To see a really good gallery of photos (and some information) of Pope Benedict after leaving hospital for his fractured wrist, please go here:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Pope-Benedict-XVI-Slips-In-The-Bath-And-Breaks-Wrist-On-Holiday-In-Northern-Italy/Article/200907315339978?f=rss
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Pope Benedict fractures wrist
While Pope Benedict was vacationing on Friday, he broke his wrist. The injury happened when he fell near the bathroom in the chalet where he was spending a 2-week summer retreat. Pope Benedict seems like a tough man, because right after the incident, he proceeded to say Mass before he went to the hospital to be examined by the doctor. He also had breakfast before going to the doctor. I always thought JPII was the tough sports lover who went hiking and skiing but apparently B16 is no wimp himself. I can imagine Pope Benedict in his German accent (sounding somewhat like Schwarzenegger) saying "Dis broken ahm is nahting. I vent through mach more than this wit som Cardinahls vhen I implemented my moto proprio!" But all joking aside, let us pray for the Pontiff. He is 82 years old now, but in excellent health.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Stephen Harper's actions were not a faux-pas, they were SACRILEGE
A report has emerged that while Stephen Harper was at a funeral service for Romeo LeBlanc, former governor general of Canada, in Memramcook, N.B., he was given the consecrated Eucharist at a Catholic Mass, but that he did not eat it! The video is somewhat ambiguous in that it is not completely clear what happens to the Host.
The mainstream media is reporting the incident with its usual Catholic ignorance. Somehow, even though 43% of Canadians are Catholic, by far the largest religion in the Country, the media acts like it's this rare religion that no one has any information about! They have no respect for the severity of this matter. They continually refer to the consecrated Eucharist, which is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, as a wafer! If all Stephen Harper had done was put a "wafer" in his pocket, no one would care. But it's much MUCH more than that. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life!
What's worse is that the media seems to be focusing more on another incident that happened with Stephen Harper. Apparently he was 1 minute and 40 seconds late for a photo op with the G8 leaders in Italy. This too was called a "faux pas". Apparently, committing blasphemy against Jesus Christ is the equivalent of being less than 2 minutes late for a photo.
Just how bad is blasphemy against the Eucharist? According to St. Thomas Aquinas:
Therefore, sacrilege committed against the Eucharist is the gravest of all sacrilege. If Stephen Harper truly did put the host in his pocket, that would have been a worse sacrilege than spitting on a sacred statue or icon, or hitting the priest, or any other form of sacrilege. Of course, his personal culpability might be low or non-existant if he was unaware of his offense, assuming he committed one.In like manner the third species of sacrilege, which is committed against other sacred things, has various degrees, according to the differences of sacred things. Among these the highest place belongs to the sacraments whereby man is sanctified: chief of which is the sacrament of the Eucharist, for it contains Christ Himself. Wherefore the sacrilege that is committed against this sacrament is the gravest of all.
Another big problem with this whole scenario is that he should not have received the Eucharist in the first place, since he is not Catholic. Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada and as such has people around him constantly advising him on issues. They advise him on protocol, ways to behave, etiquette, rules of engagement. You would think that someone in his department would be Catholic, or that at least they would have researched Catholic beliefs about something so central. I remember a couple of years back, Stephen Harper was at the opening ceremony of a Sikh place of worship. He did everything "right", from wearing a temporary turban, to removing his shoes. Sikhs account for just 0.5% of the Canadian population. Compare this to Stephen Harper doing something that is not just an etiquette issue, but a violation of Catholic belief (i.e. receiving the Eucharist while not Catholic). It violates a Catholic belief at the center of our worship. According to Aquinas, this is the greatest sacrilege. And Catholics constitute 43% of the population! What Harper did would be the worse than going to a synagogue and feeding the guests pork!
The Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella didn't help matters with her comments which go against Catholic teaching. According to TheStar.com, Kinsella said the following:
"I would like to state that I personally witnessed Prime Minister Harper consume the host that was given to him by Archbishop André Richard," Kinsella said in a statement. "Sitting only a few seats behind him, I had a full view of the proceedings and clearly saw the Prime Minister accept the host after Archbishop Richard offered it. The Prime Minister consumed it.
"As a Catholic, I was therefore pleased to see the Prime Minister of Canada express his solidarity and communion with all those present in the sanctuary as we celebrated the life of the former governor general."
Stephen Harper would have shown more solidarity with Catholics by following the rules of the Catholic Church. How does violating the rules of the place you are visiting constitute "solidarity"? Secondly, Ms. Kinsella made an error in stating that they were celebrating the life of the former governor general in the sanctuary. Only the priest and altar servers are allowed in the sanctuary during the Mass. The congregation sits outside the sanctuary.
We are not 100% certain of what happened in this incident, and I think it's best to give Harper the benefit of the doubt and assume he consumed the Body and Blood of Christ. Obviously this is preferrable to desecrating the Eucharist. In any event, however, something wrong happened. That is disturbing enough, but what's also disturbing is how the media is reporting the incident. They are treating it very lightly, and sometimes even with comedy, as if it's funny. No one is treating it very seriously, perhaps except a few Catholic publications.
This just reconfirms the statement that anti-catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice. People feel free to lash out at the Catholic Church anytime they feel like it. People are extra careful not to offend Jews or Muslims, but when it comes to Catholics, you can say pretty well anything and no one will so much as cough. There is something very wrong with this. How is that when it comes to groups that constitute less than 5% of our population, people are very concerned not to offend them, but when it comes to Catholics, who make up 43% of the populace, people don't care at all.
Imagine if someone had done something to desecrate or injure the sensibilities of another religion. Would there be newspaper articles making light of it? Even if it was done inadvertantly, you would never seem a comedic treatment? Try to invision an article which says the following: "Prime Minister Harper did faux pas today when he accidentally wore a swatstika shirt into a Jewish Synagogue." or "Prime Minister Harper made a funny gaffe when he stepped on a Koran today in a Mosque", or how about "The Prime Minister made a couple of misteps today. The biggest one was missing a meeting by almost 2 minutes, the other, less important incident, was that he accidentally spit right on a Sikh holy place." The Prime Minister in these cases would probably be charged with a hate crime, or at least people would be very angry. Yet, when he does something against the Catholic population, it goes in the humour section of the newspaper.
At least one good thing might come out of this. Many people, including many Catholics, are unaware that only Catholics should receive Catholic communion. As people read about this incident, they may learn about this rule, and we may take a general step closer to living by the rules.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
The Roe of Roe V. Wade has a video
Jane Roe, the pseudonymous name of the woman in the landmark court case which legalize abortion is indeed pro-life now. In fact, she has never had an abortion. She is now Catholic. Check out her video:
Monday, July 06, 2009
What a coincidence! The ABC program for HIV/AIDS works again
In 2003, George W. Bush began a program called the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. It spent $15 billion on preventing AIDS in developing countries, as well as buying medicine and care for those who already have it. It's a really bizarre coincidence that the worst president in history was behind one of the greatest successes in the fight against AIDS. It is estimated that the fund, which amounted to around $15 billion has helped reduce AIDS by 10% in the areas where the money went. How could someone so horrible do something so good?
But an even greater coincidence is that the method it employed to reduce HIV/AIDS rates was largely based on the ABC program, which means first of all practice Abstinence, then Be faithful (to one partner), and finally if necessary use Condoms. Those are the ABCs: Abstinence, Be faithful, and Condoms (if necessary). We all know that abstinence programming doesn't work. The only thing that can ever work is more condoms right? Well, the strange coincidence is that Haiti has recently announced a dramatic drop in its AIDS rate after employing this program. But how could this program work the way George Bush implemented it? He didn't encourage more condom use... hmm... how bizarre.
Of course, despite the dramatic lowering of AIDS rates in Haiti, critics still contend that the A of the ABC program needs to be dropped. That's also interesting given the fact that the countries in Africa, for example, where condoms have been more available than clean water for 25 years have experienced only an increase in HIV/AIDS rates. That's with the exception of Uganda, which vigorously promoted ABC also, and which is one of the only countries in Africa to experience a decline in AIDS rates.
This must surely be a coincidence! And fortunately one person knows just how big a coincidence this really is. Even though to the average person a program which when implemented reduces AIDS by 10% would seem to be a success, as opposed to others which focus on condom use and see an increase in AIDS rates, we are fortunate to have a President in the United States who is so much more advanced and can tell that OBVIOUSLY the ABC program would be better if it were simply the C program! This visionary can see beyond the statistics and medical information, beyond the obvious, and see something that no one else can seem to understand. I don't expect the average person to comprehend this, but according to Obama, the best way to fix a situation for which a particular solution isn't working is not to abolish that solution, but rather to expand it!
If you don't see the logic in this, there's something that might help. Just listen to Obama as he strings together impressive sounding words, mixed in with a healthy dose of "change" and "believe" and "this is our time", etc. etc. etc. and eventually, or so he hopes, you will be chanting the name of Obama and not using your logic and reasoning anymore. Isn't that what they call an automaton?
But an even greater coincidence is that the method it employed to reduce HIV/AIDS rates was largely based on the ABC program, which means first of all practice Abstinence, then Be faithful (to one partner), and finally if necessary use Condoms. Those are the ABCs: Abstinence, Be faithful, and Condoms (if necessary). We all know that abstinence programming doesn't work. The only thing that can ever work is more condoms right? Well, the strange coincidence is that Haiti has recently announced a dramatic drop in its AIDS rate after employing this program. But how could this program work the way George Bush implemented it? He didn't encourage more condom use... hmm... how bizarre.
Of course, despite the dramatic lowering of AIDS rates in Haiti, critics still contend that the A of the ABC program needs to be dropped. That's also interesting given the fact that the countries in Africa, for example, where condoms have been more available than clean water for 25 years have experienced only an increase in HIV/AIDS rates. That's with the exception of Uganda, which vigorously promoted ABC also, and which is one of the only countries in Africa to experience a decline in AIDS rates.
This must surely be a coincidence! And fortunately one person knows just how big a coincidence this really is. Even though to the average person a program which when implemented reduces AIDS by 10% would seem to be a success, as opposed to others which focus on condom use and see an increase in AIDS rates, we are fortunate to have a President in the United States who is so much more advanced and can tell that OBVIOUSLY the ABC program would be better if it were simply the C program! This visionary can see beyond the statistics and medical information, beyond the obvious, and see something that no one else can seem to understand. I don't expect the average person to comprehend this, but according to Obama, the best way to fix a situation for which a particular solution isn't working is not to abolish that solution, but rather to expand it!
If you don't see the logic in this, there's something that might help. Just listen to Obama as he strings together impressive sounding words, mixed in with a healthy dose of "change" and "believe" and "this is our time", etc. etc. etc. and eventually, or so he hopes, you will be chanting the name of Obama and not using your logic and reasoning anymore. Isn't that what they call an automaton?
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Conversation about homosexuality
Last night, I was with friends. They accused a man I know of being gay. He wasn't there and there's no evidence that he is gay, so I defended him and said he's not. Eventually a girl who was with us asked "So what if he is? Why do you care? What difference does it make?" Later, she said "Oh, you're religious aren't you..." This particular person makes statements like this and every now and then will remind people that she is not at all religious and in fact she seems rather anti-Christian.
There are several problems with her statements anyway. Her implication was that I am against gay people because I am religious and that's the only reason. All I said to her in response was that I am religious but that's not the point. The point is I don't think he is gay, so we shouldn't accuse him of that. If someone said she's "lesbian", would the better thing to do is just accept that, even if it's false?
I am not against gay people. I think God loves gay people just like he loves everyone else. With regards to sex and so on, I believe sex is reserved for a man and a woman inside marriage. Anything outside of this is immoral. When it comes to immoral sexual behavior, anyone could potential fall into that category. If a self-identified "gay" person falls into that category, so be it, but others can just as easily.
I think God created marriage as the union of a man and a woman for love between spouses and a good environment for children. Sex ought to be inside this marriage because outside of it, it is not a good environment for the raising of children. I do not think sex and procreation can be completely divorced. God has linked them together. So therefore, sex has a natural consequence of conception. A conception should only happen within the loving bond of a couple who have made a lifelong commitment to each other. Isn't this so beautiful? Isn't a child most loved in this special place? I think so.
It is an unfair statement to say I am against gay people. What is more accurate is to say I am against anything which involves sex outside of marriage. This could be adultery, fornication, masturbation, rape, incest, and homosexual sex. That means I am not just sitting on my pedestal condemning people, because I too am vulnerable to many of these sins. I am not immune to them.
I think to say someone is against gay people because they are religious is avoiding the issue. My religion is against homosexual activity, not just because it decided this haphazardly. The Catholic Church is against this because it is not for the good of society. But the Catholic Church is against many types of illicit sexual behavior.
We all have a narrow path to walk. Let's follow the course set out by Christ.
There are several problems with her statements anyway. Her implication was that I am against gay people because I am religious and that's the only reason. All I said to her in response was that I am religious but that's not the point. The point is I don't think he is gay, so we shouldn't accuse him of that. If someone said she's "lesbian", would the better thing to do is just accept that, even if it's false?
I am not against gay people. I think God loves gay people just like he loves everyone else. With regards to sex and so on, I believe sex is reserved for a man and a woman inside marriage. Anything outside of this is immoral. When it comes to immoral sexual behavior, anyone could potential fall into that category. If a self-identified "gay" person falls into that category, so be it, but others can just as easily.
I think God created marriage as the union of a man and a woman for love between spouses and a good environment for children. Sex ought to be inside this marriage because outside of it, it is not a good environment for the raising of children. I do not think sex and procreation can be completely divorced. God has linked them together. So therefore, sex has a natural consequence of conception. A conception should only happen within the loving bond of a couple who have made a lifelong commitment to each other. Isn't this so beautiful? Isn't a child most loved in this special place? I think so.
It is an unfair statement to say I am against gay people. What is more accurate is to say I am against anything which involves sex outside of marriage. This could be adultery, fornication, masturbation, rape, incest, and homosexual sex. That means I am not just sitting on my pedestal condemning people, because I too am vulnerable to many of these sins. I am not immune to them.
I think to say someone is against gay people because they are religious is avoiding the issue. My religion is against homosexual activity, not just because it decided this haphazardly. The Catholic Church is against this because it is not for the good of society. But the Catholic Church is against many types of illicit sexual behavior.
We all have a narrow path to walk. Let's follow the course set out by Christ.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
First Saint Canonized this day in 993
In 993, Ulrich of Augsburg was the first person to be canonized in the process we use today, by the Pope. Prior to this time, we had many saints in the Church, but they were declared saints by local acclaim or by the bishop of that area. All people called saint nowadays are canonized by the Pope.
A good resource for information on this saint is Wikipedia. Check out his article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_of_Augsburg
A good resource for information on this saint is Wikipedia. Check out his article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_of_Augsburg
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Great Article about divorce on CNN
There is a great article on CNN now about divorce and why it is so bad. Fatherlessness causes so many tragedies in our society. As I thought about this article, I realized something. There is a big push now for recognition of gay marriage, but I realized perhaps we as a society are to blame for this just as much as anyone else. We may try to blame the gay lobby for this, but really heterosexual people are just as guilty. I am referring to the fact that marriage has traditionally been not just been between a man and a woman, but also it has been about commitment to one another and a protected area in which to raise children.
Starting mostly with the birth control pill and the sexual revolution, people began seeing marriage not as an unbreakable union between a man and a woman for the protection and raising of a family, but rather as simply a personal contract between two people to legitamize a sexual union. Love, viewed as a fuzzy feeling between two people, became the glue of the marriage. Once that glue lost its stick, the marriage was on thin ice and often failed. Love should rightfully be a decision of the will. A decision to remain together in the good times and the bad. Marriage was reduced to a fuzzy feeling. It was no longer about children, and divorce became increasingly common. Because of this attitude that a marriage is just strong feelings between two people, how could society logically forbid same sex marriage? That's why I think we are partly to blame for this mess. If we said marriage is about not only love (love informed by reason and will), but also about a family, and the raising of children, we would have a much stronger ability to deny same sex marriage or any union that was inherently fruitless.
The Catholic Church recognizes this, much more than any other church. I am not saying this to be triumphalistic, as someone on Catholic Answers Live once pointed out. The Catholic Church would forbid a couple from marrying if they had decided at the onset that they were against having children. The Church also forbids the use of contraception because it violates God's plan for sexuality and renders a marriage infertile against God's will, no different than using a wheelchair when you are perfectly capable of walking, or worse, mutilating your body. The Church also forbids divorce, because they view marriage as an unbreakable bond between a man and a woman. These beliefs fly in the face of the opinion that a marriage is a contract of feelings between two people. I believe if the world accepted the Church's view of marriage, gay marriage would never even be seen as possible, nor would divorce or contraception, and there would be a strengthening of marriage so that people would be raised in a household with a mother and a father.
Please take a look at the CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/07/02/sears.family.divorce/index.html
Starting mostly with the birth control pill and the sexual revolution, people began seeing marriage not as an unbreakable union between a man and a woman for the protection and raising of a family, but rather as simply a personal contract between two people to legitamize a sexual union. Love, viewed as a fuzzy feeling between two people, became the glue of the marriage. Once that glue lost its stick, the marriage was on thin ice and often failed. Love should rightfully be a decision of the will. A decision to remain together in the good times and the bad. Marriage was reduced to a fuzzy feeling. It was no longer about children, and divorce became increasingly common. Because of this attitude that a marriage is just strong feelings between two people, how could society logically forbid same sex marriage? That's why I think we are partly to blame for this mess. If we said marriage is about not only love (love informed by reason and will), but also about a family, and the raising of children, we would have a much stronger ability to deny same sex marriage or any union that was inherently fruitless.
The Catholic Church recognizes this, much more than any other church. I am not saying this to be triumphalistic, as someone on Catholic Answers Live once pointed out. The Catholic Church would forbid a couple from marrying if they had decided at the onset that they were against having children. The Church also forbids the use of contraception because it violates God's plan for sexuality and renders a marriage infertile against God's will, no different than using a wheelchair when you are perfectly capable of walking, or worse, mutilating your body. The Church also forbids divorce, because they view marriage as an unbreakable bond between a man and a woman. These beliefs fly in the face of the opinion that a marriage is a contract of feelings between two people. I believe if the world accepted the Church's view of marriage, gay marriage would never even be seen as possible, nor would divorce or contraception, and there would be a strengthening of marriage so that people would be raised in a household with a mother and a father.
Please take a look at the CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/07/02/sears.family.divorce/index.html
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Fr. John Corapi comes down hard on Canadian bishops
And for good reason.
Over 40 years ago, just after the pope issued Humanae Vitae, an encyclical which represented the church's teaching on contraception, abortion, and other life issues, the Canadian Bishops issued the infamous Winnipeg Statement, which went against the Church's official teaching. We should strive for unity in the Church, and we now know that contraception leads to abortion. Click the link below to see what Fr. Corapi had to say about this:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09063008.html
Over 40 years ago, just after the pope issued Humanae Vitae, an encyclical which represented the church's teaching on contraception, abortion, and other life issues, the Canadian Bishops issued the infamous Winnipeg Statement, which went against the Church's official teaching. We should strive for unity in the Church, and we now know that contraception leads to abortion. Click the link below to see what Fr. Corapi had to say about this:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09063008.html
Happy Canada Day
I'm finding it a little harder these days to say Happy Canada Day. Canada is a great place to live. It has great health care for everyone (most of the time), we have good public services, it is generally clean, it is equitable, good human rights, etc. So all in all, it is a good country. But this good country is going the wrong way in some cases. Specifically in the areas of same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, contraception, and religious freedom. On all these counts, I give Canada a failing grade.
Same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and contraception violate human dignity and should not be allowed. They are all part of the culture of death. Another issue which seems to be trying to make a breakthrough is euthanasia. Canada seems to be lightening its stance of assisted suicide and euthanasia. This will contribute further to the degrodation of human rights in our country. Another issue is free speech. A Canadian priest was brought to court for hate speech just because he proclaimed the Church's constant teaching on homosexuality and the purpose of marriage, etc. This is despicable. Other areas which we will need to keep an eye on are Canada's laxity when it comes to child pornography and its loosening of drug laws.
So all in all, Canada is a good place to live, but there are many areas where it is failing. Overall, I would give Canada a C.
Same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and contraception violate human dignity and should not be allowed. They are all part of the culture of death. Another issue which seems to be trying to make a breakthrough is euthanasia. Canada seems to be lightening its stance of assisted suicide and euthanasia. This will contribute further to the degrodation of human rights in our country. Another issue is free speech. A Canadian priest was brought to court for hate speech just because he proclaimed the Church's constant teaching on homosexuality and the purpose of marriage, etc. This is despicable. Other areas which we will need to keep an eye on are Canada's laxity when it comes to child pornography and its loosening of drug laws.
So all in all, Canada is a good place to live, but there are many areas where it is failing. Overall, I would give Canada a C.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Ironic man speaks about Madoff
I wrote an article about Bernard Madoff wondering if he should be sent to prison for 150 years with violent criminals. I found this clip of a man who spent 10 years in prison and now acts as a consultant for people like Madoff. He helps people understand what they will experience in prison. Everything in the interview was fine, until this man showed a complete lack of understanding or sensitivity. I was rather shocked actually. Take a look at this clip, especially the last 10 to 15 seconds.
I think we as Christians should set a good example when it comes to this stuff. He said he's Jewish, but even Jews must be compassionate. We must never as Christians wish that someone goes to Hell. Ultimately even if we do not have fuzzy feelings for someone, we can never hope for their eternal separation from God.
I think we as Christians should set a good example when it comes to this stuff. He said he's Jewish, but even Jews must be compassionate. We must never as Christians wish that someone goes to Hell. Ultimately even if we do not have fuzzy feelings for someone, we can never hope for their eternal separation from God.
A new movie featuring Jim Caviezel
There is a new movie featuring Jim Caviezel coming out called The Stoning of Soraya M.
My question is, will Jim Caviezel, who played Jesus Christ in the Passion of the Christ movie say at any point in the film "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
A point this movie brings up, or should, is that just because something is cultural does not make it right. Catholicism is a morally objective or absolute religion. It does not believe murder is wrong only for certain cultures. Take abortion for example. We do not say abortion is wrong only when there's no good reason, but if the mother is in a bad financial situation or if she wants to have a career first, then it's ok. That's moral relativism, and it's something Cardinal Ratzinger warned us about before the Papal Conclave which elected him. Therefore, we must object to the stoning of people for it is barbaric and wrong. Check out the preview:
My question is, will Jim Caviezel, who played Jesus Christ in the Passion of the Christ movie say at any point in the film "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
A point this movie brings up, or should, is that just because something is cultural does not make it right. Catholicism is a morally objective or absolute religion. It does not believe murder is wrong only for certain cultures. Take abortion for example. We do not say abortion is wrong only when there's no good reason, but if the mother is in a bad financial situation or if she wants to have a career first, then it's ok. That's moral relativism, and it's something Cardinal Ratzinger warned us about before the Papal Conclave which elected him. Therefore, we must object to the stoning of people for it is barbaric and wrong. Check out the preview:
Obama likens gay movement to civil rights movement
Obama has betrayed his African-American heritage by comparing the civil rights movement, a legitimate movement, with the gay rights movement. If they were on par with each other, the majority of black people would not support legislation to ban same-sex marriage, which they do. The civil rights movement was completely necessary because black people were regarded as lower class citizens. They could not vote, they could not go into many shops, they were forced to the back of the bus, they were segregated and racism was prevalent. None of these things are true for homosexual people. The civil rights movement has taken place, and black people have as many rights as everyone else. Are there still racists and white supremacists? Of course there are. But that's not something you can legislate away. Gay people have all the rights of everyone else. There may still exist people who dislike gay people or treat them poorly, but that does not mean they have fewer rights. Many groups suffer at the hands of others. The difference in this case is that the goal of the gay rights movement is to force everyone to accept changes to society that they do not want.
The gay rights movement is not happy to recognize their own love for each other, they want everyone else to accept it as well, and they want to use the word marriage to describe their union. But it goes much further than this. They want to change school books to say that homosexual relationships are just as normal and morally acceptable as heterosexual partners. There have been cases of priests who speak about the Church's constant teaching on sexual morality who have been brought to court for hate crimes. Adoption agencies have been forced to adopt children to gay couples against their morals, or shut down. Many have unfortunately shut down.
I believe gay marriage can actually be bad for gay people, click here to find out why: http://holymotherchurch.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-legalizing-gay-marriage-hurts-gay_25.html
I've also discussed this topic at some length at: http://holymotherchurch.blogspot.com/2009/06/thanks-mr-obama-for-ruining-my-birthday.html
We must love people who have homosexual feelings, just like we must love everyone else, but we must also not be afraid to speak the truth.
The gay rights movement is not happy to recognize their own love for each other, they want everyone else to accept it as well, and they want to use the word marriage to describe their union. But it goes much further than this. They want to change school books to say that homosexual relationships are just as normal and morally acceptable as heterosexual partners. There have been cases of priests who speak about the Church's constant teaching on sexual morality who have been brought to court for hate crimes. Adoption agencies have been forced to adopt children to gay couples against their morals, or shut down. Many have unfortunately shut down.
I believe gay marriage can actually be bad for gay people, click here to find out why: http://holymotherchurch.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-legalizing-gay-marriage-hurts-gay_25.html
I've also discussed this topic at some length at: http://holymotherchurch.blogspot.com/2009/06/thanks-mr-obama-for-ruining-my-birthday.html
We must love people who have homosexual feelings, just like we must love everyone else, but we must also not be afraid to speak the truth.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Bernard Madoff gets 150 years in prison
Bernard Madoff was responsible for financial crimes in which he stole billions of dollars from people. He said he would help with their investments, but he did no such things. I do not know a lot of the details of the case. Theft is a serious crime, but is it as serious as murder? For the crimes he committed, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. He is already 71 years old, so the chances of him living that long are pretty well non-existent. But is this an appropriate sentence? His lawyers argued that he had a remaining life expectancy of 13 more years. They requested a sentence of 12 years so he could get out and have about a year left. I think this would have been more appropriate. I am always critical of sentencing people for long periods of time for financial crimes. They are not a physical threat to people, just financial. I believe a more appropriate punishment would be to cap his earnings or to take away his ability to have anything to do with investments. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. Being locked away for 150 years with violent criminals does not seem appropriate no matter how much money he stole.
I seem to be a little outnumbered in my opinion that Madoff's sentence was too harsh. On a CNN poll, 57% of respondents felt he had received a fair sentence, 34% said no penalty is harsh enough and just 9% felt his sentence was too harsh.
I want to clarify that I think what Madoff did was terrible and worthy of punishment. I am simply wondering if this particular punishment was appropriate given the crime.
In any event, let us pray for Madoff and his victims, that they may find true reward with God and his eternal promises.
I seem to be a little outnumbered in my opinion that Madoff's sentence was too harsh. On a CNN poll, 57% of respondents felt he had received a fair sentence, 34% said no penalty is harsh enough and just 9% felt his sentence was too harsh.
I want to clarify that I think what Madoff did was terrible and worthy of punishment. I am simply wondering if this particular punishment was appropriate given the crime.
In any event, let us pray for Madoff and his victims, that they may find true reward with God and his eternal promises.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
My birthday and why I am grateful to God
Today is my 27th birthday. It shares a feast with St. Iraeneus, an early saint of the church who defended her against heresy. I have much to be thankful for. I will try to list some of the things I give thanks for now in my blog.
I give thanks to God - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God's love is why I am here. Without God, I would be nothing. Everything I have to be thankful for is only because God has created it. He even created my ability to love. Only by his love can I ever love.
I am thankful to the saints. I am thankful to Mother Teresa, and Padre Pio. I am thankful to St. Francis of Assisi and Thomas Aquinas and all the other saints. I am thankful to the Gospel writers. I am thankful to Mary, the Mother of God, Our Lady of Perpetual Help.
I am thankful for my girlfriend Manasi. She could not be here to celebrate my birthday with me but she will be back soon. She loves me a lot and I love her.
Praise God for all my friends, and my family. I am thankful to those who have taught me the faith.
I am thankful for:
- the sacraments
- beautiful days, as well as rainy days
- joy and suffering
- the high and the lowly
- prayers
- Christ's love for each of us
I thank God for giving me so much. God's love sometimes overwhelms me and I begin to weep. God, so far beyond our comprehension came to Earth to suffer and die for us. Now he is with us in the Eucharist. We receive him with joy and thanks. Words fail to appreciate the wonders God has done. He is Lord of All, Creator of the Universe, yet he loves us so profoundly, we can never imagine his love for us. Even when we disobey his commands and run away like children, God smiles upon us and invites us back. We do not deserve this love. We would not deserve one drop of Christ's blood, but he gave not one drop, but every drop. He poured himself out completely for our sake. He was scouraged at the pillar, then carried his own cross upon which he was crucified and died. For what? For us. We, who said crucify him, we who disobey him, we who sin against him. He died for each and everyone of us. Even if there was just one person on Earth, Jesus would have been whipped and scouged at the pillar almost till death, then carried the heavy cross on his broken body. Yes, even for one. But more painful than all of these tortures was the pain of our sins. He bore all our sins, so that we can have the hope of Heaven. For this I am eternally thankful.
I give thanks to God - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God's love is why I am here. Without God, I would be nothing. Everything I have to be thankful for is only because God has created it. He even created my ability to love. Only by his love can I ever love.
I am thankful to the saints. I am thankful to Mother Teresa, and Padre Pio. I am thankful to St. Francis of Assisi and Thomas Aquinas and all the other saints. I am thankful to the Gospel writers. I am thankful to Mary, the Mother of God, Our Lady of Perpetual Help.
I am thankful for my girlfriend Manasi. She could not be here to celebrate my birthday with me but she will be back soon. She loves me a lot and I love her.
Praise God for all my friends, and my family. I am thankful to those who have taught me the faith.
I am thankful for:
- the sacraments
- beautiful days, as well as rainy days
- joy and suffering
- the high and the lowly
- prayers
- Christ's love for each of us
I thank God for giving me so much. God's love sometimes overwhelms me and I begin to weep. God, so far beyond our comprehension came to Earth to suffer and die for us. Now he is with us in the Eucharist. We receive him with joy and thanks. Words fail to appreciate the wonders God has done. He is Lord of All, Creator of the Universe, yet he loves us so profoundly, we can never imagine his love for us. Even when we disobey his commands and run away like children, God smiles upon us and invites us back. We do not deserve this love. We would not deserve one drop of Christ's blood, but he gave not one drop, but every drop. He poured himself out completely for our sake. He was scouraged at the pillar, then carried his own cross upon which he was crucified and died. For what? For us. We, who said crucify him, we who disobey him, we who sin against him. He died for each and everyone of us. Even if there was just one person on Earth, Jesus would have been whipped and scouged at the pillar almost till death, then carried the heavy cross on his broken body. Yes, even for one. But more painful than all of these tortures was the pain of our sins. He bore all our sins, so that we can have the hope of Heaven. For this I am eternally thankful.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The priest took 21 steps, but it was supposed to be 22!
I was reading a blog the other night and the commentator seemed very harsh and critical of Catholics. He was saying they are too liberal, they want a lot of changes in the church such as female ordination, they want to decrease the role of the priest, they want more lay participation, they want more ideas expressed at Mass, they want less dogma, etc. These are serious issues, surely, but we as Christians must also be careful not to automatically be critical of everything and to understand the essence of what's happening.
I believe it is important to notice liturgical abuses, but it is also possible to go overboard. While at Mass, we ought to be in a prayerful and contemplative state. We should listen attentively to the Word of God, and receive Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity with the proper reverence. This should be our main focus. Since this is our focus, we should not necessarily notice every detail of the rubrics. By focusing too much on possible abuses, we can detract from our real purpose, which is the worship of God.
It is good to sometimes remember that God wants to make himself accessible to us. He realizes that we are human and fallible and that sometimes people will do things wrong. But he does not want to exclude us from his sacraments. I've often said that extraordinary ministers of holy communion are overused. But I should focus on the fact that I am receiving Jesus Christ into my body at the time of communion. If all I notice is that I am being served by a lay person, I will lose the significance of the act. Or if I go to confession, perhaps the priest will hurry me along and I won't be able to say every sin. God understands this and offers absolution anyway.
I believe by acting with a high level of reverence and by following the guidelines and spirit of the Mass and other church events, more people would seek the Truth, but I also believe it goes against how we should act if we spend all our time noticing "issues".
Finally, let us remember that one of the spiritual works of mercy is to "bear wrongs patiently". That means we sometimes do not become upset or angry when something happens, but rather we "offer it up" to God. We may notice things we do not like, but we try to smile anyway, and act as loving as possible. It's like a saying I once heard, that people will not care how much you know until they know how much you care. We must always have love in our hearts before we try to correct someone's behavior. I need to remember this as much as anyone.
I believe it is important to notice liturgical abuses, but it is also possible to go overboard. While at Mass, we ought to be in a prayerful and contemplative state. We should listen attentively to the Word of God, and receive Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity with the proper reverence. This should be our main focus. Since this is our focus, we should not necessarily notice every detail of the rubrics. By focusing too much on possible abuses, we can detract from our real purpose, which is the worship of God.
It is good to sometimes remember that God wants to make himself accessible to us. He realizes that we are human and fallible and that sometimes people will do things wrong. But he does not want to exclude us from his sacraments. I've often said that extraordinary ministers of holy communion are overused. But I should focus on the fact that I am receiving Jesus Christ into my body at the time of communion. If all I notice is that I am being served by a lay person, I will lose the significance of the act. Or if I go to confession, perhaps the priest will hurry me along and I won't be able to say every sin. God understands this and offers absolution anyway.
I believe by acting with a high level of reverence and by following the guidelines and spirit of the Mass and other church events, more people would seek the Truth, but I also believe it goes against how we should act if we spend all our time noticing "issues".
Finally, let us remember that one of the spiritual works of mercy is to "bear wrongs patiently". That means we sometimes do not become upset or angry when something happens, but rather we "offer it up" to God. We may notice things we do not like, but we try to smile anyway, and act as loving as possible. It's like a saying I once heard, that people will not care how much you know until they know how much you care. We must always have love in our hearts before we try to correct someone's behavior. I need to remember this as much as anyone.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Jon and Kate from a Catholic perspective
Jon and Kate, from the popular reality show called Jon and Kate Plus Eight are allegedly separating and eventually divorcing after 10 years of marriage and 8 children. They say they are arguing a lot and that it's not good for the children. But I think one thing that is surely worse is divorce. Divorce is never the answer and Jesus specifically forbade it. He said if a man divorces his wife, and she goes to be with another man, she is committing adultery.
God gave us the sacraments as a visible sign of invisible grace. I believe marriage represents God's love for us, like all sacraments do. But God wil never leave us, no matter what. Even when we disobey him, when we sin against him, no matter what we do, God welcomes us back. When people get married, they make a commitment to stay together for better or for worse, not until the other one does something I don't like. Because God would never leave his people, spouses should never separate.
But what about if a spouse is abusive or if one stops loving the other? Well, love is a choice of the will, or should be. It's not a fuzzy feeling. It's a decision. If a spouse abuses the other, then the abused spouse can leave, but they still made a lifelong commitment. If a brother hurts his sister, she cannot stop being his sister. She can stay away from him though. The abused spouse should leave and be safe, but the lifelong bond is not broken. Regardless, most couples do not divorce because they are being abused. They divorce because they are not having fun anymore.
I also acknowledge that the Church recognizes the possibility that a marriage was not valid to start with. If there is a pre-existing situation which rendered the couple incapable of entering into a valid marriage, then it can be said to be null. This is where the term annulment comes from. There are many reasons a marriage might not have been valid. Perhaps one of the partners was immature, was coerced into marriage, was under some kind of influence, etc. Other reasons are that one spouse has predetermined that he will be unfaithful or was not making a lifelong commitment. Also, if a spouse was closed to the possibility of children. There are many reasons for a possible annulment. These are sad cases as well, but they indicate the couple was not truly able to marry and therefore the marriage they believed they were involved with was not real.
If a marriage is valid and you make a commitment, what does that mean? If a man says he'll always stand by his wife's side, does this mean only when he has a fuzzy feeling about her? Like Jesus said, you have heard it said to love your friends and hate your enemies, well I say love your enemies. It is similar in this case. Jon and Kate ought to love each other beyond fuzzy feelings. They made a commitment, an oath. If this oath can be broken nilly-willy, then it wasn't an oath to start with.
But the people who will lose out the most in this case are the children. People should be married before they have children because a child grows up best with a mother and a father in a single household. A divorce causes enormous stress and instability to the life of a child. If mommy leaves daddy, maybe she's abandon me as well. It's a very sad situation. People sometimes mock those who "stay together for the kids". Well, why not? What is a better alternative? Let's finish this sentence. Instead of staying together for the kids, maybe they should split up to find a better sex partner. This puts things into perspective. Give me the other reasons why people divorce. Maybe they don't feel the attraction. Maybe they have grown apart. Well, are these reasons equal or more important than the emotional, mental and spiritual growth of their children? I don't think so.
Finally, divorcees have been shown to fair much worse than those who stay together. Couples who are contemplating divorce but stay together are almost always happier 5 years later than couples who decide to split up.
I do not know all the details behind Jon and Kate's marriage, and I am only going on what I do know. I understand there are many circumstances in which people feel there is no choice but divorce. We ought to pray for these people. I do not wish to condemn these people either. In fact, I want to recomment what is best for them. I do not believe allowing divorce is the most compassionate thing to do. A valid couple loved each other at some point and this love ought to be selfless, and therefore it can be rekindled. Again, it a very sad situation when a couple thinks about divorce. I hope they make the right decision.
I believe Jon and Kate ought to try to resolve things and stay together to raise their family like they committed to doing. Let's keep them in our prayers so that they will do not their will, but God's will in this matter.
God gave us the sacraments as a visible sign of invisible grace. I believe marriage represents God's love for us, like all sacraments do. But God wil never leave us, no matter what. Even when we disobey him, when we sin against him, no matter what we do, God welcomes us back. When people get married, they make a commitment to stay together for better or for worse, not until the other one does something I don't like. Because God would never leave his people, spouses should never separate.
But what about if a spouse is abusive or if one stops loving the other? Well, love is a choice of the will, or should be. It's not a fuzzy feeling. It's a decision. If a spouse abuses the other, then the abused spouse can leave, but they still made a lifelong commitment. If a brother hurts his sister, she cannot stop being his sister. She can stay away from him though. The abused spouse should leave and be safe, but the lifelong bond is not broken. Regardless, most couples do not divorce because they are being abused. They divorce because they are not having fun anymore.
I also acknowledge that the Church recognizes the possibility that a marriage was not valid to start with. If there is a pre-existing situation which rendered the couple incapable of entering into a valid marriage, then it can be said to be null. This is where the term annulment comes from. There are many reasons a marriage might not have been valid. Perhaps one of the partners was immature, was coerced into marriage, was under some kind of influence, etc. Other reasons are that one spouse has predetermined that he will be unfaithful or was not making a lifelong commitment. Also, if a spouse was closed to the possibility of children. There are many reasons for a possible annulment. These are sad cases as well, but they indicate the couple was not truly able to marry and therefore the marriage they believed they were involved with was not real.
If a marriage is valid and you make a commitment, what does that mean? If a man says he'll always stand by his wife's side, does this mean only when he has a fuzzy feeling about her? Like Jesus said, you have heard it said to love your friends and hate your enemies, well I say love your enemies. It is similar in this case. Jon and Kate ought to love each other beyond fuzzy feelings. They made a commitment, an oath. If this oath can be broken nilly-willy, then it wasn't an oath to start with.
But the people who will lose out the most in this case are the children. People should be married before they have children because a child grows up best with a mother and a father in a single household. A divorce causes enormous stress and instability to the life of a child. If mommy leaves daddy, maybe she's abandon me as well. It's a very sad situation. People sometimes mock those who "stay together for the kids". Well, why not? What is a better alternative? Let's finish this sentence. Instead of staying together for the kids, maybe they should split up to find a better sex partner. This puts things into perspective. Give me the other reasons why people divorce. Maybe they don't feel the attraction. Maybe they have grown apart. Well, are these reasons equal or more important than the emotional, mental and spiritual growth of their children? I don't think so.
Finally, divorcees have been shown to fair much worse than those who stay together. Couples who are contemplating divorce but stay together are almost always happier 5 years later than couples who decide to split up.
I do not know all the details behind Jon and Kate's marriage, and I am only going on what I do know. I understand there are many circumstances in which people feel there is no choice but divorce. We ought to pray for these people. I do not wish to condemn these people either. In fact, I want to recomment what is best for them. I do not believe allowing divorce is the most compassionate thing to do. A valid couple loved each other at some point and this love ought to be selfless, and therefore it can be rekindled. Again, it a very sad situation when a couple thinks about divorce. I hope they make the right decision.
I believe Jon and Kate ought to try to resolve things and stay together to raise their family like they committed to doing. Let's keep them in our prayers so that they will do not their will, but God's will in this matter.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Farrah Fawcett and David Carradine
One of my favorite actors died a couple of weeks ago, David Carradine, who played Kwai Chang Caine in Kung Fu and Kung Fu the Legend Continues. That was one of my favorite shows, and I even liked the reruns a lot.
And today, not only Michael Jackson, but also Farrah Fawcett died. She died of anal cancer. She will be buried in a Catholic cemetery and is Catholic herself. I am not sure the name of the cemetery.
May all these people go on to experience God's love in heaven.
And today, not only Michael Jackson, but also Farrah Fawcett died. She died of anal cancer. She will be buried in a Catholic cemetery and is Catholic herself. I am not sure the name of the cemetery.
May all these people go on to experience God's love in heaven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)