You may not hear this if you listen only to the main stream media, but a peaceful pro-life demonstrator has been killed in Owosso, Michigan. He was one of two people killed in an incident which happened today at around 7:30am local time.
Unlike when "Dr." Tiller, who performed hundreds of abortions, was killed, the media will probably not make this look like an attack from the other side. In other words, this will not be seen as violence from the pro-abortion side, but rather a random act of violence. That is, if they even report this at all.
I already checked on the websites of ABC, CNN, and CBC to see if they had reported on this, and none of them have so far. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
More information below:
Slain Pro-Life Advocate Jim Pouillon Known as the Peaceful Abortion Sign Guy
Let's pray for these men, including the shooter, and their families.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Putting the sex abuse scandal into perspective
Over the decades there have been many sexual abuse cases brought against priests. Some priests grossly violated their role and their duty to be Christ-like when they abused children. These are crimes against children, and Christ preached against these in the strongest terms. He told the disciples to let the children come to him because unless they were like these little ones, they could not enter heaven. Jesus also said that it would be better to tie a millstone around your neck and drown yourself in the ocean than to lead a child astray. We must pray for the victims of this abuse. But we must pray for all victims of abuse. Some priests have committed great crimes, but do all priests deserve to be punished for the sins of others? Is it right to unfairly discriminate against all priests because of the actions of a few? Is it just to ignore all other sexual abuse cases and only point out sexual abuse by priests? I do not think so.
The idea of a pedophile priest is a common one in today's society. Anyone, including famous comedians, talk show hosts, television personalities, and politicians, can use the term pedophile priest with impunity. There is no immediate follow-up to this statement saying that only a tiny percentage of priests ever abused children, or that this is an unfair stereotype and that most priests are very loving and caring toward children. There is no public outcry at these statements, and no one slaps the people who make them with hate speech charges.
I do not think people are really aware of the magnitude of sexual abuse in the United States. Some people seem to think only priests abuse children, because that's the only thing the media reports. Let's look at the truth.
The official report from the sex abuse scandal in the United States indicates that between 1950 and 2002, there were around 6800 substantiated cases of sexual abuse from Catholic priests. That's approximately 131 cases per year for the entire country. This represents a tiny percentage of priests, and in fact, most cases did not involve actual pedophilia. Most cases involved a priest and a post-pubescent male, not a child in the physical sense. It has been said that this is more a crisis of homosexuality in the priesthood than of pedophilia. In any event, the numbers are exceedingly low. Compare this to the general population. In the United States, for the year 2005, it was reported there were 83,600 substantiated cases of child sexual assault. That's in one year. And this doesn't count cases that were not reported. It is estimated that around 7.2% of males and 14.5% of females are sexually abused during their childhood. In the United States there are currently around 31 million males between the ages of 0 and 14, so that means about 2.2 million of them will be sexually abused. There are around 30 million females in the US, so statistics show about 4.35 million of them will be sexually assualted. Studies show that sexual abuse from teachers is much more prevalent than from priests, by a factor of at least 4.
Even though there are millions of sexual abuse cases in the US and other countries every year, Catholic priests are stigmatized with a reputation of being child molestors, but this is clearly societal and media bias. Why have teachers, who commit these crimes at a rate of at least 4 times more than priests, not received a similar or much worse reputation? When was the last law suit you've heard brought against a school board for the sexual abuse of a child? It hasn't happened. Yet, the Catholic Church in the United States alone has paid out over $1 billion in settlements. If you divide this evenly among all claimants to abuse, each would receive almost $150,000. If all sexual assault victims received a similar pay-out, approximately $982 billion, nearly $1 trillion, would be paid out every year. Sexual abuse cases would probably account for a third of GDP for the country.
So if sexual abuse is committed by people from all professions and walks of life, some at a rate much higher than priests, why do priests get all the bad press? If you have any ideas, please let me know. But I will give you my idea, and let me know what you think. Since the 60s, society at large has tried to push many immoral behaviors, including contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, greed, excessive wealth, divorce, fornication, adultery, and other ills. The one consistent voice of opposition to these things, and the voice in favour of following Christ's commandments is the Catholic Church. Others speak for Christ's laws, but none with the force of the Universal Church. When Pastor Bob down the road speaks, some people listen, but when the Pope speaks the world listens. But what the Church teaches does not conform to the ideas and messages that the media are interested in promoting (if you doubt this, take a look in your local paper). It's a little like politics. When a party has no good arguments against its opponent, it tries to undermine the opponent's image. The media could not argue against the Truth, so they had to find another tactic. When news of sexual abuse by some priests broke, a smear campaign was hatched. It didn't matter how representative the news was, it was sensationalistic. Even if there were over 100,000 priests in the US since 1950, the actual number of abusers would not matter. Even if 20 priests were convicted, it would seem horrendous, if presented the right way.
You may say this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I would invite you to look at the consequences. If you ever have a debate with someone on a moral issue, and you indicate it is against the Catholic faith or that you're Catholic or that the Pope has spoken out against something, often the other person will automatically bring up the sex abuse scandal, even though it's irrelevant. In an article I read not long ago, a lady was speaking about an issue which I do not recall but I believe it was about same-sex marriage or abortion, and how the Catholic Church opposes it. Instead of offering any reason as to why the Church should not oppose it, she simply spoke about the sex abuse scandal involving Catholic priests. She felt this was all that was necessary to justify her opposition to the Church's teaching. But this is a logical fallacy. You'll notice the same thing with people you speak with. You may say you are opposed to abortion and that the Catholic Church teaches it is murder. Their response may well be "Well, what about pedophile priests, isn't that immoral??" The fact is, the Church is against pedophile activities, as well as abortion.
The idea of a pedophile priest is a common one in today's society. Anyone, including famous comedians, talk show hosts, television personalities, and politicians, can use the term pedophile priest with impunity. There is no immediate follow-up to this statement saying that only a tiny percentage of priests ever abused children, or that this is an unfair stereotype and that most priests are very loving and caring toward children. There is no public outcry at these statements, and no one slaps the people who make them with hate speech charges.
I do not think people are really aware of the magnitude of sexual abuse in the United States. Some people seem to think only priests abuse children, because that's the only thing the media reports. Let's look at the truth.
The official report from the sex abuse scandal in the United States indicates that between 1950 and 2002, there were around 6800 substantiated cases of sexual abuse from Catholic priests. That's approximately 131 cases per year for the entire country. This represents a tiny percentage of priests, and in fact, most cases did not involve actual pedophilia. Most cases involved a priest and a post-pubescent male, not a child in the physical sense. It has been said that this is more a crisis of homosexuality in the priesthood than of pedophilia. In any event, the numbers are exceedingly low. Compare this to the general population. In the United States, for the year 2005, it was reported there were 83,600 substantiated cases of child sexual assault. That's in one year. And this doesn't count cases that were not reported. It is estimated that around 7.2% of males and 14.5% of females are sexually abused during their childhood. In the United States there are currently around 31 million males between the ages of 0 and 14, so that means about 2.2 million of them will be sexually abused. There are around 30 million females in the US, so statistics show about 4.35 million of them will be sexually assualted. Studies show that sexual abuse from teachers is much more prevalent than from priests, by a factor of at least 4.
Even though there are millions of sexual abuse cases in the US and other countries every year, Catholic priests are stigmatized with a reputation of being child molestors, but this is clearly societal and media bias. Why have teachers, who commit these crimes at a rate of at least 4 times more than priests, not received a similar or much worse reputation? When was the last law suit you've heard brought against a school board for the sexual abuse of a child? It hasn't happened. Yet, the Catholic Church in the United States alone has paid out over $1 billion in settlements. If you divide this evenly among all claimants to abuse, each would receive almost $150,000. If all sexual assault victims received a similar pay-out, approximately $982 billion, nearly $1 trillion, would be paid out every year. Sexual abuse cases would probably account for a third of GDP for the country.
So if sexual abuse is committed by people from all professions and walks of life, some at a rate much higher than priests, why do priests get all the bad press? If you have any ideas, please let me know. But I will give you my idea, and let me know what you think. Since the 60s, society at large has tried to push many immoral behaviors, including contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, greed, excessive wealth, divorce, fornication, adultery, and other ills. The one consistent voice of opposition to these things, and the voice in favour of following Christ's commandments is the Catholic Church. Others speak for Christ's laws, but none with the force of the Universal Church. When Pastor Bob down the road speaks, some people listen, but when the Pope speaks the world listens. But what the Church teaches does not conform to the ideas and messages that the media are interested in promoting (if you doubt this, take a look in your local paper). It's a little like politics. When a party has no good arguments against its opponent, it tries to undermine the opponent's image. The media could not argue against the Truth, so they had to find another tactic. When news of sexual abuse by some priests broke, a smear campaign was hatched. It didn't matter how representative the news was, it was sensationalistic. Even if there were over 100,000 priests in the US since 1950, the actual number of abusers would not matter. Even if 20 priests were convicted, it would seem horrendous, if presented the right way.
You may say this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I would invite you to look at the consequences. If you ever have a debate with someone on a moral issue, and you indicate it is against the Catholic faith or that you're Catholic or that the Pope has spoken out against something, often the other person will automatically bring up the sex abuse scandal, even though it's irrelevant. In an article I read not long ago, a lady was speaking about an issue which I do not recall but I believe it was about same-sex marriage or abortion, and how the Catholic Church opposes it. Instead of offering any reason as to why the Church should not oppose it, she simply spoke about the sex abuse scandal involving Catholic priests. She felt this was all that was necessary to justify her opposition to the Church's teaching. But this is a logical fallacy. You'll notice the same thing with people you speak with. You may say you are opposed to abortion and that the Catholic Church teaches it is murder. Their response may well be "Well, what about pedophile priests, isn't that immoral??" The fact is, the Church is against pedophile activities, as well as abortion.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Holy See proposes alternative to new U.S. population policy
Check out these words from the bishop. I've never really put this 2 and 2 together, but he's right, it is very ironic!
The Apostolic Nuncio found “almost ironic†the fact that “environmental destruction is perpetrated primarily by States with lower growth rates and that developed countries are supporting population growth at home while simultaneously working to reduce it in developing countries.â€
Check out the full article below:
Holy See proposes alternative to new U.S. population policy
The Apostolic Nuncio found “almost ironic†the fact that “environmental destruction is perpetrated primarily by States with lower growth rates and that developed countries are supporting population growth at home while simultaneously working to reduce it in developing countries.â€
Check out the full article below:
Holy See proposes alternative to new U.S. population policy
Responding to report, pro-life leader insists people are not pollution
Thanks Stephen, everyone was thinking this, and you said it. Humans are not pollution. It's kind of sad that people even need to be told this, but apparently they do.
Responding to report, pro-life leader insists people are not pollution
Responding to report, pro-life leader insists people are not pollution
St. John's Newfoundland Archdiocese announces winner of Double Home Lottery
Over the past several months, the Archdiocese of St. John's, NL has been selling tickets for its Double Home Lottery. I bought a ticket myself for $100, primarly to support the church, but I also maintained hope that I could win. As the name implies, two houses were up to be won. They were fully furnished, and valued at approximately $500,000 each, which is very high for St. John's.
Last week, the winners were announced:
Grand Prize #1: 63 Julieann Place
Winner: Allan Moulton, Ticket #22031
Grand Prize #2: 18 Russ Howard Street
Winner: Pauline Martin, Ticket #06920
(from the website: http://www.doublehomelottery.com/)
The Church in St. John's is having financial struggles right now. We need to support our churches. They provide many services, and above all provide priests who offer the sacraments. Right now the Archdiocese is in debt, but hopefully this will take a sizeable chunk out of it.
Last week, the winners were announced:
Grand Prize #1: 63 Julieann Place
Winner: Allan Moulton, Ticket #22031
Grand Prize #2: 18 Russ Howard Street
Winner: Pauline Martin, Ticket #06920
(from the website: http://www.doublehomelottery.com/)
The Church in St. John's is having financial struggles right now. We need to support our churches. They provide many services, and above all provide priests who offer the sacraments. Right now the Archdiocese is in debt, but hopefully this will take a sizeable chunk out of it.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Some random thoughts on gay marriage
Gay marriage is a big issue nowadays, so I wanted to throw out some thoughts. Let me know your opinion.
First of all, I want to say I do not hate gay people and I am not afraid of them (i.e. not homophobic). I think gay people are people with struggles, just like everyone else. We are all called to a high standard of sexual morality. Some people struggle with same-sex attraction, others struggle with fornication, or adultery, or masturbation. We are all called to a higher standard.
But the issue of gay marriage doesn't really have a huge lot to do with homosexuality itself. Let's first of all break down what the homosexual marriage debate is all about. It is about the state recognizing the love or feelings of two people of the same gender and officially declaring this to be a marriage. You can oppose gay marriage without having any ill feelings toward gay people. That is not a logical contradiction. Even Elton John doesn't believe in gay marriage and he's gay.
The issue is whether or not the state should or has any need to recognize the union of two gay people.
The state (i.e. a country, or separate geographic law-entity) is very pragmatic, at least in places like the USA or Canada. Whatever the state recognizes or doesn't recognize has to do with the benefits of this recognition on the state. For example, there are laws against drunk driving. Not because the state has a moral qualm about alcohol, but because you could put people's lives at risk, perhaps including your own. Also, it is not a crime, per se, to cheat on your spouse. It is also not a crime to be proud, lustful, full of anger, jealous, envious, lazy, or anything else. The state simply has no interest in these interior personal feelings, unless they affect the state. The state also has no interest in your feelings toward someone. A man could be totally in love with a woman and want to have children with her, but the state would not automatically recognize this as anything, until they got married. Similarly, the state would not recognize my hatred toward someone, unless my hatred incited violence. The state is not in the business of ratifying or recognizing feelings, no matter how strong, between two people.
On the other hand, if a man and woman willingly and with full consent decide to marry with the intention of remaining together, the state would recognize this marriage even if there was no love. In fact, even if the couple detested each other, the state would still recognize the relationship as a marriage.
The point is there is another reason the state recognizes marriage and it is because of the perceived benefit of the marriage, especially in terms of children that are born in that relationship. States throughout the world came to understand that marriage is beneficial to children. A woman who got pregnant but had no man to help her was at risk. For the benefit of the mother and any children born, there was a committed before a family was started. Psychologists now agree that a child does best with a mother and a father. Children have a natural law right to be raised by their mother and father. Therefore, marriage is good for society, because a child is raised in the optimal environment.
Other benefits of heterosexual marriage is that a man and a woman offer the benefit of complementarity, which cannot be found in same-sex couples. It has been shown that homosexual couples often are involved in more violent relationships as well as more promiscuous ones.
Strong families means strong communities means strong societies. The family is the building block of society and if it is strengthened, the entire society is strengthend. Doesn't it just seem natural for a mother and father to raise their own child? Does it not seem unnatural for two people of the same sex, only one of whom can possibly be a parent, raise a child?
Civil law is interested in the well-being of its citizens. A child does best in his own family. Also, strong families create a strong society. In the past, romantic feelings had little to do with marriage. It was not seen as essential. That's because the state has no interest in peoples' feelings as such.
Some object to what I'm saying by pointing out that many children are homeless and that isn't it better to give them a gay home rather than no home? First of all, it is important to seek an ideal. The ideal situation is for a child to be raised by his mother and father. Sometimes this ideal cannot be achieved, such as the case with single parenthood, or in the case of an orphan, but that does not remove the ideal. By legally recognizing gay marriage, we force adoption agencies to adopt children to gay couples. We can no longer recognize that a stable man-woman marriage is the best place to raise a child. We must now turn a blind eye to the best alternative to the ideal in the name of "justice". The state must have programs to help children in their situation, and we must not look at next best possibilities for anyone, and we certainly shouldn't artificially put unsatisfactory solutions on par with satisfactory ones.
People have made the gay marriage issue an issue of rights, but is has nothing to do with this. The state does not recognize feelings. It creates an environment that is the best for its people. If a couple wanted a divorce, the main concern of the court would be the welfare of the children. They have little interest in the feelings of the spouses toward each other.
If this was an issue of rights, we would have a different set of issues to look at. If marriage was based on feelings, then we would have to allow other types of marriages. This argument is usually laughed at by gay-marriage proponents, but let's logical look at this. If marriage has nothing to do with the ability to procreate or about childrens' rights, or about the benefits to society, then there are many types of marriages that would have to be allowed. One is polygamy. What reason could a proponent of gay marriage give for the ban on polygamy, assuming all parties agreed to that arrangement and they wanted to be married? There would be no case. What if two siblings wanted to marry? They could not be refused based on the gay marriage logic because the welfare of any possible children would not be a factor, only feelings would. I will not compare gay marriage to bestiality as some have, because this is an unfair comparison. We can only speak of human-human relationships.
There are many other things that can be said about this topic. I think what has been said will suffice. I would like to clarify one point however. Some people who defend same-sex marriage say that if we legalize it, churches will be forced to perform these marriages. I do not agree with this statement given our current situation. I will use my own Catholic Church as an example. The Catholic Church only allows marriages that comply with her teachings. For example, if two Buddhists demanded to be married by a priest, the Church could refuse, and the law would back up the Church. The Church has the right to allow or disallow any marriage it sees fit. Therefore, unless the law radically changes and a new era of Christian persecution begins, I do not see this happening.
I welcome feedback on my thoughts. Please try to be civil and stay on topic. Thanks.
First of all, I want to say I do not hate gay people and I am not afraid of them (i.e. not homophobic). I think gay people are people with struggles, just like everyone else. We are all called to a high standard of sexual morality. Some people struggle with same-sex attraction, others struggle with fornication, or adultery, or masturbation. We are all called to a higher standard.
But the issue of gay marriage doesn't really have a huge lot to do with homosexuality itself. Let's first of all break down what the homosexual marriage debate is all about. It is about the state recognizing the love or feelings of two people of the same gender and officially declaring this to be a marriage. You can oppose gay marriage without having any ill feelings toward gay people. That is not a logical contradiction. Even Elton John doesn't believe in gay marriage and he's gay.
The issue is whether or not the state should or has any need to recognize the union of two gay people.
The state (i.e. a country, or separate geographic law-entity) is very pragmatic, at least in places like the USA or Canada. Whatever the state recognizes or doesn't recognize has to do with the benefits of this recognition on the state. For example, there are laws against drunk driving. Not because the state has a moral qualm about alcohol, but because you could put people's lives at risk, perhaps including your own. Also, it is not a crime, per se, to cheat on your spouse. It is also not a crime to be proud, lustful, full of anger, jealous, envious, lazy, or anything else. The state simply has no interest in these interior personal feelings, unless they affect the state. The state also has no interest in your feelings toward someone. A man could be totally in love with a woman and want to have children with her, but the state would not automatically recognize this as anything, until they got married. Similarly, the state would not recognize my hatred toward someone, unless my hatred incited violence. The state is not in the business of ratifying or recognizing feelings, no matter how strong, between two people.
On the other hand, if a man and woman willingly and with full consent decide to marry with the intention of remaining together, the state would recognize this marriage even if there was no love. In fact, even if the couple detested each other, the state would still recognize the relationship as a marriage.
The point is there is another reason the state recognizes marriage and it is because of the perceived benefit of the marriage, especially in terms of children that are born in that relationship. States throughout the world came to understand that marriage is beneficial to children. A woman who got pregnant but had no man to help her was at risk. For the benefit of the mother and any children born, there was a committed before a family was started. Psychologists now agree that a child does best with a mother and a father. Children have a natural law right to be raised by their mother and father. Therefore, marriage is good for society, because a child is raised in the optimal environment.
Other benefits of heterosexual marriage is that a man and a woman offer the benefit of complementarity, which cannot be found in same-sex couples. It has been shown that homosexual couples often are involved in more violent relationships as well as more promiscuous ones.
Strong families means strong communities means strong societies. The family is the building block of society and if it is strengthened, the entire society is strengthend. Doesn't it just seem natural for a mother and father to raise their own child? Does it not seem unnatural for two people of the same sex, only one of whom can possibly be a parent, raise a child?
Civil law is interested in the well-being of its citizens. A child does best in his own family. Also, strong families create a strong society. In the past, romantic feelings had little to do with marriage. It was not seen as essential. That's because the state has no interest in peoples' feelings as such.
Some object to what I'm saying by pointing out that many children are homeless and that isn't it better to give them a gay home rather than no home? First of all, it is important to seek an ideal. The ideal situation is for a child to be raised by his mother and father. Sometimes this ideal cannot be achieved, such as the case with single parenthood, or in the case of an orphan, but that does not remove the ideal. By legally recognizing gay marriage, we force adoption agencies to adopt children to gay couples. We can no longer recognize that a stable man-woman marriage is the best place to raise a child. We must now turn a blind eye to the best alternative to the ideal in the name of "justice". The state must have programs to help children in their situation, and we must not look at next best possibilities for anyone, and we certainly shouldn't artificially put unsatisfactory solutions on par with satisfactory ones.
People have made the gay marriage issue an issue of rights, but is has nothing to do with this. The state does not recognize feelings. It creates an environment that is the best for its people. If a couple wanted a divorce, the main concern of the court would be the welfare of the children. They have little interest in the feelings of the spouses toward each other.
If this was an issue of rights, we would have a different set of issues to look at. If marriage was based on feelings, then we would have to allow other types of marriages. This argument is usually laughed at by gay-marriage proponents, but let's logical look at this. If marriage has nothing to do with the ability to procreate or about childrens' rights, or about the benefits to society, then there are many types of marriages that would have to be allowed. One is polygamy. What reason could a proponent of gay marriage give for the ban on polygamy, assuming all parties agreed to that arrangement and they wanted to be married? There would be no case. What if two siblings wanted to marry? They could not be refused based on the gay marriage logic because the welfare of any possible children would not be a factor, only feelings would. I will not compare gay marriage to bestiality as some have, because this is an unfair comparison. We can only speak of human-human relationships.
There are many other things that can be said about this topic. I think what has been said will suffice. I would like to clarify one point however. Some people who defend same-sex marriage say that if we legalize it, churches will be forced to perform these marriages. I do not agree with this statement given our current situation. I will use my own Catholic Church as an example. The Catholic Church only allows marriages that comply with her teachings. For example, if two Buddhists demanded to be married by a priest, the Church could refuse, and the law would back up the Church. The Church has the right to allow or disallow any marriage it sees fit. Therefore, unless the law radically changes and a new era of Christian persecution begins, I do not see this happening.
I welcome feedback on my thoughts. Please try to be civil and stay on topic. Thanks.
The irony of moral relativism
The other day I heard on someone's vlog (as in video log: an online journal similar to a blog (weblog), but on film rather than in print) that there was a major uproar in the online community about a Microsoft print ad. In the ad, there was an Asian man, a black man, and a white woman. The ad was run in Poland also, but the head of the black man was cropped out and replaced by the head of a white man. I'm not sure the exact reason for this, but my suspicion is that the country does not have a large black community and a white man would seem more appropriate to the context. It does not seem likely that Microsoft is racist, since the original ad would probably have not been created in the first place if that were true.
After doing a little research on wikipedia, I discovered that almost 97% of people in Poland consider themselves to be ethnically Polish, meaning among other things, white. The remaining 3% seem to be mostly white also. Therefore, in order to create an ad which is representative of Polish people, a white person was added. This however, does not account for the fact that one of the remaining people in the ad is of Asian descent. Perhaps they wanted to display diversity to some extent.
There remains the possibility that the Czech branch of Microsoft is in fact racist. This cannot be known for sure, unless there is a statement giving official reasons for these actions, but let's assume for the sake of argument that this was racially motivated. After Microsoft did this, there was a swift and angry response from the Internet community. People felt this was a moral catatrophe and that Microsoft should be held accountable. And perhaps they should. But compare this to someone who speaks out against abortion. Most of the time if someone does they are criticized. They are told "How can you force your morals on everyone else?" They are seen as self-righteous bigots trying to judge other people. So why the difference?
Those who were appalled by Microsoft's actions are often the same people that say we cannot judge the actions of others and that if someone wants to have an abortion, who are we to decide for them. It is considered rude and out of place to even bring up the topic. Most of the time I speak of this issue with someone who is an abortion supporter, their first reaction is to tell me to stop talking about it and that the issue is already settled. But this is not a matter of an advertising campaign. This is a matter of life and death. Many people believe abortion kills a person, and therefore is gravely wrong. Even if someone does not agree that a fetus is a child, they should at least be able to comprehend how someone who does believe it is would be concerned about their murder.
The funny thing about this advertising case is that there is a parrallel, one which you will never see in real life. There are some people who are racist and bigoted. So much so that they would not want to see a black person on any form of advertisement. They believe white people are superior and that anyone else is inferior. Therefore, the belief that black people should have equal dignity when it comes to being represented on advertising and such is not universal. But, would you ever hear someone say, "How dare you try to impose your self-righteous beliefs on Microsoft. They can be as racist as they want to be! You're just a religious fanatic who preaches notions of equality!" Of course not.
My point is that this advertising fiasco is absolutely infintessimal and insignificant compared to the slaughter of millions of innocent babies. Just because some people do not realize it is murder does not mean those who do should be silenced. If we can speak out against (alledged) racism, how much more can we speak out against murder?
After doing a little research on wikipedia, I discovered that almost 97% of people in Poland consider themselves to be ethnically Polish, meaning among other things, white. The remaining 3% seem to be mostly white also. Therefore, in order to create an ad which is representative of Polish people, a white person was added. This however, does not account for the fact that one of the remaining people in the ad is of Asian descent. Perhaps they wanted to display diversity to some extent.
There remains the possibility that the Czech branch of Microsoft is in fact racist. This cannot be known for sure, unless there is a statement giving official reasons for these actions, but let's assume for the sake of argument that this was racially motivated. After Microsoft did this, there was a swift and angry response from the Internet community. People felt this was a moral catatrophe and that Microsoft should be held accountable. And perhaps they should. But compare this to someone who speaks out against abortion. Most of the time if someone does they are criticized. They are told "How can you force your morals on everyone else?" They are seen as self-righteous bigots trying to judge other people. So why the difference?
Those who were appalled by Microsoft's actions are often the same people that say we cannot judge the actions of others and that if someone wants to have an abortion, who are we to decide for them. It is considered rude and out of place to even bring up the topic. Most of the time I speak of this issue with someone who is an abortion supporter, their first reaction is to tell me to stop talking about it and that the issue is already settled. But this is not a matter of an advertising campaign. This is a matter of life and death. Many people believe abortion kills a person, and therefore is gravely wrong. Even if someone does not agree that a fetus is a child, they should at least be able to comprehend how someone who does believe it is would be concerned about their murder.
The funny thing about this advertising case is that there is a parrallel, one which you will never see in real life. There are some people who are racist and bigoted. So much so that they would not want to see a black person on any form of advertisement. They believe white people are superior and that anyone else is inferior. Therefore, the belief that black people should have equal dignity when it comes to being represented on advertising and such is not universal. But, would you ever hear someone say, "How dare you try to impose your self-righteous beliefs on Microsoft. They can be as racist as they want to be! You're just a religious fanatic who preaches notions of equality!" Of course not.
My point is that this advertising fiasco is absolutely infintessimal and insignificant compared to the slaughter of millions of innocent babies. Just because some people do not realize it is murder does not mean those who do should be silenced. If we can speak out against (alledged) racism, how much more can we speak out against murder?
Monday, September 07, 2009
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Memorial of St. Gregory the Great, pope and doctor
A great little biopic of Pope St. Gregory the Great, one of the preeminent popes of all time. This little article explains how Gregory, whose feast we celebrate today, was largely responsible for the conversion of England.
Memorial of St. Gregory the Great, pope and doctor
Memorial of St. Gregory the Great, pope and doctor
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Did Jesus go to India or China?
This morning I considered the question of whether Jesus went to India or China, and there are several reasons I believe he didn't. I will go through these reasons. Of course, I'm not a historian or Biblical expert, but these are my thoughts on the topic.
Jesus began his ministry at around age 30. The last time we heard about him was when he was 12 years old. Many have speculated that during this time, Jesus went to India or China because nothing of that time period is recorded. I doubt this for several reasons.
1. Jesus had a particular ministry. He was to be a leader and someone who commanded authority. In order to be a leader, especially the type Jesus was, I believe one had to be at least 30 years old. How could a man build a large following if he was in his early twenties? It is possible, but it is much more likely that people would follow him if he seemed to have some experience. This would certainly explain why it would be completely unreasonable to assume he could be effective in his ministry while still a teenager.
2. I once heard that people do not really begin their careers until they are around 30 years old. From my experience, this is true. People usually receive their education until they are in their early to mid-20s. After this, they accumulate experience, until around the age of 30 when they are settled into their position and have a solid grip on their life. I'm not saying Jesus went through a North American or European education and career life. What I am saying is that people really truly begin their vocation normally when they are around 30 years old. People sometimes seem to wonder what happened to Jesus after age 12, but they imply that he must have been pursuing his calling at that age. But no 12 year old, or even 20 year old usually begins their life's work so young.
3. The Gospels are not biographies like they are nowadays. Historical notes were kept differently than they are now. Nowadays we might pick up a magazine or book which contains a biographical entry on someone, say Joseph Stalin. We would read about his childhood, his best friends, things he liked to do in school, his favorite instrument, etc. People are interested in these everyday facts. But in the days of Jesus, people were more concerned about pertinent facts about a person's life. The Gospel writers wrote the most important and enduring aspects of Christ's life. They were concerned with his role as Savior of the World, not on his hair color. All the information in the Bible is important. It is not like a novel where the author sometimes inserts little stories or unnecessary details to make it more readable or enjoyable. The Gospels and the rest of the Bible serve a purpose.
4. Christ's teachings are unique. He encorporates many aspects of Judaism into his teachings and take them a step further. He fulfills prophecy from past centuries. In Christ's writings, there is no incling of Eastern spirituality. He does not speak of past lives, God as pantheistic, or other Eastern ideas. Surely many have attempted to put words in Jesus' mouth that would imply he did speak about these things, but such theories are very new, appearing nowhere in historic Christianity.
5. If Christ really did go to India or China, he must have been rather ashamed of his trips, since he does not speak of them at any time. At least it is not recorded in the Gospels. His parables all involve people of Jewish, Samaritan, Egytian, and other heritages who would have come into contact with Jesus where he lived.
6. Jesus only quotes Jewish sources, including the Jewish Bible. He does not quote any books from the East.
Please feel free to leave your comments on this topic. Thanks.
Jesus began his ministry at around age 30. The last time we heard about him was when he was 12 years old. Many have speculated that during this time, Jesus went to India or China because nothing of that time period is recorded. I doubt this for several reasons.
1. Jesus had a particular ministry. He was to be a leader and someone who commanded authority. In order to be a leader, especially the type Jesus was, I believe one had to be at least 30 years old. How could a man build a large following if he was in his early twenties? It is possible, but it is much more likely that people would follow him if he seemed to have some experience. This would certainly explain why it would be completely unreasonable to assume he could be effective in his ministry while still a teenager.
2. I once heard that people do not really begin their careers until they are around 30 years old. From my experience, this is true. People usually receive their education until they are in their early to mid-20s. After this, they accumulate experience, until around the age of 30 when they are settled into their position and have a solid grip on their life. I'm not saying Jesus went through a North American or European education and career life. What I am saying is that people really truly begin their vocation normally when they are around 30 years old. People sometimes seem to wonder what happened to Jesus after age 12, but they imply that he must have been pursuing his calling at that age. But no 12 year old, or even 20 year old usually begins their life's work so young.
3. The Gospels are not biographies like they are nowadays. Historical notes were kept differently than they are now. Nowadays we might pick up a magazine or book which contains a biographical entry on someone, say Joseph Stalin. We would read about his childhood, his best friends, things he liked to do in school, his favorite instrument, etc. People are interested in these everyday facts. But in the days of Jesus, people were more concerned about pertinent facts about a person's life. The Gospel writers wrote the most important and enduring aspects of Christ's life. They were concerned with his role as Savior of the World, not on his hair color. All the information in the Bible is important. It is not like a novel where the author sometimes inserts little stories or unnecessary details to make it more readable or enjoyable. The Gospels and the rest of the Bible serve a purpose.
4. Christ's teachings are unique. He encorporates many aspects of Judaism into his teachings and take them a step further. He fulfills prophecy from past centuries. In Christ's writings, there is no incling of Eastern spirituality. He does not speak of past lives, God as pantheistic, or other Eastern ideas. Surely many have attempted to put words in Jesus' mouth that would imply he did speak about these things, but such theories are very new, appearing nowhere in historic Christianity.
5. If Christ really did go to India or China, he must have been rather ashamed of his trips, since he does not speak of them at any time. At least it is not recorded in the Gospels. His parables all involve people of Jewish, Samaritan, Egytian, and other heritages who would have come into contact with Jesus where he lived.
6. Jesus only quotes Jewish sources, including the Jewish Bible. He does not quote any books from the East.
Please feel free to leave your comments on this topic. Thanks.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
I thought August was a good month for saints, but look at September!
Last month, I looked at the many amazing saints for August, but I think September might even have them beat! Let's keep in mind that of course all saints are equal in God's eyes, but I'm just very happy about the great feast days we'll be celebrating this month. Let's take a look:
September 3 - Gregory the Great
Pope Saints Gregory the Great is a doctor of the church, and the pope for whom Gregorian chant is named. He is one of only three popes to hold the title "Great", as well as one of only two to be called a Doctor of the Church. Gregory was truly one of the greatest popes who has ever lived.
September 5 - Bl. Teresa of Calcutta
Mother Teresa is not a saint yet, but she's on her way (at least to being officially recognized as such). Local prayer to her is permitted as she is a blessed. Around the world, Mother Teresa is perhaps one of the most well known modern saints.
September 17 - Robert Bellarmine
Another Doctor of the Church and an important figure during the Catholic Reformation.
September 17 - Hildegard von Bingen
According to Wikipedia, Hildegard of Bingen (von is German) was many things: a Christian mystic, German Benedictine abbess, author, counselor, linguist, naturalist, scientist, philosopher, physician, herbalist, poet, channeller, visionary, composer, and polymath. Phew, that was a mouth-full! I remember reading about her in my classical music course, and specifically I remember that she was tithed to the church as a nun because she was her parents' tenth child!
September 21 - Matthew the Evangelist
One of the Four Evangelists and one of the twelve apostles. He started as a tax collector.
September 22 - Thomas of Villanueva
St. Thomas of Villanova was a real saint. He did everything he could for the poor, including selling his straw bed to help them. He also made sure his charity went a long way. He taught men to fish, rather than simply giving them a fish. He said: "Charity is not just giving, rather removing the need of those who receive charity and liberating them from it when possible"
September 23 - Padre Pio
Of course we all know Padre Pio. He is one of the most recently canonized saints, and the first and only priest so far to receive the stigmata (believe it or not). He bore the wounds of Christ, yet wanted no publicity. He asked Jesus to remove the signs, but not the pain, because he wanted to be united with Jesus, but not to receive much praise or attention.
September 23 - Linus
Linus was the first successor of St. Peter as Pope and Holy Father of the Universal Church
September 27 - Vincent de Paul
St. Vincent de Paul is the patron of the charitable organization founded by Frédéric Ozanam. St. Vincent is noted for his help of the poor, and his patronage helps the organization today.
September 28 - Wenceslaus
We all know the Christmas carol about Good King Wenceslaus. He is the patron saint of the Czech Republic. His father was converted by Sts. Cyril and Methodius (they're pretty awesome as well!)
September 29 - Archangels Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael
These three archangels share a feast day. Let's say a special prayer to them!
September 30 - Jerome
A great scholar and translator of the Bible into the Latin Vulgate. He converted to Christianity and eventually became a Doctor of the Church.
September 3 - Gregory the Great
Pope Saints Gregory the Great is a doctor of the church, and the pope for whom Gregorian chant is named. He is one of only three popes to hold the title "Great", as well as one of only two to be called a Doctor of the Church. Gregory was truly one of the greatest popes who has ever lived.
September 5 - Bl. Teresa of Calcutta
Mother Teresa is not a saint yet, but she's on her way (at least to being officially recognized as such). Local prayer to her is permitted as she is a blessed. Around the world, Mother Teresa is perhaps one of the most well known modern saints.
September 17 - Robert Bellarmine
Another Doctor of the Church and an important figure during the Catholic Reformation.
September 17 - Hildegard von Bingen
According to Wikipedia, Hildegard of Bingen (von is German) was many things: a Christian mystic, German Benedictine abbess, author, counselor, linguist, naturalist, scientist, philosopher, physician, herbalist, poet, channeller, visionary, composer, and polymath. Phew, that was a mouth-full! I remember reading about her in my classical music course, and specifically I remember that she was tithed to the church as a nun because she was her parents' tenth child!
September 21 - Matthew the Evangelist
One of the Four Evangelists and one of the twelve apostles. He started as a tax collector.
September 22 - Thomas of Villanueva
St. Thomas of Villanova was a real saint. He did everything he could for the poor, including selling his straw bed to help them. He also made sure his charity went a long way. He taught men to fish, rather than simply giving them a fish. He said: "Charity is not just giving, rather removing the need of those who receive charity and liberating them from it when possible"
September 23 - Padre Pio
Of course we all know Padre Pio. He is one of the most recently canonized saints, and the first and only priest so far to receive the stigmata (believe it or not). He bore the wounds of Christ, yet wanted no publicity. He asked Jesus to remove the signs, but not the pain, because he wanted to be united with Jesus, but not to receive much praise or attention.
September 23 - Linus
Linus was the first successor of St. Peter as Pope and Holy Father of the Universal Church
September 27 - Vincent de Paul
St. Vincent de Paul is the patron of the charitable organization founded by Frédéric Ozanam. St. Vincent is noted for his help of the poor, and his patronage helps the organization today.
September 28 - Wenceslaus
We all know the Christmas carol about Good King Wenceslaus. He is the patron saint of the Czech Republic. His father was converted by Sts. Cyril and Methodius (they're pretty awesome as well!)
September 29 - Archangels Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael
These three archangels share a feast day. Let's say a special prayer to them!
September 30 - Jerome
A great scholar and translator of the Bible into the Latin Vulgate. He converted to Christianity and eventually became a Doctor of the Church.
Nations of the world must listen to the Catholic Church, says Tony Blair
Tony Blair says you should listen to the Catholic Church, but not on EVERYTHING. Check out the article:
Nations of the world must listen to the Catholic Church, says Tony Blair
Nations of the world must listen to the Catholic Church, says Tony Blair
Monday, August 31, 2009
I'm the newest writer for the Catholic Register!
I just found out this morning that I will be writing for the Catholic Register, Canada's oldest English-language Catholic weekly newspaper. It was launched in 1893 and traces its roots back to The Catholic, which was founded in 1830.
The newspaper is distributed throughout Canada, but its presence is not as strong in Atlantic Canada, including Newfoundland, my home province. In addition to writing articles, I will hopefully be helping increase readership in my area.
Specifically I will be writing for the Youth Speaks News section of the paper. I look forward to this great opportunity! I will share more details as they become available.
The newspaper is distributed throughout Canada, but its presence is not as strong in Atlantic Canada, including Newfoundland, my home province. In addition to writing articles, I will hopefully be helping increase readership in my area.
Specifically I will be writing for the Youth Speaks News section of the paper. I look forward to this great opportunity! I will share more details as they become available.
Why does Ramadan get so much publicity?
Ramadan is a time of year when Muslims fast during daylight hours. It happens once a year and lasts around 28 days. Because the Islamic calendar is lunar, each year it is 10 or 11 days earlier than the year before. After Ramadan, the next day is Eid, where there are great feasts in the Muslim world. I remember 7 or 8 years ago when Eid was around the same time as Christmas, but this year it will be in September. But something has struck me as funny, and a little bit disconcerting. People seem more aware of Ramadan than Lent. Lent, of course, is the Christian time of penance, fasting and almsgiving. But I find people are more familiar with Ramadan than they are with Lent.
A couple of examples will illustrate this point. I was speaking to a friend of mine at a party one time. I told him that at the time it was Lent. He seemed a little confused as if he wasn't really familiar with Lent. This person was born in Quebec, the most Catholic province in Canada, and is a completely bilingual white man. I indicated that Lent is a time of fasting and so on for Christians, and as though a light went off inside his head, he exclaimed, "Oh, like Ramadan!" It seems to me, it should have been the opposite. He is not Muslim, and although he himself would probably not consider himself Christian, his heritage surely is.
A second example is of another friend, who is also a white Canadian. Although he himself cannot speak French, he has French ancestors (from France), but mostly of Canadian origin. He dated a Muslim girl for several years. They broke up. Later he started dating a Christian girl. One night the topic of Ramadan came up because it had recently started. He perked up. He became interested becuase he said he normally participates in the fasting, not for religious purposes he says, but for the beneficial effects fasting can have on a person, such as self control. He was concerned however, because his new girlfriend was quite Christian and he felt that participating in Ramadan might give her a bad impression. Interestingly, he failed to consider Lent, which would be wholly acceptable to her, regardless of her particular denomination since he would be imitating Christ. My hunch is that he had never even heard of Lent.
But how do these examples exist? In Canada, about 77% of the population considers themselves Christian, and around 44% call themselves Catholic. Compare this to the less than 2% who are Muslim. I think there may be several reasons for this occurrance. One of the main reasons is something I wrote about in a previous post and it has to do with self-hatred. We as a society seem to hate ourselves. The closer we approach our own culture, religion, way of life, historical values, and even skin colour, the more we want to lash out in angry vitriol. Yet, at the same time, we feel compelled to be overly consiliatory when it comes to other cultures and religions. Statement: Christianity is against abortion. Response: "Well, don't tell me what to do about my body! And how dare the Church try to tell me anything! What about when *insert random, unrelated, exaggerated incident(s) from the Church's past*?" But then tell someone about cannibals in a foreign country and say that's morally wrong and people will once again lash out, but this time in defense of that culture. Response: "How dare you try to push your imperialistic ambitions on these poor innocent cultures that are living how they have lived for centuries! Don't push your morals on them! You're worse than they are for judging them!"
What makes this situation even more surprising is that there is good reason to believe that Ramadan is just a Muslim version of Lent. Mohammed came into contact with Christians, albeit nonorthodox ones, and from them took many Christian ideas and changed them in certain ways. He also took pagan beliefs and incorporated them into Islam. The idea of Ramadan came directly from Lent. In the time when Mohammed got his idea, Christians had a very strict regiment during this penitential season, even stricter than Muslims now. There was little or no eating during the day, eating meat was prohibited, including derivatives such as butter, cream, etc. Also, there was much prayer. Mohammed didn't just take the idea of Lent and turn it into Ramadan, he also took many other ideas from Christianity and modified them. He took the idea of monks praying 7 times a day and changed it to Muslims praying 5 times a day. He took everything he wrote about Jesus, the New Testament, and the Old Testament from the Christians he met, including the idea that only Christ and Mary were sinfree their entire lives. He took the ideas to a certain extent. He did not accept that Christ died on the cross for our sins, and fulfilled all of scripture and thus removed the necessity for another prophet (since Christ fulfilled all prophesy). He could not accept this, because this would mean he was no longer a prophet and that he would simply be a follower. So, Mohammed changed things as he saw necessary to give himself his own self-title of prophet. As a warlord, Mohammed spread his message by the sword. Having said this, I believe Muslims worship the same God (although they have an incomplete concept of him), and I believe many Muslims are good people. But we must also not be afraid of the truth.
Somehow, out of a sense of political correctness, we feel compelled to act as a defense lawyer for all "others", while feeling a similar obligation to denigrate our own culture. I'm not saying we should be disrespectful or encourage racism or prejudice. I'm just saying we need to stand up for ourselves, love ourselves, love our culture, our religion, our way of life. We must respect others as well, but not at the expense of our own self-respect.
It is just so very ironic. If someone speaks about 9/11, it is considered terrible to mention anything about Islam, and if someone does mention that the hijackers were Muslim, it is quickly and emphatically followed up with statements about the peaceful nature of "most" Muslims. However, it is considered completely alright to bring up anything about the Church's history when opposing her in some way. I've read articles written for top newspapers in the United States that have been along the lines of the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, but how dare they speak out against abortion when there was a sex abuse scandal! Or The Catholic Church does not allow women to be priests. How dare they do this, considering all the stuff that happened during the sex abuse scandal! Or The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. But why not use that money to pay off sex abuse victims instead! Imagine using the same logic when it comes to Muslims. As in "Muslim countries are against same-sex marriage. How dare they! Remember 9/11!" It would seem completely illogical, and it would be! It seems logic is not necessary when bashing the Catholic Church.
I believe it is high time that we put away our self-loathing and rediscover a love for our culture and heritage. There are innumerable things to be proud of when it comes to being Christian, and specifically Catholic. The Catholic Church furthered the idea that scientific laws were rational and that science is possible because everything is not as it is right this moment because God is specifically willing it to be that way (i.e. everything is a miracle). The Catholic Church founded the university system we have today. The Western study of astronomy started with the Church. International Law came from the Church. We built innumerable schools, hospitals, and other places which provide social services. We've campaigned for the poor and abandonned. Monks gathered and transmitted knowledge from the ancient world to our own. You may say others have done this also to some extend, but none come anywhere near the Catholic Church. It is the largest chartible organization on the planet. 22% of hospitals in India are Catholic, even though only 2% of the population is. 50% of AIDS victims in Africa are cared for by Catholic organizations. There are many more statistics like these.
Let us spread the Good News of Jesus Christ and his Church!
A couple of examples will illustrate this point. I was speaking to a friend of mine at a party one time. I told him that at the time it was Lent. He seemed a little confused as if he wasn't really familiar with Lent. This person was born in Quebec, the most Catholic province in Canada, and is a completely bilingual white man. I indicated that Lent is a time of fasting and so on for Christians, and as though a light went off inside his head, he exclaimed, "Oh, like Ramadan!" It seems to me, it should have been the opposite. He is not Muslim, and although he himself would probably not consider himself Christian, his heritage surely is.
A second example is of another friend, who is also a white Canadian. Although he himself cannot speak French, he has French ancestors (from France), but mostly of Canadian origin. He dated a Muslim girl for several years. They broke up. Later he started dating a Christian girl. One night the topic of Ramadan came up because it had recently started. He perked up. He became interested becuase he said he normally participates in the fasting, not for religious purposes he says, but for the beneficial effects fasting can have on a person, such as self control. He was concerned however, because his new girlfriend was quite Christian and he felt that participating in Ramadan might give her a bad impression. Interestingly, he failed to consider Lent, which would be wholly acceptable to her, regardless of her particular denomination since he would be imitating Christ. My hunch is that he had never even heard of Lent.
But how do these examples exist? In Canada, about 77% of the population considers themselves Christian, and around 44% call themselves Catholic. Compare this to the less than 2% who are Muslim. I think there may be several reasons for this occurrance. One of the main reasons is something I wrote about in a previous post and it has to do with self-hatred. We as a society seem to hate ourselves. The closer we approach our own culture, religion, way of life, historical values, and even skin colour, the more we want to lash out in angry vitriol. Yet, at the same time, we feel compelled to be overly consiliatory when it comes to other cultures and religions. Statement: Christianity is against abortion. Response: "Well, don't tell me what to do about my body! And how dare the Church try to tell me anything! What about when *insert random, unrelated, exaggerated incident(s) from the Church's past*?" But then tell someone about cannibals in a foreign country and say that's morally wrong and people will once again lash out, but this time in defense of that culture. Response: "How dare you try to push your imperialistic ambitions on these poor innocent cultures that are living how they have lived for centuries! Don't push your morals on them! You're worse than they are for judging them!"
What makes this situation even more surprising is that there is good reason to believe that Ramadan is just a Muslim version of Lent. Mohammed came into contact with Christians, albeit nonorthodox ones, and from them took many Christian ideas and changed them in certain ways. He also took pagan beliefs and incorporated them into Islam. The idea of Ramadan came directly from Lent. In the time when Mohammed got his idea, Christians had a very strict regiment during this penitential season, even stricter than Muslims now. There was little or no eating during the day, eating meat was prohibited, including derivatives such as butter, cream, etc. Also, there was much prayer. Mohammed didn't just take the idea of Lent and turn it into Ramadan, he also took many other ideas from Christianity and modified them. He took the idea of monks praying 7 times a day and changed it to Muslims praying 5 times a day. He took everything he wrote about Jesus, the New Testament, and the Old Testament from the Christians he met, including the idea that only Christ and Mary were sinfree their entire lives. He took the ideas to a certain extent. He did not accept that Christ died on the cross for our sins, and fulfilled all of scripture and thus removed the necessity for another prophet (since Christ fulfilled all prophesy). He could not accept this, because this would mean he was no longer a prophet and that he would simply be a follower. So, Mohammed changed things as he saw necessary to give himself his own self-title of prophet. As a warlord, Mohammed spread his message by the sword. Having said this, I believe Muslims worship the same God (although they have an incomplete concept of him), and I believe many Muslims are good people. But we must also not be afraid of the truth.
Somehow, out of a sense of political correctness, we feel compelled to act as a defense lawyer for all "others", while feeling a similar obligation to denigrate our own culture. I'm not saying we should be disrespectful or encourage racism or prejudice. I'm just saying we need to stand up for ourselves, love ourselves, love our culture, our religion, our way of life. We must respect others as well, but not at the expense of our own self-respect.
It is just so very ironic. If someone speaks about 9/11, it is considered terrible to mention anything about Islam, and if someone does mention that the hijackers were Muslim, it is quickly and emphatically followed up with statements about the peaceful nature of "most" Muslims. However, it is considered completely alright to bring up anything about the Church's history when opposing her in some way. I've read articles written for top newspapers in the United States that have been along the lines of the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, but how dare they speak out against abortion when there was a sex abuse scandal! Or The Catholic Church does not allow women to be priests. How dare they do this, considering all the stuff that happened during the sex abuse scandal! Or The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. But why not use that money to pay off sex abuse victims instead! Imagine using the same logic when it comes to Muslims. As in "Muslim countries are against same-sex marriage. How dare they! Remember 9/11!" It would seem completely illogical, and it would be! It seems logic is not necessary when bashing the Catholic Church.
I believe it is high time that we put away our self-loathing and rediscover a love for our culture and heritage. There are innumerable things to be proud of when it comes to being Christian, and specifically Catholic. The Catholic Church furthered the idea that scientific laws were rational and that science is possible because everything is not as it is right this moment because God is specifically willing it to be that way (i.e. everything is a miracle). The Catholic Church founded the university system we have today. The Western study of astronomy started with the Church. International Law came from the Church. We built innumerable schools, hospitals, and other places which provide social services. We've campaigned for the poor and abandonned. Monks gathered and transmitted knowledge from the ancient world to our own. You may say others have done this also to some extend, but none come anywhere near the Catholic Church. It is the largest chartible organization on the planet. 22% of hospitals in India are Catholic, even though only 2% of the population is. 50% of AIDS victims in Africa are cared for by Catholic organizations. There are many more statistics like these.
Let us spread the Good News of Jesus Christ and his Church!
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Seminarians are choosing traditional training
I've known this for a while, but I found a good article on the topic, found at MSNBC. It shows that seminarians are opting for traditional Catholic training. I think this is logical. The Catholic faith is the Truth, so any deviation from this is a deviation from the Truth. When you present the Truth in all its splendor, it attracts people. I love my Catholic faith. I love reading about saints who persevered in the harshest times and circumstances. I am not inspired by cafeteria Catholics who want to have nothing to do with Truth or sacrifice or living the faith Christ calls us to live. I want the real deal. And so do these seminarians. Great article, worth a read:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32608171/ns/us_news-faith//
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32608171/ns/us_news-faith//
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)