Bill Matthews talks at Bishop Tobin

Chris Matthews invited Bishop Tobin on his show Hardball (which should be called Screwball) to discuss the situation involving him and Representative Patrick Kennedy from Rhode Island. Patrick Kennedy has spoken out against the Church and said some rather nasty things. He opposes the Church's teaching on abortion and makes that very public. Bishop Tobin, as is his right, told Rep. Kennedy to refrain from receiving communion.

I have several issues with this "interview". First of all, Chris Matthews is not only wrong, he's also very rude and disrespectful. First, he brings up a clip of President Kennedy saying he will not take policy instruction from the Vatican. In other words, he would not create a situation where a foreign country controlled the United States. This is rather obvious. Chris Matthews then takes this statement and seems to say the bishop has no right to refuse communion to Patrick Kennedy. Excuse me? Matthews says the bishop is interferring in politics and he has no right to.

Matthews in the second half of the interview mostly, doesn't even let the good Bishop get a word in edge-wise. He lambasts him and continually asks him the same asinine question - how long of a prison sentence should a woman who receives an abortion get. This is absolute nonsense. Apparently Chris Matthews wasn't well catechized and does not understand the role of a Bishop.

A bishop is a representative of the Church, and a spiritual descendent of the apostles. It is his job to lead the local church. He makes statements on faith and morals and all Catholics in his jurisdiction are obliged to follow him. He has spiritual jurisdiction over the members of his flock. So he can do things like refuse communion to someone who violates Church law. A Catholic who supports abortion is violating Church law, and if a politician does it, he is in public disobedience to the Church and is causing scandal, and therefore he can be refused communion, because he is not IN communion.

The bishop also has full rights to criticize any law which kills people or causes another immoral activity to occur. How dare Chris Matthews lambaste the bishop for doing his job. Is Chris trying to squelch the Church, to silence her moral voice? Seems to me he is. Asking the bishop what sentence a woman or the abortionist should receive is sheer nonsense. A better question would be to ask the gravity of the sin committed and the possibility of someone being in a state of moral sin or excommunication based on receiving or performing an abortion. This is the bishop's jurisdiction. Asking the bishop about a civil legal matter is no different than asking a judge if someone needs to go to confession.

On top of that, Bishop Tobin has no training (that I know of) in criminal law so how on earth could he say exactly what type of sentence a woman would receive? Even a seasoned legal analyst couldn't answer that question because a sentence depends on many factors and each case is different. Chris Matthews was so rude that he wouldn't even let the bishop talk, and only kept demanding an answer to the same poorly-thought-out and irrelevant question. I guess after his tirade, Chris Matthews felt satisfied with himself.

The bishop was well within his rights to deny and publically condemn Rep. Kennedy for his politics. If Mr. Kennedy wants to formally remove himself from the Church, he is free to do so. Plus, there is a very disturbing idea out there that religious people have no right to enter into dialogue in the public square. Is this a communist country? This bishop has a double-right. First, he has the right to publically and privately reprimand any Catholic, especially those in public office, who clearly violate Church teaching. Secondly, as a citizen, the bishop has the right to speak out about injustices such as the slaughter of millions of innocent people. On top of that, it must be noted that it wasn't the bishop who initiated all of this, it was Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy first criticized the Church in most scathing and unfriendly terms. Rhode Island is lucky to have a bishop willing to stand up against this attack.

I cannot support Monte Carlo this year

Monte Carlo is an annual event for MUN's School of Medicine. It raises money for charity and in the last 32 years has raised almost $1 million. I went to this event in 2007, and it was a lot of fun. This year however, they are sponsoring Planned Parenthood. By going, others support them, but not necessarily at the level of personal culpability. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the world. They not only provide abortion, they promote it, as a healthy alternative. No mention is made of the humanity of the child. I think others in good conscience should consider boycotting this event until Monte Carlo revokes its support of this organization.

Another University Pro-life group squelched

In a move that's deja vu all over again, another university pro-life group has been banned in Canada. Violating freedom of speech, the university concocted a story to have a pro-life group banned from campus, while claiming to take no position on abortion.

This happened at McGill University. A group of pro-life students had gathered in a room. They compared abortion to a holocaust. If one believes life begins at conception and millions of babies are being killed through abortion, then this is indeed accurate. In any event, this was not public, but private and people were totally free to join. The meeting was stormed by pro-abortion protesters. Ironically, it wasn't the protestors who stormed the peaceful meeting who got in trouble, but the group who was having the meeting. Ironic, but not unexpected. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

Check out the biased CBC article below:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/11/18/montreal-ssmu-pro-life-choose-life.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g4:r3:c0:b28951690#socialcomments

Priest who baptized me now leader of Redemptorists!

I received some amazing and wonderful news yesterday. Fr. Mike Brehl, a Redemptorist priest, who baptized me at St. Teresa's Church in St. John's, NL will become the worldwide Superior General of the Redemptorists. He will be the 16th successor of St. Alphonsus Liguori who founded the order in 1732, and now has 5,300 priests. This comes after the Redemptorist's general meeting a few weeks ago.

You can read more about this from the Catholic News Agency: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17590

St. John's Archdiocese Fight Against H1N1

Church is a very communal place and with the H1N1 scare, Archbishop of St. John's Martin Currie is taking steps to prevent its spread in Newfoundland. There will be several steps taken, but I'm wondering about the ramifications of these steps. They include:

• No holy water in fonts around the church. Rather, holy water will be sprinkled on people by aspertion, similar to what happens now during Christmas and Easter.
• No hand shaking during the sign of peace. Rather, people will greet each other without shaking.
• The precious blood (wine) will not be distributed during communion. Rather, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ will be distributed only in the form of bread.
• Communion cannot be received directly on the tongue, only in the hand.

I have certain issues concerning these steps. I think the holy water aspersion is fine, and perhaps aspersion should be done during Mass anyway, even when there is no risk. It is an extra reminder of our baptism. No hand shaking is also a good precaution, as long as people continue to greet each other in some way. Not receiving the precious blood is not a huge issue, because by receiving Christ in the form of bread, you receive all of him. Also, it is rare to have Eucharist in the form of wine at a Sunday Mass anyway.

I think more steps could have been taken, but it seems they are somehow too ingrained in the liturgy. One example is extraordinary ministers of communion. If only the priest gave communion, there would be a lower risk of spread of H1N1. If you increase the number of people distributing communion, you increase the risk that one will spread it. Why this wasn't changed, I'm not sure.

I started writing this blog post before I actually went to a Mass where these rules were implemented. One danger I see is that this will put even more pressure on EVERYONE to receive communion in the hand. Once the few people who still receive it on the tongue get used to receiving on the hand, they may not go back to the tongue. This is especially true if the Archbishop does not issue a statement indicating a return to normal can happen.

Another issue I have is that at the Mass I attended, there was no aspersion of holy water. This is very unfortunate because holy water also was not available in the fonts.

I'm very glad the Archbishop decided to take these precautions. People who are afraid of H1N1 will not stop going to Mass completely. I just hope the future is also considered.

Crucifixes banned in Italy

Shocking news has come from Italy that the European Union has declared that the country can no longer have crucifixes in its schools and courthouses. Italy is an almost 100% Catholic country, whose schools and courthouses were founded by the Church.

Obviously, many groups have protested this decision. This is another example of the European Union forcing its atheistic worldview on countries. I think the worst thing a country in Europe can do is join the European Union. Can you imagine a Muslim country forcing all schools to remove the Koran or to remove the crescent moon? Never. Italy should just remove itself from the European Union completely. The EU is becoming far too powerful for its own good, but not for the good of anyone else.

Unfortunatley many people regard separation of church and state as a complete annihilation of religion from all public areas. It's becoming like smoking. The parallels are shocking and startling. Sure, you can set up a private building where you are allowed to practice your religion, but if even a single individual is affected by it that doesn't want to be, you have to stop. Why should moral relativists and atheists have all the say when the vast majority of the country does not belong to either of these groups.

Europe needs to stand up for its cultural heritage, rather than succumb to modern atheism. I learned a good lesson from school. About 15 years ago, schools in Newfoundland were changed from religion-based schools to public schools with no particular religion. Many people thought a religious bias would be replaced with an unbiased education. 15 years of experience have proven this completely wrong. Rather than unbiased, students are indoctrinated with extreme liberal ideas, such as contraception and abortion are the greatest things since sliced bread, promiscuity is now called "responsible" sexual relationships, that humans are parasites who are only destroying the Earth and the fewer of us the better, that all religions and belief systems are the same and that morals are completely relative, that communism and socialism are good systems and that capitalism and free market entrepreneurship are evil and that corporations are evil, that we should rely on and trust the government in all things, etc, etc, etc. The same thing will happen in Europe unless they wake up and stop their own self-hatred. Europe (and Canada) need to reclaim their Christian heritage that made them great.

Guy Fawkes Night Bonfire

This may seem rather ironic, but last night I went to watch a bonfire for the occassion of Guy Fawkes Night. It's ironic because the celebration of Guy Fawkes Night started after Mr. Fawkes tried to blow up the Parliament Buildings in London, along with the King, because English Catholics had very few rights. Fawkes and his associates had hoped that King James I, whose mother was Catholic, would be more sympathetic to the cause of Catholics and allow more freedom. But he didn't. So, Guy Fawkes took matters into his own hands.

Fawkes had prepared many barrels of gunpowder in the lower chambers of the parliament buildings. Everything was ready, but he was caught before he could proceed with his plot. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered. A gruesome death.

Every year since then, people have burned effigies of Guy Fawkes, and shockingly also the Pope. Guy Fawkes Night, now mostly known as Bonfire Night, is celebrated in our province of Newfoundland, but without the effigies or anti-Catholic sentiment. I would estimate about half the people who participate are Catholic.

The reason I went was to watch an enormous bonfire, with hundreds of people gathered around. Since it is banned in my city, I had to go to a nearby town to watch the fire. This one was officially set up by the fire department. Often, there is trouble on this night because people make their own fires. In fact, a house was burnt down last night. But apparently the situation is much better than it was in the past.

There's something primal about watching an enormous bonfire. With all the people gathered around, it gives a good sense of community, and it's fun to watch a fire which is fueled by dozens, perhaps hundreds of trees. With the anti-Catholic sentiment removed, these festivities are quite enjoyable.

Pat Condell - entertainment for those unconcerned with truth

Pat Condell produces video condemning religion. They are so full of inaccuracies, even if he purposely sat there trying to lie, he couldn't do a better job. I will analyze one of his videos and set him right on many of his errors. The video is located at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LStcajxvb_E

He starts the video by asserting the Pope was "forcing Christianity" into the constitution. The Pope did not force anything, but rightly pointing out that since Europe was built on Christianity, the European constitution should mention its foundation. That's no different than mentioning Walt Disney when discussing Disneyland.

The second thing he mentions is that some bishops in England want to prevent politicians who help pass laws which will increase aboriton from receiving communion. This is obvious. If you commit a sin by violating the morals of your religion, then you must first go to confession before receiving communion. Communion means everyone is together in their beliefs. Obviously someone who condones the killing of innocent children are not in union with Catholics.

Pat Condell then dispecable expresses his view that the Virgin Mary should have killed Jesus while he was in her womb. To wish anyone had been slaughtered is an inhumane comment. To wish this on Jesus Christ is truly outrageous.

Pat then says the Catholic Church's "preferred" method of abortion is in a back alley with a knitting needle. I don't suspect this comment even deserves a response, but just in case, the Catholic Church is against all killing of innocent human beings. Why is this so hard for Pat to understand? That is regardless of whether it's in a back alley with a knitting needle or in a doctor's office. They are both equally morally wrong.

Pat Condell, of course an expert in the AIDS epidemic in Africa, asserts that the Church "wants" people in Africa to die because she does not allow condoms. It's too bad his less educated peer, the head of Harvard AIDS prevention program didn't get the memo and the poor unknowledgable dummy sided with the Pope, and agreed that condoms are not the solution. Pat, quick, please resend that message to this uneducated twit!

Pat the proceeds to blurt out 3 falsehoods. First, as explained in a previous post of mine, Vatican officials do not "live" in the basilicas and cathedrals. These are there for everyone. They receive millions of visitors each year. The pope in fact lives in an apartment probably smaller than Pat's.

Pat further embarasses himself by proclaiming that he "discovered" the Pope was a "nazi"! Wow Pat, you found out so fast! Just 2 years after everyone else. The truth is the Pope was forcefully conscripted into the Nazi Youth, as were all children under a certain age at the time. However, not surprisingly, Pat fails to mention that young Ratzinger risked his life to abandon his post at the time.

Continuing his fairy tale, Pat says the Vatican funded the Nazis. This is pure fiction. I wrote another post on the Nazi situation and the Church. Pope Pius XII personally saved hundreds of thousands of Jews. Many people praised him, including the first prime minister of Israel and Albert Einstein. The pope even had an assassination plan drafted up in case the pope stood as too much of an obstacle to the Nazi regime.

He says the church exudes an aura of evil. Maybe to him, being an atheist who hates God, but to almost everyone else, the Church represents truth and purity. Pat continues by attacking celibacy. Obviously he cannot see the spiritual good of celibacy, by following Jesus and St. Paul, and devoting one's life entirely to Christ. He instead can only see his base animal desires going unfulfilled. Aww, poor Pat.

Pat Condell goes on to, in a very vulgar way, say priests like to perform pedophilia. He needs to get the facts straight. Pedophilia is NOT caused by celibacy, and of course, the church would see this as evil, which he seems to imply is the opposite case. He brings up the African and AIDS situation, but I have already addressed that.

He then asks any cardinals or bishops who may be watching if it's more evil for a priest who rapes a boy to wear a condom or not. This is an absurd question. Sort of like asking "When stabbing someone to death with a knife, is it better to wear gloves or not." It's sheer nonsense.

Pat also asks if it would be all ok if the priests went to confession afterwards? The current guidelines would take that priest out of ministry permanently and cooperate with the authorities.

Finally, Pat Condell goes completely overboard and suggests the pope, instead of paying out money for sex abuse scandals, instead find out how much it would cost to get "professional" sex workers to do these evil acts. A better solution is to do whatever necessary to remove pedophilia from the priesthood completely. Why would you substitute one evil for another? Perhaps for Pat, where evil does not exist (since God does not exist), it makes no difference. He even calls the work of sex workers "legitimate".

He ends by saying the Catholic Church should clean its own stained glass windows before telling others what to do. Well the Church is a beacon of hope and guidance for all of humanity. And it is doing everything it can to ensure the holiness of its leaders at the same time.

Pat, whatever you do, don't become a historian.

Quebec doctors approve of euthanasia

Canada is potentially entering very dangerous territory. Quebec's doctors have voted at least 2/3 in favor of allowing euthanasia in some circumstances. Without proper understanding and context, this could be a way of ushering in killing of the elderly just as killing of the unborn was ushered in several decades ago.

There are some Catholic principles which come into play here. Sometimes a patient will be suffering tremendously, and a high dosage of painkiller must be administered to alleviate the pain. Sometimes the painkillers themselves will cause death. This is acceptable since death is an unintended side effect of the painkillers. This is covered under the law of double effect. However, what is not covered is the purposeful killing of a patient to relieve his suffering.

The different is the intent. One the intent is to relieve suffering, the other the intent is to kill. Regardless of the goals, those are the intents. Right now in Canada, doctors will give doses of painkillers which end up killing the patient. This is part of the reason why this legislation was enacted. Doctors of course do not want to face possible criminal charges for doing something which is not morally wrong. If that was the only goal of this legislation, that would be alright, and I would vouch for it.

However, it goes further than this. Right now, it is a little grey, but talk has emerged that it could be used for patients whose death seems imminent or inevitable. I would argue, if this is the case, why not let the individual die a natural death. I believe they want more than that. They want to speed up the process, remove the burden on the health care system.

Allowing euthanasia will be a bad idea because doctors and scientists tend to bring the law to its furthest possible limit. A common occurrence is that an elderly person will be made to feel as a burden, and the sources of this are innumerable. First, their family discusses quite vocally how much trouble it is taking care of this person. If that wasn't enough, they are reminded that they are a burden to the hospitals and that if the hospital is full and they are taking up a bed, they are denying others the opportunity to receive care. With the introduction of loose euthanasia laws, doctors will begin to suggest that patients do the "right thing" and die with "dignity". These poor elderly people will be assailed from all angles. Not one person will put away their selfishness and suggest this person is loved and should not end their life.

In the Netherlands, it has been reported that in one year 550 people were euthanized against their wishes. This should send chills down our spine. Bill C-384 here in Canada was sent for a second round of debate, and it was downright scary. It said people should have the right to opt for euthanasia for mental or physical distress. Now all of a sudden, instead of helping people with mental illness who want to end their lives, we want to facilitate it. If people were being logically consistent on the issue of euthanasia, then they would not try to prevent suicide, but rather assist people in committing it. Instead of suicide help lines, we would have suicide how-to lines. Why not? People who want to commit suicide are mentally or physically distressed. But we have always recognized that these people need help, not help in dying.

Let's hope that people are wise enough to reject this proposed legislation.

Is clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church used to preserve the Vatican's wealth?

With the recent news from the Vatican that there is now a more streamlined way for disillusioned Anglicans to join the Catholic Church, a discussion of clerical celibacy has once again arrisen. This is a legitimate discussion, but there are some old canards that have reared their heads. The two main ones are that priests should be allowed to marry because priestly celibacy was only implemented by the Vatican to protect the Church's assets and also that priestly celibacy would reduce incidences of child sexual assault. Both of these are false assertions and I will explain why.

There is no evidence that the Church implemented celibacy to keep its grip on Church assets. Celibacy is advocated by Christ and St. Paul. Jesus says any man who becomes a eunuch for the kingdom of God is very blessed (spiritual eunuch). St. Paul recommends celibacy for those who can do it without sinning. Obviously St. Paul and Jesus were not advocating celibacy to keep their grips on the treasury of the apostles.

Celibacy was widely practiced by Christians well before it became mandatory for priests. Desert fathers and monks were always celibate and did not marry. It seems all of the apostles were celibate, especially after they became disciples of Jesus. Of course, there is mention of Peter's mother in law, but there is no mention of his wife, and we do not necessarily have evidence that Peter continued with marital relations after becoming an apostle. In any event, it does not matter in this case.

Celibacy was made mandatory by the Church in later centuries because it was seen as beneficial in many ways. First of all, it was following the example and teaching of Christ. Secondly, a man would not be torn between the will of God and the will of his family. The Bible speaks of the virgin who is concerned only with God, but contrasts this with the man who is concerned for his family. Celibacy allowed missionaries to travel to far off lands and convert large numbers of people. It allows priests to have a life of contemplation and holiness. They can be available at any time for an emergency, such as giving last rites. Celibacy is a way for a man (or woman) to give himself fully to the service of God.

What about money and inheritance? I would invite you to think logically about this. From a financial point of view, priests do not generate revenue, they are a liability. The more priests the Church has, the more it has to pay to give them a place to live, to provide food, transportation, travel costs, and other living expenses. Not only that, the Church pays for them to attend seminary in the first place, which also includes lodging. The Church is not preventing priests from passing on their inheritance, rather, priests would have no inheritance, and without the financial support of the church, would be paupers. The claim that the Church enforces celibacy in order to maintain its hold on finance simply flies in the face of reason.

Another illogical thought which has been floated by some Church skeptics is the idea that allowing priests to marry would reduce or eliminate priestly sexual abuse. Anything which can eliminate this perversion is very welcome, but this suggestion may not be sensible. Again, let's look at the information. The vast majority of cases of priestly sexual abuse involved POST-pubescent boys by male priests. This is clearly a homosexual issue, otherwise the abuse would have been of girls or young women. If these priests have homosexual tendencies, allowing them to marry would do little. They have a desire for sexual relations with male children, so allowing them to marry women would not satisfy this desire. Over the past couple of decades, there have been few incidences of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. With new guidelines, the incidences can be expected to decrease even further. There is also a bias in the public and in the media. Teachers sexually abuse children at a rate 4 times higher than priests, but the stereotype of pedophile teacher has not emerged. It's also important to note that around 98% of the time where a teacher was caught in this illicit activity, they were allowed to continue teaching or transferred to a new school. Many accuse the Catholic Church of acting inappropriately, but these allegations do not seem to come out for teachers. It seems this practice was not specifically endorsed by the church, but rather by psychologists who felt these priests and teachers were rehabilitated.

As you can see, mandating clerical celibacy is not a matter of maintaining wealth for the Vatican, nor would it reduce clerical sex abuse claims. Rather, it would have negative effects on the Church.

Pope makes new Anglican rite

Great news has just emerged from the Vatican. The pope will be creating a new Anglican rite for Anglicans who want to become Catholic. This will ease the transistion of tens of thousands of Anglicans who want to come home to Rome. There's a few things to keep in mind. These people must become Catholic and will be subject to the Pope like all Catholics are now. There will be no difference. The only difference is that they will have a liturgy that they are more or less used to. Catholics could also attend these Anglican-rite Catholic Churches.

The main reasons why Anglicans are becoming interested in the Catholic Church is that there have been many unfortunate changes in the Anglican church, including female ordination, acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and bishops and blessing of homosexual unions. The liberalization of the Anglican church started in 1930 when they became the first Christian church to accept contraception. It sort of went downhill from there. At this point, there is a real schism in the Anglican communion between conservative and liberal factions.

That's not to say these are the only reason former Anglicans are now Catholic. A look theologically will show the Anglican church lost holy orders several centuries ago, and therefore their sacraments are not valid. Some are surely joining because they recognize the Catholic Church as the one founded by Jesus Christ which has maintained the four marks of the church - one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

This is great news. Let's look forward to welcoming our Anglican brothers and sisters into full communion with the Church.

I can't wait to watch Molokai: The Story of Father Damien 1999

There was an awesome movie made about Fr. Damien who was recently canonized by the Pope. Check out the preview, it looks awesome!

Love exists and so does God

I just had a random thought. Many atheists mock theists, Christians specifically, because they believe in something invisible, i.e. God. They say we believe in an invisible man in the sky. They say there is no scientific proof that God exists. They refuse to accept how God has transformed our lives or go by feelings because these cannot be measured by science. But there is something else that cannot be measured by science and is also invisible. That is Love.

Love is invisible, is expressed through feelings and life changes, and cannot be detected or measured with scientific instruments. Many people have gone to their deaths for love, so it can be very powerful. But no one ever says, If you exist LOVE, strike me down! All atheists, or nearly all, would believe in love. But why? If you can believe in love, you can believe in God.

It's interesting also to note that Christians say God is Love. The first encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI was titled Deus Caritas Est, which translates into God is Love. Let's pray that our friends who do not yet belief in God, will see this and believe.

Where's the hot air balloon boy?

A young child, aged 6, was sent up into a hot air balloon owned by him and his family. Authorities were chasing the balloon, which has now landed about 4 minutes ago, but the boy doesn't seem to be anywhere to be found. I don't know where he is. I'm following this story and this seems very tragic. Where is the young boy?

Obama DOES NOT deserve a Nobel Prize

Barack Hussein Obama does not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. Not in a million years, unless he has an St. Augustine-like turnaround. Obama has done absolutely nothing for peace. After reading further information on this, it seems the committee which awarded Obama the peace prize were doing it more to get back at Bush than to actually say anything about Obama. This committee hated Bush with a passion.

There are many reasons why Obama should not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. These include the following (and this is certainly not an exhaustive list):

- he voted against a bill that said if a baby was being aborted in a late term and was born alive, medical care should be given to this baby. Obama voted 3 times to not give such a baby any care, even though he was virtually alone in this.

- Obama wanted to pass a bill which eradicated all abortion laws in the whole country, including every state, such as parental notification, counseling, etc. - he has been recorded as saying
previously during a national prayer breakfast that there is no God that condones the killing of a child, so why the double-talk?

- he bowed down to the leader of Saudi Arabia

- he said the US is not a Christian country (even though 80% of the population is). This was totally unnecessary.

- he covered up Jesus's name when he was speaking at Notre Dame university. It was above him during the speech, and he had a black cloth put over the words IHS (which is a Greek symbol for Christ)

- he says during his campaigning that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but when he's elected he devotes an entire month to LGBTand basically says how everyone oppresses gay people

- he has quadrupled the national deficit, has socialized banks and automobile companies

- he made fun of the Special Olympics

- he said the US has 57 states

- he seems unable to pick an ambassador to the Vatican, because he can't find one person who is pro-life in his cabinet

That's just a brief list. There are many more things.

But the big question is, what HAS he done exactly? Nothing.

Atheistic source of the Invention of Lying not hard to find

I did a little research to find out why The Invention of Lying contained such a blatant atheistic perspective. The reason became quite apparent when looking into the beliefs of those involved with the movie.

First, the main character is played by Ricky Gervais. Gervais is an atheist and belongs to atheist organizations. Not surprisingly, he is also an animal rights activist (many atheists take on this cause).

Secondly, a major role is played by Louis CK, infamous for his vitriolic and extremely offensive portrayals of the Catholic Church and religion in general. He made a video for youtube which is downright nauseating, where he claims the Catholic Church was set up for one goal - to rape boys.

I could not find specific information regarding the religion of others involved with the film, besides the religion into which they were born. As usual with other anti-religious movie, this one is doing poorly. It premiered in 4th place and has only made around $7 million in the box office so far. I'm not sure how big the budget was for this movie, so I can't say if they will lose money.

Let's hope that at least if moral reasons do not stop theatres from releasing anti-religion films, financial reasons will.

The Invention of Lying - a movie for angry atheists

Last night, my girlfriend and I went to see The Invention of Lying, starring Ricky Gervais of the sitcom The Office in Britain, and Jennifer Garner, among others with smaller roles, such as Philip Seymour Hoffman. The movie started off with promise, looking like it would be a fun and entertaining. However, it wasn't long before an atheistic theme became obvious.

I will not give any major spoilers, but I will give you my thoughts on this movie. Very quickly into the movie, we realize the premise: people are in a world where they are unable to lie. In fact, people are brutally honest about everything and do not keep secrets. When Ricky Gervais goes to see Jennifer Garner for a date, she clearly tells him he is fat, not very attractive, and because of these things combined with his financial situation, she will probably not date him again. She also mentions certain vulgar things she will be doing.

Ricky's life seems rather dull and uninspiring. He is doing poorly at his job, and of course, everyone lets him know. He ends up getting fired and doesn't have enough money to pay for rent. He goes to the bank to get everything he can. The teller says the system is down, and asks how much he has in his account. Since lying doesn't exist, everyone believes everyone else no matter what. Ricky makes history when he asks for $800 instead of the $300 he actually has. When the system comes back up, it shows he only has $300, but since lying is not possible and the concept doesn't even exist, the teller apologizes and gives him the $800 he asked for, attributing the discrepancy to a computer glitch. This is the beginning of his lying.

Now that Ricky's character has discovered this ability, he abuses it. He lies about many things to get what he wants, such an enormous mansion, which probably took no more than telling the vendor that he already paid for the house. The movie was going along fine, until Ricky's mother is dying in hospital. This is where the atheistic themes come in. His mother is terrified with death. Ricky, out of desperation and to put her mind at ease, tells her that when she dies, she will not just go into nothingness, but will instead be sent to a place where she is reunited with dead family members, where everyone is happy and gets a mansion, where all our desires are fulfilled. His mother dies in peace.

News spreads about this place that Ricky spoke about with his mother and soon hundreds of people had gathered around his house to find out more. Out of desperation, seeing the crowd would not leave, Ricky took a couple of pizza boxes and wrote out 10 things about God. He brought out the boxes like Moses with the tablets containing the 10 commandments. This was an obvious poke at monotheism and religion in general. He then proceeded to talk about God and Heaven. They did not say God though, instead they mockingly said "the invisible man in the sky". Someone asked if the "invisible man" lived in the clouds, and Ricky said no, he's above the clouds, then someone asked if he's in space, and Ricky said, no not that high. Then he said the place you go when you die is the best place imaginable and you get the best mansion.

Then Ricky went on to answer questions. The questions were very childish and the answers were all made up. There was the obvious implication that someone just invented heaven and God and everyone just wanted to believe him. Then atheistic arguments against the existence of God came out. Some people asked if the invisible man in the sky caused their relative to get sick, or if he made a natural disaster happen. Ricky responded in the affirmative. Then everyone got really angry at this invisible man in the sky. But Ricky calmed them down by saying this invisible man also does all the good stuff too, and like dumb animals, the crowd was appeased.

The implication of the movie was that everyone there was super gullible and didn't ask any real questions and just believed whatever they heard. It was implied that Christians are like that as well. Only Ricky seemed to have any ability to think on his own and not appear to have an IQ below 50, and he was the only one who didn't believe in the invisible man in the sky.

There were other elements of mockery. For example, the church had a sign saying something like it was a quiet place to go to imagine the invisible man in the sky. The "pastor" wore what looked like a cross, but was actually a silouette of Ricky holding his arms out with the tablets in them. The pastor started the marriage ceremony and gave a very naturalistic view of marriage saying things like do you want to be with this person for as long as you feel like it, do you think your genetics match, etc.

If this movie wasn't atheistic enough, near the end, Ricky goes to visit the grave of his mother. He laments the fact that he created this big lie and that all these gullible people believed him. He then says she's not in heaven, she's in the ground. Later, he tells his friend that he made up all this stuff about the invisible man in the sky and that in fact there is no man in the sky.

The basic premise of this whole movie is that those who believe in God are doing so for irrational and emotional reasons, based around their fear of death and the afterlife. They are presented as stupid, unintelligent, and extremely gullible. Atheists are presented as being intelligent and not bound to a false hope that's based on nothing but desire. Ricky is seen as a man whose eyes were opened, who was freed from the oppression of a lie, who "knows the truth". He's not a sheep who is ready to follow anywhere he's told to go. He uses his own brain, makes his own decisions.

Of course, the truth is much different. The fact is atheists are afraid of judgment, or Hell, and they do not want there to be an afterlife because that would mean they must adhere to a moral code. Without judgment, we can live any way we choose, treat others in any fashion, and feel no regret for anything. There are no schools or hospitals or any great monument erected to an atheist. Without true believers, the world would be a much more desolate place. It is kind of ironic that atheists are so vitriolic against theists, even though without theists, the world would be much more bleak.

I give this movie 1 out of 5 stars. I would have given it 0, but there was a funny scene where the main character said that in heaven, you could have any flavour of ice cream that you could imagine. A man in the crowd became very upset, because he said he imagined a flavour of vanilla and skunk! Now that I said the only funny part, there's no reason for you to see this movie.

Pope will visit the United Kingdom next year, 2010

Pope Benedict XVI will be visiting the United Kingdom next year, marking the first time in over 25 years a pontiff will make this trip. This comes after an invitation by Gordon Brown, the prime minister of England, and is being looked forward to by the Catholic bishops of the country, as well as the Anglican's top man, the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

I read this article on the BBC, and the response seems rather upbeat and positive. Usually when British mainstream media, including the BBC, report on issues related to the Catholic Church it's 10% positive and 90% negative. Even if the article is on a good topic, they find some way to screw it up. For example, they may write an article that goes along the lines of "Catholic Church donates millions to orphanages, so why are they not paying enough for sex abuse cases?" or "Pope condemns all violence and leads vigil for victims of the Holocaust, BUT there are hundreds of critics who say the Vatican didn't do enough to defeat Hitler". The only place you hear this is with the Catholic Church and/or the Vatican. Can you imagine this article: "Brad Pitt donates to UN, but many say he is a poor moral voice because he committed adultery with his first wife!" or how about "The German Chancellor says violence is not the answer and we must renew our commitment to peace. However, many critics say this is too little, too late, given Germany's role in the Holocaust." It's not acceptable in those cases, so it shouldn't be with the Catholic Church.

In this particular article about the pope's visit to England, the response was very good from the user comments. One user said he would schedule his vacation around the pope's visit. Others praised this action. The article did however make clear that there would be protests surrounding his visit by certain groups. Of course, you'll get your typical protest groups at such events. I do not think it's bad for the media to report on opposition to things, but I think everything should be put into perspective. The same standards should apply in all cases. If opposition is shown, it should be relevant and timely. For example, to protest something from this pope because Pope Pius XII alledgely didn't "do enough" during the Holocaust is ridiculous.

To go back to the topic, I think it's really wonderful that the Pope will be visiting the UK next year. I think this is a very good time for this visit given the current affairs of the Anglican church. Many in that church are disillusioned by moral liberalization taking place. The Anglican church has historically been seen as one of the closest relatives of the Catholic Church, save perhaps the Orthodox, in terms of liturgy and beliefs. That started to change in 1930 when the Anglican church became the first to advocate the possibility for couples to use contraception. Then around fifteen years ago, the Anglican church started to ordain women. This caused a major rift between Catholic - Anglican relations. Then a few years ago, Anglicans accepted an openly gay bishop. And most recently, the Anglican church has said it will perform marriage for gay couples. Beyond a miracle, this rift has become an insurmoutable chasm. The Church sees this as a new opportunity for evangelization. Many Anglicans are seeking true Christian teaching, and the Catholic Church is in a great position to receive many members. Indeed, Anglicans are already converting to Catholicism at a great rate.

With the Pope's visit to England, there will be a great opportunity for evangelization. This may be the first time many Britons have heard the pope unfiltered. Usually they hear about the pope from the mainstream media, but hearing his words directly may have a great effect. I read an article recently about 10 Agnlican nuns coming over to the Church. Also, another story says there are around 40,000 Anglicans who may be welcomed into the Church en masse soon. The Catholic Church already has an Anglican-style liturgy designed for those who are familiar with Anglican services. The only difference is that it is done according to liturgical rules and by a validly ordained priest.

We should all be very grateful for Gordon Brown's invitation. Perhaps he is listening to the pope's message more and more like Tony Blair has (he is now a Catholic convert). My suggestion for the church in the UK is to have lots of priests on hand who can lead people through the conversion process to Christ's Holy Catholic Church.