Mary Magdalene is not so mysterious

With the Da Vinci Code, and other books like Holy Blood Holy Grail, etc. many have been led to believe the Catholic Church has been hiding the truth about Mary Magdalene. They claim she was Jesus' wife and that she bore him a child or children. They say she was given a bad reputation as a prostitute because the officials of the church wanted to keep her a secret and to vilify her in case anyone tried to reveal the truth. They wanted to do this, so the theory goes, so that the popes and cardinals and other churchmen could maintain their high status and power. This conspiracy theory makes perfect sense, until a pesky thing known as truth gets in the way.

The fact is, today is the Feast Day of St. Mary Magdalene - July 22. She is revered as a saint in Heaven who intercedes for us. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of churches are named in her honor. She is one of the many examples of people who led sinful lives then repented and are now recognized as saints. These include St. Paul, St. Augustine, and more. Obviously if the church wanted to hide her, they are doing a very poor job of it!

St. Mary Magdalene, pray for us.

Courageous Bishop Promulgates Norms for Tabernacle Placement - Catholic Online

It is important to note that when we genuflect, it is toward the tabernacle, not the altar. This is a good article. I'm fortunate to be in a church (St. Teresa's) where the tabernacle is front and center. They even added a large painting around the tabernacle depicting angels on either side. Also, Eucharistic Adoration has been promoted and made much more available recently. Great job guys!

Courageous Bishop Promulgates Norms for Tabernacle Placement - Catholic Online

Shared via AddThis

General Electric to Use Embryonic Stem Cells for Deadly Tests - Catholic Online

This is a very disturbing story. GE will stop using rats to test the toxicity of its products, and rather opt to use humans. As I've mentioned before in my blog, people seem to think animals not only deserve equal rights to humans, but actually believe they deserve more!

The fact is, GE will be using humans to do experiments on. They will use the tiniest humans, embryos. Here's something to consider - embryos have all the genetic material they ever will, even as adults. Their eye color, hair color, height, skin complexion, personality characteristics, interests, etc. have all been determined. What GE is destroying is not a potential human, but a real human person, at the beginning of their development. They are destroying your best friend Fred, or your co-worker Amanda. For what? To test the toxicness of various chemicals?

Would GE go to an impoverished country and pay people to be human guinea pigs with a 100% chance of death? Maybe not now, but as this kind of thing becomes more common, who's to say they will not?

GE is one of the largest companies in the world. One of the craziest things about this article, as pointed out by American Papist, is that GE "claims" they will be doing this ethically. As I've mentioned in a previous blog posting, people and companies seem to judge an action based on soft principles, such as whether an action will cause pain. But there is a deeper issue always involved. In this case, we are talking about murder. We do not believe murder is only wrong if it involves immense suffering. The suffering may make it worse, but at its essential core, murder is murder, regardless of HOW it is done. The fact is, GE is murdering children. No matter what stage of development they are in, no matter how unwanted they are, no matter how little suffering there is, they are still killing people to improve their products, and that is completely wrong.

Please view the article below for more information:

General Electric to Use Embryonic Stem Cells for Deadly Tests - Catholic Online

Shared via AddThis

ALL can receive forgiveness, and Christ welcomes you back

I've been thinking about something lately, and that is the topic of forgiveness. Christ told all those who are heavy burdened to come to him and he will make their load light, that he will carry their burden because his yoke is light and his burden is easy. He took our sins to the cross with him and we must only accept his love and forgiveness to be with him always. But how well is this crucial message of Christianity being transmitted? In our zeal to condemn sin, do we make it abundantly clear that Christ welcomes all back to him no matter what? Jesus said there is one unforgivable sin, and that sin has been interpreted as our refusal to accept God's forgiveness. But everything else, ABSOLUTELY everything else can be forgiven, and even those with sins like scarlet can be turned like snow.

This message is downright shocking! This is not a message for goody two-shoes whose worst sin is accidently stepping on a bug. This message is for the hardened sinner. Those who society has rejected summarily, those who many believe are beyond redemption and are just scum of the earth. That's who this message is for. This is not just for the "nice sins". It's not just for those who cheated on a test, or who told a lie, or for those who gave into temptation before marriage. This is for killers, and child molesters, and rapists. I'm sure many people reading this are shocked at my comments. "How can we forgive these people?? We have no problem forgiving human weakness or small slip-ups, but these major sins, surely God does not expect us to forgive these!" Actually, he does. In fact, that's the whole message of Christianity! No one is beyond redemption. No one! I'm not sure if we emphasize this message enough.

All too often, people see Christians and accuse them of being hypocrites, because they know a Christian who does not "follow all the rules". The impression is that once you're perfect you can be a Christian. But the truth is the Church is not a hotel for saints, but rather a hospital for sinners! We are very zealous to condemn sinful behavior, to say how terrible abortion, euthanasia, pedophilia, murder, rape, etc. is, but how quick are we to forgive? The point is, we do not forgive people, God does, therefore we have an obligation to imitate God in his love and mercy. Does this mean we overlook sin? Of course not! One of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish the sinner. We cannot out of pride refuse to correct our brother, afraid he might not "like" us much anymore. We must be fearless, but we must also be open to criticism if others point out our sinfulness.

Along with admonishing the sinner, two other spiritual works of mercy are to forgive all injuries and to bear wrongs patiently. We must be willing to accept back those who commit the most heinous crimes. We must love them with everything we can, pray for them, hope for their eternal salvation. We strong as we are at condemning sin, we must be all the stronger in welcoming back the lost sheep. A corporal work of mercy is to visit the imprisoned. Who goes to prison? Those who commit crimes. Does the work of mercy say, go to prison for those who are wrongfully convicted? Or to visit those whose crimes are not so bad? Of course not. We are to visit everyone, and to love them, and to comfort them. Jesus always condemned sin, but if the sinner was penitential, Jesus, more than anyone, would open his arms to embrace him back.

Hating the sin, but loving the sinner has a very deep meaning. If we can truly do this, then we can quickly welcome someone back who repents of wrongdoing. How shocked would some people be, perhaps even myself, if someone was in the news for a terrible crime, but showed up later at Church. How many people would welcome this person? Would they run away, would they chat amongst themselves, asking what business he has going in there? How many would wonder what he's up to? If we do this, we are attaching the sin to the person. We are no longer viewing the person as separate from their sins, but rather as the sins being inherent in the person, as if they are inherently sinful, not just someone who has sinned.

Let's make an effort to welcome back those who society has labeled scum bags, and those who we consider the worst of sinners. Let's show them Christ's love. Some of the greatest saints in history started out as what we might consider reprobates, but with the light of Christ and God's mercy, became the great people we know them as today!

Good Photo Gallery of the Pope after his hospital visit

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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:

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.