To date, I have not received the kind of reaction I have for the blog I wrote concerning Tim Horton's and its on-again, off-again support of a gathering in support of traditional marriage and families. After receiving some flack from gay-marriage groups in Canada, Tim Hortons decided to scrap its sponsorship of the program in Rhode Island. I feel this was an unfortunate choice.
I would like to respond to some of the comments I received. Most of the comments were angry, and some were personal attacks. Some were quite vitriolic. I even had to remove some of the comments because they had absolutely nothing to do with the argument, or were practically spam. I know they were not pure spam because in order to post a message on my blog, you must enter a code, which proves you are human.
For some reason, the comments completely went off track and started to become a theism vs. atheism debate. One particular individual posted the same link several times to an atheist website. Another affirmed his belief that Jesus did not exist and that Constantine invented him. I'm not sure what these things have to do with the gay marriage debate. Perhaps it is because as a philosopher once put it, if God doesn't exist, nothing matters. This came from an atheist. He understood that logically, once you remove God from the picture, morals have no force anymore. It's simply one person's desires vs. another's. Therefore, the argument perhaps was that if God doesn't exist, then gay marriage is valid, but so is any other "sin", such as adultery, or rape. Once morals are personal and relativist, one person cannot claim their set of morals is superior to another's and the weakest are forced to accept the dictates of the strong.
Humourously, one person posted a comment which seems to indicate that Hitler was a Christian. This must be an example of the Godwin's Law, which states that "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." The user's comment, as can be seen on the bottom is:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior" - Adolf Hitler
This quote represents an incomplete truth and something of an academic dishonesty. I'm not saying this particular poster is dishonest. Perhaps this quote came from somewhere else. The complete quote is as follows:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison." - Adolf Hitler
Now, we have a completely different picture. Hitler was not affirming his Christianity, he was turning Jesus into an anti-semite. Hitler is claiming that Jesus fought for the world against what he calls a "Jewish poison." He downplays Christ's suffering and flips him around into a fighter against Jews. Is there someone else you can think of who fought against Jews and who considered them a poison? Hitler. Bingo. Hitler's only point here is that he wants to make those who fight and kill Jews heroes, and he wants to be the foremost.
The real story is that Jesus loved Jews, and most of the first followers of Christ were Jews. Christians constantly remind each other that it wasn't Jews that killed Christ, it was all of us, with our sins. Hitler was simply using Jesus as his justification for genocide.
Another commenter asked for a passage in which Jesus condemns homosexual activity. Jesus does do this.
In Matthew 19: 4-6, it reads:
He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Jesus does not mention homosexual acts. He reaffirms the Old Testament view on marriage and confirms its goodness.
Anther passage where Jesus refers to homosexual activity is Matthew 10:15, where he says:
Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
All people who were hearing Jesus at that time realized that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sexual activity including homosexual activity.
I want to just emphasize something. I believe there are many sins, and homosexual acts are just one of them. Premarital sex, masturbation, and other sexual sins which affect heterosexual, as well as homosexual, people are big problems also. Am I saying I'm above these? No, of course not. I must hold myself to a high sexual moral as well. People with same sex attraction have a great deal of struggle and life is sometimes difficult. They are asked to try their best just like everyone else is. God loves gay people like he loves everyone.
Let's say a prayer for all people who suffer from sexual temptation and sin.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Tim Hortons needs to show some back bone
Tim Hortons has made the unfortunate decision to back out of their support of traditional marriage. Instead of supporting the essential building block of all societies, Tims has decided to listen to a small but vocal group of gay activists.
Tims was supposed to be sponsoring a family event put off by the National Organization on Marriage in Rhode Island. Because of vocal protests they received from Canada, Tim Hortons decided to back out. This is very sad.
Gay marriage groups will be the first to say everyone should be allowed to live as they please. However, if someone affirms their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, this same group reacts very angrily and tries to squelch free speech and others' opinions. I guess everything is fine and dandy until someone opposes them.
People are made to feel that if they do not support any union of two people and consider it good for society (contrary to the evidence), they ought to be labeled as bigots and religious fanatics. The message is that in order to be considered "normal", one must completely support any form of marriage put forth, including same-sex marriage.
Tim Hortons made a very cowardly decision. Canada was built by hard working families, and that's who they were there to promote. The vocal gay and lesbian community is a new phenomenon, but that doesn't stop them from enforcing a reign of intellectual terror.
At least Tims was originally planning on supporting this event. Too bad they backed down when the bullies came around.
Check out the article below:
Tim Hortons pulls support for rally against same-sex marriage in U.S.
Tims was supposed to be sponsoring a family event put off by the National Organization on Marriage in Rhode Island. Because of vocal protests they received from Canada, Tim Hortons decided to back out. This is very sad.
Gay marriage groups will be the first to say everyone should be allowed to live as they please. However, if someone affirms their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, this same group reacts very angrily and tries to squelch free speech and others' opinions. I guess everything is fine and dandy until someone opposes them.
People are made to feel that if they do not support any union of two people and consider it good for society (contrary to the evidence), they ought to be labeled as bigots and religious fanatics. The message is that in order to be considered "normal", one must completely support any form of marriage put forth, including same-sex marriage.
Tim Hortons made a very cowardly decision. Canada was built by hard working families, and that's who they were there to promote. The vocal gay and lesbian community is a new phenomenon, but that doesn't stop them from enforcing a reign of intellectual terror.
At least Tims was originally planning on supporting this event. Too bad they backed down when the bullies came around.
Check out the article below:
Tim Hortons pulls support for rally against same-sex marriage in U.S.
Friday, August 07, 2009
'Family Guy' and its abortion episode: Should Fox air it? | EW.com
Fox made the right decision by not allowing an episode featuring two immoral activities to air. An upcoming episode, which will not air, but may be available on DVD later, handled the issue of Lois becoming a surrogate mother (immoral) and the parents dying in a car crash. She is then left with the decision as to what should be done about the baby she is carrying. Apparently it seems ambiguous in the episode, but then at the end, Peter Griffin makes clear that she had an abortion. This distasteful episode will not be seen on TV anytime soon. Check out the article below (viewer discretion advised):
'Family Guy' and its abortion episode: Should Fox air it? EW.com
'Family Guy' and its abortion episode: Should Fox air it? EW.com
Update: June 23, 2010
The episode described above was aired in the UK on BBC. Its title was "Partial Terms of Endearment", I guess referring to Partial Birth Abortion. Fortunately, Fox has still not aired the episode, and hopefully they never will.
Here is a picture from the episode:
Director of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles and Home Alone has Passed Away
One of my favorite directors, John Hughes, has passed away at the age of 59 as the result of a sudden heart attack. I am very saddened by this news. Just last week, I rented one of my favorite movies of all time, Planes, Trains and Automobiles. My girlfriend and I watched it, but we still haven't finished it. We will watch the rest soon, probably this weekend. I really love that movie. John Candy, who is the main star along with Steve Martin, is one of my favorite actors. I think John Hughes and John Candy worked very well together because they shared a certain youthful optimism.
John Candy stands in stark contrast to many movie characters who are dark and mysterious. John Candy is open and innocent. He is a lovable guy who is not tainted by the evils of the world. He maintains his purity and innocence and often leaves his mark on the world that is much too cynical. Many parts of Planes, Trains and Automobiles will bring a tear to all but the most jaded of eyes. John Candy's character is not looking for wealth, fame, or power, but rather love and friendship.
Another great movie featuring John Candy, and directed by John Hughes, is Home Alone. One of my favorite scenes is when the boy meets the old man in church watching his daughter. The old man eventually tells the boy of his relationship with his son, and that they dont' talk anymore. The old man shares wisdom with the boy telling him he shouldn't be afraid of strangers or assume that they are bad people (judge not), and the boy equally gives advice to the old man, when he encourages him to talk to his son. Eventually the father and son are reunited.
John Hughes will be sorely missed. Why am I writing about him on a Catholic blog? I think John Hughes shows us values in his movies, more than most movies these days. He shows us a childlike simplicity, which echo Christ's words that we must be childlike to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He shows us that while we may have our own ideas about what's important in life, God has other ideas. What we see as childish, God sees as the most important. Virtues like brotherly love, love of spouses, forgiveness, happiness, joy, innocence, and non-judgementalism are most important than being rich and famous and powerful. These movies are great for young and old.
Maybe this weekend, if you're not too busy, you can pick up a copy of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, and enjoy the innocent fun.
John Candy stands in stark contrast to many movie characters who are dark and mysterious. John Candy is open and innocent. He is a lovable guy who is not tainted by the evils of the world. He maintains his purity and innocence and often leaves his mark on the world that is much too cynical. Many parts of Planes, Trains and Automobiles will bring a tear to all but the most jaded of eyes. John Candy's character is not looking for wealth, fame, or power, but rather love and friendship.
Another great movie featuring John Candy, and directed by John Hughes, is Home Alone. One of my favorite scenes is when the boy meets the old man in church watching his daughter. The old man eventually tells the boy of his relationship with his son, and that they dont' talk anymore. The old man shares wisdom with the boy telling him he shouldn't be afraid of strangers or assume that they are bad people (judge not), and the boy equally gives advice to the old man, when he encourages him to talk to his son. Eventually the father and son are reunited.
John Hughes will be sorely missed. Why am I writing about him on a Catholic blog? I think John Hughes shows us values in his movies, more than most movies these days. He shows us a childlike simplicity, which echo Christ's words that we must be childlike to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He shows us that while we may have our own ideas about what's important in life, God has other ideas. What we see as childish, God sees as the most important. Virtues like brotherly love, love of spouses, forgiveness, happiness, joy, innocence, and non-judgementalism are most important than being rich and famous and powerful. These movies are great for young and old.
Maybe this weekend, if you're not too busy, you can pick up a copy of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, and enjoy the innocent fun.
Robert Fulford: Western feminists mute on ravages of shariah
I don't need to add anything to this article. Take a read:
Robert Fulford: Western feminists mute on ravages of shariah
Robert Fulford: Western feminists mute on ravages of shariah
Sonia Sotomayor makes US Supreme Court 2/3 Catholic
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)