On Friday's episode of the View, there was a segment on worldwide adoption. They talked about how many Americans want to adopt children from other nations. So, they brought on two groups that adopted children. One was a single mother, and the other were two gay men. Of course, there was no husband and wife couple that adopted a child on the show. Having them might be politically incorrect and imply that gay people shouldn't adopt.
The episode bemoaned worldwide opinion that the best place for a child is with a mother and a father, rather than a single parent and especially not a gay couple. They said only a handful of countries adopt children to single parents, but even fewer adopt to gay couples. In fact, the couple on the show adopted from Guatemala, where they officially adopted the child to a single parent, and sort of had a don't ask don't tell policy about the other man. I believe they said the only country in the world that adopts children to gay parents is South Africa.
The show presented these worldwide policies as wrong and unjust. But maybe for a second, they should pause to consider that maybe not every country on the entire planet is wrong. Maybe having an environment with a husband and wife really IS the best place for a child. As I have mentioned in previous postings, I do not believe two gay men are the best people to adopt a child. First of all, there is absolutely no maternal love given to the child. It is two men, two males, who are attracted to each other. Even a heterosexual man would offer one side of the complementarity. He would be disposed toward affection for women. However, the gay men do not offer this complementarity. They are not men who are drawn to women, but rather men who are drawn to men. There is no female influence.
The episode also highlighted another problem. Why would a person purposely go outside their own country to adopt a child. It seems more "hip" to do it that way. What's cooler? Telling your friends you adopted a child from Flint, Michigan, or that you adopted an exotic child from Cambodia, or Mali? By adopting a foreign baby, they appear more urbane, more hip, more globally-minded. But to me, this whole concept smacks of going on a shopping spree. Picking up that fascinating African art. Like returning from a safari with an interesting find. Not satisfied with wearing Nike, these seek Armani. Children are treated as accessories, highlighting some aspect of the "purchaser's" personality.
They constantly complained on the show about all the red-tape they had to bypass to adopt a child from another country. Why not stick to their own country? Indeed, many people have made the correct observation that often adopting a child from another country is not the best thing to help them. All the money, time and effort spent on bringing one child from a poor village to America could have been better spent on supporting the entire community. It would probably cost the same to sponsor a community as it would to adopt a child. Often, one of the parents of the child is still alive, but because of financial difficulty, the parent is forced to hand over the child to someone else. It would have been better support the parent in raising the child.
Gay adoption is very rare compared to adoption by a mother and father, and is illegal in all countries except South Africa. Why does the media focus on this type of adoption so very often?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Should Catholic Hospitals perform abortions?
The ACLU is getting upset because they want Catholic Hospitals to abort babies, but of course they refuse. The reason this has come up now is because a nun who worked at the hospital was excommunicated because she authorized an abortion on a woman who was ill. Sr. Margaret McBride was demoted and excommunicated while working at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix AZ.
The thing is, abortions are never necessary. I don't know the specifics of the woman in question that the nun authorized an abortion for, but it indicates she was ill. If she was ill and required medical treatment, Catholic moral law would permit that. Let me explain the Catholic position on this situation.
If a womas has a life-threatening condition, she can receive treatment for it, even if doing so would end up killing the child. For example, her uterus develops cancer. It must be removed to save her life. The child who is in her womb dies. The death of the child is an unintended consequence of her action, and is therefore not morally impermissible. This would fall under the moral law of double effect.
If a woman would simply get sick or may have issues raising a child, these do not constitute a situation where the baby's life could be sacrificed.
The Catholic belief is that life begins at conception and therefore someone cannot take a life because of a personal issue or inconvenience.
I'm not sure why the ACLU wants Catholic Hospitals to provide abortions. Aren't there enough abortion facilities around? That's like demanding that Muslim Hospitals serve pork. Why? It makes no sense to me.
The thing is, abortions are never necessary. I don't know the specifics of the woman in question that the nun authorized an abortion for, but it indicates she was ill. If she was ill and required medical treatment, Catholic moral law would permit that. Let me explain the Catholic position on this situation.
If a womas has a life-threatening condition, she can receive treatment for it, even if doing so would end up killing the child. For example, her uterus develops cancer. It must be removed to save her life. The child who is in her womb dies. The death of the child is an unintended consequence of her action, and is therefore not morally impermissible. This would fall under the moral law of double effect.
If a woman would simply get sick or may have issues raising a child, these do not constitute a situation where the baby's life could be sacrificed.
The Catholic belief is that life begins at conception and therefore someone cannot take a life because of a personal issue or inconvenience.
I'm not sure why the ACLU wants Catholic Hospitals to provide abortions. Aren't there enough abortion facilities around? That's like demanding that Muslim Hospitals serve pork. Why? It makes no sense to me.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Director of "The Kids are All Right" using movie to normalize her lifestyle
The Kids are All Right, which premieres today in limited release, is about two lesbians (Nic and Jules) who use the sperm of a donor, and the technology of a laboratory to get one of them pregnant and have a child. Later, they have another child with the same sperm donor (Paul). Joni (female) and Laser (male), the two children, become interested in their father and so go looking for him. They find him and he comes into their lives, but there is resistence from the two lesbians.
If you haven't guessed already, this movie is meant to once again try to normalize homosexual relationships. The point of the movie is lesbian and gay couples have their problems, their ups and downs, just like every other couple. They're no different. They're just regular folk like you and me trying to get along in this world.
Homosexual activity is never portrayed as anything but normal in these movies. They want everyone to accept their new moral code and have no qualms about homosexual relationships.
The image that's presented though must be regarded as nothing but propaganda. We know from many studies that children, especially girls, fare much better when they have a father figure in their lives. This is not a social construct. If you look at every society in the world, marriage has always been between male and female. Ying and yang. Two complementary forces. We cannot change the human person simply by desiring it.
Another trend lately is to show homosexual partners as just your regular nuclear family that wants the same lifestyle as the typical 1950s family. This is simply not true. The vast majority of gay or lesbian couples do not want to have a family or children. In fact, statistics show promiscuity is extremely rampant within gay communities. So much so that monogamy really is the exception to the rule and a rarity.
I heard one time that there are about 1000 gay couples in the US that have adopted a child or otherwise had a child, out of 777,000 total gay couples in the US. Therefore only 1 out of 777 have any children, adopted or otherwise, which is 0.129%.
According to the US Census Bureau, 28% of households have children, which works out to about 32,000,000 households with children (total households: 115 million).
For every child who has "two mommies" or "two daddies", there are 32,000 that have a mommy and daddy. Why is it then that it seems nearly half of all children on TV or in movies are raised by gay parents? From this movie to "Modern Family", time after time, we see this portrayal of a loving gay couple wishing to have a normal family and adopt a child, yet according to actual statistics this arrangement is exceedingly rare. Sometimes, television stations will seek out real life examples of this. Not long ago, CNN had a one-hour program called Gary and Tony Have a Baby.
There seems to be an obsession with showing as many "normal" gay families as possible in order to increase acceptance.
But in this particular case, we can find an ulterior motive. The director of this film, Lisa Cholodenko, is herself in a lesbian relationship. She received an anonymous sperm donation and had a son Calder. She lives with a woman named Wendy Melvoin.
It is unfashionable to question these types of relationships, but let's focus on the children for a few minutes. They are not accessories to a style, or a political statement. They are living, breathing, gifts from God who have a right to know their parents and live in a complementary, loving atmosphere.
If you haven't guessed already, this movie is meant to once again try to normalize homosexual relationships. The point of the movie is lesbian and gay couples have their problems, their ups and downs, just like every other couple. They're no different. They're just regular folk like you and me trying to get along in this world.
Homosexual activity is never portrayed as anything but normal in these movies. They want everyone to accept their new moral code and have no qualms about homosexual relationships.
The image that's presented though must be regarded as nothing but propaganda. We know from many studies that children, especially girls, fare much better when they have a father figure in their lives. This is not a social construct. If you look at every society in the world, marriage has always been between male and female. Ying and yang. Two complementary forces. We cannot change the human person simply by desiring it.
Another trend lately is to show homosexual partners as just your regular nuclear family that wants the same lifestyle as the typical 1950s family. This is simply not true. The vast majority of gay or lesbian couples do not want to have a family or children. In fact, statistics show promiscuity is extremely rampant within gay communities. So much so that monogamy really is the exception to the rule and a rarity.
I heard one time that there are about 1000 gay couples in the US that have adopted a child or otherwise had a child, out of 777,000 total gay couples in the US. Therefore only 1 out of 777 have any children, adopted or otherwise, which is 0.129%.
According to the US Census Bureau, 28% of households have children, which works out to about 32,000,000 households with children (total households: 115 million).
For every child who has "two mommies" or "two daddies", there are 32,000 that have a mommy and daddy. Why is it then that it seems nearly half of all children on TV or in movies are raised by gay parents? From this movie to "Modern Family", time after time, we see this portrayal of a loving gay couple wishing to have a normal family and adopt a child, yet according to actual statistics this arrangement is exceedingly rare. Sometimes, television stations will seek out real life examples of this. Not long ago, CNN had a one-hour program called Gary and Tony Have a Baby.
There seems to be an obsession with showing as many "normal" gay families as possible in order to increase acceptance.
But in this particular case, we can find an ulterior motive. The director of this film, Lisa Cholodenko, is herself in a lesbian relationship. She received an anonymous sperm donation and had a son Calder. She lives with a woman named Wendy Melvoin.
It is unfashionable to question these types of relationships, but let's focus on the children for a few minutes. They are not accessories to a style, or a political statement. They are living, breathing, gifts from God who have a right to know their parents and live in a complementary, loving atmosphere.
Pope going to Castel Gondolfo
The pope will be traveling to Castel Gondolfo outside of Rome to live in his Summer residence. He will have some time to reflect. Have a good well-deserved Summer vacation Pope Benedict.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Basilica of St. John the Baptist Survived Great Fire 118 years ago
Over a century ago, St. John's experience the "Great Fire" which virtually devastated the entire city. An unbelivable series of coincidences occurred to allow the fire to cause near total destruction. One of the few buildings to survive was the Catholic Basilica of St. John the Baptist. Wikipedia has a really good article on the event:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Fire_of_1892
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Fire_of_1892
Mosques in America: Jon Stewart compares Muslims to Christians on the Daily Show
Apparently there were some segments on the news on several channels about Americans being worried that too many mosques were being built. Jon Stewart used that on Wednesday night as his lead story. The concerned Americans felt that Islam did not represent their views and that they should not allow mosques to be built. Some people brought up the point that Muslims (or some) want a separate legal system to apply to them, namely sharia. One of the commentators noted that they are the only group that wants its own set of laws, specific to their religion.
Jon Stewart made fun of this in several ways, mostly comparing our current system with what the Muslims wanted. He implied that Christians already do impose their own morals on the country and gave the example of stores being closed on Sunday, and of gay people not being allowed to marry. I spose he could have also thrown in murder and rape. My point is the the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values. That doesn't mean its citizens cannot be against another group imposing its morals on them. In any event, although the original framework of the laws of the United States may have been based on Judeo-Christian morals, the law is a totally separate entity, which is quite evident. For example, it is legal to get an abortion. Almost all Christian denominations are against this, but it is still legal.
A truly religion-based legal system would take guidance from religious leaders, not politicians. What certain Muslim groups are seeking is the imposition of Sharia Law. In Islam, there is not the concept of separation of religion and state as there is in Christianity. Like when Jesus said Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. That's why you see in Islamic countries, the supreme leader is a religious leader and their laws come directly from Islam. The US ought not create a separate legal system for some of its members.
Jon Stewart also poked fun at the idea that some were upset with the building of new mosques by saying the Mormons did the same thing in Utah 150 years ago. It seems to me most of these settlers were Mormons, so them building a church makes sense. What the news stories focused on was Muslims wanting to build mosques in predominantly Christian areas, even small rural areas.
I do not believe the construction of any religious building should be banned. There is a concept of freedom of religion and this involves implementing the same rules for all people regardless of their religion. It would violate this system if only Christians were allowed to build churches. As I mentioned in another article, how can Christians expect religious freedom in predominantly Muslim countries, if we do not extend the same rights to others.
I think we must also be careful to recognize that not all moral systems are equal. That's moral relativism, and I hear this argument used all the time. People will say "those are your morals, but I have different morals". It seems like all moral codes are equal so we can just pick and choose whatever we want. But this is not the case, it's just an easy cop-out. I believe Christianity represents the best moral code because it contains the truth. Other systems surely can approach it or be the same in some ways, and so they too would contain truth, but I do not believe that just because something can be classified as a moral, it is just as good as any other.
To conclude, Muslims should have the right to build mosques if they will use them just like Christians. We must ensure religious freedom everywhere in the world.
Jon Stewart made fun of this in several ways, mostly comparing our current system with what the Muslims wanted. He implied that Christians already do impose their own morals on the country and gave the example of stores being closed on Sunday, and of gay people not being allowed to marry. I spose he could have also thrown in murder and rape. My point is the the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values. That doesn't mean its citizens cannot be against another group imposing its morals on them. In any event, although the original framework of the laws of the United States may have been based on Judeo-Christian morals, the law is a totally separate entity, which is quite evident. For example, it is legal to get an abortion. Almost all Christian denominations are against this, but it is still legal.
A truly religion-based legal system would take guidance from religious leaders, not politicians. What certain Muslim groups are seeking is the imposition of Sharia Law. In Islam, there is not the concept of separation of religion and state as there is in Christianity. Like when Jesus said Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. That's why you see in Islamic countries, the supreme leader is a religious leader and their laws come directly from Islam. The US ought not create a separate legal system for some of its members.
Jon Stewart also poked fun at the idea that some were upset with the building of new mosques by saying the Mormons did the same thing in Utah 150 years ago. It seems to me most of these settlers were Mormons, so them building a church makes sense. What the news stories focused on was Muslims wanting to build mosques in predominantly Christian areas, even small rural areas.
I do not believe the construction of any religious building should be banned. There is a concept of freedom of religion and this involves implementing the same rules for all people regardless of their religion. It would violate this system if only Christians were allowed to build churches. As I mentioned in another article, how can Christians expect religious freedom in predominantly Muslim countries, if we do not extend the same rights to others.
I think we must also be careful to recognize that not all moral systems are equal. That's moral relativism, and I hear this argument used all the time. People will say "those are your morals, but I have different morals". It seems like all moral codes are equal so we can just pick and choose whatever we want. But this is not the case, it's just an easy cop-out. I believe Christianity represents the best moral code because it contains the truth. Other systems surely can approach it or be the same in some ways, and so they too would contain truth, but I do not believe that just because something can be classified as a moral, it is just as good as any other.
To conclude, Muslims should have the right to build mosques if they will use them just like Christians. We must ensure religious freedom everywhere in the world.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Are people really supposed to be monogamous?
We hear it all the time: being monogamous goes against our nature. Explanations have been offered for this, including the fact that most other animals are not monogamous, but rather go from one mate to another. Also, we are told it is genetically to our benefit to have relations with as many people as possible in order to ensure the continuation of our genes. This would especially apply to men.
Despite this popular belief, our society has paradoxically affirmed that "cheating" is one of the most serious of crimes. What are we to make of this? Is monogamy really unnatural? Let's consider some evidence.
One of the main considerations I want to make is our psychology. When a man is hungry, his body is telling him he needs food. When someone dies, we grieve as we adjust to their departure and learn to live without them here. Our bodies tell us things. It doesn't sit idly by, it expects to be heard. No different is the case when we break up with a spouse.
Divorce is a devastating situation. It is sad, unfortunate and causes a great deal of anger, depression, and pain. Similarly, cheating causes the same reactions. If going from one partner to another was built into our DNA, why would such pain be cause when we did something so natural? I think the question answers itself.
Divorce has devastating consequences. One study, by the National Institute for Healthcare Research in Rockville, MD, has said that divorced people are three times more likely to commit suicide. Another study, which I cannot quote right now, says for people considering divorce, those who proceed with it are less happy five years later than those who remain in the marriage.
These are not the effects of something natural.
Also, why do we look to other animals to determine our correct course of action? Humans are unique. We may compare ourselves to chimpanzees, but it is common for chimps to attack other groups of chimps, take the young babies, rip them apart and eat them. Do we want to behave this way? No. We are called to a far higher standard.
Despite this popular belief, our society has paradoxically affirmed that "cheating" is one of the most serious of crimes. What are we to make of this? Is monogamy really unnatural? Let's consider some evidence.
One of the main considerations I want to make is our psychology. When a man is hungry, his body is telling him he needs food. When someone dies, we grieve as we adjust to their departure and learn to live without them here. Our bodies tell us things. It doesn't sit idly by, it expects to be heard. No different is the case when we break up with a spouse.
Divorce is a devastating situation. It is sad, unfortunate and causes a great deal of anger, depression, and pain. Similarly, cheating causes the same reactions. If going from one partner to another was built into our DNA, why would such pain be cause when we did something so natural? I think the question answers itself.
Divorce has devastating consequences. One study, by the National Institute for Healthcare Research in Rockville, MD, has said that divorced people are three times more likely to commit suicide. Another study, which I cannot quote right now, says for people considering divorce, those who proceed with it are less happy five years later than those who remain in the marriage.
These are not the effects of something natural.
Also, why do we look to other animals to determine our correct course of action? Humans are unique. We may compare ourselves to chimpanzees, but it is common for chimps to attack other groups of chimps, take the young babies, rip them apart and eat them. Do we want to behave this way? No. We are called to a far higher standard.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Vandalizing Atheist Billboard is Wrong
A group of atheists recently put up a billboard in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA that says "One Nation. Indivisible." It omits "Under God" which typically goes in between those two lines. It's a subtle campaign to remove God from the pledge of allegiance. I'm not American, so when I first saw the sign it didn't strike me that Under God was removed. Someone vandalized the sign by spray-painting "Under God" beneath the two lines with an arrow showing where it should go. I disagree with this act of vandalism. Atheists have a right to put up these billboards if they want. I may disagree with atheists, but I believe they have the right to hold their beliefs.If a Christian put a billboard up that said "Jesus is the answer", I would find it unacceptable for an atheist to spraypaint "not" after is.
Those are arguments from a philosophical point of view regarding freedom of speech. However, I also disagree on a practical level. Spray-painting this sign will only make it more newsworthy and therefore expose the sign to a much greater audience than previously possible. By doing this act of vandalism, the perpetrator is bringing more attention to the ad. Obviously this is not what they intended.
I heard some people bring up the possibility that this was actually done by an atheist to garner more attention. Obviously this would be a dishonest tactic, but we have no evidence of this, so until evidence is revealed, I think we can assume this is not the case.
In some countries, Christians are harshly punished for their beliefs. I believe I heard there are more martyrs now than ever before. Much of the persecution comes from atheist states, such as North Korea. If we believe that Christians should have the right to freedom of speech in these atheist countries, then we must extend freedom of speech to atheists in mostly Christian countries.
Mass Times in St. John's, Newfoundland
I called all the churches around my area to get the updated Mass times. Sometimes the archdiocesan website is not fully up to date. If anyone would like a copy, please let me know via email or a comment on this blog. Also includes confession times.
Canadian Bishop selected for a top Vatican position
Cardinal Marc Ouellet has been selected to be the prefect for the Congregation for Bishops, which is the section of the Curia which helps select new bishops and deal with other related issues. Ouellet is 66 years old and will therefore be able to serve for up to 9 years in that role.
I heard Cardinal Ouellet speak while I was in Quebec City for the Eucharistic Congress in 2008. He is the primate of Canada, and speaks many languages.
With this appointment, Cardinal Ouellet will have to help select the best bishops in light of the tragic abuse scandal in the Church. He will inform them that the protection of children comes first and foremost, and he will have to deal with anyone who is disobedient.
The Canadian Church has been doing quite well. Just a few months ago, Fr. Mike Brehl who was a priest at my local church was selected to be the head of the Redemptorists, a worldwide order of priests founded by Alphonsus Liguori. Read more about that here.
I heard Cardinal Ouellet speak while I was in Quebec City for the Eucharistic Congress in 2008. He is the primate of Canada, and speaks many languages.
With this appointment, Cardinal Ouellet will have to help select the best bishops in light of the tragic abuse scandal in the Church. He will inform them that the protection of children comes first and foremost, and he will have to deal with anyone who is disobedient.
The Canadian Church has been doing quite well. Just a few months ago, Fr. Mike Brehl who was a priest at my local church was selected to be the head of the Redemptorists, a worldwide order of priests founded by Alphonsus Liguori. Read more about that here.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Why Can't Modern Atheists be This Thankful to the Church?
I was just going through some very old archived newspaper articles (from the 1800s), and found this one from New Zealand. The article reports a tribute by an atheist to the Catholic Church. I think he sets a good example for modern-day atheists.
New Zealand Tablet, Volume XII, Issue 36, 26 December 1884, Page 13
An Atheist's Tribute to the Church
After the dedication of a Catholic hospital in Dayton, Ohio, on the 15th inst., a Dr. Reeve, an infidel and an atheist, delivered an address, in which he said:-
I congratulate the Church, under whose auspices, and by whose efforts, this institution has been founded. It is the Church which claims our attention and consideration in the highest degree in several important respects. In age it surpasses all other human institutions. Beginning back at the time when history and fable mingle together its existence has continued unbroken while change and decay have touched and swept away everything else. Cities have grown up from hamlets, enjoyed long periods of properity, and have dwindled to insignificance during her life-time; the boundaries of kingdoms and empires have swept backward and forward over wide areas, dynasties have arisen and fallen, while throughout the territory in which these changes have taken place, the worship of the altar has been for the same ritual, and by the priests of the same Church. Her domain spreads from Greenland and Labrador to Patagonia, and from east to west around the world. But wide-spread as she is, her efforts do not cease; old as she is, no symptoms of decrepitude have manifested themselves. She is sending out her missionaries, active, devoted, self-sacrificing as ever, in all directions. She is building churches, schools, and hospitals on all sides of us, and it is safe to say that to-day her numbers exceeds those of all other Christian Churches together.
But it is not these greater characteristics of the Catholic Church that concern us here. It is her activity, her untiring energy in regard to institutions for the amelioration of human misery. Wherever the crosses of her churches are seen there are to be found hospitals for the sick and asylums for the orphan. Under her fostering care are found such institutions in every city of our land and wherever civilization extends. This, too, is matter of public note, open to the observation of all. I would rather speak of that less obtrusive, but never-wearying attention to the sick, which does not attract so much the public eye, but whcih every physician observes in the practice of his calling. Wherever there is is disease and suffering in the household, there comes the Sister with good counsel and efficient aid; wherever there is a dying man a priest is at his bedside; when a woman is in peril he comes, whatever the hour of the night, not only to administer the rights of his religion, but to cheer and reanimate the pain-racked patient, to strengthen teh hand of the doctor as he performs some critical operation. It is the unobtrusive, silent, constant, never-tiring, universal service of the Catholic Church that extorts the praise of men of no religion and challenges the admiration of the world.
---END---
Wow, that is quite a work of praise, especially coming from an atheist. I doubt the pope could do a better job. Although this man had no religion, he could still objectively see the good work that the Catholic Church does in the world, and continues to do to this day. He praises it above all other institutions. I think he is a good model for modern-day atheists.
New Zealand Tablet, Volume XII, Issue 36, 26 December 1884, Page 13
An Atheist's Tribute to the Church
After the dedication of a Catholic hospital in Dayton, Ohio, on the 15th inst., a Dr. Reeve, an infidel and an atheist, delivered an address, in which he said:-
I congratulate the Church, under whose auspices, and by whose efforts, this institution has been founded. It is the Church which claims our attention and consideration in the highest degree in several important respects. In age it surpasses all other human institutions. Beginning back at the time when history and fable mingle together its existence has continued unbroken while change and decay have touched and swept away everything else. Cities have grown up from hamlets, enjoyed long periods of properity, and have dwindled to insignificance during her life-time; the boundaries of kingdoms and empires have swept backward and forward over wide areas, dynasties have arisen and fallen, while throughout the territory in which these changes have taken place, the worship of the altar has been for the same ritual, and by the priests of the same Church. Her domain spreads from Greenland and Labrador to Patagonia, and from east to west around the world. But wide-spread as she is, her efforts do not cease; old as she is, no symptoms of decrepitude have manifested themselves. She is sending out her missionaries, active, devoted, self-sacrificing as ever, in all directions. She is building churches, schools, and hospitals on all sides of us, and it is safe to say that to-day her numbers exceeds those of all other Christian Churches together.
But it is not these greater characteristics of the Catholic Church that concern us here. It is her activity, her untiring energy in regard to institutions for the amelioration of human misery. Wherever the crosses of her churches are seen there are to be found hospitals for the sick and asylums for the orphan. Under her fostering care are found such institutions in every city of our land and wherever civilization extends. This, too, is matter of public note, open to the observation of all. I would rather speak of that less obtrusive, but never-wearying attention to the sick, which does not attract so much the public eye, but whcih every physician observes in the practice of his calling. Wherever there is is disease and suffering in the household, there comes the Sister with good counsel and efficient aid; wherever there is a dying man a priest is at his bedside; when a woman is in peril he comes, whatever the hour of the night, not only to administer the rights of his religion, but to cheer and reanimate the pain-racked patient, to strengthen teh hand of the doctor as he performs some critical operation. It is the unobtrusive, silent, constant, never-tiring, universal service of the Catholic Church that extorts the praise of men of no religion and challenges the admiration of the world.
---END---
Wow, that is quite a work of praise, especially coming from an atheist. I doubt the pope could do a better job. Although this man had no religion, he could still objectively see the good work that the Catholic Church does in the world, and continues to do to this day. He praises it above all other institutions. I think he is a good model for modern-day atheists.
The religious shall inherit the Earth
Population decline is a major problem facing many Western countries. Without enough children being born, the economy slows down, quality of life declines, and there are not enough workers to support the older populations. What is to blame for this situation? Largely, secularization is to blame. People are also becoming more self-centered and do not want to spend any time or effort raising a family. They would rather just have fun without responsibility.
One type of people that is having a large number of children are religious people. And the more religious they are, the more children they have. God said "Go forth and be fruitful." The most religious people are adhering to this. According to a German publication from 2008, those who never attend a church service have an average of 1.67 children. However, those who attend more than once per week have an average of 2.5 children.*
Many countries are panicked that their populations are not growing fast enough. A population decline has many negative effects. In fact, many countries offer incentives to people to have children. No country that I am aware of has officially stated that overpopulation is a major problem.
One of the reasons why the populations are becoming dangerously low is that people are using a lot of contraception. Contraception is the only medical device that prevents the normal function of the body. In other words, it twarts the natural design of the human person. It's astonishing that it's the only thing that does this. It takes something that is completely healthy and renders it nonfunctional.
Many people talk about all the sacrifices they must make for children. What people often don't hear is the joy children bring to a family. Many childless families are rather sad. I'm sure there are many exceptions, but it is often the case.
* Michael Blume (2008) "Homo religiosus", Gehirn und Geist 04/2009. pp. 32 - 41.
One type of people that is having a large number of children are religious people. And the more religious they are, the more children they have. God said "Go forth and be fruitful." The most religious people are adhering to this. According to a German publication from 2008, those who never attend a church service have an average of 1.67 children. However, those who attend more than once per week have an average of 2.5 children.*
Many countries are panicked that their populations are not growing fast enough. A population decline has many negative effects. In fact, many countries offer incentives to people to have children. No country that I am aware of has officially stated that overpopulation is a major problem.
One of the reasons why the populations are becoming dangerously low is that people are using a lot of contraception. Contraception is the only medical device that prevents the normal function of the body. In other words, it twarts the natural design of the human person. It's astonishing that it's the only thing that does this. It takes something that is completely healthy and renders it nonfunctional.
Many people talk about all the sacrifices they must make for children. What people often don't hear is the joy children bring to a family. Many childless families are rather sad. I'm sure there are many exceptions, but it is often the case.
* Michael Blume (2008) "Homo religiosus", Gehirn und Geist 04/2009. pp. 32 - 41.
Is faithfulness harder for celebrities and politicians?
Nowadays, it seems we cannot turn the TV on without hearing about an affair involving a celebrity or politician. Conservative (and liberal) politicians cheating on their wives, movie stars doing the same thing. But is being faithful harder for these individuals than those not in the spotlight?
I believe the answer is yes. I'm not giving a pass to anyone who cheats, including famous people, but I do think there are many more occassions of sin for these individuals than the average joe. We've all heard countless stories of rock stars going to their hotel room and waiting for them is a naked call girl. Famous people are often accosted by good-looking individuals who are more than willing to perform sexual favours. In this onslaught of temptation, many give in.
I believe the more we expose ourselves to the perils of sin, the more we will fall. That's why Catholic teaching warns against exposing ourselves to the "near occassion of sin". This would include entering a strip club, entering an adult video store, etc. It also depends on the individual. If someone has tried unsuccessfully to kick his porn habit, the only solution may be to remove the internet from his home. However, if a man has no temptation to watch internet smut, such a drastic step may not be necessary.
As I've mentioned before, it is easier to avoid sin at the very earliest stages. Approaching sin as a hero is normally a bad idea. Most of us are not exposed on a daily basis to occassions of sin, unless we choose to be. Many celebrities, however, are.
But being exposed to more sinful scenarios does not remove the guilt of committing a sin. Those in these situations must be ever more vigilant. I remember a story about Billy Graham, the famous pastor. He would clear the entire floor of women in his hotel to avoid temptation. Some people thought this was extreme, but Billy knew how valuable his reputation is. Our society always seeks out lurid details of misbehavior, and Billy Graham knew about this.
Let's pray for our politicians and celebrities that they may set a good example for everyone.
I believe the answer is yes. I'm not giving a pass to anyone who cheats, including famous people, but I do think there are many more occassions of sin for these individuals than the average joe. We've all heard countless stories of rock stars going to their hotel room and waiting for them is a naked call girl. Famous people are often accosted by good-looking individuals who are more than willing to perform sexual favours. In this onslaught of temptation, many give in.
I believe the more we expose ourselves to the perils of sin, the more we will fall. That's why Catholic teaching warns against exposing ourselves to the "near occassion of sin". This would include entering a strip club, entering an adult video store, etc. It also depends on the individual. If someone has tried unsuccessfully to kick his porn habit, the only solution may be to remove the internet from his home. However, if a man has no temptation to watch internet smut, such a drastic step may not be necessary.
As I've mentioned before, it is easier to avoid sin at the very earliest stages. Approaching sin as a hero is normally a bad idea. Most of us are not exposed on a daily basis to occassions of sin, unless we choose to be. Many celebrities, however, are.
But being exposed to more sinful scenarios does not remove the guilt of committing a sin. Those in these situations must be ever more vigilant. I remember a story about Billy Graham, the famous pastor. He would clear the entire floor of women in his hotel to avoid temptation. Some people thought this was extreme, but Billy knew how valuable his reputation is. Our society always seeks out lurid details of misbehavior, and Billy Graham knew about this.
Let's pray for our politicians and celebrities that they may set a good example for everyone.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Top 9 Atheist Sayings that Suck
There are many tried and true sayings out there, but for atheists, they turn into terrible expressions. Here are the worst ones:
9. When shocked by something:
Oh my Science!
8. When determined to do something:
Come imaginary territory of suffering or high water!
7. When feeling patriotic:
Nothing bless America!
6. When in a very unpleasant area:
Get me out of this Evolution-forsaken place!
5. When exasperated:
For outer-space beyond our atmosphere's sake!
4. When enjoying chocolate cake:
This cake is simply "imaginary place where an imaginary being lives"-ly
3. At a wedding:
What an imaginary being has joined, let no man put asunder!
2. In court:
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you Science?
1. When you sneeze:
Evolution bless you!
9. When shocked by something:
Oh my Science!
8. When determined to do something:
Come imaginary territory of suffering or high water!
7. When feeling patriotic:
Nothing bless America!
6. When in a very unpleasant area:
Get me out of this Evolution-forsaken place!
5. When exasperated:
For outer-space beyond our atmosphere's sake!
4. When enjoying chocolate cake:
This cake is simply "imaginary place where an imaginary being lives"-ly
3. At a wedding:
What an imaginary being has joined, let no man put asunder!
2. In court:
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you Science?
1. When you sneeze:
Evolution bless you!
Hilarious new blog about BAD vestments
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)