Many people have the false notion about sinful activity that a desire to commit sin starts small and eventually builds and builds until it is no longer possible to control it. They believe the only way to reduce temptation is to give into it. Oscar Wilde said "The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it..." But this is false. In fact, the opposite is true.
Giving into temptation in fact makes us more vulnerable to it. Perhaps for a very short period of time afterwards, we do not have the desire to sin. But our desire to sin will come back sooner and stronger than before. This will continue until the sin rules our lives. We know this from experience.
Look at porn for example. Usually people will start off small, perhaps looking at Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Edition. Then they go to lingerie magazines, and eventually to softcore porn like Playboy. This eventually no longer satisfies their appetite, so they start watching videos, which eventually get more and more extreme. This is the finding of psychologists who have studied the issue. Those who do this begin with milder material very infrequently and eventually end up abusing very explicit content several times a day. Eventually it takes over their lives.
The desire to be involved with this vice does not diminish through exposure but rather increases. Psychologists who work with sex addicts advise them to abstain completely from sex for several months and then to introduce normal, regular sexual activity. People with strong temptations are not advised to seek fulfillment to their temptation as they would normally do.
The same can be said for things like alcohol abuse, drug abuse, etc. There is no way to "reduce" these addictions. They must be simply ended.
But this not only applies to addictions, but to any sinful activity or behavior. Look at laziness for example. I've had my own struggles with laziness. If I don't have a job, sometimes I will stay up really late, and the next morning crawl out of bed around 11am. Even though I had plenty of sleep, I may go and watch TV while I eat. After watching TV for some time, I do not feel motivated to do anything else, so I continue to watch. I might go outside for a little while, but later I am not motivated to cook supper. It seems laziness simply leads to more laziness. On the other hand, if I get up on time, get a shower, get ready, do the dishes, etc. then I am generally motivated to keep going and accomplishing more.
I also think sins interact with each other. The more we give into laziness, the more prone to lust we are. The more we give into lust and laziness, the more likely we are to be irritable and angry at people around us.
It is important therefore to avoid giving into temptation and to avoid near occassions of sin. In other words, don't put yourself in danger of committing a sin. For example, if you are prone to laziness, don't get out of bed and go directly to the television and sit there. This will only make it more difficult to avoid laziness. The best time to avoid sinning is at the beginning. Sometimes we feel strong and try to come as close to sinning as we can without actually doing it. But rarely does this end well. Usually we end up committing the sin anyway.
I remember a saint one time said that the best time to avoid sin is at its earliest stages. We are not meant to be heroes when it comes to avoiding sin, we are meant to be cowards. In other words, at the first sight of sin, turn around and run in the other direction. We are not supposed to be brave and pull out a big sword and fight this evil mono e mono. Run away from sin. By running away, you are not a coward, because you are bravely going on the path of righteousness. The coward is the one who pretends he is avoiding evil, while knowing full well that his actions are leading him there. He is a coward because he is not brave enough to denounce sin, rather he justifies it.
Trust in God, and sin no more.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Catholic Answers Forums: A lot of jugmentalism
I enjoy visiting Catholic Answers Forums (CAF), at forums.catholic.com. There's a lot of good information. But beware, there's also plenty of judgment. Here's some of the stuff I've noticed:
1) The blame usually gets put on the original poster
A lot of people will go on CAF to recount a troubling incident or occurrence in their life. They may be having trouble with a spouse, a sibling, or with a co-worker. They may be suffering from some issue and may be seeking some guidance or reassurance. Many times though, the responders will seek fault with the poster. If the poster says his brother is very mean to him, the responders may say something like "you don't sound very nice to your brother yourself!" or somehow shift the blame to the original poster (OP). In fact, sometimes it's downright ridiculous. Someone is clearly suffering at the hands of someone else, and the others then nitpick at something the OP might have done.
2) Any deviance from Catholic dogma is honed in on and amplified
Another example is someone will bring up an issue and somewhere along their way to explaining it, they will mention a small point that is irrelevant to the topic at hand but which represents some small deviancy from Catholic teaching. Many posters will pick up on this small thing and only talk about that, ignoring the actual issue. For example, someone may say they are having an argument with their mother and she is being quite rude and basically shunning her. Along the way of telling this story, the OP will note that one week they didn't attend Mass. The responders will zero in on this transgression and ignore the issues with the mother. In fact, they may even say the reason the mother is mad is because the OP didn't attend Mass, even if that clearly isn't the reason.
3) Lots of rudeness and meanness
Most of the responses people receive seem to lack a considerable amount of charity. The responses are mean, abrupt, blunt, and tactless. If the person feels bad about somethign they did, the posters will try to make them feel even worse. Someone who is clearly struggling is only made to feel worse. The explanation for the lack of kind words is that they are giving "tough love", and that they need to let the person realize how they're doing something wrong. I totally think this is the wrong approach. Obviously if someone is posting their struggles in a public forum, they already feel bad, and they don't need major emphasis on this point. Just because you're right doesn't mean you can voice the "truth" in any way you see fit. To be a good Christian, you must show empathy, understanding, love, and compassion. Many people seeing this will probably accuse me of caring too much about "feelings" and being soft on truth. But that is not true at all. If the OP is not shown compassion and understanding, there's a good chance he will leave with a worse feeling or impression than he started with.
4) Ego-centrism
A lot of the advice seems to focus more on the advice giver than the receiver. Many responders will basically say what they did in a given circumstance and condemn every other course of action as wrong. They will even go farther than the Church does. For example, someone might talk about a TV show they watch, and others will then respond by saying they only watch EWTN. They will imply that anyone who watches anything other than EWTN is doing something wrong or bad. But it comes down to the advice giver simply telling what he does and making that the standard. There is little effort made to understand the OP's position. Rather they are immediately held to an impossibly high standard and any less is considered unacceptable.
5) One poster builds off another
Another phenomenon I notice on the Catholic Answers Forums is that one poster will often build on another. This continues into a snowball effect and generally everyone ends up against the OP. One might start off by saying something relatively mild like "Maybe you should speak with a trusted priest about this". This escalates to "How could you do something like that? I have never done something like that" to "No wonder your mother won't speak to you. You seem very rude and unrepentent. I'm surprised things aren't even worse!" Sometimes a poster will stand up for the OP, but this is not the norm. Again, a small fault is usually picked out and continuously added to.
I still visit Catholic Answers Forums and much of the time the information is really great. This is especially true of factual information, rather than subjective information. If you are looking for reference material, they usually do a great job. I just find the forum often lacks compassion and charity when dealing with various issues.
1) The blame usually gets put on the original poster
A lot of people will go on CAF to recount a troubling incident or occurrence in their life. They may be having trouble with a spouse, a sibling, or with a co-worker. They may be suffering from some issue and may be seeking some guidance or reassurance. Many times though, the responders will seek fault with the poster. If the poster says his brother is very mean to him, the responders may say something like "you don't sound very nice to your brother yourself!" or somehow shift the blame to the original poster (OP). In fact, sometimes it's downright ridiculous. Someone is clearly suffering at the hands of someone else, and the others then nitpick at something the OP might have done.
2) Any deviance from Catholic dogma is honed in on and amplified
Another example is someone will bring up an issue and somewhere along their way to explaining it, they will mention a small point that is irrelevant to the topic at hand but which represents some small deviancy from Catholic teaching. Many posters will pick up on this small thing and only talk about that, ignoring the actual issue. For example, someone may say they are having an argument with their mother and she is being quite rude and basically shunning her. Along the way of telling this story, the OP will note that one week they didn't attend Mass. The responders will zero in on this transgression and ignore the issues with the mother. In fact, they may even say the reason the mother is mad is because the OP didn't attend Mass, even if that clearly isn't the reason.
3) Lots of rudeness and meanness
Most of the responses people receive seem to lack a considerable amount of charity. The responses are mean, abrupt, blunt, and tactless. If the person feels bad about somethign they did, the posters will try to make them feel even worse. Someone who is clearly struggling is only made to feel worse. The explanation for the lack of kind words is that they are giving "tough love", and that they need to let the person realize how they're doing something wrong. I totally think this is the wrong approach. Obviously if someone is posting their struggles in a public forum, they already feel bad, and they don't need major emphasis on this point. Just because you're right doesn't mean you can voice the "truth" in any way you see fit. To be a good Christian, you must show empathy, understanding, love, and compassion. Many people seeing this will probably accuse me of caring too much about "feelings" and being soft on truth. But that is not true at all. If the OP is not shown compassion and understanding, there's a good chance he will leave with a worse feeling or impression than he started with.
4) Ego-centrism
A lot of the advice seems to focus more on the advice giver than the receiver. Many responders will basically say what they did in a given circumstance and condemn every other course of action as wrong. They will even go farther than the Church does. For example, someone might talk about a TV show they watch, and others will then respond by saying they only watch EWTN. They will imply that anyone who watches anything other than EWTN is doing something wrong or bad. But it comes down to the advice giver simply telling what he does and making that the standard. There is little effort made to understand the OP's position. Rather they are immediately held to an impossibly high standard and any less is considered unacceptable.
5) One poster builds off another
Another phenomenon I notice on the Catholic Answers Forums is that one poster will often build on another. This continues into a snowball effect and generally everyone ends up against the OP. One might start off by saying something relatively mild like "Maybe you should speak with a trusted priest about this". This escalates to "How could you do something like that? I have never done something like that" to "No wonder your mother won't speak to you. You seem very rude and unrepentent. I'm surprised things aren't even worse!" Sometimes a poster will stand up for the OP, but this is not the norm. Again, a small fault is usually picked out and continuously added to.
I still visit Catholic Answers Forums and much of the time the information is really great. This is especially true of factual information, rather than subjective information. If you are looking for reference material, they usually do a great job. I just find the forum often lacks compassion and charity when dealing with various issues.
Atheistic and humanist worldviews cannot deal with guilt
Our society has become terrible at handling guilt. That's because without God, how can we feel forgiven? I believe guilt is one of the main reasons for the high rates of depression and anxiety in our society. Here's the situation. Someone does something terrible. They start to feel really bad about it and feel they are a terrible person, a subhuman who is unlovable. They go deeper and deeper into this feeling. TV and media only reinforce that everyone is always happy and that no one makes mistakes. How can this person feel they are still loved despite all this? There are ways of coping, but these only lead to greater problems.
One way of coping is to try to find fault with everyone else. Look at the news. It's full of stories of celebrities "gone wrong", people involved with illicit activities like drugs, sex, alcohol, etc. We watch hours of this and eventually feel better because at least we're not that bad! Or we might look at crime shows, which have become very popular. They show people doing things which are beyond our comprehension: sexual abuse, murder, etc. This takes us into another world. Suddenly, in contrast to what we see, we're not so bad.
People will even get very upset and angry over things they see. This is a show of righteous anger. Those acting this way feel, well, if this outrages me, I can't be that bad. They take on this cause, perhaps in a bid to redeem themselves. It's kind of like the old native american technique of masking one pain by creating an even greater one. But the problem is, the small pain still exists. No matter how passionate people become about other issues in the world, in the deep recesses of their soul, they still feel the guilt.
After being unable to cope with their transgressions, they finally go to a psychologist or psychiastrist. Of course, these professionals can maybe help, but they cannot eliminate guilt. Instead, they may appeal to several different psychological models. They may tell the person that what they are experiencing is normal, or that they were temporarily insane, or that due to the stress they were experiencing, they could not be accountable for their actions. People go into denial. They start to dissociate and believe it was someone else who made the decision and not them.
Our society as a whole has found another way of dealing with guilt as well. They proactively change something which was previously a sin into a non-sin. Abortion, euthanasia, pornography, masturbation, contraception, many sex partners, divorce, drug use, etc. have all had a status changed in society at large and have gone from grievious sins to "stuff everyone does". By changing the status, the hope is that these most common vices will lose their power to make people feel guilty. Unfortunately, the guilt remains, but it just presents itself in a different light.
Now that these former sins are no longer sins, some transgressions have become unforgivable. This assuages the populace's need for justice. No people can survive thinking that everything is permissible. Anarchy is not in our DNA. But the crimes which are considered heinous are all things 99% of people would never do. Things like child sexual assault, murder, rape. People can get all up in arms by these things and that helps them continue to believe they are moral people.
Only the Church has a solution, a real solution to guilt, and that is God's forgiveness. We cannot attain salvation through our actions, by doing certain activities. We achieve salvation because God wills it and gives us His Grace. Just as we do not merit salvation and closeness to God, we also are not responsible to forgive our own sins. God forgives them because for him all things are possible. We just need to seek forgiveness. We must also ask forgiveness from those we've wronged, but often no one is wronged, but we still feel bad. Jesus died on the cross for our sins. He took all our misdoings and brought them to his crucifixion. It's through this action that we are saved.
Modern society can only downplay sin or mask it, only God can truly forgive. Many are skeptical. But I will tell you from experience. After much time of not going, I went into a confession at my church. At first I was nervous and wondered how the priest would perceive me or what he would think about my sins. I went in anyway and felt nothing but God's love and forgiveness. I am not exaggerating. Afterward, I felt free, clean, pure. I truly felt like a new creation. You could ask anybody who has gone to confession and they would recount a similar story. It truly is a feeling no psychologist could ever give.
One way of coping is to try to find fault with everyone else. Look at the news. It's full of stories of celebrities "gone wrong", people involved with illicit activities like drugs, sex, alcohol, etc. We watch hours of this and eventually feel better because at least we're not that bad! Or we might look at crime shows, which have become very popular. They show people doing things which are beyond our comprehension: sexual abuse, murder, etc. This takes us into another world. Suddenly, in contrast to what we see, we're not so bad.
People will even get very upset and angry over things they see. This is a show of righteous anger. Those acting this way feel, well, if this outrages me, I can't be that bad. They take on this cause, perhaps in a bid to redeem themselves. It's kind of like the old native american technique of masking one pain by creating an even greater one. But the problem is, the small pain still exists. No matter how passionate people become about other issues in the world, in the deep recesses of their soul, they still feel the guilt.
After being unable to cope with their transgressions, they finally go to a psychologist or psychiastrist. Of course, these professionals can maybe help, but they cannot eliminate guilt. Instead, they may appeal to several different psychological models. They may tell the person that what they are experiencing is normal, or that they were temporarily insane, or that due to the stress they were experiencing, they could not be accountable for their actions. People go into denial. They start to dissociate and believe it was someone else who made the decision and not them.
Our society as a whole has found another way of dealing with guilt as well. They proactively change something which was previously a sin into a non-sin. Abortion, euthanasia, pornography, masturbation, contraception, many sex partners, divorce, drug use, etc. have all had a status changed in society at large and have gone from grievious sins to "stuff everyone does". By changing the status, the hope is that these most common vices will lose their power to make people feel guilty. Unfortunately, the guilt remains, but it just presents itself in a different light.
Now that these former sins are no longer sins, some transgressions have become unforgivable. This assuages the populace's need for justice. No people can survive thinking that everything is permissible. Anarchy is not in our DNA. But the crimes which are considered heinous are all things 99% of people would never do. Things like child sexual assault, murder, rape. People can get all up in arms by these things and that helps them continue to believe they are moral people.
Only the Church has a solution, a real solution to guilt, and that is God's forgiveness. We cannot attain salvation through our actions, by doing certain activities. We achieve salvation because God wills it and gives us His Grace. Just as we do not merit salvation and closeness to God, we also are not responsible to forgive our own sins. God forgives them because for him all things are possible. We just need to seek forgiveness. We must also ask forgiveness from those we've wronged, but often no one is wronged, but we still feel bad. Jesus died on the cross for our sins. He took all our misdoings and brought them to his crucifixion. It's through this action that we are saved.
Modern society can only downplay sin or mask it, only God can truly forgive. Many are skeptical. But I will tell you from experience. After much time of not going, I went into a confession at my church. At first I was nervous and wondered how the priest would perceive me or what he would think about my sins. I went in anyway and felt nothing but God's love and forgiveness. I am not exaggerating. Afterward, I felt free, clean, pure. I truly felt like a new creation. You could ask anybody who has gone to confession and they would recount a similar story. It truly is a feeling no psychologist could ever give.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Ulterior motive for media attention on Catholic Church: Please stop talking
The Catholic Church has come under tremendous fire by the media in recent years concerning the sexual abuse scandal. Obviously it's good to look at mistakes and grave sins that happened in the Church and it is important to remove the "filth" as Pope Benedict calls it. But many have noticed the Church is being unfairly treated when it comes to these allegations.
Many groups have been implicated in child sexual abuse beside the Catholic Church including many other Christian denominations, the boy scouts, swimming instructors, and teachers. Some believe teachers have abused students at a rate 4 times higher than priests, and that they too were shifted around to different schools, etc. Most of the Church abuse happened decades ago.
But it took a comedy program to show me an ulterior motive for this disproportionate coverage. On Jon Stewart's Daily Show, one of his comedy reporters interviewed a group of nuns and priests who are critical of financial malpractice by some large organizations. The point of the Daily Show segment was how ironic it was that the Church would be against this, given the crimes the church has committed.
The reported kept mockingly referring to the sex abuse scandal and saying things like "So, you think people should listen to.... you?" Whenever the priest or nun brought up a valid point about one of the wrongdoings of a financial institution, the interviewer would make a strange face and say something like "riiight, so the financial institutions do that! ohh".
It struck me that what the media wants is for the Church to feel so ashamed of its activities that it will not speak up against any evil or injustice. It doesn't matter if any of the accusations against the church are true. All that matters is that the Church is silenced. I've actually seen this strategy many times before. When the Church speaks out on any issue whatsoever, someone is bound to bring up sex abuse allegations as some sort of proof that the Church should just but out.
I am starting to realize one of the main goals of the media coverage of the Church - to remove in people's minds its moral authority. Obviously this is totally absurd. There has been abuse in the church, but the vast majority of people in the Church, such as priests and nuns, are innocent. They have valid points to make and deserve to be heard.
The media and many individuals do not like hearing what the Church has to say. They only want approval for their actions. The Church speaks the Truth, and people are trying hard to silence the Truth.
Imagine a school where there are 50 teachers. One teacher is accused of sexual abuse. Now, imagine someone saying that no one should listen to any of the teachers in the school because of this. The school has no authority to teach anything because of what this teacher did. That would be absurd.
But there is also a logical fallacy being committed here. Even if the Church committed a crime, that does not render what it says about other areas false. If the Church criticizes a crime committed by financial institutions, it is a logical fallacy to say that because the Church did something else, they must be wrong on everything. I do not agree with what Hitler did, but if Hitler said 2+2 = 4, I would say he is correct. But this example of the Church assumes that the entire Church did something wrong. Even then, it would be a logical fallacy. But what about the real situation, where only 1-2% of priests ever abused anyone and almost all of it happened decades ago? In that case, it's even more illogical.
As Catholics, we must stand up against those who want to silence the Church. The Church has a God-given duty to defend the Truth, whether or not anyone wants to hear it.
Many groups have been implicated in child sexual abuse beside the Catholic Church including many other Christian denominations, the boy scouts, swimming instructors, and teachers. Some believe teachers have abused students at a rate 4 times higher than priests, and that they too were shifted around to different schools, etc. Most of the Church abuse happened decades ago.
But it took a comedy program to show me an ulterior motive for this disproportionate coverage. On Jon Stewart's Daily Show, one of his comedy reporters interviewed a group of nuns and priests who are critical of financial malpractice by some large organizations. The point of the Daily Show segment was how ironic it was that the Church would be against this, given the crimes the church has committed.
The reported kept mockingly referring to the sex abuse scandal and saying things like "So, you think people should listen to.... you?" Whenever the priest or nun brought up a valid point about one of the wrongdoings of a financial institution, the interviewer would make a strange face and say something like "riiight, so the financial institutions do that! ohh".
It struck me that what the media wants is for the Church to feel so ashamed of its activities that it will not speak up against any evil or injustice. It doesn't matter if any of the accusations against the church are true. All that matters is that the Church is silenced. I've actually seen this strategy many times before. When the Church speaks out on any issue whatsoever, someone is bound to bring up sex abuse allegations as some sort of proof that the Church should just but out.
I am starting to realize one of the main goals of the media coverage of the Church - to remove in people's minds its moral authority. Obviously this is totally absurd. There has been abuse in the church, but the vast majority of people in the Church, such as priests and nuns, are innocent. They have valid points to make and deserve to be heard.
The media and many individuals do not like hearing what the Church has to say. They only want approval for their actions. The Church speaks the Truth, and people are trying hard to silence the Truth.
Imagine a school where there are 50 teachers. One teacher is accused of sexual abuse. Now, imagine someone saying that no one should listen to any of the teachers in the school because of this. The school has no authority to teach anything because of what this teacher did. That would be absurd.
But there is also a logical fallacy being committed here. Even if the Church committed a crime, that does not render what it says about other areas false. If the Church criticizes a crime committed by financial institutions, it is a logical fallacy to say that because the Church did something else, they must be wrong on everything. I do not agree with what Hitler did, but if Hitler said 2+2 = 4, I would say he is correct. But this example of the Church assumes that the entire Church did something wrong. Even then, it would be a logical fallacy. But what about the real situation, where only 1-2% of priests ever abused anyone and almost all of it happened decades ago? In that case, it's even more illogical.
As Catholics, we must stand up against those who want to silence the Church. The Church has a God-given duty to defend the Truth, whether or not anyone wants to hear it.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Why the high divorce rate.
The divorce rate in Canada is around 38%, according to Stats Canada. I'm proud to report that in Newfoundland, it's the lowest, just 22% (maybe just is the wrong word here). My question is, why isn't it lower, maybe 1%? In India, where arranged marriages are often performed, this is indeed the divorce rate.
I believe there are many reasons for the high divorce rate in Canada and other Western nations. One of the reasons I believe boils down to expectations and mind-set. People marry often because of a feeling called "love". Their definition of love includes feeling happy with the person they marry, enjoying doing things together, and feeling fulfilled. It also involves a notion of sexual fulfillment and other criteria. Everything is just perfect. They base their marriage on this feeling. If the feeling changes, the marriage is on the rocks. This is a very precarious situation.
My point is that expectations are too high. I was reading an article which suggested that in the past marriages were a much different issue. They were based on practical considerations for both parties, not on transitive feelings. It sounds outdated now, but a woman would be expected to be good at household chores, while the man was able to provide for his family. The decision was not based on feeling of affection. Obviously, I'm not saying marriage is all about practicality even if you hate the person. I'm also saying that a marriage based on feelings is a very shaky one.
Divorce rate is also known to be lower among Catholics than other groups. But I've noticed a disturbing trend, and that is a divorce-mentality. It is very common, even among Catholics. The Catholic Church does not allow divorce. Not so much "not allow", as it does not even think divorce is possible in the eyes of God. The expression "till death do us part" is taken for what it is. But some have started to see annulment as the Catholic divorce. I participate in a Catholic forum. Often, a troubled individual will go there telling how they are having some problem in their marriage. Very often, people will suggest that perhaps this represents something which rendered the marriage invalid to begin with and they should seek an annulment to see what happens. But marriage is always presumed valid unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary. God did not make the sacraments easy to break.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg. That's what they say to people who are married. To those who are not married, it's even worse. Almost every time I've seen someone post a message on these forums who is concerned about some aspect of their relationship, the advice given is to just abandon it. The theory goes that no matter what this issue is, it will only get much much worse once they're married. Some even say they are only seeking help for an issue and never mention breaking up, but it is soon suggested by nearly everyone on the boards.
The underlying implication is that at the first sign of a stormy sea, to jump ship. So why is the divorce rate in India so low? I believe it is because the feeling of love is like a cherry on top, not the whole dessert. They go into a marriage expecting problems. When they arise, no one is surprised, and they work through it. Divorce is not an option so their brains expand beyond this limited idea and work for other solutions. This mentality is not present in many Western marriages. Divorce may be regarded with contempt, but it is nonetheless an option if things are "bad enough". I believe sometimes there is little desire for the couple to make things better, but rather they make things worse precisely to justify the divorce. They make mountains out of molehills and then proclaim, as if they just lost a battle which they tried so hard to win, that it was just a hopeless situation. It's almost a self-fulfilled prophecy.
Jesus said divorce is never permitted. Many people who get a divorce are surprised to find they must wait a significant amount of time before it is finalized. That's because it causes such havoc on society. Family is the building block of society and divorce is like a small war. If enough of these building blocks are damaged, the society is damaged.
Let's take a new look and approach to marriage. Let's work on helping the other, and not constantly asking ourselves if we are completely fulfilled and happy. Let's aim for a 0% divorce rate.
I believe there are many reasons for the high divorce rate in Canada and other Western nations. One of the reasons I believe boils down to expectations and mind-set. People marry often because of a feeling called "love". Their definition of love includes feeling happy with the person they marry, enjoying doing things together, and feeling fulfilled. It also involves a notion of sexual fulfillment and other criteria. Everything is just perfect. They base their marriage on this feeling. If the feeling changes, the marriage is on the rocks. This is a very precarious situation.
My point is that expectations are too high. I was reading an article which suggested that in the past marriages were a much different issue. They were based on practical considerations for both parties, not on transitive feelings. It sounds outdated now, but a woman would be expected to be good at household chores, while the man was able to provide for his family. The decision was not based on feeling of affection. Obviously, I'm not saying marriage is all about practicality even if you hate the person. I'm also saying that a marriage based on feelings is a very shaky one.
Divorce rate is also known to be lower among Catholics than other groups. But I've noticed a disturbing trend, and that is a divorce-mentality. It is very common, even among Catholics. The Catholic Church does not allow divorce. Not so much "not allow", as it does not even think divorce is possible in the eyes of God. The expression "till death do us part" is taken for what it is. But some have started to see annulment as the Catholic divorce. I participate in a Catholic forum. Often, a troubled individual will go there telling how they are having some problem in their marriage. Very often, people will suggest that perhaps this represents something which rendered the marriage invalid to begin with and they should seek an annulment to see what happens. But marriage is always presumed valid unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary. God did not make the sacraments easy to break.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg. That's what they say to people who are married. To those who are not married, it's even worse. Almost every time I've seen someone post a message on these forums who is concerned about some aspect of their relationship, the advice given is to just abandon it. The theory goes that no matter what this issue is, it will only get much much worse once they're married. Some even say they are only seeking help for an issue and never mention breaking up, but it is soon suggested by nearly everyone on the boards.
The underlying implication is that at the first sign of a stormy sea, to jump ship. So why is the divorce rate in India so low? I believe it is because the feeling of love is like a cherry on top, not the whole dessert. They go into a marriage expecting problems. When they arise, no one is surprised, and they work through it. Divorce is not an option so their brains expand beyond this limited idea and work for other solutions. This mentality is not present in many Western marriages. Divorce may be regarded with contempt, but it is nonetheless an option if things are "bad enough". I believe sometimes there is little desire for the couple to make things better, but rather they make things worse precisely to justify the divorce. They make mountains out of molehills and then proclaim, as if they just lost a battle which they tried so hard to win, that it was just a hopeless situation. It's almost a self-fulfilled prophecy.
Jesus said divorce is never permitted. Many people who get a divorce are surprised to find they must wait a significant amount of time before it is finalized. That's because it causes such havoc on society. Family is the building block of society and divorce is like a small war. If enough of these building blocks are damaged, the society is damaged.
Let's take a new look and approach to marriage. Let's work on helping the other, and not constantly asking ourselves if we are completely fulfilled and happy. Let's aim for a 0% divorce rate.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Disappointed in Bill Nye
Bill Nye the Science Guy, as he's known, gave a speech to the American Humanist Association. He's a smart guy and had a really good show back in the day. Unfortunately though, he has bought into the false dichotomy between science and religion.
In his speech, he basically says that the humanists have an obligation to teach religious people who do not know about science about it. He wants to spread humanism which is a philosophy that says that the buck stops at humanity, that there is no afterlife, and that ultimately the meaning of life is fulfilling our own desires.
But to propose that science and religion are opposed is complete absurdity, but a good fairy tale to tell people. It's very convenient for groups like this to pit science and religion against each other. But it's really just setting up a straw man, in order to make a point. In other words, they attribute false things to religious people and then argue against these false assumptions.
Religious people do believe in science. Many of the world's greatest scientists believe in God, and I wrote a blog posting about many of these individuals. Bill Nye attacks the book of Genesis, basically asserting that it is not a scientific book. Then he goes on to show how some of the things mentioned in the first book of the Bible do not fit with scientific data. Well, this is a very easy target which he has set up. But Christians do not believe the Bible is a scientific manual. They believe it contains truths which are much deeper than this.
Scientists, including Bill Nye must stop being so childish. It is childish to misrepresent a religion and then offer proofs against this false presentation. Not only that, but to then encourage everyone to fight against these belief systems.
He also mentions evolution. Scientists love the word "evolution", but they push it much farther than the theory allows. It does not explain the origin of life, or the universe. It simply gives a possible system for how certain species evolved the way they have. The Catholic Church at least has made statements that say a person can be Catholic and believe in evolution. Much of the reason is that the Church speaks on faith and morals, not on biology or any science.
I know many very religious people, but none of them are against science. They see the value of science. But they also recognize that science without morality can be very evil. I know many people with advanced degrees, doctors, and other professionals who believe in God. And they see no contradiction in their beliefs.
Another issue that Bill brought up was overpopulation. Of course, he decried it as a major problem in our world. This is the party line for atheism. But overpopulation is not the problem many people think it is. There are dozens of countries which have officially stated that their population growth is far too small and that they want people to have more children. I know of no country which says they have too many people. There is enough food on Earth to feed 14 billion people, currently, yet our population has not reached 7. In fact, many believe we will peak in population around 8 or 9 billion. Something that his not often mentioned is that there are not necessarily being more babies born, just more people are surviving due to good medicine and health. People are living longer with higher qualities of life than before. People generally group together in dense populations. Obviously this whole thing is a canard.
Bill ends his speech by saying that in the entire universe we are rather insignificant, that we amount to nothing. He turns this around at the end by saying we ARE something because of our brains and our ability to reason and so on. While this may sound affirming, I believe it is a very dangerous philosophy. Using this philosophy, we accept people with strong intellects as being valuable, but people with mental disabilities would be less highly regarded. They would simply be weighing down the system. They would then become insignificant like Bill Nye originally said because they would not have the redeeming quality of a good brain. People are then judged and valued based on their utility and not their inherent worth.
Many religions believe people are valuable because of their inherent value given to them by God, not because they are able to think at a certain level or are of value to the world. Using Bill's philosophy, unborn and young children are worthless, as are elderly people with mental issues or mentally disabled individuals at any age. It is a very dangerous philosophy.
I just want to end by saying the Humanist vision of the world offers nothing. It does not seek to give anything, but rather to remove something. It wants to remove God, hope, love, mercy, etc. and replace it with science. Science has its place, but it must be guided.
I believe the following quote sums it up perfectly:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein
In his speech, he basically says that the humanists have an obligation to teach religious people who do not know about science about it. He wants to spread humanism which is a philosophy that says that the buck stops at humanity, that there is no afterlife, and that ultimately the meaning of life is fulfilling our own desires.
But to propose that science and religion are opposed is complete absurdity, but a good fairy tale to tell people. It's very convenient for groups like this to pit science and religion against each other. But it's really just setting up a straw man, in order to make a point. In other words, they attribute false things to religious people and then argue against these false assumptions.
Religious people do believe in science. Many of the world's greatest scientists believe in God, and I wrote a blog posting about many of these individuals. Bill Nye attacks the book of Genesis, basically asserting that it is not a scientific book. Then he goes on to show how some of the things mentioned in the first book of the Bible do not fit with scientific data. Well, this is a very easy target which he has set up. But Christians do not believe the Bible is a scientific manual. They believe it contains truths which are much deeper than this.
Scientists, including Bill Nye must stop being so childish. It is childish to misrepresent a religion and then offer proofs against this false presentation. Not only that, but to then encourage everyone to fight against these belief systems.
He also mentions evolution. Scientists love the word "evolution", but they push it much farther than the theory allows. It does not explain the origin of life, or the universe. It simply gives a possible system for how certain species evolved the way they have. The Catholic Church at least has made statements that say a person can be Catholic and believe in evolution. Much of the reason is that the Church speaks on faith and morals, not on biology or any science.
I know many very religious people, but none of them are against science. They see the value of science. But they also recognize that science without morality can be very evil. I know many people with advanced degrees, doctors, and other professionals who believe in God. And they see no contradiction in their beliefs.
Another issue that Bill brought up was overpopulation. Of course, he decried it as a major problem in our world. This is the party line for atheism. But overpopulation is not the problem many people think it is. There are dozens of countries which have officially stated that their population growth is far too small and that they want people to have more children. I know of no country which says they have too many people. There is enough food on Earth to feed 14 billion people, currently, yet our population has not reached 7. In fact, many believe we will peak in population around 8 or 9 billion. Something that his not often mentioned is that there are not necessarily being more babies born, just more people are surviving due to good medicine and health. People are living longer with higher qualities of life than before. People generally group together in dense populations. Obviously this whole thing is a canard.
Bill ends his speech by saying that in the entire universe we are rather insignificant, that we amount to nothing. He turns this around at the end by saying we ARE something because of our brains and our ability to reason and so on. While this may sound affirming, I believe it is a very dangerous philosophy. Using this philosophy, we accept people with strong intellects as being valuable, but people with mental disabilities would be less highly regarded. They would simply be weighing down the system. They would then become insignificant like Bill Nye originally said because they would not have the redeeming quality of a good brain. People are then judged and valued based on their utility and not their inherent worth.
Many religions believe people are valuable because of their inherent value given to them by God, not because they are able to think at a certain level or are of value to the world. Using Bill's philosophy, unborn and young children are worthless, as are elderly people with mental issues or mentally disabled individuals at any age. It is a very dangerous philosophy.
I just want to end by saying the Humanist vision of the world offers nothing. It does not seek to give anything, but rather to remove something. It wants to remove God, hope, love, mercy, etc. and replace it with science. Science has its place, but it must be guided.
I believe the following quote sums it up perfectly:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein
Retreat weekend brought joy
This past Saturday, I attended a retreat from 1-9pm at St. Francis of Assisi Church in Outer Cove, Newfoundland. The day featured a variety of spiritual reflections and activities. The 25 or so attendees first gathered in the church for an opening prayer. We then proceeded to the lecture room to hear the conversion story of a very interesting Franciscan Friar who returned to his childhood home of Newfoundland to help out with the spiritual needs of the community. He talks about how he went from a lucrative career traveling the globe to giving it all up to gain something even greater - spiritual closeness to God.
After his testimony, we heard 3 heart-felt stories from young Catholics. They spoke of their return to the faith after years of mediocre participation. Conversion, they reminded us, is not an event, but a process. One particularly touching moment is when one of the young people was speaking about living faith in our every day lives, and during one story, he had to pause several times to fight back tears. He was speaking of a touching encounter he had with a man who was down on his luck. The speaker's simple act of almsgiving was such a special moment for this man of little means. I doubt there were many dry eyes as he recounted this moment.
Later, we heard the story of Fr. John Corapi, a dynamic speaker, who went from being a Ferrari-driving millionaire and friend of movie stars to someone who lost everything because of his drug addictions, and finally was touched by the grace of God through the intercession of his mother and became a priest, being ordained by Pope John Paul II himself. He is now one of the most sought after speakers in North American Christendom, and indeed the world.
Later, we shared a meal together, which was lovingly prepared by several of the guests. During the meal, I spoke to a young lady who was becoming more involved with her faith, however, she had not attended confession in her entire life except the first time when she was a child. She spoke of her fear of telling the priest her sins. She was quite nervous, but her heart pulled her in the right direction. She was very brave.
After confession and Mass, a priest came by to answer questions. People asked a few questions, and the priest gave some very good answers. For the closing, everyone gathered in the church once again for the Rosary. I lead the 4th decade, which is what I used to do when we said it as a family, because I was the fourth born.
The entire day was a phenomenal success, and many people expressed their desire to have another such event in the future. I can't wait!
After his testimony, we heard 3 heart-felt stories from young Catholics. They spoke of their return to the faith after years of mediocre participation. Conversion, they reminded us, is not an event, but a process. One particularly touching moment is when one of the young people was speaking about living faith in our every day lives, and during one story, he had to pause several times to fight back tears. He was speaking of a touching encounter he had with a man who was down on his luck. The speaker's simple act of almsgiving was such a special moment for this man of little means. I doubt there were many dry eyes as he recounted this moment.
Later, we heard the story of Fr. John Corapi, a dynamic speaker, who went from being a Ferrari-driving millionaire and friend of movie stars to someone who lost everything because of his drug addictions, and finally was touched by the grace of God through the intercession of his mother and became a priest, being ordained by Pope John Paul II himself. He is now one of the most sought after speakers in North American Christendom, and indeed the world.
Later, we shared a meal together, which was lovingly prepared by several of the guests. During the meal, I spoke to a young lady who was becoming more involved with her faith, however, she had not attended confession in her entire life except the first time when she was a child. She spoke of her fear of telling the priest her sins. She was quite nervous, but her heart pulled her in the right direction. She was very brave.
After confession and Mass, a priest came by to answer questions. People asked a few questions, and the priest gave some very good answers. For the closing, everyone gathered in the church once again for the Rosary. I lead the 4th decade, which is what I used to do when we said it as a family, because I was the fourth born.
The entire day was a phenomenal success, and many people expressed their desire to have another such event in the future. I can't wait!
Monday, May 31, 2010
The religion of Hard Rock Cafe
Don't get me wrong, I love Hard Rock Cafe. When visiting a new location of a particular size, my first mission is to locate the Hard Rock Cafe there. I have developed a collection of shirts from these establishments which double as markers to indicate the major cities to which I've traveled. I have shirts for Cologne, London, Rome, Amsterdam, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. However, yesterday during my latest visit, something sort of struck me - the religion of Hard Rock.
There were many things I saw during my meal which seemed religious. First, you see the unmistakable logo for the restaurant, the same as at all locations. Underneath is what may be seen as the great commandment of the chain: "Love all. Serve all." It has a very religious slant to it. It's not "We love hard rock music" or "Come play guitar and drums", in fact it's not related to music at all. It's more of a religious or philosophical commandment: Love All. Serve All. It sounds like the words of a holy person, and similar to the teachings of Jesus.
Once you enter, you hear music playing. It's a particular type of music - hard rock. It's not simple background music. It's meant to be all encompassing. Everyone is unified through the music. Similar to the organ which plays in a church. All around, I notice something very peculiar. Instruments, posters, even clothing worn by music stars. Perhaps this is a stretch, but these items seem like relics. If you go to a Catholic Church, you can find small pieces of fabric, tools or instruments, and other things used or worn by saints. These items are called relics. In a very similar way, these personal items are displayed for all those in this establishment. People look with amazement at these objects, perhaps even with veneration!
Then it's someone's birthday, but rather than celebrating alone or even with the server, the entire population of the restaurant is encouraged to join in a chant, repeating happy birthday. Something like the responses given by the congregation of a church. While I'm eating, I notice a book beside me named "icons". Of course, icons in Christianity are paintings of saints.
Finally, Hard Rock is not satisfied with being a local phenomenon, but rather is seeking to place a store in all major cities around the world. It has an almost missionary zeal to spread to every corner of the globe. Yet, like cathedrals, there are never two in the same city, and they only appear in major cities. They do not become like McDonald's, but rather like pilgrimage sites. Then comes the t-shirts, like the reward for a pilgrimage well done.
Of course, many would say I am exaggerating and that most people just view Hard Rock as a restaurant. And for the most part, they are correct. I would say though that many people have no particular religion, but that does not mean they are not religious. In a world where organized religion is sometimes frowned upon, many seek other outlets for their worship and spiritual fulfillment. Hard Rock Cafe may not be a religion, but it is certainly not just a place to eat, either.
There were many things I saw during my meal which seemed religious. First, you see the unmistakable logo for the restaurant, the same as at all locations. Underneath is what may be seen as the great commandment of the chain: "Love all. Serve all." It has a very religious slant to it. It's not "We love hard rock music" or "Come play guitar and drums", in fact it's not related to music at all. It's more of a religious or philosophical commandment: Love All. Serve All. It sounds like the words of a holy person, and similar to the teachings of Jesus.
Once you enter, you hear music playing. It's a particular type of music - hard rock. It's not simple background music. It's meant to be all encompassing. Everyone is unified through the music. Similar to the organ which plays in a church. All around, I notice something very peculiar. Instruments, posters, even clothing worn by music stars. Perhaps this is a stretch, but these items seem like relics. If you go to a Catholic Church, you can find small pieces of fabric, tools or instruments, and other things used or worn by saints. These items are called relics. In a very similar way, these personal items are displayed for all those in this establishment. People look with amazement at these objects, perhaps even with veneration!
Then it's someone's birthday, but rather than celebrating alone or even with the server, the entire population of the restaurant is encouraged to join in a chant, repeating happy birthday. Something like the responses given by the congregation of a church. While I'm eating, I notice a book beside me named "icons". Of course, icons in Christianity are paintings of saints.
Finally, Hard Rock is not satisfied with being a local phenomenon, but rather is seeking to place a store in all major cities around the world. It has an almost missionary zeal to spread to every corner of the globe. Yet, like cathedrals, there are never two in the same city, and they only appear in major cities. They do not become like McDonald's, but rather like pilgrimage sites. Then comes the t-shirts, like the reward for a pilgrimage well done.
Of course, many would say I am exaggerating and that most people just view Hard Rock as a restaurant. And for the most part, they are correct. I would say though that many people have no particular religion, but that does not mean they are not religious. In a world where organized religion is sometimes frowned upon, many seek other outlets for their worship and spiritual fulfillment. Hard Rock Cafe may not be a religion, but it is certainly not just a place to eat, either.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Are people Catholic only because of their parents?
Some hold the belief that others are only Catholic because that is how they were raised. Some commentators like Richard Dawkins have called handing on your religion to your children a form of abuse. But is this really the case? Are people simply Catholic by default? Let's examine this claim and test its veracity.
I believe there are many weaknesses in the opinion expressed above. First of all, people are free to choose whether or not to believe in the Catholic faith. If being Catholic was automatic, everyone whose parents are Catholic would also be Catholic, however, this is very far from the truth. The majority of people I know who were raised Catholic no longer adhere to any faith, at least in any practical sense.
The people who did maintain their faith are typically very strong in it. Far from just going through the motions, they live their lives according to the tenets of their faith and obey it fully. Often, they are more religious than their parents. This is not the characteristic of a "default" religion.
On top of this, there are many examples of people invesigating the claims of the Catholic Church and then becoming Catholic or Christian in general. C.S. Lewis, for example, decided to investigate all religions and beliefs, including atheism, and eventually became Christian and wrote several books on it.
GK Chesterton spent much time with ouija boards and other occult practices before eventually becoming an orthodox Catholic.
Mortimer Adler, a philosopher who co-founded Great Books of the Western World went from agnostic to Catholic.
Francis Collins, who was the head of the Human Genome Project went from atheist to Catholic.
Arnold Lunn, who actually wrote a book critical of the Catholic Church and would spend time debating converts, eventually himself converted.
Bernard Nathanson, who originally called himself a Jewish atheist and founded NARAL Pro-Choice America eventually became a pro-life Catholic.
A.N. Wilson went from writing books against religion to becoming a Catholic.
The point I'm making here by showing these examples is that many people, including high profile individuals, come to the faith through their own investigation, often times while in the process of attacking religion or Christianity. Obviously it is not because it was imposed on them by their parents.
There is another flaw with the argument that people are only Catholic because their parents "make" them Catholic by teaching them the faith. The problem is that most things people learn as children are taught to them by their parents, and many of the things they learn they continue to believe well into adulthood. The mere fact that parents teach their children certain things does not diminish the truth of those teachings. Why should we assume that what parents teach is false? In fact, the opposite would seem more true.
For example, parents teach their children many things about science, like "we breathe oxygen", "gravity makes things fall to the ground", "the Earth goes around the Sun", "that's the moon", "plants need water to grow", "eat your vegetables, they are good for you". We do not accuse parents of "indoctrination" when they teach their kids these things.
It would seem rather odd for a parent to say to a child, "I do not want to force you to believie something, therefore I will leave it up to you to decide why things fall to the ground when you release them. In fact, we will not teach you any science, math, or history, because it's best if you decide those things on your own. It would be a form of child abuse to teach you anything we believe." That would be absurd.
Some people object by saying the two are different. One is proven scientific fact, the other is made up fairy tales. But that is a biased opinion. Those who believe in Christianity believe it is true, perhaps more true than certain scientific theories. People have looked into their beliefs and have come to trust in their veracity.
In fact, the argument that we know science is true is based on a false assumption. It assumes everyone has investigated things on their own and have come to the conclusion using the scientific method that the facts being presented are indeed true. But this rarely, if ever, happens. Most people know oranges contain vitamin C because someone told them it does. They did not analyze this themselves. In fact, they would have no idea how to go about it. Yet, religious beliefs are held to a much higher standard for some reason. Many people believe scientific findings because a famous scientist or association has confirmed that it is true. A similar system exists to confirm religious statements. If a statement is made by a religious group that is seen as trustworthy and exemplifies the belief, then it is logical to believe.
On top of this, there are many more ways of confirming validity. We have many proofs for our belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, and the teachings of the church. They are not merely random teachings that we "choose" to believe, but verifiable truths. Because of this, people can come to have faith outside of the teachings of their parents.
Another problem with this assertion is a historical one. If faith can only be passed from parent to child, then the only Christians should be the twelve apostles and their children. Yet we have no evidence that they even had children, and we can see historically that there were hundreds and thousands of converts in their time. In fact, in a very short time, there were millions of Christians. Again, this would not be possible simply through passing down over the generations. Entire nations were converted, not by the sword, but by the changing of hearts. We know this because there were millions of Christians even before Christianity became legal and was in fact persecuted severely.
Also, if religion can only be passed down from parent to child, where did it come from to start with? Who was the first parent to pass down the faith to a child? We know Christianity had a definite start. To bring this to the absurd, we could say that Joseph taught Jesus, etc. (there is no etc in this case), but who taught Joseph? His father? Can we keep going back like this? If so, how does Christianity have a definite beginning? We cannot keep going back to infinity.
Because of the development, growth, and present situation of Christianity, we can know for certain that people of faith are not simply robots that believe only because their parents do. We know many, honest, truth-seeking people have come to believe in the Catholic Church by responding to faith and reason.
I believe there are many weaknesses in the opinion expressed above. First of all, people are free to choose whether or not to believe in the Catholic faith. If being Catholic was automatic, everyone whose parents are Catholic would also be Catholic, however, this is very far from the truth. The majority of people I know who were raised Catholic no longer adhere to any faith, at least in any practical sense.
The people who did maintain their faith are typically very strong in it. Far from just going through the motions, they live their lives according to the tenets of their faith and obey it fully. Often, they are more religious than their parents. This is not the characteristic of a "default" religion.
On top of this, there are many examples of people invesigating the claims of the Catholic Church and then becoming Catholic or Christian in general. C.S. Lewis, for example, decided to investigate all religions and beliefs, including atheism, and eventually became Christian and wrote several books on it.
GK Chesterton spent much time with ouija boards and other occult practices before eventually becoming an orthodox Catholic.
Mortimer Adler, a philosopher who co-founded Great Books of the Western World went from agnostic to Catholic.
Francis Collins, who was the head of the Human Genome Project went from atheist to Catholic.
Arnold Lunn, who actually wrote a book critical of the Catholic Church and would spend time debating converts, eventually himself converted.
Bernard Nathanson, who originally called himself a Jewish atheist and founded NARAL Pro-Choice America eventually became a pro-life Catholic.
A.N. Wilson went from writing books against religion to becoming a Catholic.
The point I'm making here by showing these examples is that many people, including high profile individuals, come to the faith through their own investigation, often times while in the process of attacking religion or Christianity. Obviously it is not because it was imposed on them by their parents.
There is another flaw with the argument that people are only Catholic because their parents "make" them Catholic by teaching them the faith. The problem is that most things people learn as children are taught to them by their parents, and many of the things they learn they continue to believe well into adulthood. The mere fact that parents teach their children certain things does not diminish the truth of those teachings. Why should we assume that what parents teach is false? In fact, the opposite would seem more true.
For example, parents teach their children many things about science, like "we breathe oxygen", "gravity makes things fall to the ground", "the Earth goes around the Sun", "that's the moon", "plants need water to grow", "eat your vegetables, they are good for you". We do not accuse parents of "indoctrination" when they teach their kids these things.
It would seem rather odd for a parent to say to a child, "I do not want to force you to believie something, therefore I will leave it up to you to decide why things fall to the ground when you release them. In fact, we will not teach you any science, math, or history, because it's best if you decide those things on your own. It would be a form of child abuse to teach you anything we believe." That would be absurd.
Some people object by saying the two are different. One is proven scientific fact, the other is made up fairy tales. But that is a biased opinion. Those who believe in Christianity believe it is true, perhaps more true than certain scientific theories. People have looked into their beliefs and have come to trust in their veracity.
In fact, the argument that we know science is true is based on a false assumption. It assumes everyone has investigated things on their own and have come to the conclusion using the scientific method that the facts being presented are indeed true. But this rarely, if ever, happens. Most people know oranges contain vitamin C because someone told them it does. They did not analyze this themselves. In fact, they would have no idea how to go about it. Yet, religious beliefs are held to a much higher standard for some reason. Many people believe scientific findings because a famous scientist or association has confirmed that it is true. A similar system exists to confirm religious statements. If a statement is made by a religious group that is seen as trustworthy and exemplifies the belief, then it is logical to believe.
On top of this, there are many more ways of confirming validity. We have many proofs for our belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, and the teachings of the church. They are not merely random teachings that we "choose" to believe, but verifiable truths. Because of this, people can come to have faith outside of the teachings of their parents.
Another problem with this assertion is a historical one. If faith can only be passed from parent to child, then the only Christians should be the twelve apostles and their children. Yet we have no evidence that they even had children, and we can see historically that there were hundreds and thousands of converts in their time. In fact, in a very short time, there were millions of Christians. Again, this would not be possible simply through passing down over the generations. Entire nations were converted, not by the sword, but by the changing of hearts. We know this because there were millions of Christians even before Christianity became legal and was in fact persecuted severely.
Also, if religion can only be passed down from parent to child, where did it come from to start with? Who was the first parent to pass down the faith to a child? We know Christianity had a definite start. To bring this to the absurd, we could say that Joseph taught Jesus, etc. (there is no etc in this case), but who taught Joseph? His father? Can we keep going back like this? If so, how does Christianity have a definite beginning? We cannot keep going back to infinity.
Because of the development, growth, and present situation of Christianity, we can know for certain that people of faith are not simply robots that believe only because their parents do. We know many, honest, truth-seeking people have come to believe in the Catholic Church by responding to faith and reason.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Deviancy amplification spiral and the sex abuse scandal
I just came across an article on wikipedia about a thing called "Deviancy amplification spiral". It seems to apply to the currect media coverage of the clergy sex abuse scandal. The only difference is that sex abuse from priests is now virtually eliminated, thanks to the efforts of the Pope and others.
Here is the text of the wikipedia article on deviancy amplification spiral:
According to the theory, the spiral starts with some "deviant" act. Usually the deviance is criminal but it can also involve lawful acts considered morally repugnant by most of society. The mass media report what they consider to be newsworthy, but the new focus on the issue uncovers hidden or borderline examples which themselves would not have been newsworthy except inasmuch as they confirm the "pattern".
Reported cases of such "deviance" are often presented as just "the ones we know about" or "the tip of the iceberg," an assertion that is nearly impossible to disprove immediately. For a variety of reasons, what is not frightening and would help the public keep a rational perspective (such as statistics showing that the behavior or event is actually less common or harmful than generally believed) tends to be ignored.
As a result, minor problems begin to look serious and rare events begin to seem common. Members of the public are motivated to keep informed on these events. The resulting publicity has potential to increase deviant behavior by glamorizing it or making it seem common or acceptable. In the next stage, public concern about crime typically forces the police and the law enforcement system to focus more resources on dealing with the specific deviancy than it warrants.
Judges and magistrates are under public pressure to deal out harsher sentences. Politicians pass new laws to increase their popularity by giving the impression that they are dealing with the perceived threat. All this tends to convince the public that any fear was justified while the media continue to profit by reporting police and other law enforcement activity, which further perpetuates the spiral.
The theory does not contend that moral panics always include the deviancy amplification spiral. In modern times, however, media involvement is usual in any moral panic, making the spiral fairly common.
Eileen Barker asserts that the controversy surrounding certain new religious movements can turn violent in a deviancy amplification spiral. [1] In his autobiography, Lincoln Steffens details how news reporting can be used to create the impression of a crime wave in the chapter "I Make a Crime Wave."
Here is the text of the wikipedia article on deviancy amplification spiral:
According to the theory, the spiral starts with some "deviant" act. Usually the deviance is criminal but it can also involve lawful acts considered morally repugnant by most of society. The mass media report what they consider to be newsworthy, but the new focus on the issue uncovers hidden or borderline examples which themselves would not have been newsworthy except inasmuch as they confirm the "pattern".
Reported cases of such "deviance" are often presented as just "the ones we know about" or "the tip of the iceberg," an assertion that is nearly impossible to disprove immediately. For a variety of reasons, what is not frightening and would help the public keep a rational perspective (such as statistics showing that the behavior or event is actually less common or harmful than generally believed) tends to be ignored.
As a result, minor problems begin to look serious and rare events begin to seem common. Members of the public are motivated to keep informed on these events. The resulting publicity has potential to increase deviant behavior by glamorizing it or making it seem common or acceptable. In the next stage, public concern about crime typically forces the police and the law enforcement system to focus more resources on dealing with the specific deviancy than it warrants.
Judges and magistrates are under public pressure to deal out harsher sentences. Politicians pass new laws to increase their popularity by giving the impression that they are dealing with the perceived threat. All this tends to convince the public that any fear was justified while the media continue to profit by reporting police and other law enforcement activity, which further perpetuates the spiral.
The theory does not contend that moral panics always include the deviancy amplification spiral. In modern times, however, media involvement is usual in any moral panic, making the spiral fairly common.
Eileen Barker asserts that the controversy surrounding certain new religious movements can turn violent in a deviancy amplification spiral. [1] In his autobiography, Lincoln Steffens details how news reporting can be used to create the impression of a crime wave in the chapter "I Make a Crime Wave."
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
One more reason why in vitro fertilization is wrong.
As almost seems inevitable, a Michigan couple's child whose conceived in a petri dish was accidentally implanted in the wrong woman. Then this stranger had to carry the baby to term. Not her baby, but the other woman's.
Shannon Morell, whose baby was implanted in the wrong person, felt like she missed out on a lot by not carrying her baby. Of course she did. This is totally against nature.
It's great that this baby is alive and healthy, but these mixups are the result of human tampering with God's intentions about conception and birth.
Imagine how this child will feel when she is old enough to be told she did not start out in her mother's womb. That she started out in the womb of a total stranger. Genetically the woman she lives with is her mother, but in some sense, the surrogate is also her mother. It can cause nothing but confusion. Almost as though she has two mothers.
Children are not possessions that we have a "right" to. They are gifts from God and we must live out his plan for marriage, conception, and birth.
For more on this story, please visit:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32980984/ns/today-today_health/
Shannon Morell, whose baby was implanted in the wrong person, felt like she missed out on a lot by not carrying her baby. Of course she did. This is totally against nature.
It's great that this baby is alive and healthy, but these mixups are the result of human tampering with God's intentions about conception and birth.
Imagine how this child will feel when she is old enough to be told she did not start out in her mother's womb. That she started out in the womb of a total stranger. Genetically the woman she lives with is her mother, but in some sense, the surrogate is also her mother. It can cause nothing but confusion. Almost as though she has two mothers.
Children are not possessions that we have a "right" to. They are gifts from God and we must live out his plan for marriage, conception, and birth.
For more on this story, please visit:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32980984/ns/today-today_health/
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Pope visits Turin
The Holy Father is in Turin today to meet with the faithful. This visit coincides with the display of the Shroud of Turin, which many believe is the burial cloth of Jesus which displays his likeness. Over the next couple of weeks, 2 million visitors are expected to pass through to view the shroud, including Pope Benedict.
Right now, he is doing a speech on making permanent decisions, those of the priesthood, religious life, and married life. He says God is eternal and we must focus on eternal things, rather than the fleeting feelings of joy which come and go. We must stay with God who is everlasting.
Right now, he is doing a speech on making permanent decisions, those of the priesthood, religious life, and married life. He says God is eternal and we must focus on eternal things, rather than the fleeting feelings of joy which come and go. We must stay with God who is everlasting.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Peter Gabriel wrong about abortion.
Peter Gabriel was in Canada recently and was interviewed. He's a singer, known for being in the band Genesis. He said abortion is a hot topic, that's correct. He believes women should be allowed to kill their pre-born children, but not only that, but Canada has an obligation to pay for this in other countries.
Then Gabriel goes on to say that the only pro-life people are religious, and that he believes in a separation of "state and religion". This is a poor argument. If I said I'm against slavery and it just so happens that my religion teaches that all men are equal, would you say I'm simply expression my particular religious belief and that the government shouldn't be forced to live according to my religion?
This is a very common argument. People will say "don't force your religion on me!", "don't force your morals on me!", etc. But every law is imposition of one group's morality on another. Being against slavery is a moral stance, being for equally is also a moral stance. Banning pornography for children is also a moral stance, etc. Everything in law reflects morality. Without morality, law would not be necessary.
It's insulting to insinuate that those who are pro-life take that position because of some arbitrary ruling, no different than announcing your favorite colour or flavour of ice cream.
Even most moral relativists would not say that murder is an arbitrary moral preference, so if people believe abortion is murder, then it is only logical that they would oppose it.
If being against abortion were just a religion's arbitrary decision, there would be no such thing as pro-life atheists, but there are. Also, one must ask why most religions forbid abortion in the first place. The reason is they believe it is killing another human being. It's based on natural law, not a peculiar religious teaching.
I'm sometimes surprised how clever people seem to think they are when they simply act as a mouth-piece to fallacious canards. In Peter Gabriel's interview, he starts off taking great efforts to show his level of expertise and knowledge in this area. He shows that he understands both sides intimately, and he understands their intentions. Then he proceeds to rehash old arguments that hold little water. While doing this, he interjects a hefty dose of condescension.
Of course, he is following the well-beaten celebrity path of liberalism which advocates the culture of death. Maybe some day soon we will see more celebrities championing the cause of life.
Then Gabriel goes on to say that the only pro-life people are religious, and that he believes in a separation of "state and religion". This is a poor argument. If I said I'm against slavery and it just so happens that my religion teaches that all men are equal, would you say I'm simply expression my particular religious belief and that the government shouldn't be forced to live according to my religion?
This is a very common argument. People will say "don't force your religion on me!", "don't force your morals on me!", etc. But every law is imposition of one group's morality on another. Being against slavery is a moral stance, being for equally is also a moral stance. Banning pornography for children is also a moral stance, etc. Everything in law reflects morality. Without morality, law would not be necessary.
It's insulting to insinuate that those who are pro-life take that position because of some arbitrary ruling, no different than announcing your favorite colour or flavour of ice cream.
Even most moral relativists would not say that murder is an arbitrary moral preference, so if people believe abortion is murder, then it is only logical that they would oppose it.
If being against abortion were just a religion's arbitrary decision, there would be no such thing as pro-life atheists, but there are. Also, one must ask why most religions forbid abortion in the first place. The reason is they believe it is killing another human being. It's based on natural law, not a peculiar religious teaching.
I'm sometimes surprised how clever people seem to think they are when they simply act as a mouth-piece to fallacious canards. In Peter Gabriel's interview, he starts off taking great efforts to show his level of expertise and knowledge in this area. He shows that he understands both sides intimately, and he understands their intentions. Then he proceeds to rehash old arguments that hold little water. While doing this, he interjects a hefty dose of condescension.
Of course, he is following the well-beaten celebrity path of liberalism which advocates the culture of death. Maybe some day soon we will see more celebrities championing the cause of life.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Catholic population grew faster than world population
From 2000 to 2008 the population of Catholics on Earth grew from 1.045 billion to 1.166 billion, an 11.58% increase, which was faster than the growth rate of overall human population. To read the entire article, please visit:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6153
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6153
Canadian tax payers will not be forced to pay for abortions in developing world
I am happy about a decision made by the Canadian government to not pay for the killing of unwanted children in the developing world. The Canadian Government has decided, despite protests from opposition, that part of a healthy plan for developing countries it would not fund abortion.
Some have brought up the objection that some women die in unsafe abortions. But if we break this down a little, we get a different story. Women attempt to kill their unborn child, but this involves injuring themselves. This is a very sad situation and I feel bad for these women who are injured. But legalizing the murder of some individuals is not the solution. What if some fathers who were committing honour killings but in the process were injured or killed. Would we make honour killings legal to alleviate this issue? No.
We shouldn't have abortion, and we definitely should not be funding abortion in other countries. Everyone has a right to life, that includes our young brothers and sisters who live in their mothers wombs.
Some have brought up the objection that some women die in unsafe abortions. But if we break this down a little, we get a different story. Women attempt to kill their unborn child, but this involves injuring themselves. This is a very sad situation and I feel bad for these women who are injured. But legalizing the murder of some individuals is not the solution. What if some fathers who were committing honour killings but in the process were injured or killed. Would we make honour killings legal to alleviate this issue? No.
We shouldn't have abortion, and we definitely should not be funding abortion in other countries. Everyone has a right to life, that includes our young brothers and sisters who live in their mothers wombs.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Jennifer Knapp on Larry King: A Catholic Perspective
Jennifer Knapp, a famous Grammy-nominated Christian singer, came out as a lesbian and is being featured on Larry King Live tonight, Saturday, April 23, 2010. She says she is still a strong Christian, despite her sexuality. Joining her on the show were Pastor Bob Botsford and Ted Haggart (former pastor).
One of the main themes presented was that how can we say Jennifer is doing something wrong when we could potentially be doing something wrong ourselves. Or, since we are all sinners, how can we focus on the sin of homosexuality. That's a good point. All sins must be looked at and solutions must be sought. Everyone has an obligation to live holy lives and anything getting in the way must be avoided. The difference here is that Jennifer says there is nothing wrong with her behavior. She denies the sinfulness of homosexual activity, even though Christianity opposes it and says it is a sin. In Catholic teaching, homosexual behavior is grave matter and can potentially be a serious sin.
If an individual was on Larry King and that pastor was there again and he said "I am very greedy. I steal money and scam people. I don't think it's a sin though. Therefore you cannot tell me I'm wrong." The difference is that the individual is consenting to the sinful behavior and is not doing anything to stop it. If Jennifer pointed out a particular sin of the pastor, he could then say he will try to stop his behavior.
Also, the idea of not judging came up frequently. Are we really not to judge? What does this mean? The truth is we are not to judge an individual's heart or their standing with God. We cannot say if someone is in a state of mortal sin. But we can and must judge actions, mostly our own, but we can also look at actions around us to determine if they are right or wrong. Jesus told many people to go and sin no more. He didn't ignore the sin or pretend it didn't exist. We must love the sinner, but hate the sin. We must correct the sin, but always do so with love.
There were more issues brought up on Larry King, and I think they are being addressed to some extent by the guests, but incompletely.
First of all, Jennifer objects to the translation of the original Greek, saying perhaps we translated it wrong. Of course, homosexual behavior is forbidden in several places in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus speaks about the commitment of one man to one woman. Paul says homosexual behaviour is a sin. It is very clear. To say perhaps we translated it wrong is a far-fetched tactic.
Related to this, the topic of Old Testament proscriptions against wearing two types of fibers, eat shellfish, etc. Of course, we know the old law was fulfilled in the New Testament in the person of Jesus Christ. He did not abolish the old law, but fulfilled it. Many things were pointing to the arrival of Jesus. However, like I said, he did not destroy the law when he established a new and everlasting covenent. There are Old Testament and New Testament laws against homosexual behavior.
Another very hot button topic that came up during the exchange, which was heated at times, was whether homosexuality was a choice and if not, how is it a sin. This topic, in my opinion, was addressed very poorly. Protestantism generally views homosexuality in and of itself to be a sin. Therefore a person with same-sex attraction would be committing a sin. So Larry asked if someone who did not choose to be homosexual would be committing a sin. The pastor did not a have a good explanation for this, but basically said they would be guilty. Larry King wondered aloud how something not learned could be a sin. The pastor had no good response. The Catholic Church views homosexual desire as a burden, which does not remove a person's need to remain chaste. Same-sex attraction would be seen as a temptation but not as a sin in itself. However, homosexual activity would be considered sinful.
The Church is not targetting homosexuals. In fact, the prohibition against homosexual sex comes more as a necessary consequence of a broader teacher than a particular proscription. The church believes sex is meant for marriage between a man and woman, because it is meant as both unitive (for the spouses) and procreative. Any type of sex outside this bond does not conform to this plan. This would include any number of sexual behaviors.
Another issues this brings up is Biblical interpretation. The two ministers on the show came from a Bible alone approach. There was no final authority on matters of faith and morals. This weakness was exploited by Jennifer Knapp who pitted her or another church's or pastor's interpretation of the Bible against his. That's one of the pitfalls of personal interpretation and one of the reasons why there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations in the world.
I'm not writing this article to say how bad Jennifer Knapp is. Surely many people, including me, have sins that we are ashamed of and perhaps feel burdened by. It's important for us to place our trust in God and to seek to do his will.
One of the main themes presented was that how can we say Jennifer is doing something wrong when we could potentially be doing something wrong ourselves. Or, since we are all sinners, how can we focus on the sin of homosexuality. That's a good point. All sins must be looked at and solutions must be sought. Everyone has an obligation to live holy lives and anything getting in the way must be avoided. The difference here is that Jennifer says there is nothing wrong with her behavior. She denies the sinfulness of homosexual activity, even though Christianity opposes it and says it is a sin. In Catholic teaching, homosexual behavior is grave matter and can potentially be a serious sin.
If an individual was on Larry King and that pastor was there again and he said "I am very greedy. I steal money and scam people. I don't think it's a sin though. Therefore you cannot tell me I'm wrong." The difference is that the individual is consenting to the sinful behavior and is not doing anything to stop it. If Jennifer pointed out a particular sin of the pastor, he could then say he will try to stop his behavior.
Also, the idea of not judging came up frequently. Are we really not to judge? What does this mean? The truth is we are not to judge an individual's heart or their standing with God. We cannot say if someone is in a state of mortal sin. But we can and must judge actions, mostly our own, but we can also look at actions around us to determine if they are right or wrong. Jesus told many people to go and sin no more. He didn't ignore the sin or pretend it didn't exist. We must love the sinner, but hate the sin. We must correct the sin, but always do so with love.
There were more issues brought up on Larry King, and I think they are being addressed to some extent by the guests, but incompletely.
First of all, Jennifer objects to the translation of the original Greek, saying perhaps we translated it wrong. Of course, homosexual behavior is forbidden in several places in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus speaks about the commitment of one man to one woman. Paul says homosexual behaviour is a sin. It is very clear. To say perhaps we translated it wrong is a far-fetched tactic.
Related to this, the topic of Old Testament proscriptions against wearing two types of fibers, eat shellfish, etc. Of course, we know the old law was fulfilled in the New Testament in the person of Jesus Christ. He did not abolish the old law, but fulfilled it. Many things were pointing to the arrival of Jesus. However, like I said, he did not destroy the law when he established a new and everlasting covenent. There are Old Testament and New Testament laws against homosexual behavior.
Another very hot button topic that came up during the exchange, which was heated at times, was whether homosexuality was a choice and if not, how is it a sin. This topic, in my opinion, was addressed very poorly. Protestantism generally views homosexuality in and of itself to be a sin. Therefore a person with same-sex attraction would be committing a sin. So Larry asked if someone who did not choose to be homosexual would be committing a sin. The pastor did not a have a good explanation for this, but basically said they would be guilty. Larry King wondered aloud how something not learned could be a sin. The pastor had no good response. The Catholic Church views homosexual desire as a burden, which does not remove a person's need to remain chaste. Same-sex attraction would be seen as a temptation but not as a sin in itself. However, homosexual activity would be considered sinful.
The Church is not targetting homosexuals. In fact, the prohibition against homosexual sex comes more as a necessary consequence of a broader teacher than a particular proscription. The church believes sex is meant for marriage between a man and woman, because it is meant as both unitive (for the spouses) and procreative. Any type of sex outside this bond does not conform to this plan. This would include any number of sexual behaviors.
Another issues this brings up is Biblical interpretation. The two ministers on the show came from a Bible alone approach. There was no final authority on matters of faith and morals. This weakness was exploited by Jennifer Knapp who pitted her or another church's or pastor's interpretation of the Bible against his. That's one of the pitfalls of personal interpretation and one of the reasons why there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations in the world.
I'm not writing this article to say how bad Jennifer Knapp is. Surely many people, including me, have sins that we are ashamed of and perhaps feel burdened by. It's important for us to place our trust in God and to seek to do his will.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Organization covers up sexual abuse of minors
There is an organization where hundreds of children were sexually abused. Despite this, none of the abusers were reported to the authorities, and only 1% lost their license and position. Only 35% suffered negative consequences of any kind and 39% chose to leave their place of employment, most with positive recommendations.
Of course, I'm talking about the Catholic Church right? No. This is the case in schools around the world, but specifically this is from New York.
Teachers were passed around from school to school, in a process called "passing the trash". Only 1% of the time did superintendents notify the new school about the offending teacher.
The study found that up to 5% of teachers sexually abused children.
Here are the sources for this information:
Douglas Montero, “Secret Shame of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse of Students Runs Rampant,” New York Post, July 30, 2001, p. 1.
“Schools Chancellor: Four Teachers Barred from Classroom,” Associated Press, June 12, 2003.
Charol Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan, In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools, (What administrators should know). Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Field Initiated Grants
Diana Jean Schemo, “Silently Shifting Teachers in Sex Abuse Cases,” New York Times, June 18, 2002, p. A19.
Elizabeth Cohen, “Sex Abuse of Students Common; Research Suggests 15% of All Children Harassed,” Press & Sun-Bulletin, February 10, 2002, p. 1A.
Why is that we never hear about sexual abuse in schools? Most teachers are married, yet we never hear that marriage leads to sexual abuse or pedophilia. We don't hear about a "crisis" in the education system. Why aren't the secretaries of Education called all sorts of names with people calling for them to be tried for crimes against humanity? Even though the problem is much more widespread and prevalent in schools than in churches, there is only public outrage for priests.
Also there have been many cases involving pastors, rabbis, swim teachers, boy scout leaders, etc. but no similar or equivalent outrage. Could it be that swim teachers do not make moral demands and therefore people are not made uncomfortable by pronouncements of the truth? Could it be that people already dislike the Church because of its stance against homosexual "marriage", abortion, and sexual impropriety, and use this simply as a scapegoat to lash out?
Often when someone is losing an argument, they will resort to name calling. People know the Church presents the Truth, and therefore they cannot contradict it, so they attack priests instead. This "scandal" is simply a convenient excuse.
Any sexual abuse is bad, but what about using this sexual abuse to advance other causes? That's what many are doing. If they were really concerned about the welfare of innocent children, they would campaign against all sexual abuse, but instead they focus exclusively on the pope. Their use of priestly sexual abuse victims as pawns to advance their ideology becomes disturbingly clear.
For those who are geniunely concerned about children's welfare, I thank you. You are doing an excellent thing by looking out for their welfare. But for those using these events to simply advance their ideology, shame on you. You simply exploit the suffering of children to push an agenda, and that's wrong.
We need to route out the "filth" of children sexual abuse, as Cardinal Ratzinger put it. We need to do this from all sources.
Of course, I'm talking about the Catholic Church right? No. This is the case in schools around the world, but specifically this is from New York.
Teachers were passed around from school to school, in a process called "passing the trash". Only 1% of the time did superintendents notify the new school about the offending teacher.
The study found that up to 5% of teachers sexually abused children.
Here are the sources for this information:
Douglas Montero, “Secret Shame of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse of Students Runs Rampant,” New York Post, July 30, 2001, p. 1.
“Schools Chancellor: Four Teachers Barred from Classroom,” Associated Press, June 12, 2003.
Charol Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan, In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools, (What administrators should know). Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Field Initiated Grants
Diana Jean Schemo, “Silently Shifting Teachers in Sex Abuse Cases,” New York Times, June 18, 2002, p. A19.
Elizabeth Cohen, “Sex Abuse of Students Common; Research Suggests 15% of All Children Harassed,” Press & Sun-Bulletin, February 10, 2002, p. 1A.
Why is that we never hear about sexual abuse in schools? Most teachers are married, yet we never hear that marriage leads to sexual abuse or pedophilia. We don't hear about a "crisis" in the education system. Why aren't the secretaries of Education called all sorts of names with people calling for them to be tried for crimes against humanity? Even though the problem is much more widespread and prevalent in schools than in churches, there is only public outrage for priests.
Also there have been many cases involving pastors, rabbis, swim teachers, boy scout leaders, etc. but no similar or equivalent outrage. Could it be that swim teachers do not make moral demands and therefore people are not made uncomfortable by pronouncements of the truth? Could it be that people already dislike the Church because of its stance against homosexual "marriage", abortion, and sexual impropriety, and use this simply as a scapegoat to lash out?
Often when someone is losing an argument, they will resort to name calling. People know the Church presents the Truth, and therefore they cannot contradict it, so they attack priests instead. This "scandal" is simply a convenient excuse.
Any sexual abuse is bad, but what about using this sexual abuse to advance other causes? That's what many are doing. If they were really concerned about the welfare of innocent children, they would campaign against all sexual abuse, but instead they focus exclusively on the pope. Their use of priestly sexual abuse victims as pawns to advance their ideology becomes disturbingly clear.
For those who are geniunely concerned about children's welfare, I thank you. You are doing an excellent thing by looking out for their welfare. But for those using these events to simply advance their ideology, shame on you. You simply exploit the suffering of children to push an agenda, and that's wrong.
We need to route out the "filth" of children sexual abuse, as Cardinal Ratzinger put it. We need to do this from all sources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)