I found a really funny blog about bad vestments. It's worth checking out for a good laugh.
http://badvestments.blogspot.com
I noticed that most of the bad vestments come from the Episcopal Church. Did they abandon all rules concerning appropriate vestments? Perhaps it is the fact that the Episcopal Church does not have a strong hierarchial structure, and therefore these vestments come around.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Death from unsafe abortions. Solution: Don't have one.
Many people are critical of the Canadian government because it has pledged billions of dollars in funding for maternal care, along with other G8 nations, but it has not included funding for abortion in third world countries. Many are outraged that the government has not done this. But I would like to present another possible point of view.
There are many scientific reasons to believe an embryo is a real live human being. Science is constantly showing more reasons that this preborn child is indeed a child. Therefore, abortion is killing a child. Once we realize what is actually happening, we can intelligently discuss the issue.
One good way to discuss this issue is to substitute any theoretical scenario involving an embryo with one involving a 3 year old child. For example, in Africa, a woman may have two children and one on the way, and wants to have an abortion because she is concerned she cannot afford an education for this third child. Well, if this child was a three-year-old, would it be alright for her to kill that child because he may not have access to a good education? No.
Let's take an even more extreme situation. A mother has 2 children and is afraid she does not have enough to feed a third child. This is a very tragic situation. Imagine that third child is 3 years old. Would it be alright for her to kill that third child so that the others may have enough food? No.
Of course, these are the most extreme circumstances. Most abortions do not occur for this reason. Abortion is always optional, in that it is the direct killing of an unborn child. If people realize that the unborn child is indeed a child, then funding the killing of these children does not seem like such a great idea, much less something that's a human right.
Some may ask about a situation where the life of a mother is at risk. Even if abortion is legal, the mother in this situation would not have to die. For example, if the mother developed a cancer on her fallopian tube, which necessitated its removal. This would cause the death of the child, however it would be permissible even in countries where abortion is illegal because the death of the child is an unintended consequence of the treatment of the mother. In most cases, if a continued pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk, the unborn baby would end up dying before birth anyway. I remember hearing an experienced doctor say that in all his decades of medical practice in obstetrics, he has never come across a real case of choosing between the life of the mother or the life of the baby. It simply doesn't happen that way in real life.
Many of the situations that poor women face can be truly heartbreaking, and we ought to support them as much as possible. It is a very difficult situation, and even for women who choose abortion, they must be loved because they are children of God. But I do not believe that killing children is the solution. It is only a terrible tragedy.
There are many scientific reasons to believe an embryo is a real live human being. Science is constantly showing more reasons that this preborn child is indeed a child. Therefore, abortion is killing a child. Once we realize what is actually happening, we can intelligently discuss the issue.
One good way to discuss this issue is to substitute any theoretical scenario involving an embryo with one involving a 3 year old child. For example, in Africa, a woman may have two children and one on the way, and wants to have an abortion because she is concerned she cannot afford an education for this third child. Well, if this child was a three-year-old, would it be alright for her to kill that child because he may not have access to a good education? No.
Let's take an even more extreme situation. A mother has 2 children and is afraid she does not have enough to feed a third child. This is a very tragic situation. Imagine that third child is 3 years old. Would it be alright for her to kill that third child so that the others may have enough food? No.
Of course, these are the most extreme circumstances. Most abortions do not occur for this reason. Abortion is always optional, in that it is the direct killing of an unborn child. If people realize that the unborn child is indeed a child, then funding the killing of these children does not seem like such a great idea, much less something that's a human right.
Some may ask about a situation where the life of a mother is at risk. Even if abortion is legal, the mother in this situation would not have to die. For example, if the mother developed a cancer on her fallopian tube, which necessitated its removal. This would cause the death of the child, however it would be permissible even in countries where abortion is illegal because the death of the child is an unintended consequence of the treatment of the mother. In most cases, if a continued pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk, the unborn baby would end up dying before birth anyway. I remember hearing an experienced doctor say that in all his decades of medical practice in obstetrics, he has never come across a real case of choosing between the life of the mother or the life of the baby. It simply doesn't happen that way in real life.
Many of the situations that poor women face can be truly heartbreaking, and we ought to support them as much as possible. It is a very difficult situation, and even for women who choose abortion, they must be loved because they are children of God. But I do not believe that killing children is the solution. It is only a terrible tragedy.
Can Catholics support a Monarchy?
The Queen of England, Elizabeth II, is in Canada, specifically Halifax for a little while. Many people do not support the monarchy because they say it is outdated and they have no power because we now have a democracy. Also, some object because commonwealth countries pay to maintain a monarchy. The estimate for Canada is about $1 per person, so around $30 million per year.
But beside these legitimate complaints, should Catholics be morally opposed to monarchies? According to the Church, not necessarily. In fact, according to Thomas Aquinas, since unity in rule is preferable to disunity, monarchy is preferable to oligarchy or democracy. He believes that unity creates strength and better decision making. This concept is easy to understand especially if we look at our own society. Government often takes weeks, months, or years to reach a decision. Sometimes elections are called which requires endless campaigning and money. Democracy can slow things down and create less efficiency.
But of course monarchy has its issues too. The type of monarchy invisioned by Aquinas is a moral one. If a monarch made laws which were morally good, then it would create a good society. This is the view of the Catholic Church as well. The Church does not summarily dismiss monarchy as a viable type of government. It would, however, reject tyrrany or any type of government which had immoral laws. Indeed, the government of the Vatican is a monarchy, albeit an elected one. The Pope is the sovereign of the Vatican. Cardinals do not vote on issues, although they can be used as consultants. Therefore, the Vatican would not condemn its own type of government.
Also, the Catholic Church is not opposed to democracy either, however the Church can be critical of a democracy which violates human rights, even if supported by the majority.
In conclusion, the Catholic Church is theoretically not opposed to any particular type of government as long as it adheres to good moral principles.
But beside these legitimate complaints, should Catholics be morally opposed to monarchies? According to the Church, not necessarily. In fact, according to Thomas Aquinas, since unity in rule is preferable to disunity, monarchy is preferable to oligarchy or democracy. He believes that unity creates strength and better decision making. This concept is easy to understand especially if we look at our own society. Government often takes weeks, months, or years to reach a decision. Sometimes elections are called which requires endless campaigning and money. Democracy can slow things down and create less efficiency.
But of course monarchy has its issues too. The type of monarchy invisioned by Aquinas is a moral one. If a monarch made laws which were morally good, then it would create a good society. This is the view of the Catholic Church as well. The Church does not summarily dismiss monarchy as a viable type of government. It would, however, reject tyrrany or any type of government which had immoral laws. Indeed, the government of the Vatican is a monarchy, albeit an elected one. The Pope is the sovereign of the Vatican. Cardinals do not vote on issues, although they can be used as consultants. Therefore, the Vatican would not condemn its own type of government.
Also, the Catholic Church is not opposed to democracy either, however the Church can be critical of a democracy which violates human rights, even if supported by the majority.
In conclusion, the Catholic Church is theoretically not opposed to any particular type of government as long as it adheres to good moral principles.
Fireproof movie has good message, but poor delivery
Fireproof is a movie starring Kirk Cameron (who plays Caleb) and Erin Bathea (who plays his wife Catherine) about a couple who encounter discord in their marriage relatively early on and are headed for divorce. Caleb visits his dad to tell him the situation. The father then gives Kirk a book with 40 days worth of activities in it which will save his marriage.Although this is a Christian film, religious overtones do not come into play until well past the first half of the film. Caleb starts out as a non-religious person who is sceptical about religion. His father though has become quite devout.
The movie offers a great message and practical advice to improve any marriage, even those which seem destined to end. I believe if these techniques were employed, marriages would be saved. This movie is somewhat more realistic than a lot of what Hollywood has to offer. It showcases real people with real problems and good advice.
My main issue with the movie is how deliberate it seems. There is no guesswork or subtlety. If the producer wants you to know something, the character will come out and explicitly say it. Therefore, it's a little too straightforward. Also, some of the scenes could be much tighter. For example, Caleb might receive some bad news, and we will watch him react for several minutes. This could have been cut and his state of mind could be implied.
On top of that, many of the characters seem a little too perfect. Caleb's dad, for example, always knows exactly the right words to say. It's as though he has had time to prepare an answer. When Caleb calls him, his dad always seems to be waiting right next to the phone with no distractions, as if psychic. These "perfect" characters take away some of the realism.
This movie was a runaway success at the box office. Produced with only $500,000, the movie made over $33 million in theatres. This is quite a return on investment.
If you're looking for a movie that has a good message but is not infiltrated by Hollywood cynicism, this is a great one. Some of the themes would probably seem foreign to younger children, but by late teens, this movie would be valuable to watch.
I give this movie 3.9 stars out of 5.
Happy Birthday to Me!
Hey everyone,
Today is my 28th birthday. And today my first niece was born, and I will be her Godfather. I will be a first time uncle and Godfather. How did I do it? I made her an offer she couldn't refuse!
Phil
Today is my 28th birthday. And today my first niece was born, and I will be her Godfather. I will be a first time uncle and Godfather. How did I do it? I made her an offer she couldn't refuse!
Phil
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Top 8 Reasons Atheists are No Fun
1. They are very demeaning to Christians
One thing you'll quickly notice about adament atheists is how demeaning they are to Christians. They will call them idiots, morons, and mock their beliefs with vitriol. You simply don't see this type of thing from the other way around though. Christians feel compelled to offer reasons for their beliefs and defend against atheism. They may say atheism is misguided, or even wrong, but they will not stoop to the level of calling them morons, dults, idiots, etc. for no reason. You may disagree, but I suggest you do a search. I'm sure in the whole world, there are Christians who are belittling and demeaning to atheists, but it's not the norm. Go to Youtube. Check out how many videos basically say that Christians are idiots. Then compare that to the rational response videos made by Christians. Even Richard Dawkins, sort of the global figurehead for atheism, calls his group the "brights", a clear antithesis to the "dulls" which he is implying Christians are.
2. They always seem angry
Atheists always seem kind of pissed off. They have loads of hatred and scorn. Check out for example Penn Jillette. He is part of the comedy routine Penn and Teller. He spews hatred, completely unbridled. Atheists always seem to have a chip on their shoulder.
3. Their "raison d'etre" seems to be to prove they are just as good as Christians morally
I've seen some pretty weak attempts by atheists to show they are just as morally good as Christians. They constantly have a need to prove themselves. But this attempt at overcompensation derives from their feelings of inferiority. Any atheist can stroll through any major city and notice that the vast majority of hospitals, schools, and other institutions of societal good come from people who believe in God. Faced with this stark realization, atheists go out of their way to prove they are "just as good".
4. They seem selfish
Because atheists see themselves as the greatest thing in the universe, they become rather selfish. Morals are self-derived. If something feels good to them or benefits them, then it's good, otherwise it's bad. If there is no God, humans are the highest form of existence, and atheists would place their own personal existence above others. Atheists do not want to sacrifice for the greater good, but rather want to revel in sensual pleasures.
5. They try to remove faith but it seems like a pointless activity
Why would atheists spend so much time and energy trying to eradicate faith. Mao, Stalin, and others did the same when they suppressed religion in the name of atheism, and we can see the terrible results there. If they believe people are following a "fairy tale" like the toothfairy or Santa Claus, then what harm is that? If these fairy tales makes the person more generous, kind, loving, and selfless, why bother removing this faith? Why don't atheists spend as much time promoting lack of belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to children as they do to eradicating faith?
6. Atheism makes the world a cold, heartless place
Atheism presents a very darwinian view of the world. Survival of the fittest. Atheists tend to attribute all their good fortunes to their own effort and see those they deem inferior to them as not as valuable. It becomes everyone for himself, and all this makes the world a cold and heartless place.
7. When everything is about science, people are reduced in value
Without our belief in a creator, atheists tend to view everything from the point of view of chemistry, biology, evolution, etc. People are no more special than a trout. They are just two different species. God didn't create us in a special way. We are all just accidents in a cold universe. Therefore those who are deemed "unsuitable" are no longer owed any special treat. The elderly, handicapped, and otherwise challenged individuals are easily seen as cosmic mistakes. This reduces the value of all humanity.
8. They lack in charity and use profanity
Atheists have no aversion to using profanity and vulgarity to make their point. Holding nothing sacred, they see blasphemy as a joke. Lacking charity, they feel they can express their opinion in any way they see fit, no matter how offensive. They see their behavior as "tough love" and denounce those who raise issues with their behavior as "softies".
Those are just some of the reasons atheists are no fun.
One thing you'll quickly notice about adament atheists is how demeaning they are to Christians. They will call them idiots, morons, and mock their beliefs with vitriol. You simply don't see this type of thing from the other way around though. Christians feel compelled to offer reasons for their beliefs and defend against atheism. They may say atheism is misguided, or even wrong, but they will not stoop to the level of calling them morons, dults, idiots, etc. for no reason. You may disagree, but I suggest you do a search. I'm sure in the whole world, there are Christians who are belittling and demeaning to atheists, but it's not the norm. Go to Youtube. Check out how many videos basically say that Christians are idiots. Then compare that to the rational response videos made by Christians. Even Richard Dawkins, sort of the global figurehead for atheism, calls his group the "brights", a clear antithesis to the "dulls" which he is implying Christians are.
2. They always seem angry
Atheists always seem kind of pissed off. They have loads of hatred and scorn. Check out for example Penn Jillette. He is part of the comedy routine Penn and Teller. He spews hatred, completely unbridled. Atheists always seem to have a chip on their shoulder.
3. Their "raison d'etre" seems to be to prove they are just as good as Christians morally
I've seen some pretty weak attempts by atheists to show they are just as morally good as Christians. They constantly have a need to prove themselves. But this attempt at overcompensation derives from their feelings of inferiority. Any atheist can stroll through any major city and notice that the vast majority of hospitals, schools, and other institutions of societal good come from people who believe in God. Faced with this stark realization, atheists go out of their way to prove they are "just as good".
4. They seem selfish
Because atheists see themselves as the greatest thing in the universe, they become rather selfish. Morals are self-derived. If something feels good to them or benefits them, then it's good, otherwise it's bad. If there is no God, humans are the highest form of existence, and atheists would place their own personal existence above others. Atheists do not want to sacrifice for the greater good, but rather want to revel in sensual pleasures.
5. They try to remove faith but it seems like a pointless activity
Why would atheists spend so much time and energy trying to eradicate faith. Mao, Stalin, and others did the same when they suppressed religion in the name of atheism, and we can see the terrible results there. If they believe people are following a "fairy tale" like the toothfairy or Santa Claus, then what harm is that? If these fairy tales makes the person more generous, kind, loving, and selfless, why bother removing this faith? Why don't atheists spend as much time promoting lack of belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to children as they do to eradicating faith?
6. Atheism makes the world a cold, heartless place
Atheism presents a very darwinian view of the world. Survival of the fittest. Atheists tend to attribute all their good fortunes to their own effort and see those they deem inferior to them as not as valuable. It becomes everyone for himself, and all this makes the world a cold and heartless place.
7. When everything is about science, people are reduced in value
Without our belief in a creator, atheists tend to view everything from the point of view of chemistry, biology, evolution, etc. People are no more special than a trout. They are just two different species. God didn't create us in a special way. We are all just accidents in a cold universe. Therefore those who are deemed "unsuitable" are no longer owed any special treat. The elderly, handicapped, and otherwise challenged individuals are easily seen as cosmic mistakes. This reduces the value of all humanity.
8. They lack in charity and use profanity
Atheists have no aversion to using profanity and vulgarity to make their point. Holding nothing sacred, they see blasphemy as a joke. Lacking charity, they feel they can express their opinion in any way they see fit, no matter how offensive. They see their behavior as "tough love" and denounce those who raise issues with their behavior as "softies".
Those are just some of the reasons atheists are no fun.
Why am I getting news from Kenya?
I went to Google News today and typed in "catholic". In the top 10 results was an article about a Catholic priest who raped a girl. I'm in Canada, but this article is from Kenya! What's shocking about this is that there are thousands of rapes all over the world, but you don't hear about them. In fact, unless you live in a very tiny community, you probably wouldn't even hear about a rape in your own city. How often do you think the Toronto Star would publish an article that says "16 year old girl raped."? Not very likely. But if a priest is the perpetrator, geography doesn't seem to matter. It could be in Timbuktu, and newspapers all over the world would publish it. How did this article appear in the top 10 results for Catholic on Google News? We're usually lucky if we hear about a murder, since news has become so sensationalized, yet they publish a story from Africa about one rape case.
Of course, this cannot be a case of media bias, right?
Of course, this cannot be a case of media bias, right?
Mother of Perpetual Help, pray for us
Today is the feast day of the Mother of Perpetual, which is a title for Mary. She is always helping us with her intercession to Jesus, her son. In the painting, you can see Jesus ran so fast to be in the arms of his mother, that his sandal fell off. The angels Gabriel and Michael are on each side of Mary. It's a very beautiful painting.
Belgian police getting rather desperate
In a desperate attempt by Belgian police to destroy the reputation of the Catholic Church even further, they have performed unbelievable raids of Catholic property. Police raided a commission set up by the Church to investigate abuse allegations and seized 500 files. But even more shocking, the police drilled holes in 2 TOMBS of former archbishops. Some priests were held for 9 hours without food or drink on mere suspicion or hunches. I guess come hell or high water, Europe will take a good bite out of the Church, especially in their reputation, or so they hope.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Germany starts killing its elderly
Germany has become the latest country to legalize the killing of older people. The court, as usual, is the one who initiated this. It happened because an elderly woman apparently said she would not want to be kept alive if she slipped into a coma, which she did. The justice who proclaimed the ruling said it was an advancement for human rights.
Well, if human rights involve killing people then sure. But I don't think that's a human right. If someone is suffering, we have an obligation to reduce the suffering, not to kill them. Often people seek suicide due to mental disturbances. Whatever happened to helping people rather than killing them?
We have suicide hotlines. Why? If taking one's life is a right, why stop anyone? The reasons is we recognize the value of their life despite their circumstances. Therefore we have a duty to protect their life, even from their own actions. Countries are just burning the candle at both ends, before birth and in old age. They just want to kill people off who are not producing economically. Shame on Germany.
Well, if human rights involve killing people then sure. But I don't think that's a human right. If someone is suffering, we have an obligation to reduce the suffering, not to kill them. Often people seek suicide due to mental disturbances. Whatever happened to helping people rather than killing them?
We have suicide hotlines. Why? If taking one's life is a right, why stop anyone? The reasons is we recognize the value of their life despite their circumstances. Therefore we have a duty to protect their life, even from their own actions. Countries are just burning the candle at both ends, before birth and in old age. They just want to kill people off who are not producing economically. Shame on Germany.
Gary and Tony Have a Baby represents heart ache and tragedy
Last night I watched Gary and Tony Have a Baby. It was produced by Soledad O'Brien, in a very biased light to make it look all positive. Despite this effort, some real tragedies emerged.Gary and Tony are gay men who decide they have a right to have a baby. They go to great lengths to accomplish this and do it in a rather roundabout way. They didn't want to just impregnate a woman, so they took the ovum from one woman, fertilized it with the sperm of one of the men, then implanted it in a separate woman.
One of the saddest parts was the surrogate mother. Of course, they paid her thousands of dollars to use her body in that way. They said they didn't want to just impregnate a woman because they thought she would develop a stronger attachment to the child. That's why they got a separate woman to donate an ovum. Anyway, of course, the surrogate did in fact develop a strong attachment to the child she carried for 8 or 9 months. She said she has little contact with him now, and she thinks about him every day. She said if she doesn't keep herself busy, she could easily become depressed.
She also worried that these two men do not have the maternal instinct. For example, they paraded their baby at a gay rights rally to say they want this kind of thing to be acceptable. The mother (or surrogate) felt they were putting that poor baby at risk because those things can become hostile. And she's right. Men simply do not possess the maternal instinct. they are not mothers and never can be. It's a terrible tragedy when a baby is taken from his mother who he will never know.
I could count about 8-9 immoral acts which occurred for all of this to happen. Every child has a right to know his mother and father. Sometimes that doesn't happen due to tragic circumstances, but we shouldn't normalize a tragedy and pretend it's just as acceptable. This child will never know his mother's love, he will never experience it. Of course, he'll never breastfeed, etc. An entire aspect of his development is missing.
Of course, there are many other moral issues involved. To me, it seemed this baby just represented these two guys' sense of entitlement. "We are gay. We have rights. We can do anything anyone else can and no one can stop us." They want a baby as an accessory or to prove gay people can be parents. This is not a political statement, this is a child.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
7 Apostles who were crucified
Jesus was crucified on the cross, as everyone knows. Many also know that Peter was to be crucified like Jesus but felt unworthy, so was crucified upside down. But what many do not know is that many of the other apostles were also crucified.
1) Peter, crucified upside-down
2) Andrew, crucified on an X-shaped cross
3) Philip, crucified upside-down
4) Jude
5) Simon the Zealot
The following Apostles were crucified but survived and were killed another way:
6) James the Less, was later clubbed to death
7) Bartholomew, was released from crucifixion while Philip was also being crucified. Philip refused to be released. Bartholomew was later flayed.
The other apostles died in other ways:
8) Matthew, unknown
9) Judas, hanged himself
10) Thomas, killed by a spear
11) James the Great, beheaded
12) John was the only one to die naturally
13) Matthias (who replaced Judas), stoned and beheaded
1) Peter, crucified upside-down
2) Andrew, crucified on an X-shaped cross
3) Philip, crucified upside-down
4) Jude
5) Simon the Zealot
The following Apostles were crucified but survived and were killed another way:
6) James the Less, was later clubbed to death
7) Bartholomew, was released from crucifixion while Philip was also being crucified. Philip refused to be released. Bartholomew was later flayed.
The other apostles died in other ways:
8) Matthew, unknown
9) Judas, hanged himself
10) Thomas, killed by a spear
11) James the Great, beheaded
12) John was the only one to die naturally
13) Matthias (who replaced Judas), stoned and beheaded
Today is St. John the Baptist Day
Today's the birthday of my hometown of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. It was discovered on June 24th, St. John the Baptist Day, back in 1497. It's the oldest city in North America. The date is John's date of birth. As we know, he foretold the coming of Jesus and when he saw Jesus, he said "behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World." John the Baptist was beheaded because of his protest against the marriage of Herod. St. John, pray for us.
CNN pushes gay agenda once again
A new show called Gary + Tony Have a Baby will air tonight on CNN. It was produced by Soledad O'Brien. I saw a brief interview with her and these two guys yesterday on Larry King. I doubt you could find someone who sounds more fabricated than Soledad. You know how sometimes you hear a news person speaking and it sounds artificial, well Soledad has brought it to a whole new level. Everything she says sounds like a Hallmark card. Sounds very disingenuous.
Anyway, CNN will be celebrating gay adoption with this program which took over a year to fully produce. First of all, the name of the program is pretty misleading. Gary and Tony Have a Baby. They didn't have a baby, some random woman did. And they really pushed the envelope to make this one of the most twisted birth stories ever.
One of the men, I forget which, gave some of his sperm to a clinic. Then some random woman donated an ovum. Then they took these two cells, combined them in a petri dish in a scientist's lab using all sorts of medical equipment, microscopes, etc. Just thinking of the loving way this baby came into the world makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Anyway, after they had combined these cells, outside the body, the implanted them in ANOTHER woman's body who acted as the surrogate. Hopefully this child has a high IQ, he'll need it to understand how he was born.
Imagine the confusion for this child. First of all, who is his mother? It could either be the woman who gave the ovum. Or maybe it's more proper to say it was the surrogate. Or maybe he has two mothers. But it doesn't really matter because whichever one of these women is his mother, neither will be raising him. He's been denied that opportunity by these two men. Maybe if the child is lamenting his lack of a mother, he can find solace in the fact that he has 2 fathers. Of course, he really only has one father, but I'm sure the other will demand to be known as such also.
I believe a child has a right to live with his mother and father. I believe he has a right to be born through an act of love and self-giving in the marital embrace, not at the cold hands of a scientist in a white lab in a petri dish. A child has a right to know who his mother and father is, it's so vital to his understanding of himself. I think it's a tragedy that a child has to be raised in an environment of confusion, where even simple questions are difficult to answer.
Children are not rights that everyone has. They are gifts. People are using biomedical engineering to produce children because they "want them", not because they are seeking the welfare of the child. They're not pets that you get for personal fulfillment or something.
This child will never know his mother, or will only know her at an arms length and very impersonal way. The loving embrace of a mother cannot be replicated by two men. This child will be stripped away from his mother right after birth to fulfill the wishes of these two gay men. This is so sad. Sometimes a child's mother will die during childbirth, and this represents a real tragedy. This situation is not much different.
Obviously this baby will not breastfeed, but also will never share his mother's loving embrace. Mothers share a particular bond with a child, much different than a father's bond. This baby will experience only a bond with his father and with another man unrelated to him.
I'm not saying homosexual people are evil or bad. They are creations of God just like everyone else. But children deserve to be born into the loving embrace of a mother and to hopefully have the love of a father as well. Children are not the latest accessory or the last step in normalization of homosexual behavior. People should stop trying to fit the square piece into the round hole where it doesn't belong.
Also, regardless of how this baby was conceived, developed, and was born, he is a loved child of God who is owed as much respect as any other child, no different than a child born from rape.
Let's pray for everyone involved.
Anyway, CNN will be celebrating gay adoption with this program which took over a year to fully produce. First of all, the name of the program is pretty misleading. Gary and Tony Have a Baby. They didn't have a baby, some random woman did. And they really pushed the envelope to make this one of the most twisted birth stories ever.
One of the men, I forget which, gave some of his sperm to a clinic. Then some random woman donated an ovum. Then they took these two cells, combined them in a petri dish in a scientist's lab using all sorts of medical equipment, microscopes, etc. Just thinking of the loving way this baby came into the world makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Anyway, after they had combined these cells, outside the body, the implanted them in ANOTHER woman's body who acted as the surrogate. Hopefully this child has a high IQ, he'll need it to understand how he was born.
Imagine the confusion for this child. First of all, who is his mother? It could either be the woman who gave the ovum. Or maybe it's more proper to say it was the surrogate. Or maybe he has two mothers. But it doesn't really matter because whichever one of these women is his mother, neither will be raising him. He's been denied that opportunity by these two men. Maybe if the child is lamenting his lack of a mother, he can find solace in the fact that he has 2 fathers. Of course, he really only has one father, but I'm sure the other will demand to be known as such also.
I believe a child has a right to live with his mother and father. I believe he has a right to be born through an act of love and self-giving in the marital embrace, not at the cold hands of a scientist in a white lab in a petri dish. A child has a right to know who his mother and father is, it's so vital to his understanding of himself. I think it's a tragedy that a child has to be raised in an environment of confusion, where even simple questions are difficult to answer.
Children are not rights that everyone has. They are gifts. People are using biomedical engineering to produce children because they "want them", not because they are seeking the welfare of the child. They're not pets that you get for personal fulfillment or something.
This child will never know his mother, or will only know her at an arms length and very impersonal way. The loving embrace of a mother cannot be replicated by two men. This child will be stripped away from his mother right after birth to fulfill the wishes of these two gay men. This is so sad. Sometimes a child's mother will die during childbirth, and this represents a real tragedy. This situation is not much different.
Obviously this baby will not breastfeed, but also will never share his mother's loving embrace. Mothers share a particular bond with a child, much different than a father's bond. This baby will experience only a bond with his father and with another man unrelated to him.
I'm not saying homosexual people are evil or bad. They are creations of God just like everyone else. But children deserve to be born into the loving embrace of a mother and to hopefully have the love of a father as well. Children are not the latest accessory or the last step in normalization of homosexual behavior. People should stop trying to fit the square piece into the round hole where it doesn't belong.
Also, regardless of how this baby was conceived, developed, and was born, he is a loved child of God who is owed as much respect as any other child, no different than a child born from rape.
Let's pray for everyone involved.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Hyundai creates Ad which is HIGHLY offensive to Catholics
For the World Cup this year, Hyundai has created a very disturbing and offensive advertisement. It basically mocks the Holy Mass which the most sacred event in the Catholic faith. They are offending over a billion Catholics by doing this. A similar attack on any other faith would be met with worldwide outrage, but not for Christians or specifically Catholics.
The ad mocks the Holy Mass, the Eucharist (which Catholics believe is the body and blood of Christ), the monstrance, and other holy items. They incense the monstrance which contains a soccer ball type object. The people are singing the Agnus Dei, or Lamb of God, a traditional Catholic hymn. Instead of the Eucharist, people are given pizza.
This ad is full of blasphemy. Hyundai has fortunately pulled the ad, but I can't believe it was ever made in the first place. I doubt I will be recommending anyone buy a Hyundai, and I will probably not shop there. There must be repurcussions for this type of terrible ad.
Here's a good video concerning this advertisement:
The ad mocks the Holy Mass, the Eucharist (which Catholics believe is the body and blood of Christ), the monstrance, and other holy items. They incense the monstrance which contains a soccer ball type object. The people are singing the Agnus Dei, or Lamb of God, a traditional Catholic hymn. Instead of the Eucharist, people are given pizza.
This ad is full of blasphemy. Hyundai has fortunately pulled the ad, but I can't believe it was ever made in the first place. I doubt I will be recommending anyone buy a Hyundai, and I will probably not shop there. There must be repurcussions for this type of terrible ad.
Here's a good video concerning this advertisement:
9 Things That DO NOT Make a Man Gay
Over the past several years, the media and many people in society have attempted to normalize homosexual behavior by trying to show that it's really common and if you look hard enough, you'll find evidence of homosexuality all over the place. Whether it be through media or legal action, the gay community wants people to not only tolerate their behavior, but also to accept them into every facet of life and to ostracize anyone or group which believes sex is meant for a man and a woman.
I've compiled a list to combat society's oversensitized "gaydar". The following are things which does not make a man gay:
1) Men who enjoy playing musical instruments such as flute, harp, piano, etc.
When our classical instruments were first pioneered, the only players were men. This included flute, harp, piano, clarinet, triangle, or anything else you can think of or may consider a woman's instrument. Nowadays, school bands are increasingly composed of women. Men who join are accused of being gay. This is very recent. If you look back on the pioneers for these instruments, they were men. The world's best composers are men. That's not to say women aren't good musicians too, I'm just saying men have every right to play any instrument.
2) Men who love to cook
Men are generally regarded as cavemen who only eat meat and potatoes and are lucky if they can cook Kraft Dinner. But this is absurd. Many straight men enjoy cooking, and many are chefs. A delicate palate certainly does not indicate gayness. Again, historically this association has never been made.
3) Men who are fashionable
When a man dresses himself properly, people's gaydars go into overdrive. Obviously, the story goes, a man who knows he shouldn't wear jogging pants with a shirt and tie is either gay or has a significant other who helps him dress. Needless to say, a man's ability to coordinate his clothing does not reflect his sexual nature.
4) Men who cross their legs
By today's standards, men are required to slouch over when they sit and spread their legs open as wide as possible. A man who sits up straight, especially if he crosses his legs, is automatically assumed to be gay. But take a look at any photo from 50 or 100 years ago. If there is a large gathering of men, they all have their legs crossed. It would seem unsophisticated to not do this.
5) Men with a higher-pitched voice than normal
Many people believe that if a man doesn't have the movie preview voice, then he must be gay. But I've heard many men whose voice would be considered high, but are by no means gay. Many are married and have a perfectly normal relationship. This is just a false stereotype.
6) Sensitive men
A man accidentally smashes into an innocent passer-by. Onlookers wait for his reaction. If he keeps going (perhaps even hits someone else), he gets the pass for being straight. But if he stops to check if that person is alright or offers his condolances for his mistake, he's considered far too sensitive to be a manly man. Real men, the story goes, have no emotions except anger and lust.
7) Men who are well spoken
In today's society, if a man does not have a vocabulary of 100 words or less and most of his language consists of grunts, then people assume he's attracted to men. Of course this is crazy. Well spoken men tend to do better in life than those who have difficulty conveying ideas.
8) Men who don't watch or play sports
Men who are not into sports are looked upon with suspicion. The stereotype is that all men love sports and also play whenever they can. But some men just are not that into it, and if they are not, that doesn't make them gay.
9) Men who share a bed with another man
This one might sound a little odd, so let me explain. There may be some issue if a man always shares a bed with another man. You may start to wonder. But the mere idea of two men sharing a bed out of necessity must not automatically invoke ideas of homosexuality. I read before that several decades ago it was not uncommon for up to three men to share a bed in Europe on places like trains or rooms where there was no other place to stay. People didn't think they were gay, since they were just sleeping. It is also present in the Bible where two men share a bed, yet it is not a case of condemning homosexual activity or something. Sleeping next to a man does not make another man gay, no more than sitting next to one on a bus does.
Society has become obsessed with the idea of finding "closet homosexuals" Even though only about 2-3% of people have same sex attraction, it seems people believe about a third of the population is gay. This is having a devastating effect on men. Men who may be creative in various ways are ridiculed to the point where many avoid these creative endeavours in the first place. Everything from music to art to cooking are all seen as "feminine" activities. Men try to be acceptable by acting like ogres, demeaning women, showing little interest in creative activities, not speaking, etc. Men must stand up and be real men, not play into society's caricature of one.
I've compiled a list to combat society's oversensitized "gaydar". The following are things which does not make a man gay:
1) Men who enjoy playing musical instruments such as flute, harp, piano, etc.
When our classical instruments were first pioneered, the only players were men. This included flute, harp, piano, clarinet, triangle, or anything else you can think of or may consider a woman's instrument. Nowadays, school bands are increasingly composed of women. Men who join are accused of being gay. This is very recent. If you look back on the pioneers for these instruments, they were men. The world's best composers are men. That's not to say women aren't good musicians too, I'm just saying men have every right to play any instrument.
2) Men who love to cook
Men are generally regarded as cavemen who only eat meat and potatoes and are lucky if they can cook Kraft Dinner. But this is absurd. Many straight men enjoy cooking, and many are chefs. A delicate palate certainly does not indicate gayness. Again, historically this association has never been made.
3) Men who are fashionable
When a man dresses himself properly, people's gaydars go into overdrive. Obviously, the story goes, a man who knows he shouldn't wear jogging pants with a shirt and tie is either gay or has a significant other who helps him dress. Needless to say, a man's ability to coordinate his clothing does not reflect his sexual nature.
4) Men who cross their legs
By today's standards, men are required to slouch over when they sit and spread their legs open as wide as possible. A man who sits up straight, especially if he crosses his legs, is automatically assumed to be gay. But take a look at any photo from 50 or 100 years ago. If there is a large gathering of men, they all have their legs crossed. It would seem unsophisticated to not do this.
5) Men with a higher-pitched voice than normal
Many people believe that if a man doesn't have the movie preview voice, then he must be gay. But I've heard many men whose voice would be considered high, but are by no means gay. Many are married and have a perfectly normal relationship. This is just a false stereotype.
6) Sensitive men
A man accidentally smashes into an innocent passer-by. Onlookers wait for his reaction. If he keeps going (perhaps even hits someone else), he gets the pass for being straight. But if he stops to check if that person is alright or offers his condolances for his mistake, he's considered far too sensitive to be a manly man. Real men, the story goes, have no emotions except anger and lust.
7) Men who are well spoken
In today's society, if a man does not have a vocabulary of 100 words or less and most of his language consists of grunts, then people assume he's attracted to men. Of course this is crazy. Well spoken men tend to do better in life than those who have difficulty conveying ideas.
8) Men who don't watch or play sports
Men who are not into sports are looked upon with suspicion. The stereotype is that all men love sports and also play whenever they can. But some men just are not that into it, and if they are not, that doesn't make them gay.
9) Men who share a bed with another man
This one might sound a little odd, so let me explain. There may be some issue if a man always shares a bed with another man. You may start to wonder. But the mere idea of two men sharing a bed out of necessity must not automatically invoke ideas of homosexuality. I read before that several decades ago it was not uncommon for up to three men to share a bed in Europe on places like trains or rooms where there was no other place to stay. People didn't think they were gay, since they were just sleeping. It is also present in the Bible where two men share a bed, yet it is not a case of condemning homosexual activity or something. Sleeping next to a man does not make another man gay, no more than sitting next to one on a bus does.
Society has become obsessed with the idea of finding "closet homosexuals" Even though only about 2-3% of people have same sex attraction, it seems people believe about a third of the population is gay. This is having a devastating effect on men. Men who may be creative in various ways are ridiculed to the point where many avoid these creative endeavours in the first place. Everything from music to art to cooking are all seen as "feminine" activities. Men try to be acceptable by acting like ogres, demeaning women, showing little interest in creative activities, not speaking, etc. Men must stand up and be real men, not play into society's caricature of one.
Janeane Garofalo and Joy Behar wrong about prayer
On Joy Behar's show (probably one of the worst shows on TV), Janeane Garofalo said that praying for an end to the oil disaster was a waste of time and anti-intellectual. Joy Behar didn't disagree with her and later on the View, Behar repeated the same sentiments about prayer. They are both completely wrong.Pray is often misunderstood by nonreligious people. They see it a sort of superstition, where when all rational and realistic things fail, we throw a "hail mary" in the air hoping that something will work. It's seen as a last ditch effort after everything has been tried and the old axiom "can't hurt, might help" is employed. But prayer is much more than the last kick at the cat, it's a way of life.
Prayer serves many purposes. It gives praise to God (adoration), it can ask for something (petition), love for God, prayers of thanksgiving, and expiation where we seek forgiveness. It represents a deep, personal connection with God. It's not something we do when all other options have been tried.
Many people believe in God because there is a lot of proof for God, and also because he has been faithful. Faith is not about believing in something that's unproven and invisible. Faith is about recognizing God's promises throughout history and deciding that he is trustworth and worth following.
By praying, we submit ourselves to the will of God. We connect with God. People pray for patience, love, kindness, mercy, self-control, bravery, etc. and more often than not they receive it. We give praise to God for our life, and everything in the world. How can we have so much pride that we give praise to no one or nothing? Do we believe we put ourselves on this Earth and that life is good because we made it so? This is the heights of pride.
Another misconception is that people who pray will do nothing else. Many miracles have happened throughout the centuries, but most of the time, even after praying, we must use what God has given us to make the world a better place.
I find it shocking that some people would oppose prayer for a great disaster. Even if you believe that prayer is just people talking to themselves, what harm could it possibly do? People do not pray and then sit around and do nothing. In fact, prayer often spurs them on to do even more. They are then motivated to act not just for selfish reasons, but for humanitarian reasons as well.
Some people seem very threatened by God or people believing in God. They should keep in mind that God is love and that he loves them also.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Top 7 things you need to know about confession
1. Everyone is scared of confession
Nobody is so confident of the insignificance of their sins that they breeze into and out of the confession box without a single worry. Most people fret so much about entering into a one-on-one with a priest that they literally shake and sweat. They believe their sins are so abominable that the priest will be shocked. Realizing that most people are scared of confession is a good first step to getting there.
2. Priests cannot tell anyone else your sins
No matter what happens, a priest is never permitted to tell someone else your sins or even imply them. Even if he faces death, he cannot reveal something you confessed under the seal of confession.
3. You needn't be embarrased
No matter what you've done that needs to be confessed, you don't need to worry about it. The priest has most likely already heard the same sins before, and even if he hasn't, he won't be shocked because he understands human weakness. Many priests say they actually forget what they hear in the confessional.
4. If you're not 100% ready, don't worry
You don't need to have an act of contrition memorized in order to go to confession. Simple recount the sins you remember and show some repentence. The priest will give absolution.
5. Penance ain't what it used to be
In the olden days, it seems penance could quite harsh. Often, people would have to confess publically, and then a very public display of penance would be given, such as wearing something indicating guilt for a year. Nowadays, penance is usually very minimal, such as saying one or two Our Father prayers. The usual complaint I receive is that the penance is too lenient.
6. You don't have to make yourself known
If you are feeling shy or simply prefer a more private confession, you can always stay behind the separator where the priest cannot see you. Many confessionals either have this as the only possibility or they will make either a private or face to face confession possible. Be careful though, try to understand the layout of the confessional before entering or enter slowly. One time I wanted to go privately, but ended up face to face with the priest. It's kind of hard at that point to just go to the private area and pretend that didn't happen!
7. Everyone, including the pope, goes to confession
The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Priests, bishops, and even the pope regularly go to confession. Don't feel like you are the lowest of the low for going to confession. We're all human and confession strengthens us against the evils of the world. Fear not confession!
Nobody is so confident of the insignificance of their sins that they breeze into and out of the confession box without a single worry. Most people fret so much about entering into a one-on-one with a priest that they literally shake and sweat. They believe their sins are so abominable that the priest will be shocked. Realizing that most people are scared of confession is a good first step to getting there.
2. Priests cannot tell anyone else your sins
No matter what happens, a priest is never permitted to tell someone else your sins or even imply them. Even if he faces death, he cannot reveal something you confessed under the seal of confession.
3. You needn't be embarrased
No matter what you've done that needs to be confessed, you don't need to worry about it. The priest has most likely already heard the same sins before, and even if he hasn't, he won't be shocked because he understands human weakness. Many priests say they actually forget what they hear in the confessional.
4. If you're not 100% ready, don't worry
You don't need to have an act of contrition memorized in order to go to confession. Simple recount the sins you remember and show some repentence. The priest will give absolution.
5. Penance ain't what it used to be
In the olden days, it seems penance could quite harsh. Often, people would have to confess publically, and then a very public display of penance would be given, such as wearing something indicating guilt for a year. Nowadays, penance is usually very minimal, such as saying one or two Our Father prayers. The usual complaint I receive is that the penance is too lenient.
6. You don't have to make yourself known
If you are feeling shy or simply prefer a more private confession, you can always stay behind the separator where the priest cannot see you. Many confessionals either have this as the only possibility or they will make either a private or face to face confession possible. Be careful though, try to understand the layout of the confessional before entering or enter slowly. One time I wanted to go privately, but ended up face to face with the priest. It's kind of hard at that point to just go to the private area and pretend that didn't happen!
7. Everyone, including the pope, goes to confession
The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Priests, bishops, and even the pope regularly go to confession. Don't feel like you are the lowest of the low for going to confession. We're all human and confession strengthens us against the evils of the world. Fear not confession!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)