Sonia Sotomayor (a Catholic), who was selected by Barack Obama to be the next Supreme Court Justice, will replace David Souter (an Episcopalian), to make the Supreme Court of United States two-thirds Catholics, or 6 Catholic and 3 Non-Catholic Judges. This is good news, but only to a certain extent. If these 6 judges followed Catholic moral reasoning and enacted and sustained laws which reflected Catholic beliefs, there would be a lot of healing and advancement in US law. But if these judges do not adhere to Catholic teaching and violate it on issues of gay marriage, abortion, fertility issues, embryonic stem cell reaserch, and cloning, then things will probably remain similar or become worse. But I would not lose hope. I believe there is a reason why so many of the Supreme Court Justices are Catholic. The Catholic religion has a long history of jurisprudence. Over the centuries, canon law was always seen as more important than civil law, because civil law deals with temporal earthly issues, whereas canon law deals with eternal issues of salvation.
Thomas Aquinas, the 13th century Dominican, was famous for writing his Summa Theologica. In it, he expounds on virtually every religious topic from the nature of God, to the nature of sins. He goes into great detail to explain how we ought to live and what we ought to do, as well as what she ought to believe and why. This tradition has continued. There has always been an understanding of law that could only come from the Catholic Church. We believe in true right and wrong, in objective moral standards, in the law of non-contradiction. Other religions believe two contradictory statements can both be true. Our legal system would be doomed if this was the prevailing thought. Prostitution could be at once considered good and evil. Laws would go nowhere. Everything would be up to a personal decision each time. Another religion, Islam, sees moral laws as complete will of God. The only reason they believe something is as it is is because God is currently willing it to be that way. Therefore, moral laws for them could potentially change. Judaism has an understanding of God's divine law, and it's not surprising that 2 of the justices are Jewish. The remaining justice is Protestant. Protestantism does not have a thoroughly developed canon law, especially the more recent forms of it. For example, many will say all sins are equal. With no distinction between stealing a candy and murdering a family, you would be forced to violate your religious beliefs in order to enact laws which carry heavier sentences for certain crimes. There is no such dichotomy in Catholic teaching, where there is the concept of venial and mortal sins. Even within these sins, some are seen as greater than others. Pride is considered more serious than lust. This view of sin is very compatible with lawmaking. One could argue that serious sins cannot correspond to crimes. For example, someone could be the proudest person in the world, but they could not be convicted of pride. A person could be a major glutton, but they could not be sent to prison for that. This may be true, but we acknowledge that ultimately sins are between the person and God, and that punishment may come as a result of gluttony or pride, even if the state does not mete it out. Crimes which hurt society would be punished on a scale consistent with the crime.
Let us pray that these judges, whose profession is what it is largely because of the developments in the legal system by the Catholic Church, seek their Catholic roots when making decisions that affect all of our lives.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Government does not fund Montreal Gay Pride Parade
The Conservative government has a certain amount of money to spend on tourism, around $100 million in Quebec, and it denied a request to fund the Gay Pride Parade. I believe they wanted around $2 million for the parade. There are many reasons why I believe this is a good move.
First of all, no group should claim the "right" to have funding for tourism. If you read the complaints from this incident, most of those complaining seem to have some sense of entitlement. It's as though they believe gay rights are so entrenched in Canada that they not only have access to possible funding, but denying them funding at their whim is an injustice. They seem to want to be treated as a special group within society. They do not want equal treatment, they want preferential treatment. Any type of equal treatment is considered discrimination. Obviously this is not just in itself. I don't think gay people should be treated poorly, I think they should have the same treatment and standards as everyone else. But they certainly do not deserve special treatment.
The funding that was given out was appropriated in a way that the government saw fit and was within its jurisdiction. The government saw other programs as more meritorious.
Another issue is the nature of gay pride parades in general. Often, legitimate concerns are brushed aside or simply seen as homophobic. Many have rightfully complained that gay pride parades are largely a display of lewd acts, overt sexual behavior and other distasteful shows. If anyone speaks up against this, they are dismissed as homophobic or some kind of religious fundamentalist. In fact, these people are protesting lack of decency, which they should. Imagine if a group of chauvinistic men organized a parade where they drove along on booths featuring old men spanking young women, imitating lewd sexual conduct toward females, and having mottoes and slogans signifying male dominance and sexual aggression. I would imagine the entire community would react very strongly against this, and offer unfettered condemnations of this show. It would be considered lewd, sexually aggressive, and offensive. Any such concerns expressed against a gay pride parade are summarily dismissed. It seems many people want to bend over backward to not appear to have anything against gay people. I think this does an injustice to everyone if you treat one group specially.
Another point is that I wonder what benefit this type of parade could possibly have. Most other parades have some benefit to society. They may give money to charity, they support a worthy cause, they bring hte community together, etc. Gay pride parades are notorious for blatantly shoving offensive displays in peoples' faces. It does not politely ask people to accept them, but rather proclaims messages such as the famous "We're here, we're queer, get used to it". It's a very in-your-face proposition. They are essentially challenging others to accept them or too bad! They do nothing to win over people's hearts or to share genuine concerns to which people can react, but rather they force their ideology down your throat in the most distasteful way. In fact, moderate people could easily be turned off by the things they do at these parades. Their response to this: "Get used to it!"
I would like to applaud the Quebec government for not funding the gay pride parade. They made a wise choice.
To read more on the story, go to:
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2009/07/22/montreal-diverscite-funding.html
First of all, no group should claim the "right" to have funding for tourism. If you read the complaints from this incident, most of those complaining seem to have some sense of entitlement. It's as though they believe gay rights are so entrenched in Canada that they not only have access to possible funding, but denying them funding at their whim is an injustice. They seem to want to be treated as a special group within society. They do not want equal treatment, they want preferential treatment. Any type of equal treatment is considered discrimination. Obviously this is not just in itself. I don't think gay people should be treated poorly, I think they should have the same treatment and standards as everyone else. But they certainly do not deserve special treatment.
The funding that was given out was appropriated in a way that the government saw fit and was within its jurisdiction. The government saw other programs as more meritorious.
Another issue is the nature of gay pride parades in general. Often, legitimate concerns are brushed aside or simply seen as homophobic. Many have rightfully complained that gay pride parades are largely a display of lewd acts, overt sexual behavior and other distasteful shows. If anyone speaks up against this, they are dismissed as homophobic or some kind of religious fundamentalist. In fact, these people are protesting lack of decency, which they should. Imagine if a group of chauvinistic men organized a parade where they drove along on booths featuring old men spanking young women, imitating lewd sexual conduct toward females, and having mottoes and slogans signifying male dominance and sexual aggression. I would imagine the entire community would react very strongly against this, and offer unfettered condemnations of this show. It would be considered lewd, sexually aggressive, and offensive. Any such concerns expressed against a gay pride parade are summarily dismissed. It seems many people want to bend over backward to not appear to have anything against gay people. I think this does an injustice to everyone if you treat one group specially.
Another point is that I wonder what benefit this type of parade could possibly have. Most other parades have some benefit to society. They may give money to charity, they support a worthy cause, they bring hte community together, etc. Gay pride parades are notorious for blatantly shoving offensive displays in peoples' faces. It does not politely ask people to accept them, but rather proclaims messages such as the famous "We're here, we're queer, get used to it". It's a very in-your-face proposition. They are essentially challenging others to accept them or too bad! They do nothing to win over people's hearts or to share genuine concerns to which people can react, but rather they force their ideology down your throat in the most distasteful way. In fact, moderate people could easily be turned off by the things they do at these parades. Their response to this: "Get used to it!"
I would like to applaud the Quebec government for not funding the gay pride parade. They made a wise choice.
To read more on the story, go to:
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2009/07/22/montreal-diverscite-funding.html
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
EWTN.com - Bishop Asks Australian Football League to Avoid Games on Good Friday
It's very heartening to see the culture listening to the Church. In Australia, the bishop of Melbourne asked that football and other sports not be played on Good Friday. I've always noticed that there are many basketball games and other games on during Good Friday. I guess people most people are off on holidays. So this is a really great thing to see. Maybe now that people's favorite game isn't on TV anymore, they will find time to go to Good Friday services and participate in various forms of penance.
EWTN.com - Bishop Asks Australian Football League to Avoid Games on Good Friday
EWTN.com - Bishop Asks Australian Football League to Avoid Games on Good Friday
Pope Benedict album set for holiday release
Great article on how the Pope will be making a music CD. Wonder if he'll get as many sales as Pope John Paul II, who also released an album. If you are a faithful Catholic, I would suggest skipping the comments below. Trust me, anything goes when the CBC posts a Catholic-related news story.
Pope Benedict album set for holiday release
Pope Benedict album set for holiday release
Priest's tragic attempt to save a life 'heroic' | detnews.com | The Detroit News
There is no greater love than to give your life for a friend says the Lord. This story is truly inspiring, and very tragic. God will look very favorably upon this selfless man of God. I hope newspapers around the world pick up this story like they do for others:
Priest's tragic attempt to save a life 'heroic' | detnews.com | The Detroit News
Priest's tragic attempt to save a life 'heroic' | detnews.com | The Detroit News
Anti-Christian vandals target World Congress of Families meeting
The World Congress of Families was attacked by vandals. It's ironic that those who say we should just let everyone live as they choose and that there should be no rules, and basically espouse a completely moral relativist point of view, are often the same people who protest violently and cause damage in the form of vandalism to those they disagree with. Check out the article below:
Anti-Christian vandals target World Congress of Families meeting
Anti-Christian vandals target World Congress of Families meeting
Catholic congressman: I'd rather save my soul than vote for the health care bill
The title pretty much says it all. This is a great article. Check it out.
Catholic congressman: I'd rather save my soul than vote for the health care bill
Catholic congressman: I'd rather save my soul than vote for the health care bill
Monday, August 03, 2009
Nestorius was exiled this day 1574 years ago, but his legacy lives on
Nestorius was an early Christian, who was born in 386. He became the archbishop of Constantinople on Apil 10, 428, just 47 years after it was declared the second most important See after Rome, which is the diocese of the Pope. As you can see, Nestorius was no small figure in the early Church. In fact, some could argue, he was second only to the Pope in importance in those days.
Given this background, we can see how dramatic Nestorius's rise and fall really were. What caused Nestorius's ultimate downfall was his refusal to accept a declaration of the universal church, namely that of the Theotokos, or Mary as Mother of God. I mentioned that Nestorius's legacy lives on because today many Protestant denominations refuse to accept this doctrine as well. There is much which can be said of the doctrine, but the basic formula is as follows:
1) Jesus is God
2) Jesus was conceived and born from Mary
3) Mary is the mother of God
It is important to note, we do not believe Mary preceded God in any way. Of course, God has existed always and Mary came about in history as a creature. But, we cannot separate Christ's nature. He is a single person, a divine person, with a divine will and a human will (his wills are united also, but remain two).
As mentioned previously, Nestorius was of such importance in the early Church, that his exile caused a predictable split in the Church. Of course Nestorius had his followers. They split and formed their own communities. But though some fall away, it is always important to maintain the Truth, and this is guaranteed when Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.
Today, there are around 170,000 Nestorians in the world, a tiny fraction of Christianity.
Given this background, we can see how dramatic Nestorius's rise and fall really were. What caused Nestorius's ultimate downfall was his refusal to accept a declaration of the universal church, namely that of the Theotokos, or Mary as Mother of God. I mentioned that Nestorius's legacy lives on because today many Protestant denominations refuse to accept this doctrine as well. There is much which can be said of the doctrine, but the basic formula is as follows:
1) Jesus is God
2) Jesus was conceived and born from Mary
3) Mary is the mother of God
It is important to note, we do not believe Mary preceded God in any way. Of course, God has existed always and Mary came about in history as a creature. But, we cannot separate Christ's nature. He is a single person, a divine person, with a divine will and a human will (his wills are united also, but remain two).
As mentioned previously, Nestorius was of such importance in the early Church, that his exile caused a predictable split in the Church. Of course Nestorius had his followers. They split and formed their own communities. But though some fall away, it is always important to maintain the Truth, and this is guaranteed when Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.
Today, there are around 170,000 Nestorians in the world, a tiny fraction of Christianity.
Man with HIV charged over sex
A terrible crime has occurred, representing a sin of ommission, but political correctness has skewed the proper response by some people. Gilles Marchildon, spokesman for the Canada HIV/AIDS Legal Network, believes since the crime has already been done, there's no point in prosecuting the perpetrator. It seems he is saying this because he doesn't want to persecute people with the disease in general. That's fine, but we must also not put on our blinkers in order to remain politically correct. I find that happens a lot.
It reminds me of an episode of Larry King Live. Joy Behar was filling in for Larry King and they had Alec Baldwin on the program. He went off listing reasons why girls need a father in the home. He said without a father, girls are more likely to become involved with risky sexual behavior, to get involved with drugs, and other dangerous habits. Joy agreed. But then she said "Oh, but you don't mean gay parents right, like two moms, you're not saying that's bad are you?" Even though the information Alec just gave would in no way indicate there is an exception for lesbian parents raising a child, he quickly reassured her that he was not saying anything against gay parents raising children. But the evidence did not support him in this. That's what I'm talking about.
It also reminds me of abortion. Many people who are all for abortion will say that if a man injures the fetus (a wanted child), he should be charged with a crime against the baby as well as the mother. It seems they want the child to be a person when it's convenient.
That's what I think is going on here. Gilles Marchildon wants to make a special exception for people with HIV/AIDS. But we should not elevate any particular disease above any others. Please take a look at the article:
Man with HIV charged over sex
It reminds me of an episode of Larry King Live. Joy Behar was filling in for Larry King and they had Alec Baldwin on the program. He went off listing reasons why girls need a father in the home. He said without a father, girls are more likely to become involved with risky sexual behavior, to get involved with drugs, and other dangerous habits. Joy agreed. But then she said "Oh, but you don't mean gay parents right, like two moms, you're not saying that's bad are you?" Even though the information Alec just gave would in no way indicate there is an exception for lesbian parents raising a child, he quickly reassured her that he was not saying anything against gay parents raising children. But the evidence did not support him in this. That's what I'm talking about.
It also reminds me of abortion. Many people who are all for abortion will say that if a man injures the fetus (a wanted child), he should be charged with a crime against the baby as well as the mother. It seems they want the child to be a person when it's convenient.
That's what I think is going on here. Gilles Marchildon wants to make a special exception for people with HIV/AIDS. But we should not elevate any particular disease above any others. Please take a look at the article:
Man with HIV charged over sex
Modern vs. Traditional Catholics: A false distinction
Many people try to make a false distinction between modern and traditional Catholics. Most of the time however, what they are really talking about is obedient vs. disobedient Catholics. A person can either be modern or have an inclination toward traditional ways of doing things, but no one can legitamitely call themselves Catholic if they go against Church teaching and violate her precepts.
Let's take two people and compare them. One is a man named Jim. He goes to Mass on Sunday, tries his best in most things, but doesn't do much church-related stuff outside of this. He likes Masses which feature guitars and saxophones, and church builidngs which are modern-looking. Outside of church, he likes to spend time helping out at soup kitchens, or volunteering at the animal shelter.
Another person, a lady named Joanne, goes to daily Mass, goes to confession every week, prayers the rosary daily and says many other prayers. Often in her spare time, she will read the Bible or the Catechism. She enjoys Masses celebrated with great reverence along with incense, bells, and solemnity. She enjoys going to Latin Mass whenever she can.
Based on the information above, both of these individuals are good Catholics in good standing with the Church. One is not "better" than the other. They both have preferences as to specifics, but in essence, they are practicing Catholics. You could say one is modern, and one is traditional. But neither is disobedient.
Most of the time, when you hear someone speaking about how the church has to modernize, what they are really saying is that the church has to drop divinely revealed truths and substitute them for that person's own preferences. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ, who said he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus also established a Church. It's not as if Jesus lived and everything was recorded in the Bible, and any way we decide to live is ok because it's all man-made and Jesus is just an example for us. The fact is, Jesus specifically established a church, and gave her power to bind and loose, to make decisions authoritatively. Jesus gave us a shepherd, the first of whom was Peter to guide us into all truth.
You cannot simply accept Jesus as a non-committal buddy who makes you feel good about anything you decide to do. Either Jesus is the Son of God and our Lord and Savoir, or he is a liar who deserves no allegiance from us. You cannot make Jesus into your own image. The Church has been given the power by Christ to make binding decisions.
You may not like some Church teachings, but it is our obligation to try to understand them and live by them. It is ok to struggle with a teaching, but it is not ok to set ourselves up against God. Also, just because you want to believe something, doesn't make it true.
I hear so many people saying they want to change the church. I heard a young lady one time say she does not want to change the church, she wants the Church to change her. I struggle to be a good person, just like everyone does. But I do not think it is useful to simply dismiss anything which seems difficult in order to avoid struggle.
People who claim the church needs to modernize simply want the Church to change her teachings to suit them. Without ever investigating why the Church does what she does, they feel they have the right to dictate to the Church how she should operate. They demand Church acceptance of abortion in some cases, contraception, women priests, gay marriage, etc.
Christ constantly talked about division of people. He did not say everyone was right, in fact, he said quite the opposite. He said there would be good seed and bad. That there would be thorns as well as flowers. He said he came not to bring peace, but a sword and that there will be divisions even within families because some will proclaim the truth, while others won't. He said Christians will be persecuted for their faith. Jesus never said everyone is right and you just have to get along. Jesus came to show us the Truth, no matter how hard that may be for some people to accept.
Let's take two people and compare them. One is a man named Jim. He goes to Mass on Sunday, tries his best in most things, but doesn't do much church-related stuff outside of this. He likes Masses which feature guitars and saxophones, and church builidngs which are modern-looking. Outside of church, he likes to spend time helping out at soup kitchens, or volunteering at the animal shelter.
Another person, a lady named Joanne, goes to daily Mass, goes to confession every week, prayers the rosary daily and says many other prayers. Often in her spare time, she will read the Bible or the Catechism. She enjoys Masses celebrated with great reverence along with incense, bells, and solemnity. She enjoys going to Latin Mass whenever she can.
Based on the information above, both of these individuals are good Catholics in good standing with the Church. One is not "better" than the other. They both have preferences as to specifics, but in essence, they are practicing Catholics. You could say one is modern, and one is traditional. But neither is disobedient.
Most of the time, when you hear someone speaking about how the church has to modernize, what they are really saying is that the church has to drop divinely revealed truths and substitute them for that person's own preferences. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ, who said he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus also established a Church. It's not as if Jesus lived and everything was recorded in the Bible, and any way we decide to live is ok because it's all man-made and Jesus is just an example for us. The fact is, Jesus specifically established a church, and gave her power to bind and loose, to make decisions authoritatively. Jesus gave us a shepherd, the first of whom was Peter to guide us into all truth.
You cannot simply accept Jesus as a non-committal buddy who makes you feel good about anything you decide to do. Either Jesus is the Son of God and our Lord and Savoir, or he is a liar who deserves no allegiance from us. You cannot make Jesus into your own image. The Church has been given the power by Christ to make binding decisions.
You may not like some Church teachings, but it is our obligation to try to understand them and live by them. It is ok to struggle with a teaching, but it is not ok to set ourselves up against God. Also, just because you want to believe something, doesn't make it true.
I hear so many people saying they want to change the church. I heard a young lady one time say she does not want to change the church, she wants the Church to change her. I struggle to be a good person, just like everyone does. But I do not think it is useful to simply dismiss anything which seems difficult in order to avoid struggle.
People who claim the church needs to modernize simply want the Church to change her teachings to suit them. Without ever investigating why the Church does what she does, they feel they have the right to dictate to the Church how she should operate. They demand Church acceptance of abortion in some cases, contraception, women priests, gay marriage, etc.
Christ constantly talked about division of people. He did not say everyone was right, in fact, he said quite the opposite. He said there would be good seed and bad. That there would be thorns as well as flowers. He said he came not to bring peace, but a sword and that there will be divisions even within families because some will proclaim the truth, while others won't. He said Christians will be persecuted for their faith. Jesus never said everyone is right and you just have to get along. Jesus came to show us the Truth, no matter how hard that may be for some people to accept.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Pope Benedict thinks swimming is awesome
I just found this interesting video of Pope Benedict talking to world class swimmers about to participate in Swimming World Championships. Pope Benedict reminds us that everything we do in life can be for the greater glory of God. Therefore, as St. Francis said, we must pray often, and when necessary, use words. Check it out:
Saturday, August 01, 2009
August, a great month for saints!
I was just looking at my calendar of feast days and August is a spectacular month for saints. Here are just some of the more popular saints from this month:
August 1) St. Alphonsus Liguori, founder of the Redemptorists
August 4) St. Jean-Marie Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests
August 8) St. Dominic, founder of the Dominicans
August 10) St. Lawrence, early Martyr
August 11) St. Clare, follower of St. Francis of Assisi
August 14) St. Maximilian Kolbe, gave his life for man in concentration camp
August 20) St. Bernard, Doctor of the Church
August 21) St. Pius X, a holy and humble man
August 24) St. Bartholomew, One of the 12 Apostles
August 28) St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church
August 1) St. Alphonsus Liguori, founder of the Redemptorists
August 4) St. Jean-Marie Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests
August 8) St. Dominic, founder of the Dominicans
August 10) St. Lawrence, early Martyr
August 11) St. Clare, follower of St. Francis of Assisi
August 14) St. Maximilian Kolbe, gave his life for man in concentration camp
August 20) St. Bernard, Doctor of the Church
August 21) St. Pius X, a holy and humble man
August 24) St. Bartholomew, One of the 12 Apostles
August 28) St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Catholic nurse forced to participate in abortion, lawsuit filed
My girlfriend and I were discussing this topic yesterday. Basically we were saying in our workplaces we are sometimes asked to make moral decisions or to violate our morals, and the question is, what does one do? Of course, we could always be morally courageous and never violate our morals, but then other questions arise. What level of moral disobedience is legitimate to save our career and livelihood? It's not always easy to just refuse to do something the boss asks us to. What if, for example, the boss tells us to inform a client that we cannot pay them until next month because there is not enough money, when in fact we could possibly pay them, but it would be disadvantageous. Would we be required to flat out refuse to carry out this task and jeopardize our job? Perhaps not.
The story below tells of a nurse who was forced to participate in some level with an abortion. At what level can one participate in a moral evil and still be free from guilt? That's a good question. There is a question of materially participating in an action.
This kind of forced participation in abortion is not so far-fetched. Some abortion advocates are calling for the removal of conscience objections. In other words, people would no longer have the right to protest doing something on a moral basis such as abortion and could be fired for not helping. We must do what we can to stop this kind of injustice.
Check out the article below:
Catholic nurse forced to participate in abortion, lawsuit filed
The story below tells of a nurse who was forced to participate in some level with an abortion. At what level can one participate in a moral evil and still be free from guilt? That's a good question. There is a question of materially participating in an action.
This kind of forced participation in abortion is not so far-fetched. Some abortion advocates are calling for the removal of conscience objections. In other words, people would no longer have the right to protest doing something on a moral basis such as abortion and could be fired for not helping. We must do what we can to stop this kind of injustice.
Check out the article below:
Catholic nurse forced to participate in abortion, lawsuit filed
Steve Kent is a Knight of Columbus
Congratulations on Steve Kent, MHA and former mayor of Mount Pearl on becoming an Knight of Columbus. Steve Kent, who is just 31 years old, was the mayor of Mt. Pearl, the second largest city in Newfoundland and Labrador, and later became a Member of the House of Assembly, a post which he currently has. May he experience success in all his endeavors!
Marriage Ends, Health Declines - ABC News
Science once again proves something which Christ said. Jesus often said a man should not divorce his wife. The Bible says what God has joined, let no man divide. So it's no surprise that competent science has once again proven that divorce is bad in many ways. What Christ teaches us to do is for our own health and benefit.
Of course, science is not necessary to prove what God says. In fact, science has little to do with faith and morals. Science can only observe, but it cannot make moral statements, or answer the question of why, it only answers the question of how. I've become more interested lately in the concept that some people have replaced their trust in God with trust in science, which is a very dangerous road to take. God's truths are eternal, science is only based on our interpretation set of data. I'm all for scientific study, with the realization that we are observing God's creation. God comes first, and science only comes from God. Therefore science is very much subordinate to God.
I will probably speak on this topic more later. But for now, please view the following article:
Marriage Ends, Health Declines - ABC News
Of course, science is not necessary to prove what God says. In fact, science has little to do with faith and morals. Science can only observe, but it cannot make moral statements, or answer the question of why, it only answers the question of how. I've become more interested lately in the concept that some people have replaced their trust in God with trust in science, which is a very dangerous road to take. God's truths are eternal, science is only based on our interpretation set of data. I'm all for scientific study, with the realization that we are observing God's creation. God comes first, and science only comes from God. Therefore science is very much subordinate to God.
I will probably speak on this topic more later. But for now, please view the following article:
Marriage Ends, Health Declines - ABC News
Monday, July 27, 2009
Vatican Says Pope Fell Looking for Light Switch - ABC News
More news has been shed on the Pope's wrist fracturing incident. See below:
Vatican Says Pope Fell Looking for Light Switch - ABC News
Vatican Says Pope Fell Looking for Light Switch - ABC News
Bishop of Macau dies
Sad news has emerged that the first Chinese bishop of Macau, Domingos Lam, has died at the age of 81. Macau, which is now a Chinese territory, once belonged to the Portuguese. They brought Christianity there. The country (or autonomous region of China) now has one of the highest life expectancies of any country.
The only source of information on this that I could find is in Chinese, probably Cantonese:
http://kkp.catholic.org.hk/Special_News/lo_2009_07_27.htm
The only source of information on this that I could find is in Chinese, probably Cantonese:
http://kkp.catholic.org.hk/Special_News/lo_2009_07_27.htm
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Scientists Create Human Sperm from Stem Cells
A scary story has emerged that scentists in England are now using embryonic stem cells to produce sperm. This is so disgusting and disturbing in so many ways. Let's rephrase what is happening here. They are using human pre-born children to make sperm... Obviously this violates many Catholic morals, including the 4th commandment, Thou shall not kill. Of course, as with other "scientific discoveries", the scientists involved have only benevolent goals. They just want to help guys who can't have kids to have them! Wow, thanks guys, but no thanks. We can never kill someone so as to benefit someone else.
The same team who has orchestrated this Frankensteinian situation are also looking into another, less morally offensive, procedure that would turn adult male skin cells into sperm. Of course, this will also be illicit, because children have a right to be born naturally in the loving union of husband and wife, not at the hands of a scientist in a sterilized lab in a petri dish.
Now, none of this has been completed yet, and is still in a theoretical stage. I just wish people would realize that just because something is possible, doesn't mean we necessarily have to try it. Also, just because there is a conceivable benefit to something, doesn't mean it is completely legitimate. That's why I dislike when I hear scientists saying things like "This technology will help disabled people." but they ignore the potential harm. Both must be weighed.
Check out the Time Magazine article below:
Scientists Create Human Sperm from Stem Cells
The same team who has orchestrated this Frankensteinian situation are also looking into another, less morally offensive, procedure that would turn adult male skin cells into sperm. Of course, this will also be illicit, because children have a right to be born naturally in the loving union of husband and wife, not at the hands of a scientist in a sterilized lab in a petri dish.
Now, none of this has been completed yet, and is still in a theoretical stage. I just wish people would realize that just because something is possible, doesn't mean we necessarily have to try it. Also, just because there is a conceivable benefit to something, doesn't mean it is completely legitimate. That's why I dislike when I hear scientists saying things like "This technology will help disabled people." but they ignore the potential harm. Both must be weighed.
Check out the Time Magazine article below:
Scientists Create Human Sperm from Stem Cells
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)