A new movie starring Al Pacino is a biopic for Jack Kevorkian. The movie glamourises the actions of this man who helped kill about 120 patients. Many of these patients were not terminally ill and just wanted to end their lives. Many were divorced or never married. Of course, the movie portrays Kevorkian as a loving doctor.
The only proper reaction to someone who is suffering is to help that individual. Not help them die. It's like if a friend called and said he was about to jump out of his building to commit suicide, and instead of helping him in his distress, worry, fear, etc. you encouraged him. That's what Jack is doing when he helps people die.
Jack is an avowed atheist, yet feels it's a good thing to let people be killed even though he believes there is no afterlife. This is all part of the culture of death. A culture which rejects anyone who is not a very productive part of the economy. We are burning the candle on both ends, for the very young and the elderly. This is a terrible travesty which must end.
One thing that struck me is that when the actors who played various people in Jack Kevorkian's life were interviewed, they did not have a single negative thing to say. Perhaps they felt it would be unpopular to criticize someone like that. They said a lot of the standard "he's misunderstood", "he's helping people die with dignity", etc. but no one voiced any concern.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Popes weeps with victims
Pope Benedict was in Malta, a small island nation, Friday and Saturday (yesterday and the day before). It was to mark the 1950th anniversary of St. Paul's arrival there. He arrived when he was shipwrecked there. The country is 98% Catholic and Catholicism is the official state religion.
Some people were not sure if the pope would meet with sex abuse victims, but he did for quite some time. It was widely reported that he wept with the victims when hearing their tragic stories. One man who said he had lost his faith said it was restored after the meeting.
When the pope arrived, he was greeted by an enormous band and singing from a large choir. Many bishops from the Middle East visited the small country to join in the procession. You could see certain bishops were wearning non-Latin-rite vestments, this is why.
This trip is wedged between the Holy Father's Birthday (which was on Friday) and fifth anniversary as pope, which is tomorrow.
The visit was a great success!
Some people were not sure if the pope would meet with sex abuse victims, but he did for quite some time. It was widely reported that he wept with the victims when hearing their tragic stories. One man who said he had lost his faith said it was restored after the meeting.
When the pope arrived, he was greeted by an enormous band and singing from a large choir. Many bishops from the Middle East visited the small country to join in the procession. You could see certain bishops were wearning non-Latin-rite vestments, this is why.
This trip is wedged between the Holy Father's Birthday (which was on Friday) and fifth anniversary as pope, which is tomorrow.
The visit was a great success!
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Happy Birthday Pope Benedict
Today, well technically about an hour ago, is Pope Benedict's birthday. He is 83. Happy birthday, Holy Father. Just a few days after his birthday, Pope Benedict was elected Pope five years ago. Obviously this is a big time of the year for the Pontiff. My prayers are with you.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Why The View is wrong about the Catholic Church and the Pope
I just watched a clip from the View which aired earlier this month where the 5 women on the show talk about the Pope. It seems they thoroughly researched their topic, if by thorough you mean looked at a few headlines from the mainstream liberal media and filled in the rest.
I will go through the clip one bit at a time. It can be found here:
http://theview.abc.go.com/video/hot-topics-catholic-church
0:00 First, Sherri Shepherd says she doesn't know much about the Catholic religion. This is one part of the segment I can agree with. Then she says when it comes to children, the Church should speak up or do whatever "you could". Well, the Church has spoken up. The pope has written many letters condeming priest sexual abuse. But much before this, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger was put in charge of weeding out pedophile priests. He was determined to rid the church of what he called "filth".
Cardinal Ratzinger, in fact, decided that a more swift process for trying alleged abusers was preferred over a more thorough, church-sanctioned procedure, and 60% of cases were quickly brought through a trial. And none were dismissed sumarily.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was very tough on these offenses. Many saw its zero tolerance policy as excessive, but Ratzinger would have it no other way.
In 2008, Cardinal Ratzinger met with sexual abuse victims. I saw a television report on the pope meeting with victims when he visited the US. They said he really tried to understand them. Some were clearly moved by his love for them.
No one can claim the pope doesn't care if they read his pastoral letter to Ireland.
0:20 Joy Behar brings up allegations against Pope Benedict. However, there is no evidence that Pope Benedict was even aware of these cases. She does not mention anything specific, because if one were to see the facts, they would realize there is no story. But just mentioning a few locations and then the name of Pope Benedict seems to be enough for the media these days.
0:35 Elizabeth Hasselbeck then says that if a person were in charge like this in the real world, wouldn't they be charged with a crime? That's kind of like saying if there is a sexual assault victim in the US somewhere, the President should be held accountable even if he is unaware of the case. As I mentioned earlier, the pope didn't "do nothing" as Elisabeth claims, but rather did a lot
Then Elisabeth reads a quote from a bishop that says the Church must tell the truth. She then says the pope has to "tell the truth". I'm not really sure what "lie" she's implying. He has admitted that there was sexual abuse in the church. And he has done a lot to stop it. So, where is the "lie"?
1:10 The Whoopi claims that the pope said something to effect that only Americans have a problem with sexual abuse. Could I see a quote about this? I have never heard this and frankly, it sounds absurd. Then she goes on a tirade while slapping her hands together and making fists. There is little content however. She just says he must be adament and clear. He has been very clear. She says he has not been. Is it possible that Whoopi has not read much about the Pope? She calls him "Mr. Pope". That should indicate her depth of knowledge on him.
1:55 Joy Behar now adds on to Whoopi's comments and says "he should admit he was negligent then". Not sure again what she's talking about. Why are they so desperate to lay all the blame on the pope? They are talking in riddles, in nuance. But their goal seems simply to implicate His Holiness somehow.
2:08 Joy Behar, who probably has a degree in theology, now gives us a lesson on Papal infallibility. She says according to the church, the pope is infallible which means he cannot make mistakes. Common misconception, but wrong. Papal infallibility is a very specific doctrine related to issues of faith and morals. It is rarely used. I doubt it has been used even once during Pope Benedict's pontificate. The pope goes to confession regularly. He would not if he could not make a mistake.
Whoopi then pipes up and says "Only God is infallible!" to which Joy Behar declared, "That's not the teaching of the Church". Please, someone get these women a Catechism!
2:34 The tone becomes a little more solemn as Barbara Walters has a "the more you know" moment with the audience. She brings up the fact that many believe homosexuality in the priesthood contributed to this issue. She flatly rejects this claim, of course unsupported by any evidence. Anything that is not politically correct can be dismissed without reason. But in fact, homosexual sin does have something to do with this scandal. Most of the victims of the abuse were post-adolescent boys. Priestly sexual abuse was generally not between the priest and a female. Priests were often teachers, catechists, and other professions which would put them in contact with boys and girls. So the fact that almost all cases involved post-adolescent boys tells us something.
Barbara Walters says there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Perhaps, perhaps not. That's not the point. It may have been homosexuality plus pedophilia. I've read that a common theme in homoerotic literature is a relationship between a man and a younger post-adolescent male. We can even see this relationship in Ancient Rome. It's not a stretch to link homosexual sin to these issues. The conversation sort of continues on this path for a little while then fizzles out.
The Church has made great strides in riding itself of sexual abuse. Virtually no cases have been reported since the 1980s. Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict has done a significant amount to make the situation right. When people say the Church is not doing anything, they are either uninformed or lying.
Much of the information I used can be found in the following New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html
I will go through the clip one bit at a time. It can be found here:
http://theview.abc.go.com/video/hot-topics-catholic-church
0:00 First, Sherri Shepherd says she doesn't know much about the Catholic religion. This is one part of the segment I can agree with. Then she says when it comes to children, the Church should speak up or do whatever "you could". Well, the Church has spoken up. The pope has written many letters condeming priest sexual abuse. But much before this, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger was put in charge of weeding out pedophile priests. He was determined to rid the church of what he called "filth".
Cardinal Ratzinger, in fact, decided that a more swift process for trying alleged abusers was preferred over a more thorough, church-sanctioned procedure, and 60% of cases were quickly brought through a trial. And none were dismissed sumarily.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was very tough on these offenses. Many saw its zero tolerance policy as excessive, but Ratzinger would have it no other way.
In 2008, Cardinal Ratzinger met with sexual abuse victims. I saw a television report on the pope meeting with victims when he visited the US. They said he really tried to understand them. Some were clearly moved by his love for them.
No one can claim the pope doesn't care if they read his pastoral letter to Ireland.
0:20 Joy Behar brings up allegations against Pope Benedict. However, there is no evidence that Pope Benedict was even aware of these cases. She does not mention anything specific, because if one were to see the facts, they would realize there is no story. But just mentioning a few locations and then the name of Pope Benedict seems to be enough for the media these days.
0:35 Elizabeth Hasselbeck then says that if a person were in charge like this in the real world, wouldn't they be charged with a crime? That's kind of like saying if there is a sexual assault victim in the US somewhere, the President should be held accountable even if he is unaware of the case. As I mentioned earlier, the pope didn't "do nothing" as Elisabeth claims, but rather did a lot
Then Elisabeth reads a quote from a bishop that says the Church must tell the truth. She then says the pope has to "tell the truth". I'm not really sure what "lie" she's implying. He has admitted that there was sexual abuse in the church. And he has done a lot to stop it. So, where is the "lie"?
1:10 The Whoopi claims that the pope said something to effect that only Americans have a problem with sexual abuse. Could I see a quote about this? I have never heard this and frankly, it sounds absurd. Then she goes on a tirade while slapping her hands together and making fists. There is little content however. She just says he must be adament and clear. He has been very clear. She says he has not been. Is it possible that Whoopi has not read much about the Pope? She calls him "Mr. Pope". That should indicate her depth of knowledge on him.
1:55 Joy Behar now adds on to Whoopi's comments and says "he should admit he was negligent then". Not sure again what she's talking about. Why are they so desperate to lay all the blame on the pope? They are talking in riddles, in nuance. But their goal seems simply to implicate His Holiness somehow.
2:08 Joy Behar, who probably has a degree in theology, now gives us a lesson on Papal infallibility. She says according to the church, the pope is infallible which means he cannot make mistakes. Common misconception, but wrong. Papal infallibility is a very specific doctrine related to issues of faith and morals. It is rarely used. I doubt it has been used even once during Pope Benedict's pontificate. The pope goes to confession regularly. He would not if he could not make a mistake.
Whoopi then pipes up and says "Only God is infallible!" to which Joy Behar declared, "That's not the teaching of the Church". Please, someone get these women a Catechism!
2:34 The tone becomes a little more solemn as Barbara Walters has a "the more you know" moment with the audience. She brings up the fact that many believe homosexuality in the priesthood contributed to this issue. She flatly rejects this claim, of course unsupported by any evidence. Anything that is not politically correct can be dismissed without reason. But in fact, homosexual sin does have something to do with this scandal. Most of the victims of the abuse were post-adolescent boys. Priestly sexual abuse was generally not between the priest and a female. Priests were often teachers, catechists, and other professions which would put them in contact with boys and girls. So the fact that almost all cases involved post-adolescent boys tells us something.
Barbara Walters says there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Perhaps, perhaps not. That's not the point. It may have been homosexuality plus pedophilia. I've read that a common theme in homoerotic literature is a relationship between a man and a younger post-adolescent male. We can even see this relationship in Ancient Rome. It's not a stretch to link homosexual sin to these issues. The conversation sort of continues on this path for a little while then fizzles out.
The Church has made great strides in riding itself of sexual abuse. Virtually no cases have been reported since the 1980s. Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict has done a significant amount to make the situation right. When people say the Church is not doing anything, they are either uninformed or lying.
Much of the information I used can be found in the following New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Cast the first stone at Tiger Woods?
As we all know and have heard for many months, Tiger Woods was found to have cheated on his wife with possibly over a dozen women. The public reacted very strongly with outrage. Many of Tiger's numerous sponsors, such as Gillette, Accenture, GM, and AT&T among others dropped their sponsorship of him over this.
Obviously what Tiger Woods has done is certainly immoral. A marriage bond should not be broken and a married man should not sleep with other women. There should be unity within a family and this is broken when a man commits adultery.
However, I believe there is also a strong double standard. If you remove Tiger's wife from the picture, then most people would see nothing wrong with what he did. In fact, he would be honored as a manly man that others ought to mimic. He would be put on a pedastal. Other people who have been successful with many women have been held up as examples. Having one partner after another is seen as perfectly acceptable and good.
In fact, many commercials, no doubt from some of Tiger's previous sponsors, show men involved in sexual relationships with women they've just met or multiple women. The implication is that if you use their product, you too can be awesome like them. Look at commercials for razors. There's always a guy who's about to shave with a random girl nearby, who he appears to have slept with overnight. And she doesn't seem to be his wife or even committed partner. Commercials imply you will "get more action" and more girls if you choose their product.
But then when a man does what the commercials promote, he's totally despicable. a subhuman. It seems like the only crime in our society is "cheating". Sure, have sex with a hundred random women, but the minute one of these "relationships" overlap, you are a immoral monster. I'm not saying what Tiger did was good, I'm just saying there's a double standard.
Immorality is not dependent on how people feel about something. It's as though people are upset because his wife feels bad. What if his wife said she didn't care if he had sex with dozens of women? I assume no one would criticize Tiger anymore. So the main thing, if not only thing, people are focusing on is how Tiger is making someone else feel. People are not saying what he did is objectively wrong, they are just saying he hurt someone emotionally. Perhaps we ought to strive for greater levels of purity in general.
I agree that this is a worse situation than a typical "player" who goes from girl to girl. This involves a family and children. My point is that we shouldn't be casting the first stone, simply because we arranged our sexual trysts in a slightly different order.
Obviously what Tiger Woods has done is certainly immoral. A marriage bond should not be broken and a married man should not sleep with other women. There should be unity within a family and this is broken when a man commits adultery.
However, I believe there is also a strong double standard. If you remove Tiger's wife from the picture, then most people would see nothing wrong with what he did. In fact, he would be honored as a manly man that others ought to mimic. He would be put on a pedastal. Other people who have been successful with many women have been held up as examples. Having one partner after another is seen as perfectly acceptable and good.
In fact, many commercials, no doubt from some of Tiger's previous sponsors, show men involved in sexual relationships with women they've just met or multiple women. The implication is that if you use their product, you too can be awesome like them. Look at commercials for razors. There's always a guy who's about to shave with a random girl nearby, who he appears to have slept with overnight. And she doesn't seem to be his wife or even committed partner. Commercials imply you will "get more action" and more girls if you choose their product.
But then when a man does what the commercials promote, he's totally despicable. a subhuman. It seems like the only crime in our society is "cheating". Sure, have sex with a hundred random women, but the minute one of these "relationships" overlap, you are a immoral monster. I'm not saying what Tiger did was good, I'm just saying there's a double standard.
Immorality is not dependent on how people feel about something. It's as though people are upset because his wife feels bad. What if his wife said she didn't care if he had sex with dozens of women? I assume no one would criticize Tiger anymore. So the main thing, if not only thing, people are focusing on is how Tiger is making someone else feel. People are not saying what he did is objectively wrong, they are just saying he hurt someone emotionally. Perhaps we ought to strive for greater levels of purity in general.
I agree that this is a worse situation than a typical "player" who goes from girl to girl. This involves a family and children. My point is that we shouldn't be casting the first stone, simply because we arranged our sexual trysts in a slightly different order.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Friend is baptized
My good friend Jonathan was baptized, confirmed and received his first Holy Eucharist on Easter Sunday at St. Pius X in St. John's. It was during a Tridentine Latin Mass, the first such Mass celebrated in recent times at St. Pius X church. Jon was very much looking forward to that day, and was very joyful to be baptized. Many of the events during the Latin Mass Baptism were new to me. For example, the priest put salt on the catechumen's tongue, saliva on his ears and nostrils. Oil is placed on the head and of course water is used on the head as well. The catecumen thrice rejects Satan. After the baptism, the new member of Christ's church is dressed in a white robe. Latin Mass baptism is very full of symbolism. This is a very exciting time for Jon. Let's keep him in our prayers.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Pro-life March in St. John's, NL
Today I attended a pro-life march at the Health Sciences Centre Hospital in St. John's, Newfoundland. There were around 300 people, many of whom make this pilgrimage every Good Friday. We were there to show our support to the pro-life cause and to walk peacefully against abortion.
I was selected to be interviewed for NTV. She asked me a couple of questions. I do not have a lot of experience giving interviews, so I hope I did well. It will air tonight at 6pm local time. I was interviewed along with a young couple. They are friends of mine and the girl is expecting her first child in June. Her husband spoke to NTV about the miracle of life and said they are very anxious to see their child. He said being an expectant father makes him truly realize why he is pro-life.
The event seems to get larger every year. The weather was beautiful for the event, which contrasts last year where there was rain and cold. Many young families came out with children and pets. It was a very peaceful protest. We said prayers, sang songs, and conversed with each other. It was not a time to condemn those who have had abortions, but rather a time to embrace life.
Let's hope the success of this event continues each year.
P.S. I will try to get a video of my interview for my blog.
I was selected to be interviewed for NTV. She asked me a couple of questions. I do not have a lot of experience giving interviews, so I hope I did well. It will air tonight at 6pm local time. I was interviewed along with a young couple. They are friends of mine and the girl is expecting her first child in June. Her husband spoke to NTV about the miracle of life and said they are very anxious to see their child. He said being an expectant father makes him truly realize why he is pro-life.
The event seems to get larger every year. The weather was beautiful for the event, which contrasts last year where there was rain and cold. Many young families came out with children and pets. It was a very peaceful protest. We said prayers, sang songs, and conversed with each other. It was not a time to condemn those who have had abortions, but rather a time to embrace life.
Let's hope the success of this event continues each year.
P.S. I will try to get a video of my interview for my blog.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Hopefully enough men will get their feet cleaned
Today is Holy Thursday and tonight I will be going to Mass where we commemerate the Institution of the Eucharist (more emphasized than usual), and where the priest will wash the feet of a dozen people to commemerate Christ's actions. The 12 people who have their feet washed represent the 12 apostles. Therefore, the Church has officially said the 12 must be men.
Sadly, in my church, this practice has not been observed. Last year was a dismal display. Only about 7 people approached to have their feet washed, and there were a number of women. Of course there were hundreds of people at the church, but only 7 participated. There is no exception made for women to have their feet washed because they cannot represent the 12 apostles.
My suggestion is that if there are not enough men at first, make a general announcement asking for men to approach. I can guarantee you could easily get 12. People feel as though the people having their feet washed have been predetermined and no one else can be admitted.
According to the website http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu71.htm:
The Vatican instruction regarding the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday that is found in the rubric of the Sacramentary states:
"Depending on pastoral circumstances, the washing of feet follows the homily. The men who have been chosen (viri selecti) are led by the ministers to chairs prepared at a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers he pours water over each one's feet and dries them."
Sadly, in my church, this practice has not been observed. Last year was a dismal display. Only about 7 people approached to have their feet washed, and there were a number of women. Of course there were hundreds of people at the church, but only 7 participated. There is no exception made for women to have their feet washed because they cannot represent the 12 apostles.
My suggestion is that if there are not enough men at first, make a general announcement asking for men to approach. I can guarantee you could easily get 12. People feel as though the people having their feet washed have been predetermined and no one else can be admitted.
According to the website http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu71.htm:
The Vatican instruction regarding the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday that is found in the rubric of the Sacramentary states:
"Depending on pastoral circumstances, the washing of feet follows the homily. The men who have been chosen (viri selecti) are led by the ministers to chairs prepared at a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers he pours water over each one's feet and dries them."
Another note to media: Learn what "Vatican" means
In my past article, I explained what infallibility means when Catholics speak of it. This time I want to address the use of the word "Vatican". The media will use the word Vatican to describe a number of things, but only one can be really used.
Sometimes the media will interview a priest or bishop working at the Vatican or in a particular congregation and the headline will read "The Vatican says...". This is incorrect. This individual does not represent the entire Vatican. When people hear "Vatican" they hear "the Catholic Church". So if this one priest expresses his personal opinion, people are led to believe it's a pronouncement by the entire church.
"Vatican" should really only be used to describe a decision made by the universal church through the Pope. If someone working in the White House made a comment on immigration saying "We need to tighten legislation on immigration", it would be poor journalism to report "United States to get Tough on Immigration". Often the people interviewed are not heads of congregation, and many times may represent an opinion that is not sanctioned.
An example is when a cardinal made comments about Harry Potter books. Media broadly reported that the Vatican had made an official pronouncement on the book. It hadn't. People were misled.
The media needs to be aware of this.
Sometimes the media will interview a priest or bishop working at the Vatican or in a particular congregation and the headline will read "The Vatican says...". This is incorrect. This individual does not represent the entire Vatican. When people hear "Vatican" they hear "the Catholic Church". So if this one priest expresses his personal opinion, people are led to believe it's a pronouncement by the entire church.
"Vatican" should really only be used to describe a decision made by the universal church through the Pope. If someone working in the White House made a comment on immigration saying "We need to tighten legislation on immigration", it would be poor journalism to report "United States to get Tough on Immigration". Often the people interviewed are not heads of congregation, and many times may represent an opinion that is not sanctioned.
An example is when a cardinal made comments about Harry Potter books. Media broadly reported that the Vatican had made an official pronouncement on the book. It hadn't. People were misled.
The media needs to be aware of this.
Monday, March 29, 2010
To the Media: Learn what "infallibility" means.
Over the past several days as a media frenzy has blown up around the Pope, the word "infallibility" has been bandied around quite liberally. It's interjected into almost every news story done on the pope as if trying to show some sort of hypocracy or inconsistency. Unfortuantely, the media almost always uses the word in the wrong way, or uses it in such a way that it's implication is totally off. Perhaps some reporters are aware of the true defintion, but interject it into ambiguous places to give readers or listeners the wrong idea.
For example, I heard a CBC reporter talking about sex abuse, and he ended his commentary with a line something like "accusations are reaching all the way to the Vatican on the doorstep of the man Catholics believe is infallible." Or someone might make a comment like "How can the Pope be infallible if his apology left much to be desired!" and so on.
Infallible has a variety of meanings, but in Catholic theology, there is only one. Papal infallibility does not mean the pope is perfect or that he cannot sin. It does not mean he doesn't make mistakes or that he can't be wrong. It doesn't mean he is holy or righteous or even a good example to follow. Of course, personal goodness and holiness are desirable characteristics of the Pope, but they do not fall under the definition of infallibility.
According to its definition, Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.
So it's a pretty tight definitions. In July 2005, Pope Benedict even remarked "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."
Theoretically the Pope could commit terrible sins and this would not destroy papal infallibility. It is also a necessary doctrine. Since Catholics believe that the Church is the "foundation and bulwark of the truth", there needs to be a final arbiter, and that final arbiter is the Pope. This was promised to the Church when Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against her.
Popes are human, given a special office. Our current and past popes were known to frequent the confessional often, probably more frequently than most other Catholics. These would not be the actions of someone who couldn't make mistakes.
I hope the media start using the definition of infallibility correctly.
For example, I heard a CBC reporter talking about sex abuse, and he ended his commentary with a line something like "accusations are reaching all the way to the Vatican on the doorstep of the man Catholics believe is infallible." Or someone might make a comment like "How can the Pope be infallible if his apology left much to be desired!" and so on.
Infallible has a variety of meanings, but in Catholic theology, there is only one. Papal infallibility does not mean the pope is perfect or that he cannot sin. It does not mean he doesn't make mistakes or that he can't be wrong. It doesn't mean he is holy or righteous or even a good example to follow. Of course, personal goodness and holiness are desirable characteristics of the Pope, but they do not fall under the definition of infallibility.
According to its definition, Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.
So it's a pretty tight definitions. In July 2005, Pope Benedict even remarked "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."
Theoretically the Pope could commit terrible sins and this would not destroy papal infallibility. It is also a necessary doctrine. Since Catholics believe that the Church is the "foundation and bulwark of the truth", there needs to be a final arbiter, and that final arbiter is the Pope. This was promised to the Church when Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against her.
Popes are human, given a special office. Our current and past popes were known to frequent the confessional often, probably more frequently than most other Catholics. These would not be the actions of someone who couldn't make mistakes.
I hope the media start using the definition of infallibility correctly.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Free speech not widely observed in Canadian University
Once again, free speech has taken a back seat to liberal activism in Canada. Ann Coulter was going to speak to students at the University of Ottawa. She is a well-known conservative speaker and has written several books. But many students, some placing the number in the thousands protested her speaking at their campus. They violently yelled and harassed her until her group decided to leave. But it wasn't just students who were doing this. The President of the University sent her a warning her that she could go to prison if she wasn't politically correct enough. But his threat didn't need to be carried out. The open-minded students forced her out.
This is a major blow to democracy. Ann Coulter is a speaker, not a terrorist. Just because she is not Liberal, doesn't mean she has no right to speak. But this is just another step in a terrible policy making its way through the Canadian university system. Groups that support conservative values are being banned from even expressing their opinion. Several campuses across Canada have disallowed pro-life groups from operating, including at the University of Guelph, McGill University, and in my hometown, Memorial University of Newfoundland. It seems being conservative and supporting pro-family and pro-life policies is illegal in Canada.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Pope issues heart-felt letter to Ireland
The Pope issued a very understanding, concerned and loving letter to Catholics in Ireland after a great deal of pain and suffering caused by the clergy sex abuse scandal in that country.
With no stone left unturned, the Pope is showing his solidarity with victims and taking steps to ensure there are no more. He says, "You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured."
The Pope notes that throughout the years, he has sat with victims, spoken to them, tried to understand them. I was watching CNN one day about the Pope's visit to America. There were 3 victims of sex abuse who met with him. They said he was truly on their side and that he showed great concern. One of the victims said the Pope is a truly good man.
The pope, in this letter, also addresses priests who have abused children by saying "You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals."
The pope also addresses parents, children, and priests and religious.
I suggest anyone read the Pope's letter.
For the official English translation, please go to: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html
With no stone left unturned, the Pope is showing his solidarity with victims and taking steps to ensure there are no more. He says, "You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured."
The Pope notes that throughout the years, he has sat with victims, spoken to them, tried to understand them. I was watching CNN one day about the Pope's visit to America. There were 3 victims of sex abuse who met with him. They said he was truly on their side and that he showed great concern. One of the victims said the Pope is a truly good man.
The pope, in this letter, also addresses priests who have abused children by saying "You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals."
The pope also addresses parents, children, and priests and religious.
I suggest anyone read the Pope's letter.
For the official English translation, please go to: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Food, water, shelter, and contraceptives
The Conservative government of Canada has announced that it will provide a large amount of support and help for people in less developed countries. This includes food, water, shelter, and other necessities for life. However, many MPs are angry because Harper's plan does not include condoms, sponges and spermaticide jellies. According to his opponents, these "safe" sex products are just as important as food and clean water.
It's important to note that the government has not specifically refused to include contraceptives, it just wasn't in the first plan. Of course, outrage ensued.
Canadians have been propagandized for so long that many believe contraception is essential for survival. Without contraception, the story goes, we would become mere beasts with no hope for peace. Contraception is what separates us from the animal kingdom.
Organizations have falsely believed that condoms can solve all the world's problems. If a country is war-torn and lives are desvastated, the best way to solve this is to make contraception very accessible. Of course! I would like to know who the condom companies hire to do marketing, they do a really amazing job.
When one of the most devastating earthquakes in history hit Haiti a few months ago, the first thing Planned Parenthood did was raise money to buy condoms, and oral contraception, not to mention material to promote abortion. Forget clean water, food, and medical help, all the people of this devastated land need are condoms. How could I not see that!
I always learned that the basic needs for survival are food, water, clothing, and shelter, but now it seems contraception has somehow made its way to the top of the list.
Many claim that more condoms can alleviate problems in poor countries. In fact, they cannot. More access to contraception actually increases the rates of STIs, abortion, etc. This has been seen in Africa. Uganda is the only country to promote abstinence and commitment. The others promoted greater condom use. Condoms are easier to find in Africa than clean drinking water. All provided by wealthy industrialized countries. So what happened? Uganda was one of the rare success stories in the fight against AIDS.
When the Pope made comments to this effect, many reacted with outrage. You mean to say contraception and abortion are not the solutions to all the world's problems? Did I hear that correctly? But this clearly goes against modern thinking! The pope's comments were also backed up by the head of Harvard's AIDS program.
Just imagine: a dying man approaches a Liberal or NPD MP. What is their first reaction? Water, shelther, food? No, contraception. This is ridiculous. Of all human needs, even for those advocating contraception, condoms and other such things should be at least #50 on the list of things people need to be healthy. It's pretty sad when your political platform is based around the culture of death. People who espouse that culture tend to view everything through their culture-of-death glasses and they will stop at nothing to further their ideology.
It's shocking that instead of backing up the Prime Minister with his support of the less-fortunate, many politicians have decided to focus on contraception. This is while people die from hunger, lack of clean water, war, and disease. Contraception doesn't reduce or eliminate disease, it makes it worse.
For once, these politicians ought to seek ways to help the needy, rather than try to push their culture of death policies.
Oh, and congratulations to Stephen Harper and his government: Way to go!
It's important to note that the government has not specifically refused to include contraceptives, it just wasn't in the first plan. Of course, outrage ensued.
Canadians have been propagandized for so long that many believe contraception is essential for survival. Without contraception, the story goes, we would become mere beasts with no hope for peace. Contraception is what separates us from the animal kingdom.
Organizations have falsely believed that condoms can solve all the world's problems. If a country is war-torn and lives are desvastated, the best way to solve this is to make contraception very accessible. Of course! I would like to know who the condom companies hire to do marketing, they do a really amazing job.
When one of the most devastating earthquakes in history hit Haiti a few months ago, the first thing Planned Parenthood did was raise money to buy condoms, and oral contraception, not to mention material to promote abortion. Forget clean water, food, and medical help, all the people of this devastated land need are condoms. How could I not see that!
I always learned that the basic needs for survival are food, water, clothing, and shelter, but now it seems contraception has somehow made its way to the top of the list.
Many claim that more condoms can alleviate problems in poor countries. In fact, they cannot. More access to contraception actually increases the rates of STIs, abortion, etc. This has been seen in Africa. Uganda is the only country to promote abstinence and commitment. The others promoted greater condom use. Condoms are easier to find in Africa than clean drinking water. All provided by wealthy industrialized countries. So what happened? Uganda was one of the rare success stories in the fight against AIDS.
When the Pope made comments to this effect, many reacted with outrage. You mean to say contraception and abortion are not the solutions to all the world's problems? Did I hear that correctly? But this clearly goes against modern thinking! The pope's comments were also backed up by the head of Harvard's AIDS program.
Just imagine: a dying man approaches a Liberal or NPD MP. What is their first reaction? Water, shelther, food? No, contraception. This is ridiculous. Of all human needs, even for those advocating contraception, condoms and other such things should be at least #50 on the list of things people need to be healthy. It's pretty sad when your political platform is based around the culture of death. People who espouse that culture tend to view everything through their culture-of-death glasses and they will stop at nothing to further their ideology.
It's shocking that instead of backing up the Prime Minister with his support of the less-fortunate, many politicians have decided to focus on contraception. This is while people die from hunger, lack of clean water, war, and disease. Contraception doesn't reduce or eliminate disease, it makes it worse.
For once, these politicians ought to seek ways to help the needy, rather than try to push their culture of death policies.
Oh, and congratulations to Stephen Harper and his government: Way to go!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Reverse Racism on Little Mosque on the Prairie
Racism is an unspeakable crime in Canada. Anyone guilty of it is publically shunned and criticized. But apparantly this is only the case for white Christians. Other people can feel free to mock and criticize the majority with impunity. This is clearly shown on Little Mosque on the Prairie.
The other day I finally decided to watch an episode. Every time I watch Jeopardy, previews for the upcoming show are shown. I heard reviews, but decided to have a look for myself. I was pretty disappointed.
The episode started when the Anglican priest ordered a Jesus statue, ostensibly for his own church. A group of Muslims, including a white woman convert, opened the crate that it came in and saw the statue. One of the men accidentally knocked over the large statue (larger than life-sized) and it smashed to pieces. They were worried about being caught, and made several jokes in bad taste. First of all, it seems rather shocking to feature an episode where a statue of Jesus would be smashed to pieces. Would there ever be an episode where a koran was accidentally shredded in an industrial shredder? Don't count on it. Jesus is obviously the central figure of Christianity and a statue is a likeness of Jesus which we use as a point of reverence. To smash it is a great insult. Why it's part of a comedy is a little odd to me.
We then go to the Anglican priest in the episode. The priest is shown as extremely untrusting and suspicious of Muslims in general. He believes they are all "up to something". This is quickly contrasted with the Muslims' acceptance and tolerance. The bigotted priest accuses Amaar, the young imam, of doing things which are wrong. The only basis for his accusation is that they are Muslim and must be up to something. Amaar, however, is the voice of morality throughout the episodes. He continually petitions others to "do the right thing". This of course is much different from the priest who only jumps to unfounded conclusions and whose morality seems somewhat skewed.
The episode plays like a sort of "after-school special". It attempts to be comedic but falls short as it quickly become a politically correct lesson in Islam. Baber is a more traditional Muslim who seems to be in the episodes simply to provide a springboard for canned responses to popular opinions about Muslims. For example, in the episode Baber demands that his daughter wear a traditional Muslim veil. She refuses. This sets up a great "the more you know" opportunity. A Muslim woman informs the girl that: wearing the veil is a choice, one that must be made by all Muslim women. The entire episode was one contrived and humourless lesson opportunity after another.
The current Anglican priest replaced another who was less morally offensive. It seems they wanted to turn up the contrast of Muslim vs. Christian. Whereas the Muslims are seen as tolerant members of society who want to integrate themselves and help out the community, the Christians are viewed as backward and bigotted. In the episode, the original Jesus statue was (accidentally) replaced by a black Jesus. The priest had a good laugh at this "ridiculous" Jesus and went on a sort of racist rant. This was only to discover that the Catholic priest for whom he was storing the statue was himself black.
I have only watched one episode, and doubt I will watch more. However, I am not spared from the constant onslaught of commercials promoting the show on CBC. It seems the next episode will feature the same Anglican priest in a state of near ecstacy at the possibility of the Muslims leaving the community. I'm sure viewers can expect some comedic genius in that episode.
The other day I finally decided to watch an episode. Every time I watch Jeopardy, previews for the upcoming show are shown. I heard reviews, but decided to have a look for myself. I was pretty disappointed.
The episode started when the Anglican priest ordered a Jesus statue, ostensibly for his own church. A group of Muslims, including a white woman convert, opened the crate that it came in and saw the statue. One of the men accidentally knocked over the large statue (larger than life-sized) and it smashed to pieces. They were worried about being caught, and made several jokes in bad taste. First of all, it seems rather shocking to feature an episode where a statue of Jesus would be smashed to pieces. Would there ever be an episode where a koran was accidentally shredded in an industrial shredder? Don't count on it. Jesus is obviously the central figure of Christianity and a statue is a likeness of Jesus which we use as a point of reverence. To smash it is a great insult. Why it's part of a comedy is a little odd to me.
We then go to the Anglican priest in the episode. The priest is shown as extremely untrusting and suspicious of Muslims in general. He believes they are all "up to something". This is quickly contrasted with the Muslims' acceptance and tolerance. The bigotted priest accuses Amaar, the young imam, of doing things which are wrong. The only basis for his accusation is that they are Muslim and must be up to something. Amaar, however, is the voice of morality throughout the episodes. He continually petitions others to "do the right thing". This of course is much different from the priest who only jumps to unfounded conclusions and whose morality seems somewhat skewed.
The episode plays like a sort of "after-school special". It attempts to be comedic but falls short as it quickly become a politically correct lesson in Islam. Baber is a more traditional Muslim who seems to be in the episodes simply to provide a springboard for canned responses to popular opinions about Muslims. For example, in the episode Baber demands that his daughter wear a traditional Muslim veil. She refuses. This sets up a great "the more you know" opportunity. A Muslim woman informs the girl that: wearing the veil is a choice, one that must be made by all Muslim women. The entire episode was one contrived and humourless lesson opportunity after another.
The current Anglican priest replaced another who was less morally offensive. It seems they wanted to turn up the contrast of Muslim vs. Christian. Whereas the Muslims are seen as tolerant members of society who want to integrate themselves and help out the community, the Christians are viewed as backward and bigotted. In the episode, the original Jesus statue was (accidentally) replaced by a black Jesus. The priest had a good laugh at this "ridiculous" Jesus and went on a sort of racist rant. This was only to discover that the Catholic priest for whom he was storing the statue was himself black.
I have only watched one episode, and doubt I will watch more. However, I am not spared from the constant onslaught of commercials promoting the show on CBC. It seems the next episode will feature the same Anglican priest in a state of near ecstacy at the possibility of the Muslims leaving the community. I'm sure viewers can expect some comedic genius in that episode.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Canadian Government does something sensible - partakes in seal meat
On Wednesday in the parliamentary restaurant, MPs ate seal meat prepared in various ways. This was meant as another show of solidarity by the government with those in the seal industry, including many Newfoundlanders. The EU recently banned the sale of all seal products in Europe. This is also the case in the United States. But these bans are non-sensicle.
Please read my previous article for reasons why this ban is a bad idea: here
I am proud of the Canadian Government for making this move. Their support for the seal hunt is logical and moral, unlike the EU's position.
Please read my previous article for reasons why this ban is a bad idea: here
I am proud of the Canadian Government for making this move. Their support for the seal hunt is logical and moral, unlike the EU's position.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
When Life is more opposed to than Death
The Duggars, a famous American family known for having 18 children and their own TV show, has just given birth to the 19th member and are not planning on stopping until God tells them to. But in this strange world in which we live, many people are not happy about this.
Birth and children are true gifts. Each one is unique and brings something wonderful to the world. But many people are calling the Duggars 19th child a bad decision. They say it is irresponsible to have that many children. In order to justify their objection, they make up things which may or may not be true, but fit with their narrative. They say this many children cannot be loved, they cannot be supported financially, the mother's health is at risk, etc. But there is no coherence, because these are all invented objections.
The baby, named Josie, was born prematurely, but is doing well. She is born into one of the most loving families out there. Also, the family is quite secure financially. The forces of darkness are very upset about this because it acts in accordance with God's command to "go forth and multiply". Having a large family is a blessing from God. These children are well raised, respectful, and loving. They add a lot to their communities and the world.
How can people object to such a beautiful situation? The culture of death detestes stories like this. They contradict the idea that a woman can only be happy if she has a career where she is making tons of money, is independent, and has a maximum of 2 children, preferably a boy and a girl. That's a maximum. Women who denounce their childbearing ability are commended as heroes. One woman I heard of recently felt she was helping the world by rendering herself sterile. Angry, vindictive people refuse to believe that anyone who chooses to be a mother and raise a family is anything but oppressed by a patriarchal society. When a woman does this and is very happy and joyful, it does not fit well into their vision for the world.
On the other hand, a woman who procures an abortion is seen as brave, standing up for the rights of women everywhere, a champion of femininity. The is seen as progressing the women's rights movement. But a woman who bares a beautiful child willingly and lovelingly is attacked and berated. Every article you read will approach this story from the angle of "isn't this too many kids?" Never will a positive point of view be presented.
Also, how can we look at these 19 beautiful children and say "She had too many children"? Which of the 19 would you like to see disappear? These are not numbers, these are living, breathing human beings who are loved by their family and by God. Who are we to say they don't belong?
Let's celebrate this beautiful family and show them our support.
Birth and children are true gifts. Each one is unique and brings something wonderful to the world. But many people are calling the Duggars 19th child a bad decision. They say it is irresponsible to have that many children. In order to justify their objection, they make up things which may or may not be true, but fit with their narrative. They say this many children cannot be loved, they cannot be supported financially, the mother's health is at risk, etc. But there is no coherence, because these are all invented objections.
The baby, named Josie, was born prematurely, but is doing well. She is born into one of the most loving families out there. Also, the family is quite secure financially. The forces of darkness are very upset about this because it acts in accordance with God's command to "go forth and multiply". Having a large family is a blessing from God. These children are well raised, respectful, and loving. They add a lot to their communities and the world.
How can people object to such a beautiful situation? The culture of death detestes stories like this. They contradict the idea that a woman can only be happy if she has a career where she is making tons of money, is independent, and has a maximum of 2 children, preferably a boy and a girl. That's a maximum. Women who denounce their childbearing ability are commended as heroes. One woman I heard of recently felt she was helping the world by rendering herself sterile. Angry, vindictive people refuse to believe that anyone who chooses to be a mother and raise a family is anything but oppressed by a patriarchal society. When a woman does this and is very happy and joyful, it does not fit well into their vision for the world.
On the other hand, a woman who procures an abortion is seen as brave, standing up for the rights of women everywhere, a champion of femininity. The is seen as progressing the women's rights movement. But a woman who bares a beautiful child willingly and lovelingly is attacked and berated. Every article you read will approach this story from the angle of "isn't this too many kids?" Never will a positive point of view be presented.
Also, how can we look at these 19 beautiful children and say "She had too many children"? Which of the 19 would you like to see disappear? These are not numbers, these are living, breathing human beings who are loved by their family and by God. Who are we to say they don't belong?
Let's celebrate this beautiful family and show them our support.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sexual Abuse Reporting: a double standard?
Recently an article emerged of a famous Newfoundland hockey coach who has been charged with sexual assault of a boy. Many were shocked because he such a prominent figure in the community. Many have rightfully pointed out that although our justice system ensures that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty, the publication of his name has already led to disgrace.
There has been a vocal outcry from the public denouncing this practice and saying that if someone is innocent until proven guilty, their name should be withheld unless they are found guilty of an offense.
Strangely however, no such outcry was made when Catholic clergy were being accused left, right and center. In fact, the reaction was quite the contrary. People were quick to not only condemn all accused priests, but also those who were not accused. Popular opinion suggested that every single priest is a pedophile and none are innocent.
People's reaction to a priest accused of inappropriate sexual behavior was to lock him away and throw away the key or worse, and then to begin a diatribe about the evil Catholic Church. I read dozens of articles with reader responses and not once did anyone suggest hiding identities until charges were proven.
There have been accusations and arrests for pedophilia for all kinds of people, including teachers, coaches, scouts leaders, and yes, clergy. But have you ever heard a report of a teacher accused of sexual assault in another country? How about settlements between victims and school boards worth hundreds of millions of dollars? Never. The statistics however show that teachers are 4 times more likely to sexual abuse children than clergy.
To get an idea of the double standard, go to Google News and search for things like arrest pedophile, etc. You will find stories of people from all walks of life. There may be an odd priest here or there, but there are far more from other areas.
Clearly there is a major bias. A priest who commits sexual abuse in Germany is headline news, but 17 teachers who get arrested in a single country is not mentioned.
This is in no way excusing clergy sexual abuse. It must be stopped immediately and the Church is doing many things to eradicate this. But let's show some semblance of fairness. Let's end the double standards.
There has been a vocal outcry from the public denouncing this practice and saying that if someone is innocent until proven guilty, their name should be withheld unless they are found guilty of an offense.
Strangely however, no such outcry was made when Catholic clergy were being accused left, right and center. In fact, the reaction was quite the contrary. People were quick to not only condemn all accused priests, but also those who were not accused. Popular opinion suggested that every single priest is a pedophile and none are innocent.
People's reaction to a priest accused of inappropriate sexual behavior was to lock him away and throw away the key or worse, and then to begin a diatribe about the evil Catholic Church. I read dozens of articles with reader responses and not once did anyone suggest hiding identities until charges were proven.
There have been accusations and arrests for pedophilia for all kinds of people, including teachers, coaches, scouts leaders, and yes, clergy. But have you ever heard a report of a teacher accused of sexual assault in another country? How about settlements between victims and school boards worth hundreds of millions of dollars? Never. The statistics however show that teachers are 4 times more likely to sexual abuse children than clergy.
To get an idea of the double standard, go to Google News and search for things like arrest pedophile, etc. You will find stories of people from all walks of life. There may be an odd priest here or there, but there are far more from other areas.
Clearly there is a major bias. A priest who commits sexual abuse in Germany is headline news, but 17 teachers who get arrested in a single country is not mentioned.
This is in no way excusing clergy sexual abuse. It must be stopped immediately and the Church is doing many things to eradicate this. But let's show some semblance of fairness. Let's end the double standards.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Co-worker's anti-catholicism
At my workplace, I sit across from a man who spews his anti-Catholic rhetoric on a regular basis. He generally speaks to another anti-Catholic individual, but his conversation partner could be any number of co-workers, all of whom agree with him either implicitly or explicitly. I have yet to hear someone criticizing his viewpoint. I believe this is less the fact that they agree with him and more so the fact that they want to be "politically correct". In today's age, political correctness means agreeing with anti-Christian bigots, but not tolerating any form of religious observance.
The man identifies himself as a former Catholic so most of his venom is targeted in that direction. Of course, he beats the same dead horses, such as the clergy sex abuse scandal. But he also seems to have gone very deep in atheist teachings, and mocks the Eucharist, belief in God (especially the God of the Bible), Jesus, Mary, etc.
He doesn't simply disagree with these topics, he mocks them, laughs at them, and presents them in a very vulgar and distasteful way.
As an example, he was speaking to a co-worker about someone's wedding. Apparently a friend or family member of his called him about the wedding and said it will be at a Catholic Church. On the phone, he mocked the ceremony, including the format and the use of wine and unleaven bread. Later, when speaking to a co-worker and mocking Catholic marriage preparation. He claims the marriage prep course said a man cannot touch a woman in a sexual way and the only "acceptable" action is direct intercourse for the purpose of procreation.
After laughing about this thoroughly, he added: "you can tell this stuff was made up by guys who don't have sex" ... "well, except for with altar boys". To which the guy he was speaking with responded: "Yeh, they had that system down to a T!"
This is considered acceptable. In fact, someone would appear "odd" if they openly disagreed with the comments made.
The only conversation topic which this man prefers is that of fast food. He has at least one very in depth conversation per day on the topic of fast food. The topics get rather specific. Such as his favorite type of cheese on a pizza, how long he likes to microwave leftover fast food, etc.
I'm not attacking him personally. I'm just saying I find his two main conversation topics kind of strange.
I would implore anyone of faith to speak to these individuals when they have a chance. Tell them you disagree with what they are saying. Refrain from laughing. Speak the truth. You will probably be criticized and harrassed, but this is a small price to pay.
The man identifies himself as a former Catholic so most of his venom is targeted in that direction. Of course, he beats the same dead horses, such as the clergy sex abuse scandal. But he also seems to have gone very deep in atheist teachings, and mocks the Eucharist, belief in God (especially the God of the Bible), Jesus, Mary, etc.
He doesn't simply disagree with these topics, he mocks them, laughs at them, and presents them in a very vulgar and distasteful way.
As an example, he was speaking to a co-worker about someone's wedding. Apparently a friend or family member of his called him about the wedding and said it will be at a Catholic Church. On the phone, he mocked the ceremony, including the format and the use of wine and unleaven bread. Later, when speaking to a co-worker and mocking Catholic marriage preparation. He claims the marriage prep course said a man cannot touch a woman in a sexual way and the only "acceptable" action is direct intercourse for the purpose of procreation.
After laughing about this thoroughly, he added: "you can tell this stuff was made up by guys who don't have sex" ... "well, except for with altar boys". To which the guy he was speaking with responded: "Yeh, they had that system down to a T!"
This is considered acceptable. In fact, someone would appear "odd" if they openly disagreed with the comments made.
The only conversation topic which this man prefers is that of fast food. He has at least one very in depth conversation per day on the topic of fast food. The topics get rather specific. Such as his favorite type of cheese on a pizza, how long he likes to microwave leftover fast food, etc.
I'm not attacking him personally. I'm just saying I find his two main conversation topics kind of strange.
I would implore anyone of faith to speak to these individuals when they have a chance. Tell them you disagree with what they are saying. Refrain from laughing. Speak the truth. You will probably be criticized and harrassed, but this is a small price to pay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)