himself. This was a very important council (as they all are indeed) as it was to attempt a reconciliation between the Eastern and Western churches, which were split during the Great Schism, a very sad time for Christendom. St. Thomas was revered from all the Christian world for his grasp of theology and philosophy. He was eminently brilliant and much of our current beliefs are best expressed through his words. Just take a look at the Catechism and you will know his great impact.
Because of his understanding, Aquinas was to be a very important member of this church council. Perhaps his words could have brought the Eastern Churches back into the fold. St. Thomas was able to expound on any topic and create an air-tight argument in favour of the Catholic Church. If St. Thomas had not been hit on the head a couple of times on his way to the council, he could very well have survived to brilliantly bring together these separated brothers. Of course, St. Thomas would acknowledge his debt to the Holy Spirit for giving him such great wisdom and knowledge. Another great saint and doctor of the church, St. Bonaventure, was able to make it to much of the proceedings, but he too died before the council was over. St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas have much in common. Let us say a special prayer tonight for the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, that he may intercede to God on our behalf to make our minds clear and bring us to a better understanding of God, through the workings of the Holy Spirit.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Hitler's Pope: The Media gets it wrong again and again
I just read an article by the BBC. As a mainstream media outlet, they are not concerned about the facts or presenting something as it really is, but rather to cause controversy where none exists. This happened in their latest article concerning Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Israel, which began today. There is a major bias in the media that says Pope Pius XII did nothing to save the Jews during the Holocaust and that he actually helped Hitler in what he was doing. I think people really need to sit down and weigh the evidence. I'm not telling you you have to believe what I say. I'm saying, look at the evidence for yourself. Do research. And see what conclusion you come to.
A Rabbi named David G. Dalin published a book in 2005 called "The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis". In it, he notes that the Pope saved more Jews than Schindler, of movie fame. He points out that many famous Jews attested to Pius's help during WWII. These include Israeli Prime Ministers Golda Meir and Moshe Sharett, and Israel's first president Chaim Weizmann.
Why would the Pope like Hitler anyway? Thousands of priests and nuns were executed in the gas chambers of the Holocaust. Hitler hated the Catholic Church and a plot has been revealed that Hitler planned on killing the Pope himself if he became too much of a trouble-maker for
Hitler's regime.
The chief Rabbi of Rome actually converted to Catholicism after what Pius XII did, and he took as his new name Eugene, after Pope Pius XII's pre-pontifical name of Eugenio Pacelli.
Sources now believe the Pope saved anywhere from 500,000 to 860,000 Jews during the Holocaust by his actions, which included issuing fake baptismal certificates, and housing Jews in churches and monasteries.
Probably the most well-known Jewish figure of this century, Albert Einstein, said: "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."
The myth of Hitler's Pope has been thoroughly debunked, but some want to keep rehashing this old canard. Why? Perhaps the author of the Myth of Hitler's Pope says it best:
"anti-papal polemics of ex-seminarians like Garry Wills and John Cornwell (author of Hitler's Pope), of ex-priests like James Carroll, and or other lapsed or angry liberal Catholics exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today."
Let us pray for the Pope's visit to the Holy Land, and that people's hearts will be opened up to the light of Christ.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Help Stop Abortion in Canada
A friend of mine sent me an email indicating we can now directly contact those in government here in Canada in a simple way and tell them to make legislation to end abortion and protect life. I encourage everyone who can to do so. Here is the email he sent me:
End 40 Years of Abortion, Email all MPs with just 2 clicks
May 14, 2009 is the sad 40th anniversary of abortion in Canada. Now is time for the Members of Parliament to have their email inboxes flooded by us calling for legislation to protect life and end abortion! http://www.contactmps.com/ is a new free resource for us pro-life Canadians where we can send an email to all MPs with just two clicks.
Help make http://www.contactmps.com/ a grassroots success. Use and it share it with others today!
Kindly forward the above note to all pro-lifers in your address book, place it in Church bulletins, put it on pro-life blogs/websites, tell your friends, etc...
This website will stay in operation after the May, 2009. So keep visiting to send more letters!
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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)