Thanks Mr. Obama for ruining my birthday!

Mr. Obama, the most pro-abortion, anti-family president in the history of the United States has declared June, my birthmonth, as LGBT pride month. That's right, not just one day, or even a week, but an entire month.

He has issued a press release marking the "event". In it, he presents gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people as hard working Americans with good values who want to improve the country, who have been harrassed endlessly by conservative zealots bent on destroying their lives. He recalls an event 40 years ago when members of the LGBT community were harrassed, an event which he says had become "all too common". He says members of the LGBT community have made and continue to make lasting contributions to the fabric of American society. The specific example he gives is their fight against AIDS and HIV. He also says he will continue to fight for gay civil unions, the ability of LGBT people to adopt children, and to support LGBT "families" and "seniors". Obama sees these words as politically advantageous, but at what cost? Let me analyze this move on Obama's part in light of Catholic teaching.

Catholic teaching proclaims that the intent of marriage is to express the love of Christ and to raise children in a healthy environment. The marriage between a man and a woman is the only way to ensure the proper complementarity necessary for a child's growth. There is no such complementarity when both "parents" are of the same sex. Children naturally have the right to be raised by their parents. A gay couple can never give this option. There are circumstances where a child cannot be raised by his own parents, but this is the exception which society should work to prevent, rather than the rule. Artificially creating a "family" unit which does not involve both parents may seem politically advantageous, but it is not fair to a child. Some children are raised in foster homes. Many peopel are aware of the terrible circumstances many children must suffer in these situations. Many children go to sleep at night asking "Where's my mommy and daddy?" but the assumption has always been that if both parents came through and took the child back, that would be a victory for everyone. By making gay marriage "acceptable" as just one of many options, we take away the impetus to move toward natural families. It's the same as if we are fighting a disease for which there is no known cure. We must make those with this disease feel comfortable but always with the idea that some day we may find a cure and they can live without it. The disease in this case represents a child without his parents. But the LGBT movement for gay marriage is basically like saying this is not a disease anymore and no cure is necessary. We must stop looking for a cure because we do not acknowledge this as a disease. But guess what? Admit it or not, the disease remains. On top of all of this, there are other moral issues involved. If a gay couple wants a child of their own, they must be artificially inseminated (in the case of a woman). If a gay male couple wants a child of their own, one must illicitly use his sperm to produce an embryo. Creating babies in a test-tube, or outside the bond of true marriage is immoral. Not only that, many embryos are often destroyed in these procedures. Gay "families" always involve at least one form of immoral behavior. They cannot exist outside this context.

On the surface, the words of Obama do not sound too bad. They just seem to be asking people not to be discriminatory to people who are in the LGBT community, and on this note, the Catholic Church would agree. She says we must treat all people with love and respect, regardless of their behaviors. We must love and respect people from the LGBT community, but we must also keep in mind that they are doing something sinful, and that loving someone does not entail approving of all of their actions. But Obama is not just asking us to respect all people, he is making people who disagree with LGBT activism look like bigots and ignorant harrassers, who are just afraid of people who are different from them. This is a popular tactic being used by gay activists. Anyone who speaks out against gay marriage, homosexual behavior, gay adoption, or any other issue are simply labeled as a bigot and dismissed. But this doesn't happen for any other group. If I campaign against child sex slavery, I am not labeled a bigot, even if I may not be involved in this whole scene. I would say 99% of people who disagree wtih gay marriage and gay adoption have no phobia of gay people whatsoever. If I meet a gay person, I do not run away in fear. I see them as a person and treat them with respect. But that doesn't mean I can't engage in a debate about whether gay marriage or gay adoption is right. I can also say a war is not justified even if I am not IN the war. I can say theft is immoral, even if I am not a thief or even if I have never had anything stolen by a thief. This is a fallacy that often crops up in the debate about gay marriage and abortion.

A popular slogan of the National Organization of Marriage is Gay and lesbian have the right to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to change marriage for everyone. And that's exactly what's at stake. The fight against gay marriage is not about not letting gay people live as they wish, it's about the impact it is having on our lives. I believe in the parents' natural law right to teach their own children. Therefore, if a gay person teaches his adopted child about gay marriage, then there's not much I can do about it (although in this case, since the child is not naturally his, you could argue he has less right to teach this child). But that's not what's at stake. What's at stake is what everyone else is allowed to do. The gay rights lobby is not satisfied with gay people living as they wish and straight people living as they wish. No, they want to change legislation so that people not only have to accept gay people, they should be forced to speak about gay marriage as though it is equal to marriage between a man and a woman. How?
Well, if gay marriage becomes legal, as well as gay adoption, as it is already in some places, a public school cannot legally say marriage is when a man and a woman fall in love and get married and have children. Now they must say marriage is when two individuals, be they a man and a woman, two women, or two men fall in love and are united by the state authority. Then when speaking about children, they can no longer just present a natural child birth, involving sex between a married couple which results in a child being conceived and eventually born. Now, they must present the act of having children as any number of possibilities. Anything from natural conception and birth to a process involving masturbation, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, selective reduction (i.e. abortion), adoption, and possible payments at various stages of this process. This teaching will not be optional, but forced on the population.

People who have presented the constant teachings of the Church, the Church to whom Western civilization owes everything, have been persecuted. In Canada, a priest was charged for speaking against homosexuality. Never did he incite hatred or cause violence. Rather, he presented the constant teaching of the church on the issue and said it is incompatible with Christianity. In Massachuttsetts, the largest adoption agency in the state was the Catholic adoption service. A gay couple went there to adopt a child, but the organization refused because it felt that complying would be immoral. The Catholic agency which has helped thousands of families adopt needy children made a compromise and said they would refer gay and lesbian couples to other adoption agencies who actually provide adoption to gay couples. The gay lobby was not happy with this and pursued the Catholic organization in court. The actions of the Catholic organization were deemed discriminatory and they were shut down. Gay rights lobby 1, countless families and children 0. You see, the gay rights lobby is not satisfied with protection to believe what they want. They want to use the law to force everyone to accept their lifestyles.

Ultimately the only thing Obama's decision to make June the month for LGBT people will do is cause more and more harrassment against people who want to express their view that marriage is between a man and a woman. The persecution has already begun and will continue to get worse. Obama is a major catalyst in all of this. He wants people who defend traditional marriage to feel like bigots and LGBT people to feel justified in feeling like victims and people who need to fight for whatever they want.

The most ironic part of Obama's official White House letter is the last part where he marks the date as "the year of the Lord 2009". If Obama really believed Jesus is our Lord, he would never try to sabatoge the institution of marriage which Christ elevated to a sacrament.

Must we love Hitler?

Christ tells us to love our enemies. He said you have heard it said to love those who are your friends, however, Jesus points out that even evil people do this. We, as Christians, are held to a higher standard. But do we have to “love” Hitler, for example, or anyone who does evil? How is this possible?

Usually the answer people who ask this question receive is that we must love the sinner, but hate the sin. But what does this look like in real life? If a man kills someone close to us, how must we treat him? Do we say, “I really hate what you did, but as a person, I have much love toward you.” Must we be this person's friend? Should we visit him and send birthday cards? Isn't this what we do for people we love? How it is indeed even possible to love someone like this? Must we completely go against every instinct in our bodies in order to “love” someone even though in reality we dislike this person immensely? I do not think we do. I think the love Jesus was talking about was a particular type.

I believe the Christian message is that we must love one another, regardless of who the “other” is. But I think this is a specific type of love. In the Bible, there are three types of love. There is brotherly love, which we have for our siblings and relatives, there is eros, which is love between close people such as spouses, and then there is agape, the greatest type of love. This goes beyond feelings. This love means we hope for the ultimate salvation of someone. We pray that they will be united with God and be drawn close to him. But it does not entail a warm fuzzy feeling inside, necessarily. This is the issue I believe for most people when it comes to this issue. Let's use the Hitler example again. A proper type of love to display toward Hitler would be to hope for his eternal salvation with God, however we can still be extremely angry and upset about his actions. If he went to shake your hand, you can refuse, you do not need to smile at him, or talk to him. You can even seek to bring him to justice. We cannot however hope that he ends up in Hell or that he turns away from God and opposes him. We must still hope for his eternal salvation.

Is this difficult? Sometimes extremely, but Christ's message is rarely easy. I think the distinction being made here is a very important one. Of course we must love the sinner, and hate the sin, but we also do not need to be best friends with someone who does evil. We must help them if they accept help, we must practice Christian virtue with them as with everyone, and we must hope for their eternal salvation, but we needn't go with them to the baseball game.

In light of the Angels and Demons movie, an interesting article about the Catholic Church and Science

There is a very interesting article published by USA Today. I will post it in its entirety here:

GENEVA (AP) — A senior Vatican delegation visited the world's biggest nuclear physics laboratory, proclaiming that true faith has no problems with science.

The Roman Catholic Church was represented by Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, Vatican City's governor, as it toured the CERN facility and its 17-mile proton accelerator this week. It welcomed any breakthroughs physicists could provide on understanding the basis of the universe, and said they would also advance religion.

"The Church never fears the truth of science, because we are convinced that all truth comes from God," Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, Vatican City's governor, said Thursday in Geneva. "Science will help our faith to purify itself. And faith at the same time will be able to broaden the horizons of man, who cannot just enclose himself in the horizons of science."

Lajolo spoke a day after visiting the laboratory beneath the Swiss-French border and receiving a crash course in particle physics from Edward Witten, a professor at the School of Natural Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, at the forefront of attempts to unify Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity with quantum mechanics.

CERN's atom smasher, the world's largest, is seen as vital in this quest. Physicists hope soon to use the $10 billion machine to smash protons from hydrogen atoms crash into each other at high energy, record what particles are produced and gain a better idea of the makeup of the universe and everything in it.

Damages in the initial start-up last September have set the project back a year and it is expected to be turned on again this autumn. Researchers hope the collisions will show on a tiny scale what happened one-trillionth of a second after the so-called Big Bang, which many scientists theorize was the massive explosion that formed the universe. The theory holds that the universe was rapidly cooling at that stage and matter was changing quickly.

Lajolo said scientific truths could "correct some of our opinions" about scripture and faith. He said nothing in science could contradict the Holy Scriptures — only interpretations — because both were rooted in God.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The full article can be found here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-06-08-vatican-cern_N.htm?csp=34

Do you know your apologetics?

Apologetics is explaining and defending the faith. A favorite show of mine is Catholic Answers Live, which is all about apologetics. You can hear it at www.catholic.com. Every 3 or 6 months, they have a show where instead of people calling in asking questions, people call in and are ASKED questions (It's called Who Wants to be an Apologist).

There are 5 questions, the first 3 are considered easy or moderate, and the last 2 are considered difficult. If a contestant gets one correct answer, they get a $25 gift certificate for the Catholic
Answers store. If they get 3 right, they get $50, and for 5 correct answers, they receive $100.

The show was supposed to air tonight, but it was postponed due to technical difficulties. I will try calling in the next time it comes on the air. Last time I called in, I got all 5 questions correct and
got $100 worth of quality material. It was well worth the phone call!

Anti-abortion or pro-life?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.